Monday, May 21, 2018

Playing Carrom

Carrom board isa game that is like billiards or snooker, except the board is much smaller, about 44" square and can be played sitting on the floor like Ludo.

It was a time long long back that I used to be an exceptional player. In our city we used to have boards which were different. The boards that we played on were larger, smoother and the 4 pockets were oblong in shape instead of being circular. And you could hit the coins hard - they wouldn't jump out or fly in those boards as they do in boards in other parts of the country.

There are 2 parts to playing carrom well.
  1. The mental part.. how the old man in the hospital visualized putting the red coin in the movie Munna Bhai MBBS. That's the plan or design.
  2. The actual skill which is a motor function. It decides the position of striker, angle, velocity. Here the old man has to execute what he planned earlier. He needs to place the Striker at the right location, hit the striker with the right speed and pointing at the right direction.
It is a sorry state of affairs when you still retain the first part but have lost the 2nd (possibly because of age, arthritis or Parkinson's or whatever). You can see what you can do but your fingers do not hold the same skill. I am reminded of what the old tailor Mr Siddiqui says in the movie Jolly LLB 2 - that his fingers aren't as they were before and they don't work well now. What a loss.

The mind can figure out but the body isn't able to keep pace. But isn't this better than having the body in shape while the mind has settled down with Alzheimer's?

Amen.

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Tinkering With Your S1

I was talking to a friend about controlling our own S1 and how difficult it is. 

It struck me that controlling our S1 would be like applying brakes on our entire personality and not just in curbing expression of some negative trait of ours, which is what we are interested in and which drove our discussion.

Our talk, with my friend's questions and my answers, brought out other ideas. I figured that the only time we are in complete control of our S1 is when we are asleep or in a coma or dead. This, of course, is a trivial solution.

I said to my friend that when the sage Vishwamitra was in a trance and the danseuse Menaka tried to disturb him and failed it was because the sage's S1 was completely dead or in hybernation. The question I asked was: which part of the Rishi was awake when he was doing Tapas? My answer is: none. That's how the rishis could avoid getting disturbed and their S1 was safely tucked away and Menaka's SASC (Shake ass and Show Cleavage) routine couldn't be effective.

And we have read that when the Rishis were disturbed from their trance, they woke up and in a burst of anger they cursed whoever disturbed them - caused by a complete loss of control over their S1, which also is now awake.

Can we really control our S1? And thus control ourselves? 

I am stil waiting for an answer.

In this context one repartee that another friend frequently comes up with is that experience teaches us a lot of things and our behavior changes because of this. All our behavior, she would say, hence isn't coded in our genes. Don't we control  our S1 when we force ourselves to control our outbursts? Don't we consciously use our S2 in place of the usual S1? Is this not an example of controlling our behavior, she would ask. Essentially this is one example of a case when there is a feedback loop - when an incident, say our own outburst, causes us to rethink our behavior and hence we take pain to avoid it. We will come back to this later.

Yes, nurture or experience definitely affects our future behavior - but my question is: do we control and, if yes, how do we control our memory and experience of such events which in turn affect our S1?

What are we outside of our S1? If we isolate our S1, what remains of us? If someone could observe (just observe and do nothing else) us and see our S1 and S2 in action - what would they see? Would they see some X factor inside us but excluding our S1, S2 affecting our behavior? Maybe that X has freewill.

It is my belief that our S2 is invoked by our S1 and hence control of S2 is not available outside of our S1.

Coming to the feedback loop, my question to my friend is the same. What person or identity exists outside of S1? If invoking of S2 an example of freewill? Who invoked S2? S1 or something else? If it is S1, do we control it?


As i think about the feedback loop, a question arises in my mind. Assume we are hooked up to various equipments electrical, mechanical or chemical which are in turn hooked up to a computer. Now, let's say, we ourselves or someone else can choose how we want to behave and enter our desired behavior in a computer. The computer which knows us will gives us the necessary electrical, chemical or mechanical inputs so that we behave in the way that was requested. Now, in this case who controlled our behavior? Was it the computer or the person who entered the request in the computer? The answer, that it is the computer, is trivial. Let us focus on the other option - that it was the person who entered the request in the computer. How did the person think up the request? Which part of the person thought of requesting such a behavior from me? Was it that person's conscious decision to expect a certain behavior from me? Or was he just made aware of this decision which was made by his S1?


Our own goal setting including New Year resolutions are of the same type. The question is: how did we set the goal? Was it from S1 or  S2 or something else? S2, I believe, is invoked by S1.


Ever since I had an argument of sorts with a couple of friends I have been thinking about this issue, specifically how to prove or disprove existence of freewill. I think most people understand and accept that our behavior depends on nature (genes) and nature (our experiences and observations). We understand that we were born with our genes and unless we get to tinker with our genes, as explained earlier, our genes remain invariant except for the mutations which are anyway outside our control. The focus then comes to nurture. How much are we in control of HOW we accept what we experience. I am reminded of the Thirukkural 
Epporul yaaryaarvaai ketpinum apporul
Meiporul kaaba tharivu.

Meaning, no what what we hear it makes sense to only absorb the truth in it.
Wow, so beautiful. 

Now this relates directly to how we should accept what we hear, observe or experience. Written few thousand years back it was assumed that we could control how we abaorb or relate to our experience. 

Now let us assume that thereis an "I", the essence of what I am which holds my Freewill. This "I" should hence take inputs from whatever our genes tell us, also from what our experience gives us and THEN process both and then decide for ourselves what we should do which in turn causes my brain to release certain chemicals which finally causes some thought, emotion or reaction from me. 

The question is then whether this "I" exists. How do we prove it.

Take two objects or beings with the same DNA and subject both to the same experience from conception / birth. If they show diverge in their phenotype (I hope I am using the term correctly) - that is in any trait or behavior, then we conclude "I" exists.

Ok?
Additional Reading:

  1. http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/10/s1-and-s2-daniel-kahnemann-my-examples.html
  2. https://www.quora.com/Is-impatience-a-genetic-trait-or-learned-behavior
  3. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/10/08/bad-kids-cant-blame-their-genes/#.WwfLhh6FTIU: Quote from the link: "Yet geneticists finally struck gold – or seemed to – with a new technique called genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA). Instead of looking at each variant individually, GCTA quantifies how genetically similar any two people are as a whole. GCTA has shown that the more genetically similar people are, the more similar they tend to be in terms of complex traits. Hooray – the missing heritability is… well, it’s still missing, but at least we know it’s out there, in small pieces scattered across the genome."
  4. https://www.fs.blog/2016/07/our-genes-and-our-behavior/
  5. https://www.fs.blog/2016/06/no-two-people-alike-part-1/: Quote: "If you look at the books and the training that teachers get, genetics doesn't get a look-in. Yet if you ask teachers, as I've done, about why they think children are so different in their ability to learn to read, and they know that genetics is important. When it comes to governments and educational policymakers, the knee-jerk reaction is that if kids aren't doing well, you blame the teachers and the schools; if that doesn't work, you blame the parents; if that doesn't work, you blame the kids because they're just not trying hard enough. An important message for genetics is that you've got to recognize that children are different in their ability to learn. We need to respect those differences because they're genetic. Not that we can’t do anything about it."
  6. http://www.nealelab.is/blog/2017/9/13/heritability-101-what-is-heritability: Quote: "Heritability is a property of the population not the individual. When the heritability of a trait is described, it reflects how much variability in the population is a consequence of genetic factors. It does not “explain” why an individual has a disease."..."Heritability is not immutable. Since heritability reflects the balance between the effects of genetic and environmental factors, if you change the environment you can change the trait’s heritability."..."High heritability does not mean group differences are genetic. There is a troubling history of attributing observed group differences, such as reported racial disparities in IQ scores, to genetics. As noted above, heritability is specific to the choice of measurement,  population, and environment, and the heritability of a trait is not immutable. As a result, it’s not valid to use a trait’s estimated heritability as evidence for “inherent” differences between populations."
  7. https://psmag.com/environment/genes-affect-behavior-environment-85139

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Freewill - Homo Deus

A friend of mine was thoroughly impressed with the book: Homo Deus, A Brief History Of Tomorrow. He strongly recommended that I read it too.

The book mentioned that what we think is freewill is actually not so, that it is our genes which control our actions. Or something to that effect. I had been telling my friend that we do not have freewill, even before either of us had read this book.

My friend called me up the other day and asked me: if we do not control our behavior and if our behavior is controlled by our genes, then the genes must be running some kind of program or algorithm. 
  1. Does the algorithm cover every eventuality? How can it?
  2. If it does not (which is more likely), then how is behavior determined in a case which is not coded or covered in the algorithm? How is our behavior determined in such a case?
  3. Next, our behavior also changes with experience. How does the algorithm learn to behave differently with time?
I did not have any nice answer for his questions. I thought about them and here is my attempt.
That we don't control something (don't have freewill) does not translate exactly into "there is some other agency that has a 100% well defined algorithm (for determining our behavior." 

Our behavior is at best only known to (as against determined by) us. The S1 - from Daniel Kahnemann - which decides what we do, takes necessary decisions and actions which at best we only come to know of but not control.
So now who decides how we behave?: it's the S1. On what basis does S1 decide our behavior? S1 has access to our memory bank and to our heuristics engine. The latter, I guess, is encoded or is derived from our genes and perhaps also undergoes modification after birth based on our experience.

Now when confronted with a situation, how exactly does the gene deal with our memories, with any logic / shortcuts / heuristics etc and result in a course of action from S1 - which is what my friend asked me - I have no idea. :(

Additional Reading:

  1. http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/01/we-do-no-have-freewill-draft-proof.html
  2. http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2017/12/what-is-mans-purpose-in-life.html

Monday, May 7, 2018

Women Dig Sacrifices (Qurbani)

A friend of mine was telling me about a man who spent most of his adult life taking care of his sister and her two daughters - since his sister's husband had kinda absconded more than 40 years back and whose whereabouts are still unknown. 
The man, my friend continued, apparently got married about 30 years back but his wife was sick and tired of his obsession with his sister and her daughters. The wife threw an ultimatum - either she would be in his life or the other three women would be. The woman left her wedded husband stung by his reply / choice. 

All this is past history. Recently, the elder niece of the man commented to her younger sister that their maternal uncle was a loser - he neither had made a success of his personal life nor did he make a great success of his professional life. That all talk about him sacrificing his life for the sister and nieces was humbug. The elder sister continued that she would have preferred a man who focused on making a success of his own life, rather than being such a loser as their uncle had turned out to be.

This is not to say that women hate sacrifices.
Most women do love sacrifices - only when they talk about their own. 

It's surprising how a person, who values the sacrifices that she is purportedly making, shows such scorn at someone else's sacrifice.

Additional Reading
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/02/vikram-or-vetaal.html

Popular Posts

Featured Post

Trump's Election Interference

I can think anything that may not be true. And I can say untruths because I have a right to freedom of speech. Based on that thought and wor...