A Brain in a Vat

Sporadically, in pub philosophy discussion, or in the midst of a party talking with people a few joints short of a blackout, you will hear a conversation something like this: 

'You know man, like, how do I know you're real? Like how do I know you have a mind? You could just be made up. All this might be like, not real.'

Followed by, 'I totally get you, like, totally.'

Finished with the obligatory; 'I love you man.'

Now it may seem like irrelevant, pointless drivel that everyone will have forgotten about by the next morning, but it has some important implications.

To illustrate, an American philosopher named Hilary Putnam used the idea of a brain in a vat. Imagine that your brain was removed from your head by evil scientists and placed in a vat of nutrients that keep it alive. Your brain is then hooked up to a super technological scientific computer that, by using electrical impulses, can create illusions in the brain; illusions of trees, sky, emotions, people etc. Your brain and subsequently you is experiencing the trees and the sky, but in actual fact you are merely your brain in a vat of nutrients somewhere out in the 'real' world. Matrix fans will see the similarities.

The conundrum has constrained philosophers for centuries and is the dark, looming shadow that quietly hangs over philosophy, threatening to undermine everything that all great thinkers of human kind have proposed. Plato's theory of rule, Kant's theory of knowledge and even Einstein's E=MC2 would all be tossed to the flames if the brain was indeed proved to be in a vat. 

This consequently means that we don't 'know' anything. We can say 'Yes, the sun will rise tomorrow.' and 'Yes, my shirt is blue.' but it cannot be definite knowledge because of this potential that our world in fact does not exist. What is a shirt in a world that doesn't exist? Nothing. The computer screen in front of you, your eyes that you're reading with, the thoughts that you're thinking, they are all part of the illusion created by the brain in the vat. Hilary Putman proposed his analogy in 1981, but it's essentially an updated version of Rene Descarte's thoughts in his 1641 'Meditations on First Philosophy'.

Instead of evil scientists, Descartes proposed that the 'maker' of experience was a 'malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning' that employed all its energies into deceiving Descartes. He believed in innate knowledge; knowledge already built in when we are born, and he also believed that the knowledge was placed by some divine power, for example God or here, the Devil. He questioned the idea that we should believe anything around us because it could quite easily be created by a demon, intent on deception.

Granted, most philosophers don't believe that we are a brain in a vat. And you probably don't either. But it categorically can't be disproved, it's impossible. Any attempt to would be foolish and futile. Instead, philosophers accept and value the theory as healthy scepticism, questioning other theories of knowledge, such as being based on experience or being innately placed, before they run away with themselves.

Yet, the mere possibility that the brain in a vat could exist, continues to cast a large shadow over the world of philosophy.

The Rise of Spotify

Spotify, developed in 2006, dominating in 2009. Spotify is the epitome of technology's effect on the music industry, and also a joy I only recently discovered. Spotify is for CDs, what CDs were for Vinyls. For those of you hidden under a technology rock, sheltering from the blistering rays of modern development, who don't know what Spotify is, I shall elaborate.

Spotify is essentially an internet based software that enables the user free, and most importantly 100% legal access to over 2 million music tracks; the figure is rising daily. Although there has been similar software in the past, such as Pirate Bay, the illegal nature has meant that obtaining music is a relatively difficult process that puts many off. Spotify owns the rights to any song and so users can simply download the software, and provided they have a stable internet connection, browse or search for music and instantly listen to the whole track. This simplifies the whole process and means music can be browsed through and selected as easy as pie. What a wonderful thing.

All of this comes for free, with the condition that every half an hour or so you get 20 seconds of advertising, but it is subtle, and easily livable with if you consider what you're getting in return... There are other options of becoming a member for around £10 and having no adverts, or renting it out for a day, for the use of parties etc. 

Spotify is a place that music novices, experts and dabblers can all enjoy; everyone can find something that excites them. A feature called 'Radio' allows you to select which decades and genre of music you would like to listen to, then compiles a list of music that matches your criteria, similar to Itune's 'Genius' feature. But in contrast to Itunes, all the tracks are full and free. Not tantalising 30 second snippets that lure you to pay the price of 79p, not quite a big enough price to seem significant, but not quite small enough to seem irrelevant, only to find that you don't like the track. This free access to a whole cacophony of music must be positive for the musical diversity in the UK. The sheer potential to be exposed to this eclectic mix will improve both the musical tolerance and musical knowledge of the public, I think that is a good thing.

Another positive is the fact that it completely rids the possibility of a simple hardware problem destroying a music collection taken years to collect. It's happened to me, it may have happened to you. CDs that you spent hundreds of pounds on ripped off and stored on Itunes, the CDs disregarded and lost, suddenly, a click, a whir, a blue screen, and all your songs are erased. It's enough to make a grown man cry. But with Spotify, this will never occur. It's a streaming service, the music is permanently stored outside of your hardware, nothing exists within your hardware so nothing can be lost. Your music collection is guaranteed.

However, a potential stumbling block in Spotify's dominance of computers around the world is the Ipod. Itunes is the only software that can sync music to an Ipod, and with these rights set in stone, Spotify's use might always be undermined by the fact that it's a streaming service, you can't listen to music on the move. 

But this is where it gets clever and the concept of Spotify is more exciting than the program itself. With the astronomic growth in internet on the move, comes a very interesting possibility. The increased use and quality of mobile internet means that Spotify potentially has the ability to render the Ipod redundant. A phone user would simply use Spotify on their phone in the same way that they used it at home. With the ability to create and save playlists, their previously listened music would not be lost between uses, and the listener could simply search for any song, no matter how old or new, and listen to it instantaneously. Subsequently, the role of the relatively technologically flaccid Ipod, becomes irrelevant. But this is speculation. Spotify has the potential and theory to outwit the might of Apple, but if this does indeed happen or not is yet to be seen.

Spotify also does not come without major implications for the music industry. The concept of music through internet streaming is as revolutionary as the rise of CDs was, and could be as crippling too. Before CDs, vinyls ruled supreme. They were cumbersome, volatile but ultimately a joy. The idea of buying a vinyl was more than the music, it was the artwork, the opening, the first play. Obviously, there still is a vinyl scene but it's ever receding into the darkness, now almost exclusively used for mixing. But CDs instigated the rip and burn culture that we have had for the last 15 years. Combined with the similarly astronomical growth of home computers and the technological competency of the younger generations, the music business has suffered at the hands of the MP3 greatly. There's little need to buy music. With CDs, you could borrow the disc from a friend (a loyal music buying friend of course), rip the songs onto Itunes and return it within ten minutes. Et voila, a whole album of music for free.

Spotify obviously is another step all together. It means that you don't even have to borrow the CD in the first place, it's there for anyone to listen to. But, you say, surely you can't actually obtain the track, you can only listen to it, that's what makes it legal? Anyone with half a brain can search google and find multiple methods of downloading tracks from Spotify. There is software developed specifically for downloading tracks direct from Spotify, anything that plays on your computer can be downloaded. The argument for Spotify destroying the idea of piracy seems a stagnant one at best. Spotify in many ways makes piracy easier as all the music is stored in one, easy-access place. At least with Pirate Bay, people had to work to find the music they wanted. 

Simultaneously, it undermines ownership. Everything from CD makers to Ipod manufacturers to record shops will suffer if Spotify's popularity becomes household because material goods won't be needed. That has to be a big worry. The rise in the abstract 'ownership' of music through the internet means that paying for music is dead. Music will become an industry fueled by advertising and a whole side of music, ie the artwork etc, will be irrelevant. The spirit and culture of music could be threatened.

So is Spotify a good thing? The current state of Spotify is marvelous for us public. Subtly important, but not dominating. We can search, discover and listen to new songs for no fee at all. It will widen our musical experience and possibly spread the intensity of listeners from big bands to smaller bands who need support. But the implications of the concept are dark, exciting and possibly destructive. The undermining of ownership and the corporative nature that music would take, means that the essence of music would be in danger. Surely that's something that shouldn't be risked.

Egg on the face of the BNP

The word 'disdain' has featured in both of my previous entries. But I fear that mere 'disdain' is neither sufficient nor expletive enough when describing my feelings (and I hope everyone else's feelings) towards the British National Party. These apes in suits continuously refute the claim that they're racist, whilst simultaneously claiming that there's 'No such thing as a Black Briton', refusing the right for different races to create families and repatriating all ethnic minorities, regardless of if they were born in Britain or not. These are Nazi policies. Nick Griffin (BNP Leader) was quoted as saying that 'Adolf went a bit too far'. A bit too far!? He is said to covet 'Mein Kampf' and the principles of Hitler, his only qualm with Hitler being that his legacy harms the image of the BNP in modern day UK.

They are a horribly confused, horribly disillusioned and horribly wrong party who's own integral slogan is even contradictory. 'British jobs for British Workers'. They claim that immigrants are taking 'our' jobs, whilst at the same time claiming that immigrants are claiming 'our' benefits. How can they both dominate our jobs and our benefits? Something doesn't add up. In truth, only 2% of immigrants claim on benefits.

But despite these facts, the recent European elections mean that the BNP now have 2 seats in the EU. In Barnsley I think, the percentage BNP got was around 25%. A massive blow for major parties, particularly Labour, and I think a massive blow for democracy in the UK. I admit people must be angry with Labour, the Presidential style of Prime Minister that we have in the UK has caused a section of Brown's cabinet to flee like rats from a sinking ship. But why would people vote BNP over Labour. How can Labour's policy be so flawed, that the electorate are ready to vote racist and undemocratic, than for a party that has legitimate, equal policies that ensure democracy in the UK. Or any of the main parties for that matter. It defies me.

Have you ever actually met a BNP member? Chances are you haven't. They sneak around our schools, our banks, our hospitals (if they're very sneaky) like dementors from Harry Potter. They're weak and irrelevant until Lord Voldermort comes to power, and in this case Voldermort is Nick Griffin himself (got to love Harry Potter analogies!). It seems that despite the 6% or so that voted BNP, there's a large level of embarrassment at being 'BNP'. There's a reason that the leaked list of BNP members caused so much scandal as there's a reason they're not allowed in our Police force; because racism is based on nothing more than irrational hatred and prejudice. How can you build a party around that.

But the something to keep in mind is that the large majority of the UK have the sense to realise that it's wrong. The reality is that the BNP have a minute chance of coming to power. People only turn to extremist parties in extreme situations, for example WWII. An extreme situation like WWII in modern diplomacy is unlikely and as such the BNP within the Westminster system are irrelevant. They find it almost impossible to win a seat with the First Past the Post system, and thus will have little to no power and should be stuck in a corner and left to rant their little lungs out. The main worry is with a hung government. FPTP has a positive of almost always creating a strong single party government. However, if a more Proportional electoral system is introduced and there was a situation in which parties had to make coalitions to rule the House of Commons, then the BNP could become a very powerful party indeed. They could agree to voting with say Labour, if Labour agreed to integrate some BNP policies into their own. If the BNP did gain some seats in the Commons then that is a major worry.

But I think we can rely on a fair amount of common sense and a large majority of BNP haters to keep them at a relatively safe distance (if there's such a thing). Democracy and political freedom is important, so we can't rule out the BNP as a political party. But a legitimate party must be based on something more than prejudice, surely? The BNP's policies come as a product of their racist motives and that can't be right, policies must be for the people, not a product of the people. 

So I think we can count on many more people to throw eggs at the face of the BNP in the future.

 

Examinations, examinations, examinations...

Having just come out of a heavy period of exams, as I know many of you have, I think I can safely assume a large amount of mutual disdain for them. They're stressful, hindering and worst of all, important. An exam paper done badly, or a question misunderstood can undermine a whole year's learning in one hour long swoop.

This brings me to my first point. Who's to say that in an hour, a student can display and portray their true skill and knowledge of a subject to their full potential. We spend a whole year studying, a dedicated fortnight or more of nothing but revision to be tested on a small part of the syllabus (I am well aware that I am talking about essay based exams and that factual exams do cover the syllabus but I count them as a different type of exam!). For example, in my recent Politics exam we were given 40 minutes to answer the question 'Discuss the claim the Constitutional Reforms since 1997 have not gone far enough.' Now this is a question debated by political scholars around the UK, for hours upon end, and in Parliament themselves. I have studied it for half a year, with endless examples, background and elaborations on the subject bored into my mind, yet here I am with 40 minutes to plan, articulate and communicate my answer onto a page. I am clearly not going to give my most full and best answer to the question, so why make me do it.

This slides into my next point. Relevancy. In practically no situation would a politician be made to write, in 40 minutes, an essay on Constitutional Reform. Nor would an author be asked to 'Analyse the significance of Shug Avery in The Color Purple' in an hour. Or even a Psychiatrist being asked to list 2 weaknesses of questionnaires, yet this is what we are asked. Exams have no reality to them, they are merely a superficial way of arranging students into hierarchies for Unis to come and handpick from like sweets on a shelf. Exams in my view, make grades and results the pinnacle of learning, when surely interest in the subject and a better educated person should be the emphasis. We talk about 'A Grade Students' and 'C Grade Students', a student is a student, they want to learn, why should they be discriminated. Now I know I sound like a prat, 'Learning is fun, learning enriches your life', but if you made the decision to continue with college, then you appreciate learning. Otherwise you'd have done a Sir Alan and set up a business at 16. I think that when learning our subjects is made to be a chore, which it is by exams, then there is a fault in the system.

My third point is on exam discrimination. Some people just don't do exams. They can be creative geniuses, logical geniuses, linguistic geniuses, but if they freeze in exams then how will they ever get recognition and results in the education system. Other than coursework, which in itself is normally a low percentage of the grade or doesn't exist, pupils have no other outlet to show their intelligence and educational aptitude. They have to either learn how to do exams, an irrelevant practice after education, or accept that they won't do well in education. And the sad truth is that some of the most articulate, convincing speakers, simply can not do exams. And why should they have to to succeed in education? 

However, it must be said that I am at a loss for any other system that would work. A more liberal system that included choices of grade allocations such as dissertations, examinations and  presentations would no doubt cause controversy. There would be much deliberation on how to compare and contrast the competency in which someone verbally presented a point and someone who answered a question with pen and paper. It seems to me that despite the blood, sweat and tears that exams cause, they are a necessary evil in getting through the education system. Unless anyone else has a suggestion...

Sorry Stephen Fry

As a loyal fan of the wisdom of Stephen Fry (the most amiable and intelligent man on TV in my opinion), it is with slight disdain that I write this following blog. He himself said, as an ex columnist for The Telegraph, an article can become dominated by emotion. Emotion overrides rational reason and thwarts an essay, it becomes opinion. And Fry's main problem with his position was that he started to believe that his opinion mattered. He started to become lazy and simply write with emotion, in his own words he stopped 'genuinely inspecting (his) own heart'.

Now, obviously a blog is not journalistic, it's what one makes of it. Emotion in a blog could in fact be said to be intrinsic to an enjoyable read. But it must not be void of reason. 

The first topic I deem blogworthy is the bad press that teenagers get. Now you may start to groan when you hear me say it but I think it's a huge issue today and is the integral reason to why many old grannies around the UK are petrified of anyone wearing a hood. I am a 17 year old 'Young Man' and live both in Brighton, and just outside it (split parents, two homes). I have enjoyed a comfortable upbringing, little violence, great schools and aspiring grades, all with the support of a loving family. From this privileged position, maybe I am not at liberty to comment on the statistics and facts that emerge from teen behaviour in rough, inner city areas, and I fully accept that. 

My qualm is both the way blame is put onto these teenagers in rough situations, and the blatant disregard for all the teenagers (like myself) around the country actually doing well and prospering despite the Press' headlines.

I'll start with the blame factor. We are bombarded with facts of violence and stabbings weekly, this is shown as a sign of teenagers out of control. And in some aspects it must be. But what angers me is the almost contradictory way the media will portray the same point. For example, a newspaper article from The Daily Star may comment on the rise in youths drinking on street corners and put this down to laziness. A BBC 5 minute investigation will then approach teens on a street corner and confront them about why they are drinking on Wednesday night on a street corner. 9 times out of 10, the answer will be 'There's nothing else to do'. 

In poverty stricken areas where public welfare is low and activities for youths are almost non-existent, the behaviour of teens can't be designated purely and simply to laziness and a lack of inspiration. It goes above their heads, it becomes the responsibility of the government. Now I'm obviously not saying it's an easy problem to solve, poverty is a long lasting, devastating problem at the heart of many other problems worldwide. But what I am saying is that the blame must be relieved from the teenagers themselves and put on the people who have responsibility for the teenager's position. Emile Durkheim coined the idea of anomie; the theory that within a society with no social norms or sense of place and responsibility, an individual will become disconcerted. I think anomie is prevalent to the situation of a percentage of teens today and that needs to be addressed. Give them responsibility. Give them a sense of purpose. And see what the outcome is.

Another big problem for me is linked in to responsibility and the media. Crime rates within teens rise and some blame is put on the government, but most of public blame is directed at teens themselves. However, if crime rates drop then all of the gratitude is aimed at the government and the teens, who seemed to be very responsible for the rise in crime, have suddenly become passive and have no part to play in the decline in crime. 

I'm a believer to a certain extent of nurture over nature. I think that if instead of being brought up in a middle class family in a lovely village in the South East with great schools and plenty of opportunities for me to develop and have a sense of place, I was brought up in one of these poverty stricken areas I would become another statistic on the supposed downfall of teenagers. The blame can't be entirely placed on the teenagers themselves and it's simply not right that people from all backgrounds and ages are judging teens that reside in a situation that people reading about cannot empathise with. 

My second problem with the media's representation of teenagers is the lack of good news about teenagers. Now I admit, this is obviously evident in all aspects of the news, us readers seem to enjoy reading about bad news. It's a decidedly strange thing. 

But even when positive statistics are discovered, often the media will try to discount it. For example, exam results go up - 'Exams are Easier than Ever'. As said earlier, teen crime drops - 'Teen Crime Drops, Well Done Mr Brown'. This controversy increases sales of Papers a the expense of teenager's public image. Now you can see the problem. If we teens work hard for our exam results and find them difficult but still get good grades, then we want a certain amount of praise headed our way. Admittedly in some papers, the rise in grades was appraised as a great sign of youth in the UK. But to turn around and pick up a paper disregarding the results simply because of growth in ease of paper, it is clearly going to cause a certain amount of dislike and uncertainty of the press from teens. 

Now obviously, I cannot account for those teenagers in privileged environments who still decide to resort to crime. Perhaps, in there lies an argument for nature over nurture and I can't give any excuses for why they do it. But as far as the Press' mass representation of the teen nation is concerned, I think it has a lot to account for. The media knows it's one of the most important cogs in society, if not the most important cog. We get all our information from the media be it politics, the economy, entertainment or celebrity news. I think it's time that the gigantic power of the media became used positively for teens and stopped creating this feeling of distrust between teenagers and adults. 

And true to his word, Stephen Fry's theory that a bit of anger can go a long way in an article has held true. But I hope that my emotion hasn't overridden all reason in this one and I look forward to writing more in the not so distant future! I would be ecstatic to receive feedback.