Welcome to my Blog

A warm welcome to my Blog

I shall post some news of interest to Sri lankans about life in Sri Lanka in the period 1950-1960 mainly. This will feature articles on music, general history and medicine. I am dedicated to humanism and refuse to judge people according to labels they are born with. Their actions and behaviour shall be my yardsticks, always cognizant of the challenges they faced in life.

Tuesday 31 March 2020

What’s in a name?


What’s in a name?

Mahendra Gonsalkorale. March 31st 2020
Personal identity is a fascinating subject. I don’t know enough of Human history to identify when Homo sapiens assigned “names” to people so that communication became easier. I guess the need would have been somewhat similar to classifying any collection of “things” that you have, to make it easy to pick out what you want. Before language was discovered, the only way to indicate and item would have been to point to it. Once unique symbols (names) were given you could indicate what you want by referring it to by name even in the absence of the object desired. This presumably started with assigning names or symbols to objects of importance around us and then naturally progressing to all sentient beings. With evolution and aggregations of man into tribes and communities, the system of naming too had to evolve. There could been a time when a person was identified only by his/her relationship to other family members. For example, a man named Aponso may have had a son and the son may not have had a unique name but merely referred to as “Aponso’s son”. When Aponso had more sons, it could be “the elder son of Aponso” and the “younger son of Aponso” or even abbreviated to “Aponso son the elder” and “Aponso son the younger”. At some time, those identified in that manner may have insisted on a unique name with the development of a sense of “self” or equally, it may have been more practical for the group as a whole to assign unique names to members.  But the relationship of one person to another appears to have continued in the naming process. The link could have been to the family or possibly to other respected figures in the community. For example, if Hannibal was held in high esteem, I could imagine a father naming his son Hannibal. This still applies with names of revered religious figures such as Mary and even Jesus or Buddha being given to people.

The name of a person is usually of great importance to the person. Dale Carnegie said “Remember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language”. He said “Using a person’s name is crucial, especially when meeting those we don’t see very often. Respect and acceptance stem from simple acts such as remembering a person’s name and using it whenever appropriate.” This is an indication of a basic human need to be recognised as distinct and unique. This process develops in several stages. A person is born and given a name. But the need for that name to indicate the relationship of the person to other key people in his life is also very important. So you become “son (putha (S), mahan(T))” or daughter (duwa, mahal)” or “my wife” or “my husband” or “my boss”. Or as “my son, Lakshman” for example. You as an individual is submerged. Your importance is because of your relationship. In Sri Lankan circles, wives are often annoyed by a common practice of a husband introducing his wife as “this is my wife” rather than “this is my wife Rani”. It is by no means exclusive to Sri Lankans.  This practice is further strengthened by the adoption of the husband’s surname by the wife. She becomes at best “Mrs Rita Mithra” or at worst “Mrs Mithra”. As we know there is a growing rebellion among married women, especially in the West and many choose not to adopt the husband’s surname at all while others resort to the “double-barrel” method of including both. The more liberated will become Ms Rita Mithra-Tsunami while others will be happy with Mrs Rita Mithra-Tsunami. The extreme on the spectrum will be Ms Rita Tsunami.

I was delving into the history of surnames in the UK and unearthed some interesting facts which I like to share with you. I have included some very limited facts relating to  Sri Lanka but I intend to do a more detailed study soon. As expected, there are many common themes reflecting our colonial past. I would welcome comments from readers who are able to share their knowledge.

Surnames came into existence gradually in the UK from between 1066 and about 1400. Before 1066, a person usually had one name, a Christian name. After 1400, people almost always had a family name or surname as well.  This happened first in England and later in Wales and Scotland. Most of the names now in use can be traced back to this period. The growth in surnames was the result of the growth in population and the expansion of government. A simple system of a Christian name only was inadequate. Small communities probably had a sufficient store of names to provide individual names without giving rise to duplication and confusion. The population of England doubled from 2 M in 1066 to 4 M in 1400. People travelled more and the number of towns rapidly increased. Following the Norman Conquest of England by the Duke of Normandy in 1066, a system of government administration expanded and the need for registering people became necessary. The practice of naming a son using the father’s name did not necessarily mean that the name was passed on to their children in turn. For example, King Harold, the son of Godwin was called Harold Godwinsson. But the family name Godwinsson was not passed on to his children. Harold Godwinsson was unique and his name indicated that his father was Godwin. If names were passed down, one of Harold’s sons Ulf (or Wulf) would have been Ulf Haroldsson, not Ulf Godwinsson. But Ulf was just known as Ulf son of Harold.

The evolution of surnames in general
We can see that there was a need to identify people as unique subjects.  The use of a Surname attached to the Christian name was one way. This method also created a link between two generations. Other methods were also used and they can be classified broadly as based on:-
(a) Patronymic (b) Occupational names (c) Locality names (d) Nicknames.

(a)    Patronymics. Names which refer to the father. Most are easy to pick out. Harrison – son of Harry, Johnson – son of John.  One patronymic derivation not always recognised is the use of the apostrophe ‘s. Johns for example would have started as “John’s” (son of John). Others include Edwards, Williams, Roberts and Evans. A further complication is the shortening of names. E.g., Robert could be Rob, Robin, Hob or Hopkin and the son of Robert could be Robertson, Robson, Robinson, Robbins, Hobson or Hopkinson. Similarly, Richard has nicknames such as Dick, Hick and gives rise to surnames such as Richardson, Dickson, Dixon, Hickson, Higson, Higginson. Sometimes the son is given the father’s occupational name. e.g., the father is a Tailor and the son becomes Taylorson. Similarly, Smithson- son of a Smith. In Scotland, the word Mac is used instead of son. So MacPherson is the son of the parson, MacNab is the son of the Abbot. It is even more complicated in Welsh.  The word ap- preceding the name is the same as the English –son after the name but the ap gets corrupted and the “a” may get dropped and “p” may survive as a p, ab or as an f. Lloyd could become aLloyd, or Flood or Blood or Floyd. Probert is from Robert.
(b)   Occupational. Most of them are easy to understand but some apparently unrelated to occupations are related but either the occupation has died out or called something else now. An example is Theaker which is the same as Thatcher (thatched roofer).  Chandler was a candle maker. Barker is a Tanner (bark is used for tanning).Other examples are Clark, Miller, Baker, Carpenter, Contractor, Barber. Some Royal names have humble origins too. Stuart is from Steward and Marshal is from a marshal in stately processions but the word meant a lowly horse-groom.
(c)    Locality. These are of two types. The first refers to actual names of places and the second refers to features of the countryside close to the settlement. Examples of first type are Lincoln, Preston, Doncaster, and Churchill. Examples of the second type are Hill, Meadow, Brook, Wood, and Bridge. The feature is not necessarily natural, as in Bridge, Castle, and Mill.
(d)   Nicknames. Nicknames are the hardest to classify and not uncommonly, the conclusion that it is a nickname is reached on the basis that the name does not fit into any of the first 3 classes. Some are easy to understand. E.g., according to physical characteristics such as “Redhead”, “Prettybody”, “Whalebelly” (Big tummy like a whale!) and Little.  Gray for gray hair, Donne or Dunn for a dark person. Names indicating a habit such as Drinkwater for an abstainer. Shakespeare apparently indicated exactly what it says. Doolittle for a lazy person, Lovelace came from “Love-lass”, a young man noted for his amorous activities.

The need to be unique is also reflected in how families choose how the surname is spelt. e.g., (Smith, Smythe), (Newcombe, Newcombe).

Just a few International examples.
In China, an Emperor decreed the adoption of the hereditary family names in 2852 BC.
In Turkey, a law making surnames mandatory was made in 1935.
Jews were late in adopting surnames and often were compelled to do so as they were debarred from adopting names used by Christians. Sometimes they chose names which sounded good like Rosenthal which means rose valley.
Swedish names often reflect their love of nature, incorporating words such as “berg” (mountain) and “blom” (flower).
In Sri Lanka, the word “ge” (belonging to or derived from) is used to indicate the family such as Gonsalkoralege Mahendra. This practice has largely changed to reverse it to Mahendra Gonsalkorale (and the “ge” is dropped) or a new surname has arisen and the old surname retained as an additional first name such as Gonsalkoralege Mahendra De Chickera. The place name could also be used such as Balangoda Ranjit Weeratunge. Occupational and title names are used such as Kottuwe Muhandiramge Sarath Jayanetti. Some carry a whole lineage in their name such as the celebrated Sri Lankan cricketer W P U J C Vaas who has the rare distinction of having more initials than letters in his surname! His full name is Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas. Sri Lankans are also finicky about correct spelling of certain names as the spelling is caste related, e.g., Goonewardena and Gunawardena, Goonetileka and Gunatileka. Sri Lankans have also adopted many Portuguese, Dutch and English names and this is generally more prevalent among Christians. The other interesting feature of names in Sri Lanka is the adoption of Sinhala names by some Tamils who for several generations lived in the South and Sinhalese who have done the same after living in Tamil areas. One other feature of note during colonial times was the adoption of more English sounding names to enhance prospects for employment in Government institutions. Some went to the extent of embracing Christianity for the same reason.

Another common Sri Lankan cultural habit is to invent totally new names with no meaning at all, apart from “sounding nice”. The need for this sometimes arises from the requirement for choosing the first letter of the name as deemed auspicious by the horoscope of the person. Another reason is a fad to give name which has never been used before and stand out as unique!

The Tamil format has also changed but the practise of stating the father’s name followed by the unique name is common. We have Suranjan Vinyamoorthy and Suranjan Krishnamoorthy who are both sons of Suranjan. This makes working out relationships a bit harder.

Nick names, of course, are commonly used in every country. In our own batch, we have Speedy, Lucky, Gompa, Cigar, and Bunter just to name a few!

I do hope I have stimulated your appetite to ask more questions about names. The science that studies names in all their aspects is called Onomastics or Onamatology. I don’t know whether the science that studies names of people has a name but this is the closest I could find: a set of personal names is called Anthroponymy and their study is called Antroponomastics.



Saturday 28 March 2020

THOUGHTS ON CONSCIOUSNESS


THOUGHTS ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS
28th March 2020
The history of the problem of consciousness, sometimes put forward as the “mind-body” problem, is littered with concepts and ideas without clear definitions. By its very nature, consciousness is hard to define as we are using the very consciousness that we are trying to define in the process. Most agree that it is “hard to define” and then go on without even attempting to define it. ` As I understand it, the chief characteristic of consciousness is self-awareness and the ability to have the sensation of experiencing things without actually experiencing them.

However, there appears to be no general agreement on what is consciousness. It is applied to a wide variety of occupants of Planet Earth. Sometimes it is limited to the animal kingdom, and specifically to humans. Others include everything there is, even non-sentient things like rocks and do not make a distinction between human, animal, plant or inanimate consciousness. The view that ALL objects in this Universe have consciousness with variations in qualitative aspects is not widely held. In their view, this “Universal Consciousness” as something which is “everywhere” and inter-connected, i.e., a sort of ill-defined conceptual framework that “IS” and has no time, space or other dimensions. It had no beginning, no ending and is eternal and infinite. One could apply this to Theistic Religions as a description of what they call “God”. Not God in simplistic terms as a “personal” powerful being who created the Universe, the big man with the long white beard image, but a deeper meaning as a Universal Consciousness which is unfathomable to us humans with our limitations and is responsible for creation. The Hindu concept of Brahman regards that the atman of each of us may also hold a 'spark' of Brahman. For most Hindus, Brahman is present in the lives of all living things. It is a sort of Universal Consciousness, whatever that means!  In the view of some, this “Universal consciousness” extends to all existent things and not just to sentient beings. In their view the depth pf consciousness varies from a simple kind of ability to experience the environment to the development of a sense of self, agency and intentionality. As far back as 1579, The Great Chain of Being: was a powerful visual metaphor for a divinely inspired universal hierarchy ranking all forms of higher and lower life. The difference was that it was top-down. The chain starts with God and progresses downward to angels, humans, animals, plants, and minerals.  (From Didacus Valades, Rhetorica Christiana -1579). 

As far as I know, the major theories of consciousness are the following. I am not happy with any of them.

(a)    Integrated Information theory. Neural processes give rise to consciousness. The first step is integration (experiencing a single unified whole. The second is the property of information which refers to each experience as being highly differentiated and informative- you are having this particular experience rather than a potentially infinite number of possible others.
(b)   Global workspace theory. Baars proposed that most activity goes on all the time in the background and as information arrives in this workspace and we become aware of them and becomes the focus of our attention and then enters our conscious awareness. When information arrives in our early sensory processing areas and is salient(relevant) to us, we display attention and the neural activity spreads to associative areas in the brain such as the frontal, parietal and occipital areas (The Global workspace) from which consciousness arises.
(c)    Higher-order theories such as that of LeDoux who believes that first-order representation occurs at a non-conscious level and this is followed by some kind of higher-order processing ultimately reaching subjective consciousness.
(d)   Attention Schema theory. The Brain is merely modelling what it is thinking of and just constructs models to describe and keep track of things and models its own internal states.
(e)   Illusionism. We do not have phenomenal consciousness but only a kind of introspective illusionism. This reflects the limited access we have to our own mental processes.
(f)     Quantum theories. Roger Penrose’s view, He believes that consciousness is somehow linked with the quantum world and that quantum processes within the brain would explain consciousness.

That Darwinian evolution not only explains planetary life but also applies to the evolution of the brain and that this is reflected in the stages through which the fertilised ovum (zygote) goes through is a view held by many scientists.  The increasing complexity of animals as we ascend the ladder suggests that this is true. In attempting to explain consciousness and avoidance of dichotomy of body and mind (consciousness), there is a view that body and mind are inseparable (two sides of the same coin).

I think most thinkers; both scientists as well as philosophers, will be willing to concede that the human brain and its complexity is the culmination of a long evolutionary process. The real problem is how we explain “the mind” and consciousness or awareness. One school of thought postulates that everything can be explained in physical terms, if not now, in time to come. These are the Physicalists such as Daniel Dennet. Others believe that Humans have some sort of spiritual dimension which gives them qualities such as agency, intentionality and the ability to project future situations and to possess qualities such as appreciation of music, art and other subtle qualities in Nature. They do not go so far as supporting a mind/body dualist attitude but while admitting that the body and mind are not separate, yet add an ill-defined notion of spirituality to Humans which separate them from other animals and make them uniquely human. One such proponent is the English Philosopher Raymond Tallis. My problem with consciousness and material explanations is how the transformation of objectively observable neural activity to subjective experience is made. My experience which occurs within me in response to neural activity is uniquely subjective. A colour blind person will never be able to know what it is really like to see the colour green. It is almost as if there is something between receiving neural activity and experiencing “the experience” which occurs within consciousness. Almost like a complex physical system gathering all the data, interpreting them (the brain and its connections) and expressing them after something intangible that we possess which we call consciousness, making us experience them through the physical brain. If we pose the question- How do we know “what it is like to be” – a range of things. What is it like to be amazed and enthralled at the sight of a classic painting, what is It like to be to experience the sound of a musical classic? Words can be used to try and transmit to the listener “what it is like” but words will not reproduce the experience within the observer. As I said, a red-green colour blind person will never be able to know what it is really like to see the colour green. The problem of how brain processes give rise to the phenomenon of experience, intentionality and a sense of “self” has been the subject of many thinkers.

Things become even more complicated when the “Universal (God) model” is not only used to explain the Universe in physical terms but also in “moral terms”. Proponents suggest that “good” and “bad” are universal laws that apply throughout time and space. They are said to be immutable, yet they cannot agree on what actions are ALWAYS immoral, whatever the context. Life is highly valued and deliberate taking away of life is ALWAYS immoral but free-thinkers can come up with situations where taking away a life is the most sensible and generous thing to do. We don’t accept that morality can only exist in the presence of religious belief. This line of thinking that there are absolute moral laws is not restricted to Theistic religions. The persistence of life in the form of an afterlife conditioned by both moral and immoral actions in this life is prevalent in most Eastern religions.

Again the question arises whether this moral principle applies only to human beings or to all living beings.  If it includes all animals, does it apply only at a “higher evolutionary stage” or for ALL living things? Do mosquitoes, for example, have consciousness? If so, when we virtually eradicated Malaria by killing mosquitoes were we guilty of a morally reprehensible act?  The moment the concept of absolute morality is brought in, difficulties in keeping to the scientific method of thinking arise. For a materialist, morality will always be influenced by context. Thus, absolute morality would not exist. An atheistic humanist like me would say that morals have evolved from evolutionary and cultural needs. The Human species which is well over 200,000 years showed “moral” behaviour long before religion was invented. As Man grouped together in herds, they realised the importance of cooperation and working in communities. They learnt that it was necessary to avoid selfish behaviour in order to survive. Man had to invent rules and regulations to preserve life. Thinking of the world in which we exist now, just imagine the road network with no rules and regulations with complete freedom to express your own individuality. It is just not possible. It would be chaotic. It is my belief that religions arose from the same need for survival through “good” behaviour. The promise of a good afterlife and the fear instilled through belief in judgmental powerful gods (polytheism) which later narrowed down in many cultures to one powerful God (monotheism) were powerful factors in propagating this myth. Man created God, not vice versa!

For me, the Big Question is, why are human beings so advanced compared to other living beings? I am using the word "advanced" and it is perfectly legitimate to challenge me! From the point of view of adaptation and success in propagation, many animals have succeeded immensely. But Man, in so many ways, are well ahead of any other animal- in changing their environment, using natural resources to achieve unimaginable things, in their ability to sense the past, to anticipate the future, use of tools and their unrivalled language skills. We know our Universe is billions of years old. Living beings have existed for millions of years and human beings have existed only for a relatively infinitesimally small period within that time. But the amazing leap that Homo sapiens made about 500,000 years ago is miraculous. It was a stunning leap in the ability in a relatively minuscule of time. Among attempts to explain this is the injection of advanced genetic material through meteorites carrying DNA like extra-terrestrial matter (Panspermia theory by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe).

Of course, as yet, nobody really knows why.