pfkitm

[pfkitm]

Train Rides of 2014

There are so many people in the world who go through the motions every day, empty and detached, either unable or afraid to feel anything at all. Nobody begins like this. Just as no newborn has any concept of pride, gender, race, inferiority or superiority, need or want to put others down.

Nobody is born with a lack of happiness. In a more practical sense: You can take ibuprofen for a headache, which may help the pain, but you wouldn’t say the headache was caused by a lack of ibuprofen.

Imagine you are looking at the most beautiful sculpture in all of human history. Carved with striking style that is transcendent of it’s time, with all future attempts at creativity considered feeble imitations. The world marveled at its genius, critics were fighting to catch a glimpse of even a plaster molding, its only flaw was being so painfully beautiful that it left the soul raw and deprived in its absence.

How did this sculpture emerge from its block of stone? It wasn’t assembled from raw material. Actually, it seems the opposite has happened. The only difference between the sculpture now and how it used to be, is that the surrounding stone has been carved away. The sculpture was always there, whether or not anyone ever saw it standing on its own.

Every conceivable quality that its beauty could be attributed to was always there. To call something beautiful, especially if you really mean it, means you have seen something for what it really is. Something nothing else could ever be by definition.

If the entire world is in a constant state of change and flux, with time flowing in one direction (otherwise quantum mechanics would fuck everything I’m saying up in which case I’d reevaluate this), then nothing can ever truly be repeated. Every single person who is born possesses the potential for good, as well as bad, but it follows that the only way for them to learn how to act, or how to think and consider others, is from the rest of us showing them what is acceptable. Everything has the potential to change, that is an objective fact of reality completely independent from my views or opinions, I just want to believe it can be for the better.

The connection between those two concepts is one straightforward idea: even if you feel like no one can see it, or people judge the layers obscuring who you really are, the single truth of the matter is that you are unique and have the potential to positively impact the world.

When loneliness creeps in or you begin to be consumed by feelings that you have nothing left in this world, just remember that you have that potential. You have that potential and behind all the stone walls hiding you from the world lies an objective thing of beauty and possibility. Whether you like it or not, you are a great thing.

[pfkitm]

Short Story Number 1

"He's gone, you can come out now."

Milton heard the voice but hesitated. The room had been empty for days, which wasn't anything new, but most of the belongings were missing as well. He had gotten so used to feeling invisible that he didn't really notice it all being packed up. But he did notice the voice seemed directed at him.

"Nobody is home, his little sister had a soccer game and they will be gone for hours. I'm going to turn on the lights if you don't mind. I'm guessing you might be a little uncomfortable with that."

Milton poked his heads out from under the bed frame. He could see the entire room between his four eyes and still couldn't find whoever was talking. The lights flickered on, nearly blinding him, and he almost screamed at what he saw. Standing beside the closet door, leaning casually up against the wall, was the strangest thing he had ever seen.

It was Milton. Not really Milton, Milton knew that much for sure, but someone who looked exactly like him; two heads, three arms, and all.

"You must be going crazy", his doppelganger mused, "what have you been doing to pass the time all these years?"

"I'm-I'm sorry, who are you?", Milton asked, scratching his heads nervously.

"Oh, sorry about that. I'm terrible at this. My name is Morris, short for Morriastintaks, but only my mother calls me that." Morris stood up straight and stretched his necks while Milton sat in silence. "Anyway, which one would you like to go to? I hear Florida is nice this time of year but I want to be more active, you know?"

Milton sat on his home, making sure to line the pillows up so they were symmetrical. He was very confused and his voice was shaking noticeably as he asked, "What are you? What's a Florida and what does it taste like?"

Morris saw the blank stares coming from Milton and suddenly realized what was happening.

"Once again, my name is Morris. From your facial glands, I'm guessing you didn't know there were other monsters in the house, did you?"

"No. Where are the others? Are they still in the closet?"

"My brother-in-law is, in more ways than one if you know what I mean." Morris saw Milton crack a smile, but only to be polite not because he understood the play on words. "Ahem, uh...Fresno. My family is in Fresno. Well my mother is for now; my dad is in Alaska for God knows what reason. How are you supposed to be menacing in an igloo? But he's happy so I guess it's what he wants."

"I meant others. Other monsters like me. Like us."

"Of course there are...you didn't know that? No wonder you've stuck around here for so long, I thought you just liked the relaxation or solitude. Haven't you gotten lonely? The kid is off to college, he isn't coming back."

"He isn't coming back? He always comes back though." Milton felt uneasy and the fear of losing his best friend was causing him to panic. "Why would he leave like that? Did he find another bed? Another monster?"

"That's just the way things are kid. Everybody grows up."

Milton didn't know what to think. He had been there for Simon his entire life. He remembered the how brave Simon thought his father was for checking under the bed, making sure to hide up against the frame, so that Simon would know everything was safe and he could go to sleep. He never even minded the nightlights or the hours Simon spent on the phone with his first girlfriend. He felt like part of the family. Now it was all gone.

"What do I do?", Milton asked, feeling a few tears start to run into his fur.

"Well, the good news is, there are plenty of retirement communities for our kind. Support groups for when you still miss him that will help you through the process and understanding it all. We even have Bingo every Sunday night."

Milton sat there on the bed, his home for his entire life, while Morris opened the closet door once more. Morris beckoned him inside, smiling as he said, "Wait until you meet the guys from the attic, they are wild. Trust me kid, you're going to love it. There is a whole wide world out there waiting for you to explore it."

Milton stood up, but before joining Morris, folded Simon's blankets and tucked the sheets in one last time. He was proud that he had such an impact on Simon's life. All those years they had shared, teaching him not to be scared of the dark, or putting his foot over the edge and letting go of his fears; all those memories were his home.

Now it was Milton's turn to be courageous. It was his turn to take a chance and trust that everything will work out in the end. He walked with Morris through the doorway with a bittersweet smile, knowing he was not alone anymore, excited to meet the other monsters. Maybe he would even get to see what Florida was with Milton, maybe it tasted good. Besides, he reminded himself, there is always Winter Break. Maybe he would get to see his best friend some time soon.

[pfkitm]

Drew this in Athens, after seeing the statue in Florence. Ran into that perspective shift problem again and can't seem to break out of that. So it is a little disproportionate, as is the statue in reality (intentionally), and was a little rushed so I did some sloppy shading work...as if I knew how to shade anyway. But, these have been the first 7-8 sketches I have done and I am working on another tomorrow. Pretty relaxing stuff and a therapeutic hobby. I like arting so far.

[pfkitm]

A first foray into 3 dimensional and 4 dimensional perspective. Arting is harder than anticipated. These were my first two drawings, so I didn't realize my position relative to the sketch book would affect viewing it so much. I am working on correcting that because it warps it in weird ways.

[pfkitm]

A drawing from December of last year. Inspiration through procrastination. Had a bizarre year with lots of life changing developments and moments, and I decided that drawing or art might be a healthy outlet for the anxiety and uncertainty. I had forgotten about it, but before this recent term break I found it in a folder and brought it with me. Once I got to Florence, I decided to buy a slightly fancier pen and learn something new. The rest of the drawings in here are all in the same sketchbook: my first drawings I've ever taken seriously. Not in the sense that I care more about my ego or ability (or possibly lack thereof), but more along the lines of hoping to get some feedback or pointers.

[pfkitm]

My favorite so far. This is sketch #5. I originally was trying to learn how to draw a realistic eye, then had to start over again. The figure's eye is the second attempt and I ended up trying an eyebrow, nose, etc., and got away with turning the failed eye into an earring. I mean...I always knew it was going to be an earring...totally. It also took forever because it was my third try with the fountain pen. Like a long long long time.

[pfkitm]

First attempt at drawing with a fancy pen. I was later told the pen is for calligraphy which explains why it took forever. This was just trying to learn how to show depth & perspective, so the proportions are off. Drawn while in Corfu, Greece.

[pfkitm]

A first foray into learning how to art. As my arting improves, I will post more. This is sketch #6.

[pfkitm]

Artificial Intelligence

Alan Turing is considered the father of computer science and, through his work on computation and algorithmic expression, the major source of modern ideology on artificial intelligence.  Historically he is known for his work on the Enigma Machine during World War II as well as a variety of publications ranging from mathematical biology to the frequently referenced “Turing Test”. He was a mathematics prodigy with the propensity to seemingly intuit the method to solve even the most complex problems. The death of a close friend during his youth, which deeply affected his religious beliefs and perspective on life, led to Turing becoming atheistic and to take a Materialist stance on the world.  Fascinated by applying mathematics to his world, his passion for algorithmic expression and computational design drove his life’s work; the results of which were incredible contributions to the fields of artificial intelligence and cognition. The insight gained into what constituted “intelligence” or “creative thought” has had a prolific effect on philosophy, psychology, and cognitive neuroscience, a primary goal of these fields being able to understand the human mind. Alan Turing’s work deeply influenced the scientific pursuit to define the status of personhood by clarifying what precisely makes the human mind unique, what faculties are reliable indications of human intelligence, and by examining what actually happens when a person “thinks”.

Arguably the most influential contribution from Alan Turing is the evaluative test bearing his name, the Turing test, introduced in the 1950 publication of Mind. He refers to it in the paper as the “Imitation Game”, which is considered a subtype of the approach he developed, opening the paper with, “I propose to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’”(Turing, 433). Subsequently, he addressed the problems of defining the terms from the question, which could be a source of contention, by replacing it with: “Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the Imitation Game?”(Turing, 442). The decision to approach the question this way left any future technological possibilities open for Turing, who knew that hardware design was only going to provide machines of increasing capabilities.  It also shows the Materialist roots his mind worked from. For phenomena declared to be “non-physical”, there was always an imaginable physical reason for it philosophically. In a previous report, “Intelligent Machinery”, he had already examined the question of “whether or not it is possible for machinery to show intelligent behavior” (Turing 412) and progressed to the next level of analysis. Instead of being aimed solely at determining what degree of complexity decides intelligence, this 1950 paper asked the question of whether or not a machine could imitate all human activity, “intelligent” or not. Turing believed this question is one that could actually be answered, as opposed to depending on definitions or linguistic interpretations. In this paper, titled “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, he laid the foundation for his creative analytical approach to human intelligence, with the focus of the piece being a “game” he designed.  

The structure of the game and its rules draw heavily from his Materialist views, which is beneficial in examining Turing’s work for the clarity it gives to the notion of personhood. It also left the result vulnerable to criticism from his contemporaries and modern thinkers; mainly that it did not provide a solution to the “Hard Problem” of philosophy. The game consisted of three “players”, A, B, and C, with C playing the role of the “interrogator” asking A and B a series of specifically written questions. A and B were concealed from C, whose goal was to determine which of the two was the human and which was the machine. The original purpose for this game was to measure how well a machine could simulate human behavior and activity. C was unable to see A or B directly, relying only on the information and action it could observe about the two. This is the crucial component of the Imitation Game. Throughout his academic career, Alan Turing was quick to maintain that the “point” of his test was not to declare a machine intelligent or set the benchmark for quantitative capabilities.  He deliberately excluded the term “think” from future revisions to the Imitation Game as well, hoping to clarify that the aim was to distinguish how the machine “acted”. At first, the results showed distinct scenarios or exchanges that machines were unable to imitate human responses for: relational understanding, analogies, metaphors, and implied emotional experiences. However, as technology evolved and computing advancements increased in frequency and significance, the lines that once clearly separated the abilities of machines and humans seemed to blur.

Computers’ memories could be programmed to assimilate vast libraries of information, including recognizing patterns in different languages surrounding the usage of certain words that would have readily revealed previous “players”. Turing anticipated this, knowing that the physical hardware in machines would eventually surpass the human brain in quantitative storage and processing speed. For this reason he was sure to define that digital computers were “universal”. Given enough time and resources there was no limit to what they could simulate, and therefore as he wrote, “All digital computers are equivalent.”(Turing, 442) Using binary digits for executing functions or replying with programmed responses relies on simple input and output of information. Theoretically, there could be any level of hardware in the machine being tested, but it still needed to be programmed using software. This is a major source of evidence for there being a unique faculty of the human brain. A machine could have a predetermined response for a question asking whether or not an event like a funeral was sad, and answer it even faster than the human player was able to. The processing speed is not what provides a clue to the identity of the player. The emotional element is what differentiates the human person from a machine. While both can recognize the word on its own, the semantic meaning is understood by the human brain, giving it value. The conclusion that “machines cannot feel emotions” was as obvious to Turing as it was to anyone playing the game for the first time, or even the casual observer. Turing’s prodigious mathematical ability combined with his Materialist views, to offer a level of analysis into this idea with unprecedented depth. If the observable action could be simulated flawlessly given preparation and programming, where in the physical framework of the human brain does this unique process of reasoning stem from? Examining the work of Alan Turing and his attempts to answer this question adds an interesting dimension to the notion of “personhood” and the human mind.

The Imitation Game was designed to be practical and shed light on the distinctive human element in a rather broad way. The focus of the test was the machine’s proficiency at simulating human action, and was solely based on observable information, contributing to this examination in more of a macro sense.  The digital machine in the game would always rely on programmed responses, which is why it could potentially reproduce any external result accurately, but not from the same internal process as the human mind. This is where the philosophical road block known as the “Hard Problem”, comes into play. The “problems” of human consciousness were differentiated by David Chalmers in his 1995 paper, “Facing Up to the Problems of Consciousness”, and consider the pitfalls of a Functionalist approach, mainly that there is no explanation for “why” there is feeling with perception. Turing himself was not able to reach a formal conclusion earlier in the century, with the philosophical contributions of his work coming mainly from papers published posthumously. Instead he expressed the very evident process of the human mind mathematically, as a function, which provides significant support for a Materialist view of the self. At the same time, it offers a grounded quality to the process of self-reflection and self-awareness, which is why it’s very useful for examining personhood.

Turing’s work with machines was built on mathematics and programmed functions. The binary based algorithms, predetermined in the machines, performed these functions based on input information to produce an output. The ‘Turing Machine’ was a mathematical device that “matched” the input from a potentially infinite strip of input values ‘(x)’, to their corresponding output value ‘f(x)’. Using this idea, Turing determined a definitive measurement of how efficient an algorithm was based on the maximum level of accurate performance. An algorithm, both in Turing’s work and now, is “a set of rules or instructions that will result in the solution of a problem. An algorithm gives a decision procedure, or computable method for solving a problem. Although an algorithm may solve the problem, it may not do so efficiently” (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy). A machine is programmed to operate by a certain procedure, with the software solving the problem based on the input. The equivalents of hardware and software in examining the notion of personhood are the physical framework of the brain and the mental processes of memory, reasoning, and understanding. The relationship between the two is where the Materialist limitations for Turing’s work prevent further contribution. When determining what constitutes an algorithmic function, Turing’s mathematical approach for expressing a “decision procedure” reduces the execution of the set of rules to something that simply occurs. In computers the process that takes place via the software is the execution of a function that will always produce a predictable output. It may not be the most efficient execution, or the solution that satisfies a requirement, but it the predetermined solution and the only one that could possibly occur. There is no intention for the action, no reasoning on the part of the machine, and there is no possibility for semantic value in processing the input.

It is this fundamental flaw that causes Functionalism to fail in terms of explaining the human mind and the extent to which Turing’s work itself can actively contribute. Together, the concept of the Turing Machine and the structure of Imitation Game identify that there are rules within processing that determine the outcome, and a given output is dependent on the information that was input. However, the fixed structure of the machine’s hardware and the digital storage and processing of information prevents the action of reasoning from occurring. Reasoning and deciding are mental faculties of the human person that carry the inherent element of uncertainty. They also rely on memory and awareness to even occur or to understand the meaning of information that is being processed. There is then a degree of clarity that comes as a result of Alan Turing’s work, because it both directly points to an aspect that makes the human mind unique and indirectly provides a possible explanation for the presence of it as a physical occurrence. In order for the human mind to have the faculty of self-awareness it would have to know that the outcome of the process of reasoning is not predetermined, and that there is the uncertainty of whether or not the function it is processing by is the most efficient set of rules to solve a problem. This is the expression of reasoning and awareness, which make the human mind unique, within the functionalist approach of Turing. The mind is thinking, an action which is a “software” process. But the information that is being processed by the mind, to be aware of its own efficiency and consider the possible outcomes, is itself an ongoing process. The classic explanation for how the human mind “thinks” is by parallel processing of information, which is an adequate explanation only for the sheer speed of the human mind.  However it does not provide a definitive explanation for the ability to understand the semantic meaning in information, and the self-awareness of the human mind in reasoning.

The need for information to be simultaneously stored and processed in the same location or for a unit of input to be the determining factor in multiple functions is one that Turing’s work was unable to satisfy. Quantum computing explores the possibility that an algorithm or system of algorithms could operate in this way, but the theories have little evidence in reality. As a concept, this method of processing and computing does propose some interesting possibilities for what sets of rules the brain’s neurological system might operate by. It even offers a physical explanation for the presence of probability in decision making as well as non-determinist considerations. But at the end of the day it is a search to understand something the human mind already does on its own. Alan Turing’s work into identifying systems of logic examined the empirical evidence for the workings within the human mind, but can’t distinguish what occurs internally due to his strict Materialist beliefs about the world. The extent to which his work gives clarity to the status of personhood is an ongoing contribution.

Which is exactly why I adjusted his tape ticker causation method in the following way. Any given x value in an indefinite summation can be used to approximate a definite summation.

f(x)=

|g(x)-h(x)|

 g(x)= 

  Increasing Function

h(x)=

Decreasing Function

The square root of any value f(x), when used recursively in g(x) and h(x), will yield a product who's inverse is exactly the percentage the original x value increases or decreases by in the respective functions. If a formula written as ex. b(x)= |f(x)-c(x)|, with f(x) and c(x) composed identically to g(x) and h(x), the value of b(x) still fits this rule. It is an ascending-descending-symmetrical integral that relies on itself to complete the series. If say, for example, 10 of these systems were devised, in a circle, the input of information in the form of x=1 would result in a progressively adapting and evolving recursive function. It is arguably a simple tweak but significant nonetheless.

The chain of events from encoding to storage to retrieval/use mirrors that of human memory and learning processes. It also balances two asymptotic possibilities against each other, with every irrational squared value resulting in randomized summations in the second tier of functions. If only the second tier were observed, this would come across as quite creative of them, adapting to a necessary sum and progression. Perhaps even intelligent.

I have long felt that the next stage of progression on this planet will begin the moment we design a machine with a superior capability to design than we possess. Any human influence inherently poses the possibility of judgment, weakness, or flaw, this being the source of many science fiction novels: machines becoming 'self-aware' and deeming us a danger to our own survival. This also poses the question of artificial integration. After Google Glass becomes archaic, with contact lenses and eventually optic nerves being manufactured, is a mechanical physical form with our stored memories the same as us?

If a replica of your best friend, with all memories in tact with a personality to match, stood before you, would you consider them the same thing? Even if it learned and possessed intelligence and awareness, would you then accept it?

References for those who care:

Blackburn, Simon. “Algorithm”. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Revised Edition. Oxford University Press. 2008. Print.

Turing, Alan. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”. Mind. October 1950. 420-443. Accessed Online in Archives.

Turing, Alan. “Intelligent Machinery”. Published Posthumously et. al. Copeland. 2004b pp410-432. Originally Written 1947. Accessed Online.

Chalmers, David. “Facing Up to the Problems of Consciousness”. Journal of Consciousness Studies. P  200-219. 1995.

[pfkitm]

I Saw Myself in the Mirror: Part III

Part III

Circular it becomes. How can it truly know all of itself, unless it does not know all of itself? The faculties of our mind seem confined to themselves, forever professing a faith in the divine. How do you escape circular reason? By declaring the answer devoid of reason and naming it faith. But therein lies the caveat. One many do not admit or do not see.

How can God be capable of everything? It would mean he can create anything imaginable and unimaginable. Including ‘a rock so heavy not even he could lift it’. Yet he is capable of everything so therefore he must be able to lift it?

Read More

[pfkitm]

I Saw Myself in the Mirror.

“My account will not be glorifying, enlightening, condemning, or even potentially resolved by my final words. But it will be a strange and interesting one, which is all I can give at this point in time.

It is perpetuated by everyone, and I do mean everyone, that the eyes are the windows to the soul.

I had the unique experience of seeing into my own eyes, unbridled.

I hope everyone is wrong.”

[pfkitm]

Just Because Something Didn't Really Happen, Is It Any Less "Real"?

We can only think of things through mediums that require previous experience or knowledge, and that are inherently subjective methods. For example, someone born without sight cannot think in terms of what we consider "color", and are at a deficit because they lack a "sense". So when we think about ourselves, does that mean by definition there is an objective 'thing' that we can only know a few dimensions of?

I had a dream last night where I met the other aspects of a unified 'person', one I was a part of represented in the dimensions I could sense and be aware of. I woke up and was very confused and had to write it down before I forgot. Maybe that would be a good novel to write. About several characters who are objectively one, but experience different subjective realities. One sees a math test, another sees a dragon to be slain, another sees the two as part of one grand dance, and another sits "unaware" at a table deciding whether or not to get up and walk out the door. Just some ideas, but it did freak me out. Because what if dreams are the chance to see the other realities we live in? And every time one differs from the others, it is us maturing or growing?

When we sleep, despite being somewhat aware of our surroundings, we enter a state of unconscious brain activity. Why do our senses tell us dreams are so real, and we genuinely believe they are real during them, yet adhere to no discernible rules of physics or chronological sense? Lots of questions. People who can experience lucid dreams with training or practice can "control" the events of their dreams. They would be doing so by choices, by thinking during their own dream. How can their act of choosing or thinking be real, if everything else about it is not? Did that choice really happen?

Or are we having a dream in which we became aware and made a choice, all of it being part of the dream?

Suddenly:

"Row, row, row your boat,

gently down the stream,

merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,

life is but a dream."

Becomes kind of creepy and alarming.

[pfkitm]

The Clock Struck Twelve: Or How I Became a Thetan, Killed the Yetis, Found the Last Digit of Pi, and Learned to Create Misleading Post Titles.

I promised a friend that I would come up with really amazing titles. Going to try and make it a theme on this tumblr.

I decided to break down my posts into smaller more practical entries, for my sake and anyone who reads these at any point in time I guess. Page Break-wise I mean, they will still be long as hell but I will summarize the main idea to start. I do, however, have a question for anyone who comes across this:

If you are physically different now in comparison to when you were ten years old (and likewise different from a year ago or ten minutes ago), and are different mentally as well (even literally while you read this sentence: you had never read this sentence on my blog on your laptop screen before it's the little things huh), then can you or anyone else really consider you the same person?

Physically you are different. Mentally you are different. You could reason you are a different person with the passing of every minute of every day. This has its benefits: it could motivate people to overcome addictions or trauma. It has its drawbacks: how do we prosecute a murderer if they aren't that person anymore?

Existence or life becomes less a matter of beginning/end and more of a process. No need to click ahead unless further explanation is needed or you are just curious like a cat.

Also, it gets fun since I can't resist a good imaginary tangent.

There are two ways, as far as my tired brain can tell, to look at this situation. The first: everything in existence is a constant with time being cyclical and not linear (having a specific order and beginning/end), with our perception being the variable. That means we are kind of like a flashlight, when the frame of reality could really use some night-vision goggles. No, I am being serious. I showed up for a Tibetan Mystic Ninja seminar and was soooooo embarrassed that I forgot mine. But whatevs, I am a Thetan now right?!?!?! 

Just kidding (Am I?). Well a more manageable metaphor would be that we are constantly turning a blind corner when it comes to time. It doesn't change the fact that there is a car around the corner, it is kind of totally a slap in the face to our awareness of it, because it is there whether we know that or not. Once you turn the corner, BOOM, you just got hit by a car (Also, the car was a Dodge..philosophy gets ironic sometimes..we like to have fun here). From that uncertainty stems our sense of morality and right/wrong, good/evil, etc.

Here is a personal line of reasoning I put in a paper two weeks ago. Someone just placed a beautifully cooked steak on the table in front of me, medium rare, with the slightly charred outside and semi-pink middle so you can tell it was cooked and not simply reheated, and maybe some portobello mushrooms and mashed potatoes, WHO KNOWS. I see this, look down at your dog, and snap its neck. I then cut it open on the table and eat that instead. I wouldn't really do that (not since the incident of 2006 and we all know how that one ended), but if I did, I guarantee at least one person might pipe up and say, "Hey, uhh...what in the holy hell did that guy just do?".

Now picture you and me marooned on a deserted island in the middle of the Southern Atlantic Ocean. There is no real food source on the island, we strain our clothes through the tidal pools for plankton to scrape by (we also finally have time to go antiquing on the weekends, like we always wanted to!!) We knew that 3 hour tour was a shit idea right from the start Gilligan, but we have accepted there is no possible way out of this situation. The dog we found on the island has been running around the beach, full of energy, while your stomach aches and makes those weird noises that kind of sound like spirals if that makes any sense. You haven't eaten in 8 days. I nonchalantly stand up, cough, kick some sand around, ask if you see that plane up above, and while you give yourself false hope and shift your gaze skywards, I snap the dog's neck. I cook us dinner for the evening. It lasts us 3 days, after which we are miraculously rescued. I think after 3 days I would've ran out of "dog days are over" jokes, or mentioning how things were getting kind of ruff, and we both would rejoice. We did what he had to do to survive. I know that you know in your heart of hearts, deep deep down, that you would eat that dog meat. Wait.

Hmmm. Just realized the whole emotional draw of this comparison might not be as good of a hook for the readers from Asia.. 

Well they can substitute something, sorry guys, my bad. The over arcing point I am trying to make it that when we have the certainty of a resource and a stable supply of necessities, suddenly killing that dog at the dinner table is frowned upon. Mee-maw actually didn't even notice so that's good I guess. Or a bad omen. 

The moment we have the possibility of a secure tomorrow, our actions today are suddenly completely shifted in moral relativity. This brings me back to the opening of this post. What does "morality" become or mean when the person making the decision no longer exists? I am not that guy on the island anymore, I recognize killing the dog was necessary for my survival, and I accept it for the most part. Should I be tried in the courts of PETA for murdering a canine companion?

Wait can they actually do that? That would make them 200 times more effective and relevant

Does that guy in 127 Hours regret cutting off his arm? Maybe. Honestly I don't know. Maybe the parking passes were worth it. But if he was chilling watching a baseball game and just cut it off (let's assume it isn't a Cubs Game, that is the exception for this principle because I have seen some fans try it), we wouldn't look at it like, "Oh, well, he had to because he was going to die so it's acceptable." because we praise the hiker in reality for his courage.

We would say, "Oh my god there is so much blood, I've never seen so much blood, Oh my god, Oh my god", six people pass out and the guy screaming "GET YA BEER HERE" just projectile vomited onto the mascot, and he really needs this job because he used to be the Cookie Monster but now it's the Veggie Monster, or so I heard on the Street (Sesame Gang or DIE), so he just tries to piece the arm back together which isn't working, the anxiety gets to him and causes him to overheat in the costume he has been wearing since 9am before the double header and he passes out too and soils himself and gets fired! Meanwhile 127 Hours is looking a lot like four minutes until he dies (I know the reference isn't contiguous, meh), and we all throw cotton candy and popcorn at him and security starts to taze his stump. Thanks Obama!

Once we recognize that the issue isn't that "things are taken out of context", or "there were extenuating circumstances", we should probably latch on to the realization that no moment in time is the same as any other, so the need for context is kind of a moot point. No "person" is the same for any point in time. We are imposing rules, laws, and social stigmas based on a linear understanding of temporal-cyclicality. No, that isn't a word, or rather it wasn't. It is now. Shit just got real on this post.

Defining it too: "adj. the act of, or degree to which an object's series embodies the traits of a cycle in its natural state free of preclusion by logic, or a priori basis."

In two hundred years when that Cookie Monster example makes it into a text book, I know my life's work will be complete when they use my new word.

Seriously, spell-check doesn't even know what to do with itself right now.

[pfkitm]

Hauers Pass Me By

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

I've stared Mona Lisa in the eyes and smiled back, holding her gaze.

I've been to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, where my blood ran green, past the depths of red light waves.

I've lost friends, some I never had the chance to say goodbye to. I've gained some I never would've met, while abroad.

All Those Moments Will Be Lost In Time, Like Tears In Rain.

[pfkitm]

Is There More to Life Than Being Really Really Ridiculously Good Looking? An Exploration of Life & Philosophy with Memes, but Only Potential Worth.

or 'Reflexive Paradoxes in the Work of Rene Descartes, and how they may have potentially fucked modern philosophy right from the start.' a discourse by the writer of this tumblr.

This one takes a while to pick up but it is worth it...potentially.

Did I spend time writing/stylizing a fake quote to prove my point or draw you in? Yes...yes I did. Get used to it on this post, there are a shit ton.

But when you really think about it...

Ask a biologist why we consider patents in a persistent vegetative state "brain dead" and can ethically/legally/morally kill them, but when a fetus has the exact experiential cognition and unformed anterograde capacity: they go fucking crazy over it.

Ask a physicist what "life" is. Don't settle for "the tendency for things to get more complex over time", that's some entropy shit man. Approach the most qualified physicist you can find, and ask them what even say, "time", literally is.....spoiler alert: they don't know!

Ask any notable philosopher how the consciousness of a person does in fact connect with physical reality. You might get some kind of "they have parallel existences that overlap as your perception" answer which honestly, when I first heard that, it was from a friend of mine after he had smoked for two straight hours while watching Planet Earth. Great summer. Then I read it in Descartes' Objections and realized that this high kid next to me skipped 60 years of discourse and figured out something with the exact level of merit.

So where did it all stem from? Those thinkers got their information and argumentative basis from Aristotle or Galileo (he was a little  more notable in his execution of it..get it? GET IT!?!? ahhh history jokes nevermind.), and in turn Plato and Socrates, and then some gents from the Fertile Crescent, and then....uhh....

That's right six people who will read this, gear up for the long haul. There will be some tears. There might be some laughs. Hey, maybe you'll even make a few friends along the way. 

That is....if you really exist...?

As a philosophical school of thought, Dualism is the idea that the world is made up of two distinct, fundamental components. The exact nature, identification, or definition of what they truly are is the point of contention that has led to incredible strides not only in philosophy, but the progress of our societies as a whole. With the onset of the Scientific Revolution, and the rise of mechanism, the limits of what an individual could consider empirically provable were sent clashing against what they believed. The culmination of centuries spent exploring philosophical inquiry and implementation of mathematical, quantifiable, and empirical experimentation witnessed the work of one of the most influential thinkers of the modern era, Rene Descartes. The revolutionary application of modal logic to define the components of his philosophy of mind, however, can be seen as evidence that by doing so, he created the need for the 'mind-body' problem his philosophy was purported to resolve.

Descartes had his groundings in the scientific method and was a prominent mechanist, believing that man and animal alike were automatons, a system of interactive mechanisms. His forays into biology, physiology, and mathematics were extensive and prolific in their own right; it was the application of this sense of logic to philosophical thought that proved his most memorable challenge. Descartes’ universally referenced contribution to philosophy – cogito ergo sum- was the catalyst for what would prove to be an amazing source of progress within the field. The search for a method of analysis free of the potential for error, and a universal constant to uphold future charging of academia to, reached its limit for Descartes in his philosophy of mind.

In 1641 Descartes published his seminal work, Meditations on First Philosophy, which was emblazoned with the subtitle, “In which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated” (Descartes, 1641; trans. Cress, 1980), a statement that causes investigation in its own sense of necessarily being demonstrated.

Even worse..he did it in fucking Comic Sans. That's inconsiderate...

The foundation of dualism and its function as a method of proof for Descartes led to the publication of his contemporaries as Objections and Replies along with it. The objections and responses surrounding Meditations called a large amount of theological and religious fundamentals into play, but the primary concern was the relationship between the mind and the body. Descartes was a substance dualist, asserting that the mind and the body are two distinct substances that interact with one another. The determination of his point of view is largely due to the influence of mechanism and the need for a firm foundation on which to examine the task at hand with logic and reason. Cartesian Dualism is the exploration of the distinction between the mind and body, the nature of their connection, and the resulting implications, the last step being the conclusion that led to the subtitle’s claim. Before he could feel certain that his method of examination was without error, he exercised doubt as a tool in the text in regards to what he considered himself. The resulting realization that he could not be certain of any aspect of observation as a tool or even awareness of his own self and the nature of his own faculties is where dualism of the mind and body find their roots.  His examination and his conclusions on the two were the source of incredible intellectual debate, bringing the study and practicality of philosophy to a new level of importance for his contemporaries.

Examining how well dualism of the mind and body stood up to the challenges presented by Materialists not only demonstrates the depth of Descartes’ work  and the responses to it, but is also a testament to just how innovative a time period it was. In a holistic consideration, the final product of his examination of existence holds up quite strongly to Materialist challenge. Descartes recognized there was a fundamental difference between the two components of self, and then by asking, “But what then am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also imagines and senses”, finally presented himself with the indisputably mysterious nature of the mind (Descartes, [trans. Cress, 1980], Meditation II: On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known than the Body). His self-evident starting point for existence eventually fell in upon itself in some aspects. The writings of the Fifth Meditation, most importantly the following passage concerning the characteristics of the body, had sought to do just that: “I enumerate the [extended] thing’s various parts. I ascribe to these parts certain sizes, shapes, positions, and movements from place to place, to these movements I ascribe various durations.”(et.al. Cress) The “body” was the physical substance of an individual; it could be spatially extended and had quantifiably measurable dimensions. The “mind” was the essence of thought and the non-physical substance that made up existence. Descartes concluded that the body is a physical substance; one of measurable extension and one that deteriorates and dies over time. A body can have a front side, a back side, be cut in half or broken down, it is divisible. The comparison to the mental processes of the mind is where the complications started to form, and from where the challenges posed by Materialism stemmed.

Descartes was examining the nature of what it meant to think, to doubt, and to imagine, which he found to not be physical substance, as they were concepts, and there for must be the a different kind. Substance dualism does identify that there is a physical substance of existence, but contrasting the Materialist view that it is the only one, includes a non-physical one substance as well. The ontological principles concerning identity presented Descartes with a quandary. Attributed to Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz, in his modal application of the concept in Discourse on Metaphysics, they are two principles of ontological analysis through which to discern the identities of two given objects (Leibniz, 1686; trans. Loemker, 1969). In this instance those two were the mind and body.

It is important to note that the original formulations of the principles were done in the written language of logic, as opposed to the written word used by Descartes, to illustrate the reasons why Materialism proves a formidable challenger. The first principle, the ‘Indiscernibility of Identicals’,  serves as the foundation for his assertion that the soul is immortal and is defined in written form as [see the following exhibit]:

Exhibit:

 That sneaky son of a bitch. Let me refer to my fucking exhibit. Going to go for it anyway:

“The principle that if A is identical with B, then every property that A has B has, and vice versa.” (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 183)

Aaaaaand there we go.

 That I will Xzibit.

Descartes considered the properties of the mind and the properties of the body. Concepts like belief or morality do not have an extensive quantity; there is not front side to a thought. There was the immediate difference between the two in Descartes’ eyes. He posited that the mind did not adhere to the rules of the physical world in that it lacked extension and was therefore not able to be physically quantified (also divided any further). The ‘Argument from Indivisibility’ was also the basis for his claim of demonstrating the immortality of the soul by the same right. An individual’s soul would be indivisible, incapable of being broken down in physical death, and therefore immortal.

      The other principle is quite similar in its apparent simplicity, as both seem to be straight-forward methods of identification. However, as Descartes discovered while reflecting and examining his own method of analysis, incredibly simple predications can have incredibly complex implications. The second principle, the ‘Identity of Indiscernibles’, is in the same vein as the first:

                        “The principle [associated with Leibniz] that if A and B have exactly the same properties, then they are identical.” (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 178)

  Comparing dualism of the mind and body is done by Descartes using this principle as well. The fact that there was something that prevented what he defined as the mind and what he defined as the body from being seen as identical therefore means they are different things. This was in addition to comparing the two to their counterpart’s set of properties with the first principal. The combination of both principles allowed the processes to be framed in their respective substances. The most concise consideration by Descartes, in the synopsis of Meditations, is simply explained as, “we cannot conceive of half a soul, as we can in the case of any body, however small” (Et al Cress 1980, p. 52).

            The reaction from both Idealists and Materialist thinker was to question the process itself. The implications of basing so many of the statements and declarations from Meditations on such a basic building block proved to be the undoing of the pure form of Cartesian Dualism. Not being strictly a materialist, an illuminating reaction from John Locke can be said to be even more pressing than simply addressing the matter Descartes described in the following way:

The conclusion that mental processes were not ruled by the limitations of the extending world, primarily being that they have no dimension and can’t be divided because of this, led Locke to pose the following question: “Awareness is rendered discontinuous by sleep, anesthesia, unconsciousness, is Awareness then divisible? A “mind” cannot be the essence of thought if it exhibits temporal discontinuity” (Locke; trans. Fraser, 1959, Bk. II, Ch. I, Sec. 10). Several other contemporaries of Descartes called this into question. How could there be a causal connection between the physical processes and mental processes, if the parameters of the theory seemingly disallowed the properties of the two from possibly overlapping? In direct response to Objections and Replies, in which a bevy of authors including Thomas Hobbes and Gassendi provided valid points that shed light on the predication of Meditations, Descartes wrote Meditations II. The question about how mind and body could conceptually be connected raised by Locke, in addition to intense criticism from Gassendi on the physical contingencies of his theory, can be said to have produced two of the subsets of Substance Dualism that began to take shape. Although the argument can be made that despite Materialism claimed victories over Dualism in Meditations, including the rest of the series, some philosophers still stand by this form of dualism when examining the mind and body. Even in modern neurological advancements or in the progress of quantum mechanics, the presence of Materialism can be seen as waning in this respect. Epiphenomenalism, Parallelism, and Mechanism based Interactionism, became descriptive labels for the ensuing scientific response to Cartesian Dualism. Scientific advances in such forms as Albert Einstein mathematically deriving the interaction and preservation of mass and energy in and as a closed system, implicitly severed the connection between mental process and bodily processes. Physicalism and its Dualist counterparts addressed the aspects of the philosophies that were not found to be self-evident within their context or system of beliefs.

Descartes addressed the act of applying a system of logic in Meditations, in which he used the terms mind and body, and conceded that there must therein be a difference between what we consider the concept to be, and what is true essence is.

The evolution of his previous stated “proof” into the product of this system of direct/indirect realism shows that despite fundamental challenges posed by Materialism, the defense of his philosophy of the mind should be regarded as a brilliant step. True to form, Descartes examined the contradictory elements of the original, stricter presentation of Mind/Body Dualism, and posited even more profound metaphysical ideas:

  “I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world — no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it.” (Descartes, Rene [trans. Cress, 1980], Meditation II: On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known Than the Body).

  The limit that Descartes eventually reached following conclusion above was the problem of diffuseness: in the relation of the terms used to their examined properties and in the widely recognized problem of causality between the processes therein of the mind and of the body. The sound logic used to examine the philosophical dilemma and posit the Cartesian Dualism formally ultimately was the theory’s undoing in the face of Materialism. At the time, given the biological and scientific knowledge available, Cartesian Dualism offered the best explanation for the nature and connection of the mind and the body. Materialist challenge of the terminology or relational pattern of thought has its own merit; but as the subject they challenge Dualism on is still not completely known, the victory is an ontological one, not specifically a Materialist overtaking. Descartes transformed the conceptual investigation into a mechanistic assertion by assigning a spatial, physical point for where the mind influenced the body, and vice versa: the pineal gland.

Or as Jeff Goldblum puts it:

But with more "ahh-umm" 's thrown in there hopefully.

Descartes’ determination proved a difficult element for Materialism to challenge, in that it didn’t necessarily offer a specific promotion of a non-physical certainty, just that this gland would be where he believed the interaction occurred. The offer holds to the Dualist precepts that the mind was distinctly different from the body and that it could influence it directly, but it was set forth by Descartes stating in the Treatise of Man, “My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed.”(Descartes, 1664; trans. Hall, 1972)  Proposing it was its own physical substance, and was the spatial location for the forming of mental processes; Descartes defended his philosophy of mind in the face of Materialism to the best of his ability and with the resources available. Careful attention to the frame through which to view this connection aligned with his mechanist foundations, resolving the conceptual potential for interaction between two distinct substances but mindfully addressing the weak point of interaction and causation:

            “[The] mechanism of our body is so constructed that simply by this gland's being moved in any way by the soul or by any other cause, it drives the surrounding spirits towards the pores of the brain, which direct them through the nerves to the muscles; and in this way the gland makes the spirits move the limbs.” (Descartes, 1649; trans. Voss, 1989, Passions of the Soul)

   So a possibility within the philosophy of Cartesian Dualism that this gland was the location for the interaction between the physical substance of the brain and the mental processes in their own faculties was proposed. Modern biology considers the pineal gland the source of the body altering hormones correlating with certain distinctions of cognition including: sleep, homeostasis, and the controversial dimethyltryptamine abbreviated as “DMT”. “DMT” has been shown, namely in the trials conducted by Dr. Rick Strassman( later published as DMT: The Spirit Molecule) to not only contain the necessary chemical combinations for what are described as “near-death experiences” in cultures around the globe, but also to have a statistically significant correlation to the direct occurrence of them. Some quantifiable measurements of this glands relation to perceptual experiences we experience opens the door for the potential bridge of Cartesian Dualism to modern times. 

But in examining the investigative nature of his claims, his direct and absolute supposition that his philosophy of mind absolved the chasm between science and spirituality, they can be seen to have been formed using a system of relationism that  precludes their solution from being viable. In his effort to discern a universal constant on which to ground all thought and predication, he unknowingly committed a category error. Gilbert Ryle did make note of this after Descartes' time, coining that term, and inadvertently laying claim for a potential integration between Substance and Property Dualism, perhaps even one that combines Plato's Theory of Forms with the States of Matter. 

Personally the unbelievable similarities between the linguistic complications these philosophers face, mainly relational logic and categorical error, and the classification of the States of Matter alongside how to measure characteristics that are unable to be measured without relation, blatantly illustrate the need for the two schools of mind to reconcile. As with Plato's point of view when devising his Theory of Forms, or the allegory of The Cave in Republic, we do not truly know the reality of an object, merely every single possible thing about it or to describe it.  This is where the neurological instance of 'type-token' philosophy manifest in the world of science. If five individuals are handed boxes, and told that within each box lies their own personal "pfkitm", when asked afterwards to individually describe their "pfkitm", five radically different accounts could be given depending on what I placed in the boxes originally. So the word "pfkitm" does not refer to the literal essence of whatever object may have been in your personal box, but meant "the item I placed in the box". For each person, that is the question they would be really be answering. They would never be able to know that the object in the other's boxes wasn't identical to their own, but would all raise their hands when asked if they had a "pfkitm". The problem of other-minds and connection to the misapplication of modal logic is readily apparent.

            Damn it. He is so fucking meta. Can't let him win. Moving on.

Despite being theoretically applicable after the fact of Materialism, the fact remains that the specific categories within Dualism as a whole each have their fundamental limitations. The general evolution of Materialism into Physicalism, and the existing schools of thought within both, shows that both Materialism and Dualism gave way to the progress of philosophy. The purpose of assessing what aspects of Dualism withstood the test of Materialist challenge is primarily a critical comparison of the two specific philosophies, but extends itself into appreciating the impact the two had on the landscape of philosophy. The specific challenges Materialism posed that Dualism stood up to shaped the progress of Materialism just as much as they refined the philosophy of mind provided by Rene Descartes. Their combined influence on philosophical approaches and scientific methods are their legacy and an integral one to both fields.

********References for those of you concerned with such matters*******

Descartes, Rene: Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Donald A. Cress trans. (Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis 1980).

Descartes, René. Meditations: “In Which the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul Are Demonstrated”. New York: Liberal Arts, 1951. N. pag. AdaptedPDF.

Descartes, Rene. Meditations II: “On the Nature of the Human Mind, Which Is Better Known than the Body”. Donald A. Cress trans. (Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis 1980).

Descartes, Rene. Passions of the Soul. (1649). Stephen H. Voss trans. (Hackett Publishing Co., 1989) p. 34. Accessed Online:  October 2nd , 2013.

Descartes, R.,1664, L’Homme, Paris: Charles Angot. (In French). Complete English Translation from Hall, 1972, CSM. vol. I. Accessed October 2nd , 2013.

Einstein, Albert. (1905). “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?” Translation by George Baker from: Annalen der Physik 18 (13): 639-641.

Locke, John: Essay Concerning Human Understanding vol. 1, collated and annotated by Alexander Fraser (Dover Publications, NY 1959).

"Leibniz's Laws"" Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Comp. Blackburn Simon. 2nd Edition ed. Oxford, England: Oxford UP, 2008. 178+. Print.

Loemker, L., 1969, (ed. and trans.), G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters, 2nd ed., Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Strassman, Rick J. (2001). DMT: The Spirit Molecule. A Doctor;s Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences. Rochest,VT: Park Street. Accessed Online: October 2nd, 2013, via C-Panel. 

[pfkitm]

Why Time Passes More Quickly As We Get Older

In 5th grade, that three hour car ride to summer camp seemed like an eternity, and now being stuck in rush hour traffic for almost two hours is routine. I guess these posts are starting to overlap a little.

The one line of dialogue that changes the entire point of the film is Parish’s speech at the end of his extravagant birthday celebration. He gets choked up (after rarely showing emotion in the film) upon seeing his daughter's smile and how happy she looks. Taking a step back to gather himself he states that he hopes they all can experience what it feels like to wake up one day and to not want anything more. To be completely happy.

His finals words before walking away to meet Death, awaiting him on the bridge, are these: “65 years....Don’t they go by in a blink.”

I thought about that for a while. Why do the years seem to fly by? Why does it seem like pain lessens with the passing of time? Why were those car rides to camp so damn long? I have recently had my fair share of sadness, grief, and heartache, with everyone reassuring me that “time will heal”. All that would echo in my mind was, “Yeah, but time hasn’t passed yet so that doesn’t exactly help me right now.”, that was until this summer. Once I looked at it this way, it became much easier to keep my eyes on the horizon and my head above water.

At 10 years old, one year makes up 10% of your life. At 20 years old, one year makes up 5% of your life. So even though the years are never a different length it absolutely feels like it’s going faster, because it makes up a smaller percentage of your life. I took this approach to what was bothering me and causing me to struggle and to feel emotional pain. Intellectually I understood that in one week I will be starting a new adventure and those troubles will be far from my mind. But it is living through those weeks that seemed like hell. As someone who looks at the facts and often times doesn’t let himself open up or feel vulnerable, this realization was exactly what I needed.

Waking up every day was a daunting moment. I would lay there and already hate the day. I would prefer to stay numb to it and lashed out at people trying to help me do the things I needed to, because from my perspective, they just didn’t understand. But at the end of the day, they will never understand. It’s a truth we need to face: nobody can understand the pain you could be feeling because you are something unique, with unique experiences and values. They can never fully grasp it. The good news is, that wasn’t the important part. The person who needed to understand it was me.

Now when I wake up, I remember that although it doesn’t seem like much of a measurable change, this day will be slightly easier for me. It isn’t necessarily dependent on me maturing or healing, it is an objective fact. This day will dilute the days filled with pain even if by an imperceptible amount. Every day will cause that period of sadness to shrink and make up less of my life than it did the day before, until days arrive like this one where I can finally exhale and say,”I made it through”. No matter what is bothering you: a friend or loved one dying, being cheated on or broken up with, or whatever may be tearing you up inside or weighing you down, that is something to remember. Every day will get easier. This idea can really help quell the flow of negative thoughts that race through someone's mind while they are alone. It gives you something to look forward to while trying to fall asleep.

To those days I spent paralyzed with anxiety, being consumed by the feeling of not being whole, struggling to stay positive when it seemed like nothing was helping, there is only one thing I hold in my mind when I look back at you from this bridge: I’m glad I learned from you.

Didn’t you go by in a blink.

[pfkitm]

Pro Tips: Why the Stock Market is the same as Rush Hour Traffic.

Short Version: Mass psychology. But you would miss out on some great light humor and that would kind of suck.

Dan Version (I get they could both be the short version):

Picture rush hour traffic for a moment. It doesn't make sense to some people, we are all on the same highway as an hour beforehand, the speed limit is the same, why is every driving pet peeve amplified? Keep picturing exactly what you are doing during this traffic, you are less focused on darting between other cars and resign to stay in your lane and stick it out a few more exits. Besides the obvious causes like a higher volume of cars and merging/exit lanes becoming a Vietnam free for all, there is one thing we all dread: start and stop traffic. They seem like contractions of traffic, they get more and more frequent and frustrating until suddenly the congestion clears up and you can get the fuck out of your metal box of torture and sit on your couch at home to watch Game of Thrones.

Now that whole Stock Market idea. Everyone seems to think its some grand impenetrable matrix of economic causality and logarithmic magic. But I am telling you it is penetrable. Only once I deliberately used that word did I see how gross it sounds, wow. The stock market is fundamentally based on trades or company valuations which can be anything from a simple person to person transaction to derivative trading. Derivatives, did you hear that? I’m onto you Calculus, you cold bitch. But think about it, why the hell isn't there a simple way to just plug in numbers and crunch out the perfect stock to buy using pattern recognizing algorithms to establish baseline change parameters and anytime a stock deviates enough, you buy or sell depending on which way the reading is skewed? Because fuck me that’s why.

Instead both operate on the same principle: mass psychology. Here is how.

Start and stop traffic? Each car sees the one in front of it speeding up, so they accelerate accordingly, just a little bit after the car in front of them did. Then they see the Tahoe a few cars up slow and the trail of brake lights starts approaching, and no driver on the road wants to get in an accident or risk braking to late, so each car brakes slightly earlier than the one before it.

Stockholders start the ball rolling for a company’s valuation and start purchasing stock. The rumor mill is ripe with opportunity for Company A, and everyone wants a piece. But it takes momentum for more people to notice so with each trade/purchase, the value goes up, and Igor Investor (just go with it) makes a little money each time, encouraging others to buy the stock as well, all “driving" (see what I did there?) each others portfolios higher and higher. But they know at one point, the inflated value will eventually consume itself since the company has a finite amount of real actual value, so they one by one start to sell. Sell as more buy, to make money and lessen the risk of losing their money, because they loved the acceleration but see those ahead of them putting on the brakes. Ever notice how in the stock market there are cyclical bear/bull markets and sudden “crashes"? “Acceleration and deceleration"…Okay so it isn’t a conspiracy theory but the analogous link is pretty sound.

Both the highway and stock market are mediums for human psychology, and those who see it for what it is reap the profits. Don’t believe this whole analogy? Ask Jonathan Lebed, who between September 1999 and February 2000 was making at least $12,000 a day with his maximum at $75,000. Oh, he was also 15. He made $75,000 in one day and he was still puzzled about why he got boners in math class, and no amount of money can hide that shame.

In six months he made $800,000 and after the IRS had some choice words with his parents and a federal judge, he still walked away with over half a million dollars from 6 months of work at age 15. How did he do it? He bought a shitty stock and posted hundreds of times on forums and financial advisory websites artificially boosting its value and once enough people bought it as it gained momentum, he sold it for a massively inflated profit. He probably got C’s in math too. He was too busy blowing his nose with $100 bills and swimming in a Duck Tales pool of coins. And nobody knew until the IRS spontaneously but strategically sent a notice to his home, and his parents had a wonderful surprise waiting in the mail.

In conclusion, 3 things:

1) Next time you laugh at a 15 year old named Jonathan and call him a virgin, keep in mind he may be able to buy your life.

2) Pay attention to stupid drivers, you are the reason they are still alive and haven’t mercifully removed themselves from the gene pool.

3) Don’t ever trust the guy telling you he knows just what it takes to make it big in the stock market and be filthy rich... so buy his book. If he knew, he wouldn't need to sell a book, he’d already be filthy rich.

These train ride sessions are paying off.