Big Long Tomorrow

Film

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:16:00 +0000

Evaluation

I think in many respects the film produced did fulfil our aims, but also in some ways it didn’t. First and foremost the end result was a short film instead of a clip from a full length film as we had initially intended. We decided it would be better as a short film during the editing process.

Stylistically, I don’t think our aims were fully reached. However, I do think that the influence of The Third Man and film noir is pretty clear in the content of the film. The camera shots in particular a film noir feel. There is use of Dutch angles on the steps; we have included several shots of faces from statues in particular to give a sense of paranoia and of being watched, which I thought was fairly effective. The setting was in keeping with our aims too, we filmed a lot of architecture in the dockside area of Bristol city centre as establishing shots. It’s a very urban and industrial in accordance with the dark themes of film noir. We used a few silhouettes and shadows as intended; they helped to enhance the dark mood. A few of the shots in particular were intended to give a sense of paranoia; especially the large reflective globe in Millennium Square where you can see the two men running across the courtyard. Seeing the two characters from a reflection gives a sense that someone is watching them and a feeling of voyeurism. We also used a lot of film noir iconography such as the shot of the moon, of the faces, the gun and the old architecture.

However, I don’t feel that the editing was appropriate for the sort of style we were aiming for. The 80’s pop music used wasn’t suitable for film noir, but we intended to modernise the film so to attract a new and younger audience. The music did suite the adrenaline of the chase but I felt that the editing was too centred around the music. The music should act as an accompaniment to the film, but this film felt more like a music video than a film as a lot of the shots were edited in rhythm with the music. The editing was also too repetitive at times and very experimental. Several shots were repeated over and over often on purpose and at times it looked awkward, such as in the part where I come out from behind the tree with a gun. I felt the editing was influenced more by the French new wave than film noir and this Godard influence wasn’t altogether appropriate. There was use of jump cuts and the close up of the gun at the beginning reminded me very much of the scene in Breathless where Michel shoots a cop.

I had minimal influence during the editing process, beyond giving some input, but not enough to have an influence that would affect the final outcome. My creative influence was exerted in the actual filming process; I chose several locations and shots. I also gave some input in the early stages of idea development being a fan of The Third Man and film noir.

I think that even though the film fails to fully fulfil our stylistic aims, it still appeals to our target audience. I think that because of some of the experimental editing it would appeal even more to an independent and art house market though. The use of modern architecture, such as the large reflective globe, appeals to the younger trendy audience. Also the fast editing and interesting camera angles (such as the one which looks at one character’s face from below as he runs) would also appeal to this kind of audience. The circular narrative is a unique and interesting aspect to the film.

I was pleased with the final result of this film project, but I think that better editing and choice of music would have made a big difference to the end result.

Aims and Rationale

The aim of this film project is to create a short clip from a film based on film noir. It will be mainly influenced by The Third Man and other film noirs. The scene we plan to shoot is a chase scene, influenced by the famous chase in The Third Man.
The film is intended for audiences with some, however limited, knowledge and appreciation of film, and particularly film noir. They should also have an appreciation for the visual styles and the aesthetics of film, so we will try to make our film aesthetically pleasing.

Whilst the film is influenced by The Third Man, we aim to incorporate some modern stylistic features so that the film will appeal to a younger more modern audience. The film should appeal to both genders but more to males as it is a crime themed film. The audience intended will probably have an interest in independent and art house cinema; however the film should also appeal to a wider audience. I think that the 2005 film Brick is a good example of a neo-noir film that appeals to independent and art house cinema goers but also to a wider audience.

In keeping with our film noir influences we intend to incorporate several of the stylistic features associated with this genre and used in our focus film The Third Man. For example we could use Dutch angles to give an uneasy feeling; we will also use lots of shadows and silhouettes to create a sense of darkness and enigma. In The Third Man there are lots of close up shots of people’s faces, which gives a sense of paranoia. This is something we can consider including in our film and use of key lighting to give it more prominence. The film clip will be filmed in an urban setting in the inner city. We will include a few shots of old architecture but also some modern as an interesting contrast. We will try and use architecture to create a claustrophobic and paranoid atmosphere in the film.

In our film we intend to incorporate common themes in film noir such as paranoia, corruption, betrayal and crime. The short clip will begin with a gun to a man’s head and then a chase will ensue. We will use the ‘in media res’ technique and take the audience right into the action, gripping them from the start and also creating an enigma as the audience wonders what is happening.

As the film will be set in modern times we don’t want to make it look too old fashioned so we will incorporate modern elements, such as modern architecture, fast editing, perhaps some modern music and mise en scene. These more modern elements will appeal to younger audiences.

History

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:40:00 +0000

How far had war changed, progressed or worsened by WW1

World War I was like no other war ever fought in modern warfare, it was ‘the war to end all wars’. The war began July of 1914, 12 years after the end of the Boer War. The first of its kind, WW1 was fought on a massive scale between numerous different countries. Essentially it was fought between two sides; the allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Russia and USA) and the central powers (Germany, Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire).
World War 1 was fought like no other war, on a much larger scale and using different tactics. War had changed since the Crimean and Boer war, tactics used had changed, the conditions had changed, the role of people at home and of politicians had changed but perhaps most importantly the technology had changed and this affected everything.

The 20th Century was the age of new technology. Discoveries were being made that would change the way we live and the way we fought wars. Word War 1 saw the use of much faster and more powerful weaponry, compared to that used in the Crimean and Boer war. For the first time machine guns could be operated by one man and this had a direct effect on the types of tactics used, it put an end to company sized waves of attack. The machine gun was important in World War 1 as it caused a lot of damage to the enemy at a faster rate. New technology made defense much easier and attack much harder. But the introduction of high explosive shells, much more effective than their 19th century counterparts, made it easier to devastate the other side.
At the beginning of World War 1 Germany had the most advanced chemical industry in the world, using this technology they developed weapons which would devastate the other side. The use of chemical warfare was something new and unique to the First World War. It had little effect on the over all outcome of the war, especially after the British developed gas masks to protect themselves, but it did cause a huge amount of suffering, over 1,000,000 casualties. The Germans also developed new technology such as the flamethrower. This had little effect on the battle field, but it did install fear into the British.
Mass production played an important role in the First World War. The American Civil War saw the first use of mass production as an important tactic, but it played an even more important role in the First World War. All sides applied all the force they could to mass produce a large amount of weaponry and ammunition. Munitions factories and their workers, mostly women, played a vital role in producing the weaponry and ammunition needed to beat the other side. In both the Crimean and Boer war, Britain’s industrial strength played a part in their success over the enemy. However, these wars did not rely on mass production. In fact there were often shortages of vital things such as bandages in the Crimean war.
Britain’s Navy also played an important role in the First World War. It was the most powerful navy at the time. The British had many more ships than the Germans, and they were faster and more powerful. The navy wasn’t used as much as was anticipated, however it played a more important role than in both the Crimean and Boer war. In the end it helped to defeat Germany by blockading her sea ports, meaning that little food got through to Germany and so many of the people suffered causing low morale.
A lot of new technology was used during World War 1, but none of it all too effectively. As mentioned earlier, WW1 saw the first use of flame throwers and chemical warfare. But it also saw the use of new vehicle technology such as the tank. The tank proved ineffective because of its tendency to break down, but its use did give both sides a chance to develop it and it would soon prove useful in World War 2. Use of horses was abandoned in the First World War, they were used in the early stages but as most of the war was fought in trenches they were effectively useless. Transportation often involved trains which were able to carry thousands of men, weaponry, ammunitions and other supplies.
Other new technology involved the use of aircraft. The role of aircraft was small compared to that of World War 2, but it did play an important role in gaining information about the enemy lines much as observation balloons were used in the Crimean war. Aircraft could also be used to bomb the enemy.
World War 1 also saw the first use of submarines as a serious weapon of war. They were used by both the German and British to attack merchant ships. Sonar devices and anti-submarine weapons were developed which were used to protect these merchant ships from attack.

Technology did have a large effect on the tactics used during the First World War, much more emphasis was put on a war of attrition. Generals believed that the key to success was to bleed the enemy dry either through their resources or through their men. The battle of Verdun in particular proved to be this sort of a battle, where the Germans hoped to win by killing as many men as possible until they were defeated. Many battles were fought in this way, such as the battle of Somme. Generals hoped that the enemy would give up after days, weeks and months of attack.
But even with the large influence of technology, tactics still remained poor and old fashioned. Battles fought were an ineffectual mix of 20th century technology and 19th century tactics which caused a lot of unnecessary death. Generals failed to adapt their tactics to the technology they had available.
The First World War wasn’t the first to use trench warfare, but it was certainly the most notable for its usage. It was the first and possibly only war to use trench warfare as a major tactic. Conditions in the trenches were terrible and it was hard for either side to make any major advances. The role of attack was made especially difficult in trench warfare, particularly more difficult than defense. Attack involved sending thousands of troops across no mans land, which was littered with mines and barbed wire, to attack the enemy lines. But they often had little effect as they were shot to bits by German artillery. Most often men were ordered to walk across no mans land and not run, which made them even easier targets for the Germans. If any of them did make it across there was little they could do against the trench full of German enemies. But generals thought that the war could be won by numbers and that sending millions of men to their deaths was the best tactic. Similar sorts of tactics were used in the Crimean war, soldiers weren’t given much responsibility or independence until World War 2. Until then they followed strict orders and worked in large groups rather than smaller adaptable units.
The Germans played a largely defensive role in the war, however in the first stages of the war the Germans carried out a planned attack on the allies called the Schlieffen Plan. This involved attacking France from the north in a south-westerly direction, where they were not expecting, and destroying the French army forcing France to defeat. The plan failed due to resistance by the Belgians and Britain’s entry into the war, this delayed Germany and gave France time to send more troops to fight the Germans.

Much of the blame for the poor tactics used is placed on the generals who led the war. The role of general’s hadn’t changed much since the Crimean and Boer war. They still administered commands from a safe distance, from behind the line of action. By World War 1 the army was a slightly less class based organisation but generals were still usually highly educated men from the upper classes of society. It was still very difficult for men to rise through the ranks from private to general.
The term “lions led by donkeys” is a term used to describe the leadership during World War 1 but it was coined during the Crimean war. In both wars decisions were made by generals from a distance and little trust was place in the officers. In the generals defense it could be said that it is better for them to distance themselves from the action. From a distance they can get a better perspective of the battle, they can see the bigger picture. It can also be argued that the generals couldn’t have gotten too attached to their men otherwise they would find it too difficult to do what they must do and send them to their deaths. Also, they had good reason not to trust the officers. Officers were not highly trained and many of them were trained too quickly because they were needed fast to fill the gap caused by large causalities.
But the generals made many mistakes, most often because of their inability to adapt to the situation. They were stubborn and often stuck to a plan no matter what. The Battle of Somme was fought for 4 months using the same tactics. Thousands of men were sent over the top to their deaths in repeated attacks. When problems surfaced the generals failed to adapt, for example when it was discovered that 1/3 shells didn’t explode nothing was done. And there were no alternative plans for when the main plan failed.
Another problem was the poor communication. To be fair to the general’s communication technology was poor and made communication hard. But generals often failed to agree amongst themselves. General Haig and General Rawlinson had conflicting views on how the Battle of Somme should be fought. Haig wanted to go for an all or nothing smash through, but Rawlinson wanted to be more cautious. Haig had very bad people skills and he couldn’t take criticism well. He was often unrealistically optimistic and stubborn.

Leadership – Lions led by donkeys, terrible mistakes, understandable mistakes
Conditions – trench conditions, like public school, gas attacks, atrocities
Home Front – Women, civilian deaths, reaction, economy

Philosophy Essay: Describe and illustrate two reasons for holding mental states are brain states.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:33:00 +0000

The Mind-Brain Identity theory is a materialist philosophy of mind. It argues that mental states are brain states, that all thoughts and feelings can be reduced to neurological activity in the brain. Advocates of this theory distinguish it into three sub-theories; type-type, type-token and token-token identity. A type is an instance of being and a token is a particular instance of type, for example a human being is a type of animal and a particular human being is a token of this type. Proponents of the type-type identity theory argue that certain thoughts (mental states) correspond precisely with certain brain activity (brain states). The type-token identity theory also argues that certain brain states are responsible for certain mental states, but only in the individual. So one person’s mental state does not have to correspond precisely with the same brain state as another person. Finally there is the token-token identity theory, which postulates the idea that each individual thought corresponds only with the individual brain state. The Mind-Brain Identity theory suffers many problems, but there are two main reasons why so many philosophers consider it a valid assertion.
One such reason is the development of technology which now allows us to monitor the brains activities. The MBI theory pre-dates this technology to as far back as the 17th century, but it was not until the arrival of such technology that people began to regard the MBI theory as a philosophically sound idea. It has been evidently clear since the beginning of mankind’s scientific exploration of the body, that any damage inflicted on the brain effects the mind. But up until the mid 20th century, scientists were not able to explain how exactly the brain functioned and how the mind was related to its activity. Now we have a better understanding of the brain than ever before, using technology such as MRI scans and functional magnetic resonance imaging, we can look inside the brain and observe how mental phenomenon correspond with brain activity. Through a series of tests using this technology, scientists are able to see how certain actions and thoughts correspond with certain neurological activity in the brain. For example, they can ask a subject to lift her arm and observe neurological activity in the same area of the brain each time she is asked to lift her arm. This clearly suggests a link between mental states and brain states and although our knowledge of the brain and how it works is very limited, these discoveries give the materialist a firm ground to stand on.
Another reason to suppose that mental states are brain states is that it provides a simplified solution to the problem of mind. The MBI theory strips the mind down to its bare essentials. It argues that there is the object, the sensual input of the object and the neural activity of the brain. All can be explained in terms of observable physical phenomenon. There is an apple, light is reflected from the apple and enters my eyes and my brain processes this information. The thought of the apple itself is the brain processing the information. There is no need to elaborate as there is with dualism, functionalism or behaviourism; the mind and brain are identical. The MBI theory removes the subjective experience of thought, thought is simply a physical mechanism of the brain. Many would disagree with this, arguing that it is self evident that we are subjectively experiencing thought. It seems so apparent that we experience our thoughts, often in a sort of inner monologue, but by removing the subjective experience of thought the MBI theory simplifies the problem of mind. By bringing the mind to a purely physical level we are able to easily explain mental causation and look at the mind in relevance to the physical world without the need for frivolous explanations required by some other theories of the mind.

Democrats save the day.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:57:00 +0000

Marvelous news, the less conservative group of lying scum is taking charge of old Capitol Hill. Things will be different now, starvation and suffering will end, AIDS will disappear, a cure for cancer will be found, North Korea will disarm itself and the earth's atmosphere will miraculously revert to a healthy pre-industrial era. Hurrah for the Democrats!
Don't kid yourselves, this is America we are talking about. Don't get me wrong, any move to the left is a good one... but it really means very little, even if the democrats managed to maintain power, dumb yanks will soon forget about the war in Iraq and all that its costing them and revert back to conservative republican bullshit.
Humankind seems to have a propensity towards the illogical crap. People don't vote based on logic, they just vote for which ever one is promising to attend to their fears and angers. Not enough people are getting really angry about global warming to vote based on it, "Gay marriage?!? Not on my watch." There's a vote for which ever party doesnt agree with gay marriage. You wouldve thought people would be angry about the personal things, which effect them. But no, apparently the idea of homosexual people, who they have never met, who they will probably never meet and who they believe are sinners, getting married is something to get worked up about... rather than the state of our planet or that fact that the worlds most powerful country is run by a complete idiot.
Thats the problem with democracy, people are selfish ignorant bastards. Its not so much the selfish aspect, everyone is selfish, as it is the ignorance. The ignorance of religion, the ignorance of morality, the ignorance of what really matters.

Standing against poverty, the hypocrisy.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:00:00 +0000

Apparently I took part in a world record attempt today. No amazing feat was performed; I simply stood up alongside my fellow philosophy students in what was supposed to be a worldwide stand against poverty. That minute silence of standing smelt so badly of hypocrisy. We, the capitalist nation, were standing against the very fuel of our lifestyle. For without poverty, without the disadvantaged, the poor and working class, we would have none of this which we hold so little value in. I can see the sentiment; people want to put an end to suffering. But the ignorance of the masses permits them to realise that without this suffering capitalism would not work and it is capitalism that they rely on and in most cases support.
Being anti-capitalist, I stood against poverty as I stand against capitalism and the struggle for power. And I was not alone, as I observed the most fitting t-shirt "Make Capitalism History". But the majority knew not of the hypocrisy. Stand against poverty, stand against capitalism.

Anarchy: What is justice?

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:18:00 +0000

Retribution, revenge, punishment, righteousness, law. What is justice? The term itself is ambiguous, it could refer to the system of law we currently adopt or the righteous actions of an individual, but the meaning most would equate with the word justice is a sense of retribution. When justice has been served the people are happy. I think we take the concept of justice for granted, when you consider the actual purpose of justice you will discover that it is little more than an appeaser to the public.
Our whole law system is based upon the concept of justice (among other things), when wrong is done we feel the need to punish who ever is responsible. But nobody actually considers why we feel this need; it’s just an innate feeling. Perhaps it is born out of social conventions or perhaps it is innate in the mind, but that is besides the point and an issue for sociologists and psychologists to discuss. The point is, there is no logical reasoning behind justice. I suppose you could argue that it serves an evolutionary purpose, that we instinctively feel the urge to punish those who do evil to prevent them from doing so. And you could argue that without justice we would just allow everyone to do evil because we wouldn’t care. This simply isn’t true; I think we would do better without this sense of justice that breeds hate of the worst kind. We would still be aware of the dangers people present and we would be able to prevent them without this sense of justice. Justice only leads to hatred and the unnecessary ending of life.
Think about the reasons we prison people, to some extent it does deter people from criminal acts but not enough to act as an excuse and their punishment does not in anyway reform them. Rehabilitation is usually a separate process and one that we should value as important, but I will discuss that later. The exclusive reason we prison people, why we have such crowded prisons, is so that the victims and all those effected by this persons actions can feel just a little bit better now that justice has been done. It seems ridiculous to me, to take away a mans liberties, to take away his life just to appease the public. Punishing this man won’t heal the scars that he caused, the victims might tell you that "his punishment has helped me get through the pain" but deep down inside they are still suffering from what he did. I can see you all now jumping out of your seats "but that’s why he deserves to be punished, because he caused them suffering!!" And there it is again, justice. No practicality at all. Taking justice as a kind of instinctive reaction and emotion, there are many emotions such as justice that are not practical. Anger, depression, frustration, impatience, we let these emotions pass without little effect and if they do begin to have an effect (as does anger) we rely on self control or those around us to prevent these emotions from getting out of control. This is how we should treat justice, but instead we base our whole society around the concept, around this useless instinct.
For those of you who are still unconvinced, who believe that justice does serve some kind of purpose, consider this; it doesn’t matter who is punished for which crime, just as long as those seeking justice believe that the man being punished is the one responsible. It does not actually matter whether or not he committed the crime, if justice served any other purpose other than to appease the public, then it would greatly matter whether or not this man had committed the crime. But it does not.
If you are still not satisfied, you have two choices;

1) Call on God, it’s a weak cop out but convenient if you already believe in the impossible being, although I personally wouldn’t really consider this a choice at all given Gods impossibility.
2) Convince me why appeasing the public, with justice, is important and practical.

I can understand why justice might help the victims and those effected, but I see no sense in taking away a mans freedom just for this one reason, and there aren’t many other reasons that can’t be supplemented by rehabilitation.
I suspect some of you have jumped to conclusions and assumed that I am without morals, that because I don’t believe a murderer or rapist should be locked away for years just for the sake of justice, I believe that murder and rape are neither good nor evil. WRONG. Justice is based on the effects of actions, if someone’s actions have a negative effect on someone else, justice is sought after. Morals are also based on effects of actions, incest is immoral because it causes psychological damage and damaged children (of pregnancy occurs). Would incest be immoral if no damage (physical, psychological or otherwise) was caused? It’s debatable, but I think not. It’s that it is damaging that makes it immoral; these negative effects are what make’s things immoral. Justice has no effect on morals, it is related to morals in that it is based on them, but morals are not dependent on justice.
So all said and done, there is no practical use for justice other than to appease the victim which, as I have argued, is not justification enough for the severe punishment of any individual. I suspect many of you will be inclined to disagree based on this innate feeling that when people do wrong they must be punished. I’m human too, I have that innate feeling and I sometimes act on it to get revenge. But its just an emotion, emotions play tricks on us, they are not a favourable thing to base our society on. We must prevent this emotion from being carried out in favour of taking a more practical route to dealing with criminals. We help them, rehabilitate them and do whatever we can so that they no longer pose a threat to society. Justice serves no purpose in this process.

Philosophy Essay: Assess how, if mind and body are taken to be different substances, mental events can cause physical events.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:34:00 +0000

Earlier I looked at two problems facing substance dualism, a philosophy which purports the existence of two separate substances, mind and body. In this essay I will be focusing on the problem faced by substance dualism concerning the mind-body connection.
Descartes clearly argues for the existence of two separate substances, he explains in some detail the nature of the mind and body. He argues that there are three distinct differences between mind and body; mind is indivisible, it cannot be divided, whilst the body clearly can. The mind is un-extended, it does not assume any spatial existence, where as the body clearly does. Finally, the mind is a thinking substance whilst the body is not. Of course these are disputable differences that most materialists would have a problem with. But in context with the dualist concept of mind, these differences are agreeable.
Descartes arrived at his dualist beliefs through his search for the ultimate truth. As his most famous cogito argument goes: I think therefore I am. Because my senses often deceive me I can doubt that my body exists, but I cannot doubt that my mind exists since doubting is an action of the mind. From this Descartes concludes that the mind is all we can know exists, but his believes do not lead to idealism, he still supposes that the body exists but that mind and body must be two separate substances.
The most obvious question, posed on the lips of every sceptical recipient of Descartes’ theory, is; how exactly can the mental can have an effect on the physical and vice versa? Descartes replies in dismissal:

“These questions presuppose amongst other things an explanation of the union between the soul and the body, which I have not yet dealt with at all. But I will say, for your benefit at least, that the whole problem contained in such questions arises simply from a supposition that is false and cannot in any way be proved, namely that, if the soul and the body are two substances whose nature is different, this prevents them from being able to act on each other.”

He first dismisses this criticism as one that presupposes that there is indeed a direct connection between the mind and body and that it would be such an extraordinary event for one substance to affect a completely different one. In the study of science we are constantly dividing things in to different substances, energy and matter for example, and we see that each has an effect on the other. So why, Descartes argues, is it so hard for us to comprehend that mind and body (two separate substances) can so easily effect one another. But I am of the belief that there is only one true substance and that the diversity that we see around is a result of different arrangements of this one single substance, this substance could simply be energy and most scientists do believe that everything consists of energy. I don’t believe the union of the mind and body would be a particularly extraordinary event, if only there was an observable link. But clearly there isn’t so we cannot assume that there is a link, Descartes is wrong in doing so.
However, he did argue further from his principal of causation that the less real cannot cause the existence of something more real. Something more real cannot come from something less real. Infinite substances are the most real since they do not require anything more real to create them, followed by finite substances and then modes, which are the “particular appearance, form, or manner in which an underlying substance, or a permanent aspect or attribute of it, is manifested.” Descartes argued that the mind and body are both finite substances that cause modes to occur in other finite substances therefore no contact or motion is required for a connection. But it is unclear what he means by the terms infinite substance, finite substance and mode. He proposes God as an example of an infinite substance, but in my opinion there is only one substance and it is infinite. There is no such thing as a finite substance; things as we perceive them are always changing, coming in and out of existence. But substance never comes in our out of existence, it moves but it always exists.

Descartes eventually conceded to the idea that there must be a solid connection between mind and body; he attempted to explain this connection with a most unsatisfactory explanation of a causally interactive mechanism. He contended that ‘animal spirits’ received physical information and then stimulate the pineal gland in the brain (it being the most central component of the brain, neither left nor right) which then causes our thoughts, this is a two way interaction as the animal spirits are effected by the pineal gland. A most sophisticated explanation of the nervous system for Descartes’ time, but the problem with this theory, putting aside the ridiculous image of animal spirits stimulating the pineal gland, is that it unnecessarily reduces the mind-body connection without actually explaining it or how it happens. To be fair to Descartes, he probably did not literally mean animal spirits, these could represent something physical in the body (if not then we are faced with the very confusing preposition that these non-physical things, animal spirits, are effecting the physical to effect the mental which then effects these non-physical things which in turn effects the physical). If he did mean that they were physical, we are still faced with the same problem. He does not give any sort of explanation as to how this mind-body connection occurs. He has to resort to his earlier unfavourable argument, that such a connection is possible.
Considering only Descartes’ theories, it appears to me that there is no explanation for the mind-body connection and that there may not even be a connection. Successors to Descartes, Malbranche and Leibniz, have both formulated theories in reply to the criticism of the mind-body connection. Both attempt to misspell the belief that the mind and body are connected, but instead supply explanations as to how they co-exist.
Malbranche supposed that God represented the connection, that he caused the thought and then the action. Despite the obvious flaw that comes with any argument supported by the unstable belief in God, Malbranche’s occasionalism means that we have no free will, it also acts as an example of Gods divine intervention and poses the question “why does he allow evil?” Occasionalism ultimately supposes that we are all just an extension of God that we are God and God is us. A theory that relies on the existence of God and yet in doing so refutes it is one not to be considered valid in any way.
Leibniz argued that the body and mind were parallel, like two watches set at the same time running parallel. The actions of the mind and body are not related besides the fact that they appear to happen at the same time. Leibniz’s parallelism also relies on God, who he supposes was the one who as it were set the watches, in other words coordinated the mind and actions as to be parallel. But of course, as of occasionalism, parallelism relies on God and yet refutes his existence by denying free will. Both theories have little validity.
As for Descartes followers, they are still faced with explaining the connection between mind and body if they are to persuade anyone that they are indeed two separate substances.

Marked Grade: A

The impossible God, a slave to logic and morality.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:31:00 +0000

There are a 101 reasons why the very concept of a Christian God is impossible. There is a mere chance that some sort of God like creature exists, but firstly we have no proof and secondly it would not be perfect, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent or any of the other qualities we give God. Im sure in context with our own miniscule minds it would seem perfect, omniscient and omnipotent but realisticaly such concepts cannot exist outside of the mind.
I want to focus on one specific impossibility of God, that he is indeed a slave of logic. Would this all powerful God be able to change how logic works? Would he be able to decide that 2+2=5 and not 4? I dont think theists quite consider the implications of an all powerful creator. Omnipotence allows the ability to change ANYTHING and yet most of us would agree that that would be quite a ludicrous thing to happen and if you dont feel this way consider that an omnipotent being could change the whole way logic works, for the better and yet he doesnt. He could make pain good, hate good, he could make it so that hypocrasy was a celebrated virtue. And talking of virtues that brings me to another issue, why can God not change what is good and evil? It seems to me that what is good and evil simply is and that God had no choice in what was or was not. Can we say that God decided what was and wasnt evil? What did he base these morals on? If God is able to create his own morals then I dont see why we cant create our own, therefore the theist claim that we need religion to base our morals on is clearly false. But obviously God cannot just create morals out of nowhere, we base our morals on the positive or negative effects of actions. We choose not to murder because murdering would have a bad effect on us and society. Logic and the nature of everything and its existence is determining what is good and what is bad and God obviously cannot change this logic, otherwise he would have... for the better.
There is of course an easy cop out: God is beyond our own minds. There is a greater reason for all that he does, we just dont understand it. Well what use is that? Why does he give us these logical reasoning minds and then damn us to eternal suffering when we actually use them? Why? Because this 'impossible being' does not exist.

Philosophy Essay: Describe and illustrate 2 problems facing substance dualism

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:56:00 +0000

Substance dualism is the philosophical theory that contends the existence of two fundamental substances, mind and matter. The most famed proponent of this theory is the French philosopher René Descartes. From his cogito argument, which claimed that all we could know was that we had a mind, he concluded that the mind and body must be separate.
Descartes highlighted 3 essential differences between the mind and body. He argued that the body was divisible and extended where as the mind was not; basically he believed that the body was spatial and the mind was not. You cannot cut the mind in half; it is not quantitative such as the body. He also contended that the mind was a thinking thing whilst the body was not.

The first and foremost problem facing any substance dualist, is how exactly the non-spatial and immaterial mind has an effect on the spatial and material body. It is clear that the mind and body are connected in some way as when I see something the thought of it enters my mind, but how exactly the immaterial can have any sort of effect on the material (and vies versa) is unimaginable. Having said that, Descartes believed that there was a two way connection between the mind and body, but his explanation for how they connect is far from satisfactory, involving a system of ‘animal spirits’ who stimulate the pineal gland in the brain thus having an effect on the mind. Whilst providing a sophisticated (for his time) model of the nervous system, Descartes still fails to clearly illustrate the essential connection between mind and body. There is no visible link between them. It seems a bit of a leap to me, to assume that the mind and body are connected after declaring that all we can know is that we have a mind. If this be the case, then it is wrong of Descartes to assume this connection because having a body and there being a connection between it and the mind is not a predicate of having a mind.

Descartes believed that mind and body were essential to each other, just like a car and its fuel are. Without the fuel, the car is going nowhere and without the car the fuel is serving no purpose. He supposed that the body was what allowed the mind to function, but not exist. The mind could exist independently, but not function within this reality without the body. From this, one would assume that any being with a body could possess a mind. But on the contrary, Descartes contended that though animals did have the necessary bodily organs with which to think, they did not in fact have minds. He argued that their actions could be reduced to physical phenomenon and nothing of the mind could be observed in them. What they lacked that humans had, he argued, was language. Several criticisms are raised centred around this belief. One prime criticism is raised when one considers the theory of evolution. Evolution proposes that transmutation occurs in species, this is the altering of one species into another. Founder of this theory, Charles Darwin, proposed that the human race evolved from apes. This means that at one point in our natural history, we were what most would consider animals. This means that according to Descartes we were once without mind. This then poses the vital question, when and how did we acquire a mind? Descartes was well before Darwin, so he was never faced with this problem himself. He most likely held a creationist point of view and even if he did believe in evolution he would account for the acquisition of mind using God. But in our modern society backed by scientific proofs, the theory of evolution poses a great threat to Descartes theory of mindless animals that a God based cop out cannot avoid.

Marked Grade: A

Anarchy: The extent of our rights.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:14:00 +0000

Effectively arguing for such an extreme political ideology as anarchy requires a book length of arguments. Perhaps one day I will publish my beliefs, but until then you will all have to do with a series of blog posts, the first of which will face the issue of our own rights.

When considering anarchy as a feasible form of government, one must first consider the extent of our own rights over others. Anarchy is a political position which deeply resents the unequal power of one human over another. But, as I argued earlier, there are certain situations when we are given the right to assume power over another human. Such situations arise when a particular human is threatening our freedom and there is no other way to prevent this other than restricting this person’s freedom. Here I mean freedom in its broadest sense, for example; killing someone would be taking away their freedom to live and damaging them physically could possibly be taking away their freedom to move around easily (depending on how you damage them). You could be really petty and say that any action that a human takes is taking away someone’s freedom, for example; you could say that me speaking to you is taking away your freedom to not be spoken to. But that is quite obviously a ridiculous objection. These kinds of freedoms having nothing to do with the welfare of a human, my interest in freedom is rooted in the belief that it is something that will aid our survival and development as a species and of course that it is something we all deserve.
As some have you may have observed, the law takes upon itself to restrict others freedoms in the attempt to protect mankind’s freedom, much as I have just argued is acceptable. So why am I against the law? The law attempts to end ALL threat of an individual's restriction of certain freedoms by another. The law itself is a hypocrisy, it seeks to allow freedom by taking it away. The kinds of freedoms the law allows are freedoms that firstly it cannot get away with taking and secondly that will benefit it. If the law could get away with taking away all of our freedoms, besides the ones that it needs to allow us for its own benefit i.e. freedom of life, then I’m sure it would. When I argued that we are given the right to restrict another human’s freedom when our own freedoms are threatened, I meant this in an immediate sense. If somebody comes at me wielding a knife, I am not going to simply declare "you have a freedom to kill me, go ahead". I will take it upon myself to restrict their freedom until the threat is ended. If an organised group of fascist racists who have made it their mission to wipe out a whole race of people and threaten to invade my country and have already invaded others, I will not stand against any attempt to end this immediate threat.
In case any of you were confused about what an immediate threat was, it is not so black and white as to be able to easily declare one person or group of people an immediate threat and another not. A murderous psychopath who has killed, who is mentally disturbed and who it is shown is most likely to kill again, poses an immediate threat and therefore must have his or her freedoms restricted as is necessary to end this immediate threat. A father and husband who murdered his wife after she found out she was having an affair, does not by any means pose an immediate threat to others freedoms. So locking this man up is not necessary, providing him help and rehabilitation is what is needed. Similarly, if it is possible to in a sense "cure" the murderous psychopath so that he no longer poses a threat to others freedoms (which may or may not be possible) then it would be no longer necessary to restrict his freedoms. This system takes for granted that justice is not required, the only reason for this system is for the protection of freedom.
I am against law because it unnecessarily enforces itself upon others, restricting their freedoms when they pose no immediate threat to others freedoms. The illegalisation of drugs is an example of this unnecessary restriction of our freedoms. By taking drugs I am not posing an immediate threat to another’s freedoms, I may well pose my self as a threat if I chose to drive whilst using these drugs. But I am still not an immediate threat, the laws attempt to restrict my freedoms to take drugs and drive is not going to effectively end the threat.
We have no right over another human’s freedom unless it is in the interest of protecting our own freedoms when they are threatened by an immediate threat. The law is a system that serves to uphold itself in support of the government who has no interest in protecting its people or its people’s freedom other than to serve itself. This is why although I believe in certain cases we are given the right to restrict others freedoms, I do not believe in the law.

The Insane Woman

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:32:00 +0000

Many have you may have already seen these clips on YouTube, both from Fox News and both on the same topic. A Christian God loving woman and her followers (mostly family) have appeared on the news after interrupting several military funerals with protests holding signs such as "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Aids". Most people who hear of this are quite rightly disgusted. The conservative right wing media organisation that is Fox, is clearly attempting to give the perceived effect that they aren't THAT conservative by bringing on this clearly deranged woman.

The sad thing is, if all Christians actually believed in the Bible 100% and if they all followed it strictly, which even this insane woman does not appear to, they too would support this woman. The Bible is full of contradictions, in one verse it suggests that we should kill homosexuals, in another it suggests that we should love our neighbor's that we should reserve love for all of Gods creations and that we should have forgiveness for those who sin. It is logically impossible to follow the Bible as if it was all Gods word, 100% true. The American nation is so blinded to the evil contained in the Bible that they condemn this woman who is clearly following the book as though it was "Gods word".

Philosophy Essay: Evaluate Hume’s theory of personal identity

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:46:00 +0000

After rejecting both the physical and psychological continuity theories and the non-reductive theory (presented by Butler and Reid) as a practical solution to the problem of personal identity, it seems I must now approach the last theory; that of empiricist philosopher David Hume.
As with all theories relating to the problem of personal identity, Hume’s is defined by his personal understanding of identity, which is not all too disagreeable. He states that for something to maintain an identity, it must remain exactly the same. And for anyone to know that something is exactly the same, they must maintain an uninterrupted view of it. Hume’s understanding of identity is not perfect by any means, but it is hard to dispute when most philosophers would agree that identity relies on continuity. If one does not maintain an uninterrupted view of a certain object, then one cannot be sure that whist their view of the object was interrupted someone removed the object and replaced it with an identical version. Hume’s theory quite satisfyingly compensates for this problem. But what it does not compensate for, is that things are ever changing. Change is the essence of time; no single object ever remains the same. This makes the idea of identity impossible. Most would conclude from this that Hume’s understanding of identity was wrong, but Hume stands firm by his definition of identity and instead concludes from it that identity doesn’t exist at all, that identity is but an illusion.
After asserting such a seemingly profound belief, Hume attempts to corroborate his own theory. It is quite often referred to as the bundle theory because as Hume puts it himself:

“I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux of movement.”

Hume applies this bundle theory to objects as well as mankind; he believes that all objects are just a collection of their properties. So an apple, for example, is just a collection of its properties which could be sweet taste, red colour, round shape, crunchy texture etc. The human mind then, is a collection of its own properties, thoughts, experiences etc. But where personal identity comes into this bundle of thoughts and experiences, Hume cannot explain. This is one major criticism of the bundle theory. If we are just bundles of experiences then what distinguishes one bundle of experiences from another? Why am I not experiencing what someone else is? The problem with this question is quite obviously that I am assuming that identity does exist. But what this question is really getting at, is that there must be something that these bundle of experiences belong to. Just as the properties require an object, the experiences require someone to experience them.

Hume claims that the mind is like a theatre in which a number of perceptions successively appear. This analogy immediately collapses as it is clear that any theatre of perceptions needs an audience to be defined as a theatre. What Hume was trying to assert, was that one can never perceive self. Whenever attempting to confirm self, one always comes upon perceptions. The mind can never experience anything other than these perceptions; love, hate, anger, taste, touch etc. We can never perceive self, itself.
Whilst a valid assertion, this does not mean that self does not exist. As Kant argues, it is something we just cannot perceive. Kant believed in two worlds, the world of phenomenon (of properties that we could perceive) and the world of noumenon (of things as they are in themselves that we cannot perceive). Kant put forth that identity must be of the noumenon world, if we could not perceive it.

Still assuming that identity does not exist, Hume is faced with the problem of explaining why exactly we place identity upon objects. He produces a quite fitting explanation for this, arguing that contiguity (proximity, whether in time or space), resemblance and causation in certain objects create this illusion of identity. If any of these properties can be perceived in changing things, then these things are deemed identical and given identity. This is a satisfying explanation for our assumption of identity. A ship is considered the same ship, even if all its parts are replaced gradually, because it resembles the original ship and because it is contiguous.
When concerning personal identity and the mind itself, Hume quite rightly omits the need for contiguity, instead looking to resemblance and causation. Hume argues that resemblance can be seen in the mind through memory. Memory, he argues, is but a faculty which raises awareness of previous perceptions. These perceptions resemble their objects and as they are placed in the chain of thought it is made easier to link one perception to another (due to their resemblance) and thus conclude that the collection of these perceptions is one continues object. So basically, the similarity in perceptions of an object at one point in time and at another point in time makes it apparent to us that the object is the same.
Furthermore, Hume argues that causation can be clearly seen in the mind. He divides thought into two types, impressions and ideas. Impressions are the vivid and lively perceptions of actual objects and experiences. Ideas are the less vivid imaginations, constructed using the impressions. I don’t personally find that there is anything objectionable about this theory of mind. As Hume argues, it is not possible to imagine anything without using your experiences. Every story, every character ever imagine, has been based on the authors impressions. If I was to think of any imaginary creature, however obscure it was I would be able to relate every feature of it to an existing creature or object.
Hume points out that just as impressions give rise to ideas; ideas can also give rise to impressions. This means that the mind is connected by a constant pattern cause and effect; this is why we assume identity. Once again, the mind is reliant on memory for this sense of identity. Because without memory we would not have a notion of this cause and effect pattern that leads us to assume identity.

Hardly satisfied with his own theory of identity, Hume concludes that the problem of personal identity is down to grammatical rather than philosophical difficulties and that perhaps one day he will discover the true meaning of identity.
Clearly, identity does exist, Hume cannot refute the earlier objections made against his theory. Whilst failing to provide an adequate theory of personal identity, Hume does manage to avoid the pit falls met by the various other theories. Psychological continuity failed due to the fact that memory is a faulty faculty, physical continuity failed due to the simple fact that despite physical change we still consider ourselves our self, the non-reductive theory assumes the position of substance dualism which is a highly flawed position in my opinion. But Hume does not do well to avoid these problems by concluding that identity must not exist at all. Hume was right when he said that we cannot perceive self, itself. But it seems more sensible to settle for Kant’s explanation of an unperceivable identity than to assume that identity doesn’t exist.
I myself cannot see why Hume’s explanation for why we assume identity can not applied to support the existence of identity. Surely that is what identity is, the conscious perception by yourself and others of a contiguity, resemblance and causation in objects and people. If these properties can be observed in me, by myself or others, then surely I can be said to be the same person.

Marked Grade: A

Welcome to Earth. Population: 6,528,051,823 morons.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:33:00 +0000

In a world populated with morons, it seems like I am the only sane one alive. Oh what arrogance exceeds from this ignorant young rascal. You bet I’m arrogant, until somebody actually comes up with at least one valid argument against some of my strongest beliefs, then I will just have to assume that I am correct and you are all wrong. Now I admit that my belief in anarchism is subject to some minor criticisms. But my deterministic, materialistic and atheist beliefs are unshakable. I don’t mean this quite literally, but in my experience no one has been able to destroy them.
But, for some reason, my beliefs are deemed the ridiculous ones. As I explained earlier, bad philosophy comes of wishful thinking and it seems that people would rather live in their happy little world of lies and ignorance than face the facts staring them in the face. I don’t believe that everybody is consciously ignoring the truth; I think perhaps some people are driven to ignorance by a subconscious desire to abandon the somewhat bleak truth. I’m sure you’ve all heard of the old "it all makes logical sense, but something doesn’t feel right" argument. Pathetic, if I find that something doesn’t feel right then I probe the theory until I find out exactly what is wrong with it. Somebody tried to argue why epiphenomalism (the belief that the physical can effect the mind but the mind cannot effect the physical) is wrong by comparing it to solipsism (the belief that only our own mind exists because we cannot prove that anyone else’s does). He proposed that both were logically consistent but both did not quite settle right with him. Solipsism doesn’t settle right with me either. It is not logically consistent, although it would seem so. We can’t prove that any other mind apart from our own does exist. But, let’s suppose there is only one apple tree and that we cannot prove the existence of any other apple trees. The nature of this apple tree supposes that it is possible for more than one to exist. Similarly, the solipsist theory does not account for why only one mind exists. The solipsist theory does not argue why other brains cannot exist. If it is possible for other brains to exist, then it is most likely and highly probable that they do exist. You may well be thinking at this point "in that case, anything that has a possibility to exist must exist". And you’d be right. If it is possible for two of me to exist at the same time (which it is not since I occupy one set of dimensions that only I can occupy at any one given time) then that would definitely be the case. In this infinitely large and eternal universe, anything that can happen has, does and will. It is quite obviously difficult to tell what is and isn’t possible but in most cases you can use common sense and logic. Nothing in the solipsist argument says that another mind cannot exist; it simply argues that we cannot know that another mind exists, which empirically speaking we cannot. But from the above argument, it is easy to deduce that other minds do exist, since of course it is possible for them to.
I’m not unaware that I have gone on a bit of a tangent here, but the point remains. You cannot rely on that particular feeling that something is wrong with a theory, if you feel something is wrong then you find out what is specifically wrong as I did with solipsism.
I do not and never will respect beliefs that oppose my own. Outrageous you say? Might as well be a fascist you say? Before you open your big mouth and shoot me down, let me explain. People put a lot of emphasis on respecting others beliefs. Respect is important, no question about that. Without respect for one another, other living things and the environment in general society would not function well at all, which evidently due to lack of this respect society is currently not. But not respecting somebody else’s belief does not encompass disrespecting them. Being a determinist, I have the unique advantage of being able to accept that we are all just human, that we don’t even choose what we believe. With this deterministic belief comes a respect for mankind, sympathy for the ignorant. If I was to actually believe that evil people existed, that people who chose evil did actually exist then I would sooner find myself hating humanity.
So it is not that I disrespect mankind for their beliefs, which they of course cannot help having, it is that I disrespect the beliefs themselves. Neither do I disrespect people’s rights to have those beliefs or take action on them. They all have a right, being an anarchist I am not going to say "you cannot do that". I am free to disagree to put across my opinion of how moronic their beliefs are and how awful their actions are and how if I could I would wish the end of them. BUT I do not have the right to restrict the rights of another human being unless they pose an immediate threat to somebody else’s rights. So WW2 was justified for its prevention of the Nazi regime, one that hoped to destroy the rights of a race of people. When our own or somebody else’s rights and freedoms are threatened, we are given the right to put an end to their actions. Only then, in the interest of protecting freedom and liberty, are we given the right over another human being.
There are a lot of points that I would like to make on this subject as I am sure a lot of you are thinking "you are against law and yet you believe it is acceptable for people to restrict others freedoms if they pose a threat to someone else's freedoms. Isn’t that essentially what law is for, the protection of freedoms?” But I would like to leave this point for another post, this is not a cop out I assure you. This and other criticisms of my anarchist beliefs will be returned to in the near future.
After my second tangent, the point STILL remains. The vast majority of mankind is moronic, they cannot help it and I do not disrespect them for it. But until our minds evolve out of these primitive belief systems such as dualism and theism, we will never reach our full intellectual potential.

Philosophy Essay: Evaluate psychological continuity as the criterion of personal identity

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:36:00 +0000

What is identity? What makes you the same person you were five years ago? Assuming that identity even exists, which Hume does not, there is a choice in theories between that of physical continuity and that of psychological continuity. Continuity is essential for identity, there has to be something continuous in us all that keeps us the same person.
Physical continuity, as a criterion for identity, assumes that our identity is based on the fact that we are physically the same. So I am the same person I was 5 years ago because I look similar, I have the same genetics and because I am basically physically the same. But there are many problems with this theory of personal identity.
First of all, the atoms that made me up 5 years ago are probably floating around in space right now. Atoms are constantly entering and exiting our bodies so that we are never made of the exact same atoms we once were.
Secondly, we are constantly changing and growing. I’m taller than I was 5 years ago, which makes me physically different. My facial features may have changed, but this doesn’t make me a different person. You would still consider me the same person I was 5 years ago.
Furthermore, if I was to have my brain transplanted into another body I would be completely different physically. But most would still consider me the same person.
In response to the problems presented by physical continuity, philosopher John Locke argued that physical continuity is not a criterion for identity at all. Rather, it is psychological continuity that identity relies on. Psychological continuity is related to our consciousness and memory, which is often why people refer to Locke’s theory as the memory theory (much to his disdain).
Locke’s definition of a person was as so:

“a person is a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it; it being impossible for anyone to perceive without perceiving that he does perceive.”

He asserts that if we are conscious of ourselves existing, if we are aware of our actions both past and present, then we can claim to be the same person at any given place or time. If I can remember existing 5 years ago, then I am the same person now as I was then.
The fact that Locke avoids the problems of the physical continuity theory of identity is surely a merit to his own theory. As demonstrated earlier, there are too many problems associated with the idea of physical continuity as a criterion for identity. If we are to presume that identity exists at all, we must consider another theory of continuity; that which is aptly provided by Locke.

However, Locke’s theory is not without its own set of problems. If we are to rely on consciousness, memory being a facet of consciousness, then we must consider the problems related to memory and how they effect Locke’s assertion.
Memory is not perfect; it is often in fact faulty. I’m sure we can all recall times when we have forgotten somebody’s name or even forgotten how to spell a simple word. As age increases our ability to remember even the simplest of things can greatly decrease. If we are to rely on memory as a criterion for personal identity, then surely we must be able to remember everything correctly. But we don’t, sometimes we have false memories of things that never happened to us and sometimes we just plain forget. According to Locke’s theory, if I don’t remember being a foetus in my mother’s womb, then I never existed as a foetus at all. But it is clear from evidence presented (prenatal scans etc) that I did exist as a foetus. These gaps in our memory do not serve to prove that we did not exist, I’m sure that Locke would have agreed that I did exist as a foetus. But his theory of identity does not account for these gaps in memory.
Neither does it account for the fact that memory is not transitive. Transitivity is the idea that if A=B and B=C then A=C. But as the ‘Brave Soldier’ story goes, memory is proven not transitive. The story goes as follows: there is a young boy who is beaten for stealing apples. He grows up into a man and joins the army, he fights bravely and becomes and officer. He reflects on the time he was beaten for stealing apples. He then grows older and becomes a general. The general can remember once being a brave officer fighting in the war, but he does not remember being the boy that was beaten for apples.
The importance of memory being non-transitive is that we cannot rely on memory as a criterion for identity if we cannot recall past events either directly or through other memories.
Another problem with memory is that it is not chronological. What if the general grew into the senile general and the senile general remembered being a boy but never a brave officer? This can and does happen to the old and senile. Once again, this illustrates that memory cannot be relied upon for identity.
Butler and Reid, of the Scottish ‘common sense’ school of philosophy, both argued against Locke’s theory. They believed that personal identity was based on one unchanging and unique quality in every person, which could be called the soul. They asserted that although memory may confirm identity, it certainly is not a criterion for it. As demonstrated by the ‘Stolen Horse’ story; if my horse is stolen and I find a horse that looks like my horse, the fact that it is my horse has nothing to do with the fact that it looks like my horse. But rather, the fact that it looks like my horse is because it is my horse.
Put simply, if I remember doing a thing. It is not because I remember it that I did it; it is because I did it that I remember it.

But Locke would argue that all these criticisms come of a misunderstanding of his original theory. He would never have wanted to say that our actions are caused by memory or that we must have a complete memory of every single moment of our existence to confirm that we have indeed existed for such a length of time. Instead, he proposed that if at one point in our existence we could remember another moment of existence and if all these memories were linked, then we could claim to be the same person. So for example, if I remember what I did on Monday but not on Sunday then I would still be able to claim to be the same person if on Monday I remembered what I did on Sunday. As long as all of your memories are linked in this way then you can claim to have existed as the same person you are now, according to Locke.
But I am not fully satisfied with this argument because even if at some point I did have access to memories of my existence at a certain place and time, I cannot access them now. I cannot know if my memories are at all linked and this response does not account for the faultiness of memory. Is somebody with an extreme case of memory loss without identity? I wouldn’t say he was, perhaps Locke would.
Locke’s theory of psychological continuity as a criterion for identity is certainly more sensible than that of physical continuity or of Butler and Reid’s theories. But it still doesn’t satisfy me.

Marked Grade: A/B

Philosophy Essay: What is mind?

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:06:00 +0000

A question that has been pondered for centuries; what exactly is the mind? Its something we often take for granted, the mind and the thoughts it produces. If you ask anyone to describe their own thoughts or thought processes, they will most likely find it a difficult task. Our own thoughts are deeply personal, something only ever experienced by ourselves.
Is the mind physical or is it on a different plane of existence? One thing is for sure, perception is not physical. My perception of a rock is not a physical entity. The rock itself exists physically, but my perception does not. In my opinion, perception is the only thing proven to exist which is not physical. Perception is simply the viewing and perceiving of the physical world. It does not have direct contact with the physical world and nobody is trying to say it needs to, unlike the mind. For anyone to make a valid claim that the mind is separate from the body, that it is not physical and yet it has an effect on the physical, they must effectively argue how they believe the mental can have a connection with the physical. How exactly can something on one plane of existence effect something on another plane of existence?
There is no proof to suggest that a mind separate from the body even exists. That monism is disagreeable for its apparently “bleak” outlook on life, seems to me the only reason why people strive to argue for dualism. What we do have knowledge of (if somewhat limited at present) is the way the brain functions. Scientists have shown how the brain works via a series of chemical and neurological reactions. One could be sceptical of this particular theory, as one could be with any theory. But I see no reason to doubt the theory provided and the evidence included. This theory is not as disagreeable as say the big bang might be. Whether you are a dualist or not, the existence of this theory does not diminish the validity of your own personal theories concerning the mind-body question. Dualism is still possible even if the brain is shown to function in this way. What does diminish this validity is the fact that whilst monism can support itself with this theory, with hard evidence, dualism cannot provide any evidence whatsoever to suggest the idea of a mind separate from body.
So, from this I have myself concluded that the mind is a complex series of physical processes that produce with them the ability to perceive. Every thought we have is a physical process within the brain and we perceive it. The brain is an organ which produces thoughts and the capability to perceive them and thus the surrounding world. It is theoretically possible to produce an artificial brain, although extremely difficult with today’s technology. This brain would be no different from the human brain, except for the fact that it was artificial. This fact would have no bearing on the functioning of the artificially made brain.
Animals have brains that function in a similar way to humans. Although not as complex, their brains are what we once evolved from. They too have minds and the ability to perceive. Their minds are as limited or complex as their brain allows. So it is perfectly possible that some animals feel human like emotions. It is also possible that there is an alien creature out there with a mind more complex than our own. Perhaps our minds are simple in comparison to their own. Just as our brains evolved from simpler ones, they too can evolve into more complex ones. The capacity for improvement of the mind may be limitless. One day our minds may be so complex that we are able to acquire knowledge of everything past, present and future, much like an omniscient God.
So, I have established that the mind is a series of physical reactions that any living thing is capable of having given the right organs and that we perceive these physical reactions as thoughts. But where do conscious decisions come into this theory of mind? If the mind is just a group of physical reactions produced by the brain, then what makes it different from say a plant? A plant is also just a bunch of physical reactions. We wouldn’t say that a plant chooses to grow towards the sun; it’s just a natural reaction. I believe that humans work in the same way; I think everything we do is just our natural reaction to the physical environment. We don’t have any choice; everything we do is a result of our brain reacting to the physical environment. Not exactly the romantic view that some people seem to cling on to with the idea of souls and spirits. People seem to dislike the idea that they have no free will, but the only way you can argue for the existence of free will is to prove that the soul exists or that something other than physical matter exists. Once again, where is the evidence?
We are now faced with the question of perception, why do we even perceive? If we are just like plants, in that we are a series of physical reactions, then why do we even need to perceive? Perception is awareness of a situation and of the physical environment, it is vital for reaction. Perception and reaction go hand in hand. You see a fist heading for you and you duck. In other words, you perceive and react. If we didn’t perceive anything, then we wouldn’t react. I believe that plants must have a limited perception of their own situation and the physical environment around them, thus enabling them to react. It is nowhere near as complex as our own, but nonetheless, they do perceive. The more complex the perception abilities, the better we are able to react and thus survive and adapt.
Only living things can perceive, a rock does not perceive that it is being kicked and then react by rolling down the hill. This is simply a cause and effect process. The difference in living things is that it is a cause, perceive and react process. Perception is the essence of life. Of course the rock will react to being kicked; it rolling down the hill is the reaction. But this is a purposeless reaction; the rock is not trying to achieve anything. But when a living thing reacts, it is reacting with intent to survive. Perception is what guides living things to react with intent to survive. Without perception we would not react with this intent, instead we would simply behave like a rock. If somebody kicked us we didn’t perceive it, our reaction would be limited and we would roll down the hill just like the rock. But if we did perceive it, then we would react in a way which would favour our own survival. We would stand up and either run away or kick the person who just tried to kick us.
So the mind is a complex system of physical reactions that guides us through life with the intent of our own survival, perception being the element that gives our reactions a purpose. In my opinion, anyway.

Marked Grade: A

Severance

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:01:00 +0000

I recently saw Severance at the cinema, whilst not an "amazing" film, it was overall pretty good. I'm not a big fan of modern horror films, but this one uses the rare combination of comedy and horror (seen in Shaun of the Dead) that seems to work so well.
So the story goes: a group of office workers at a weapons company are sent to Hungary for a weekend of team building. On arrival they are faced with several problems in the lead up to a chase through the forests by a bunch of knife and gun wielding maniacs intent on revenge against the company that provided their captors with the weapons to torment them.
Its not quite the joke packed zombie-fest that was Shaun of the Dead, the jokes were a lot more subtle. But as far as horror-comedies go it was pretty good. It was certainly more a horror than it was a comedy, which is one thing that let it down. The jokes in it were too sparse to make it an excellent comedy, but because of the jokes it wasn't as scary as it could have been. But at no point in the film was I remotly bored, it was still very entertaining.
I thought the (mostly British) cast was good. Danny Dyer (Football Factory) plays his usual role, the cheeky cockney geezer. And Tim McInnerny (Black Adder) plays the officious leader of the group.
Not a huge amount of laughter or fear, but some particular parts had me both laughing and scared, particularly the pie gag. Overall its a generally amusing film and most importantly; British.

Bad philosophy.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:41:00 +0000

Bad philosophy comes of wishful thinking. I can think of no other explanation as to why so many people would abandon logic for beliefs in the soul, spirituality and the afterlife.
Sometimes the only argument people can come up with for their belief in a soul is that the idea of not having one is so bleak. So fucking what, reality is bleak my friend. We live a purposeless life in a lonely universe. When we die, that's it. Our minds cease to exist, we rot in the earth... we are worm food. It may not be the happiest visions of all, but its the truth whether you like it or not. If people cant deal with the truth then they are very weak minded indeed.

"I believe in the soul"
"Why? What evidence is there?"
"I can just feel it, I know that there's got to be more out there."
"How do you know?"
"Well, I just do."

How convenient, how these spiritualists can just "feel" everything and its justification enough for a bunch nonsensical beliefs. I'm sure Hitler just "felt" like wiping out a whole race was the right thing to do. A certain few people I know doubt the soundest of beliefs because they don't like the idea.

"Determinism? Oh but imagine having no free will, that would be rubbish. I like to think I have control over my life."

I put religion down to this kind of wishful thinking. Religion gives the weak minded people hope of an afterlife, of a greater purpose.
But why do people think like this? Put simply; survivalist instincts. There's something in us that makes us want to stay alive, we cant cope with the idea of mortality, that we will one day cease to exist. Why else are we so protective of our lives? If the religious believe in the afterlife then they have a fair chance of a happy existence for all eternity. If the atheists like myself believe in a death resulting in the ending of our existence, then what do we have to be afraid about? We die and we no longer feel, when we are dead we cannot be aware of anything... we simply don't exist. So what makes living any better than existing? Nothing in particular, but for some reason we strive to exist and this is why we don't like the idea of death. This is why people make up this bull shit about souls, spirituality, the afterlife. They cannot cope, they are weak minded.

The bible; a few hundred pages too long.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:48:00 +0000

This is obviously the conclusion all too many Christians have come to. Obviously they will rant and rave about how the word of God is never too long, praise the lord and all that shite. But if any logical minded Christian actually read the whole bible through and through, I'm sure they would come out of it a better person i.e atheist.
Christians pick and choose from the bible, they make a point on morality and back it up with a quote from the bible. "Homosexuality is wrong! Leviticus 18:22" or "Women were made for men! So shut your mouth and bring me my dinner, bitch. Genesis 1:18-22".
None of these so called "Christians" follow the bible as it was written. They pick and choose their own morals of which they can weakly support with the bible. If Christians did truly follow the bible, then India would have been long gone by now. Because believe it or not the bible encourages the destruction of non-believing nations and communities. I kid you not, read this quote from the bible:

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Search up Deutronomy 13:13-19 in any of the bible websites on the net, Bible Gateway for example, and you will find this unbelievable quote staring you in the face. I bet most christians aren't even aware of this quote and many other evil ones in the bible.
Followers of Islam (at least the extremists) actually take the Qu'ran more seriously. I'm sure there's something in there that talks about killing non-believers, it wouldn't surprise me. And yet christians are some what disgusted by the Islamic culture as if they are the morally superior ones, even though most of it is based on the Qu'ran.
If your going to be so moronic as to ignore simple truths and believe in idiotic fairy tales without any logic what so ever, then you might as well do it properly and actually listen to your book of worthless lies!

If you are perhaps even the slightest bit skeptical of your useless religion, then I suggest you visit this site Evilbible.com. If not, if you are firm in your belief, then im afraid your probably going to die that way. Atleast you'll be to busy not existing to realise how badly you wasted your life.

R.I.P Steve Irwin, Crocodile Hunter

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:30:00 +0000

Ok, so at times he was a bit of an annoying prat, using his infant as a prop in a stunt, poking animals to provoke a mildly entertaining reaction out of them. But all in all, he was a good guy and im sad to see him go. Whats even worst is the way he went. People say "he went doing the thing he loved most". But I can think of a lot more things hed have enjoyed doing more whilst dieing and none of them involve being stabbed in the heart by an apparently harmless sting ray. Perhaps not as embaressing as death by caterpillar. But still, this is only the third death of its kind recorded in Australia.
I feel more sorry for his fatherless kids, aged 8 and 3, and his widowed wife. He was an Australian icon, his death is the equivilent to someone like David Attenborough or Bill Oddie dieing. More equivilent to the latter, as Irwin was an eccentric character just like Oddie is.

Anarchy-Offline

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:29:00 +0000

I ask, what does the game 'Anarchy-Online' really have to do with anarchy? Its not a political game, its a sci-fi MMORPG. It has nothing to do with anarchy what so ever. So why have they decided to name the game 'Anarchy-Online'?
I'm not angry at this in a "don't use the Lords name in vain!" kind of way. I'm angry about it because it is tarnishing the already disrespected political ideology, known to some as libertarian socialism.
Naming an unrelated game after a political ideology is completely... lame. It would be like naming a shoot 'em up 'Democracy!'. I bet that would fly of the shelves at a record speed.
You cant blame them though, these days people associate the word and concept of anarchy with chaos. In fact, most would define anarchy as chaos and unorginisation. When I once explained to someone my vision of an organised anarchist society, they objected claiming that it was a contradiction of definitions. People are confused and its the medias fault. Ok ok, I know I sound like one of those prudes that blames the state of society on the media. But seriously now, the media is capitalist. They're concerned with making money more than anything, which is why they write a lot of sensationalist bullshit. To protect themselves from the anti-capitalist movements which threaten them, they give things like anarchy and communism a bad name. Everybody associates anarchy with chaos and communism with a bunch of social outcasts and it is preventing people from seeing the good sides to both movements (although I obviously don't agree with communism which requires a lack of citizenship freedom to exist).
Its not a big conspiracy I'm ranting about here, its just common sense. If the media thinks that capitalism is so good and "right" then they shouldn't be afraid to let the other ideologies have a go. If anarchy is so awful, then people will never give it a chance will they? But the media obviously seems to think that it does have a chance, either that or they just instinctively diss it at every opportunity.
Ok, so some of you are thinking "you bloody hypocrite, I bet you don't mind the liberal media putting bad connotations on words like conservative, capitalist and republican do you?". No I don't mind, because these political ideologies have had their turn and its clear enough (to me at least) that they have failed. A true anarchist society has never existed, it deserves a chance unprohibited by the media.

Exercise = Stink

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:59:00 +0000

I just cycled to college for the first time. It took about 43 mins, the last few minutes going up the hill towards college were difficult, to say the least. Now im sat here, stinking like a combination between shit, piss and sweat. Dont worry, I dont actually have any shit or piss on me... just plenty of sweat... strong sweat. I can just tell im going to make a great first impression to the new kids. Usually I dont care about it, but today I stink so bad that im starting to want to move away from myself. I should really have brought some deodrant.

Iran calls for debate.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:34:00 +0000

Many of you may have heard about the letter that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent to President Bush not so long ago. It was of course ignored, no reply sent. One assumes that Bush read it, but I wouldnt be too surprised if he hadnt even have bothered.
The letter itself was disagreable, coming from a conservative Muslim. However it was a comendible act, an attempt at some intelligent communication. Nonetheless, it was ignored.
Recently, Iran has challenged US President Bush to a televised debate. Can you imagine it? Bush wouldnt stand a chance, no wonder the White House refused outright. Their excuse: this challenge is just a diversion. Whether or not its a diversion, I think its about time some of the world leaders talked in logic rather than greed.

The Royal Mail get what they deserve.

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:27:00 +0000

A postman who told his delivery recipients how to reduce their junk mail with a leaflet of his own, was suspended by the Royal Mail for malpractice. Its no surprise, the Royal Mail makes a lot of money out of junk mail and although there is a legitimate way to reduce your junk mail, they dont want you to know about it.
In an ironic twist, the Royal Mails harsh and unjust actions have brought media attention, making it clear to the public the ability to reduce junk mail. The Royal Mails actions have backfired and they deserve it, the money grabbing swindlers. Dont you just love it when things like this happen?

Nobody pays for downloads!

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:54:00 +0000

One of the big music companies has finally recognised where the real money is at in music downloads. Nobody but morons pay for their downloads when free ones are so easily accessible, so quite obviously companies such as itunes are not going to make a great deal of money out of selling downloads.
The real revenue is in advertising, thats the only way to make money from internet downloads. Trying to sell downloads to internet consumers is like trying to sell ice to Eskimos. If we can get it for free, most of us wont hesitate. I dont feel guilty about downloading things for free, I completely support it. I think music should be free.
Universal Music is supporting a new service, Spiral Frog, which will allow consumers to download music for free. There is a catch of course, there's always a catch. There will be adverts, some have even suggested that the songs themselves might include adverts at the beginning and end of songs similar to adverts on the radio. Some "artists" have protested at the idea, saying that they might not agree with twhatever is being advertised. Fair enough point, but if the big music companies want to make any real money from downloads then this is the only way.

Hitler art, to sell or not to sell?

noreply@blogger.com (Yours Truly) — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:35:00 +0000

Its common knowledge that Hitler was an aspiring artist. Many have even tried to attribute his anti-semitism to the fact that he was turned down for an entry into Art College, believing that Hitler used the Jewish as a scapegoat for his own failure. Whether or not this is true, the infamous German dictator and leader of Nazi Germany painted many pictures which still exist today.
Several of these have been put up for sale in a Cornish auction house recently and have quite obviously caused some controversy. Though the paintings aren't very skillfully painted, they are sure to fetch quite a lot due to the man behind them.
Much of the Jewish community have spoken out against the selling of these paintings as they believe that selling them would be disrespectful to those that suffered the holocaust.
Would it though? Would it be disrespectful? You cant exactly say that its making profit out of the holocaust, as these paintings are not a product of the holocaust... they were painted during WW1 before Hitler had developed his belief system. You could even claim that they were painted by a different man (not literally). Had Hitler been accepted in the Art Colleges, perhaps he would have never led the Nazi party to power and caused so much suffering.
I think the best thing to do with these paintings is to sell them and donate the money made from the sales to a holocaust survivor charity. The irony would be enough to make Hitler turn in his grave.
Whether they're sold or not, these paintings cant be destroyed. They hold historical value as an example of the "art" created by such an infamous character.