Humanicatism?

Many people say that they'd like to live forever. I don't know how true this statement is, as no one has ever tried it (to my knowledge) and therefore cannot prove that it would be a good thing. However it seems to be in high demand, reinforced by surgeries to enhance younger features and escape aging.

Well, what if we came up with a way of making this idea possible? Today, Louisa, Ellen, Suryan and I discovered that if you were to combine humans and cats, we may well extend our average lifespan to roughly 900 years of age.

This is evident in the expression 'Cats have nine lives', to combine these nine lives with our current lifespan of around 100 years, we would be able to live for 900.

This would mean that people could have a substantially long life, without being immortal, you could see everything that you wanted to see, and still have a nice retirement! So, if anyone has the technology to make this happen, please contact us immediately. [we'll give you 0.5% of the profits]

We will make Humanicatism a REALITY.

This idea is also reinforced by the song lyric 'Everybody wants to be a cat, 'cuz a cat's the only cat, that knows where it's at'

Humans have spread this desire to be cats vastly within the different media of the World, including in comics and books; the idea of the superhero 'Catwoman' and in Harry Potter, when Hermione uses Polyjuice Potion to turn herself into a cat. (I realise it was unintentional, but she obviously subconsciously wanted to be a cat).

The Egyptians also worshipped Cats, and this leads me to believe that they came up with this idea long before we did, but since they didn't have the technology to make it happen, they left it to us!

Not to mention, that cats are ADORABLE, fast, loving, and friendly (most of the time), traits that humans need to learn themselves.

And on that note, i see no disadvantages or problems with this idea, so i shall leave you to ponder it yourselves....

Georgie

xx

The Reason My Paintings Look Worse Than a Monkey's

What makes art?

If I spill paint on a canvas by accident is it art? What about if I paint something that looks exactly the same as a splash of paint?

Some philosophers believe that our need for the arts is what makes us human, and separates us from animals. But if we don’t know what art is how can that be true?

A bird can make it’s nest look nice with coloured feathers and stones in order to attract mates, and a monkey when given paints can make a picture that it thinks looks good. Is that art? Something that looks good?

Someone I know commented on modern art, people seem to be able to disagree with it more than they appreciate it, to me that’s what makes it art. It affects people. Although monkeys and birds can’t debate the finer points of surrealism they know when something looks good.

But what I think is art is different to what you think, does this mean we are different kinds of human?

Maybe art has nothing to do with it at all.

What about reading? We’re the only species that does that. And music canmonkeys play the piano if we teach them?

Louisa xx

WANTED- One pet monkey must be good with acrylics and appreciate DalÍ. Bonus points for grade 5 piano and above.

Panic

Panic.

I mean it.

Seriously. In 1987 there was a fire in Kings cross tube station, 31 people died from smoke inhalation and the temperature, all because they we so used to commuting when they smelt smoke they just ignored it.

It’s become a philosophy, keep calm and carry on, stiff upper lip and all that. But sometimes freedom to express yourself is beneficial. Certainly when an escalator catches fire anyway.

Anyway short post but next time you smell smoke don’t ignore it, be concerned even panic a little, although the headless chicken look doesn’t work for anyone, be aware of you’re surroundings, don’t ignore the obvious in favour of the familiar.

Louisa xx

Sloppy Solipsism

Linking back to our robot debate, solipsism is the theory we can only ever be sure of our own minds existence, and one of the easiest ways to explain it was Descartes idea- Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am). By this he meant because he thinks, he is aware, and therefore must exist.

This seems pretty standard, you know you exist don't you? But like we said before, what if you are a high tech piece of artificial intelligence programmed to believe you are human? Similarly what if you are a child, or someone suffering from mental illness, are you aware of your own existence, do you therefore not exist until you start thinking?

The problem I find is that there are so many possibilities as to what reality really is, that it seems a lot simpler, if more boring to assume, this world we live in is the real one, and you are having thoughts just like my own. But as you guessed this blog isn't about the easy way out. We want you to think about what you know to be real, gloves and melons aside.

In summary I want to leave a hypothetical question (purely hypothetical please don't lock me up from insanity). If this reality is not what it seems to be? If I am a figment of your imagination, or i guess you of mine? Is it our duty to uncover the truth, is it our duty to break free like Neo in the Matrix? This world to me, is real because it feels real, and that is where I'll leave my thoughts for now. But there's that small voice at the back of my brain saying "but what if it's not?"

Louisa xx

PS. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, if the matrix was true the robot/alien race would be better off burning all organic matter than using use to 'create' energy.

Whether 'tis nobler for the mind to suffer....

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche 

The definition of insanity is widely up for debate; people call statistically anomalous people insane, people who are mentally ill are often the normal definition of insanity, but I’ve heard poems and people say love is insanity.

My quote above shows Nietzsche’s views, that insanity is rare in people, very few people are actually declared clinically insane. But as a nation or group of people our choices can be insane, people voting in Big Brother in “1984” by George Orwell, spring to mind. Who would ever think a political party that said “ignorance is power” would ever in any parallel universe be a good idea. But then again people voted in Hitler, I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

But seriously, it’s easy to sit here and say I make wise choices that will not lead to a madman in power, but have you ever sat there being bombed? Hell, I can’t make a decision if someone’s speaking to me at the same time, let alone a war happening.

This led me to the conclusion that no one can classify anyone as insane, unless you have been in the exact same state of mind or position and done something better.  

Ellen xxx

WHAT IS THE SELF?! and ARE WE ROBOTS OR ZOMBIES?!

Okay, so before I begin this next post, I would like to start by saying something very important.

Last Friday I wrote a blog post about the Borrowers and kindly asked them to return my music. As it happens, they did and now I must officially thank them, they even put it into my music folder for me. Given, it was my old music folder. BUT A MUSIC FOLDER NONETHELESS.



So, Thank you Borrowers. Much Appreciated. <3



Annnndddd, back to business:



As we were sitting in Philosophy today, we were discussing the problem of humanity. What defines a human? Is it behaviour? Or consciousness? Or self awareness?

This lead us to the question: What if a robot is programmed to have these characteristics? If it behaves in the correct way, is able to answer questions, learn from its mistakes and take a step back from certain situations? Does this make it a human? Because if any of these features are what make a human being, then surely an animal could also be seen as human?



Just at this moment, my brain imploded. And then Louisa and I had an epiphany. WE ARE ROBOTS. We have been programmed to think in a certain way. You can't disprove that we're robots, so therefore we are robots. If you think like Rene Descartes. And if we say that the definition of a robot is that it is a machine built by someone, then surely all those religious people are complying with this belief, because a God made us?


Another important question was brought up during these Philosophical times, what if Louisa and I were to build a robot, cover it with real skin cells, hair cells etc, give it characteristics and a consciousness, and self awareness, would it be a robot, or would it be a zombie?

And what is a zombie? Are we zombies? Or are we robots? Or are we humans?

Let me know in the comments, and give reasons to support the statement you make!



Georgie :Dxx



[I had so much fun looking for pictures to accompany this article xD ]



Our Philosophy notes and debates.



What a Pigeon and Aristotle Have in Common

Something lots of people seem to have forgotten…as they run around with homework and planning for the future.

 

Aristotle’s key ideas can be summarized to;

Pleasure is good.

Pain is bad.

Seek pleasure.

Avoid pain.

And that’s all you need to do to lead a good, and moral life. Of course this gets a little more complicated when you factor in other people, as you have to allow for causing them pain or joy. But the principle remains the same even after all these years, in modern life its more about compromise than the two extremes but Aristotle’s theories can’t be denied.

Walking across the park the other day, thinking of all the things on my list of stuff to do, we saw a pigeon snuggled up on the grass, in the sun. Doing nothing. I think we’ve forgotten how to do that, if you see someone staring into space you wave your hand in front of their face. And teachers will yell at you for wasting study periods by sitting doing nothing that appears to be constructive.

I think we all need a little time set aside to do nothing but think, to concentrate on what makes us happy, and separate ourselves from all that other stuff we had to do.

We’re not pigeons, and life is certainly a little more complicated than it was in ancient Greece, but why not give it a try? Make a little time for the basics.

Louisa xx

Make like a pigeon and you’re halfway there.

Penguins

"Its practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry" 

 -Joe Moore

The Case Of The Disappearing Music

Okay, so I'm not the tidiest of people in this World, i'll admit, but today a strange and horrifying event took place...
I got home from school and attempted to gather my things together for my weekly singing lesson. I looked and looked, but the sheet music was nowhere to be found. I searched through all the places in the living room/dining room/ my bedroom, and it appears to have actually vanished. In the end I had to go to my singing lesson without, which caused many inconveniences.
My first thoughts were that a foolish family member had moved it, but upon interrogation, all four of them deny touching it!
So, this has led me to the conclusion that THE BORROWERS really exist.



As I am fairly certain that i didn't move my stuff, and my family definitely didn't, the only other option is the race of The Borrowers. This very popular book series/ film captured the hearts of many, but we still consider it to be a child's story. With no other explanation for the disappearance of my things, ask yourself 'What have I lost recently?' and the answer, without a doubt will be: The Borrowers.

[Please let me know if they return my stuff to the wrong house!]
Georgie
xx

The Hamster Exorcism

Following up from yesterdays post about sentient melons, I have conclusive evidence hamsters can think. My one, expertly named Dumbledore, is trying to kill me.

I once read a story about how a hamster burnt down a house by causing a spark with its little wheel. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that my furry friend is not only trying to drive me insane with lack of sleep, from the squeaking wheel, its trying to create a fiendfyre. 

If it was a demon I could just hire a priest to exorcise it, or to pretend to and charge me extortionate amounts of money. But it’s a hamster who the deuce is going to take me seriously? I mean it’s cute with its little furry ears and midget paws.

What I really want to know is can pets take therapy, if I wanted to kill someone I know I’d be shipped off to a counsellor. Maybe there’s a hamster whisperer out there who can solve the problem.

Now, people with actually scary pets must have real problems. Like the lady whose python was sizing her up to eat her? You must have heard this story its folk legend; a woman has a snake and she notices its growing horrifically fast and not eating so she takes it to the vet, who tells her its preparing itself to eat her. Not what you wanted to here about your beloved snake Fluffy is it?

Doesn't it strike terror into the cockles of your heart?

Someone should seriously start a helpline for this kind of pet related killings.

Lots of ice lollies,

Ellen xxx

Why my new friend Melon Face is sentient.

Strange as it seems, the cause of today’s existential crisis was a melon. More specifically, Melon face- a half water melon with seeds for eyes and a mouth carved in. My dad after cutting himself while carving the melon demanded revenge, but we quickly pointed out to him that the melon wasn’t sentient and therefore revenge would be pointless.

Or would it? We know melons don’t have a brain. We know they don’t think in the same way we do, their cells may not even be the same as animals. But what is to say somewhere in that fleshy mush of seeds and pink goo there isn’t a soul mixed in, one screaming in pain every time we take a bite?

Those Roald Dahl fans out there may have read a short story in one of his books ‘Skin and other stories- The sound machine’ about a guy who found out plants could be heard on certain frequencies, and that every time we cut down a tree you could hear them scream, if you just tried hard enough.

So, whilst I don’t believe we just have to find the right frequency in order to converse with carrots, I think until we can actually establish if and how souls exist we cannot rule out other sentient beings. Philosophers have been arguing about the mind body dilemma for years, but every one of them seems to have missed out on an important question- how do we know a rock can’t think?

Similarly this whole crisis reminded me of a story I once heard about a women speaking to Richard Dawkins. She told him she knew the world was balanced on top of a stack of pink elephants. Bemused he looked at her and asked her what she thought was underneath the elephants. And she replied “Why Mr Dawkins, it’s elephants all the way down”.

Long story short, we know what science tells us? But do we? Maybe we are just one melon in the great melon vines of the cosmos waiting to eating by some giant bigger than our imagination.

Louisa and Melon face xx

PS please end cruelty to carrots, follow us on facebook.

Why eggs are smexy

So, today we were baffled by language. I mean we use it every day, but what is language, how can you define it. Is it just words we assign to things? In which case would a rose by any other name smell so sweet? Was it developed as a survival skill; the ability to communicate in the caveman era through primitive language must have saved a fair few people from vicious animals. But, more importantly, what does language mean for us now.

Now here’s your task: think of something you know solely through emotion. Probably something like you love your mother, right? Think of something you know solely through language, my example was the only way I know how to spell b-e-a-utifull (courtesy of Bruce almighty) yours is probably something a little saner. Think of something you know through reason, probably an equation in maths or something.

Now the hard bit, think of something you know without using language to describe it. The only example I have ever been able to think of is you can move parts of your body without having to describe how you contract muscles in your head. If you think of a better one, please contact me with your superior mind powers.

We’ve now come to the conclusion that everything we know has to be put into language before it is useable. However its been suggested that language does not improve memory, there’s a small community somewhere in the far north that only have one word for red and orange, yet they can still distinguish between to two perfectly. Now if someone, like Freud, knows enough about how the average human mind works, to what point could they influence and control what we know, or our emotions about things. 

A while back an advertising company was set up that used Freud’s theories on the mind to create awesomely successful ad campaigns.  The one that I find most obscure is cake mix, why does cake mix need adverts, I hear you ask? Back in the 1950’s it wasn’t popular…. Until the company went to the Freudian advertisers who made a few simple changes and created an overnight success.

All they changed was adding egg instead of water. Now with Freud pretty much everything comes down to sex, you fancy that guy? It’s because you’re jealous of your mother.  Eggs have the connotation of fertility, which back in the days of sexism was subconsciously important to many women, adding the egg instead of water just makes cake baking that little bit more interesting now huh? 


Ellen xx

Gloves- Why Ryle was wrong

16 years old, and I don't know what a glove is. OK, so some of us struggle with times tables and spelling words with more than 6 letters, but the definition of a glove is never one that eluded me before today.

Gilbert RyIe was the cause for my distress. He used gloves to describe how like two gloves make a pair, and when they are separated the pair no longer exists, so must our mind and bodies not be able to exist without the other. But, the challenge I find with this is not the analogy but how do you define the term glove?

When does a glove stop becoming a glove? You get fingerless gloves, but yet if you made gloves without a palm it would be a useless collection of finger caps. Is it a certain percentage? Does a glove suddenly become something else when 70% of it's mass is lost? What about fishnet gloves?

Why is an oven glove called a glove, when it is clearly mitten shaped? This led to a worrying debate about whether mittens were a species of glove, and could they therefore be defined differently (although we were stopped in our tracks by someone pointing out oven gloves could also be called oven mitts).

Similarly do over mitts even count as gloves? They certainly don't fit like a glove, and you can get ones that look totally unlike any glove I've ever seen, I'm sure people would question my sanity if I started wearing them as a fashion accessory anyway. (The square ones, joined by a strip of fabric for example). And now you come to think of it where did the expression fit like a glove come from? Many of my gloves aren't as tight as the expression leads us to believe, are they no longer gloves, if they do not fit like one?

glove [gluhv]  noun, verb,gloved, glov·ing.

1. 

a covering for the hand made with a separate sheath for each finger and for the thumb.

Love Louisa xx