Pseudo Reality

"Among other things, you'll find that you're not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior. You're by no means alone on that score, you'll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them - if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry." ~J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

Human behavior has always fascinated me, but recently, I've had the opportunity of analyzing it with a novel perspective. Being a biomedical engineer comes with its perks, and one of them is the ability to break apart every aspect of human and represent it in terms of models and equations. While this ability has advanced us greatly in the field of technology and medicine, it brings me back to a very commonly asked question. Who are we?

None of the proposed mechanisms have been able to holistically represent the human. Even when taken apart into components of mind and body, not one definition justifies the numerous theories and observations that account for what we call human behavior.

However, this is not an attempt to analyze human behavior, but instead it is an effort to take a characteristic displayed by the majority and discuss its pros and cons. As represented by the urge to converge to a solution, ironically, one distinct human characteristic is the need to categorize. This is quite obvious in both history and science. We built societies, religions, and generalized equations to group similar subjects(people, phenomena, animals, etc). One may argue that this innate need is actually to develop an organized view of the world and function more efficiently in that model.

First of all, like any model, our personal human model of the world is also not honest. It is biased, tainted, and sometimes just absurd. Secondly, categories establish differences and in order to attain efficiency, these differences need to contribute to the easier accomplishment of something. But often, these differences aren't a medium for ease. They are instead obstacles that provide for worthless basis on which to separate ourselves. They are products of fear and insecurity. This brings me to my third point, that categories don't make us efficient, but they make us comfortable. They accommodate for our vulnerability.

So maybe they do have a functional role in our evolution, but is this need to group still necessary? Or better yet, would the human race be better off without self-proclaimed differences?

I recall an incident that occurred when I was just a naive freshmen, thrown into the world of engineering. As I aimlessly struggled with the post-processing of some very noisy data, my mentor intervened. "Adjust the cutoff frequency to eliminate your garbage data, leaving you with a clean signal." I wonder if we are modulating our cutoff frequencies in order to conveniently alienate certain groups. I also speculate whether the threshold could be lowered enough to include everyone in the entire human race as one giant group. Simplify each being's existence. Alternatively, the threshold could be set so high, that the group reduces to one person and each person becomes a group. The quality of individuality is what we refer to as "unique."

So, I leave you with some questions. Should we abandon this urge to group and find a belonging within that group? Is the nature of characterization hindering human progress? While we know that the recognition of differences may be the root cause of many evil conflicts, will embracing those differences make room for peace? Or will that in turn just seed a new way for human evil to emerge? How can society value conformity, but also uniqueness? Paradoxically, how can a person who claims to be unique(a quality highly prized by the community) conform to society's expectations of being unique?

I certainly hope you all will be rather creative and individualistic in your answers and conform to my high expectations! :)

Glorious Game

It's been a while. The new year has begun. I am now 24. And I have lost a very dear person in the last few weeks. I will try to keep my thoughts organized, but I can't guarantee that I won't turn this into a giant rant. Because after all, that is what you are here to read anyway.

I have written about my grandfather before. However, it saddens me to refer to him in the past tense. He might not be here physically, but I am sure his principles and teachings are continuing his legacy by inspiring the lives of his wonderful children and grandchildren. He liked to engage in discussion and learn about new phenomena. He enjoyed traveling and playing the flute. But my dearest memories of him bring forth a very child-like character. He would play games with me, learn with me and also indulge in mischief. But that is what he considered life. A child's game. Not one to be taken seriously, but instead an experience to enjoy and cherish. Like any game, you win some and you lose some, but at the end of it, you wrap up the board, boil a pot of tea and just open up another game.

And so I have. I closed a few boards in my life and opened up new ones. I am making my moves carefully, but those damn dice have a mind of their own. So what do I do? I just play. Other players can join or leave as they please, but this time I'm playing to win. Here I am faced with another old problem. What about cheating? Is that okay as long as I win in the end? Ah, but in the game of life, you only live by the rules that you define. :)

So then it's okay to tweak those moves a little and make amends, say a little prayer before rolling the dice, and conveniently collaborating with another player. These forms of modulation are in fact necessary to succeed in the ever glorious game. Here I am, creating smaller games in this mega-tournament. Every task is a puzzle and every action is a move. If my calculation is correct, this time around, I've started off strong. Other players are already collaborating with me. Some just don't know it yet. My faith has found a permanent place. And perhaps my ego has enhanced this quality.

Playing these mini-games is almost an addiction now. Sometimes I play them unconsciously. On other occasions, I ponder retrospectively, analyzing every move made by me and by my opponent. I assign points, perhaps in a biased manner, because I always win. And the wins make the game even more enjoyable ( a positive feedback loop?).

As a conclusion to this ridiculous rant, I will pay some tribute to my latest game. Its key players are undeniably the most important people in my life. This game is strange, because the winner doesn't have to defeat the opponent, he just has to bring the opponent to his side. It's a tug of war. It's an intellectual debate. It's an adventure. It's the best game I've ever started!

I'll end with a very dear line from my favorite book, Catcher in the Rye, "Life is a game, boy."

ps: While I engage in my own exaggerated matches, I wish the Indian Cricket team the very best on the upcoming World-Cup! :)