Skuu

treatise of life

2010-11-21T01:23:00.000Z

Human life is uncontrollable and miserable, with no god or spirit, soul or hope.
All we can do is struggle onwards.
Empathy, kindness and intelligence are our only tools for getting by.
We cannot know what will happen to us so an ever present positive thinking and good will is the best we can do.
Human life is probably ultimately futile but we are forced to live one and live among them, so we are given a challenge of survival, whatever our ultimate philosophical view.
Life should be enjoyed when good and done the best with when bad, because it's all we have.
We are pathetic when we assume that as an arbitrary species we are special or more deserving of good treatment or the treasures of the universe.
Our intelligence and self-awareness only delivers us the ability to be our own nannies. Still, humans are mostly blessed with the ability to overwhelm themselves in their life, living and dying in a cloud of the social and the sensual. This point of view may sound cynical but I believe in the context it is actually just the starting point for a program of recommended behaviour for all humans.
Remembering that we all have to live in a world of almost identical creatures all acting under myriad pressures and desires is sobering and, rather than lead us to despair, must inspire us to treat life as the greatest scientific experiment.

We must be open to all points of empathy in our fellow creatures. hatred and punishment are pointless and harmful. Negativity and melancholy (the author's prized possession) aren't helpful either.

While combatitive sounding, this behaviour must be of the gentlest, most patient sort. Rushed and strong actions ignore nuance. Inability to act isn't a weakness, it's an ever present challenge.

the limits of human understanding

2010-09-06T20:29:00.000+01:00

I think the imagination, thinking about things at the edges of what we can imagine, can produce some interesting things. That's what I feel when I'm philosophising, that life and reality are changing and look differently than I ever could have seen before.
It's hard to express that feeling and, actually, I can see why people do art for that reason.

I have a lot of content in my brain now but find it frustratingly hard to put down in words. My thoughts flow like a free, active, stream, but writing... it's like damming up that stream. It takes so much time and makes it feel unnatural.

I do occasionally type up stuff when I have a particularly interesting thought. A great example being when I was considering concepts and truth which was bothering me for ages when one moment I thought that maybe truth and perfection and all these things just don't exist at all. I wrote that down on my iphone and came up with the concept of 'practical truth', which is the subject of my previous post. This is truth but only for the sake of usefulness and practicality, not pretending that it's a truth no matter what

~

There's this huge thing that bothers me tremendously. I'm in the middle of grappling with it.

It scares me a little. It starts similar to what I've expressed before. I'd summarise it as if you made a toy, like a little go-kart or a robot which has some kind of primitive perception. The kart may be able to detect walls and dodge them, the robot might detect voices and respond.
So that toy or tool has been designed for that purpose and that's what it can do. When we consider that toy and the knowledge we have of reality, it's laughable, like, totally stupid to even consider that that little car can understand electricity or the world or gravity.

Evolution and the development of life is just a natural form of the creation of toys, so perhaps we should start considering ourselves as a form of toy. Even though we're very different and can detect way more, we should perhaps accept that the concept of us having some greater understandings is laughable at some point, because we're who we are, designed for a purpose we can't escape from.

This kind of scares me because it slams shut the door to knowledge. Humans can't even conceive of what they don't know or of an ability they don't have.
It's natural for humans to want to know as much as possible, and especially in philosophy we like the idea that we can continuously work things out in greater detail, digging up more and more meaning. But I feel now that humans are ultimately bound and we have to accept ourselves as toys in our toy reality... and that's frustrating. We like to take our world seriously.

Those of us that can just enjoy life are lucky
I guess the best we can do, generally but also with philosophy, is to create elaborate illusions. The extra layer on top of those, however, is that we have to create a meta-illusion which we cannot go above.
For example, the illusion of love is something you can be under, see through and be on top of, controlling. But the meta-illusion of our experience, our reality, can be looked at and accepted as not being a true reality, but we can never be above it or control it.

~

There's a flaw in this type of thinking. It condemns everything we experience as a concept, but then 'reality' is a concept... so how can I say that we can or can't understand 'a true reality' when that might just be an illusion.
At that point it all kind of crumbles... and the mind can't continue.
I hate that bit, lol.
How can you know that there's only one thing that exists, like the universe...
We think it sums up everything, and we put that in a box.. but ‘everything adding up to one’ is a concept, and you can't demand that it's true.
It seems more likely that these steadfast concepts are just useful tools of our mind. The fact is, we can't describe the universe or any reality with any certainty, we can't know any of it's true properties or whether it has true properties.

None of this is to say that knowing is useless. You can do tests and get repeatable results which help us in infinite ways. But to then say that the human can have some ultimate knowing is just kinda religious, naive in nature.
What we're doing is we're making practical assumptions as we go along to better survive and it's a mistake to take that any further.
Learning about the universe doesn't tell us anything, negative or positive, about the concept of a god or another type of reality. You can't extrapolate like that because we can only use what we have in practical ways. In this sense, philosophy is impotent, since it's just another tool for better dealing with what we experience

I guess no one really goes into philosophy thinking they'll learn an amazing ultimate truth, the meaning of life or whatever... but I think a lot of people have a sense that they can know, and know reality in deeper ways than just the practical. When you really try and strangle our reality and try to understand it, you're probably contradicting yourself, trying to understand when there is no understanding. That's kind of a bad thing.
But it's fortunate that we do live in a sandbox, a toy world that we can be happy in. That’s the focus of the story I’m writing. If there's no deeper meaning, why shouldn't all humans just permanently connect to a happy machine?
Why shouldn't all humans just go extinct even.
At the moment I'm leaning towards the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with that.

clarifying practical truths

2010-08-07T20:42:00.000+01:00

A practical truth is not a direct substitute for a metaphysical truth and is different from a logical truth.
The universe began with the big bang =/= 'god is real'
=/= '1+1=2'/'Eiffel Tower is in Paris, Paris is in France, the tower is in France'.
'Practical truths' are a part of a philosophy that sees 'truth' as a human concept.
Concepts do not demand realisation.
The concept of a unicorn is nothing but a fantasy, it makes the unicorn no less likely to exist.
Equally, the concept of 'truth' or 'beginning' do not demand realisation in the universe. Just because we see some things in the universe as behaving as we expect and deem labels of that behaviour as 'true' doesn't make them any more stable or real.
Just because we see 'things' as clusters of atoms forming and then ceasing to be the thing, doesn't mean that the universe inherantly has beginnings and endings. For example, a common question in physics is (or was), how did the universe begin? But the universe needn't have ever begun.

In this light, hopefully I have demonstrated that a practical truth is only used as a place holder for the sake of progress. We already use such things in science and every day life. All science, whether it is labelled as 'hypothesis', 'theory', or 'fact' is considered temporary, until a new theory which creates better results is found. When we act in life we do it based on our best knowledge. Getting to know a person we decide whether we want to see them again based on how they seem to behave. This is reasonable, rationale behaviour, but no one would say that we act based on an inherent truth about a person.

This philosophy doesn't deny that there is one reality. It is not idealistic, not believing that reality belongs to each individuals' experience. It is more realistic. It posits that reality is not knowable or unknowable. Because 'knowing' is a human concept that doesn't fit with what we know of the universe.

metaphysics and a life of use

2010-08-02T17:22:00.004+01:00

!rant alert!

I do not believe in anything metaphysical, whether it be a concept like 'truth' or a proposed 'being' like a god.

Before I continue, to allay what I consider as a mental or emotional bias people have towards the word, I will note that from now on I will refer to 'god[s]' as 'unicorn[s]'.

No one can know for certain that there is nothing beyond what we consider physical. This has implications both for believers and nonbelievers in the metaphysical. Non-believers must accept that their 'knowledge' is fragile and subject to change. Believers must accept that their beliefs has as much weight as non-belief in something. This is alike to two people standing at a bus-stop, one predicting the next bus will come in the next 30 seconds, the other predicting it will arrive between 30 and 60 seconds later. Or perhaps more appropriately, one guessing that no bus will come within 30 seconds and the other that one will. If both of them have no experience of the bus times on that route their predictions are equally likely and unlikely.

Sadly, in real life, our keen public transport users are taken away from the scene before either can have their prediction proved or disproved. So, we are left with uncertainly. What to do if one cannot know? If you don't know what whether there is a caring unicorn or not, can/should you live happily in the knowledge of it or act as if there wasn't such a thing, leaving nothing to chance. If you don't know whether there is a metaphysical justice which will ultimately balance the good for the bad, again, in which way should you act? Such questions seem irreconcilable in the context I have given so far.

However, I now propose a difference to the two view points. The believer of any single metaphysics and a non believer are not quite like the two people waiting for a bus. The content of the former pair's views are different. While the bus-users predictions(/beliefs) may influence their lives in that, on the day they do not yet know of the bus times, they choose to leave the house earlier or later, believers and non-believers in metaphysics have their lives significantly altered by these beliefs.

To pick a strong example, people who believe in a unicorn will spend time praying or communicating with that unicorn. It is almost arbitrary to try and suggest that this action is ultimately beneficial to an individual as people are so complex and the act of believing such a complex integrated action that it most definitely varies. However, if our goal in life is to be intelligent and progress, not just accepting sentient life with its current amount of suffering, we must be able to examine every aspect of our behaviour consciously.

To elaborate on this point. A common argument from believers is that atheists live with beliefs too, as all humans delude themselves naturally so they can live in a sane and flexible manner. However, the difference between a non-believer's delusions and a believer's is that the former's is potentially open to exhaustive conscious inspection, whereas a believer's metaphysical delusion is both self-imposed and made exception of because of the nature of most belief. After all, it is difficult to practically experience 'faith' or 'belief' if one challenges it constantly and acts as if it was only a possibility among many.

~

So if we can't 'know' things for certain, how can we act? This is where I'd like to substitute beliefs and metaphysical truths for 'practical truths'. These are things we consciously temporarily belief for their practical usage only, not giving them anymore distinction than this. For example, that dropping a ball a million times in one location and at one time seems to prove indisputably that the ball will go from your hand to the ground is a truth seems difficult to deny, but put in context of understanding reality and its complexity, we can see how assuming this as a truth would be naive. The earth's gravity could change, the ball could change, the numerous other forces acting on your hand, the ball, and even your perception of the event could change. While these changes seem rare, their possibility and inevitability mean you cannot posit any observed phenomenon as being a permanent or even fully understood reality. By this I also mean, a person watching a ball drop quickly to the floor on Earth might assume that it would do so anywhere without knowledge of exactly why it drops. It seems logical that even the astronaut who has witnessed a different falling speed in space cannot consider this reality either as neither person knows all the possible forces that could act on the ball at any time or any place.

While it seems silly to encourage usage of some concept by pointing out flaws in another, this is why I see 'practical truths' as the only concepts we can use. The extreme potential fluidity of a concept or observation makes it unreasonable to accept as an eternal truth, so we must consider all observations as 'practical' only, using them with skepticism and an open mind.

It is from this that I feel comfortable arguing that a belief in any metaphysical thing is meaningless, although not necessarily always useless. I can't make the argument that a belief cannot have practical use, only that any particular belief will be unreal.

For me the most nonsensical statements are things like 'god's love will save us', which are full of metaphysical concepts with not even strong objective validity. It is intelligent to say that even 'water boils at 100oc' is to some degree merely a concept that to any one individual can be as personally meaningful as the former statement. However it is also intelligent to note that the former is more objective, useful and therefore a 'practical truth'.

Reading fictional stories or generally entertaining ourselves with delusions, conscious or otherwise, are undebatably useful and good things in life. But this is different from believing the experiences we have when indulging in them are objectively real. Such things as considering unicorns, listening to music and writing stories can help us subjectively deal with, understand and live life, but we cannot propose experiencing them as accurate depictions of reality. How Einstein felt about life might have been a catalyst to him coming to the theory of relativity, but it would be nonsense to say, as believers do, that their experience of life is reality.

Knowing ourselves to be but complex organic radars, we can only work skeptically with 'truths' that are always open to change.

Baseline ethics

2010-07-29T18:07:00.003+01:00

When we act, we would usually like to think that we're acting for the benefit of everyone, even for all humans. However, when we act confidently with this justification, it makes as much sense as saying we're acting in the interest of the Scottish, ignoring all other humans. Caring about sentient beings without considering that it is a certainty that there are many other sentient beings in the universe that are experiencing life. Although painful to acknowledge, if we care about anything other than our own experience we have a much larger duty than might have ever been imagined.

I find pain in considering that whatever I do, whether I've done something great in the day or feel great, there will always be someone somewhere in immense physical and mental anguish. This may be a pessimistic thought but it forces me to consider what exactly it is about the world, or reality, that humans want to change. When we act ethically do we simply to do it because we feel compelled to, or because we think we can actually make a difference. Is it wise to act based purely on the fact that your action stems the tide of suffering somewhat, even if you can never stop the daily incredible suffering in our world and possibly in others.

Because of these thoughts I started considering whether it is actually beneficial for humans to keep on living. The cliche scenario is a post apocalyptic world where only one man and one woman survive. The obvious compulsion here is for them to carry out their natural duty as humans and reproduce to save our species. However, I'd contend that such a situation may be an ideal one. If possible, those humans may not wish to procreate and instead take the chance to end the suffering of our species once and for all, by ending the species. Is there a name for this style of thought? Perhaps it's fatalistic, because it somewhat assumes that humans have no greater potential for combating suffering as they progress into the future. However, quite opposite to this view, I believe that, apart from in this situation, humans have to carry on and try to progress. Establishing any plan to end the species would be catastrophic and probably only create way more suffering. Humans have no choice but to fight on, but with a difference. We have a duty to continually reexamine our fundamentals, and try to look for ways that undercut our everyday suffering. People might agree that every new generation has to go through a normal life making mistakes to learn and really appreciate life, but it seems unethical to expect countless individuals to experience horrific pain for no reason. That is the current human condition that needs to end.

A further reason to long for progress is the thought of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In my opinion, this seems very likely. While the probability of ever communicating with such beings is very low, we have a responsibility to them (like I implied in the first paragraph) that can only be carried out by our continued existence and progression.

My views on this can be summarised as:
While merely existing is problematic, we do and it is probably impossible to end our species on purpose, therefore we have a responsibility to progress, revolutionize human life and reach out to help all other intelligent forms of life that suffer.

~

Should we accept suffering as an ethical baseline? Some don't. Some would say that their life is about doing the best for themselves in terms of money and fame, or perhaps improving the ranking of their country or army. The actual feelings and comfort of the people in their society or the world are irrelevant to their aims and ethics. I'm not sure there is anything logical I can say to respond to their position. This is because caring about the suffering of others, all others, is my baseline. It is the most fundamental of my ethical beliefs and is difficult to challenge. It is not logical but based on what I feel compelled to do. Not dissimilar to a person going to war for their country's prosperity, knowing that the war will in turn damage the opposing country's best interests. This sounds contradictory to me from my baseline, but mine would seem so to the soldier, who doesn't see any benefit in some of my actions to my country, so sees my actions as contradictory.

Can there be agreement and progress when people have contradicting baselines? It makes it more difficult, but we can come up with win-win scenarios where progress is achieved while not necessarily contradicting the wishes of the more nationalistic, or the more self-interested, or the more humanistic beliefs. An example is climate change control. Not everyone believes in climate change, or cares in it, or thinks it's the highest/a high priority, but by encouraging energy efficiency as a way of saving money, there has been a lot more approval and progress.

google tips

2010-07-29T18:07:00.000+01:00

Ah, google. We love you.

Here's some stuff you can do to make it even more crazy useful and fun.

#1 'Latest' results.

Google anything then click '+ Show Options' just below the search bar.

Then select 'latest' instead of 'any time' in the side bar that pops out.

If you're using the newer look google then the side bar will already be there.

Now you will start seeing the latest blog posts, tweets, articles etc which mention what you searched. The list will update every few seconds. This is quite fun to leave going during an event (I watched it as the iPad rolled out in the US).

#2 Use quotation marks ""

Putting search terms/phrases in quotation marks will make finding things much easier.

Using bare phrases is fine when they're commonly put together, like in a band name. But if you wanna find a certain phrase which often has its words separated, this is what you gotta do.

Say I wanted to find a page/article I read a while back, and all I can remember are some funny one-liners used. If I just tried to google those words i'd never get anywhere...

...but if I put them in quotation marks I'll be looking at exactly what I want straight away.

"Oh! That's what the site was..."

#3 Instant spelling and grammar checker
Google's the quickest way to check spelling while at your computer.
'definitely'? 'definitly'? Type in either and you'll be told what's right.

While not guaranteed, the wisdom of crowds can be used at the speed of google (faster than light?) to check if what you're saying is right.
'less than 10'? 'fewer than 10'? Try the same again and see what you get.

This won't give you an instant correct answer like googling a misspelt word, but with some quick checks you can quickly work out what's right.
For example, the only results that copy our phrase are the youtube videos, the rest have changed the phrase.

If the phrase you're looking up is a bit obscure, you can use tip #2 to find exactly what you want.

In Defence of Veganism

2010-04-29T18:21:00.005+01:00

I will make the argument that the issue of an ethical diet, while complex, can be looked at simply. When you look at the argument for veganism you will at least see that there is a strong case for not supporting industrialised animal farming.

Veganism defined by Answers.com
n.
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

There are many reasons why people become vegan and that they give for being one. These can be summarised as:

1. Concern for animal welfare.
2. Environmental impact of industrial animal farming.
3. Nutritional benefits.
4. Religion.

I will quickly explain why I won't be defending 2, 3 and 4.

2. While there is strong evidence that animal farming produces significant greenhouse gas emissions (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report) it can be convincingly argued that a combination of having a reduced-meat diet and an improvement in renewable energy technology may be a sufficient response to this and even a plant-based diet, if run off of fossil fuels, is not sustainable. (abstract of article suggesting this) Therefore, while further environmental protection is a benefit of going vegan, it is not an overall moral claim vegans can make solely for themselves. You can make the biggest personal environmental difference by going vegan, but with previous thoughts in mind, this isn't a hugely compelling argument to specifically go vegan.

3. There is strong evidence that a vegan diet can be a nutritional one. (American, Canadian and British[pdf] nutrition association statements). However, veganism, like all diets (meat or not) can be done in a wrong way and has further difficulties due to its restrictions. To argue that the vegan diet is nutritionally superior to diets involving animal produce is to only refer to nutritionally deficient meat diets. Unlike the environmental argument, there's no especial benefit to going vegan in this category, although, in my experience, going vegan discourages eating overly unhealthy foods like most snacks (which contain dairy) and the worst: huge meat meals. However, I don't know whether this is the general result of going vegan.

4. As an atheist, I don't feel any compulsion to act because of traditions or gods. This is a separate issue for religious people of course, but it won't be covered here.

So I will be defending veganism entirely from a concern for animal welfare. Here is where I think the argument typically rests on this matter:

Animals may be intelligent to varying amounts, but as long as housing and killing them is humane and relatively harmless our use of them is ethical even if we just use them for leisure (for taste, clothing etc).

While this statement is somewhat reasonable, it sounds like rationalisation. By financing the use of animals we'll never see by people we don't know we're taking a risk with animals' welfare. I wouldn't want to leave the care and perhaps humane putting-down of my pets to people I didn't know while I wasn't there. This isn't exactly analogous because the animal farming industry isn't a stranger which we don't or can't know anything about. Like our politicians, we trust important matters to people we don't know to sort out in far-away places, but we allow this because of a trustworthy context surrounding them. Any analogy I can make here will be muddied by differences, but suffice to say that the examples I've given have been examples of necessary matters: care of pets and politics. The animal industry is mostly unnecessary; existing mainly to allow people to enjoy animal products.

Because of this, the moral risk of mass utilisation of animals in developed countries where alternative nutrition is available is not adequately matched by a moral benefit. A vegan doesn't have to deny that pleasure can come from using animal products, and pleasure in itself can be a morally good outcome, but an analogy could be made with the slave trade which benefited participating countries but was clearly unethical. Any argument suggesting that the use of animals is justified by the pleasure produced by the usage really has to make the case that unequal pleasure would come about from existing without using them. Otherwise, their argument is simply that they are not motivated to look for alternatives to their lifestyle. This isn't a moral argument, although it has to be taken into account from a practical standpoint.

I specifically mention my opposition to industrial animal farming because I believe, like owning pets, local 'family-farms' are much more likely to look after their pets and put their welfare before efficiency or profit. Both animals and humans can benefit from having a relationship where inevitably the animal finds a use in the human's life. As long as that use puts the animal's welfare first or only subordinates it temporarily to the benefit of a necessary greater good (like animal testing for medicine or working dogs for police or the blind) then it can be moral.

While I set this essay out promising a simple argument, I admit that nothing can probably stop the debate being a relatively complex one as the animal industry has become woven into our lives. I welcome disagreement and discussion on this topic with me and will include any relevant points in an addendum.

Thanks for reading.

Lentil Burger recipe

2010-03-24T17:07:00.002Z

This is my summary of a recipe in this book:
the student vegetarian cookbook (results 2 and 3; two editions, my recipe was in the earlier '05 version)

makes 4 burgers
nice with ketchup and a salad on the side

1/4 onion
1 garlic clove
30g walnut/mixed nut pieces
6-8 sprigs parsley
1 can (400g) green lentils
1tsp dried thyme
pinch dried sage
40g fresh breadcrumbs
115g cheezly (/cheese)
1 no-egg ogran powder (1 beaten free-range egg)
2 tbls flour
salt & pepper
oil

1. peel and chop onion and garlic. chop nuts. finely chop parsley.

2. rinse lentils

3. put lentils, onion, garlic, nuts, all herbs, grated cheese, egg and breadcrumbs into blender with salt and pepper.

4. blend ingredients lightly, keeping mixture lumpy, not making too smooth and losing texture.

5. flour up a board leaving a pile of flour on the side ready for next stage. flour up hands.

6. form mixture into 4 balls then press on both sides to form burger shape. roll burgers about in flour and add salt and pepper on top.

7. put burgers into frying pan, making sure it isn't crowded (4 should fit nicely onto a medium-sized one). Fry on one side for about 5/6 minutes then on the other side for a max of 5 minutes. Leave to fry for a while to begin with as moving the burgers too much before they're crisp may make bits fall off.

would this be vegan?

2010-02-28T14:31:00.004Z

My family bought this multi-packet. Is it vegan to eat the individual vegan packets even though there are non-vegan cheddar packets in there?

iphone

2010-02-27T15:23:00.002Z

D:
need job first

/consumerism

~ http://psychopulse.deviantart.com/art/iPhone-toasted-110930709

complex topics made easy #1 - Climate Change

2009-12-15T22:50:00.010Z

This is my first in a series of short(ish) posts on making difficult modern topics easier to understand.

They're created for you to be able to quickly read whatever you need to to grasp the subject. Feel free to skim/skip to whatever section you find most relevant.

Basics

CO2 is a gas that gradually makes the world hotter.

Since the 19th Century humans have been emitting huge amounts of it, slowly making the world warmer.

Global warming is caused by many smaller factors such as the sun and other gases such as methane, but CO2 is the most significant element involved and also the one easiest to reduce.

Why is it difficult to get rid of?

Countries round the world are now reducing their CO2 output but it is often difficult because alternative sources of energy are either slow coming (solar, tide, etc) or controversial in themselves (nuclear) so they cannot instantly replace it.

It is also difficult for governments and companies to lower their emissions because it costs a lot of money while the future benefit is uncertain.

What's Copenhagen and other big meetups like Kyoto about?

Kyoto was the world's first legal agreement saying that countries should cut their CO2 by a certain amount by a certain time. Its deadline is 2012. This is still far away but so far many countries aren't doing well at cutting their emissions and since Kyoto new studies have shown that climate change is more dangerous than previously thought. People now think that a much stronger and more ambitious treaty is needed to replace Kyoto.

Do different countries agree on what to do? Why is it hard for people to agree?

All countries agree that overall CO2 emissions have to drop, but they disagree about how to do this. Richer countries like the US want poorer countries that are starting to use a lot of CO2 as they grow to do more as they are going to be giving out most of the emissions in the future. But poorer, developing countries like China and the African countries want bigger countries to do more as they can afford more.

What should I be looking out for? How do I know whether the treaty will work?

The biggest actors are the US, China and the EU.

The US and China are the biggest polluters but also individually represent the richer world and the developing world respectively. How good a deal they make together in their part of the Copenhagen agreement will tell us a lot about how well the whole project will come together.

The EU is a collection of many states that mostly by themselves don't compare with the US and China in terms of their emissions but the group has a lot of influence. If the EU countries (especially the UK) agree to do more than their part, cutting their emissions by a lot, it may well make the bigger polluters feel inclined to do the same.

Why do people not believe in climate change?

Among climatologists there is disagreement about how much we know about climate change and how bad it will be. There are also many people who do not believe that the world will get dangerously warm at all. These people give many, many different arguments for their position but they are mostly not climatologists. Any that are climatologists or in scientific fields are in a small minority. Most people are not in the position to look at most of the relevant information to decide for themselves whether climate change is real or not. Because of this we must listen to relevant experts in the field. Overwhelmingly experts in climate science believe in and are deeply concerned about global warming. This is shown by the UN's recent study on climate change which involved hundreds of relevant scientists and researchers and concluded that the world is getting warmer and will lead to harsher climate.

Skeptics of climate change will never confront the evidence that global warming is real because they can't, so they say that individual scientists are wrong/bad people, or that some pieces of evidence for climate change are dodgy, ignoring the fact that to criticize climate change you have to argue away huge amounts of evidence that has been building over the last century and especially in the last few decades.

What's 'Climategate'?

Recently some emails were stolen from a university in England and published online. The emails are controversial because they talk about altering data and destroying evidence. There is an investigation under way into the people involved, but whether what the scientists were doing was unscientific or not, nothing but a series of significant studies could alter scientific confidence in climate change, so the event is irrelevant to the topic.

'Life' as an epiphenomenon

2009-09-10T08:58:00.002+01:00

Everyone has something that occasionally keeps them up at night, mind racing. This is it for me.

We experience the everyday thinking, at least subconsciously, that our lives are special, our personality is special or that there's some narrative or non-superficial aspect to our story.

This was believable through ignorance before significant scientific advances such as evolution and physical forces were understood. It seemed as though humans had a special stage on the Earth where they were able to make independent decisions in their internal stage, which could be influenced but had ultimate decision making capability and responsibility. However, now it is clear that the human brain is just part of a long-lasting and still ongoing domino drop. Beyond subjective fascination, the brain and human action is no more unique than a flower's stamen.

What we experience and call 'life' is an epiphenomenon of the human body's, the human brain's natural adaptation to survive. An epiphenomenon is an experience or event that just happens to coincide with the primary element of something. The brain slowly developed self-consciousness until homo sapiens were able to start thoroughly manipulating the world around them, creating complex social relationships and tools. The way we feel and are thinking right now is purely the ongoing reactions of the chemicals and electricity that make up the brain.

I don't explain this to the reader or go over it again for myself to devalue human experience or apply any kind of negative or futile feeling to human life. Instead, I think it's important because without fully understanding this and bringing it to the front of our thinking we are totally ignoring a significant part of reality. The better we understand reality the more we can manipulate it to our ends.

Here are some practical implications to understanding this:

x Judgement and the criminal system are changed significantly. When someone does something 'wrong' they can no longer be punished, as it is understood that they could not have helped doing so. However, rehabilitation remains and is strengthened as the criminal can still learn how their actions were 'wrong'.

x The above applies to simply telling someone they did something wrong. You no longer have any place to be cruel to them, yelling or abusing them in some way for their action because it was inevitable. You should instead simply advice them and try to make them understand how their action was wrong.

-->Some could argue that punishment-like rebuking can be a form of rehabilitation, believing in the inevitability of actions or not. This is a value judgement almost, but I would reply that rebuking that isn't based soley on reasoning is relying on fear or trickery which can be overcome. However, solid reasoning is extremely difficult to overcome by a sober, moral individual.

-->A further reply to this could be that we live in a society with many individuals who aren't as such. I'd respond to this by asking you to think about what exactly makes people sober and moral, is it harsh, bullying behavior?

x Guilt and worry are pointless to encourage. All your actions are and were inevitable. Your bad action in the past had to happen, and any mistakes or wrong actions you may make in the future are also already inevitable.

-->This cannot be used as an excuse to purposefully commit actions which you know would otherwise be wrong. This is just a description of an action in its entirety. You must still go through the process of thinking about your actions and deciding what is best, but it is OK to know that this decision making process is entirely guided by forces beyond your control. In practice, this knowledge doesn't cheapen the process, instead making it more interesting.

x The mind can feel more at ease with its life and potential life. There is less on the line at potential 'crunch' moments. When the mind becomes stressed and absorbed in a problem, whether life or death or an examination, the immediate consciousness has almost no control, the brain instead leaping through hoops it has constructed and tested prior. So I can sit here and think, yes I will feel stress and have to make scary decisions in the future, but my mind will work out the best decision possible and follow through whatever I do now.

--> Again, this description of the process doesn't absolve you of responsibility to act. It simply rids you of ultimate responsibility for your actions. If I have a test in a month, I still have to study. If I find it difficult to study and fail simply because I did find it difficult to study, then I shouldn't feel guilt. However, it is morally wrong to use this as a cheap get-out clause.

Maybe this sounds very obvious to you, or maybe it sounds quite challenging. Either way, it is important to look at the reality of the brain and human experience in an adult way, because the most accurate way is the best way to improve human life. Hiding from our biology and living in a cycle of ignorance that sees us making the same mistakes is not progressive; ultimately it is backwards.

Debate Part 2

2009-09-08T22:24:00.004+01:00

So we're now having more patient arguments with our friends; listening carefully to their opinion, not jumping to conclusions, questioning our own position and understanding the subtleties of different types of belief. That's all well and good but, how do we ultimately decide who is right and who is wrong? Arguments will rarely come out with a clear winner, and participants and observers will often be left with a slight ambiguity where they have to score points.

4
What is the most accurate opinion?

To make a judgement on this, or anything, you need a standard to place it against. Since no human can ever really describe ultimate truth, we must measure opinions against what is most accurate, or most likely to be the most accurate. Because we're talking about reality, which is inflexible, we sometimes have to accept that neither opinion may be significantly accurate, or that one is indeed more accurate but only in certain ways.

Mike: The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour as a last ditch attempt to win an empire in the Pacific.
Susie: No, no, no. It must have been a sudden boiling over of racial tension that had been rising since MacArthur forced them open to the world and made them feel inferior.

So we have our opinions, our two opposing hypotheses. Presuming we have no personal knowledge of the subject, we have to rely on evidence provided by the participants. It's also important to remember the different kinds of disagreement: factual, inferential and value.
note: I was perhaps too harsh on inferential opinion in the previous post, as it is one of the most common forms of opinion and certainly shouldn't be 'avoided' in debate.

If the argument is centered around values then it probably isn't worth much, unless the discussion turns to the participants reasons for holding these values.

Mike: I just feel that the Japanese had an insatiable desire to expand.
Susie: That's racist! The Japanese people were peaceful and only their greedy government lead them into that war.

If the argument is centered around competing factual claims, this can usually be settled quickly in an obvious way. However, if all the factual claims are accepted as true by the participants, but different facts are given more or less weight, then this becomes an inferential discussion.

Susie: Sure, the Japanese government have been shown to have been keen to expand and they obviously couldn't have done well in a straight fight against the US, but the evidence that high ups in Japanese government and society had disdain and a racist hatred of Westerners is a far more compelling motive.

This is the most common and difficult form of disagreement and is usually where your own independent critical thinking comes in.

~・~

To begin with, we need enough evidence and inference to work with. "Recycling is good" and "recycling is bad" are not good enough. The more detailed evidence and thought-through inference available the more closer to reality an opinion should be. Now, to decide which opinion is the closest to reality, we need to use various tools.

Occam's Razor

This is one of the most important and useful critical tools you can use to decide upon the accuracy of a claim. You must value more highly a claim that requires less to be true, to be true. We use this everyday with everyday things but often abandon it in more complex deliberations.

Mike: So weird. I was just in this room but now suddenly the chair moved. It must have been an army of mice, pushing it along.
Susie: Huh? Why do you think that? Seems more likely that someone came in and moved it, or you moved it and forgot.

Susie: The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour because their emperor just hated Americans.
Mike: Well that's interesting but I haven't read anything about his opinion. Seems more likely that the government just wanted to make it less likely that the US could interfere with them.

These examples are just dealing with the quality of alternative, single events: the least likely, or more fanciful, being cut out with our razor. Occam's razor also looks at the quantity of events.

Mike: Don't you see? The US government kidnapped the people on the 9/11 planes and just put a bombs in the buildings.
Susie: Huh? Then why haven't we heard from the kidnapped people?
Mike: Because they're too scared to tell the truth!

Mike's original claim is let down by the fact that he must make further claims to keep it valid. Occam's razor asks us to therefore give his claim less weight than an opposing claim that requires less extrapolation.

A common misuse of the razor forgets the quality aspect of it. An example of this is when people who don't believe in evolution say a god just making everything appear must be correct due to it being a simpler explanation with Occam's razor. A god making everything appear may have less events, but the one event it describes is of a very low likelihood so has lower quality, whereas the individual events of evolution, while numerous, are all independently high quality due to having scientific evidence to prove them.

More soon!

Debate Part 1

2009-09-08T20:04:00.007+01:00

Everyone argues, but, in my humble opinion, very few argue well.
Not to say I'm the 'master debater' but I've picked up a few techniques that I'd like to share that can help you get more out of a difference in opinion.

1
What are our actual positions?

Arguments very often start when a person finds someone has a different opinion to theirs on a subject that matters to them. By this I mean, you don't argue about favourite colours because this doesn't matter to anyone, but arguments start up easy and often about politics because this subject means a lot to a lot of people. So arguments involve a personal interest in your position or opinion. Because of this they are usually more emotional than purely logical. This makes you defensive of your position and offensive against theirs. People paint their opinion as something like "obviously right to any thinking/moral person" and their opponents as an extreme foolishness. However, if you take the time and listen to what your colleague has to say, you may find that their argument has more subtleties than you originally gave them credit for and poses an actual logical threat to your own. In any case, it's essential to make sure you actually understand the other person's position/opinion.

Mike: I wish the conservatives would stop putting so much emphasis on immigration.
Susie: I guess, but I think it's an important topic.
Mike: What? What do you have against immigrants!?

This sort of dialogue is a common beginning to an argument and, unless rectified, will only lead to trouble.

This start-up is a bit better:

Mike: I'm really fed up with my computer. You know, the internet has caused nothing but trouble since its inception.
Susie: Why do you think that?
Mike: I dunno... they make people less sociable.
Susie: What evidence do you have for that?

This argument is still slightly antagonistic but Susie isn't presuming anything about Mike's position and is instead allowing him to elaborate.

2
Where do we actually disagree?

After starting off disagreeable, people tend to not be able to stop themselves disagreeing, over sometimes the smallest things. Part of an effective argument is not just understanding each other's position, but actually looking carefully at where the two opinions actually depart, if at all. Very often people may not actually be disagreeing on anything significant, instead merely quibbling over definitions or numbers.

Mike: I don't really want anymore bread. It's empty carbs so it's not nutritious.
Susie: Huh? Carbohydrates are a form of nutrition.
Mike: No, it's not nutrition like calcium or vitamins are.

Carbohydrates may or may not be 'nutritious' for Mike having already eaten whatever food that day, but we can see here how various terms are banded about in a liberal way, turning this into an argument based on 'being right', rather than using strict definitions and checking them. If you get into this type of disagreement, try to simplify the problem down to equations, e.g.:

carbohydrate = a nutrient?
therefore
carbohydrate = or =/= 'nutritious'

This form of thinking seems anal, picking hairs, but it's the source of so many arguments that it's worth the time thinking carefully about what you are both essentially saying in your sentences.

~・~

Another point to consider is, what type of thing are you disagreeing about? Is it a fact or just a value? It might also be a different inference, your opinion on what meaning to get out of facts.

Mike: World War Two ended in Europe in May, 1945.
Susie: Huh? No it didn't, it ended in August.

This is a factual disagreement that needs to be checked, not squabbled over.

Mike: I think Germany should be able to mourn its war dead equally as Britain or America can.
Susie: What? Are you a Nazi? That's obviously wrong.

This is a difference in value, not something you can google for the answer. This type of argument could be productive but is worth considering whether it is worth it as emotions are usually closely tied to values as they are not usually based on logic and evidence.

Mike: The Americans clearly had to drop the bomb because the Japanese government was training its citizens to resist an invasion to the death.
Susie: That's silly, no way could the starved Japanese citizens have made any kind of significant resistance.

This is a difference in inference of the same facts. It's somewhat similar to values in that its going beyond what you can easily, logically discuss, so you will have to avoid this or approach it tentatively.

3
How solid is your own opinion?

Usually people use an argument as an opportunity to attack other people's opinions. It's important to challenge each other, keep everyone on their critical-thinking toes, but it's more important to be ready to challenge and reassess your own beliefs. If someone disagrees with you and is prepares to argue about it, they may well have a good reason to find your reasoning faulty. Very rarely do we stumble upon reasons to independently challenge our own opinion, so when we find others to do it for us we should be grateful and lay it bare.

Mike: I finally found a shop that sells all-natural health foods.
Susie: Why are you interested in that? 'Natural' is just a marketing gimmick.
Mike: What? No it's not, it's good for you and good for the environment.

Here, Mike wasn't very happy to suddenly have his opinion challenged and fought back. However this could only be wise if you thought that everything you know is right, which clearly isn't true. Because of this you should always be open to having your view challenged, not just immediately defending it and considering any opposing view as silly.

Susie: Communism makes everyone equal in society.
Mike: Huh? I thought it tends to further segregate people of different incomes. Why could this be wrong?

You might start sounding like one of those naive students explaining a problem to you in a textbook, but this really is the only way to keep an open mind and make sure your view is kept in check.

~・~

Very often, even if you have a more accurate/educated opinion on a subject, your opinion may not have been reassessed recently and may start to drift. Even if you are confident in it, it is always good to reaffirm the details. At least 1 time out of 10 you will find that you have actually been giving a false belief a ride.

Mike: I know that scientists agree that evolution is a fact, but I've forgotten what evidence exactly proves this. I better check up on the basics before I confidently assert that my opinion is correct.

Monday Susie: Oh yes, I thought that there was good medical evidence that smoking was bad for your health, and it checks out according to the NHS website.

Tuesday Susie: No problem, it seems that divorce rates are on the rise in the Western world.

Wednesday Susie: Oh wait. Recycling isn't necessarily always good? That seemed like such an obvious thing to me. Good job I checked up on it.

Not to say that everytime you think of a topic that you just might be wrong about you have to go and read up on it, but be ready and willing to reassess any belief that you have that you haven't looked at the evidence for in a little while (which for most is almost everything).

Part 2 Soon To Come!

what is the baseline

2009-08-27T08:10:00.004+01:00

Having a conversation with someone last night, I was thinking about what exactly I base my morality on. Not being religious I think I base my actions on reducing suffering in people. But my friend said that he didn't share this belief, saying that right actions are ones that most benefit society. Clearly both are similar and are a kind of 'baseline', by which I mean, are the fundamental premise of the justification of your actions.

What is your baseline by the way?

When we decide that one action is good, why do we decide so?

Apparently someone's pain isn't a good enough reason. I was told that pain and suffering are just indicators that are useful for society. When we say something is bad because it inflicts pain, is it possible that what we are really meaning that it is bad because it creates discord? Not all pain and suffering are considered necessarily bad, but all things negative for society can be. Does this make it a more fundamental baseline?

A response could be that not all actions are practical to consider in such a extrapolated fashion. Daily moral decisions are usually based on avoiding suffering for yourself and others. This isn't an argument against the fact that such decisions are prompted due to the nature of our genes.

I think my friend would have ceded that his thought was dependent on knowing how your action would affect society. In most occasions when your action is much more personal, dealing with friends and family or strangers, prime in our minds is the feelings of ourselves and others, not the greater affect of our action on society.

Changing blog and thread on the Japan Forum

2009-08-27T07:19:00.003+01:00

Since I'm coming home soon and so won't have much content coming about Japan I'll refocus the blog on my general interests, mentioning Japanese when it comes up, but nothing regular.

I'll be focusing on things like philosophy, morality, debate-form (how to debate) etc. If you're just interested in the Japanese just let me know and I'll tell you when I blog relevantly.

I also recently made a thread on the Japan Forum where go over some of the main things I learnt coming and staying briefly in Japan.
http://www.japanforum.com/forum/japan-travel-advice/27247-warning-happy-go-lucky-travellers.html

pics

2009-08-24T12:25:00.001+01:00

niku dai suki!

2009-08-07T12:06:00.001+01:00

Yup, in Japan. All that.
I've had a lot of problems sorting stuff out in Japan that I didn't expect. I apologise to everyone who's been waiting for a blog post, on the edge of their seat I'm sure. The only internet available to me in the house I have to pay per hour. It's not really a rip off as everyone is doing it since they have not bought a more permanent internet. So for the moment I only get about 2 hours on the internet at most in a day, an hour at the house and an hour at the public computer in the library.

Since this may well continue for a good while the posts will probably be irregular, only doing it at the library when I'm not talking to people.

However, in September I'll be able to get a Japanese phone which lets you email very cheaply. So I can email anyone anywhen. With this I'm planning on doing a twitter feed about my experiences. I'll look into doing this just via email but if I can't do this I'm now asking someone a biiig favour! If you have enough time, could I email you a message for twitter, and with my password you wack it in? This way I can give regular public messages to everyone about my trip without having to access a PC.

Realllly big thanks to anyone who considers helping me. :)

~

The title of this post means: 'I love meat!' This is part of the lyrics from a song at the local department store; at the meat section of course. The full song goes as follows:
"I looooove meeeat. I loooove meeeat. Meat! Meat! Meat! MEEEAAAT!!"
Sung in a kid's voice, you can guess how much I love this song.

I didn't really wanna start on a negative but it was the funniest thing that stuck out. As a vegan forcefully turned vegan in meat loving Japan I hate the lyrics, but it's actually quite catchy, and I sometimes wait to hear it in the shop.

These kinda songs and lyrics are common in Japan. Reminiscent of a kind of North Korean slavish anthem along the lines of "I love meat! It makes me grow big and strong so I can serve the dear leader!" Luckily Japanese politics is nothing like this, as the coming election will show, but its suggestive of a Japan that enjoys perhaps less subtle entertainment.

I'll say something nice now. ;)

My experience so far in Japan has been very hard, but not beyond what could be expected from suddenly moving into a totally different and impossible to predict location. However, I really wanna talk about two things, not just moan. I'll talk about what's amazing about Japan, and what you need to know about Japan to get over the hurdles I've been jumping to make it worth it.

As it is, because I wasn't able to adaquately prepare for the trip, the net gain for me is barely positive.

The Japanese people are incredibly thoughtful. On my first day I got lost straight away, trying to find the nearby convenience store (7/11). I asked a guy in a shop and he gave me the best directions he could, although I barely understood. I'd just turned the corner down the road from him when he pulled up in his small cuboid van and offered me a lift. I was so surprised and thankful. The store was only down the next road, a minute's walk, but he wanted to make sure I was OK.

The next day when I was trying to find the mobile phone shop, I'd again asked for directions at a small local shop and had set off trying to follow the rough directions I'd gleamed from what I could understand. Suddenly a motorbike pulled up beside me, and the guy asked me in simple Japanese whether I'd understood and was going the right way. Again I was so surprised and overwhelmed with their kindness.

These things were the most significant events but everytime I asked someone for help they totally went out of their way to help.

~~~

I wanted to make sure to go through those things so I didnt make Japan seem like a terrible place. I think if you prepare correctly (better than I did/could) then you can avoid a lot of difficulties I've had.

I'd prefer to avoid just going over all the problems I've had as I don't want the blog to be an agony aunt thing. I'll just mention things along with useful warnings for people wanting to follow me.

NOTE: Im running out of time so I'll finish this tomorrow/soon, promice! T^T

-. Prepare a lot to be doing. As a well respected forum member I know once said 'Japan isn't a giant amusement park'. If you're coming for more than a week, especially if you're alone, you'll want to have many contacts, jobs and an itinerary. Not that you have to follow them, just to keep you busy for a lengthy enough time so you don't get bored. Having regular friends and jobs is a must for long trips.

1. Japan is full of great tasting food, food shops of all kinds are everywhere, but if you have a diet it can be difficult. Plan ahead for what you'll need to eat. If you're going to a modern area then you might be alright. Just because you're going to a built-up area/a city doesn't mean it's modern and has everything you're used to.

2. Japanese people usually understand some basic words but you still need to be able to get and understand instructions and directions. I recommend learning some basic things like 'left, right, go straight, next to, near to, far from' and other basic travel words. Bring a vocab book which will probably have important sentences but also learn some seemingly useful phrases because they probably will be.

3. In summer, bring good fitting, not cheap sandles/flipflops (that don't flip and flop). Its so hot and humid you really cant wear normal shoes or socks.

Also get some nice slippers to use round the house. My family lent me some but they may not necessarily have spares and may appreciate you using your own.

4. Be prepared to do lots and lots of moving around, walking or cycling.

this is all I have time for D: ill try and finish/do more in the morning. I hope to keep updating this list with ideas until there's a full fledged guide to living in Japan.

bye for now ;)

<3

Free Will

2009-07-09T16:50:00.008+01:00

Definitions

There's more than one way to define what we mean by 'free will'.

The most common, the 'colloquial', is someone's ability to act without clear external pressures.

For Example

　　　Bill was free to go to the shop or not. He had free will.

　　　Bill, age 6, was told to go to the shop by his mother. He had limited free will.

Bill was forced at gun point to go to the shop. He had no free will in doing so.

This is just a useful way of speaking and is not under debate.

Disagreement comes about whether Bill actually has free will even in the first example.

If you asked observers of the situation described by the first sentence, they would usually say that Bill was free to go to the shop. However some may say that it would depend on other factors not mentioned. For example, did Bill need food from the shop? If he had absolutely no need to go to the shop, the probability that he would go would be lower.

Already we have passed the colloquial, uncritical, usage of the term and are considering the reality of human actions.

Now, fortunately, we do not need to quibble about overt reasons for a specific actions to be skeptical about free will . You may give me an event that I have no knowledge about and that I could not give detailed reasons for its happening like 'because it happens annually' or 'because the person wanted to do it'.

This would not limit my argument if I wanted to prove that there was no free will involved.

This is because I can argue that there is no such thing as technical free will, in any case.

'Sophisticated' Actions

It would be uncontroversial to argue that many of our actions are not free.

It is easy to see how most of our daily actions are habitual: wake up, eat breakfast, brush teeth, go to work, have lunch etc.

The controversy would come in challenging the human's ability to freely change such actions or perform more sophisticated ones.

Many examples can be given of 'sophisticated' human action, but I shall focus on just one that I consider most sophisticated and representative of human 'free will' in action.

For Example

Bill had been getting very stressed at work lately, so when he got home he decided to sit
quietly and think about why he was getting stressed to try to alleviate the fundamental problems.

Now, this is much more complicated action compared with a person deciding whether to go the shop or not.

It would be impossible to try and map out all the various goings-on in the brain during his time of reflection and how exactly they lead to whatever his conclusions were after the brainstorm.

But does this make his action 'free'? He was unhindered in performing the action and the action was far from what we would consider 'robotic' or 'habitual'.

Cause and Effect

Without going into physics (because I can't remember the details off-hand) it is understood that all actions have a cause and an effect. There can be no action without prior action causing it nor without it causing further action, an equal action onto what acted upon it as well as any action it then plants onto anything else it comes into contact with.

This may be a little complicated but it is clear at least that this means that the normal concept of free will is put under scrutiny. Previously 'free' actions now no longer seem to arise solely from our intelligence, but from a complicated mixture of previous actions that we can have no better claim to have had a choice in.

From a purely scientific point of view, this doesn't seem particularly controversial. We are just following the logic and accepting how reality must clearly be working.

The difficult arises when we consider the ethical implications for this.

Ethics

If everyone's actions are performed due to previous uncontrollable actions, how can we hold someone morally responsible for their actions - or even value morals at all?

It appears that morals are just a subjective perspective on certain types of human action which aren't, in reality, any more controllable by the human than the pace they breath subconsciously at.

This issue is further complicated by its own irony. Usually when a moral problem is raised you are free to consider it, considering how you may have to change your behaviour based on its validity etc. However, if one was to find this claim valid, it is difficult to properly act upon, as its validly actually denies your ability to act upon it meaningfully.

俗語：　動詞　＋　～ん　・　～けん

2009-07-05T16:22:00.007+01:00

In the Fukuoka region kids often use this type of speech at the end of sentences. For a negative verb in plain form, you can lose the ない and just have ん instead.

例　知らない　－＞　知らん
　　　分からない　－＞　分からん

There is also a habit to put けん at the end of verbs.

例　知る　－＞　知るけん
　　　
Apparently the power of these two patterns can combine to form things like

例　知らんけん！

かっこいい！

Arranging my trip to Japan 日本旅行を準備すること

2009-06-12T19:00:00.020+01:00

This post will record my experience preparing to stay in Japan for a long period to become fluent in Japanese.

Getting a Visa

At first I thought that as a UK citizen I could stay in Japan for up to 6 months because the Japanese embassy in London website puts the UK in its '6 months' category. However it is also noted there that "such an extension [beyond 90 days] is at the discretion of the immigration authorities in Japan and may not be granted". This was supported by the embassy where I found that indeed as a UK tourist I can only be guaranteed a stay for up to 90 days. At that point they said they had no idea whether I would be allowed to stay longer. For that reason they recommended the working holiday visa, which I have now applied for, which guarantees holders a year in Japan as well as the ability to do part-time jobs/odd jobs for money.

A lot of complications came from the many fields in the application form that looked like I had to get information to fill them, but they were quite happy with most of it being left blank.

I applied for it and was told that I should collect it the next week which is when I did collect it after paying a £6 fee. It's printed on the page of the passport and looks very pretty. I'd include a picture but maybe that isn't wise.

I was told that I could use it within 3 months. On the printed visa it says that it's issued already and expires June 29. I hope this just means the period of initial use expires then as I want to stay in Japan longer than this.

Booking a Flight

I have now booked a flight for the 1st of August. I'll be going with JAL (Japan Airlines). I booked it via Japan Travel online. I didn't but you can also visit them in London (URL goes to their mini google map). I was going to that area for the embassy so perhaps that would have been easier, although their phone service was perfect.

Just doing price comparisons on the Japan Travel site and other such sites (for example, http://www.awlt.com/) I found an average cheapest price of around £600-750 (around $990 - 1200). However, when I rung them up they said that I could go for as low as £394 as I am a 'student'. As I'm a UK citizen I only have to email them a photocopy of my passport to apply for this status. I've actually given my passport to the embassy with my visa application so I can't do this until I get it back on Tuesday. If you follow this procedure just make sure you have a photocopy/scanned picture of your passport before you give it in to save time.

I told Japan Travel that AWLT had quoted me the cheapest price of £738 and they seemed to suggest that they may have just forgotten to query whether I was a student or not. So perhaps if you want to compare the two organisations you should tell them that clearly when you ring them [AWLT's contact details].

Arranging a Homestay

When I first asked about the visa at the embassy they gave me a list of possible organisations I could apply to. The list is titled 'home-stay & home-visit in Japan' but is mostly not homestay organisations. If you'd like the list you can contact the embassy or just shoot me an email and i'll give you it.

I chose 'la provence' (homestayinjapan.com) since it was clearly a homestay org. and allowed you to simply contact them and give specifics about where you wanted to stay. They were a little irritating as they asked for specific dates of arrival before even looking for possible families, and asked for other details which I could only pick arbitrarily so they would continue. However this did help me to plan so it was not a disservice particularly. They asked me how many times a week I'd want dinner. Of course I've no idea about this so I just guessed at 4 times. I presume the family will allow you to be flexible however.

Once I had an exact date they found me a family in the Fukuoka area (as I requested there since I have a friend who lives there).

Please also remember to get adequate travel/health insurance. I can't really give detailed advice as it depends on where you are, but I got quotes from Endsleigh and Halifax (went with Halifax). If you go with Endsleigh and are going down the Working Holiday Visa route like me they offer a kind of working insurance along with a world traveller policy that covers you for the kinda jobs you might be doing (service orientated). I recommend ringing the companies up, like I did with the travel agents, as they may find a more suitable/cheaper deal that you couldn't searching on their site.

That's it so far. I'll edit this and make it more complete once I've arrived in Japan.

水２７・５・０９~日記ブログ

2009-05-27T18:02:00.007+01:00

今日日本語の授業があった。ちょっと難しかったけど、楽しかった！僕にとって日本語を勉強することが難しいけど、超ペラペラになりたいだ。

授業の後母が僕を迎えに来て、家に帰って、食堂でブログをし始めた。これまでのところいいと思う！

母が今ところ晩御飯を準備している。家族は肉や野菜を食べるけど、僕が完全菜食主義者だから、僕は野菜とポテトしか食べない。

明日試験が行う。僕の大学の歴史の試験だ。　あまり準備してなかったけど心配しないよ。前に一生懸命頑張ったから。心配しないこと、よく寝たら、うまく行くと思う。

じゃ！

マット

---------------------------訂正(ていせい)-----------------------------

０９・５・２７水～日記ブログ

今日日本語の授業があった。　ちょっと難しかったけど、楽しかった！　僕にとって日本語を勉強することが難しいけど、超ぺらぺらになりたい。

授業の後は葉が僕を迎えに来て、うちに帰って、ダイニングルームでブログをし始めた。 --------------

母が今晩御飯を準備しているところ。　家族は肉や野菜を食べるけど、僕は感染菜食主義者だから、僕は野菜とポテトしか食べない。

明日試験が行われる。　僕の大学の歴史の試験だ。　あまり準備してなかったけど心配していない。　前に一生懸命がんばったから。心配しないで、よく寝たら、うまくいくと思う。

じゃ！

マット

完全菜食主義者になりたくていること

2007-12-04T22:01:00.000Z

かん・ぜん・さい・しょく・しゅ・ぎ・しゃ

僕の家族はとても親切で、我慢強くて優しいだから、僕のダイエットは簡単だ。　でも、ことは難しいだ、チーズや卵を食べたり、牛乳を飲んだりのがあまり好きじゃないから。家族は忙しいから、大抵特別な食べ物を買えない。　しかし、いつも食事を食べて、幸せだ。　いつも『ごちそうさまでした』と言ったと思う。　

でも、動物はかわいそうだ。

日本語

2007-12-04T21:22:00.000Z

いつも使いたいだ。
毎日日本語で考えっても、あまり話す、面白くないから。　だから、大抵考えることをやめる。
よく日本語を習うは長い時間が掛かると思う。　でも、短い時間でとてもよくなる。　去年僕の日本語はあまり上手じゃなかった。　最近、上手になったと思う。

言葉をゆっくり習っている。時々読める言葉を見て、幸せだ。　習った言葉を使ったり、文を読むんだり、できて幸せだ。　語学の勉強の一番良い方法は良く勉強して、習った言葉を使うことです。

幸い、日本語が大好きだから、大丈夫だ。

ブログ

2007-10-03T20:54:00.000+01:00

今日はあまりいい日じゃなかった。

まず朝寝すぎるから、１０時半に起きた。そしてしシリアルを食べることができなくて、豆乳がなかったから。っそれで、トーストを食べながらインタネットをした。

日曜日から火曜日まで働いたから、少し疲れていたけど、勉強することができて、ネットでブログを書いた。

毎日日記を書くのは大変だが、頑張って、書いている。　そしたら、日本語が上手になる。

僕は、頑張るぞ！

Lesson Four - The Three Alphabets

2007-10-03T20:50:00.004+01:00

In Japanese there are what can be called three alphabets.
The first you now know, at least roughly. This is hiragana.
The next two I shall spend this lesson explaining and conclude with examples of each, so hopefully by the end of this lesson there is no Japanese you could see that will leave you totally unaware of its linguistic structure.

The second alphabet is katakana. It sounds exactly the same as hiragana. It is used when converting English words into Japanese. Unlike many languages that make a replacement for the word... for instance 'machine' and 'box' in the language instead of saying the English 'computer', Japanese takes the word as it is and just alters it so it is more easily pronounced (by the Japanese).
An example of this is 'jumper'. In Japanese it is said 'jumpaa' (ju - n - pa, with the pa drawn out a second beat). This is written in katakana instead of hiragana to avoid confusion. Other examples are 'hambaga', 'komuputa', 'terebi' (television) and 'taberu' (table). So if you know the hiragana sounds you know the katakana ones.

Katakana looks very similar to hiragana as well, infact one of the symbols is the same on both alphabets, and many others are extremely similar. Observe:

hiragana katakana
　へ　　　　　　　へ
　か　　　　　　　カ
　り　　　　リ

The only other thing of significance of katakana is that it is used to say foreign country names as well as foreign names. For example America is pronounced 'amerika', 'a-meh-rih-kah'. My name, Matt, would be said 'matto', 'mah-...-toe'. Both are written with katakana instead of hiragana. To recap, you could write most Japanese words in hiragana but near-all foreign imported words and names in katakana.

A further note on foreign words. The Japanese seem to have a fondness for English. I believe they see Chinese as old fashioned or artistic while they see English as modern and casual. In many cities and on TV you will find the Japanese very often use English words even though there are Japanese equivalents. This is often simply because they like the sound of them.

The final alphabet is kanji. Kanji are large, square-like characters with many different shapes inside them. You may think of them as being a clutter of hiragana and/or katakana altogether in one box. These first two alphabets are just sounds that need to be put together to form meanings or words. Kanji are the meanings and words. It may be easier to think of the hiragana and katakana as letters, and the kanjis as words, except the letters are shoved into a box instead of all in one long line.

So, to recap once more, there appear to be two ways of writing meaning in Japanese. The first is with an ordering of hiragana or katakana. If you put a few of these in a row you're likely to make a sound that means something. However, simply one kanji alone can have a meaning. It is important to note that this is not uncommon when saying hiragana as even simple single sounds like 'ka' or 'mi' can be ways of pronouncing kanjis which have meaning. This is not the cas with writing however where hiraganas near-never have any meaning when used individually.

Feel free to comment!
This will be my last Japanese lesson for some time. If you have any questions at all on the language feel free to ask.

Lesson Three - Irregularities and Extra Sounds in the hiragana

2007-10-03T20:50:00.003+01:00

I will begin this lesson by explaining the mysteries of the last.

I identified the irregularities of hiragana as the following sounds, which otherwise leave the basic hiragana chart as 5 by 10:

SI
TI, TU
HU
YI, YE
WI, WU, WE
N*

*Not included in the previous lesson.

These sounds either totally do not exist in Japanese or have similar replacements.
'SI' is instead 'SHI'
'TI' is 'CHI'
'TU' is 'TSU'
'HU' is 'FU'
'YI' and 'YE' do not exist, neither do 'WI', 'WU' or 'WE'
N is a special part of hiragana as it is the only consonant that stands alone. It is used in the familiar -san suffix that is added to peoples' names as a mark of respect, but also in many other things.

So the hiragana so far can be seen as:

A I U E O
KA KI KU KE KO
SA SHI SU SE SO
TA CHI TSU TE TO
NA NI NU NE NO
HA HI FU HE HO
MA MI MU ME MO
YA---YU --- YO
RA RI RU RE RO
WA----------WO
n

This is the correct formation of basic hiragana. Do you think this is simple? You just need to remember a few things to know the variety of sounds used in Japanese:
1, the sounds are composed from the phonetic alphabet hiragana which can be seen as a 5 by 10 chart.
2, the chart contains, first, 'A I U E O' then the same in the next rows but with consonants added on.
3, This pattern is disturbed a number of times with' SHI', 'CHI', 'TSU', 'FU', the removal of 'YI' and 'YE' and 'WI', 'WU' and 'WO' as well as the addition of 'N' which is important for creating many words in the Japanese vocabulary.

I hope this makes the Japanese language a little less intimidating now you can see what most of the sounds are, and with Lesson One, what they sound like.

However, the hiragana still requires elaboration. The Japanese language has further complications, that I promise are not too complicated!

There are more consonants than the ones displayed in the basic hiragana chart. These are created by adding small marks onto the top right of some of the symbols in the basic chart. This doesn't need to be explained fully now but essentially another four consonants are added via this method. They are:

GA GI GU GE GO (by adding two small strokes to 'K' symbols)
ZA JI ZU ZE ZO (by adding two small strokes to 'S' symbols)
DA JI ZU DE DO (by adding two small strokes to 'T' symbols)
BA BI BU BE BO (by adding two small strokes to 'H' symbols)
PA PI PU PE PO (by adding a small circle to 'H' symbols)

We now can see that Japanese employs 15 consonants, most following the A I U E O formula.

Our chart can now be seen as so:

A I U E O
KA KI KU KE KO "
SA SHI SU SE SO "
TA CHI TSU TE TO "
NA NI NU NE NO
HA HI FU HE HO "o
MA MI MU ME MO
YA---YU --- YO
RA RI RU RE RO
WA----------WO
n

GA GI GU GE GO (with ")
ZA JI ZU ZE ZO (with ")
DA JI ZU DE DO (with ")
BA BI BU BE BO (with ")
PA PI PU PE PO (with a high o)

There is one final important part to the hiragana that shows us some more sounds utilised in Japanese. This is how common sounds like those found in Tokyo or Kyoto are made. Here the same sound is used, 'kyo'. This is made first by taking the first sound you hear, 'ki'. Then 'yo'. To stop this being a slower sound which would make the word 'Tokiyo', they are combined by making the symbol for 'yo' smaller and putting it after the normal sized 'ki'. We represent this in English as 'kyo'.

As you can see from what we learnt in Lesson Two, 'YE' and 'YO' do not exist, so neither do such sounds as 'kyi' or 'kye'. What does exist, 'YA', 'YU' and 'YO' can be added to the 'I' equivalent of each consonant.

For example 'T's 'I' is 'CHI' which with 'YA' becomes 'CHA, with 'YU' becomes 'CHU' and with 'YO' becomes 'CHO'.
'S's 'I' is SHI which becomes 'SHA', 'SHU' and 'SHO'.

These may be added to the hiragana, and complete it, like so:

A I U E O
KA KI KU KE KO " KYA KYU KYO
SA SHI SU SE SO " SHA SHU SHO
TA CHI TSU TE TO " CHA CHU CHO
NA NI NU NE NO NYA NYU NYO
HA HI FU HE HO "o HYA HYU HYO
MA MI MU ME MO MYA MYU MYO
YA---YU --- YO
RA RI RU RE RO RYA RYU RYO
WA----------WO
n

GA GI GU GE GO (with ") GYA GYU GYO
ZA JI ZU ZE ZO (with ") JA JU JO
DA JI ZU DE DO (with ") JA JU JO
BA BI BU BE BO (with ") BYA BYU BYO
PA PI PU PE PO (with a high o) PYA PYU PYO

Note that the " and high o sounds also have 'YA YU YO' compounds.

This is the entire hiragana chart which displays how the majority of Japanese language sounds. I believe this is simpler than our alphabet as even if you learnt how to pronounce every letter in it, you could still not say most English words. However if you can pronounce all of the symbols above, which requires no linguistic feat for the English tongue, then you can say any Japanese word.

This is the end of the lesson. If you have gathered the information so far I congratulate you. I posture that it is simple but it is indeed different from the English system, so takes some time to familiarize yourself with. A little practice however and you can quite easily remember the different sounds of Japanese speech.

Remember to comment with your thoughts and enquiries.

Lesson Two - Consonants within hiragana

2007-10-03T20:50:00.001+01:00

Welcome again to my series of lessons on the Japanese language. This post is being made so soon after the first because I am late starting my bi-weekly entries for my computing course so I'm sticking a load in to look busy, don't tell! I am also doing this because I really enjoyed doing the first and I really look forward to receiving comments and queries on it.

In the first lesson I started to look at the Japanese alphabet hiragana. We saw that the first symbols of this alphabet are 'A I U E O' which can be written as あいうえお and said as 'ah', 'ee', 'ooo', 'eh, 'oh'. These can be placed at the top of the hiragana. It is handy to see the hiragana as a chart rather than one long line like the English alphabet. This chart in its most basic is 5 symbols across and 11 down.

The next row adds a consonant onto the start of the previous symbols which, by the way, I am avoiding from calling vowels as this may make you say them differently. The English 'I' is pronounced 'ih' and the 'U' 'uh'. The rest are very similar but still would benefit from a separation. 'K' is the consonant that is added to make the next row. KA KI KU KE KO. You can see immediately how this works. What might confuse you is the fact that the symbols that represent these sounds on paper look nothing like the original five. These are the new symbols once again in corresponding order:

かきくけこ

These are sounded simply by adding the familiar 'kuh' sound onto the sounds we learnt before, so we end up with: 'kah', 'kee', 'kooo', 'keh' and 'koh'. Just one thing - the 'ooo' is not to be drawn out, I am using it simply because it is the only English sound that is just like the Japanese, if it were in one beat or syllable.

From this point, ignoring irregularities for the time being, you can discover the rest of the hiragana sounds by just remembering the rest of the consonants added down the rows. These are 'S' (after 'K'), 'T', 'N', 'H', 'M', 'Y', 'R' and 'W'. Each of these have their own symbol.

To make clear: so far we can see the hiragana chart in English as looking like so:

A I U E O
KA KI KU KE KO
SA SI SU SE SO
TA TI TU TE TO
NA NI NU NE NO
HA HI HU HE HO
MA MI MU ME MO
YA YI YU YE YO
RA RI RU RE RO
WA WI WU WE WO

Note 5 across and 10 down. This chart is neither complete or accurate for the moment but nicely sums up the knowledge acquired so far. I will briefly mention the irregularities of this chart before I finish this lesson. However, do not worry about the exact structure for now, just remember that it is not as simple as displayed above.

The following symbols and sounds do not exist in Japanese language:
SI
TI, TU
HU
YI, YE
WI, WU, WE

I will further elaborate on these in the next lesson. Simply remember that hiragana is not as straight forward as the chart I typed out above, so don't go boasting that you know all of the Japanese sounds!

Thanks for reading. Once again feel free to comment mentioning your opinions and questions.

Lesson One - A I U E O ABCs

2007-10-03T20:46:00.000+01:00

EDIT: It has come to my attention that a lot of people can't see the Japanese characters because they aren't installed on their Windows. Here is a guide to help you do this. You'll need your Windows installation CD but that's it. Feel free to comment/message me asking for help.

At first glance Japanese seems to be a very complex language to most Westerners. However I believe it is very simple. I believe it is even simpler than our own language. I shall demonstrate this by teaching the foundations of the language in bi-weekly lessons, starting with this one.

A good way to start an explanation of the Japanese language is through the writing, those curious symbols we see often in every day life.

Just like we have an alphabet, so do the Japanese. Our alphabet is the 'ABC'. The Japanese alphabet can be called the 'AIUEO'. I have seen a few Japanese childrens' books and it is called precisely this. This is because this is how their alphabet 'starts', with the most simple of their sounds.

Hiragana is the name of the Japanese alphabet. As I have said, it begins with 'A I U E O', but in their own symbols. These symbols are shown below in corresponding order:

あいうえお

You may compare them to our letters by seeing them simply as symbols with a meaning. 'A' in English has a meaning as a sound or in its picture form, either on its own or when compounded with other sounds or picture-symbols (letters).

Taking the English 'A' as an example, it can come before an object or concept seen in 'a banana' or 'a jump' to act as an object identifier. This is what the English 'A' means alone.

It can also appear as a variety of sounds like 'ah' in 'Apple' or 'ayy' in 'acre'.

When considered in this way, our language is little different from Japanese. 'A' in Japanese is あ. あ sounds like 'ah', like our 'A' can. There is only one difference that I can think of: あ does not have the same meaning. By this I mean, the Japanese don't use it in a sentence like we do. Whereas 'I see a banana' contains many 'A's, the same sentence in Japanese may not contain any あ's. This is simply because Japanese words and grammar are made of a different arrangement of sounds.

Now you have learnt some Japanese! Just as when you see 'A' you think 'ayy' or 'ah', you may see あ and think 'ah', although it is more like to be 'Ah, that is the Japanese symbol I learnt the other day', but perhaps this is a good way of remembering the sound. 'Ah'! 'That is the first symbol of hiragana!'

The same knowledge can be applied exactly to the other four symbols I mentioned earlier, I U E O. 'I', or more accurately the sound 'ee' (like in 'we'), is represented in Japanese writing as い. U, 'ooo', like in 'soon', is う.
E, 'eh', like in 'get', is え.
O, 'oh', like in 'old', is お.
You may have noticed a pattern: ah we all get old - ah ee ooo eh oh
This is how we can remember the basic sounds of Japanese speech.

This is the end of my first lesson. If you have any questions feel free to comment and I shall do my best to answer them all or at least point you to when I will answer them formally in a lesson to come.

A comparison of news sites

2007-08-30T09:49:00.001+01:00

Every day I read about 4 sources of news. Today I noticed an interesting difference in the way each reported the same story.

_________________________________________

Associated Press

2 Palestinian Children Killed in Gaza

Two Palestinian children were killed and a third was critically wounded on Wednesday in a blast in northern Gaza, and the Israeli military acknowledged firing at rocket launchers there.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________

BBC News

Palestinian children die in blast

Three Palestinian children have been killed after an Israeli tank shell hit northern Gaza, Palestinian doctors say.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Al-Jazeera (English)

Children killed in Israeli shooting

Three Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli gunfire after soldiers shot at them near a rocket-launching site in the northern Gaza strip.
_________________________________________

The Associated Press report is the most neutral article. It only states that the children were killed 'in a blast in northern Gaza'. Why was there a blast? It explains very obtusely and actually rather grammatically uncomfortably, and also only with an implication. The Israeli military 'acknowledged firing at rocket launchers'. The AP report is making an implication when it should be stating a fact. Israeli fire killed children.

The BBC article is more specific. Although the headline is just as vague as the AP headline, the first paragraph actually tells you directly what happened: After Israeli tanks fired at Gaza, children died. The fact that the Israeli military killed children is laced within the AP article but not explicitly stated as it should be; it's the story after all.

The Al-Jazeera article is the clearest by far, saying that the children were killed 'by' Israeli gunfire* after being 'shot at'. This could have a bias as it implies the Israeli military purposly shot at children, whereas we do not know this is exactly the case.

Image from Al-Jazeera article.

*The Al-Jazeera article actually gives a slightly different account of what happened. A-J says 'gunfire', BBC says ' tank shell', AP just says 'fire' (implying weaponry). This said, however, near the end of the AP report it gives the numbers of people who have died from Israeli shelling and that Israel agreed to stop. If the BBC report is accurate then it is significant in this regard, although I won't follow this.