It is funny, how "adults" think that this behavior is not acceptable.
I am... very curious. I am all the time curious, I keep researching about everything.
Sometimes I just stop, and keep looking at something, wondering how it works.
One day for example, I remember that I was looking at the rain, seeing it splashing on a roof that I could see from where I was. I kept looking at how the raindrops shattered when hitting the hard surface.
My then-girlfriend approached me, and asked: "what you are looking so much?"
I explained to her my wonderings about the raindrops.
Her reply was: "this is useless, drop it."
The thing is, this was not a single incident, and not only with her, many times in my life, people tried to convince me to be LESS curious.
I wonder why.
I wonder why the sense or wonder, curiosity, wanting to learn, is viewed as childish or a thing to be hated, or as a time wasting activity.
“When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
Reminds me of the story of Richard Feynman deciding that he was just going to have fun with physics. He observed somebody in a cafeteria throwing a plate into the air, and noticed an interesting relationship between the plate's wobble speed and spin speed. He dug into the physics behind it, which an acquaintance told him was a waste of time. He didn't give it up, and later that research led to a nobel prize.
Enjoying a feeling is fine. I don't think anyone reasonable will take issue with that.
I do, however, take issue with calling it curiosity. Curiosity is defined as a desire to learn something or know something. Even if you do want to know, the feeling you get from this hinges on not knowing-- if not, there's no harm in actually finding the answer, and there is harm in not finding it.
Asking questions like this is fine, but, to me, calling it curiosity isn't. This isn't because it's childish. It's because it's unreasonable. Curiosity and reason are supposed to work together.
"Why do I feel like my hand touches something even though, on an atomic level, I'm sure it's still separated by space?"
and
"What if none of this was real?"
have led my friends and family to assume I've gone crazy.
The worst part? For a long time I believed them, and I'm sure part of me still does..
But with relation to the article, it occurs to me that these questions began in my mind around age 5 or 6. I think this is pretty common, too, but kids are told to focus on "important" things.
To me, that's the best argument against curiosity. (I know it's not a perfect argument.) Because some questions don't have answers, or the answers are deeply troubling.
That's why I regret how much I have pursued my curiousity about Human/artificial AI, evolutionary biology, the nature of religion, etc.
Sometimes, it's better to be a bit innocent and ignorant (also respectful and nice, otherwise the world can get into trouble with violent religious zealots) -- no one gets psychically hurt that way.
If it helps, the determinism of the observable universe in the cases of physics and chemistry might be an elaborate illusion of averages on the quantum level.
In essence, we can't see the quantum interaction of particles and their superpositions, we can only see the average produced by a large number of these actions and reactions. This gives a small, but nonetheless interesting, hole from which randomness can leak into the apparent deterministic systems we see.
I recently walked a similar road when thinking about human behavior as a product of genetics and outside inputs. For me, the angst was the view that "free will" might be fictional, and I had built a lot of my personal ethics onto that pillar. But it was curiosity that led me out of that nihilistic moment when I thought about the loophole above.
The conclusion that a consciousness is nothing but a series of mechanical interconnections, a machine that can be built or destroyed, fundamentally a kind of computer, and not something metaphysical, magical, or unexplainable, can be unsettling. Maybe that's what they meant?
Another interpretation of those facts is that mechanical interconnections between various deterministic processes can result in emergent behaviours which are profoundly beautiful. What if the glass is half full?
www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html
All of those images are generated with very simple deterministic rules but they are still sublime.
Exactly, it can be a rough transition period from the first realization to getting to appreciating it in the way you said. I forgot to elaborate on that part.
It's easy to imagine it being possible to build a consciousness without having built one. Life began millions of years ago and hasn't stopped since; whatever we come up with now sits on the shoulders of all that. We imitate what we are or what we find around us, and even if we are genuinely creative; why is there something instead of nothing? That is ultimately what enables us to do things or think about them, after all, and so to me no magic is lost. Yeah, not even making a mini universe with people in it would make this one less awesome, to me, and wouldn't answer a single one of the more profound questions, for me.
I dare say if you really think you found solid, objective answers for, uhm, anything, I encourage you to look even closer and/or consider the bigger picture... at least for me, it always ends up being a huge mystery again :)
Interesting, I came to an opposite conclusion using relatively logical and rational reasoning. There are really strong arguments suggesting that consciousness can't be explained as a complex interaction of physical particles.
Hint: the core of the problem (and core of many, if not most, philosopical problems) is "What is the definition of consciousness?"
If you can't define what a consciousness is then you can't claim it's impossible to explain physically. How can there be strong arguments supporting a hypotheses if fundamental parts of the hypothesis aren't defined?
I didn't say that I can't define consciousness. The problem is that consciousness doesn't have a reasonable objective definition. So my definition is subjective: "Consciousness is my ability to perceive and feel, for example the ability to feel pain or to dream." HN is not very good for this type of discussion, we (or anyone reading this) can continue here if you want: http://public.enterprisewiki.co/7a8b0605-d425-460d-8b57-354a....
Because people were told to grow up. Which is the worst thing you can do. You should instead mature and learn from experiences, but also keep that child like wonder about things. Such is the reason I love playing with my girls. They always manage to see things I cannot.
But man do people hate it when you're curious about their religion, politics or personal beliefs. Such a minefield ... don't "why" there unless you're ready to handle some very annoyed people.
Related: don't "why" about religion, politics, or personal beliefs unless you're willing to seriously examine a possibly very alien worldview.
A lot of people have a shallow or false curiosity on these subjects. Their intent is not to understand, but simply to discover a question that is difficult to answer in only a few sentences, and then declare victory. The net result is that nobody learns anything of value, nobody is enriched, but somebody feels annoyed that their friend didn't respect them enough to really listen.
True curiosity requires a willingness to explore both depth and breadth. This is more likely to require years than minutes.
I enjoy cartoons more than regular TV shows because they can be wild with the imagination. A lot of people think this is childish. They rather watch "Reality TV" shows.
I'm the same, I watch a lot of anime because it sparks some great thoughts. What if the world was like X, what if we could do this, why is this like that etc. It gets me questioning a lot of things. It definitely gets my imagination going a lot more then reality shows like you said. ( although I do enjoy mellowing out and watching them every now and then )
I am very grateful to my parents, who were always supportive and encouraging about keeping a curious mind. My dad once told me that the most important thing in the world for me to keep was my curiosity. Better be dead than dull.
My theory is that most people have been brainwashed to think that people who know everything (or at least appear to) are somehow superior to those who don't...poor suckers
Assumptions are a funny business. Think of them as a kind of cache. We absolutely must cache most of our beliefs about reality. It would quickly overwhelm us to compute every thought response to everyday stimuli.
Many people think of the neocortex as a big computational device. In reality the data structure contributes more to our intelligence. In half a second we can easily recognize a familiar object. In that time, a signal can traverse perhaps 100 neurons. A cpu takes several orders of magnitude more. It is much more likely that we are retrieving most reactions rather than computing them. I highly recommend Jeff Hawkins' book "On Intelligence" if you want to learn more about this fascinating subject.
But many of these cached computations have a timeout that we fail to honor. In fact everything that goes into the cache is information about a reality that no longer exists as it did. We nevertheless get so much utility from the old cache that it can be easy to forget to prune and update it. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Which leads to another interesting thing about assumptions. Your assumptions are always wrong. They probably yield a good amount of utility for you, but on some level they are incomplete at the very least. All of the items you pull out of your cache are improvable.
Another way to look at it is that nearly all of our potential lies in the set of things that we currently reject.
Someone once told me that a great way to find industries or competitors ripe for disruption is to play the childlike "Why?" game with them. You know, the one where you start with a broad proposition, then ask "why," and continue narrowing down until you're satisfied with the subsequent answers. When you reach a "Why?" for which there's no good explanation, you might be onto something.
Asking the "why" isn't the valuable part; it is answering that question. The effort to break down and understand the problem is what leads to the insights.
Yes, but I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. The "asking why" is the breaking-down-the-problem process. I didn't mean literally just asking "Why."
I certainly wouldn't like to suggest that drugs are the answer to everything, but they are the answer to some things...
In this case, the author might be interested in smoking a HUGE JOINT and stepping into his office. He might find the same sense of curiosity as the five year-old. Magic mushrooms could also do this, but, like the five year-old for the day, might be a bit "more than you bargained for".
Note: just as it's not a good idea for a five year-old to run a company, it is also not advisable to run a company while stoned/drunk/etc.
Being curious and thoughtful is not the same thing as being stoned.
The point is not just the endless asking of questions, but rather not skipping the analysis of things you take for granted (or don't even realize you take for granted).
The point is not to be a 5 year old, the point is to ask questions like a 5 year old and use that to better inform how you act.
I beg to differ. Drugs, specifically the hallucinogenic types (and for this case I am also including marijuana in that category) or meditation (for the more enterprising and diligent) are the easiest way to extract yourself from the tunnel vision with which you see the world.
In fact, I think most (say) 50 year old people who are "set in their ways" would find it VERY difficult to see the world with "new eyes" without some very strong outside stimulus, whether it is drugs, meditation, or some traumatic event.
It's funny how important perspective is. They seem incurious because everything is going on in their head. I'll say without thinking twice that ganja tends to make you less observant of the fine details of all of your surroundings (which would be overwhelming at times otherwise) but instead makes you focus on very specific things.
There have been some studies that show a huge spike in activity in the frontal lobe during the onset of cannabis effects. It's been suggested this contributes to interesting time effects noted by smokers, especially inexperienced ones: So much thought occurs compared to regular activity that passage of time seems to slow significantly.
I have severe doubts that that makes as much difference as... well anything.
It's like whisky drunk vs. beer drunk, they're different because of the speed you take them in, their concentration absorption speeds and a variety of subjective feelings.
Now I know it's a little more complicated than the ethanol picture, with a variety of active compounds in different quantities, but I am very skeptical that a different strain of the plant can make the change from 'stumbling through life apathetically' to 'deep psychedelic self-realisation'.
Not that I'm convinced deep psychedelic self-realisation is much other than brainfart either.
Admittedly I'm not swimming in data. So it could certainly be suggestion or selective reporting or whatever else.
All I was really trying to point out was that there are clearly different 'states' of high: introspective (to the point of paranoia), inquisitive, giggly, zoned, etc.
Just as there are different states of drunk: 'tipsy', 'hyper-active', 'depressed', 'blotto', etc.
So just as not everyone who hits a beer bong is going to streak across the quad to the gymnasium, not everyone who gets high is going to necessarily question the universe nor necessarily sit on the couch and watch the world pass by.
You can't gauge marijuana from the actions of a handful of stoners any more than you can gauge alcohol from the actions of a handful of stumbling drunks.
Kind of a moot point when most people are smoking hybrids.
And it's all besides the point anyway. Giving somebody who rarely smokes, or never has smoked, a bowl of hardcore sativa is a really, really stupid idea unless you want to babysit them all night.
It's also weird to pretend that one class of herbal is radically different from another. There are differences, but they get exaggerated.
It was just meant to be shorthand to raise the issue of the different highs. I don't really subscribe to the hard-line distinction; I was just trying to be succinct.
Yea, I was half-way also responding to the top-level comment about "smoke a huge joint!" That could go well or very poorly depending on who's with you and the sort of stuff it is.
AllI have ever heard from a hallucinogenic mind traveler is "we are all connected" or an occasional dreamlike image that is explored by the conscious self later. It's not a replacement for actually experience and thinking about reality.
When I saw the article headline, my first thought was the five-year-old trait most likely to find in most leaders ... I want, I want, mine, mine, mine.
And to be fair leadership is not about rediscovering child-like curiosity - it is about applying objective thinking rigorously and without ego - try looking at Poor Charlies' Almanck
I'm reminded of the old story about the guy who always cut the ends off the ham before putting it into the roasting pan. His wife asked him why, but he just said his mom always did it. She, in turn, said that her mom always did it. Finally, the wife got hold of her husband's grandmother and found out that she cut the ends off the ham because she only had a small roasting pan.
I'm pretty certain this article is a ripoff of Ricardo Semler's "3 Whys" technique he described in his book from 1995 (http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workpl...). Not that this is a bad thing, but there are many more, better articles describing this using more clinical language and providing guidance for real management application.
One thing I've noticed: people who present themselves as old and wise aren't. The truly old and wise haven't forgotten what it's like to be young and naive.
I don't think you want to lay the blame for the country's weight problem at the feet of decisions made by exasperated non-parents caught flat-footed in an office environment with a five-year-old spun up to "eleven".
Now that he appreciates her questioning, that may be one less fat kid.
I've noticed that here in Murka, increasingly, people can't be arsed to engage with their kids. Kids are expensive, gaudy accessories, as anyone with (particularly female) Facebook friends who go through that "LOOK AT MAH NEW BABBY" picture posting stage can see; but actually engaging with them and treating them like humans is... well, it's too much work and hassle.
So they shut them up with Cheetos or cookies or sketti or go-go juice and get on with what's really important, whatever that may be.
Why do some articles make the front page of HN, and other ones don't? Or the front page of Google News? How was it that Vine was getting so much attention for a few days, and then the buzz just...died? Did someone orchestrate that?
Do not contemplate the whims of the Hackertariat. A curious pinpoint of darkness soon grows closer, eventually enveloping you in its yawning black, chilling the marrow and ensnaring the wits. Artifacts and whispers float by but become dust in your grasp, slipping out and past your knuckles, carried away by the soft, silent wind.
>"When we got to the office, my niece did what all kids her age do. She questioned everything."
Never really had this with our son, will wait and see if it comes with second child - when we're out I'm in a semi-continuous state of explaining as much as I know about interesting things around us and asking questions - "well what do you think?".
I do wonder sometimes if my modus is destructive to curiosity but generally he's pretty questioning in terms of things.
I am... very curious. I am all the time curious, I keep researching about everything.
Sometimes I just stop, and keep looking at something, wondering how it works.
One day for example, I remember that I was looking at the rain, seeing it splashing on a roof that I could see from where I was. I kept looking at how the raindrops shattered when hitting the hard surface.
My then-girlfriend approached me, and asked: "what you are looking so much?"
I explained to her my wonderings about the raindrops.
Her reply was: "this is useless, drop it."
The thing is, this was not a single incident, and not only with her, many times in my life, people tried to convince me to be LESS curious.
I wonder why.
I wonder why the sense or wonder, curiosity, wanting to learn, is viewed as childish or a thing to be hated, or as a time wasting activity.