the mind/body divide is meaningless

We often think of our minds as something that inhabits a body. We think of the mind as separate from the body that it inhabits. Literature is full of this idea. In Freaky Friday, a mother and her daughter exchange bodies. Apparently, the only thing that changes is their bodies. Their personalities remain intact. In Harry Potter books, wizards and witches can transfigure, turning themselves into an animal or a piece of furniture. Prof. McGonagall is known to turn herself into a tabby cat. But even as a tabby cat, she still remains Prof. McGonagall. Her essence, her mind remains intact in this new body.

This kind of mind/body divide is artificial. Minds cannot be separated from bodies in this fashion. Let us do a thought experiment. Suppose that you suddenly acquire a sixth finger on one of your hands. Do you remain the same person, albeit with six fingers on one hand? I think not. You are now a person who has six fingers. You are person who knows how to use this sixth finger. When you hold something, your perception of that object has changed. Your perception of the abilities of your body has changed. All of this is also part of your 'mind'. Bodily sensation cannot be separated from the mind.

See Also:

• Embodied mind school of philosophy

Minimalism does not work with food

Leo Babauta has this interesting article on the minimalism of a pizza Margherita. I enjoy minimalist food. I like to eat fruits plain and I enjoy minimal meals with only one or two items. (My all time favorite is daal-chawal with pickle.) However, food is a classic example where minimalism does not work. You cannot capture the rich taste of a Hyderabadi Biryani or the subtle flavors of chana masala with minimal ingredients. All the dozen ingredients have to come together in the right proportion to create that magic. There is no way you can capture that beauty with just a two or three ingredients.

Thus, minimalism cannot be some universal principle governing all aspects of your life. It has to be a deliberate choice, used only when it fits the context.

How to Use Experts

Noreena Hertz gives a passionate talk on how experts are fallible and how we, as a society, should develop a health mistrust of experts.

I have some gripes with the talk. In the opening lines, she makes us believe that we have always relied on experts to make decisions. This is not true. Relying on experts to make decisions is a fairly recent phenomenon. Take the decision on what to eat, for example. In most cultures, there are elaborate rules, rituals, traditions and folklore surrounding what to eat, when and how. It represents the collective knowledge and experience of a culture about a very important aspect of human life - eating food. Relying on nutritionists a fairly new phenomenon, a by product of the modern capitalist/consumerist culture.

Second, I do not think the problem lies with experts themselves. I think experts are often very aware of the assumptions that they make and the limitations of their methodologies. There is often ample dissent within an expert group, at least during the early stages of development of a field. Experts also know that they are only human and make mistakes all the time.

The problem doesn't lie with non-experts either. People are often inquisitive and cautious. They will always challenge authority whenever they feel empowered to do so.

The problem lies with communication. Experts opinions get to the public in pithy slogans. The media loves taglines - eating chocolate decreases risk of cancer, drinking coffee can help you live longer. Experts will seldom make claims like that. The media fails to deliver the nuances and the details of expert knowledge to the general public.

The communication problem also runs the other way round. In most cases, there is no mechanism for experts to listen to 'user' feedback. Experts are often working with limited eyes and ears. This is perhaps a folly on the part of experts. With the advances in communication technology, this shortcoming can perhaps be overcome.

See this great talk by Thomas Goetz about how to redesign medical data to better communicate with patients.

Getting Carried away by the Internet

The Internet is perhaps the single most powerful change that has occurred in the developed world. It is indeed a wonderful invention that is changing us in ways we never knew were possible. New possibilities are opening up while the old world order is breaking down.

And yet, it is very easy to get carried away. Consider for example the recent revolution in Egypt which was widely referred to by the western media as a 'twitter revolution'. This term, I think, does disservice to the people of Egypt. Revolutions are created by people, not twitter. Twitter was not the cause of the uprising. It was only a medium. Calling it a twitter revolution is akin to calling the Renaissance a printing press revolution.

The danger here lies in ignoring the complexities of human interaction and reducing it down to a single focal point.

I'm reading this book called 'Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think' which is a collection of essays on the topic by leading thinkers of today. The book is compiled by John Brockman of Edge.org.

The book contains an essay titled, 'A Level Playing Field' by Martin Reese, president of the Royal Society. His thesis is that the Internet is leveling the playing field. As an example, he cites the work of Dr. Manindra Agarwal and his two students, Nitin Saxena and Neeraj Kayal (all of whom belong to my alma mater). Dr. Agarwal and his associates posted their work on the internet, thus receiving instant peer review and recognition of their work. Reese then compares this to the relative anonymity of Ramanujan until he was discovered by Hardy and presented to the western world.

What this simplistic analysis ignores is the contexts that these two researchers worked in. Dr. Agarwal works at the premier institute in free-independent India, set-up with American collaboration back in the 60s, deeply steeped in the Western tradition of science. Ramanujan was born in pre-independence colonial India and had little or no western education. Once you factor these social differences in, the level playing field doesn't remain that level after all.

The point is not that the internet is not making a difference. The point is that it is not the magical wand that many people claim that it is. Old power structures sill exist and will continue to exist. In fact, if we are not careful, they will soon devour the freedom and democracy that comes with the internet. Let is not get too carried away with the charmed of the backlit screen.

The Problem with Stereotypes

Supporters of stereotypes often take refuge in facts and statistics. For example, people might support the stereotype that children of Asian immigrants in America are high academic achievers. These supporters will dig up data from spelling bees, olympiads and standardized test score to establish their arguments. Often, little fault can be found with their data.

The problem lies with the inference. In emphasizing ethnicity in analysing academic achievement, the implication always is that ethnicity is the cause of said achievement. These kids are good at spelling bees and olympiads and standardized tests because they are Asian immigrants. Correlation is confused with causation. (If not explicitly then at least implicitly.) And that is problematic.

Introducing - The Indian Cow

Today I want to introduce you all to The Indian Cow - an India centric content aggregator. 

We all love to share links on facebook and twitter. Often these status updates and tweets are private and meant only for our friends. But we, the folks are The Indian Cow, thought, why not make it a thing? Of course, the idea is nothing new, there are at least a thousand, if not a million blogs out there sharing nothing but links. But hey, we're special! **insert random marketing jargon here**

We believe that a void has been left behind in the wake of (now defunct) Desipundit and (almost defunct) BlogBharti. We aim to fill this void. We are also...

Bah, we're just doing it for fun. We hope you will enjoy the links we share and have good conversations about them. That's all.

So head over now to our website and subscribe via RSS or email. Or follow us on twitter @theindiancow. We even have a facebook page!

Secularism is Not Anti-God?!

Read this new item where a Gujarat High Court has declared that secularism is not "anti-god" and that it is perfectly okay to perform a religious ceremony to mark the start of construction of a public building. (Via: The Indian Cow.)

Secularism is interpreted in different ways in different countries. In the US, the guiding principle is 'separation of church and state'. That is, the government does no religion. In India, the government does all religions. They sponsor both the Kailash Mansarovar and the Hajj pilgrimages.

However, the problem with the Indian interpretation is that of favoritism. If the state does all the religions, what stops it from having a favorite one. In this particular case, why was a Hindu ceremony performed, as opposed to, say reading verses from the Quran?

Why is no consideration given to how the minorities feel about a Brahminical ceremony being performed for a public building that they have an equal stake in?