The inner Prophet!

He was a Prophet unto himself. Always guiding himself in darkest hours of his life. No Gabriell came to his help. No message came from the seventh heaven. Still, he was a Prophet unto himself. So, one day he crucified himself for the sins of the inner Prophet. 

Right Words!

Such is the irony of life. Thoughts that are most worthy of being expressed are the ones that find it impossible to come up with right words.

Love story!

He was blind and she always saw things from other people's eyes. Therefore, their love story ended even before it began.

Windmills of your mind!

Lovers walk along the shore and leave their footprints on the sand!

	Windmills of your mind - Noel Harrison
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Keys that jingle in your pocket
Words that jangle your head
Why did summer go so quickly
Was it something that I said
Lovers walking allong the shore,
Leave their footprints in the sand
Was the sound of distant drumming
Just the fingers of your hand

Pictures hanging in a hallway
And a fragment of this song
Half remembered names and faces
But to whom do they belong
When you knew that it was over
Were you suddenly aware
That the autumn leaves were turning
To the color of her hair

Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning wheel
As the images unwind
Like the circle that you find
In the windmills of your mind

The worst Phobia!

Every time I am happy; I get worried. Among all phobias, the phobia of happiness is the worst.

'You think quantum physics has the answer?

'You think quantum physics has the answer? I mean, you know, what purpose does it serve for me that time and space are exactly the same thing? I mean I ask a guy what time it is, he tells me 6 miles? What the hell is that? ' from Anything Else

Nature's desire!

"Desire is the Opposite of Death" - Tennessee Williams

True. Perhaps death is nature's desire to end all desires.

Love and solitude!

Lying on his bed trying to sleep, a random thought came across him. His mind whispered to itself a secret question. 'When was I in love the most?', he asked himself. 'Probably, whenever I was alone', was the instant reply. Love for him had always been a child of loneliness, cultivated and fostered by one's own solitude. Yet it was the sheer fear of this loneliness and the immense burden of his own solitude that made him go hunting for love. Soon he got his love. The union payed farewell to all the personal loneliness and solitude. However, that was the time he was in love the least. Whats worse?  He knew it.
After that even the loneliness was never the same.

Subtle Kind of Murder!

'The most loving parents and relatives commit murder with smiles on their faces. They force us to destroy the person we really are: a subtle kind of murder. '
Jim Morrison

Time!

Sometimes I wonder what is the truth. Is time consuming me or am I consuming time. Who knows. Perhaps what difference does it make?

I think therefore..

I think, therefore I am an outcast. (Qasim Aziz)








And alien tears will fill for him, 
Pity's long-broken urn, 
For his mourners will be outcast men,
And outcasts always mourn- Oscar Wilde

Profound distrust!

Always distrust those who trust themselves.

Contra Hard determinism!

To my previous post named 'On Human Choice'. I got this feedback from a dear friend of mine, Awais Aftab. He had certain reservations regarding my take on the subject. Since his objections are quite relevant, I have decided to write a blog entry. Below are his remarks regarding my position.

___________________________________________________________________________________
A thought provoking and insightful post. Loved the thought process.

I'd like to mention two reservations though:

1) You wrote "A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act." I believe this is erroneous as such, because a hard determinist will argue that his whole future will be determined by his collective past events as a whole, in which a particular individual past event may or may not play a role.

2) You wrote "I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning." A hard determinist will say that even the process of ascribing meaning to a past event will be determined by the past and by factors external to you. Whatever meaning you decide to give to the past event would also be determined.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here is my reply to him.

Awais!
You are absolutely right about the hard determinist's position. To be honest it is very difficult to argue with a hard determinist as they will always take a step back and hide behind some sort of causality (whether materialistic or psychological) and deny the possibility of human choice.

However, my issue is this. Even when our actions are controlled by external factors; we may interpret them in a specific way. That is where the internal part comes in. By that I mean our response towards it. I know a hard determinist will come up with the argument that even our response is also determined by past events and external forces. I refuse to accept this claim.

Hard determinism fails to explain the difference in people's behavior coming from the same economic and social background. For example, Two brothers sharing same life style may differ in their response to certain events including failed love affairs, spiritual crisis, loss of a loved one etc.

Secondly, if hard determinism is true then personal motive should flow with a kind of lubricant. However, the very existence of struggle and resilience proves the futility of external factors. The fact that we have to work hard to achieve something negates the claim of at least hard determinism.

Thirdly and most importantly, hard determinism can never conceptually negate the possibility of freedom or choice. This may sound counter intuitive but I will elaborate my point. Imagine if everything is determined by our past experience and external forces (as hard determinists argue) then this leaves us with a potential position where the 'freedom' of a person is determined by his past events and external forces. Meaning that a person A was determined by the very external forces to live a free life ( To say it in another way, he had no choice but freedom). In principle, a hard determinist cannot negate the possibility of such scenario. They will have to accept it because of their primary position.

Now, here comes my main argument. If hard determinism leaves 'potential' or 'rare' room for freedom or choice then it means anyone can fall to this category as a matter of luck. Since we can't exactly know whether we belong to such category or not we can never know whether we are completely determined or completely free. To borrow Dennet's terminology, that is where we seem to suffer from an 'epistemic horizon'.

Finally, I may resort to a psychological assertion. Hard determinism seems to generate a feeling that 'Nothing's gonna change my world'. However, the moment one accepts that one is not free. One is a changed person. I know this is more of a psychological feeling than a logical argument. Truth has a strange liberating effect on us even in captivity. As the Bible says, ''Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

I know that none of my arguments are conclusive. But the very existence of debate and doubt for me leaves room for choice on this subject.

 

On Human Choice!

Whats done cannot be undone!

A simple but profoundly true dictum. The essence of time is movement. As Iqbal put it aptly;

Jo tha woh nehi hei, jo hei na hu ga
Yehi hei ik harf-e-mafermana

(Translation: What ever that was, is not. What ever that is, will not be. This is the mysterious word.)

Our past is a matter of fact. Certain events take place in our life and become an inseparable part of our character. This has made certain people argue that our past somehow determines our future therefore free will or human choice is an impossibility. Since we cannot alter out past, we cannot alter our future too. I take exception to this assertion. Despite being someone who is not a free will enthusiast; I believe there is room for human choice. I will elaborate my argument below.

Imagine someone who had committed murder at the age of 17 or 18. This incident of the past becomes a fact for that individual. A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act. He wont be able to escape it. It will haunt him.

Similarly imagine someone who gets into an illicit secret relationship. Someone who explores all the carnal instinctive desires.Or someone who has been cheated or jilted by their partners. For a determinist such a person won't be able to escape this fact in future even when the relationship will be over. As they say, whatever is done cannot be undone.

The determinist argument seems to make sense intuitively. Only a fool or a liar can deny his past. Facticity is part of human condition. However, there is another aspect to the whole debate. We humans have been endowed with an ability to give meaning to our actions. This is the aspect that determinists ignore. For instance who will decide that the murder I committed at the age of 18 was a crime or was it a life changing event making me a complete pacifist by the age of 25? Me. I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning. Who will decide whether the carnal illicit experience I had as a young lad was something ugly or was it the basis of later spiritual conversion at the age of 40? Me. Only I will be in a position to give it a meaning. True, I cannot change my past actions. But I can surely change the meaning I attach to them in future. That is where lies the true potential for human choice.

Hallaj's throne!

Hallaj looked for god everywhere, even reached the seventh heaven in his love for the lord. Finding his throne empty he sat in his place.

Truth and the Clash!

Objectivity demands that we must jump outside ourselves and see things from a perspective independent of our mind. Nature has given us a peculiar gift. We have the ability to see things from a detached point of view. Some have called it the 'view from nowhere'. However, at the same time we belong to a particular time period in history. We have our own prejudices and beliefs. We have the ability to see the world in our own image. The clash between this 'personal world view' and the 'view from nowhere' seems to generate all the philosophical problems. To stress the importance of one world view over the other seems to move away from truth. The whole truth neither lies in 'view from nowhere' nor in 'personal world view'. Truth is the clash.

Hubert Dreyfus and his Heideggerian atttack on Artificial Intelligence!

Turing Test!

I must confess. My first encounter with artificial intelligence (A.I) was not through an academic discourse or documentary but rather by watching 'Blade Runner'. At that time it didn't occur to me what was actually implied in the theme of the movie. All I know is that I enjoyed watching it ; not caring what repercussions A.I can bring for human beings.

Years after watching the movie I ask myself a deceptively simple question, Can machines think or behave like humans? This is not a new question. Alan Turing propagated it in his seminal work Computer Machinery and Intelligence. He came up with the Idea of 'Turing Test', a kind of thought experiment which elucidates his view on the subject. For those who have not heard of Turing test I will explain it briefly.

Imagine a scenario involving three players namely A,B, and C. Player C as interrogator is given the task to find out which of the two players from A and B is a machine and which one is human. The correspondence between them is limited to writing. If the interrogator finds it impossible to distinguish the machine from human beings then the machine is said to have passed the Turing Test. It was this simple idea that revolutionized the World of A.I. People and enthusiasts started making prophesies about the domination of A.I over human intelligence and intellect.

To be honest I was never comfortable with the idea of A.I as indistinguishable from human intelligence. Despite being interested in science fiction, I find the whole idea disconcerting. Time after time I discussed this problem with my friends working in field of I.T and asked for their insights on the subject. However, it was my own ambition that lead me to read some stuff on this issue. It was here that I first discovered Professor Hubert Dreyfus. This man has added a new dimension to the whole debate of Artificial intelligence through his penetrating critique of the whole Idea of A.I.


It is important to mention here that Professor Dreyfus in my view is the greatest living authority on the work of Martin Heidegger. It was through his relentless work that the ideas of this great continental thinker gained acceptance and accessibility in the Anglo-American world which had initially dismissed him as an obscurantist and a Nazi sympathizer. It is also a well known fact that Martin Heidegger despised technological advancement and scientific progress and saw in it the seeds of futuristic nihilism. Therefore, I won't shy away from calling him a Luddite. People from the field of computer sciences have also accused Dreyfus for being a Neo-Luddite. This is the reason that initially his work was not taken. seriously. However, with the passage of time his critique seems to have served a very strong dent to the whole argument of A.I.

Critique of A.I:

Here I will summarize the main attack of Professor Hubert Dreyfus on A.I. According to Professor Dreyfus, the whole argument of artificial intelligence thrives on certain misguided or partially true assumptions. Firstly, Dreyfus argues, A.I seems to draw an analogy between a Humans and a machines (or computers). The assumption is to treat brain as a hardware and mind as a kind of software or programme. Secondly, Artificial Intelligence seems to suggest that human mind functions by performing discrete computations on discrete representation via rule-following. Thirdly, this psychological assumption rests on two other presumptions.
Firstly, it assumes that all intelligent human activity is rules governed or law governed. Therefore, intelligence can be treated in a mathematical fashion. Secondly, for A.I reality consists of independent atomic facts. Intelligence therefore means nothing but the internal representation of these facts via rule-following. In conclusion, the argument for A.I revolves around one question. Does intelligence follows rules?

Dreyfus contends that to argue that intelligence is a rule governed activity presupposes the objective knowledge of human psychology. If intelligence is rule-governed then contextuality is immaterial. However, the subject of 'objective psychology' is  self-contradictory for Dreyfus. Taking a cue from Heidegger and Wittgenstein, he vehemently argues that Intelligence does not depend on following rules. Most of our intelligent human activity is not dependent on conscious choice making but rather on unconscious/sub-conscious 'everyday everydayness'. The cognitive aspect of A.I seems to suggest that cognition is nothing but the manipulation of symbols and representation in mind via rules. Therefore, we can study the phenomena of mind exactly the way we can study the workings of the universe. For instance, a physicists can talk about the universal physical laws. Similarly, an objective psychology of human mind is also possible. It is this thesis that Dreyfus aggressively dismisses. For, Dreyfus it is impossible to come up with an 'objective psychology' or 'scientific psychology'. Heidegger saw human beings as historical beings always bound in some sort of 'context' or situation. He famously called us 'coping beings'. Always finding ourselves in a situation or a context. It is on the basis of these insights that Dreyfus denies the existence of context free scientific psychology. However, remaining a true Heideggerian he suggests that we can obviously chose to see the intelligence as a rule-governed activity. But the fact that we can chose to see intelligence as a rule-governed activity gives us no rational ground to justify that all intelligent activity is necessarily rule governed.

Personally, I see it as a very strong critique of the idea of A.I but the technological advancement may prove me wrong in my belief. However, I strongly share Dreyfus' thesis that objective psychology is impossible. If we cannot objectively talk about the basis of our human intelligence; it is utterly useless to talk about A.I. Finally, I must confess I am a Neo-Luddite too ;-)


P.S
For those interested in the critique of A.I, I would recommend reading Professor John Searle and his Chinese room argument.

Tractatus Logica-Pakistan!

For all the Wittgenstein fans.

Tractatus Logica-Pakistan: 'Whereof one cannot speak; thereof one must yell and shout'.

Two flew over the Cuckoo's Den!

Today was a special day. I managed to visit one of the best known cafes of Lahore named Cuckoo's Den. The cafe is owned by Mr. Iqbal Hussain, an artist by profession, born to a prostitute mother in the vicinity of infamous Red Light area of Lahore.(The good thing about this fact is that Mr Hussain faces this issue head on and doesn't shy away from it. A quality that I really used to admire before my visit). For years I have heard many things about the glorious and sublime ambiance of the cafe which is surrounded by Badshahi Mosque on one side and Lahore Fort on the other. To be honest, I had been trying to visit that place for ages in the past but never got a chance to go there. Finally, I along with a dear friend of mine managed to visit it. What followed was a series of misfortune events.

It was Eid Night and much like the Old Nawabi kids of Mughal era both of us were expecting some sort of cultural activity (Ghazal night or something of that sort) there. However, when I parked my car outside the cafe, the very first thing that struck me was the 17th century building of the cafe signifying the spirit of inner Lahore. Apart from the architect nothing really attracted my attention. Not even the next door brothel. We were welcomed by a middle aged uncle who showed us the way to the top of the cafe. The five story building is nothing short of a museum. We had to walk up stairs all the way. On the very first floor I encountered Shri Ganesh's statue giving the appearance of a medieval Hindu temple. Artistic! very atristic! I thought to myself while appreciating the cultural taste of Mr Hussain. On my way up, I was welcomed by Mother Mary, Jesus and finally Buddha on each floor respectively. For a moment I thought that the customers were made to believe that they were on a Dante Style heavenly journey rather than a visit to an ordinary cafe.

Finally we were on the roof top. Before us stood the Badshahi Mosque with all its glory. The mesmerizing and awe inspiring ambiance of the cafe made me and my friend convinced about the artistic genuineness of Mr. Hussain. The first few moments on the top were just amazing. But as Frost said 'Nothing gold can stay'. Our enthusiasm and fascination proved to be short lived. My friend was about to tell me the dynamics of the inner walled city when the waiter standing next made us realize that we were supposed to order something. So, very gently the menu was presented to us. . What followed is the real purpose for which I am writing this long blog entry.

We ordered one plate of regular Biryani, one Qeemay wala naan along with Raita and two regular cold drinks. The price of the items gave me and my friend goosebumps. They were charging 100 rupees for regular coke. Rupees 450 for Biryani and Rupees 200 only for Raita. Not to forget 150 Rupees for Naan. Good heavens! I thought to myself. Artists are famous for austerity but I never knew that their austerity doesn't extend to their customers. My table was surrounded by the statues of Buddha and Jesus. Ironically, two saintly figures signifying monkish life style. I felt them laughing at us; as if they were saying that we admirers of culture and art deserve this fate. Remaining sanguine, I reassured my disillusioned friend that may be the food will compensate the value for money. However, when the food eventually arrived I was made to pay heavily (not only financially) for my reckless optimism. The Biryani tasted as if it were picked up from the next door Langar. The food and price made us forget everything. Me and my friend were in a conundrum. We couldn't made up our mind as to what was more difficult a task. Paying our bill or eating our meal. Unfortunately, we had to eat and we had to pay. We were left with no other option. My disillusioned friend asked me why Mr. Hussain was doing this injustice to his admirers and customers. I replied sarcastically that the idea is to take revenge from the very society that has inflicted injustices on Mr. Hussan as a kid. My friend came up with an even nastier theory. He speculated that the area has its history of mugging people for money , perhaps the means are changed now but intent is the same.

Perhaps the truth is something else. Here was a man known for promoting a cultural and liberal identity as a true pakistani artist. Like many Pakistani artists before; he proved himself to be another phony. The road to culture and art is paved with greedy intentions. With that we paid our bill and two of us flew over the Cuckoo's Den. Never to return again to this so called cultural citadel.

Philosopher Penguin!

First Cut is the deepest!

Sappy song but I kinda like it :-)

	Sheryl Crow - First Cut Is the Deepest .mp3
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Anal Haq!

With the sword of his own blood he slayed all divine reverence . Anal-Haq, Anal-Haq (I am the Truth, I am the Truth), he proclaimed in ecstasy. Like the older truth from Nazareth; he too was crucified. Tragically, he was put back again on the very divine pedestrian he had destroyed in the moment of ecstasy. Nothing remained of the original truth but its echo.

Perfect Lovers!

If the purpose of love is to know each other. Then they were perfect lovers; sharing a peculiar kind of permanent silence that comes with the realization when one already knows what the other person is going to say.