Press "Enter" to skip to content


IN THE field of economics and politics, two things define value. One is for its existence, and thus leads to value. The other is relevance. 

Existence for it to become valuable should find its meaning not to one person but to all members in the community. Say, the money that you have in your pocket has value if and if others regard that piece of paper as a currency. This only means everyone in the community sees the piece of paper as having the ability to acquire value. 

The other is the pursuit of relevance. We could observe relevance in the many changes that happen in ourselves, in our homes, in our community, in our nation. 

To be consistent, let us use the same example—- money. Money is relevant when it can acquire the relative and subjective pleasure of things that we can purchase. The hundred bill inside your wallet is important to one who considers one hundred pesos as the amount to bridge to the next payday cycle—- it is not relevant if there are a thousand 100-peso bills that can readily be withdrawn from the plastic card tuck in your wallet. 

Such that, when money exists and is regarded as a medium of exchange, then money has to increase its value to be relevant. 

It is easy to use and employ this when it is for material things. One should first pursue the existence and presence of the thing before you make it relevant. 

This exercise is called the Turing test. In the 1950’s, the English computer scientist, Alan Turing developed this method which he calls an imitation game which illustrates the computer’s ability to demonstrate intelligent behavior similar to or indistinguishable from humans. 

What makes this test significant is that it sets the system of standards of values. 

Let me be clear that values are different from virtues. Values are ascriptions of the community members to what is significantly relevant to pursuit of happiness. Say, values include commitment because it is what is acceptable by the well-meaning societies, else, floundering on one’s promises is a total disgrace. 

Virtue is different because it is a characteristically definitive social and attitudinal features, immovable through time, and of course, unchangeable. 

The Turing test sets the foundation of consistency and standards. If one thing is acceptable because it is accepted by everyone, not different nor digressing from any other norm, then it will pass the test. 

If it is seen as incomprehensible and inconsistent, then it fails. In a bigger world and more complex societies, agreement and tolerance are the most potent force to prevail. Why? Because agreement establishes order and familiarity, why tolerance fuels understanding. 

The systems and mechanisms where we try to fortify need to pass the Turing test. Are our motives similar to our actions? Is our kindness consistent with our motives? Are our pursuits consistent with our happiness? 

In a rapidly changing world, what we need to do is to find agreement and exercise tolerance. Those who do otherwise fail the Turing test and are thrown out of the system. This is just the order of nature. They failed because their substance does not meet their meanings. 

Philosophical? Not really. What I am saying here is to link your worth with your existence. If you are a student, that is your existence, your meaning is to study and learn. 

If you are a worker, then you perform your job as if it is your only love, because that is the only time you become truly relevant at work, not the gossip you make nor the position you occupy. 

If you are a subordinate, then show respect to your leader, greet him or show her deference, else you lose your meaning. 

Our ambitions are sometimes established in inconsistencies, build on its momentum and creates a monster of attitude that destroys self, family, and our collective ambitions. 

So let us be conscious of our intentions and desires, and perhaps, just perhaps, nobody will ever fail the Turing test.


Powered By ICTC/DRS