The only way to learn is to learn out of curiosity, otherwise, there's no motivation. If you learn due to an external drive, you're not really learning. If you don't have curiosity for something, then learn something else until you find the right questions.
That last point is important - we learn new things because we find out that there are things that don't make sense to us, so we search out answers. If we are simply stamp collecting, then we will have no incentive to learn.
Ernest Rutherford famously said that "All science is either physics or stamp collecting". This demonstrates that had Rutherford tried his hand at biology, he would have epically failed. That's not to say that Rutherford wasn't intelligent, or capable. Indeed, he was probably more intelligent and capable than most people. Rather, he was uninterested. His experiences in the world had led him to the view that nothing other than physics was interesting. He would have seen no point in learning about biology, because it wouldn't have sated his curiosity.
I notice that the times I learn most are when I'm most interested and engaged, and that happens when what I'm learning about seems to answer, or at least hint at answering, questions that I had before. That feeling of discovery when you come across a potential solution to a problem you've had for a long time is a great one.
I suppose the fundamental problem of researchers, is that some problems are simply too big to have straightforward answers. The way to approach them is to use them as motivators, and search for leads. We become a little like detectives trying to solve a mystery. We use our prior experience and our imagination to attempt to find plausible clues, or leads. We will be interested in these leads because they seem like viable ways to answer our burning questions.
Ask any scientist or researcher what they are interested in, and they'll give you a list of topics. I suppose common ones include 'understanding intelligence/consciousness', 'understanding physics', 'curing cancer'. Maybe people are motivated for different reasons, and I'm sure that there are people out there who have an interest in these things because it might bring them riches, fame, or glory. But I feel like it's not really possible to make real progress in a field unless you're motivated by your own curiosity. There were questions we had as children, and they're probably questions that human beings have been trying to answer for thousands of years.
Maybe, ultimately, the question we are all asking is - "Who are we? What does this all mean?". It's a question every child probably asks themselves with or without knowing it, and its motivated humans to build civilisations, and led to the growth of philosophies, religions and other ideologies. All our questions are derivatives of those questions. We need to keep deriving questions until they are within our reach, and attack those, so that we can further penetrate the sea of ignorance in which our little bubbles of knowledge float. Maybe it's a higher-dimensional Non-Euclidean space of ignorance, in fact it almost certainly is. But let's keep penetrating till we hit other bubbles, or (gasp) finally break the surface and smell fresh air.
What I am about to tell you about is magic - REAL magic - that can be performed using mere mathematics. This is not a trick. It is reality. I will tell you how to make an object disappear instantly.
This relies on the principle of a discontinuity. A discontinuity in mathematics is simply a jump in some form from one value to another without any numbers in between. For example, if the temperature were to suddenly become 30 degrees Celsius this would be a discontinuity, whereas if the temperature were to change in reality it would probably be some intermediate value in between.
Imagine this: a black plank so long that it is infinite in length. Let us imagine that you are able to pass through the plank without it interacting with you, but that at the same time you are still able to see it. Let's imagine you are looking at that plank right now and that the plank itself is parallel to your body. You cannot really know how far the plank is away from you because that would require some point of reference which you do not have with an object that is infinite: you cannot find its centre.
Let us just say that the plank can be seen at an infinite distance. Look at the plank now: what do you see? You simply see a large, black, vertical line stretching upwards and downwards in front of your eyes: like a stripe masking a part of your vision. Let us now say that you are somehow able to rotate the plank: you rotate it and there is no change: the plank remains a black, vertical line in your vision. But something interesting is about to happen...
As you start to become closer and closer to being eye level with the plank you continue to see the plank in exactly the same way, but suddenly the black line disappears! Your vision is restored and the plank is gone! What has happened. The world stays like this for a while, as you stop the plank rotating and wonder where it has gone. You move very slightly upwards and the black stripe is back in your vision: you can see the entirety of the plank. There was no middle ground: you either had that black stripe in your vision or you didn't. The plank was either there or it wasn't and there was no evidence of it fading or coming back into existence.
Watching this video by VSauce recently, reminded me of a question that I had once asked myself: do we all see colours in the same way? When Michael mentioned Tommy Edison in the video, I was absolutely dumbfounded, since a mere month ago I had visited his channel and gone through the same thought process mentioned in the video. If colours are in fact merely relative illusions which require you to actually be somebody to experience, then is everything else different for everyone else, and is our perception of reality blinding us to others' perceptions? Who is to say that the things we touch, feel, see and generally experience through our senses are experienced in a similar way by anybody else? In fact, if everything you think about in life depends on your 'view' on it (assuming your 'view' has been shaped by the experiences you have gone through since you were born) then must the physical senses also by that conclusion be subjective - were they shaped by what happened to you while developing from one lowly cell into a fully functional organism?
Anyway, watching the video highlighted something I had never really considered in depth before: the theory of mind. In the video, Michael mentions a case study where a child is told that a woman called Sally puts an apple in a box, inside a room with a box and a crate, and then leaves the room. Then another woman called Susie comes into the room and takes the apple from the box and puts it in the crate. When the child is asked where Susie would look for the apple if she came back into the room, the child says the crate - although it has been made clear that Susie was not in the room when the apple was moved and therefore would not know that the apple had been moved through simple logic.
VSauce's Michael suggests that this is due to children not being able to perceive that others might have different perceptions of reality to ourselves, and that everybody sees everything in the same way. He even suggests that although we can hypothesise about animals not seeing the world in the same way as us, they cannot do the same with regards to us perhaps. Whether this is due to their having different brain structures to ourselves or due to them being able to experience the world using different - or slightly-altered versions of, - senses to ourselves (for example a butterfly being able to see the UV-section of the spectrum) we do not know.
In fact, perhaps (and this is just my opinion) it could be that children are born into this world with an all-knowingness that results from the essence of their souls - their very being itself. Before we are born (that whole topic is something best left for another post (or book)) it might be that we can simply experience every sense, even the ones that we might not think exist, and that due to this overwhelming all-knowingness we have none of the prejudices created through ignorance. Perhaps it is true that total ignorance is bliss, but some ignorance creates relativity. So, if you knew nothing about what this universe actually was, you wouldn't exist in any sense (until somebody conceived that person who knew absolutely zero in a thought or blog-post perhaps), but if you know everything through being able to experience everything through every sense possible, then you are never going to see anything relatively, since all the relative senses are also available to you and you will be able to see how they all relate to each-other: you must be omnipresent essentially. A being exhibiting such traits might be described as 'God' depending on the relative culture or faith-group you originate from. But of course, we know not everyone has the same senses - firstly because we all experience the world through different senses, secondly because the actual absence of sense is a sense within itself. Have you never wondered why as a child you were so much more creative? In fact in a test conducted, 98% of five-year olds were technically classed as creative geniuses (Genii perhaps? This word is very odd, but then spelling it as it is normally spelt enforces the concept of old Latin words becoming Anglicised through adding the ending 'es' for a plural and is therefore probably correct. That is how English originated anyway!), whereas just 2% of adults were in a similar experiment. These figures speak for themselves. Why though? Is it because society forces us to think in a certain way? Or is it perhaps because the five year olds had no tangible way to relate to the world. It has in fact been shown that the further away you are from something mentally or physically - the more creative you become in terms of describing or using it - the purest form is an abstract concept: the very definition of the intangible and the pinnacle of creativity itself. It is ironic since intangibility is in fact an abstract concept in itself. It seems to be that intangibility and abstract concepts are things which can only be described in terms of themselves: something which I will come on to later. In fact, the YouTuber Tommy Edison, who has been blind all his life is baffled by the concept of colour - however, perhaps this complete and utter confusion is part of what it takes to understand the world. People who can see can never experience what it must be like to have never know colour - since they will always have the concept clearly written into their memories. It is interesting - since it becomes a paradox to be able to understand the whole universe: you would need to be able to experience both all and none of the senses at the same time, which to the human brain is an impossible feat. Perhaps however, we only consider this an impossible feat because of the prejudices of the rules laid out for us by common 'logic'. What is to say that nothing and everything can't exist simultaneously. Isn't existence itself just another concept we talk about but never really understand?
Back to relativity and the idea of something which can only be described in terms of itself. In fact, everything we have ever known or will ever know fits this bill. You might say that this isn't true, but by definition it both is and isn't, depending on your relative standpoint.
Everything we know loops in a circle coming back to itself: the universe, logical arguments, physical concepts... the list goes on and on. They are the strange loops that Hofstadter talks about in Godel, Escher, Bach. In fact, take the concept of physical mass for example. What is it really? It is not determined by anything other than how much force needs to be applied for a set interval to make it start moving a certain distance per unit time. But of course, what is force defined in terms of? Mass and acceleration of course. Nothing else. We can only find out the mass of objects by comparing the relative properties of different objects - relative to each-other. It seems almost paradoxical, but it works - the universe itself is a paradox.
By the way, with reference to butterflies, how do they experience the colour given by the ultraviolet region of the spectrum? Is there not a clearly defined number of colours that exist - those that a healthy human can see? How can a butterfly see all those colours, and then some? How does the butterfly's brain process all those different colours. You then come to realise that, in fact, colour is merely an illusion created by our perception of reality - it is relative to the person experiencing the colour. Very much 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'-style. In fact, as has been mentioned in physical journals millions of times - the universe itself is all relative, depending on your standpoint. Nothing is ever the same to any particle in the universe - it cannot be by logical reasoning, since relative to any other particle, its physical states (mass, energy, velocity, direction) can never be the same, otherwise it would simply BE that particle (what would differentiate the two?).
Hope you enjoyed this post - there are a lot of things I wanted to say, but lost track of going off on lots and lots of different tangents. Perhaps though, I'll come back to them in more detail in later posts.
While reading about the amazing NASA New Horizons Space Probe (which is due to arrive at Pluto in less than a year!) I came across a webpage tracking the movement of the probe. On the webpage (http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php), the software NASA uses to produce nice visuals of where the probe is and other information about it includes a special statistic: heliocentric velocity.
Now, initially I didn't know what this was, but looking at the description given:
Heliocentric Velocity. The current position graphic also notes the spacecraft's heliocentric velocity - its speed with respect to the Sun - in kilometers per second. One kilometer per second is equivalent to 0.62 miles per second, or 2,237 miles per hour.
This might seem like a pretty normal statement, but think about it carefully. If there has to be a central reference point for this probe's velocity to be measured from, then that must mean that all velocities are relative (which according to the theory of relativity, they are). This must also mean however, that the sun has a velocity, and that velocity is relative to other large stellar objects, or even things as small as atoms perhaps, which have a definite position in our universe. This makes sense, in earthly terms, where we measure our velocity relative to what can be regarded for all purposes as the stationary ground.
But, say that there existed just one object in the universe, with no other atoms around to help measure its velocity. Would that object ever have velocity? Actually, wouldn't that mean that even if a force was exerted on the object (somehow without another object causing it) that the object would seemingly simply be as good as stationary, since there would be no reference points to measure any acceleration in its movement from. Do not be fooled by the fact that if you were standing next to the object, that you would see it moving away from you, since this assumes that you would also be in this completely empty universe, meaning that there are now two objects which can be measured relative to each other (you and the object).
But of course, when I said that a force was caused, and implied that this happened without another object causing it, then this would be impossible. In fact, the only way for that object to have a force effected on it, would for it to split in two (in an unexplained and spontaneous explosion) and so resulting in two parts of the object having pushed away from each-other with equal force. Of course, we could not actually measure how large that force was in terms of our standard units since that would mean that we were there as well, and would be measuring the forces relative to the current system of our universe, which is wrong since the single object (now dual-object) universe is a different universe with different physical rules of relativity - our universe contains a complex set of objects relative to each other not comparable to that universe.
The way our universe is comparable to that single-to-dual object universe is that they seem to both have started in the same way. Perhaps our universe started as a very similar object. Of course, since that object was the only thing that existed, there was nothing to compare it to and so it existed relative to itself both in size and motion: meaning in fact that it had infinitely small size and motion (or infinitely large depending on how you want to think about it). This concept seems similar to the concept of a singularity - the thing that our universe is thought to have evolved from. Perhaps physical laws and rules emerged at the beginning of our universe in a similar way to the object splitting in that alternative universe, and did so for no apparent reason (this concurs with the spontaneous expansion idea of the Big Bang Theory). Of course, maybe I can now attempt to explain the complicated notion of 'non-existence' outside the universe: perhaps this simply implies that outside the boundaries of relative relationships between matter in our universe, nothing exists since there is simply nothing to measure it relative to, since that space is immeasurable relative to objects in our universe and we cannot simply get out a ruler and say how large objects outside the 'boundaries of the universe' are or how fast they are travelling.
This relativity might also explain (in a convoluted manner) the deveptively-simple, ever-so-weird concept of gravity. The explanation might be that gravity is simply a result of the relative equilibrium of all the particles of the universe having been disturbed by that unknown force which caused the Big Bang to begin. Ever since then, there has been an imbalance in that equilibrium, however since the universe is so complex and matter-full, the particles were unable to regain their original structure (the structure they held when they were a singularity) and have simply been trying to "locally compensate". What I mean by this is that instead of the whole network of the particles in the universe simply returning to their original relative positions, they have formed 'mini equilibria' in certain areas of the universe, such as on that lovable place we like to call earth, or even in our galaxy as a whole. Were every single particle in the universe to suddenly become aligned in such a way that they might be able to come together again to reform overall equilibria, that might be more favourable, and perhaps it has happened before (a la the theory of repeating universes: where universes continually form and collapse upon themselves to form cycles of singularities). Perhaps, this will happen again in the future? Nobody knows whether it will however, and if it will, when it will happen? Or is time, in this context, strangely relative as well? I leave that question to you.
Credit to:
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/#.VBSbcMJdVA0
Thinking about computers, we know that one of these days they're going to stop obeying Moore's law, at least for silicon microprocessors. Moore's law was a prediction made by a man called Gordon Moore in a paper published in 1965. It predicted that the number of transistors on processors would double every year. Surprisingly this law stayed true for a time long after the ten year period Moore initially suggested. However, unfortunately all good things must come to an end and Moore's law was no exception. Gradually the doubling period has lengthened to 18 months and in 2010 it became 3 years. There is of course a reason for this and these are the limitations of manufacturing silicon computer processors with too many chips. Firstly is the fact that, when we have too many tiny transistors in too small a space, they will generate immense amounts of heat, hot enough to burn themselves up, which we obviously don't want. The second limitation is what I'm interested in however, and that is that there is of course a limit on how small we can make transistors, since the universe is made up of atoms which are of a limited size!
This might not have been something Moore had thought of, or even a stage he thought it was possible to get to, for which this might become a problem, but the reality is that this problem is one which is actually very close to becoming a major issue for the future of computing.
But why is it an increasing problem to have transistors made up from smaller and smaller numbers or atoms. Surely we should be able to go down to one atom transistors theoretically, since in reality this is all that is needed to either let electricity flow, or not to let electricity flow.
But in reality our limits are set to five atoms. Why you may ask? Well, it is due to the unpredictability of electrons when we look at them closely. Something which a part of quantum theory.
Quantum theory, Schrödinger's cat, electron cloud - they all make up this weird and wonderful modern model of atoms. The main principle behind this theory is that, contrary to what you might think, electrons cannot only be thought of as particles, but a more accurate description is 'clouds' of space where the negative charge might be at any point in time, and has a certain probability of existing within. Yes, probability and physics. Not something I would've thought might go hand in hand, but apparently, electrons can be anywhere. It doesn't just stop there however. At this small a level, these electrons can demonstrate having equal probabilities of existing everywhere within this cloud, and since we have no method of determining the exact position of electrons at this small a level, we simply have to RELY on this theory of chance - making it really difficult to build computers with transistors this small. But of course we can use this to our advantage in fact, and this can be seen in the modern quantum counters, but that's a story for another day.
What I'm interested in is the fact that this underlying principle of atoms becoming unpredictable at a nanoscopic level is actually present throughout the world of probability and statistics. It's actually not a remote and unexplained scientific theory, but something we experience on a daily basis. Let me explain.
Think of the age old model of probability - flipping a coin to get either heads or tails. There is an equally likely probability of getting each outcome, as many of us know from the hours well spent working out probability problems in our maths workbooks at school. And as we know, often probability is actually correct. Plotting a graph of the cumulative outcomes of an infinite number of trials would eventually give us an eerily accurate 50% outcome for both events. However, as we flip less and less coins the probability will probably become less accurate, up to the point where you have only flipped two coins and can get only four outcomes: heads then tails, tails then heads, heads then heads, and finally tails then tails. Looking at these outcomes they are all equally likely. But only two of them fit the overall model of probability, with a 50:50 outcome for heads and tails. This means there is actually only a 50% likelihood of getting an accurate probability, making it very difficult to predict the number of heads and tails. However, it doesn't stop there, since things take a turn for the worse when you get into the realms of flipping just one coin. There are only two outcomes - heads or tails - and neither fits the conditions needed for our 50% probability! It's physically impossible! The only way to get half heads and half tails would be for both to happen at exactly the same time. Sounding familiar?
Now we see that the behaviour of electrons at smaller and smaller levels is weirdly similar. At a large level, the properties of substances are quite predictable - give or take some slight universal randomness - just as the number of heads and tails are after flipping a coin umpteen times. However, just as the probability becomes less and less 'probable' as we get less and less trials for heads and tails, with less and less atoms, it becomes less and less likely for us to be able to say where the electrons are and predict how the material will behave as a result. Finally we get into the realms of just a few atoms and the probability gets very weird and out of hand, just as it did when we had just two flips of the coin. Imagine this, but on the scale of electrons having an infinite number of equally likely possible locations they can take, rather than just two outcomes as with the coin. Since there are infinite outcomes and probabilities for the locations of electrons, the probability is very hard to predict even on a large scale. We can simply say a certain number of electrons at least will PROBABLY exist in certain 'clouds' as a result, using an equation called Schrödinger's equation, which is basically an equation like "number of trials divided by two" for the number of heads in a certain number of trials of a coin, except applied to an infinite number of locations for electrons. Finally we reach the one atom scenario, where predicting where the electrons are going to be becomes an impossible chore, without saying that the electrons are at each and every point at once. Perhaps this apparent physical impossibility explains the existence of alternate universes with infinite numbers of possible events. Perhaps it might one day prove the existence of God. Who knows? Well, maybe the scientists in another universe, but none in this one - most probably not at least.
One question we may ask ourselves often is, 'is what I'm doing really worth doing?'. Think about the last time you might've thought this way, perhaps it was at school or at work and you were wondering whether your job or revision methods were the best way forward.
Well, I have a little piece of advice for you. STOP listening to yourself for a while and just go with it. As much as we might hate to think otherwise, life is unpredictable and unexplainable both physically and philosophically. We can never really know whether what we class as 'consciousness' is really our own beings making moral decisions, or whether we are mere spectators in the grander scheme of things, witnessing this madness through the senses and thoughts of another.
My point is however, not to try to convince you that you are not a real person, it is to tell you that since you might be you should try to achieve the most out of your life. How do I do this you may ask? How do I live the 'ideal' life?
In truth I was actually tricking you slightly, since I would like to say, and I know this for certain, that there is no more of an ideal life than the one you are living as you read this article. The very experience of your unique life pathways in itself is a wonderful thing and the emotions and experiences, good or bad, that you encounter along the way are also unique and should therefore be treasured. It's all part of being human - a richness that no other species will probably ever experience. Put this down to what you will but the statement remains.
Now, there is one thing you can do to improve your life. It may seem counter-intuitive but I think that it is the truth. That is to stop worrying about changing your life drastically and do things step by step. The most important thing is to recognise that you are never going to be the same one day as the next. You are, however you might feel, a different person every new year, every new day, every new moment. Scientifically we might attribute this to neuroplasticity and the ability of the brain to change its structure as we experience new things.
If you are still sceptical, just imagine the day you were born. Are you the same as you were then? No, of course not, but you didn't feel these changes coming on. In fact you are actually made up of a completely fresh set of atoms and particles to those that came out of your mother's womb.
Now think back to when you were just a child, aware, but still not mature. Mature. You know you became it as you grew older, but was there one day when you just woke up and found yourself to be mature? Of course not, maturity was a gradual process due to you understanding more and more about the world. And it hasn't stopped for you yet, no of course it hasn't. You are still developing second by second and there is nothing you can do to stop yourself from changing.
But you do of course have a say in the way that you change. You can change for better or for worse, depending on how you choose to think, act and say the things you do. Each small action will lead to a small change, a fact that you could use to your advantage in accomplishing your life goals.
If you want to stop smoking for example, gradually start doing more and more things to contribute towards this ultimate goal. Eventually you will come to a point where you have overcome your addiction and this is the same for everything. All things are on a continuous spectrum and nothing can be fixed in stone, just as the universe in itself is not really that fixed.
If you just keep in mind how much you want something, those clouds of dreams and aspiration will condense into a real form and you WILL accomplish your goal.
The end never comes before the means and the means will not always seem like they are working, because the changes come so gradually. Rome was not built in a day and neither will you be.
We all know that almost everything in our universe is made up of what we so affectionately call matter. This matter makes up everything we see and use everyday, it even makes up what we've never seen or used. Distant planets, stars and galaxies - all made up of this weird substance. With every physical 'theory' there is always an element of indefinite uncertainty, and yet mass is one theory that we can almost solidly call "fact". Or can we? Have we ever really thought of what mass is? You may respond that mass is what 'is there'. But how do we know 'what's there' is there? Or what isn't seemingly 'there' is in reality... there? What is 'there'? What are 'space' and 'dimensions'? They didn't exist before the universe began.
Mass, as you can see, is a much more fiddly concept than you might ever imagine. On a large scale, relative to us, all masses obey a set of rules which we call 'forces' and 'physical laws', and yet on an atomic level, electrons do not. They seem to inadvertently flit around, sometimes seeming to be in two places at once! We cannot predict them entirely. Due to this a new theory was developed, called string theory, suggesting that everything in the universe is bonded together by strings so small that if you enlarged a hydrogen atom to the size of the galaxy the string would be only the size of a human hair! This theory may have yet to explain these tricky conundrums which inundate us in the universe. Yet, as with any theory, it is never perfect and there are always questions surrounding it. In fact, all the facts that we learn in everyday life, that we take for granted. All of them, are probably FALSE! They are in reality just attempts at trying to explain what happens around us. You may say that many of these theories are too robust to simply discard as mere attempts! Yet, that is exactly what philosophers and scientists would have said about ancient theories long ago. Back then, everyone believed that the world was the centre of the universe, that everything was made up of just four elements (earth, fire, air and water) and were completely perplexed by why there were different 'types of air', some of which could kill you! In response to these, instead of finding the correct solution, they simply tangled themselves up in knots, experimenting and trying to find an explanation using primitive theories. We know now that if pioneering scientists such as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein hadn't come about, we would still be living, ignorant to the world around us.
This is why I believe that we have yet to come close to touching the reality of the universe. Our generation is simply another step towards simplifying these many "proven" theories and finding the real answer to life around us. Every generation brings with it new advancements and one day I think that in someone, somewhere's head the real solution will finally click. We are all on a constant adventure of mishaps and discoveries, some completely unintentional, and yet it is these accidents that will one day let us tumble into the bliss of understanding.
It doesn't have to be genial scientists or scholars which make these discoveries. Most of their minds have all been shaped and warped by the theories which surround us today. Most of them will never have the 'ignorance' to question scientific theories. This is why I believe that to advance in science we must all be willing to completely discard all that we have learnt, have an open mind, and fundamentally question the roots of stable theories. Without that there would be no scientific advancement whatsoever. In fact it is not knowing the answer which helps us advance, it is the question. As implied by the word 'creativity', you must 'create' the question to be able to think of finding the right answer. Even then there will always be more questions coming. What's to stop me or you finding the next question?
I've thought up a little system composed of ten words. These words describe and include ten things that apply to everyone in the world, and will make your life better if you improve on them. I know it is quite random, but oh well.
1) Politeness - be nice to other people!
2) Punctuality - be on time, don't be late and get yourself organised!
3) Procrastination - stop putting off tasks you should be doing. It will make life much easier.
4)Personal Hygiene - this is obviously essential...
5) Prayer - may only apply to those who are religious and actually pray, but communication with a divine being is proven to make you feel a lot more satisfied!
6) Priority - if you get these straight, then workloads and commitments seem to sort themselves out...
7) People skills - your social life is obviously important, and being able to communicate with others effectively is a must.
8) Perseverance - when you get things done there is that great sense of accomplishment.
9) Perspiration - this can refer to both exercise (keep a healthy lifestyle), and working hard in whatever you do, to do it the best you can.
10) Personality - probably the most important! Be yourself and be a good person!
Improve on these ten 'P's and I can guarantee everything will seem a lot better!
Of course, many of us in the world have often said: 'Oh, I know all about that' and therefore don't listen to what others have to tell us. We can't blame anyone for that to be honest, but of course, we can blame them for not trying to improve their attitude. Here is a story about a man who did just that.
One day two men from the same university with exactly the same experience decided they wanted to learn how to draw. They decided they wanted to learn how to draw, so they went up to an art teacher who decided to start giving them both private lessons in drawing. The day approached and finally arrived and the two men went up to have their first lesson.
"Okay", started the teacher, "Today I'm going to teach you the very basic drawing techniques."
"Oh", said the first man,"I know all the basics, I want the more advanced stuff!"
"Fine, I'll teach you tomorrow instead." said the teacher, and the young man went away.
The other man however, although he thought he knew what the teacher was going to be teaching him, listened intently and found that his drawing improved, and that not only was it the techniques that helped him, but the different view on drawing and the experience that the teacher had.
The two men continued their lessons for about half a year, the first man walking out of the lessons whenever he thought he knew everything.
Finally the time came when the teacher asked them both to draw a picture using all of the techniques they had used this term and compare it to their previous artwork to see how much they had improved.
Both men spent ages on their drawings and in the end presented their artwork.
The teacher found that both were very good, but the young man's was somewhat generic and cliched. However the other man's was of the same standard, but much more original and out of the box.
That shows us that what makes us stand out from the crowd is not knowledge but experience and the willingness to listen again and again. That is what makes people in the world interesting: the mix of skill and originality through experiences with life and other people. So remember. Successful people are always successful listeners.
Firstly, welcome to this blog.
Now, before you read any further I feel that it would be pointless of you following these posts if you're not into any of the things I will be posting about, If you pass the following test I have devised and make it to the end of the page without committing suicide then this blog is for you.
Have you ever used the internet? Yes - That's quite surprising. No - I suggest you should try it.
Can you read? Yes - Perfect :) No - Well I'm sure we can improve on that.
Are you alive right now? Yes - Well, that's a start. No -
If you are still reading right now then you're obviously interested. If you're not here reading this right now, but still know that I have written about you not reading this or reading this without you actually being present to read this then you are some sort of super-human being and deserve to read this blog anyway. So either way, this blog is for you.
If you didn't understand any of the sentence above...
You obviously can't read which is in ways very difficult to understand seeing as you couldn't read two seconds ago but can now read
You phrased the sentence wrongly and meant the grammatical construction and word order with repeated phrases and inverted phrases confused you to the point of loss of hope in humanity.
If you can read this word now ---->>> , then you have in theory passed the test. Although you couldn't have been reading the word at the time you read 'now' because you would have had to have two brains, effectively reading the two words simultaneously and that is not impossible (as are most things in life), although it is highly unlikely.
If you are reading this sentence at the moment (that's better), you may have skipped to the end and cheated because you couldn't be bothered, but that just demonstrates initiative and you have also passed the test.
