The (very) weird way my mind works

I was recently watching a TV documentary about obesity and the food industry and one of the interviews that the programme contained shook me and got me thinking deep thoughts.

The interview itself was with an American doctor who carried out gastric band operations on patients. The thought of the operation itself was not the trigger for my thoughts but rather I was startled by two of the statements the doctor made. The first that he would choose a private patient rather than a medicaid patient because the formers' operation would cost the patient $7500 whereas an operation on the latter would only cost $900 and therefore the surgeon would make more money with the private patient. What struck me here was that at no time did the doctor the medical side of the operation and I was left thinking: What if the medicaid patient needed it medically more urgently than the private patient?

The second statement was the one that left me stunned, although at my age it probably shouldn't have. The doctor admitted that he would quite happily give a gastric band to any patient who could pay privately regardless of whether they needed it medically or not. The implication of this for me was profound. As long as there is money in it he was happy to provide the service. This concept sent me deep into a line of thought which I hope to discuss in the following posts.

OK before I go on I would like to state that I am not knocking the doctor or his motivation nor am I pointing any fingers of blame at the Americans because I feel that his comments arose from the societal structure he (and we) find ourselves. Also these thoughts are mine and arise from how I see the world - other may see it and view it differently. I understand this but the only tool I have to experience the world is my own conscience and that conscience is at the moment troubled. With that in mind I will outline what my problem is and what I want to discuss in future.

I have looked at our society and am deeply troubled as it appears extremely flawed. At present there seems to be a focus on the acquisition of money. This is having terrible knock-on effects lower down the economic food chain. As the example I cited above indicates this search for wealth tramples ethics and morals underfoot.

What I do not want to do though is debate society as it is, at least not for the present. What I would like to try and find out is how did we get here. Is there somewhere at the base a biological or evolutionary reason for our current behaviour as a species? This then is my intended journey. Whether we find any truths or reach our destination is unknown but it will be good to at least start the journey.

So to begin in the next post I will try and look at what drives our need for more and more wealth

It seems....

It seems as though I have been neglecting this blog for some time (OK for 6 years!) and I think it is time to rectify this.

I have no excuse for not updating this blog more. I could lie and say I have been too busy but I won't. I am working on something at the moment which I will share here as it unfolds and welcome anyone to comment on it and participate in a general discussion.

I hope to have a first part up before then end of the week so until then a temporary goodbye.

I Remember That. At Least I Think I Do.

I've been thinking about memories lately. Not memories about things that have just happened but memories about things that happened to me some time ago. Things that have lost their sheen of newness and have taken on the smoothness and warmth of age. Let me cite an example: I remember seeing the Mona Lisa in "real life" for the first time about 5 years ago. I remember walking up to it and joining the crowd surrounding it and then looking at the eyes and then the face.

Now my question is: How do I know that these memories are real? Or to put it another way: How do I know that I actually experienced what I remember?

Let us examine the above example to clarify my question. OK I remember seeing the Mona Lisa hanging on a wall in the Louvre. But how do I know that I saw it. Notice I don't ask how I know I was in the Louvre or Paris or France. These I can verify because I retain the tickets, hotel bills etc. There is, of course, a deeper question about whether these themselves are real but that is not part of this discussion. Let us assume for the moment that these are real. Therefore I can prove that I was in the Louvre museum in Paris at a certain time and that at that time the Mona Lisa was hanging on a wall there.

OK So far so good but this still does not prove that I actually saw the painting only that I have a memory of so doing. Now we know that the mind is an imperfect organ and can forget things and have hallucinations. Could this memory not be one of those. I mean I know what the Mona Lisa looks like. I have seen it in books. But did I actually see it? I have to say that I don't know. I feel that I did but logically I cannot be certain.

Even memories for which I have some form of verification (picture etc.) are suspect because, although the verification is real my memories of how I obtained it may not be. Another example may be in order here: I have a memory of going to Skokholm Island in Wales with some friends to photograph. Whilst there I remember seeing a whole lot of Atlantic Puffins and one in particular:

Now I remember seeing this puffin and taking the image. I remember how I was feeling (happy) and what the weather was like (grey clouds) but how much of this is "real" and how much imagined? Another example: I remember when my son was born. I remember seeing him (in an incubator) the first time. I remember holding him and so on but that was 23 years ago. I have my son and I know he is real but how do I know that my first memories of him are? Again I feel they are but how can I prove it logically? I know that with my limited analytical abilities I cannot. To be honest I'm not sure you can.

Question #1 A Third Time

If I am responsible for creating my world and my existence within it then why do I sometimes fail?

At The End Of The Day

Hope is all we have.
(Image copyright (c) 2007 Adrian North Photography)

On Communicating 1

One thing that has fascinated me for a long time is the whole area surrounding communication and language. We are, after all, as a species compulsive communicators. We may not be (and are most likely not to be) the only species that communicates but we do do it rather a lot. The questions I have about this include: Why do we communicate? How did this communication originate? How did language originate? Where did languages diverge from each other? Why are there similarities and differences between certain human languages?

I know there are minds greater than mine pondering these questions and that I can only, of necessity, study them on a somewhat simplistic level. Indeed I do not even pretend to have any answers. I do, however, have some thoughts which I will lay out in the coming weeks. However let me initially look at the first question: "Why do we communicate?"

If the reason were only to get what we want then any communications would simply be a series of negotiations. I have tried to analyse my communications recently and whilst there are a lot of communications that do fall under this category there are some that don't. As an example: I see a man walking under a ladder when a workman above drops a brick. I shout to warn the person. That is communication but, as far as I can see, was not communication that gains me anything but it is communication nonetheless. So either there is more than one reason why we communicate or there is a deeper, more fundamental reason. My own personal feeling (and this is just a feeling. I have, as yet, no objective foundation for it) is that there is a more fundamental reason. I think it will be useful to investigate this in depth. Who knows maybe a universal truth lies hidden at the heart of the question. Communication is, after all, something that binds all humanity together. It is what we all have in common.

Time Passing

Oh dear it seems such a long time since I posted anything here. OK, it is such a long time since I posted anything here. I really must get my life sorted out. Anyway I'm back! And I have a whole new series of questions that I need answering. I hope you're ready for it.

On Working #2

There seems to me to be two ways a person can become rich whilst employing others to work for them. They could offer sufficient rewards for their workforce to work harder, to be more efficient, more productive. Not just incentives to hit targets but a good wage for a good days work. Therefore as they become richer so do those that work for them. This, surely, will make the workers more motivated which in turn leads to them making more money. And so the whole thing will grow.
On the other hand they could get rich by exploiting those that work for them. Using threats and punishments and the fear of job loss to drive the workforce. Yes this will make the employer more money but is it self-driving? Personally I don’t think so.
So we can either have a system where the employer can become very rich indeed. And so can the workforce. Everyone wins. Or we can have a system where the employer can become merely rich. And quite probably hated by their entire workforce. It would seem evident to me that the first system is the best. By a long way! So why is the second system the one that is the most widespread? By a long way? Maybe, just maybe it is because when everyone is rich, no-one seems rich!