about Google

[from http://bit.ly/HLYw63]

Well, Big G's been on a pretty big roll this month already, and we're only 4 days in. Yesterday, Google announced that it will be manufacturing and selling its own tablets this year. Today, Big G went ahead and unveiled what I'm calling the most revolutionary device for social sharing ever conceived by man. Google's augmented reality heads up display, codenamed Project Glass, is sending ripples through the technosphere today. Check out engadget's coverage here. Google also released a video showcasing some possible functionality of the device. Needless to say, a project of this depth is something that only Big G could accomplish. No other company could come close to having enough processing power, data, or balls to pull this type of thing off. For now, the design is merely a concept, but Google has said that they are starting to test some prototypes, and they're also looking for feedback from the community on what types of things that we'd all like project Glass to be able to do. Visit Project Glass' G+ page here. We'll have to wait to see when the product will be available to the masses, but until then, check out the video below and please, try to refrain from drooling on your keyboard. No one likes likes a mess.

about strength

[from http://bit.ly/HRHyAu ]

today's society makes it seem like vulnerability is weakness

but it's not

vulnerability is strength

being able to put yourself out there, not knowing what will come back, only that whatever it is, it cannot overcome your own free will

that is strength

that is living.

Window Frames

[from http://www.dailylifesinspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/200901301644470.Open-Window.jpg ]

Today Sam made a lovely brunch for all of the people with whom we should be going on a cruise with at the end of the year. It was great. After that we played rockband and I tried my luck at singing again. I think I've come to the conclusion that I can sing any song presented in a monotone fashion. I seemed to do particularly well when singing The Killers and Oasis' wonderwall. What a bro.

This afternoon, we had our second round softball game. We won, naturally, and advanced to the final round. I find it odd how similar my enjoyments are to what my father did when he was younger. He played hockey, so I started playing hockey at age 7. He played golf, so I tried golf and loved it. He played squash, so I picked it up and captained my high school team to two provincial silver medals. He played baseball, and I never really followed that until this year. This softball team has really been a lot of fun and I plan on joining a men's league over the summer. My dad never did play tennis or volleyball though, so I guess I've got the old man there.
Anyway, the main topic of this post was not meant to be about my day, but rather about frames, and what they are and how they affect us.

You're probably thinking, "window frame? Like what I look out to see outside?" In a way, yes. Your personal frame is the set of perceptual maps and filters through which you see the world around you. Perceptual filters are the experiences and beliefs that you have which shape the ways that your mind perceives the world around you. Perceptual maps, then are the ways in which your mind provides the fill for the types of information that you cannot obtain through your senses, for example your "moral compass" or sense of right and wrong.

Of course, because each one of us has our own set of frames (and most people have multiple frames, depending on what type of environment they are in) we all perceive the world differently. A book that I'm reading suggests that there are five types of frames: Why frames, How frames, Result frames, Possibility frames, and Curiosity frames. Each step progressing from Why to Curiosity reflects a new stage in personal growth, focusing more on deeper, abstract topics.

Personally, I see myself as being between the Result and Possibility frames most of the time. I don't believe in failure, which is one of the critical factors leading to the Result frame, in which one does not perceive outcomes as successes or failures (this is not a Bernoulli world, after all) but rather, simply as results. The wonderful thing about results is that they are neither good nor bad. They are merely data waiting to be interpreted. "Failure is just what we call a result that we don't like." Results can be read, and feedback can be obtained, so that next time, the results are better. Not necessarily wholly successful, but better.

My philosophical interest has peaked again, so stay tuned for moar!

Welcome Back

So I've come to the realization that my life is more than interesting enough to continue blogging, and that Google Blogger is a blog client that suits my needs very well. I will continue to blog here, hopefully more often than I have been. I hope to blog more about technology and my college experience.
It's crazy to think that my last post here was the one titled Revelationary, wherein I discussed my changing philosophical views. So much has changed in my life since then, and I look forward to filling you in on what's new and what's still to come. I still feel like there's a writer in me somewhere. Maybe it's more of me just writing what I would like to write rather than only what I think people would like to read.

Here's to what's to come.

Revelationary

Today, as I was writing a philosophy exam comparing the different solutions we have proposed to the mind-body problem, I came across an idea that I find immensely attractive.

I was writing an essay about the problems with the functionalist point of view and had a sort of epiphany.
While pointing out the flaws in the functionalist ideal, I came to a conclusion that is different than anything I have studied so far.

My problems with the solutions to the mind-body problem that we have studied are many. I do not believe in the dualist mentality because I do not believe the mind exists as an entity separate from the brain. I don't subscribe to  behaviorism because it supposes that mental states are the predisposition to behave in a certain way. This is rather restrictive as it claims that all physical behaviors are based on mental states. The mental states are the cause for the behavior. However, not all behaviors are caused by mental states and not all mental states have corresponding behaviors, so this theory must be wrong.

Functionalism also fails because it reduces mental states to be defined as the causal relationship between an input and a related output. This fails because it does not explain the underlying phenomena of feeling. Two people in the same mental state (note that the "same" mental state in two subjects may be composed of different inputs and outputs) may experience the state in completely different ways. This theory assumes that a person's mental state can be inferred by observation of the inputs he perceives and the outputs created, which of course is incorrect.

I would like to propose a new theory of mind.

“The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.”

Steve Jobs is a legend. Although this past Wednesday marked the date of his passing, I use the present tense of the verb because his legend will live on. In 1976, when Jobs founded Apple computer along with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne, he set out with a view to revolutionize the computing industry. Now, 35 years later, I argue that he has accomplished that goal and then some. 

A Philosophical View

So I've been writing a paper about Epiphenomenalism... For those of you who don't know what Epiphenomenalism is (and I'm guessing that's most of you), I'll include the introductory paragraph from my essay here for your information:

Dualism is the belief that the human brain and the human mind are two distinct, independent entities. Dualism is a position on the mind-body problem that is attractive among the religious, and those who believe that human thought and emotion cannot be measured in chemicals alone; that the mind is something far more complex and far less explainable. Within the dualist realm, there are two branches: Property Dualism and Substance Dualism. The latter asserts that there are two forms of matter in the universe (physical and nonphysical) and that the mind is actually made of a type of nonphysical matter – physicists out there probably already have red flags being raised. This branch has been met with constant and well-backed criticism from the scientific community. The former, on the other hand, is a type of dualism which claims that there is only one type of matter in the universe, but that the brain is a physical object in a class of its own. It has a sort of emergent property – that being that the mind “emerges” from the brain only after the brain has reached a certain level of complexity. The brain is an object that has both physical and mental properties. Epiphenomenalism is a form of property dualism in which it is believed that the mind has no causal power over the brain or body. This claim is both consistent with currently held scientific theories and, as many intellects have found, very difficult to disprove. The idea that the human mind has no causal power is both logically conceivable and plausible.

Since writing this, I have taken it upon myself to determine which form of philosophical belief I belong to. I find this very difficult. At the heart of my beliefs is