Being a vegetarian, taking a classes on human rights, international relations, practical ethics, ... these things all contribute to various discussions and thoughts that lead me to a question of entitlement. To what degree we are entitled to anything that we have or could have?
When it comes to diet - are we entitled to eat animals because we can? because we are more intelligent, rational, spiritual, ...? are we entitled to avoid inconvenience and please our tastebuds at the expense of another creature's pain and death? Raised as a vegetarian I've found that question easy for me to answer, but it always becomes less clear when people refer to those in other countries who may not have the ability to support themselves nutritionally without eating meat (based on their situation: poverty, geography, geology, ...). Should one die if the only way of living is killing an animal? Many would answer no, but then the question remains, where do you draw the line?
What about money? There are people less fortunate than us (true for anyone literate enough to read this). People without money, food, water, education, medicine, safety, ... Theoretically, if you have $1000 for one week, whatever you don't spend on yourself can be spent towards helping those that are less fortunate by some means or another. While most would agree that a rich man, given the opportunity to give a starving man a $10 meal and eating a $30 meal instead of a $40 meal to compensate would agree that that would be a good thing to do. I often look at some things that people spend money on and think that it is unnecessary, a waste, could be spent much better on something, or someone, else. Where do you draw the line though? It's one thing to avoid spending over $5000 on a watch, but what about having 7 houses (McCain), taking annual vacations to glitzy ski resorts in the Alps, buying a luxury car, flying first class, or enjoying fine wine? How much of our wealth (earned or not) are we entitled to enjoying? To what level of luxury or comfort should we elevate ourselves before giving to charity? Contemporary philosopher and Princeton professor Peter Singer wrote a piece on the topic in the NYTimes: "What Should a Billionaire Give - And What Should You?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html). His proposals are significant and would yield a great amount of money for charity but would leave the richest with over a million dollars per year. It also mentions Kravinsky, a man who spoke to our Practical Ethics class, who approaches ethics and duty with a mathematical mind, and gave his kidney to a complete stranger because the chance of his dying as a result of it was approximately 1 in 4000 and not giving his kidney would be equivalent to valuing his own life 4000 times more than another (as opposed to the equal valuation that he advocates). Personally, thinking about all of this tempts me towards something like the following:
make as much $ as possible in whatever job i choose (do well at it, and don't avoid trying to maximize pay, though of course prioritize enjoying the job etc), then live a somewhat (define this!) minimalistic lifestyle, where all $ above X amount (poverty line? no, something though (figure this out)) is divided (figure out %s) into $ for savings (in case of emergency, for children's education, for special family or other significantly justified expenditures) and $ to give away. key is that i (and eventually we) live as if our total income was X amount (esp. as far as buying consumer products is concerned, and a house, etc).
They say the young are overly idealistic. Let's see what happens!
==
Vegevangelizing -> advocating vegetarianism through evangelical (esp. Christian) teachings.
i.e. use Bible (or equiv.) to argue for vegetarianism.
((http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2008/julaug/6.46.html ... can do better, I know))
==
On the way back from a Sydney suburb I met two Brazilian sisters on the way to a party somewhere. Chatted with them during the ride, they invited me to the party (which I couldn't go to) and we exchanged numbers for later hanging. Later hanging never happened, but meeting young travelers is fun! Meeting Brazilian girls is also fun (did I mention a similar interaction with a couple of Brazilian girls at a bus stop in the city at night?).
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Education, Health, Food and the Doom of Stick-shifts?
Differences in education, Australia vs. US, based on my limited experience:
- $: tertiary education is cheaper in Australia, even compared to state schools, etc. Nice!
- tertiary education is not as widespread, it seems. or rather, it seems much more common that people will skip straight to a decent career or do some limited tertiary education on the way
- students are not as respectful in lecture... talking like whoa, playing cards, video games (e.g. PSP), ... really? a card game in lecture? why come? this unfortunately makes it harder to pay attention and hear occasionally
- people can't study whatever they want here. let me be more specific... at the end of high school you take a series of exams (subject based, i believe), and along with other factors these results end with a UAI (university aptitude index??) - a number out of 100 that represents your academic chops. now here's the deal... at a given university, different majors require different minimum UAI scores. so if you attend UNSW, if you want to study law you have to have a UAI of 98 or above (or something)... medicine is 92, computer engineering 85, ... etc (these aren't necessarily exact, but just for example). dude! sucks.
- this is perhaps *somewhat* related to the fact that universities here are much less liberal artsy, if you will. out of some 180 or so credits to graduate (depends on the degree), perhaps 164 must be taken in your major. for Electrical Engineering, for example, this translates to taking alll of your four years of courses in ELEC with the exception of 4 half-credit GenEd courses. for comparison, for my EE degree, I have to take maaybe 18 of my 36 courses in engineering or related technical areas (math physics etc), let alone specifically in ELE (maybe 5-8?). shoot. not my kinda game. after all, that's one of the reasons I decided to go to princeton and decided not to even apply to a school like MIT - I wanted full access to top notch humanities (read: non-science) courses and the flexibility to take them.
- as a result, a perhaps somewhat redeeming factor is that some of the undergraduate programs here (e.g. Law, Medicine, Engineering, ...) are intense enough that grad school is much less often required to enter the profession. at the end of 5 or 6 years of law, you take exams, intern, and have a law degree (no need for a separate 3 years of law school). and so forth. i guess it's another way to do it (similar to the 6-7 year combined undergrad/medicine programs in the US), but being forced to do it that way? i definitely wouldn't be an EE student here!
- final exams. whoa. so i'm used to a big emphasis on the honor code to the point where there is never an adult in the room during tests or final exams or anything. the prof. or TA hands out the exams, explains some things, sits around for the first 5 minutes or so then says "i'll be in the hall (or my office in the next building) if you have any questions," and leaves. here, exams are a huge affair with many held in huge rooms at the nearby racecourse with individual desks and nazi volunteers who won't allow backpacks, water bottles or nutritional sustenance into the exam room. strict as! (as they say here: as! (no noun or anything after the as... dead as a doornail! -> dead as! = very dead))
I have a note in my "forblog.txt" file on the election, and how I was flipping out about it and was nervous and excited and worried, etc. I guess I can relax about that now... though not everything ended quite as nicely as it could have. I'm referring in particular to California Proposition 8 which amended the Cali constitutition to ban gay marriage. That the Democrats are unlikely to get 60 seats in the Senate is also disappointing, but that was a long shot.
In other news, apparently Australia is now the fattest nation in the world, having stolen the prize from the US. Though most people may not be aware, we all know that it only happened because I moved here and totally messed up the averages.
As it turns out, where I live on the coast near Sydney doesn't seem to be most representative of the obese population, and the coastal pathway passing in and out of various coves, beaches, cliffs etc seems to be particularly popular for running. I've run there a few times, and it is beautiful and fabulous. I keep thinking that one day I will get into the habit of running every morning. Or most mornings perhaps. Maybe finding an attractive running partner would help...
I may have already mentioned it, but one thing about studying abroad here is that it has naturally emphasized certain differences between university life here and college life in the US. One factor that was particularly noticeable to me was the social life. As it turns out, perhaps because there is less of a tradition here of parents paying for children's education (as one person saw it), many more of the students here not only go to college near where they live, but they also commute to uni (as they call it) from home. That leaves very few people living on campus, and many with an average commute of an hour each way. This is in contrast to the US where most students, if they don't live *on* campus, live nearby in apartments or houses with other students. In Australia, college students socialize with their friends from home/HS more so than in the US. Part of this is an issue of convenience. Even when one is able to breach the norm of superficial communication to talk to someone for a while and pursue further friendship, the distance is a barrier. Cool, nice to meet you, let's hang out! Great, I'd love to, but I live an hour and a half away... maybe we can meet on campus for lunch or coffee. Which is great, and fun, and all good and well, but isn't nearly the same as a college scene where everyone lives so close that more substantial hanging out is much easier. That's not to say that more hanging out doesn't happen, just that it's harder and thus less common.
One result of this is that I ended up spending the vast majority of my social time with study abroad students (esp. Americans that I live with and met through roommates and other friends). As was unsurprising, that social scene was based largely on going out and drinking. Not impenetrable for a sober soul, but much less interesting and fun.
===
Mmm... wow. It's amazing how luxurious an (almost) all-nighter can feel when eating warm croissants dipped in Nutella in the warm heat of the rising sun.
==
How do you feel about the approaching conflict between manual transmission and environmentally friendly (i.e. more so than small stick-shift cars) vehicles... you can't have a (legitimately) stick-shift hybrid!! (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Yikes...
==
I really miss good potato chips - e.g. spicy kettle chips.
Oh, and good food. Sometimes food here is good. Sometimes.
- $: tertiary education is cheaper in Australia, even compared to state schools, etc. Nice!
- tertiary education is not as widespread, it seems. or rather, it seems much more common that people will skip straight to a decent career or do some limited tertiary education on the way
- students are not as respectful in lecture... talking like whoa, playing cards, video games (e.g. PSP), ... really? a card game in lecture? why come? this unfortunately makes it harder to pay attention and hear occasionally
- people can't study whatever they want here. let me be more specific... at the end of high school you take a series of exams (subject based, i believe), and along with other factors these results end with a UAI (university aptitude index??) - a number out of 100 that represents your academic chops. now here's the deal... at a given university, different majors require different minimum UAI scores. so if you attend UNSW, if you want to study law you have to have a UAI of 98 or above (or something)... medicine is 92, computer engineering 85, ... etc (these aren't necessarily exact, but just for example). dude! sucks.
- this is perhaps *somewhat* related to the fact that universities here are much less liberal artsy, if you will. out of some 180 or so credits to graduate (depends on the degree), perhaps 164 must be taken in your major. for Electrical Engineering, for example, this translates to taking alll of your four years of courses in ELEC with the exception of 4 half-credit GenEd courses. for comparison, for my EE degree, I have to take maaybe 18 of my 36 courses in engineering or related technical areas (math physics etc), let alone specifically in ELE (maybe 5-8?). shoot. not my kinda game. after all, that's one of the reasons I decided to go to princeton and decided not to even apply to a school like MIT - I wanted full access to top notch humanities (read: non-science) courses and the flexibility to take them.
- as a result, a perhaps somewhat redeeming factor is that some of the undergraduate programs here (e.g. Law, Medicine, Engineering, ...) are intense enough that grad school is much less often required to enter the profession. at the end of 5 or 6 years of law, you take exams, intern, and have a law degree (no need for a separate 3 years of law school). and so forth. i guess it's another way to do it (similar to the 6-7 year combined undergrad/medicine programs in the US), but being forced to do it that way? i definitely wouldn't be an EE student here!
- final exams. whoa. so i'm used to a big emphasis on the honor code to the point where there is never an adult in the room during tests or final exams or anything. the prof. or TA hands out the exams, explains some things, sits around for the first 5 minutes or so then says "i'll be in the hall (or my office in the next building) if you have any questions," and leaves. here, exams are a huge affair with many held in huge rooms at the nearby racecourse with individual desks and nazi volunteers who won't allow backpacks, water bottles or nutritional sustenance into the exam room. strict as! (as they say here:
I have a note in my "forblog.txt" file on the election, and how I was flipping out about it and was nervous and excited and worried, etc. I guess I can relax about that now... though not everything ended quite as nicely as it could have. I'm referring in particular to California Proposition 8 which amended the Cali constitutition to ban gay marriage. That the Democrats are unlikely to get 60 seats in the Senate is also disappointing, but that was a long shot.
In other news, apparently Australia is now the fattest nation in the world, having stolen the prize from the US. Though most people may not be aware, we all know that it only happened because I moved here and totally messed up the averages.
As it turns out, where I live on the coast near Sydney doesn't seem to be most representative of the obese population, and the coastal pathway passing in and out of various coves, beaches, cliffs etc seems to be particularly popular for running. I've run there a few times, and it is beautiful and fabulous. I keep thinking that one day I will get into the habit of running every morning. Or most mornings perhaps. Maybe finding an attractive running partner would help...
I may have already mentioned it, but one thing about studying abroad here is that it has naturally emphasized certain differences between university life here and college life in the US. One factor that was particularly noticeable to me was the social life. As it turns out, perhaps because there is less of a tradition here of parents paying for children's education (as one person saw it), many more of the students here not only go to college near where they live, but they also commute to uni (as they call it) from home. That leaves very few people living on campus, and many with an average commute of an hour each way. This is in contrast to the US where most students, if they don't live *on* campus, live nearby in apartments or houses with other students. In Australia, college students socialize with their friends from home/HS more so than in the US. Part of this is an issue of convenience. Even when one is able to breach the norm of superficial communication to talk to someone for a while and pursue further friendship, the distance is a barrier. Cool, nice to meet you, let's hang out! Great, I'd love to, but I live an hour and a half away... maybe we can meet on campus for lunch or coffee. Which is great, and fun, and all good and well, but isn't nearly the same as a college scene where everyone lives so close that more substantial hanging out is much easier. That's not to say that more hanging out doesn't happen, just that it's harder and thus less common.
One result of this is that I ended up spending the vast majority of my social time with study abroad students (esp. Americans that I live with and met through roommates and other friends). As was unsurprising, that social scene was based largely on going out and drinking. Not impenetrable for a sober soul, but much less interesting and fun.
===
Mmm... wow. It's amazing how luxurious an (almost) all-nighter can feel when eating warm croissants dipped in Nutella in the warm heat of the rising sun.
==
How do you feel about the approaching conflict between manual transmission and environmentally friendly (i.e. more so than small stick-shift cars) vehicles... you can't have a (legitimately) stick-shift hybrid!! (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Yikes...
==
I really miss good potato chips - e.g. spicy kettle chips.
Oh, and good food. Sometimes food here is good. Sometimes.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
loss of wisdom successful
for those that were planning on sending me care packages with soft
food and DVDs, for better or worse i don't think i'll need them. i
was almost looking forward to having a good excuse to lay on a couch
and watch lots of movies.
i got only one wisdom tooth pulled (the one that had a cavity and
broke - upper left). he looked again at the others and said that he
would keep them if he were me, and that my bite was stable so didn't
need to pull the 'mate' (lower left).
apparently with my beautiful tapered root etc it was a very easy
extraction. no general anesthesia or laughing gas, just some novocaine
(or equiv?) and pulled and it was out. i was literally in the doctor's
office for less than 15 minutes. i paid much less than i would probably pay in the US, not even considering the exchange rate (.68 to 1 today), but it still felt like a rip-off after it being so quick.
anyway, i still am not supposed to eat for another hour and a half or
so i'm considering taking a nap so i don't get too hungry. the
novocaine is wearing off but it doesn't hurt much. feels like i just
lost a tooth almost. hmm...
bought a new toothbrush that shakes or spins or something to try to
work on the hygiene of my wisdom teeth.
oh, and i went scuba diving and saw sharks and sea turtles and the only living "organism" visible from outer space and... i'll make sure to say more on that soon :)
food and DVDs, for better or worse i don't think i'll need them. i
was almost looking forward to having a good excuse to lay on a couch
and watch lots of movies.
i got only one wisdom tooth pulled (the one that had a cavity and
broke - upper left). he looked again at the others and said that he
would keep them if he were me, and that my bite was stable so didn't
need to pull the 'mate' (lower left).
apparently with my beautiful tapered root etc it was a very easy
extraction. no general anesthesia or laughing gas, just some novocaine
(or equiv?) and pulled and it was out. i was literally in the doctor's
office for less than 15 minutes. i paid much less than i would probably pay in the US, not even considering the exchange rate (.68 to 1 today), but it still felt like a rip-off after it being so quick.
anyway, i still am not supposed to eat for another hour and a half or
so i'm considering taking a nap so i don't get too hungry. the
novocaine is wearing off but it doesn't hurt much. feels like i just
lost a tooth almost. hmm...
bought a new toothbrush that shakes or spins or something to try to
work on the hygiene of my wisdom teeth.
oh, and i went scuba diving and saw sharks and sea turtles and the only living "organism" visible from outer space and... i'll make sure to say more on that soon :)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Free will, determinism, atheism, ...
I got this email from a friend one Sunday:
subj: "... ?"
body:
"thought: atheism and belief in free will are mutually exclusive.
discuss."
==
Then, during a conversation on AIM, the argument was made:
Friend: "so the argument goes like this:"
Me: "if there's no god to give us free will, then we're simply slaves to chance and/or the laws of physics, chemistry, etc...?"
Friend: "basically, yeah"
Me: "go ahead and say it however you were going to...
(don't let me stop you.. i'm curious)"
Friend: "okay
assumption 1: god=supernatural power of some kind, which is the only thing that can interfere with the laws of physics etc
anything
whatever
call it divine intervention"

Me: "k"
Friend: "assumption 2: without that intervention, we are slaves to our environment, which in turn was enslaved by ITS environment
example that one of my friends used:
"okay, so say I like Batman. how is that possibly fated?"
answer: you watched batman when you were little, or your parents made choices while raising you, or your environment tells you to like batman
or something
you can draw it all back
from the beginning of time, the movement of every single atom is predetermined
it's the answer to one big equation
and if we had a big enough computer we could solve it
the only way out of this is a higher power to interfere with that equation"
...
==
After reading up a bit on wikipedia's article on free will (which I highly recommend if you're interested in learning any more about any of the below) to fortify my personal perspective with some background knowledge and terminology, I wrote back the below email. Two days later, we were discussing almost the same stuff in my Philosophy of Religion class (by way of the topic "Omniscience"). I hope that gives a little sense of how well this class fits me, at least in some regards. Do let me know what your personal views on free will, determinism, etc and the connections to atheism, theism, etc are. Comments are fun for discussion, but go ahead and email to me if you want instead : )
1) yeah, i've thought that that is maybe true. (everything is determined by everything in the past/present combined with laws of nature/physics.)
2) but, there's a decent possibility that there is some uncertainty/unpredictability/... which would throw off the deterministic nature of a universe without a god. as you pointed out, this still leaves two options:
a. the quantum uncertainty/unpredictability is free will (or where free will comes into play)
b. one doesn't control this uncertainty in any way and it is not an expression of free will... in which case we still don't have free will, even if the universe isn't perfectly deterministic
and then:
3) what is free will? even if we don't know if we have it... or even if we don't have it, is there any point in approaching life from that perspective vs. thinking about oneself and one's actions in the context of free will?
okay... so i recommend reading (or at least skimming the parts you find more interesting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will . the below are some things that i think are particularly relevant to where our discussion was going/my perspective. below these quotes i'll toss in my thoughts on which way i would lean. after glancing at the article hit me back with which perspective they outlined you most identify with (if any).
=====
one definition of free will (not from wiki):
"the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance."
a paragraph on compatibilism that seems to match what i think a bit, esp the sentence in stars:
"Compatibilists maintain that determinism is compatible with free will. A common strategy employed by "classical compatibilists", such as Thomas Hobbes, is to claim that a person acts freely only when the person willed the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to. Hobbes sometimes attributes such compatibilist freedom to the person and not to some abstract notion of will, asserting, for example, that "no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe."[9] In articulating this crucial proviso, David Hume writes, "this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains".[10] To illustrate their position, compatibilists point to clear-cut cases of someone's free will being denied, through rape, murder, theft, or other forms of constraint. In these cases, free will is lacking not because the past is causally determining the future, but because the aggressor is overriding the victim's desires and preferences about his own actions. The aggressor is coercing the victim and, according to compatibilists, this is what overrides free will. Thus, they argue that **determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals' choices are the results of their own desires and preferences, and are not overridden by some external (or internal) force.[9][10]*** To be a compatibilist, one need not endorse any particular conception of free will, but only deny that determinism is at odds with free will.[1]"
mentions chaos and epistemic limits, which seem to be relevant:
"In Elbow Room, Dennett presents an argument for a compatibilist theory of free will, which he further elaborated in the book Freedom Evolves.[17] The basic reasoning is that, if one excludes God, an infinitely powerful demon, and other such possibilities, then because of chaos and epistemic limits on the precision of our knowledge of the current state of the world, the future is ill-defined for all finite beings. The only well-defined things are "expectations". The ability to do "otherwise" only makes sense when dealing with these expectations, and not with some unknown and unknowable future."
meh... that seems to be a bit strict... but then, i would say that:
"Most incompatibilists reject the idea that freedom of action consists simply in "voluntary" behavior. They insist, rather, that free will means that man must be the "ultimate" or "originating" cause of his actions. He must be a causa sui, in the traditional phrase."
any takers?:
"Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into supernatural theories and scientific or naturalistic theories. Supernatural theories hold that a non-physical mind or soul overrides physical causality, so that physical events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation. This approach is allied to mind-body dualism, and sometimes has a theological motivation."
some from the science section:
"Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic,[51] and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[52] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. The possibility that the universe at the macroscopic level may be governed by indeterministic laws, as it is generally accepted to be at the quantum level, has revived interest in free will among physicists.[53] However, there are a number of objections.
It is claimed by some that quantum indeterminism is confined to microscopic phenomena.[54] The claim that events at the atomic or particulate level are unknowable can be challenged experimentally and even technologically: for instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. However, this only amounts to macroscopic indeterminism if it can be shown that microscopic events really are indeterministic.
This consideration leads to the criticism of indeterminism-based free will on the basis that quantum mechanics is not really random, but merely unpredictable. Some scientific determinists, following Albert Einstein, believe in so-called "hidden variable theories" according to which the unpredictability of quantum mechanics is due to ignorance of an additional set of physical variables not explicitly included in the standard theory (see the Bohm interpretation and the EPR paradox).[55]
There is also a further, more philosophical, objection. It has been argued that if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself means that free will is absent, since such action cannot be controllable by someone claiming to possess such free will.[56] If this argument is conjoined with incompatibilism, then it would follow that free will is impossible, since it would be incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, and these are the only options. If it is conjoined with compatibilism, on the other hand, it would mean that free will is only possible in a deterministic universe."
=====
my leanings:
i'd go for a not too strict definition of free will which emphasizes that what one does is a result of their desires, preferences, thoughts, ... (i dance when i feel like dancing, i play robo when i want to play robo, ...). i'd also lean towards compatibilism: i don't think it really matters if everything is predetermined or not. what matters is that as far as we experience our consciousness, actions and the world, we have free will and can choose what to do or not to do. what is the alternative perspective? what can possibly be gained from viewing the world as if we all lack free will? in some senses when it comes to philosophy i think i'm a bit of a pragmatist. i don't know much about the exact philosophical definition of pragmatism but what i mean is that i tend to strongly consider the usefulness of various beliefs. i think it is useful to think about and approach the world in the context of free will (whether or not it exists) and not very useful to act as if we don't have free will. an argument of utility perhaps?
subj: "... ?"
body:
"thought: atheism and belief in free will are mutually exclusive.
discuss."
==
Then, during a conversation on AIM, the argument was made:
Friend: "so the argument goes like this:"
Me: "if there's no god to give us free will, then we're simply slaves to chance and/or the laws of physics, chemistry, etc...?"
Friend: "basically, yeah"
Me: "go ahead and say it however you were going to...
(don't let me stop you.. i'm curious)"
Friend: "okay
assumption 1: god=supernatural power of some kind, which is the only thing that can interfere with the laws of physics etc
anything
whatever
call it divine intervention"

Me: "k"
Friend: "assumption 2: without that intervention, we are slaves to our environment, which in turn was enslaved by ITS environment
example that one of my friends used:
"okay, so say I like Batman. how is that possibly fated?"
answer: you watched batman when you were little, or your parents made choices while raising you, or your environment tells you to like batman
or something
you can draw it all back
from the beginning of time, the movement of every single atom is predetermined
it's the answer to one big equation
and if we had a big enough computer we could solve it
the only way out of this is a higher power to interfere with that equation"
...
==
After reading up a bit on wikipedia's article on free will (which I highly recommend if you're interested in learning any more about any of the below) to fortify my personal perspective with some background knowledge and terminology, I wrote back the below email. Two days later, we were discussing almost the same stuff in my Philosophy of Religion class (by way of the topic "Omniscience"). I hope that gives a little sense of how well this class fits me, at least in some regards. Do let me know what your personal views on free will, determinism, etc and the connections to atheism, theism, etc are. Comments are fun for discussion, but go ahead and email to me if you want instead : )
1) yeah, i've thought that that is maybe true. (everything is determined by everything in the past/present combined with laws of nature/physics.)
2) but, there's a decent possibility that there is some uncertainty/unpredictability/... which would throw off the deterministic nature of a universe without a god. as you pointed out, this still leaves two options:
a. the quantum uncertainty/unpredictability is free will (or where free will comes into play)
b. one doesn't control this uncertainty in any way and it is not an expression of free will... in which case we still don't have free will, even if the universe isn't perfectly deterministic
and then:
3) what is free will? even if we don't know if we have it... or even if we don't have it, is there any point in approaching life from that perspective vs. thinking about oneself and one's actions in the context of free will?
okay... so i recommend reading (or at least skimming the parts you find more interesting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will . the below are some things that i think are particularly relevant to where our discussion was going/my perspective. below these quotes i'll toss in my thoughts on which way i would lean. after glancing at the article hit me back with which perspective they outlined you most identify with (if any).
=====
one definition of free will (not from wiki):
"the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance."
a paragraph on compatibilism that seems to match what i think a bit, esp the sentence in stars:
"Compatibilists maintain that determinism is compatible with free will. A common strategy employed by "classical compatibilists", such as Thomas Hobbes, is to claim that a person acts freely only when the person willed the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to. Hobbes sometimes attributes such compatibilist freedom to the person and not to some abstract notion of will, asserting, for example, that "no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe."[9] In articulating this crucial proviso, David Hume writes, "this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains".[10] To illustrate their position, compatibilists point to clear-cut cases of someone's free will being denied, through rape, murder, theft, or other forms of constraint. In these cases, free will is lacking not because the past is causally determining the future, but because the aggressor is overriding the victim's desires and preferences about his own actions. The aggressor is coercing the victim and, according to compatibilists, this is what overrides free will. Thus, they argue that **determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals' choices are the results of their own desires and preferences, and are not overridden by some external (or internal) force.[9][10]*** To be a compatibilist, one need not endorse any particular conception of free will, but only deny that determinism is at odds with free will.[1]"
mentions chaos and epistemic limits, which seem to be relevant:
"In Elbow Room, Dennett presents an argument for a compatibilist theory of free will, which he further elaborated in the book Freedom Evolves.[17] The basic reasoning is that, if one excludes God, an infinitely powerful demon, and other such possibilities, then because of chaos and epistemic limits on the precision of our knowledge of the current state of the world, the future is ill-defined for all finite beings. The only well-defined things are "expectations". The ability to do "otherwise" only makes sense when dealing with these expectations, and not with some unknown and unknowable future."
meh... that seems to be a bit strict... but then, i would say that:
"Most incompatibilists reject the idea that freedom of action consists simply in "voluntary" behavior. They insist, rather, that free will means that man must be the "ultimate" or "originating" cause of his actions. He must be a causa sui, in the traditional phrase."
any takers?:
"Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into supernatural theories and scientific or naturalistic theories. Supernatural theories hold that a non-physical mind or soul overrides physical causality, so that physical events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation. This approach is allied to mind-body dualism, and sometimes has a theological motivation."
some from the science section:
"Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic,[51] and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[52] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. The possibility that the universe at the macroscopic level may be governed by indeterministic laws, as it is generally accepted to be at the quantum level, has revived interest in free will among physicists.[53] However, there are a number of objections.
It is claimed by some that quantum indeterminism is confined to microscopic phenomena.[54] The claim that events at the atomic or particulate level are unknowable can be challenged experimentally and even technologically: for instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. However, this only amounts to macroscopic indeterminism if it can be shown that microscopic events really are indeterministic.
This consideration leads to the criticism of indeterminism-based free will on the basis that quantum mechanics is not really random, but merely unpredictable. Some scientific determinists, following Albert Einstein, believe in so-called "hidden variable theories" according to which the unpredictability of quantum mechanics is due to ignorance of an additional set of physical variables not explicitly included in the standard theory (see the Bohm interpretation and the EPR paradox).[55]
There is also a further, more philosophical, objection. It has been argued that if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself means that free will is absent, since such action cannot be controllable by someone claiming to possess such free will.[56] If this argument is conjoined with incompatibilism, then it would follow that free will is impossible, since it would be incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, and these are the only options. If it is conjoined with compatibilism, on the other hand, it would mean that free will is only possible in a deterministic universe."
=====
my leanings:
i'd go for a not too strict definition of free will which emphasizes that what one does is a result of their desires, preferences, thoughts, ... (i dance when i feel like dancing, i play robo when i want to play robo, ...). i'd also lean towards compatibilism: i don't think it really matters if everything is predetermined or not. what matters is that as far as we experience our consciousness, actions and the world, we have free will and can choose what to do or not to do. what is the alternative perspective? what can possibly be gained from viewing the world as if we all lack free will? in some senses when it comes to philosophy i think i'm a bit of a pragmatist. i don't know much about the exact philosophical definition of pragmatism but what i mean is that i tend to strongly consider the usefulness of various beliefs. i think it is useful to think about and approach the world in the context of free will (whether or not it exists) and not very useful to act as if we don't have free will. an argument of utility perhaps?
Human Rights (my thoughts and ponderings while working on my essay)
Research for my essay for my GenEd "Moral and Legal Foundations of Human Rights" class led me all over the place. I read a lot about a human rights abuses around the world that was saddening: the status of basic human rights for the majority of the world population is very poor. As I followed links from one website to another I was, however, somewhat encouraged by the discourse and debate on display. There was evidence of discussion and effort on all levels seeking to change things for the better. Overall, the effect is definitely negative, and leaves me with a worse view of the state of the world than before, but at least it also came with reason for maintaining optimism and hope for the eventual future.
(If you're curious, some of the specific issues that were the most depressing related to women's basic rights and gender inequality (with regard to marriage rights, sexual and other violence, abortion, labor, education, suffrage, and more) and those relating to violations of basic civil rights such as those embodied in the US Bill of Rights (especially freedom of expression, association, assembly, and religion).)
Okay... also ran into references to human rights in the U.S. A couple examples briefly discussed were right to adequate sustenance (food) and medical care. The reference to the right to medical care reminded me of a point of contention regarding health care. Do people have a right to health care? Does this right apply to those who require health care that they cannot afford? If so, what responsibility do they have to leading healthy lifestyles when possible? If there is a system (either state-run/universal or even just for a given employer or insurer) that spreads the cost of insurance for health care across all of the recipients of health care, should everyone be forced to pay more to provide for the extensive health care costs of a few individuals who consciously make lifestyle choices that are blatantly damaging to their health? One example is people who smoke cigarettes. Should everyone else have to pay a higher premium so that they can have expensive procedures required as a result of lung cancer from smoking? To put the question differently, should smokers have to pay more for health cover? What about people who engage in other risky activities? Smoking cigarettes is one example, but what about other drug use or abuse, engaging in extreme sports, driving without a seatbelt, or even eating unhealthily or leading a life devoid of all exercise?
As a separate question, do you think that "economic" and "social" rights such as rights to food, shelter, and medical care should be considered universal human rights?
And again separate, but very much related to the general topic of human rights (and perhaps general applications of ethics, even to non-humans)
Inherent human dignity is often cited as the basis for human rights in modern human rights discourse (as opposed to rights derived from a supreme being or from nature). Human dignity has also been cited as a philosophically significant distinguishing factor between humans and other Earthlings (to borrow the term from the film by the same name) that justifies inconsistent ethical treatment of humans and other Earthlings.
> Is there such a thing as inherent human dignity? What is it? If it is undefinable and intangible, and defying definition, is it anything but an abstract construction to justify universal human rights and the application of those rights and human ethics exclusively to the human race?
If the inclusion of both of these issues makes it difficult to think about or discuss, feel free to just address human dignity in the context of one of them, though I would challenge you to afterwards explore its application to the other. Does denying the existence of a philosophically relevant distinction between humans and other species preclude a philosophical basis for universal human rights?
Apparently when Alexander defeated a king named Porus in battle, Alexander asked how Porus wanted to be treated, and Porus said he wanted to be treated as a king would treat a king... and that that encompassed it all...
"Imagine now a situation in which a dissident is at the mercy of his torturer and the torturer were to ask (in dark jest perhaps), "Now how do you wish to be treated?", both knowing full well that the torturer had the power of life and death over the dissident. And the dissident were to say, "As a human begin should treat another human being." And the torturer were to reply, "Elaborate your point." And the dissident were to say, "When I said treat me as a human being should treat another human being, everything was contained in that." I invite you to regard this statement as an expression of human dignity and now join me in exploring it from a religious perspective..."
-Sharma, "Dignity as a Foundation for Human Rights Discourse"
Regarding not meeting human rights standards, the U.S. is surprisingly weak on this considering its relative prosperity and international status. We fail to ratify a number of important international treaties. Some of these include the International Criminal Court, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Topics relating to human rights issues in the U.S. include corporal punishment in schools, the death penalty, CIA secret detention centers, Guantanamo Bay, torture (including waterboarding - I discovered a nice fiery debate on the wikipedia talk page for waterboarding while doing research for a torture essay last year... yes, waterboarding is torture, please), other mistreatment of prisoner's which violates even the U.S.'s somewhat poor standards for treatment of prisoners, extraordinary rendition to secret detention centers, habeus corpus denials through the Military Commissions Act, ...
if you're interested in any of the details, this is a summary from the Amnesty International Report 2007 (perhaps you can find the 2008 version if it's available yet) on the U.S. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/north-america/usa?page=1#report
During my research I stumbled upon this Amnesty International petition to 'tear down' Guantanamo... one pixel at a time. For an important cause, and also kinda cool and artsy. To check it out and/or sign, visit: http://tearitdown.org/
(If you're curious, some of the specific issues that were the most depressing related to women's basic rights and gender inequality (with regard to marriage rights, sexual and other violence, abortion, labor, education, suffrage, and more) and those relating to violations of basic civil rights such as those embodied in the US Bill of Rights (especially freedom of expression, association, assembly, and religion).)
Okay... also ran into references to human rights in the U.S. A couple examples briefly discussed were right to adequate sustenance (food) and medical care. The reference to the right to medical care reminded me of a point of contention regarding health care. Do people have a right to health care? Does this right apply to those who require health care that they cannot afford? If so, what responsibility do they have to leading healthy lifestyles when possible? If there is a system (either state-run/universal or even just for a given employer or insurer) that spreads the cost of insurance for health care across all of the recipients of health care, should everyone be forced to pay more to provide for the extensive health care costs of a few individuals who consciously make lifestyle choices that are blatantly damaging to their health? One example is people who smoke cigarettes. Should everyone else have to pay a higher premium so that they can have expensive procedures required as a result of lung cancer from smoking? To put the question differently, should smokers have to pay more for health cover? What about people who engage in other risky activities? Smoking cigarettes is one example, but what about other drug use or abuse, engaging in extreme sports, driving without a seatbelt, or even eating unhealthily or leading a life devoid of all exercise?
As a separate question, do you think that "economic" and "social" rights such as rights to food, shelter, and medical care should be considered universal human rights?
And again separate, but very much related to the general topic of human rights (and perhaps general applications of ethics, even to non-humans)
Inherent human dignity is often cited as the basis for human rights in modern human rights discourse (as opposed to rights derived from a supreme being or from nature). Human dignity has also been cited as a philosophically significant distinguishing factor between humans and other Earthlings (to borrow the term from the film by the same name) that justifies inconsistent ethical treatment of humans and other Earthlings.
> Is there such a thing as inherent human dignity? What is it? If it is undefinable and intangible, and defying definition, is it anything but an abstract construction to justify universal human rights and the application of those rights and human ethics exclusively to the human race?
If the inclusion of both of these issues makes it difficult to think about or discuss, feel free to just address human dignity in the context of one of them, though I would challenge you to afterwards explore its application to the other. Does denying the existence of a philosophically relevant distinction between humans and other species preclude a philosophical basis for universal human rights?
Apparently when Alexander defeated a king named Porus in battle, Alexander asked how Porus wanted to be treated, and Porus said he wanted to be treated as a king would treat a king... and that that encompassed it all...
"Imagine now a situation in which a dissident is at the mercy of his torturer and the torturer were to ask (in dark jest perhaps), "Now how do you wish to be treated?", both knowing full well that the torturer had the power of life and death over the dissident. And the dissident were to say, "As a human begin should treat another human being." And the torturer were to reply, "Elaborate your point." And the dissident were to say, "When I said treat me as a human being should treat another human being, everything was contained in that." I invite you to regard this statement as an expression of human dignity and now join me in exploring it from a religious perspective..."
-Sharma, "Dignity as a Foundation for Human Rights Discourse"
Regarding not meeting human rights standards, the U.S. is surprisingly weak on this considering its relative prosperity and international status. We fail to ratify a number of important international treaties. Some of these include the International Criminal Court, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Topics relating to human rights issues in the U.S. include corporal punishment in schools, the death penalty, CIA secret detention centers, Guantanamo Bay, torture (including waterboarding - I discovered a nice fiery debate on the wikipedia talk page for waterboarding while doing research for a torture essay last year... yes, waterboarding is torture, please), other mistreatment of prisoner's which violates even the U.S.'s somewhat poor standards for treatment of prisoners, extraordinary rendition to secret detention centers, habeus corpus denials through the Military Commissions Act, ...
if you're interested in any of the details, this is a summary from the Amnesty International Report 2007 (perhaps you can find the 2008 version if it's available yet) on the U.S. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/north-america/usa?page=1#report
During my research I stumbled upon this Amnesty International petition to 'tear down' Guantanamo... one pixel at a time. For an important cause, and also kinda cool and artsy. To check it out and/or sign, visit: http://tearitdown.org/
Australian Goods?... Spring Break ... Daily Eavesdropping ... Cultural tidbits
hey! does anyone want anything from australia? boomerang? novelty t-shirt? plastic model of the opera house? if you want something particularly expensive, i can always purchase it on your behalf and you can pay me later. (i already have a request for a CDC (Cairns Dive Center, the people I'm diving the GBR (Great Barrier Reef) with) t-shirt and a VB (Victoria Bitter - big Australian beer) t-shirt. let the random requests flow)
Alright... so now that I mentioned it, my 'spring break' plans (they call it mid-semester break here): Fly to Cairns (3 hrs?), 1 night in a hostel, depart the next morning with CDC for a 3-day/2-night live-aboard dive trip on the reef. All accommodations and equipment and food etc included aboard the boat. (I'm doing the first half of my scuba certification (theory (I've got to get on it... gotta finish before Sat for the pool and haven't started) and pool learning) here in Sydney (Sydney Dive Academy, SSI), and doing the open-water dives to finish the certification on the dive trip.) After that, probably another night in a hostel in Cairns, then up the coast to the Daintree Rainforest... where we can explore the rainforest and the nearby beaches for a few nights... then back to Cairns for a possible white-water rafting trip before flying back! I'm travelling with an Australian girl (Mel - Melissa) whose family is from Sri Lanka who I might at a a friend's (Georgie's) 21st where I was taken by Emily from my Philosophy of Religion class.
As I was settling in before a Thurs 1-2pm lecture for Control Systems (in Webster Theatre B - they call lecture halls theatres), I noticed this sign on the wall:
"NOTICE: THIS THEATRE HAS FOLD DOWN SEATS, PLEASE CHECK THAT THE SEAT IS IN CORRECT POSITION BEFORE SITTING DOWN."
Overheard at the bus stop; conversation between three American girls:
American girl: "I always wanted to be a surgeon. And then I got to freshman year of college and was going out and partying and I decided that drinking and partying was more important than being a surgeon. That's what happened to my dream."
"I wanted to be an opera star."
"I wanted to be an astronaut."
Instead of "How're you doing?" -> "How're you going?" By bike. Unless it's raining, in which case by bus. (A joke... they expect a response like: "Good and you?")
Instead of "cotton candy" -> "fairy floss."
Instead of "sprite"/"7-up"/... -> "lemonade." They essentially don't have real lemonade here. If you ask for a lemonade in a restaurant or ever refer to lemonade, they think you're talking about Sprite (or an equivalent). I mean... I don't have a problem with referring to things by different names (okay... fairy floss??), but what about real lemonade?! They're totally missing out, and Sprite is a horrible substitution. Furthermore... "when life hands you lemons..." what do Australians do with them?
Alright, how about this one. In Australia, a lawyer that practices in court is called a barrister (okay, fine for now)... and when they're in court, they wear wigs! Full on white, curly, George Washington wigs. Always. And robes too, I think. But wigs! Really! Duude... I mean, having the queen on your money is one thing...
So I bought some bagels the other day (not nearly as easy as in the States... they're pretty expensive even bulk, and they don't have much of a selection, you can't get them very fresh, and they don't have delicious awesome bagel shops for the most part)... and the packaging said: "97% fat free." Now, I may be missing something... do we do that? I mean, I know our packaging says when a product that has a relatively significant fat/sugar/etc content it often might say "Low Fat" or "Less Fat" or even "50% less fat" or... but on bagels? They do it on all kinds of stuff. And I mean, it's true... for every 100 grams of those bagels (according to the nutrition facts), there are ~3 grams of fat. But was anyone really worried about that? Does it really help anyone? Next time I'm not going to buy bagels unless I find some that are at least 98% fat free. Or, I would, but if I hold myself to that standard, I won't be eating any more bagels, and they're quite convenient for lunches (they've been a part of every lunch I've taken to school so far, with flavored cream cheese, onions (sometimes) and red bell peppers (oh yeah... they call bell peppers "capsicums" here... scientific name I think) and an apple (but not in the bagel)).
And probably the last of this line of cultural/language differences for this post...
Tasty cheese is a kind of cheese here. As in, a legit type of cheese. Like you buy a pack of cheese and it could say... mozzarella, parmesan, brie, jack, or tasty. ?!
Okay... so clearly you should just pretend that I posted one of these little chunks once per day. ;)
Alright... so now that I mentioned it, my 'spring break' plans (they call it mid-semester break here): Fly to Cairns (3 hrs?), 1 night in a hostel, depart the next morning with CDC for a 3-day/2-night live-aboard dive trip on the reef. All accommodations and equipment and food etc included aboard the boat. (I'm doing the first half of my scuba certification (theory (I've got to get on it... gotta finish before Sat for the pool and haven't started) and pool learning) here in Sydney (Sydney Dive Academy, SSI), and doing the open-water dives to finish the certification on the dive trip.) After that, probably another night in a hostel in Cairns, then up the coast to the Daintree Rainforest... where we can explore the rainforest and the nearby beaches for a few nights... then back to Cairns for a possible white-water rafting trip before flying back! I'm travelling with an Australian girl (Mel - Melissa) whose family is from Sri Lanka who I might at a a friend's (Georgie's) 21st where I was taken by Emily from my Philosophy of Religion class.
As I was settling in before a Thurs 1-2pm lecture for Control Systems (in Webster Theatre B - they call lecture halls theatres), I noticed this sign on the wall:
"NOTICE: THIS THEATRE HAS FOLD DOWN SEATS, PLEASE CHECK THAT THE SEAT IS IN CORRECT POSITION BEFORE SITTING DOWN."
Overheard at the bus stop; conversation between three American girls:
American girl: "I always wanted to be a surgeon. And then I got to freshman year of college and was going out and partying and I decided that drinking and partying was more important than being a surgeon. That's what happened to my dream."
"I wanted to be an opera star."
"I wanted to be an astronaut."
Instead of "How're you doing?" -> "How're you going?" By bike. Unless it's raining, in which case by bus. (A joke... they expect a response like: "Good and you?")
Instead of "cotton candy" -> "fairy floss."
Instead of "sprite"/"7-up"/... -> "lemonade." They essentially don't have real lemonade here. If you ask for a lemonade in a restaurant or ever refer to lemonade, they think you're talking about Sprite (or an equivalent). I mean... I don't have a problem with referring to things by different names (okay... fairy floss??), but what about real lemonade?! They're totally missing out, and Sprite is a horrible substitution. Furthermore... "when life hands you lemons..." what do Australians do with them?
Alright, how about this one. In Australia, a lawyer that practices in court is called a barrister (okay, fine for now)... and when they're in court, they wear wigs! Full on white, curly, George Washington wigs. Always. And robes too, I think. But wigs! Really! Duude... I mean, having the queen on your money is one thing...
So I bought some bagels the other day (not nearly as easy as in the States... they're pretty expensive even bulk, and they don't have much of a selection, you can't get them very fresh, and they don't have delicious awesome bagel shops for the most part)... and the packaging said: "97% fat free." Now, I may be missing something... do we do that? I mean, I know our packaging says when a product that has a relatively significant fat/sugar/etc content it often might say "Low Fat" or "Less Fat" or even "50% less fat" or... but on bagels? They do it on all kinds of stuff. And I mean, it's true... for every 100 grams of those bagels (according to the nutrition facts), there are ~3 grams of fat. But was anyone really worried about that? Does it really help anyone? Next time I'm not going to buy bagels unless I find some that are at least 98% fat free. Or, I would, but if I hold myself to that standard, I won't be eating any more bagels, and they're quite convenient for lunches (they've been a part of every lunch I've taken to school so far, with flavored cream cheese, onions (sometimes) and red bell peppers (oh yeah... they call bell peppers "capsicums" here... scientific name I think) and an apple (but not in the bagel)).
And probably the last of this line of cultural/language differences for this post...
Tasty cheese is a kind of cheese here. As in, a legit type of cheese. Like you buy a pack of cheese and it could say... mozzarella, parmesan, brie, jack, or tasty. ?!
Okay... so clearly you should just pretend that I posted one of these little chunks once per day. ;)
Whoops, and How is it?
((Preface: Okay... So I'm bad at blogging. I've been keeping track of stuff I want to write about (things I've done, seen, noticed, or thought about)... but I never seem to find time to actually turn it in to a form that is worthy of posting here. So if the standards weren't low enough already, I'm going to lower them even more so that I am more likely to post more stuff more often, but not necessarily written well or detailed or well organized. If you want more detail or explanation on anything drop a comment or an email (: ))
So I mentioned at the end of the last post that I was going to have a South Coast (which means colder down under, but supposed to be quite pretty (coastline, vegetation, blowholes...)) trip early in the morning... I sleep pretty lightly and wake up to alarms pretty easily except under very rare circumstances... but this time I just forgot to set my alarm. Luckily enough, even though my alarm didn't go off at 6:30, I got a Google Calendar notice on my phone for something the night before (17 hrs off ;)) at 7am. So I was awake and thought I could make it... which I would have been able to if I had been smart and hopped on it properly, but I underestimated how long it would take to get there and how soon they would leave if I didn't show up... so I missed it.
Snap.
Sounds like I should be able to make it up another time (maybe late October when it's much warmer!) without paying extra. Phew.
===
So... how is it?
Australia's pretty good. it's got it's upsides and downsides. definitely makes me appreciate a lot about princeton, beyond just what i expected (academics, for example). the school is mostly commuter which means it lacks some of the social atmosphere around a lot of college campuses in the states (even when people don't live on campus they often all live very nearby together in houses/apartments/etc) -> makes it harder to meet Australians (or others) randomly at school to hang out, but i've met some through classmates and others so slowly expanding there. some cool study abroad kids for sure but doesn't compare to what it would be like to have a good friend or two from home or school out here. i'm really close to the beach and as it gets warmer (winter -> summer) it's going to be really awesome... which i'm looking forward to. surfing perhaps?
On the Rising and Setting of the Sun
So growing up on the coast in California means that whenever I'm near the ocean I'm almost always on the West coast... which beyond the geographical and cultural reasons for being the best coast, also means that the sun always sets over the ocean. Here, being on the East coast of Australia, not only does the sun not set over the ocean (we get sunrises over the ocean, but who ever sees those? ... and sunrises don't generally look quite so pretty) but also... as the sun gets lower in the sky, for a couple of hours before it actually gets dark, the beach is all in the shade! Makes it much harder to get to the beach after class before the beach gets cold. : / Oh summer...
So I mentioned at the end of the last post that I was going to have a South Coast (which means colder down under, but supposed to be quite pretty (coastline, vegetation, blowholes...)) trip early in the morning... I sleep pretty lightly and wake up to alarms pretty easily except under very rare circumstances... but this time I just forgot to set my alarm. Luckily enough, even though my alarm didn't go off at 6:30, I got a Google Calendar notice on my phone for something the night before (17 hrs off ;)) at 7am. So I was awake and thought I could make it... which I would have been able to if I had been smart and hopped on it properly, but I underestimated how long it would take to get there and how soon they would leave if I didn't show up... so I missed it.
Snap.
Sounds like I should be able to make it up another time (maybe late October when it's much warmer!) without paying extra. Phew.
===
So... how is it?
Australia's pretty good. it's got it's upsides and downsides. definitely makes me appreciate a lot about princeton, beyond just what i expected (academics, for example). the school is mostly commuter which means it lacks some of the social atmosphere around a lot of college campuses in the states (even when people don't live on campus they often all live very nearby together in houses/apartments/etc) -> makes it harder to meet Australians (or others) randomly at school to hang out, but i've met some through classmates and others so slowly expanding there. some cool study abroad kids for sure but doesn't compare to what it would be like to have a good friend or two from home or school out here. i'm really close to the beach and as it gets warmer (winter -> summer) it's going to be really awesome... which i'm looking forward to. surfing perhaps?
On the Rising and Setting of the Sun
So growing up on the coast in California means that whenever I'm near the ocean I'm almost always on the West coast... which beyond the geographical and cultural reasons for being the best coast, also means that the sun always sets over the ocean. Here, being on the East coast of Australia, not only does the sun not set over the ocean (we get sunrises over the ocean, but who ever sees those? ... and sunrises don't generally look quite so pretty) but also... as the sun gets lower in the sky, for a couple of hours before it actually gets dark, the beach is all in the shade! Makes it much harder to get to the beach after class before the beach gets cold. : / Oh summer...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
