How did the universe originate? When did time begin? How did humans come to be? Some may elaborate on the Big Bang theory, while others may quote religious scripture (and some like myself may do a little of both) . Nevertheless, in our pursuit of higher truth, a variety of abstract and rather complex opinions attempt to explain the same simple questions. But why? Why can’t we just adopt some sort of existentialist mentality and agree that our lives are independent of our origins and purely based on our actions. So what if the Big Bang is correct? It really isn’t going to change whether or not I wake up tomorrow. Sure, I may have fulfilled that burning question of “how the universe came to be”… but now what?

I think sometimes we’re too preoccupied with wanting to know everything that we forget how blissful ignorance can be. There’s simply too much to learn and not enough time to do so.

Does everything have a “right” answer?

Fortunately, there are only two choices: yes or no. Personally, I’ll lean towards the more difficult side and venture to say yes… everything has a right answer. We just may not know what it is. For ethical issues (ie, is it “right” for people to have abortions)… well… that depends on the individual party. We all have our conception of “right” in heated arguments. But are these personal ideas of right and wrong technically correct? Of course not. But this doesn’t eliminate the existence of right. Yeah, I’m playing devil’s advocate.

What do you think about this?

I’ve heard way too many of these faulty and unprovable comparisons:

• Girl A is so much “smarter” than Girl B.
• Boy A might not be the “smartest” person around, but he has a lot of “street smarts.”

What does this even mean? Hasn’t anyone ever heard that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder?” If this is true (which I believe it is), then why can’t it also be extrapolated to intelligence too? It should be! Intelligence is an especially touchy subject. We all constantly pit our wits against each other competing for recognition, the best jobs, etc. At the same time, we like to think that intelligence manifests itself in two forms – “book smarts” and “street smarts.” Again, what does this mean? If you ask me, it’s just an excuse. Those who aren’t as gifted in the classroom will naturally claim that they possess skills elsewhere – in this case, perhaps social abilities. I’ve never heard a brilliant classroom student claim that they lack such skills. At the same time, I’m strongly against the notion that one’s intellect is largely based on genetics. A little? Sure. But genetics are no where near as important as one’s motivation to succeed. You can’t teach someone to study hard. No amount of parenting can force a child to be passionate about academics. Only the student can.

So again I ask… how do we measure such abstract traits like intelligence? Not by IQ tests. Not by GPA’s. Not by test scores in general. And most importantly, not by what other people’s perceptions are. We measure it by how well each of us uses our upbringing. This implies that the meaning of “intelligence” is highly variable, but regardless, it illustrates how we cannot define a concrete way of measuring it. Consequently, comparing one individual’s intellect to another’s is inherently flawed. I know many people who’ve been privileged with incredible gifts, but fail to use them to their maximum potential. Rather than embracing their abilities, they waste time pursuing pleasure. It’s another reason why I believe a single person is capable of inconceivable accomplishment, but people are infinite pools of ignorance. But anyways, back to the topic.

The only, indisputable way of claiming that you are “intelligent” is that you can genuinely say that you’ve made the most out of your upbringing. Coming from a relatively privileged upbringing, I had little excuse NOT to strive for perfection in my undergrad studies, but there are others who have to work for their education, raise a family, etc. While they may not have a stellar GPA, they have what others like to call “street smarts” but what I call “common sense.” That’s funny to me… we call it “common sense” when in reality, it’s not all that common. I guess I’m just sick of science students comparing GPAs and grad school entrance exam scores with each other trying to assess how they rank amongst their peers. This isn’t the way adcoms do it, and it shouldn’t be the way we compare ourselves to each other. A lot more goes into being “intelligent” than having great numbers. 

I’ll present my readership with a simple scenario – you’re in one of those traditional interrogation rooms. There’s absolutely no distraction in the room whatsoever, just four blank walls, a floor, and a ceiling. What would you do to pass the time?

In my case, I would walk to a corner of the room, lay down, stare at the ceiling, and just think. I rarely have the opportunity to explore the realm outside of medicine anymore, so it’ll be refreshing to use my mind for something else. Trying to devise a new meaning for life, recollecting memories from my past, running through anatomy terms one by one (okay, I guess I won’t take my mind off of medicine completely ), etc. Hopefully, I’ll bore myself to sleep and wake up to freedom.

What would you do in such a case?

In his infinite wisdom, Socrates once said “all I know is that I know nothing.” This premise applies perfectly to the question at hand. If we attempt to define “life” by the observations we have made in our own lives, the definition would be biased and ultimately incorrect. Therefore, we must accept the fact that we indeed “know nothing” to provide an objective opinion.

Enough philosophy. Since I fall under the subset of all humans, my definition is going to be biased and incorrect anyways, but this is what I came up with.

“Life refers to any entity which utilizes an energy source to fuel the relevant biochemical processes needed to sustain the entity till it successfully produces fertile offspring.”

Under this definition, yes, I consider an egg which has been recently fertilized to be a form of “life.” It meets all the aforementioned requirements.

• The embryo obtains “energy” in the form of nutrients from the biological mother.
• The embryo undergoes the “biochemical processes” of growth and adaptation as it progresses from newborn to adult.
• The adult “produces fertile offspring” (in this case, through sexual reproduction) and ensures the survival of its kind.

Notice how this definition of life also excludes terms like “carbon-based” or “water.”  As humans, we have to start investigating the unknown by utilizing what we supposedly “already know.” We know that all life forms on earth are carbon-based and require (directly or indirectly) water as a nutrient, so we search the cosmos looking for these two symbols of life. For all we know, E.T. and his friends may be silicon-based creatures requiring ammonia to survive (just like the Dems ).

So now, I ask my readership – what do you think constitutes “life?”

As time passes, it seems that more and more obstacles are stacked in the face of innovation. For example, embryonic stem cells became a hot topic for more than just the scientific breakthrough. Ethical disputes over killing a potential life quickly stifled what could have been a paradigm shift in medical treatment. Over the last year, scientists have modified differentiated cells (ie, fibroblasts) into their pluripotent state, thereby regenerating interest in stem cell therapy. I believe that the latter method of inducing differentiated cells to regain their pluripotency will be awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine at some point in my life for its simplicity yet overwhelming importance. After all, I think we can all agree that simple fibroblast cells are expendable if they can be used to regrow damaged hepatic, cardiac, and even nervous tissues to save a patient’s life.

But anyways, back to my point. With all these hardships which we will continue to face, I’m getting uneasy about what kind of future we’ll have. Think about living in the early 20th century where discovery ran rampant. Einstein blowing away Newtonian schools of thought with his theories on the behavior of light and nature of gravity. New subatomic particles being discovered to revolutionize particle physics. Dirac’s emphasis on the beauty of simplistic equations explaining natural phenomena. I don’t really remember anything that dramatic unfolding in my life time. All I remember is politics-this and economy-that with random acts of violence filling in the gaps. Ugh, and the future doesn’t look any brighter. It seems like there are only a finite number of things to “discover”, and we’re approaching that limit way too quickly. If I’m wrong, and there really are countless discoveries awaiting us, then ethical issues will make it increasingly difficult to attain true progress. We already have the power to kill ourselves a hundred times over. We already have the power to play God. All it takes is one person to exploit either one of the aforementioned cases. How are ethics going to control that?

Maybe I’m just a little bitter. Sure, the winners of the Nobel Prize have distinguished themselves from the rest of their peers for many reasons, but I think some of the research is a bit too simple. For example, this year’s Chemistry prize went to the discoverers of the green flourescent protein (GFP) from a certain species of jellyfish. How simple is that! For discovering a protein that they could use in visualizing the inner workings of cells, the researchers got a Nobel Prize. It’s not like they created the protein on their own. They just took something in nature and applied it to something new. Heck, I would venture to say that some of my colleagues and I could have discovered GFP had we lived at that time and had the drive. Of course, I’m not discounting the magnitude of their discovery. All I’m alluding to is the fact that “simple” discoveries are becoming scarce, and true innovation faces a great deal of ethical confrontation in the future.

I just hope that when I discover the cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and shortness, my ethical mother won’t tell me to wake up and stop dreaming.

Fear stems from our inability to cope with the unexpected. Think about it… when someone says they’re “afraid” of dogs, are they really afraid of the actual dog? No, they’re afraid of the well known spontaneity of man’s best friend. If they knew exactly how a dog would behave, the fear would subside.

This goes with more abstract concepts too. Many of us “fear the future.” Why? Again, the lack of foresight into how our lives will be, with certainty, in the next decade or so. This brings up an interesting realization. The extent to which a person has control over a situation determines how comfortable they are in handling it. I guess that only makes sense. Heck, I know I’m a bit uneasy when I embark on some new pursuit. Fear, it seems, is a universal reaction to the unknown.

So why do some people seem to fear everything when others are more or less comfortable? I attribute it to varying levels of exposure to the world. Some people tend to build up a tolerance for things they know are out of their realm of control. Consequently, they can stomach more uncertainty before being afraid. More sheltered individuals experience the opposite. Ugh, this is precisely why I’ll never go into psychiatry. All these gray areas keep translating to “if/then” statements in my nerdy mind. If a person has some control, then they may or may not be afraid. If a person has already experienced something scary, they may or may not overcome their original notion. Blah blah blah, too much gray area for my liking.

Nevertheless, fear is a product of our inability to control every facet of our lives. Every person will experience it, but those who can genuinely embrace the unknown will ultimately conquer it.

On another note, I have a newly discovered fear – fear that the Democrats will win. This fear is rooted in the uncertainty of the American mindset (as well as the latest polls). However, by the morning of November 5th, the verdict will be absolute. My fear will subside, and based on the victor, I may or may not have additional fears.

See how this blog entry went? I hypothesized, and then I applied.

…I really need to go back to school.

I really can’t think of anything. It’s all downhill from here. I’ll be 30 soon. And then 40. And then 50. And then hopefully reaping the benefits of medicare and social security. I still remember the day I turned 10 and was ridiculously excited to finally be in the “double digit” age. *Sighs* We live our teenage years hoping to get older for the aforementioned reasons (driving, voting, etc.), but upon reaching 21, I have nothing to look forward to. At this point, everything that transpires in my life will be due to my own actions rather than a legal privilege. I can only imagine what will happen by the time I’m 40.

I want to thank everyone for going out of their way to Facebook, text message, and call me on this important day in my life. I consider myself to be more of a product of my social circle than others, and therefore take it as a sincere privilege when I’m remembered for something as “trivial” as a birthday.  You all remind me how lucky I am to have friends like you.

I personally would not want to know when I will die. I find the true beauty in life to lie within its spontaneity. Waking up each day not knowing what the next minute will offer is something that everyone takes for granted. Imagine if the mystery of one’s future was no longer so elusive. If we knew we had exactly thirty years and twelve days to live. If we had a mental countdown as we sought to use each day to live life to the fullest. This is complete nonsense. Time doesn’t change just because you know you will die in fifty years. The only difference, I think, is that man seems to appreciate the “simple things” when they are reminded of their mortality. This is where I’m a hypocrite. I rather not know the full extent of my timeline. I’m far more comfortable clinging onto my preconceived notions about my future. Just because I want to be a doctor, a father, and distinguished member of society doesn’t mean that death will conveniently wait for me to accomplish the aforementioned before it knocks on my door. Life is too short to think we have time to do everything we want; however, there’s  a profound sense of relief in telling ourselves that. Laziness consumes us. We no longer value the significance of the moment. We fear death but drown ourselves in enough distractions to remain oblivious. I am guilty of this cowardice.

Yes, I will acknowledge there are those out there who would want to know how much time they have left. My only comment is that of those individuals, only a handful are genuine on this stance. No matter how noble your cause may be (ie, I want to know how long I have to work with so I can decide how to raise a family and accomplish my goals), there’s nothing stopping you from carrying out the same tasks you would have done. In other words, knowing one’s lifespan does not affect their daily actions as long as they follow one excessively used but rarely understood premise – “live life to the fullest.”

I had some time earlier today to just go back through my archives and see my evolution as a person. My first thought: “Wow, I can’t believe I was that lame.” Others would argue that I still am. Either way, it’s amusing to realize that I did write the things I did at some point in the past. The way I once thought was very different from now. The things I consider important have completely shifted. I believe I’ve matured, but that’s up for debate. I’ve grown more social in some ways, but shyed away in some regards. Alas, I have no choice but to live with my present self, and judging by my past, I’m perfectly fine with what I currently am as an individual. That’s all that really matters in the end.