Wednesday, 4 May 2011

In For The Kill


Is murder ever moral? When is it ok to kill another human being?
These are only a few of the questions that were addressed in the Harvard philosophy course. There are certain situations in life where these questions are hard to answer, where the simple answer ‘Never’ can’t apply. What if you have no choice but have to either kill one person or five because you can’t control your car anymore? Would you rather kill one person or five? This example was used by the professor and the majority answered that they would kill the one person because five others would be able to live. In either case, it’s the consequences that concern us.  Personally I believe that murder in any case is immoral. We’re not to decide who gets to live or die. We also looked at a situation where someone asks to die in order to save others, and even though that’s not fair in any case, I think that helping someone to die in this situation is less immoral because the person gave their consent to die. Murder is so complex, that the line between moral and immoral is hard to define.

Wednesday, 16 March 2011

Love Is A Losing Game

 
Love is overrated. We fall in love, we’re happy, we get hurt, we’re unhappy. And then we fall in love again and it seems like each one knows the outcome but no one is concerned that the exact same thing might occur yet again.
I was aware of the fact that love is due to chemicals (including dopamine) in the brain, but I didn’t know that all these needs we feel when we’re in love come from the same region in the brain as well. What you’d call obsession is hereby explained scientifically? That’s weird. The need to be next to someone or to feel the need to cry when you hear a song that reminds you of someone that you loved/still do has always seemed a bit absurd to me but at least there’s a scientific explanation now, so the unhappy part of the population that is in love can now feel relieved that they’re not insane but just love-sick, and that it’s completely natural. What a relief!
What completely impressed me is that couples that claim to have been in love for over 25 years are still scientifically in love. If all love is, is a chemical process in the brain, then how could it possibly last so long? Does love fade because the region in the brain that used to be red on the MRI is no longer colorful? In most of the relationships I’ve had/observed that failed, there was a specific cause for the romance to be over, and that couldn’t have possibly been related to chemicals. I understand how love ‘works’ but it is a mystery to me as to when and with whom we fall in love and when we fall out of love.
At this point I’d like to say that I think that scientists shouldn’t go any further than this in their research about the origins of love. If you knew who you’d fall in love with (because of some specific chemicals or waves that are attracted to your body or whatever the reason might be…) there would be no mystery anymore and love would seem boring and not exciting. I don’t think it’s necessary to always understand everything that’s happening in our body because we aren’t designed to control life; we’re supposed to live it.
After all, love might not be overrated at all. Even though we now know where love happens, we still don’t understand it and we enjoy it when it lasts. The challenge is to know how to move on from a lost love to a new one (or to take a break, no need to constantly have someone…) and I believe that even Helen Fisher’s research isn’t going to solve that anytime soon.

Tuesday, 22 February 2011

Let's talk. Do you wanna talk?

Plains are the safest public transports on the planet but when they crash, it tends to be tragic and we have to look for the cause of the accident. Now, most of the times causes like ‘ran out of fuel’ or ‘engines broke’ are listed, even though the real reason is much simpler than that: communication. Reading the chapter ‘The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes’, made me realize how complex our communications are and how they can be a question of life or death. I often think that if we were better at communicating, we would avoid so many problems in our lives: misunderstanding, fights, secrets, hurt feelings. And it goes on and on and on. Until we come to the plane crashes, and we realize that we might have to ameliorate our talking skills. It drives me mad really, to hear that 250 people could die just because the pilot and his first commander didn’t communicate in an efficient matter. Who are we not to speak up when we’re supposed to? How can we keep secrets that lead to misunderstandings which lead to hurt feelings? Leaving the plane crashes aside, communication used to be much simpler a few dozen of years ago. My grandmother often tells me about those times where phones and internet as we know it didn’t exist. Ignoring the fact that boys used to bring a girl home after they went on a date (not sure if communication is the sole reason for that), misleading conversations and false information was avoided by the phenomena called talking. Internet couldn’t show them any upsetting gossip on Facebook, and life in general just seemed to be simpler (excluding the fact that most of the countries were destroyed from the war and had to regain their pride and wealth).  When you don’t give it a thought, talking seems like the simplest thing out there. Talking to someone about something specific on the other hand causes difficulties in some situations. I feel like nowadays we don’t even know how to talk, we feel awkward even though there’s nothing to feel awkward about! The first commander who didn’t speak up to his boss because he didn’t dare question the pilot’s commands: what a waste of awkwardness (and of human lives as we find out reading on). When brought up, knowledge issues confuse my perception of the world as well as me. I do comprehend now, that I can’t judge any pilot for lacking a clear sense of communication because I for myself don’t know what that means. Society might be the questioned factor here, but who are we to blame it on our surroundings when we’re the only ones who can make a difference for ourselves.

Monday, 31 January 2011

Acredita (Believe)

“Every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment of the brain.” – Ramchandran M.D., PH.D.
In this unit about perception, I learned the most interesting things in a long time spent in school. The brain and the perception we have of our environment are so much more complex and fascinating than we think they are. While probably most of the people on earth take their vision for granted, it baffles me how ignorant everyone is. The fact that there are thirty different parts in the brain for vision only, is immense when you consider that each little section has a different function of vision, such as movement and color. Not all of the thirty section’s functions are known. It demands a person that suffered damage in the specific area of the brain in order to determine the function of that section. Neurology and science in general tells us so much about our perception. We believe in what we see, hear or touch, but when we get a better understanding of our own brain, we start to consider that there are so much more ways than one to look at perception, and we begin to understand the reason why we trust our senses so much. The chapter ‘Phantoms in the brain’ by Ramchandran reveals some insights into the complicated world of neuroscience. He writes that the brain has its own way of judging the outside world. A cube can be seen in more than one perspective even though physically, it doesn’t change. Some blind people that have been injured, are able to detect movement although traditionally they are completely blind. This could be compared to a lizard. In fact, several animals have no or almost no vision at all. They rely on other senses like their auditory sense or their smell. A shark for example can smell a drop of blood in water from a distance of 400 meters. Their nostrils are dedicated only to their smell, they can’t breathe through them like we do. It is amazing how incredibly different our senses are from other living beings on this planet, and how each species has adapted to their environment. An earth worm, for example, is completely blind because he doesn’t need eyes under the soil.
The German physicist, Hermann von Helmholtz, called perception an unconscious interference. Unconsciously, we decide whether the dots on a leopard are all separate, or if they belong to one and the same being. This sounds so overwhelming and hard to understand, but in the chapter of Ramachandran’s book, it makes a little more sense. In the video we saw in class, a man was completely blind on his left eye, but still he was able to detect movement, unconsciously. He couldn’t see anything, no color, no shape, nothing. But when a lightening ball was moving up and down, he could tell whether it was up or down. The same happened with a woman mentioned in the chapter ‘Phantoms in the brain’. There is so much more ‘seeing’ going on than what we actually see with our eyes. If you think about it, we have so much in our own bodies that we don’t know about, that we don’t understand. Our brains, the nervous tissue in our bodies that receives all nervous information and transmits the information to the parts of the bodies that need to follow a command, are so complex that we don’t even fully understand what it means to see. When you know this, all that you know goes into a larger perspective. Who are we to believe that the sky is blue if we don’t even know what happens within our brain when we think about the fact that it is?

Thursday, 27 January 2011

Jenny Don't Be Hasty


I drifted around in the water. I passed by a group of mammals with their offspring that was clearly living near the surface considering their small eyes. The light hurt my eyes and I decided to close them to protect them from the evil glances of reflecting light on the surface. I wasn’t used to going up this much, and as I descended, I could sense a swarm of small fish passing by at about 30 feet on the left side ahead of me. Their constant muscle movements annoyed me. Too much electricity and vibrations were transmitted to my body. As they approached nearer I could see that they were blue and yellow. My skin suddenly indicated me the vibrations of a larger being, hasty moving around. As I was locating the animal, the sweet smell of blood ran through my nostrils. I lifted up my snout to inhale the smell in its whole, making sure not to miss the tiniest bit of it. I heard the sound that sounded like a whale giving birth, and I turned my head in order to escape the high frequency sounds. Navigating towards the object in question, I had determined shape and location but couldn’t put together the details of what exactly I was about to look at, and swam. Two long sticks, attached to a larger body part that looked like a turtle seemed to struggle around in the water. I remembered seeing such a creature a while back, my family calls them ‘the outsiders’. The outsider had something on his eyes that made them look  bigger than they were already. Definitely someone leaving near the surface, even on the surface, if that’s even possible. Then there was this awkward moment when I made eye contact with an outsider and fled towards home.