[[How has been]]

Monday, April 27, 2015

[[Youtube recommendations]]

Well, there are many drafts that have been piling up. Some will be done up and posted soon, I hope. Anyway, I find the youtube recommendations really annoying. Like they are trying to mould my tastes into a certain whatnot, trying to second guess my preferences and all that. Id prefer to not be second-guessed. Where do I find original, interesting stuff if all I get are recommendations following a certain algorithm.
Where is the rival to facebook and youtube that should technically come up and kill them with less of these annoyances such as Ads and all that? Or is the first mover advantage too strong?

[[I wrote this at]]*|7:40 PM|

Saturday, April 18, 2015

[[On the meaningless of life]]

What matters our creative endless toil? When at a snatch, oblivion ends the coil. -Goethe's Faust.

Actually, I am unsure if I have written about this before. I seem to feel some deja vu but well, whatever. My brain has conjured it again, in the toilet whilst having a bath.

I think everyone has wondered and thought about the question why do I live when I will eventually die? The impermanence of one's own life, of the self, the 'that which I am', the thing that is me, the I that is currently reading these words.

There is a first group, a tiny minority that concludes that there is no objective meaning whatsover, objective meaning simply does not exist. They end their lives. They do not fear death because of their beliefs.

There is another group that concludes that there is no objective meaning yet they seek objective meaning all their lives. They reason that perhaps there is objective meaning just that it eludes them so they spend much time searching. These people might end up with a religion of sorts.

There are those that conclude that there is no objective meaning whatsover yet they are fearful of death. I think these people do not really believe in their conclusion. These people probably lead a life on their own whims, probably hedonistic, I am generalising.

The three categories of people above all hold that there is no objective meaning and that objective meaning is all that matters.

Next there are people who believe there is no objective meaning whatsoever but believe that there is subjective meaning. Basically this quite a post-modernist, relativistic thinking (for the majority at least) though of course, it obviously predates post-modernism. All kinds of subjective meanings are being sought.

There are those that try to immortalise themselves whether in seeking fame or fortune or a legacy. Yet they know that fame, fortune or legacy is not going to be eternal.

There are those who think somethings are enough, something like a peaceful contented life with family and friends.

There are others who think that personal happiness is the most important.

I think the fear of death is innate to all of us. Where does this fear of death come from? I think it is hard to find a satisfactory answer to this with a secular worldview.

I think many people think they are brave for accepting that their lives has no objective meaning, that they do not have to accept the crutch of religion. think these people are brave. I am quite certain that the inconvenient truth is still the truth. The question is, is this inconvenient conclusion is true?

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:48 PM|

Thursday, April 16, 2015

[[Changing utility functions]]

Utilitarian thought fundamentally claims that there is something good in itself and something bad in itself. This is an exclusive claim, usually there is only one good in itself (and it's converse is bad in itself). For hedonistic utilitarians, the good in itself is pleasure/happiness and the bad in itself is pain. For preference utilitarians, the good in itself is the satisfaction of preferences and the bad in itself is the violation of preferences. So for the utilitarian, a distribution (of goods) in the way that maximises the good in itself and minimises the bad in itself.

I have two general issues with it. First is about how it has to distribute over time and secondly, more importantly, about how changing utility functions affect utilitarian calculation.

The simplest versions of utilitarian distribution might seem two dimensional, like a split in time where items are given to those who gain the most from owning the items. This seems to be a type of maximising in the now. Clearly in real time other considerations such as human-human interactions such as jealousy might have to be included. It seems that utilitarianism is still robust enough to account for all this, if not practically, in theory it still provides a solution for the distribution of goods- that which maximises aggregate happiness over aggregate time.

Here I would like to propose that greater happiness can be obtained by current suffering (or less happiness), (this is the idea seen most clearly in capital goods and investments). This is a compounded increase like that of bank interest. Given this, it is likely that for the sake of greater happiness in the next generation, the current generation must suffer. The same could be said for each generation. This would lead to everyone across all generations leading - survival lives following utilitarian logic.

Of course there is also an additive cumulative effect of all generation's happiness to be weighed against this exponential increase in happiness for the 'next gen'. So the question is whether a 'sacrifice' of X amount of good (here I use the word 'good' to mean anything that can cause happiness/preference satisfaction) now will lead to a good of 'greater than X' across all future generations aggregated (a good 'invested' in the future might lead to production of 'good'). Let me assume that the return on 'investment' of goods in the next generation is constant (it is not, but for calculation's sake).

For a rate of return of 1.5 (any factor larger than 1.0 will work) for goods invested in the future. Assuming that a society is able to produce 20 units of goods consistently and only requires 10 units for survival, on utilitarian grounds it seems that 10 units is the maximum that can be consumed in order to produce the maximum aggregate of both generations, that is, 10 units of goods consumed in gen 1 and 35 units of goods consumed in gen 2, a total of 45 (which is larger than 40 if all goods are consumed according by 'utilitarian calculation in the now' at each point within the generation). If we consider 3 generations, 10 units of goods in gen 1, 10 units of goods in gen 2 and 20+37.5 in gen 3.

Of course it can be challenged that a society's base production is not constant over generations but even if it is not, it does not challenge the validity of this argument. Another possible objection could be that the scope of time must be limited and to that my reply would be: on what grounds?

Point is, utilitarian theory will lead to a bare survival the moment current sacrifices of consumption for greater 'good' in the future is taken into consideration. Unless utilitarians can accept this and advocate this, there should be some rejection of utilitarianism somewhere. In any case, it seems counter intuitive that all generations have to live a life a bare survival for the sake of a generation infinitely far into the future.

On to my second point about utilitarian functions. Here I will still be looking at 'utility returns' (or 'good in itself') over time but from a different perspective compared to the above point. So once again going to the simplified view of utilitarian reasoning, it seems that utility functions are fixed, a person gets X amount of happiness for his first apple, Y amount for his second apple and Z amount for his third apple across all times. So if there is only 1 apple the apple will be given to the person with the largest X, if there is a second apple it will be given to either the second highest X or Y of the same person, whichever is higher. I believe this works well as an illustration of what utilitarian theory but again, it is static in time and it does not consider the ability to change utility functions by way of expending 'good'.

An example of changing utility functions by expending 'good' (here I mean things that lead to good in itself) is spending money to teach people to be contented. (And hence, possibly increasing the X of everyone and decreasing Y and Z). Once this possibility is allowed, there becomes two ways of maximising the good in itself, either by way of changing utility functions or direct 'usage' of the existing utility function. Up until this point, I do not think that utilitarianism is in any trouble, the combination of both that maximises the aggregate can still be found and ought to be the correct way forward. One can view this 'changed utility function' as a contingent good of sorts. This merely increases the permutations and makes accurate utilitarian calculations much more complex requiring more information in practice, it leaves utilitarian theory unscathed.

The issue comes when utility functions change over time. Theorectically one could be gripped by indecision over when to drink a bottle of water because it has to be at the time when his utility function appreciates it the most in the world as opposed to anything else. This last paragraph sounds weak, I cannot see anyway that changing utility functions does much harm to pure utilitarian theory actually. It is mostly appealing to insufficient knowledge which is a practical problem. Unless you have a way to salvage this, maybe I will just stop at the end of the previous paragraph.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:53 PM|

[[So now that I have a slight breathing pocket in time...]]

Well I wrote the title this morning (yesterday morning since it is like 1+ am now).
As of now, I sorta breathed the entire pocket of time in not the wisest way. Oh well, back to work...

I guess it can be noted that today (and again, I mean yesterday) was relaxing and enjoyable if not for the nagging feeling in my head that I ought to be doing something less relaxing and enjoyable. Something more meaningful in the long run. Actually I completed a flash game. It is quite the achievement, is it not? That I defeated a game entirely. No? Studying something only to forget it is the greater achievement? Ok nevermind.

So today was also the last CG. The seniors stuff were quite emotional. Like their last CG in university. I guess VCF has become a part of their identity. And they seem quite sad that it will be the last time they see their friends in such a setting and all. Quite like me mourning changes... (If you read my past posts I always mourn changes lol). Departure makes the hard fonder, for awhile... Anyway the point was that idk if, at year 4, we will be like that. I wonder how many people drop out of VCF over the years. Probably quite a substantial amount.

Great power must be balance by great morality. 'power corrupts' is just the worst thing ever. Probably the sad truth about human failure.

And now, for penance...

[[I wrote this at]]*|2:01 AM|

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

[[]]

If there were only two ways to spend my time, studying or blogging/thinking, Sufficient blogging/thinking should take the priority given that it is what I set out to do over studying. Both of these activities should take priority over timewasting. Yet when you add a hundred activities that you theoretically ought to favor over timewasting, timewasting suddenly levels up and takes a high priority.

Life is so much easier when things are clear and discrete. When one has all the options laid out before him in detail and can choose, and follow through with the choice, life will be awesome. People want to benefits of something hard to do yet not the pain that comes with doing them. It is way too easy to say I would have studied cos the future you saying this would be the one getting good grades while the pain is born by the past you.

Interviews, interviews. I do terribly for interviews. Let me count my interview record post A-levels.
I had 3 failed interview for Nus admissions, 1 failed UK admission, 1 failed scholarship application, 2 failed sorta OGL applications. Such failures, from things that I really want to things that I somewhat want to things that I sorta want, from the socially momentous to the trivial. And I really think that these failures are purely interview failures, my portfolio was fine (I think, and so were the other admission tests).

So when I fail interviews purely for interview alone, there are two possible explanations. Either my interview skills are not up to standard (meaning my presentation) or what I am saying is wrong (the content) or both are wrong.

Failing interviews threaten my identity. First it always makes me doubt my worth, like, why am I rejected, why am I 'inferior' to those that are accepted. This is toxic thinking, comparing with others and whatnot, I find I am able to reject this somewhat convincingly. Secondly, it makes me ponder my choices... Although I reject this too, it chips away a little I guess, maybe one day I will reject my choices instead. Actually, maybe not. Lastly, if they reject me for who I am... Isn't that just that I am as I am is rejected?

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:22 PM|

Friday, April 10, 2015

[[The cold hard truth]]

It took me numerous university/other rejections, several philo essay grades and lots of nagging for me to fully understand that the world does not give the slightest bit about what I think and who I am. Clearly they do not see me as important, they don't have access to the first-hand self-importance that I have.
Nonetheless, I am not wrong in pursuing my way. Especially for uni choice I still think it is the right path and besides, it is also a good experience. Nonetheless, I am going to change some things to attain things I want. Like grades. When I want it. That is, now, for the moment.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:39 PM|

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

[[Injustice cannot be done to groups]]

So here is what I think my Prof is saying:

1. Injustice can be done to a group

2. A group does not simply consist of its current members, it is an ongoing entity over time.

3. Hence, a group consists of its future members as well as current and past members.

4. An injustice done to a group is done to all its members (can disregard past members for this case)

5. Justice in rectification can apply to groups

So the example is that aboriginal people (a group) have had their land seized from them forcibly in the past, an injustice. So the way to rectify is to return the land to the aboriginal people (the same group) now.

It seems to me that it is oversimplifying things. This logic treats the group as an entity like the individual i.e person has things seized and should be rectified by returning the object.

I think injustice cannot be done to a group.

To be sure, the members consisting the group that suffered injustice are different from the members in the group getting the rectification. The persons having the 'original' injustice done to them are certainly not the persons receiving the rectification. The concept here is that only peoples suffering injustice have the right to rectification.

So what makes rectification towards these persons just? Prof mentioned that by being part of the group, injustice is done to future members of the group, and hence rectification can be justly accorded to them. This seems quite dodgy to me.

Firstly, this seems to employs the logic similar to that of righting injustice by rewarding the descendants. And with it, all its associated problems. That of different peoples .etc. If this is the sole justification, then why bring in groups at all?

Secondly, I think that what happens is that future members suffer a natural disadvantage. There is a distinction to be drawn between injustice and disadvantage. It is injustice if my car is stolen but disadvantaged if my dad's car is stolen while I was yet unborn- I am born to a poorer man. The injustice does not transmit through disadvantages.

If injustice is transmitted through disadvantages then all my dad's friends that could have potentially gotten a ride from his car would suffer injustice too. And all the friends friend that could have benefited some way or another would suffer injustice too. I think that that is ridiculous. Some sort of regress argument.

There has to be a place where injustice stops and I think it stops with the person that suffers the injustice. Everything else is 'naturally' disadvantaged insofar as rectification is concerned.

Thirdly, what is this construct of a group? Is it artificial or natural. Does it matter if it is artificial or natural? Does it matter if people voluntarily join the group? I think it does matter. Not all members have their justice equally infringed. For example, if I were a lower caste aboriginal that did not own land I would hardly have suffered. My descendants would hardly have a claim to the collective injustice (if I grant that there is such a collective injustice).

Same for open/closed groups, If the group is opened like a university, one knowingly joining a disadvantaged group can hardly claim the 'benefits of rectification'. So if I were to join a university of unjust rubbish reputation due to some smudging done way earlier I am disadvantaged by the rubbish reputation but at the same time, it is hardly that I should benefit from the better reputation that I would undeservedly gain given that I made the decision knowing that the disadvantaged state of the university. Or consider a case where a company had suffered an embezzlement and was bought over only for the embezzlement to be rectified to the advantage of the new owners, it seems that the group identity does not in anyway link it to the original injustice (without the point covered in firstly).

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:40 PM|

[[Short update on the life]]

So, I am rather busy. Kinda realised that good grades are not going to drop from the sky. So I have to put in some effort, more than the minimal.

Still, good balance in life I think. I am not fully swamped. I have time for other things, prime time mind you, not left over time. Just trying to cut on my pure timewasting.

I have interesting stuffs. Will post soon, hopefully. And I have yet to email my philo prof about injustice to groups over time.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:06 AM|