miniverse

deguessifying conjecture

2008-03-25T16:17:00.000+08:00

great minds think alike, and shit happens

2008-03-16T17:57:00.000+08:00

Why do great minds think alike? If we assume that the thoughts of great minds tend towards truth. And that there are more ways to be wrong than right. Then there are simply less ways for thoughts to be true. Thus there are less ways for great minds to think, provided they think true thoughts. How constrained are the thoughts of great minds! (actually not, i'll go into that later)

Why does shit happen? "Shit happens" because of the space of possible scenarios, those which we would prefer are an infinitesimal proportion.

So if shit is no less necessary than non-shit. Is truth anymore necessary than falsity? No, but true thoughts are no more necessary than false ones. The larger our imaginations the greater the possibility of mistake. But like falsities,truths are also limited to our imagination. There may exist certain truths our faculties simply don't equip us to grasp. Logic is simply the failure of imagination. It is necessary not because it cannot be otherwise, but because I cannot possibly imagine how it could be otherwise.

the profound and the arbitrary

2008-03-14T15:42:00.000+08:00

The more profound something is, the more arbitrary it will be. This is because what is more profound has more depending on it but depends less itself on anything else. Like the fundamental axioms of mathematics. Profound as they are, are themselves quite arbitrary.

Perhaps this is why people tend to stay away from philosophical musings? Meaning requires scaffolding. In the rarefied air of philosophy it gets hard to breathe. Perhaps those with a mutated genotype leading to philosophical inclinations simply went insane or did not bother to reproduce....

I realize this is contrary to the received intuition that what is more profound is closer to the Truth. But arbitrariness has actually little to do with truth. Furthermore the capitalized Truth has more to do with subjective significance that with verisimilitude.

logic and personality

2008-03-10T11:56:00.000+08:00

the more logical people are the less there will be systematic differences of personality between different positions on an argument. i.e. the more uncorrelated personality and position will be.

numerical method

2008-02-29T13:11:00.002+08:00


from math import atan2

def iterate(ans):
return 0.5*atan2(1,2*ans)

def iterator(ans,x):
if round(iterate(ans),3) != round(ans,3):
    print 'iteration no.',x,'is',iterate(ans)
    iterator(iterate(ans),x+1)

x=2
iterator(0.4,x)


------------------------------------

iteration no. 2 is 0.448027692286
iteration no. 3 is 0.420082425036
iteration no. 4 is 0.436019928837
iteration no. 5 is 0.426822664718
iteration no. 6 is 0.432094882111
iteration no. 7 is 0.429060919042
iteration no. 8 is 0.430802986936
iteration no. 9 is 0.429801433113

the personality-Web

2008-02-28T20:06:00.000+08:00

Let there be such a thing as the personality-Web whereby each possible path from the home-page defines a particular unique personality such that there would not be any 2 person on this Earth that navigates through this Web the same way. Now what would this personality-Web look like? Hmm.....

up the stairwell

2008-01-27T15:20:00.000+08:00

pro- nouns/verbs/adjective/adverbs

2007-09-07T14:23:00.000+08:00

Besides pronouns, English also contains pro-verbs, such as the ‘did’ in ‘Mary ran quickly, so Bill did too’, and pro-adjectives such as ‘such’ in ‘The happy man was no longer such’; and pro-adverbs such as the ‘so’ in ‘She twitched violently and, while so twitching, expired’.

KIRKHAM, RICHARD L. (1998). Truth, deflationary theories of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved September 07, 2007, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N062SECT2

expertise and genius

2007-05-28T14:03:00.000+08:00

Intelligence is just general mental health. With that, expertise is achieved through directed effort. Genius is creativity plus expertise. So:

Intelligence + Effort + Creativity = Genius

Genius - Creativity = (plain old) Expertise

interpretation

2007-05-24T01:43:00.000+08:00

How exactly do those lyrics from Colin Hay's song describe exactly how i feel? Let's do a simple line-by-line analysis.

I drink good coffee every morning

That would simply mean I actually enjoy life! Strange isn't it? How can somebody like me possibly enjoy life?

Comes from a place that’s far away

Esoteric experiences, eclectic tastes and abstruse ideas i guess...

And when I’m done I feel like talking

And of course, it is human nature (i'm human) to want to share how we experience our lives.

Without you here there is less to say

The reason why i am seen to be so quiet is because i realized quite some time ago that people just don't get what I try to say. Or they don't see the point of getting so excited over the things i get excited about. Now that's not entirely true, i say and share many different things to and with many different people. But such narrow bandwidth! As such my messages are robbed of context. The reason why I see as beautiful the things I see as beautiful is in large part the way I see the world. Most of what i try to say thus is misquoted... So remember, i'm not incoherent, you are just not properly tuned in.

(exactly) how i feel

2007-05-24T01:23:00.000+08:00

I drink good coffee every morning
Comes from a place that’s far away
And when I’m done I feel like talking
Without you here there is less to say

—"i just don’t think i’ll ever get over you", colin hay

ego - the secret to happiness

2007-05-23T16:52:00.000+08:00

To summarize, traditional conceptions of mental health assert that well-adjusted individuals possess relatively accurate perceptions of themselves, their capacity to control important events in their lives, and their future. In contrast to this portrayal, a great deal of research in social, personality, clinical and developmental psychology documents that normal individuals possess unrealistically positive views of themselves, an exaggerated belief in their ability to control their environment, and a view of the future that maintains that their future will be far better than the average person's. Furthermore, individuals who are moderately depressed or low in self-esteem consistently display an absence of such enhancing illusions. Together, these findings appear inconsistent with the notion that accurate self-knowledge is the hallmark of mental health (Taylor and Brown, 1988).

the messiness of human nature

2007-05-23T15:41:00.000+08:00

From Rehabilitating Introspection, Phil Roberts, Jr.

Presumably, Mother Nature has gone to a lot of trouble to evolve our capacity for reflective thought precisely because it renders it possible for us to have a fairly good idea of what will be in our long range best interest and, just as crucially, to be able to act upon that information when undertaking a prudent course of action. But if this is so, why then are there motivational states such as fear, anger and sexual arousal, that urge us to engage in random acts of strategic stupidity on those innumerable occasions when, at some later point in time, we end up having to ask ourselves, "Now why did I do that?" If prudence is such hot stuff from an evolutionary standpoint, why isn't Mother making it a bit easier for us to exercise it more prudently?

The answer, I believe, is pretty much what you might expect. The reason the lower emotions seem so out of context with our more reflective concerns is precisely because they are remnants of a prereflective survivalist heritage -- vestigial remains of ancient stimulus response mechanisms which, prior to the advent of prudential insight, were chiefly responsible for perpetuating ourselves and our genetic blueprints. And their lack of continuity with our more reflective concerns is because, at some point in our dark and distant past, survival was not the result of any overall intention or "will" to survive, but simply the non-intentional cumulative effect of a number of independent intentions or "wills" to exhibit stereotypical responses to immediate stereotypical stimuli, but which were probably undertaken with little if any understanding of the overall objective they were “designed” to achieve.

In other words, the reason the lower emotions so often urge us to do stupid stuff is because, in a manner of speaking, they don’t know what they are doing. Their strategic incoherence is due to the fact that the id is not so much an evil monster as a bunch of bungling idiots (Larry, Curly and Moe come to mind), and in which case Freud's mistake was not in positing little men in the brain (the id, ego and superego), as Ryle (1949) and Dennett (1969) have maintained, but in not positing enough of them.

...

3. To further confuse matters, it appears that, in her infinite wisdom, Mother Nature has apparently exapted (jury-rigged) a number of the lower emotions to assist in the shepherding of self-worth (fear of asking for a date or giving a speech, anger over an insult, sex as a basis for endearment, etc.), a task for which they are often understandably illsuited. But then what else would you expect from a blind mechanical process?

idealism?

2007-05-23T02:37:00.000+08:00

Even Einstein thought this...

Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. —Einstein

But this is not idealism. Note that he said "physical concepts".
What is reality then? Well I don't know. I just see it as something that is "just there". Something that behaves in a certain way. Something that we are forced to live with.

insignificance

2007-05-22T14:05:00.000+08:00

You would be just as insignificant if the universe were billions of times smaller. If you are not lonely, your life would be just as meaningful if the universe were infinitely larger than it is already infinitely large. Similarly, your life would be just as meaningful, and just as meaningless, if God were to exist or not.

overcompensation

2007-05-20T01:01:00.000+08:00

I present a sketchy theory of overcompensation here.

Paradigm shifts, fashion, moral sentiment, social and economic theory, religion. They all obey the "Law of Overcompensation".

This law states that (almost) every time we dispense with a perspective on an issue, we overcompensate (or at least have the tendency to).

Behaviorism after introspection. Laissez-faire capitalism after Communism. "Culture" (or Nurture) after Biology (Nature). Relativism after Racism. Modernism after Romanticism. Postmodernism after Realism. New Age after traditional monotheistic religion.

Why do we overcompensate? I think it's because we tend to view perspectives as factions, like in tribal warfare. Our tribal legacy definitely manifests in our argumentation. From "Metaphors We Live By" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson:

"ARGUMENT IS WAR

Your claims are indefensible.

He attacked every weak point in my argument.

His criticisms were right on target.

I demolished his argument.

I've never won an argument with him.

you disagree? Okay, shoot!

If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.

He shot down all of my arguments.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument--attack, defense, counter-attack, etc.---reflects this."

So instead of the logic of the argument prompting a change in perspectives, it is the subjective evaluation of the credence of artificially dichotomized polar-opposite sides of an issue. Whereupon the "winning" side would be absolutely and unequivocally accepted, and the other side absolutely and unequivocally rejected. Thus leading to overcompensation.

Even synthesis (after thesis and antithesis, in Hegel's theory) can overcompensate. Relativism is an example. I'm right. You're right. We are both right (in our own ways, yet absolutely so).

Nature? Haha. Yes but through conscious effort and with awareness, we can (somewhat) ameliorate or avoid overcompensation.

miraculous?

2007-05-19T23:38:00.000+08:00

It is said that for ourselves to exist, the physical constants of this universe have to be exquisitely fine-tuned. But here, probability only makes sense as frequency. I'm not trying to be a frequentist. Only the frequentist interpretation of probability makes sense here. Do we have access to other universes? If we do, we would be able to see in which of all these universes, life did form. Could it really have been any other way? The universe just is. Asking why only makes sense if asking "why not" is worse. "Why is the universe so?" and "Why not?" are equally good questions, of which the answers are equally hard to imagine.

Are necessary truths really necessary? Hardly, they are only the accidental workings of our minds. But if we take that into account, then anything is possible! Anything at all. Even God! To a lot of people, unfortunately, the existence of God is already so obvious as to be impossible to doubt. That's why I advocate apathetic atheism. Emphasizing the irrelevance of God in our lives, even if He does exist. There really is no "ought" from "is"...

Fortunately though, our universe seems to be consistent. And there are necessary truths. But only within this particular universe. Anything outside is just...anything. Conclusion? Only what affects us can possibly matter. Therefore only what does affect us matter. The supernatural is thus necessarily irrelevant. As irrelevant as (but not more than) fiction.

Hallucination in Education

2007-05-19T23:14:00.000+08:00

Besides teaching informal logic and cognitive biases. It would also be helpful if students can experience (safe) induced hallucination to show them how phenomena such as near-death experiences or mystical experiences can be so convincing. This is of course, not yet possible. Haha. But it would be great if it does become so.

protectionism and creationism

2007-05-19T19:23:00.000+08:00

What do protectionism and creationism have in common?

They are a defense of outmoded institutions in spite of more efficient ways of achieving exactly the same thing.
Creationists believe religion integral to morality and the meaning of life. Protectionists believe preserving (artificial) local market conditions to be protecting the livelihoods of local suppliers.

Both seek what they want in the wrong places. Morality and meaning doesn't exist in how life came into being. Demand doesn't exist in the non-existence of import supply.

Both need to find proper solutions for the pursuit their own true cause. The morality inherent in human nature. The meaning inherent in a good life. Real demand available through participation in the global economy.

truth and knives

2007-03-26T08:02:00.000+08:00

“Anything not inherently precious is not precious at all.
Anything truly precious is immune from the truth.”

I was inspired to say this from reading Eliezer Yudkowsky's Twelve Virtues of Rationality. And from people's common notion that the truth can sometimes be dangerous.

The Origin of Meaning

2007-03-08T16:54:00.000+08:00

Most spiritual systems point followers to a higher realm or being as a source of meaning and significance in our lives. But what is this meaning? How does it make our lives meaningful?

It may be of help to first ask, what would make our lives meaningless?

What makes a talk show meaningless? When it is on mute, we see mouths open and close repeatedly uttering words that non-lip readers cannot discern. Hand gestures, body language, and other non-verbal communication taken out of context. Most importantly we don’t know what they are talking about! So perhaps meaninglessness is about not understanding what is going on around us.

When we study an abstruse math concept, we question its practicality. Its applicability in the real world. We expect the math to be of some purpose. When we ask why we are learning this stuff, we expect an explanation into how it enables us to achieve a particular goal or outcome. We fear studying it might be pointless.

So possibly, meaning can be the combination of both understanding and ultimate purpose. Let’s consider cases in which one is present but not the other. A young child undergoes a dull traditional education. She knows somehow, from what her parents told her, that education is important for her future. But she doesn’t understand how education can be relevant to her future. An example was already given of the math topic which illustrates a situation in which there might perhaps be understanding but not purpose.

Quite clearly, understanding and a sense of ultimate purpose are both crucial in the meaningfulness of anything. How does spirituality or religion usually satisfy these requirements?

Understanding, besides being a state of comprehension, is also a subjective feeling. Like how we can feel happy when we get good grades, but also when we take certain drugs. An illusory sense of understanding can be achieved simply by giving a name to something that is to be causing the phenomena in need of explanation. For example, one of the characters in Moliere’s play The Imaginary Invalid, is asked by his physician-examiners to explain the means by which opium induces sleep. He replies that it induces sleep because it contains a “soporific factor.” This answer is applauded by the doctors. The playwright is, of course, satirizing the false expertise of these apparently learned men by showing their knowledge to be no more than sophistry¹. Such nonexplanations are commonplace in spirituality and religion. “God” for example, “explains” the existence of the Universe. “Sin” “explains” evil.

How should we live our lives? Why should we live it in one way rather than another? Most religion provide an ultimate purpose of some kind, which’s fulfillment requires the believer to act or believe in a certain way instead of others. Entry to Heaven, and avoidance of Hell, requires believers to be faithful and avoid sinful actions or violations of God’s commandments.

Drawing from an analogous situation inside the natural world, we satisfy the role of God to our children. We have purpose for them in mind which they do not yet understand. Going up some levels, the government administrates the nation of which we are part. Although we do not fully understand their policies, they give us a framework in which we can live out our lives. Lives that for the most part, we feel are meaningful. But does the government then give our lives meaning? Do we give meaning to our children’s lives? Of course not! We only provide for the possibility of our children’s lives, as do the government for ours. No, our lives are meaningful only because we have meaningful relationships with other humans like us.

But you might then ask, what makes these relationships meaningful? This yet again emphasizes the point that meaning cannot come externally from outside a system. To an outsider, an inside joke doesn’t make sense. Nothing but ourselves and our relationships with each other can make life meaningful. Suppose there is no humans, or that there is no human interaction, or there is no framework for human interaction that in this case is provided by the government. If any number of these entities exists without all of the others would life be meaningful? This is the reason why like age peers bond together. It is however, an indirect result of the fact that like-minded peers that bond together. Amongst themselves, our children understand each other, and they have common interests which serve as purpose around which their activities play out with significance.

Do cogs have meaning? Do cogs in a machine have meaning from inside the machine? Do they have meaning from outside the machine? Did you know that there is transistor #00812340 in your computer crucial for its operation? You don't because you are not in the system. What is important to you is the resulting function of all the system's interacting components. Their collective function; the ultimate purpose they serve. Not how they work. All you want as a user is to type up a report on a word processor, or play some computer games. God may very well exist, and we may very well be useful to him. We may actually mean something to him. But he is irrelevant as to whether our lives have meaning.

Mundane everyday situations are what make life meaningful. Not because they serve some ultimate purpose outside of the immediate system, but because they have a structure of relationships which human nature finds expression in. Within the system.

Nothing outside a system can mean anything to anything within it. A pure but abstract example illustrates this general fact. The Liar paradox: “This sentence is false.” If the sentence is true, since it says it is false, it is false. If the sentence is false, it would then say that its falseness is false, which makes it true. Where does the meaning of a sentence originate? Simply in what it describes. However, that particular paradoxical sentence describes itself. That sentence is referring to something outside the system it is meant to describe. It is describing its description. When you describe a system, its description is outside of it. Or more exactly, the description is one level above the level of the described. Like in a family tree of relationships. Which is a hierarchy, each generation being a level. The relationship “father-of” applies from one level to the level below it. It makes no sense when I say my uncle is the father of my aunt. Or even, Bob is father of himself.

There is however, a distinction between the qualitative feeling or sensation of meaning, and the conscious apprehension of it. Sometimes, we see life from a less involved perspective. Like when brushing your teeth you might suddenly realize that you have been doing this countless times, every single day of your life thus far. You realize that all your routines and habits are just like that. Endless patterns that seem to lack ultimate significance. How about passing buckets of water along to help put out a fire? The repeated senselessness of the immediate action can put you in a trance-like state. With all your attention focused on bucket-passing, the whole affair can seem quite meaningless. But you forget that you are working in a team to help put out a fire, to save lives. Lives that you know give meaning to people related to them. Lives that enable us all to share our thoughts and feelings however profound or mundane, with others like us. Deaths illustrate the importance of this fact best. We don’t mourn the dead because they go to Heaven or Hell, or will reincarnate in the future. We mourn the dead because besides our relationship we had with the deceased, we know that all their thoughts and feelings, their experiences in life, their experience of sharing such experiences with us, all that was there to give each of our respective lives meaning, is gone. Gone forever.

Where did we make such a mistake of seeking meaning where it cannot possibly be found? Humans acquired intelligence in our evolutionary history as a general purpose problem solver. Most other life forms solve problems instinctively, they respond to environmental stimuli very much like how a mousetrap springs on the rat. Humans however, despite having for most part the same desires, react to novel situations in a goal-directed manner. Which enables them to better cope with varied and varying environments.

Before the advent of civilization, although specific actions were as numerous as they are today, they play a more immediate role in achieving goals. In the past, we searched for food by hunting, or by gathering. The act of impaling an animal with a spear brings the immediate reward of sustenance. But today we manipulate numbers and symbols and produce squiggles and squoggles on paper, which gains us sheets of paper currency or even mere bits and bytes stored in some piece of silicon somewhere in a strange institution that supposedly holds our material wealth in various intangible forms. Then to satisfy our hunger, we give these ethereal representations of abstract wealth to someone else who does nothing but exchanges his ghostly wealth with someone else down there along the production chain to pass the food along! Of course, in the end, all these exchanges and specialization all brings us what we need and want. Life goes on as it has always done. Problems arise however, when we stop to think about it.

We hardly understand what is going on in our economic, social, and political systems. Our interaction with the world, and often even others, are mediated by layers upon layers of esoteric intermediate mechanisms. The satisfaction of our ancestral lives lies not only in the more direct relations of means to ends, the means themselves were significant. Someone who doesn’t like to run, but needs to do so to hunt, would not fare as well as someone who enjoys running. In fact, physical activity increases the level of dopamine in our brain, which elevates our mood, and gives us a sensation of pleasure. Our hunter-gatherer lifestyles provided for a harmonious interaction of means and ends, where there is no significant difference in the desirability of former or the latter. In the past, the journey was as good as the destination.

Civilization marked the transition to a lifestyle that brought to our familiarity the separation of Work and Play. Civilization destroyed the harmony of means and ends. Work is now required to meet those ends. The pleasure of meaningful physical exertion is thus relegated to Play, where upon further reflection, we realize serves no purpose. What is necessary is meaningless, what feels meaningful is purposeless. Is it any wonder why so many of our modern people feel lost?

Is civilization the problem here? Our proudest achievements arise when we deny ourselves the satisfaction of instant gratification and immediate sense of meaning, to create something of greater significance and value beyond the immediate time and place and people involved. The benefits we all gain from scientific research being just one such example. No, the problem is with us. Our failure to keep in mind the purpose of our endeavors. We still live to satisfy the cravings of human nature, through however longwinded a path. But are we thus merely like animals? Just a little smarter perhaps? But did we ask such questions on the ultimate purpose of our existence before there was civilization? Perhaps we didn’t have a higher awareness then? What is the ultimate purpose of you playing with your dolls and toy cars when you were a child?

The idea that life would be meaningless because it is ultimately for nothing is but a fallacy. In this ever complex world, it is even easier for various sources of religion and spirituality irresponsibly prescribe “meaning” from virtual-superrealities that even if existed, would not be relevant to our lives here anyway. With “understanding” and “purpose” satisfied, a believer feels as if life has “meaning”. Their lives however, do feel meaningful, despite what they believe in not being the thing that is actually giving their lives meaning. Yet it is only their beliefs that give them the satisfaction of meaning to their lives. Like how Prozac gives its user happiness, even though it is not really the Prozac, but its effect on the brain. Which, I’m sure we all agree, is better satisfied by experiencing a social life where there is love, family, friendship, understanding and all the other eternal human relationships that prevail through all time and place, culture and contexts.

Notes:

1. example ripped from Chap.1 of The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain By Terrence W. Deacon

rabbit shadows

2007-02-22T05:28:00.000+08:00

Holyoak and Thagard 1995,14.

roses

2007-02-05T23:53:00.000+08:00

lightswitch

2007-02-05T18:01:00.000+08:00

bronkiole and alveoli

2007-02-04T18:49:00.000+08:00

springs

2007-02-04T03:52:00.000+08:00

zebras grazing

2007-02-04T00:54:00.000+08:00

lakeshore of impressionistic flamingos

2007-02-03T23:03:00.000+08:00

two watering buffalos

2007-02-03T19:04:00.000+08:00

lakeboating

2007-02-03T17:28:00.000+08:00

stream of rubbish at edge of slum

2007-02-03T17:08:00.000+08:00

tourists, flamingos, and reflections

2007-02-03T01:28:00.000+08:00

one acacia in the masai mara

2007-02-03T00:58:00.000+08:00

two acacias in the masai mara

2007-02-03T00:42:00.000+08:00

the long fence

2007-02-02T05:31:00.000+08:00

giraffes

2007-02-02T03:16:00.000+08:00

mineral lake

2007-02-02T01:01:00.000+08:00

white tiles

2007-02-01T21:16:00.000+08:00

day moon set at night

2007-02-01T02:48:00.000+08:00

lightbulb

2007-01-31T21:01:00.000+08:00

bamboo plant

2007-01-31T19:24:00.000+08:00

spotlights and moon

2007-01-31T18:43:00.000+08:00

sheets of overlapping paper

2007-01-30T20:10:00.000+08:00

birds

2007-01-30T04:11:00.000+08:00

mosquito

2007-01-29T17:39:00.000+08:00

power cables

2007-01-29T17:37:00.000+08:00

shrubs on a mound

2007-01-29T06:13:00.000+08:00

black straw in a glass

2007-01-29T05:51:00.000+08:00

gender difference

2007-01-29T03:13:00.000+08:00

green is always

2007-01-29T01:58:00.000+08:00

post-rain vividity

2007-01-29T01:31:00.000+08:00

a pale view of three spotlights and a hill

2007-01-29T01:24:00.000+08:00

the sky is last to turn dark

2007-01-28T23:39:00.000+08:00

twilight emptiness

2007-01-28T20:30:00.000+08:00

cigarette in an ashtray

2007-01-28T18:53:00.000+08:00

a pallid juncture of boundaries

2007-01-28T05:45:00.000+08:00

customer service and me

2007-01-28T03:49:00.000+08:00

customer service and me make a great team.
they take the test photo. i crop and photoshop it!

you have nothing to fear. you are tough.

2007-01-27T23:03:00.000+08:00

v1.1

v1.0

loonacy

2007-01-27T18:24:00.000+08:00

before i fall asleep

2007-01-27T17:42:00.000+08:00

shokolart warpper

2007-01-27T17:00:00.000+08:00

floor

2007-01-27T16:29:00.000+08:00

business

2007-01-26T00:20:00.000+08:00

lit

2007-01-25T22:55:00.000+08:00

mirror

2007-01-25T22:49:00.000+08:00

zen

2007-01-25T22:44:00.000+08:00

wink

2007-01-25T22:31:00.000+08:00

CSS: proper paragraph indentation. With elegance.

2007-01-21T03:58:00.000+08:00

It is tradition for indentation of paragraphs to apply not to the first paragraph after a heading, but only to the paragraphs following it.

This paragraph, for example, following the first, is indented.

In XHTML all paragraphs are enclosed in p tags. Since they are all p, there is no way to specifically target the first one, or only the ones following, with the standard p CSS selector.

p {text-indent: 1em;} /*would apply to all paragraphs*/

Of course, there are ways to target the first paragraph. Unfortunately, they involve adding to the document markup. Marking the first paragraph with a certain class for example:

<p class="first>this is a first paragraph</p>
p.first {text-indent: 0;}

For sake of Purity and the Separation of Presentation and Markup... No, frankly I don't much care. My motivation for doing this was for a user style sheet, where, of course, I don't have access to the markup. However, I also appreciate the elegance of this trick (mine, and as far as i know, an original):

p + p {text-indent: 1em;}

Using the adjacent sibling operator. Only paragraphs that immediately follow from another is targeted. That means all paragraphs except the first. What's more it even works when paragraphs are interrupted by lists or code sections or an image etc.

Ah, it is just too beautiful...

Hopefully, you will find this useful. And if you do, please do let me know!

Edit: I discovered it was discovered by Chris Curtis as well. Not a surprise. What is in fact surprising is how many people (even w3.org) recommend doing it with the :first-child pseudo-selector:

div > p:first-child { text-indent: 0;}

which is patently hideous.

Well, i guess that makes this an just independent discovery (though more than 2 years later! I just got into CSS ok?). Now you have to thank Chris as well!

And blog about it! Two years now and the other methods still dominate search results ???

How to discover beautiful images (photos mostly)

2007-01-04T04:45:00.000+08:00

Too often have lousy interfaces or inferior content mar the viewing of beautiful photography. This is the best method so far, that I have come across (if you have one better, please do share it!).

First we need a good filtering system:

a good one would be a Condorcet method
implemented here at http://thefairest.info/

A pairwise comparison method.
You see only 2 images at a time.
Not one more. Nor one less.
Just perfect.

What's more elegant is that
the voting process is so integrated into the viewing experience.
Something even babies instinctively know how to do.
Which is to point at what is pleasing to the eye.

Once chosen, another pair of images is presented.
The process is virtually invisible to conscious attention.
Just the pure pleasure of contemplating beauty.

Of course, it is also an instinct to look for longer periods of time at what is beautiful.
We want good images to be saved to our harddrive.

So, we use Opera.

Set the transfer window to not pop-up on download.
Set it to not pop-up download complete notification
the pair of images presented are thumbnails. We want the originals.
the links to the originals are below the images.
right-click the link corresponding to your preference (that is if any one of them is good at all, it happens sometimes, but hey, sometimes too both are good)
press a on your keyboard, to activate the "save to download folder" menu item
press F11 for fullscreen

Note:

the "right-click" and "press a" actions should be a seamless combination. After awhile it would be second-nature and you wont even notice it.
you don't, of course, have to use the interface as it is. Use whatever software you like that achieves the same result.
use Greasemonkey, or an Opera style sheet to remove extraneous elements from the page. ( I may write a post on this later)

When you're tired, just fire up your favorite slideshow program and make it do a run through your download folder. Sit back, relax, and re-view those photos.

Maxis blocks ALL incoming connections

2007-01-01T02:41:00.000+08:00

I was running a 1-month trial for Maxis 3G you see?
It should have been obvious once the high-number ports i use for ed2k didn't work.
And even more obvious once i did the GRC scan of the 1st 1024 ports.
They sarcastically (ironic, yeah i know) congratulated on the perfectly "filtered" state of all my ports

to be sure all 65535 ports are blocked i did an nmap scan.

nmap -P0 -f 1-65535 my-ip-address

Starting nmap 3.93 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap ) at 2006-12-31 20:39 Malay Peninsula Standard Time

and after 13314.656 seconds...

All 65535 scanned ports on my-maxis-ip are: filtered

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 13314.656 seconds

so there you have it!

Maxis 3g "filters" all your ports for you!
what excellent security!

example usage of Visual Thesaurus, and Thinkmap in general

2006-12-30T17:52:00.000+08:00

south-west to north-east. It represents from broad to narrow:

the humanities -> philosophy -> branches (& literally!) of philosphy

the underlying engine powering Visual Thesaurus is Thinkmap
you can also try Visual Thesaurus online at http://visualthesaurus.com

have fun!

Visual Thesaurus

2006-12-30T00:47:00.000+08:00

YOUR THESAURI ARE NOT ENOUGH!!!

SERIOUSLY check this out...see that in the box?
some words seem smaller and faded because the words are actually surrounding the center like a ball
it is in 3D

words are link to other words as thoughts are linked to other thoughts
isolated information don't live too long in the accessible memory of our brains
therefore, the best way to learn about words is to learn them and their meanings, in association with other words and meanings
Visual Thesaurus lays it out for you, the relations between the words and their corresponding senses
relations include:

antonym
is a particle of
is derived from
pertains to
see also
is similar to
attribute
entails
is a type of
is a part of
is made of
is a member of
verb group
domain category
domain region
domain usage

i think it uses the Princeton Wordnet database, which is great
having it mapped out like this in Visual Thesaurus is just fucking cool, not to mention useful. (the other way around)

so what are you waiting for?
get it here (note: illegal copy)
http://rapidshare.de/files/9901279/Thinkmap.Visual.Thesaurus.v3.01.Build.1222.Desktop.Edition.Regged.rar
password:avax

and then thank yourself

how to temporarily offset myopia

2006-12-13T17:03:00.000+08:00

for those of you who are short-sighted, this is just for fun, as it is for those who are not as well...

step 1 for all methods - take off your glasses!

method 1. - look through a very tiny hole at close range, right next to your eye. while this limits your field of view, it makes it much clearer and in focus.

method 2. - look at a convex reflective object at close range, all though this will make them small, they will be in focus

method 3. - on your eyelid covering the top part of your eye(s), gently press with your fingers onto your eyeball(s) (you'll have to apply quite a bit of pressure), while keeping your eye(s) open. this puts the retina at the point of focus by compressing your eyeball(s). (myopia is due to accommodation by the lengthening of the eyeball.

hopefully you weren't careless enough to damage your eye(s). and tasted a moment's glimpse, however short, of non-short sightedness...

of course, if your eyes weren't myopic, then you would have had a glimpse of short-sightedness. now go apologize to that kid you bullied back in primary school...

i would be really interested to hear of any more methods not already listed here. please let us all share these pathetic fantasies of 20/20 vision.

a solution to Bertrand's Paradox?

2006-12-07T15:47:00.000+08:00

I have formulated a tentative possible solution. I leave for the mathematicians to judge.
As my math really sucks, what I did was what I tend to be better at, which is intuitive logic.
So here is a logical attempt at a solution to Bertrand's paradox.

Please refer to the Wikipedia article, I use their numbering of the methods of solution.

Fig. A

Fig. A shows method 1

It is only necessary to consider the left half of the circle.
The midpoints of the chords AC, AB and AD, which are P, Q and R, lie on the circumference of the inner smaller circle.
The midpoints of possible chords which are longer than a side of the inscribed equilateral triangle lie on the arc QO, which is 1/3 of the left half of the circumference of the inner circle.
The midpoints of possible chords which are shorter, lie on an arc AQ which is 2/3 of the left half of the inner circle.

It would seem obvious that the probability of the length of a chord randomly chosen, to be longer than a side of the triangle is 1/3. This solution however, is incompatible with methods 2 & 3.

Here is a possible reconciliation.

The problem is determining the probability of the chord being longer.
A chord has 2 properties. Length & Orientation.
Therefore, there cannot possibly be chords without either or neither. i.e. chords that have orientation but no length, chords that have length but no orientation, or chords that have neither, cannot exist. viz. All chords have both Length and Orientation
For a chord with x length, there are infinite possible orientations.
For a chord with orientation y, there are infinite possible lengths from zero to the length of the diameter.

Orientation can be held constant, i.e. for each length there is equal infinite possible orientations.
We can do this by fixing orientation, i.e. consider only one orientation.
This is in fact what is done in method 2.
All the midpoints of chords considered in method 2 lies along the radius which is a straight line. Therefore all of their orientations are the same.

In Fig. A the the midpoints of chords with different length and orientation form the arc a2 and b2. Because the chord is projected onto the outer circle, and not a circle with a center point at A, this distorts the correspondence between length and orientation. While orientation changes constantly with each degree of angle, the lengths corresponding to each successive orientation does not. Each degree thus represents different proportions of possible lengths. The result being disproportionately more chords (shorter) are represented by the arc b2, than by a2 (longer). But orientation was held constant. This calculation results in a distorted false probability.

A correction can be applied to the resulting false probability of 1/3 to yield the correct (i think) probability of 1/2, which can be found by method 2.

Note: In the following calculation, D is the diameter

Method 3 uses the relative distribution of midpoints in and outside of the inner circle to acquire a probability of 1/4.

Fig. B

Fig. B shows method 3.

The areas of the 2 circles, can be represented by 2 rectangles of similar area .(see animation)
The formula for the area of a circle is pi*r^2.
The length of the rectangle is pi*r.
The height of the rectangle is r.
Therefore its area is equal to the larger circle.
The reasoning is similar for the smaller circle.
The height (r) can also be thought of as a dimension, which represents length of chord (by virtue of correspondence to a visualization of Archimedes' proof).
The length (pi*r) can similarly represent orientation.
Any point within the larger rectangle has coordinates representing length and orientation.
The smaller circle, represented by the smaller rectangle, claims to contain midpoints of chords longer, and therefore all possible chords longer, than a side of the triangle.
The smaller rectangle proves otherwise. The height of the smaller rectangle being half of the length of the larger rectangle represents correctly half of the possible lengths of the chord being longer than a side of the triangle. However the area of the smaller rectangle does not take into account all possible orientations of those chords. Namely only half. As the length of the smaller rectangle is half of the big one. This unfortunately results in a probability of 1/4, which is half of that of a correct solution.

click on image to view animation: visualization of Archimedes' proof (by Bettina Richmond)

representation of areas of circles in method 3. (not drawn to scale)

But why does calculating the area of the smaller circle leave out half of the original orientations taken into account by the area of the larger circle?

The next diagram makes it obvious.
The arc ABC is twice as long as the corresponding arc of the smaller circle, DEF. However, the orientations they represent are supposed to be the same. The angle SOR and TOU are the same. But the arc SR and TU are different in length. The same goes for the areas a and b.

The arcs ABC and DEF are respectively represented as pi*r and 1/2 pi*r in the rectangles above. We cannot work directly with infinity of course. We don't can't enumerate the magnitude of infinity. We can't count the infinite possible orientations. What we can do however, is keeping it constant as we work with another variable. In this case the length of chord. Methods 1 & 3 have been shown not to have kept orientation constant, while method 2 has. That is why method 2 gives a correct answer.

However, we can also show how off the mark our calculations were. pi*r represents the infinite possible orientations. 1/2 pi*r represents half of that infinity. That is why the probability obtained using method 3 (1/4) is half of what is correct (1/2).

That's it! The probability of the length of a randomly drawn chord in the circle being longer than a side of the inscribed equilateral triangle is not all 1/3, 1/2 and 1/4.

It is 1/2.

And I believe I have proven it, if not mathematically, then logically.

Please do criticize me, as I have said, my math sucks! I might have made a terrible mistake here.

Jack of all trades, master of none...

2006-12-01T06:36:00.000+08:00

i have always hated this phrase.
but now, i realize it is because it is incomplete...

the complete and authentic epithet is:

"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"

now that is MUCH better. and how true.

is this a homework blog?

2006-08-26T21:00:00.000+08:00

Personal Ethics Statement

I have not yet worked out my personal ethics to any extent at all. Actually, I had one quite developed, but I had to abandon it. So I'm just going to state my principles.

There can be no ethics without morality. So what is morality? I have not quite figured that out yet. However, I am approaching this problem from two directions. That is, how our biology grounds our morality, and how morality is played out in social interactions. Ethics to me is a framework to translate primitive (not in a derogatory sense) hunter-gatherer time dynamics of moral interaction, into our current socio-economic framework. Pretty much how Capitalism, is a translation of barter trading, or more likely, looting and plundering.

But as there are problems with Capitalism, there should also be problems with Ethics. The same kind of problems. An economic and ethical system, are rational systems based on principles. Principles which we tend to formulate based on our thought, rather than The Laws of Physics. It is entirely possible that, and I think, highly likely that morality is irrational. And if so, so will the Ethics derived.

What now?

The damned vestiges of our evolutionary past. We were blissfully in ignorance of it. Now we know that there can be no Ethics like we always dreamed of.

The little girl cried when she lost her marbles in the desert.

She searched the desert for one hundred years.

The little girl cried when she thought she might've lost them in the sea rather than the desert.

She searched the depths of the sea for one hundred years.

The little girl cried when she thought she might've lost them in the mountains than the sea.

How long will it take till she begins to doubt whether or not she actually lost them to begin with?

-Frederica Bernkastel

What am I? A pessimist?

Logic is empty without its Premises. Emotions and Feelings and Instincts are its premises. Unfortunately, so do we want Happiness. The conclusion-premise? The premise-conclusion? Well, unless the solutions to the Greatest Problems are tautologies, it cannot be so. General-Theoretical-Optimum Happiness is impossible.

paraphrasing from vague memories;

Calvin : [some complaint]

Dad : The world is unfair, Calvin.

Calvin : I know, but why is it ever unfair to me?

The feeling of disgust can be learned-associated to stool, mud, blacksmiths, Untouchables, gay people, etc. The Moral Circle has been expanding. from Tribe. to Clan. to Townsfolk. to Race. to Nationality. to Genetic Lineage. to our Entire Species. to Animals. Next is perhaps, plants, fungi, extremophiles, Gaia, aliens, maybe God.

Brilliant.

However, not every connection in our brain is biased or unbiased to each and every stimuli in the environment. It is easier to love a dog than a cockroach. Something to do with, eyes, and imagination.

Irrational?

Are emotions Information-Processing? YES! And rational thought is NOT (at least not the proper-noun version). They will tell you that we need emotions because we cannot have Complete-Information (whatever that is). We tend to think of evolution as a ladder. As if its purpose is to achieve and progress Intelligence. Pathetic Anthropocentrism. Evolution is random. Or there is no evolution at all. Bacteria are perfectly content to be bacteria forever. And there are as successful, if not more successful, than Humans.

But the point is not Something Absolute. We have been thinking too Big. It is time to return to the Small.

"Perhaps that's what the 21st century has in store for us. The dismantling of the Big. Perhaps it will be the Century of the Small Things." - Arundhati Roy, on Big World Problems, alluding to The God of Small Things

With the Economy Of Scale. We have drastically reduced Fixed Costs. And lower per-unit price. And lower per-unit satisfaction. Lower per-unit Meaning of Life.

We cheated.

Less for More didn't work. We need Customization on a Large Scale. Give each individual, their unique Small Thing. Their Custom-Made Meaning of Life.

The Meaning of Life is simply the lack of its absence. Physically merely a pattern of dancing neural symphony. There are no Big Things.

Where does that lead us?

Back to where we came from. Emotions.

Now all we have to do is formulate something I call the General-Specific. The Mass-Produced-Custom-Made. A toolkit of Ethics, for every Experience rather than that overrated Situation.

Every Human is A Human, not just Human. Differently-Similar, but also Similarly-Different. There can be more than one item on the menu.

There is this so-called Problem of Other Minds. A classic theoretical absurdity. Father of illegitimate children such as the caste system:

The laws that lay down who should be loved and how. And how much. The laws that make grandmothers grandmothers, uncles uncles, mothers mothers, cousins cousins, jam jam, and jelly jelly.

They used to make pickles, squashes, jams, curry powders and canned pineapples. And banana jam (illegally) after the FPO (Food Products Organization) banned it because according to their specifications it was neither jam nor jelly. Too thin for jelly and too thick for jam. An ambiguous, unclassifiable consistency, they said.

Looking back now, to Rahel it seemed as though this difficulty that their family had with classification ran much deeper than the jam-jelly question.

And so-like, we busy ourselves in the definition of what a Human is. What Morality is. When we already know.

There is one definition where Human is the Soul. And Morality is, The Word of God. And so we went ahead to empathize with souls, through The Word of God. And Bodies suffer, and the Conscience is sedated.

In The Theory of The Firm, in Perfect Competition. It is assumed Homogenous Products. Ethics is The Theory of The Firm. Homogenous Products are Humans. In an Ideal Market, there are no Brand Names. Only potatoes. And they're all organic. Consumers treat them all the same. Supply and Demand. Equilibrium Price. Normal Profit. i.e. just barely covering the costs.

There is a God That Only Exists On Wednesdays. Either He/She doesn't exist, or there are no Wednesdays. Or maybe it has always been Wednesdays. Is there a God? Do Wednesdays exist?

God loves us. We don't understand Him. He is out of our Moral Circle. Everything is in his. What a conundrum! We must therefore have Faith. The comatose patient's soul is in Heaven. We can pull out the life-support.

A mirror neuron is a neuron which fires both when an animal performs an action and when the animal observes the same action performed by another (especially conspecific) animal. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of another animal, as though the observer were himself performing the action. These neurons have been observed in primates, in some birds, and in humans. In humans, they have been found in Broca's area and the inferior parietal cortex of the brain. Some scientists consider mirror neurons one of the most important findings of neuroscience in the last decade

Wikipedia

Face it. A cockroach is not Human. Neither is God. Or Rationality.

Humans are Humans. Morality applies to Humans as Humans, as we understand, as we empathize with, other Humans.

The Greatest Truths are the Tautologies.

They are everywhere.

Maybe they are God.

strange question #1

2006-06-09T14:51:00.000+08:00

hi everybody and welcome to the first installment of my strange questions series. In this series, i will ask really strange but meaningful questions and you would reply, and then i would reply. and we can share our wisdom, if only for strange questions...

ok here we go...

our first strange question is:

if there is a person with absurd intelligence and ability and confidence, effectively allowing him to achieve anything he/she wants but only what he/she wants, not even the things he/she wants to wants, or anything you want her/him to want, but only what he/she truly wants. To give you an example, this guy/girl once had aids, he/she therefore worked very hard as a biologist and found a cure for aids, whereupon she cured herself and obviously the world too, since it wanst much extra effort. OK, so we now know what this guy/girl can do. OK, lets say we want something that we know can definitely be achieved with the supernormal intelligence and confindence of this remarkable individual. The question is: should we manipulate her/his wants to satisfy our own?

2006-05-31T10:17:00.000+08:00

the green light was achieved by shooting the flash through my green shirt ;)
and the spider is 1cm across
and what mosquito is that?

frog

2006-05-26T03:54:00.000+08:00

what is that stuck in its eye?

F UCK YOU!

2006-05-14T20:44:00.000+08:00

i remember back when there was the ragnarok craze. Me and my cousins were staying up at 3am and playing the game. There was this guy, well his avatar, came along and stole our item. Naturally, we were angry at the lost bit of data, so we started cursing him. Unfortunately, if you type "fuck", the server will return you a message, politely saying "foul language filtered out" (or something like that). So we had to type "f uck" or "fu ck" or "f u c k". To much our surprise and embarrassment, he replied "fuck you". WOW, how the FUCK did he do that? Being our silly selves we devised methods of cursing "fuck" but to no avail. In the end we gave in and asked him how he did it. Then he killed our ego by teaching us the trick. It is a non-printed (or at least invisible) unicode char. Cheap trick. We would have thought about it. We would have, i tell you...

mother and child

2006-05-10T18:22:00.000+08:00

this is my favourite sculpture.

i took this pic from a store

the number of URLs on the internet

2006-05-06T20:47:00.000+08:00

well, you cannot actually know the number of URLs on the internet
first of all, URLs pop in and out of existence all the time
and then not all URLs are indexed by the search engines

at least, it is possible to know the number of URLs a search engine has in its database

perhaps the search engine publishes its own statistics, but you wouldn't want to trust them too much
you dont have to anyway
one way to know is to use their search engines

we need a query that would return every single page
a query that hits every single item in their database

a OR not-a

if a were a member of a set, then a OR not-a is contains every single member in that set

of course, it doesnt have to be "a"

in google, the syntax would be "a|-a"

it may be different in other search engines, go find out for yourself

idea from searchlores.org

stupid solution

2006-03-08T18:10:00.000+08:00

this is how i can make maths at least tolerable...

Are our ways of knowing controlled by language?

2006-03-01T23:48:00.000+08:00

Are ways of knowing controlled by language? If yes, then language either controls it because all knowledge is communicated in language and there is some form of knowledge that cannot be transmitted so. Or that the structure of language restricts thought, which is part of the process of acquiring knowledge, and therefore knowledge.

Language is syntax (used in this manner meaning representation of meaning), while the meaning it conveys is semantics. Communication is first done by encoding meaning in syntax, and then interpreting it again back into meaning. Thus language is the medium of communication. But can everything be expressed in language? If it can, then there would be no loss in the fidelity of information as it gets transmitted from one human to another. There would be no misunderstanding. But if it cannot, then we have a problem with using language as a means of communication.

Let’s take a simplified analogy of our relation with language. Data formats in computers. In computers, information is represented as data encoded in specific formats. Software must be able to understand the format in order to process it. Therefore there are standards that govern the format in which data is represented. Most of the documents on the web, for example, are encoded in HTML. Since it is standardized, web browsers merely have to conform to the standard in order to process the document as display it on your screen. In this way, we can have Apple’s Macintosh’s Safari browser, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, or Mozilla Firefox in Linux all being able to process and display HTML pages on the web.

It is about the same with language. A language is a standard in that it has certain words that mean certain things, and its grammatical structure that strings words together into more complex sentences. However, language is not a syntax that is purposefully created whole then agreed upon. It is something dynamic that is part of culture. Language grows. People invent certain words and ways of stringing them together, and they use these languages with some people. The language spreads, undergoes changes, and encounters other languages. Therefore we have a problem in that the syntax of language is not certain to be definite or immutable. An example would be old texts, where even though the same word might be used, the meaning of it as the writer intended, or people of their time interpreted may be different.

Another problem is that since humans invent language, would language be appropriate for areas of knowledge which concepts are not human? Science would be an example. Is language restricting the expression of scientific concepts?

Knowledge has logical components too. For example, merely knowing both “she kicked him” and “he cried” is not what we would consider complete knowledge of those events. Knowledge of those events implies knowledge of their relation of each to the other. We only say we know, when we say “she kicked him, therefore he cried”, or “he cried because she kicked him”.

The logical components are expressed in the structure of language, which is grammar. The question here is if grammar is restricting the possible logical concepts that can be expressed in language, therefore limiting our knowledge. Extending the previous example, if a child who (for the sake of this example) has never experienced pain or has not experienced pain from being kicked, is told by another child who has, “She kicked him. He cried”, would he get the idea of the cause and effect of pain there?

Also, since we often think in language, can it be that language is restricting our thinking? Could it be that if we don’t think in language our thinking would be more powerful or effective?

In short, our problems with language in relation to knowledge is: are there more things, properties, feelings, ideas or concepts than what we can have expressed with nouns, verbs, adjectives? Are there logical relations between them which we don’t have the language sufficient for? And does language restrict thought?

The first problem, restated here, is mutability and unreliability of language. Before we think that language’s imprecision is so much a bad thing, let us remember that it is because of the desire for precision that we constantly add to and modify language. And unless we somehow developed direct mind-to-mind communication, it is our only form of communication. And why is a language so constantly changing? Simply because we are in the process of acquiring knowledge! Let’s go back to the information as data example. In the creation of standards, perfect and complete information of the form of information the data is supposed to represent is required but definitely acquirable. In an image file for example, the image is represented by many pixels arranged in a grid, each of which is given a color value. Thus the representation of an image as data is the location and color values of its constituent pixels. With a color value range that covers what the human eye can see, every single possible image can be represented as data. In short with have perfect knowledge of the possibilities of images. Note that what we have knowledge of is the form and scope of images. We know images are two-dimensional, and thus can be represented in a grid. And we know the range of colors the human eye can see. But with language, which in comparison has to deal with all forms of knowledge, such a perfect representation would be impossible, or even desirable. We don’t know what forms new knowledge would take, or the scope of it all. The answer to our concerns of the mutability of language therefore is that we don’t want to restrict language by fixing it. The answer to the unreliability (in relation to what other alternative?) of language, however is simply that it is but a consequence of mutability. We have to make do with careful definitions.

The second problem is the inappropriateness of language as representation of knowledge that is abstract and different from the simple solution to problems of communication that it was. Well that simply is an idea assuming that language has to be what it always have been. Language changes because its users require it to. The change of language is simply the adaptation of it to the domain of its use. Take waves for example. Not the waves that surfers surf on, or even waves of ripples on water. Not sound waves or even light waves. Let’s take quantum probability waves. A very abstract concept, surely. But we can clearly see that we have named it a wave because it has similar properties to the normal waves we see and experience. But of course quantum probability waves don’t mean water waves. The word has been adapted for a new concept in physics. But how can normal words be adapted for such abstract concepts anyway? Aren’t there any abstract concepts that simply cannot be expressed in language? The answer is simply, no. This is due to how the mind works, and thus also the nature of language. The mind has certain “built-in” concepts, which then can be extended in a combinatorial fashion to arrive at all possible concepts, and certainly the concepts we have now. Take the concept of the wave for example. It is made possible thanks to little concepts of space and time that we so often take for granted. The shape of a wave is just many points in two-dimension that together forms the shape of the wave. And the waves change in time. This is just a simple example, if you examine all the concepts we have, you will find that they are but made of a few very fundamental concepts. Language is combinatorial too. Take the concept of possession for example. A child owns a toy. And her mom owns the child. Then we refer to the toy as “Mom’s child’s toys.” Language models the combinatorial nature of concepts. Language therefore is able to, from its method of conveying basic concepts, in a combinatorial manner, convey more complex concepts. Therefore, whatever concept we arrive at in thinking in whatever area of knowledge, we would we able to use language to express it.

The same goes for the grammatical structure of language. Concepts that can be expressed with nouns are similar to logical concepts. In that they are complex in the sense that they are built of simpler concepts. For example, the logical concept of “implication” or “if a then b” is a complex combination of the basic concepts of “not”, “and”, in the form of “not, a and not b” or in symbolic logic “~(a.~b)”, where ~ is “not” and . is “and” and the parentheses to specify the order of operation as in mathematics. Therefore, all complex logical concepts can be expressed using the grammatical structure of language.

Again, the same goes for thought. Since thinking is combinatorial, and language is combinatorial by virtue of being created through thought, language actually guides thought, not restrict it.

In conclusion, instead of our language controlling or restricting our ways of knowing, in a sense it is our ways of knowing controlling and shaping language for its purpose.

Free will

2006-02-25T01:08:00.000+08:00

another piece of homework...
please note that homework constrains what i can say
i wanted to say much more...

Determinism seems to undermine free will. If everything in our body is caused by the environment, then wouldn’t we be just like any other piece of matter in the universe? Blindly and hopelessly obeying the laws of physics and causality, and not have free will?
No, we have free will. A simple proof would be to decide among a few choices, which we do all the time. But the argument against free will still needs to be refuted.

No free will means that the self does not direct itself. Determinism implicitly assumes that the self is the final result at the end of a causal chain that is the body. Because of universal causality, and because we are material, our body is subjected to the law of causality, and thus by obeying the physical laws of the universe, our bodies lead through cause and effect to a result that is our self. Our will is therefore caused. And we have no free will.

But the assumption that we are merely the result of the processes in our bodies or brain is wrong. We are our whole body, not its result. But the determinist would still insist that, even though we are our entire bodies, our bodies are caused by the environment, and so we are not free anyway. However, that is still merely thinking that our bodies are the result of the environment. The proper way to conceive of the body is to think of it as a system.

A system is matter interacting in an organized fashion giving rise to emergent properties that does not exist in any part in any of its parts. A system therefore exists in no part in any of its parts. The system is the system as a whole. The system is thus in a sense, immaterial. It is not the matter and energy interplay, but the organization and emergent properties that results. Parts of the system no doubt obey completely the laws of causality. But that does not mean that the system is determined. Because the system is the emergent entity that arises from the interactions of its parts, the system determines itself.
An example would be the Great Red Spot of Jupiter. The Great Red Spot is not the gas that is its contents. It is the immaterial system that arises from material gasses. It is the result of the interactions of the gasses. Not the gas being what it is. Because of temperature and pressure, the system moves gasses about in a spiral. Even though some gas exit the system, and some enter it. It will always be the Great Red Spot. The Great Red Spot is the system, not its contents. Likewise our bodies are systems. The material that makes up our bodies change roughly every seven years. But does that then mean our bodies are not our bodies anymore? That would be absurd.

Common sense rightly tells us that we have free will. But it gives us the wrong reasons for thinking so. We intuitively think we are somehow separate from our body. And that our will directs our body. This intuition is so innate that even when we consider our brain to be entirely based on material reality, we commit the same fallacy. We always think of ourselves as separate from our own selves, and from the outside, as if we exist outside at all. For example, when we think of our brain, we picture it functioning as if it is some other common material object. We see the ion flows, the neurotransmitter exchanges at the synapses, neurons firing etc. and that somehow all that results in consciousness. Forgetting that all that is consciousness. And that we are not some entity outside of the system of the brain. And that we are committing the fallacy of begging the question; in trying to argue that the mind is outside the brain, we assume that the mind is outside the brain.

However, the argument that our will is a system based on a material reality has unproven assumptions as well. It assumes a material basis for the mind. If our mind exists somewhere outside reality, then perhaps it is not free there?

There is currently an explanatory gap between the physical processes in the brain and consciousness. Critics therefore argue that it is a huge leap assuming the mind to have physical basis in the brain. Yet the critics are too committing the fallacy of expecting to perceive qualia from outside of the system that is the brain. They put forth silly challenges such as licking the brain to taste the flavor of chocolate that the person in the brain is experiencing. Sense leads to perception and is experienced by consciousness. Sense cannot be sensed. Perception cannot be perceived. Experience cannot be experienced. Instead physical phenomena are sensed; and sensation is perceived and experienced by consciousness that no other entity can be conscious of except itself. So it does not mean that the system of the brain is not the mind. There is an explanatory gap, but it cannot be used to disprove the mind as brain processes.

John Searle proposes the Chinese Room Argument, where he tries to show that syntax is not sufficient for semantics. In the Chinese room, a man who does not understand Chinese is supplied with a rulebook for manipulation of Chinese symbols. When given Chinese symbols, the man would use the rulebook to formulate a reply. From the outside, it would seem that the room understands Chinese. But Searle shows us that in actuality the man does not understand Chinese. There are many counter-arguments against the Chinese Room Argument. But they miss what the Chinese Room is arguing against. The Chinese Room is to show that the mind cannot be a digital computer. Not that the mind cannot have a material basis. Computers, being algorithmic in nature, can never match the complexity and potential of the brain. Strong AI proponents assume that the mind is the software where the brain is hardware. But underlying syntax is the processing of syntax, which requires a processor which is a system. It is questionable basing a theory on another theory which’s basis is simply ignored. They confuse simulation with actual functioning of the brain. Why introduce two systems, one relying on the other, and making the whole proposition somewhat shaky in the process, when only one would do? We can surely adopt the principle of parsimony here. The question is not what syntax the mind is based on, since whatever the syntax, there still needs to be a syntax processor. It is what system the mind is based on. Basically the mind is arises directly from the system of the brain, and requires no syntax whatsoever. Therefore, Searle’s Chinese Room argument cannot be used against a material basis for the mind.

There is no reason to choose a material basis for the mind if other theories are equally convincing. But they are not. We therefore have to accept that the mind has a material basis. And because it exists as a system, it is therefore free. And we have free will.

Gattaca and genetic manipulation

2006-02-25T00:40:00.000+08:00

after watching the movie Gattaca...

Genetic manipulation means voluntary evolution for humanity. Our minds would have replaced natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. Humans should or cannot help but try to improve their lives. But then we must not forget human nature. Not all our behavior is due to culture and culture is not independent. Our genes express themselves and give rise to human nature. This does not mean restricted freedom though. Think of it this way. Freedom is something you want and you want freedom because of the expression of genes. But then would you want to not want that particular expression of your genes? But yet again, that desire to not want (wanting not to want) is the influenced by gene expression too. Of course, interaction with the environment plays a part too. But what I’m trying to say is that we are not totally independent of our genes. It is in fact ridiculous to want to be independent of our genes. Our genes define our human nature. And like I said, our particular desire to be free from our genes, is a influenced by gene expression too. Yet we cannot ignore our desire to want to not want. It shows us that human nature is defined to want to modify itself. Maybe this is pathological, maybe it is not. Maybe it is essential to human nature. But what if human nature is defined to modify itself until it is not human nature anymore. This begs the question of what is human nature. Assuming for the sake of argument, that human nature only consist of the desire to modify the human. Then we would be human no matter what, as long as we continuously desire to modify ourselves. But what if we modify ourselves to not want to modify ourselves anymore? So you see we cannot just simply modify ourselves. We must know what we want to achieve by doing that, and what we would become should we choose to do so. Of course, human nature is not only the desire to modify ourselves. And here things get complicated. How much and what sort of modification can we carry out to ourselves before we are no longer human? But perhaps some people don’t care if they are not human anymore. But that still does not allow them to modify themselves at will. First of all, they want to modify themselves. What if they modify themselves until they don’t want to want as a human anymore? Why would they want to do that? Why would a human want to be not human? The human is all there is in the self. When you are not human you are not yourself. And thus if you modify yourself, you are not modifying your self, you are modifying a thing, which is your body. If none of your self gets transmitted to the new body, it is no better than modifying inanimate matter.

The fundamental problem of human nature is human nature itself. Self-consciousness is a tragedy. The self feels separated from the body while it is really not. And from there arises the problems of being human. But also what it means to be human. We have to realize that. And that we are the interplay of instinct and consideration and we need them both.

But then how do we pin down which genetic sequence give rise to the expression to our essential nature? That is something very hard to do. I think an easier thing to do would we to pin down which genetic sequence that does not give rise to the expression of human nature. We can modify those genes, but I don’t think we should touch anything else.

ways NOT to argue

2006-02-24T23:12:00.000+08:00

even though this is a good way to win arguments, i suggest that you use this list to CATCH yourself and the opponent using such tactics. you get into an argument to debate the truth, not to win.

i didnt write this

Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument
from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy"

...per fas et nefas :-)

(Courtesy of searchlore ~ Back to the trolls lore ~ original german text)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

2 Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of Kant's philosophy."
Person B replies, "Of, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them."

3 Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.

4 Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.

5 Use your opponent's beliefs against him.
If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.

6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.
Example: Call something by a different name: "good repute" instead of "honor," "virtue" instead of "virginity," "red-blooded" instead of "vertebrates".

7 State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions.
By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted.
Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the proponent's admissions.

8 Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

9 Use your opponent's answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

10 If you opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises.
This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede.

11 If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion.
Later, introduce your conclusions as a settled and admitted fact.
Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.

12 If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.
Example: What an impartial person would call "public worship" or a "system of religion" is described by an adherent as "piety" or "godliness" and by an opponent as "bigotry" or "superstition."
In other words, inset what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea.

13 To make your opponent accept a proposition , you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well.
If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
Example: If you want him to admit that a boy must to everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, "whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents."
Or , if a thing is said to occur "often" you are to understand few or many times, the opponent will say "many."
It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white; or gray next to white and call it black.

14 Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.

15 If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment.
Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it.
Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition.
Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment.
You can either try to prove your original proposition, as in #14, maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted.
For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding.

16 When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.
Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?"
Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, "Why don't you leave on the first plane?"

17 If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.
Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.

18 If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.
Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

19 Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific.
Example: If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.

20 If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion.
Rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

21 When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character.
But it is better to meet the opponent with acounter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him.
For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.
Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice, emotion or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner.

22 If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

23 Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements.
By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit.
When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement.
Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than your intended, redefine your statement's limits and say, "That is what I said, no more."

24 State a false syllogism.
Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd.
It then appears that opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.
Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.
Example: "All ruminants are horned," is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel.

26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against himself.
Example: Your opponent declares: "so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him."
You retort, "Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits."

27 Should your opponent suprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal.
No only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case, and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.

28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

29 If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion--that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute.
This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

30 Make an appeal to authority rather than reason.
If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case.
If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance.
Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he generally admires the most.
You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself.

31 If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a find stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
Example: "What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can't understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it."
In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense.
This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
Example: You can say, "That is fascism" or "Atheism" or "Superstition."
In making an objection of this kind you take for granted
1)That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited;
and
2)The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience.

33 You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.
Example: "That's all very well in theory, but it won't work in practice."

34 When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so.
You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence.
You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

35 Instead of working on an opponent's intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.
If you success in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately.
Example: A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma.
You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church.
He will abandon the argument.

36 You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast.
If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what your are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.

37 Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position.
This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases.
If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won the day.

38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

Physics

2006-02-07T19:12:00.000+08:00

Physics. Created by physicist? We receive it. Is it reality? Is it merely a construct of the physicist's mind? Flipping through this textbook...

The first few pages show the values of the fundamental constants. How do the physicists arrive at these values? But then all values are relative. The scale of the units are always set against something else. Physics try to progress by holding less and less things constant, and instead try to derive them from less of other things. But why are the other things the way they are? Physicists don't explain the universe, they merely describe it.

Further along, there is the different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Now how did the physicists find out the other wavelengths other than visible light? It actually all starts at the senses, in this case our visual sense. Then, through the amazing combinatorial power of the brain, the physicist extrapolates from the discovered wavelength of visible light to x-rays, gamma rays, radio, microwave, etc. But then how does he manage to conceive of visible light as wavesNotice that the conception of electromagnetic radiation as waves, is really quite arbitrary. Why waves? Can we see these "waves"? The waves are actually mathematical constructs, they help explain phenomena such as interference, diffraction, uncertainty, etc. But do these "waves" exist? The correlation between mathematics and physics is uncanny, and is a source of wonder and mystery for mathematicians and physicists alike. But i don't think it is all that mysterious. Take our example of the wave concept. It didnt just pop into our consciousness and mathematics, we observe nature through our senses, and then, through the combinatorial power of our brains, relate between our experiences and come up with concepts. We see waves in the ripples in water. And then adapt it into our mathematics and then our physics. It may not then be mysterious, but it is more wonderful.

Now if electromagnetic waves come from water waves, how about other physics concepts? Again easily explained by the combinatorial power of the brain. Take the concept of force. We first experience pushing and pulling as force. Then we imagine the force without the agent. Then we have the isolated force, F. Then to conceive of other phenomena, such as friction, gravity, normal force, centripetal forces, etc. as forces is but an intuitive leap away. If you examine the physics textbook carefully, you will see that all the concepts there are adapted from our normal experience. This is because reality is what we experience.

This brings us to question if we are trapped in our own experiences, and not really free. It really is a silly question. When people take common sense into metaphysics, they always come up with nonsense. Most of metaphysics make no sense at all. It is like this, we are a physical system, we are totally in this reality. And therefore built to function in it. By Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, a system (here reality) can only be totally understood from outside the system. Now since we are totally a system totally in reality, our mother system, we can never totally understand reality.

Let alone what is outside of it...

So you see freedom only makes sense in reality, since freedom exists as a concept in reality, in our minds. So metaphysical freedom is nonsense.

Common sense always work, but only when applied in its intended domain. Try this. Think of doing something. Then do it. There. You have free will don't you?

Now does that mean physics is a hopeless endeavor? Wait a minute, have we forgotten why we do science? Since we exist as a system in our mother system of reality, we are causally affected by it. We therefore have interest in understanding it for self-preservation. So if we can predict physics, even though we cannot explain it or really understand reality, then physics is useful. Even if we cannot understand everything, we would one day understand all that we can.

But then if we can only construct physics from our experience and creativity, won't there be some things that we cannot understand because they lie totally outside our experience? But what we cannot experience (directly or indirectly) is not reality!

Physics is just a tool to understand our reality. Who gives a damn about the real reality? It does not matter to us, we are here and now in our reality.

the solution to cultural relativism

2006-02-05T15:10:00.001+08:00

the problem of cultural relativism is that it impels us to accept racism, or cultures violating human rights, etc.

but cultural relativism is wrong, not all cultures are not wrong, some clearly are
and there is a hidden motive to cultural relativism too. see my previous post "cultural relativism is ethnocentrism repackaged"

i thus present to you a simple solution to this nonsense, it is not even an "idealistic" solution, it can be implemented right away, with no one's approval or consent whatsoever

so here it is:

cultural participation shall be voluntary

the universal declaration on human rights actually implies something like that:

Article 27

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

hehe

everyone should have the right NOT TO participate as well

and because cultures arise from the acts of their participants
culture that are oppresive and in violation of human rights will eventually die out as their participants leave them

how cool is this elegant solution?

...in the hacker spirit!

on freedom

2006-01-27T23:19:00.000+08:00

On Freedom

When we ask ourselves if we are free, we forget who we are. That is the problem. Not free will. There is no problem of free will, if only we conceive of ourselves properly. Now the following arguments are really counter-intuitive. So please do not draw any conclusions before reading the whole thing.

Who are we? We are simply a system of the interplay of matter and energy that is our bodies. When we talk of our soul, we actually mean our immediate consciousness, but we think it is something immaterial and independent of reality. When we think of free will, we apply it to the soul. But the soul is not wholly us, it is but part of us. That is why we have the free will ‘problem’, when we consider our other parts as separate from who we are. Taking Freud’s conception of the self, we are not the ego, we are the whole of which the id, the ego, and the superego are part.

Universal causality exist in time as far as we know it to be. We cannot in fact conceive of it otherwise. When we imagine to violate causality, we inevitably invoke another causal agent, except that it does not reside in this reality (e.g. God). Our mind has been hardwired to think in terms of causality. We cannot do otherwise, though we can do it incorrectly. Our brain is not evolutionarily equipped to deal with complex philosophical problems. We therefore bring over our inappropriate tendencies and intuition into our thought where careful thinking is instead needed. Therefore, everything that exist in time has a cause. We even define time with causality, as our measure of the second, as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero Kelvin, clearly shows. To deny causality is to deny time (and much else is denied too, even ourselves).

Now does that mean we are caused? We are a system. (remember what we are!) A system defines how causality affects it. It interacts with the world of course, but in such a way that how it is affected is determined by itself. By its structure. By its organization. By the system that is itself. It is said to be energetically open, but organizationally closed. As we can see here, our intuition of what causality causes does not work. Things just don’t cause other things in the simple way we have learned through our experience in the world or high school Newtonian mechanics. In complex non-linear systems such as ourselves, there is no simple cause and effect. There is simultaneous causes and effects.

So if we think of ourselves as a system, even with determinism, (actually by virtue of determinism, because our existence as a system relies on causality) there is still free will, because the willing agent is a system and defines itself how causality affects itself, and thus functions by virtue of what it is, and not what the environment ‘determines’.

We thus have an undeniable conclusion, that we have free will.

Now, how about freedom? As we can immediately see without a doubt, that there is no absolute freedom. But first, what is freedom? We first conceive of freedom when we wanted to do something but cannot, because of circumstance. We then consider other facts, or laws, or reality that limits us, forgetting that those facts, laws, reality is what makes, our lives possible. Now how could this mistake have come about?

It is again the problem of our intuition lacking ability to think about systems. Our intuitive thinking is extremely myopic and naively straightforward. We thus commit a lot of system fallacies. In the case of freedom, when we perceive of freedom from outside from ourselves, we bring our cherished, precious concept of freedom outside, where it does not belong, and apply it. This fallacy can be clearly seen by analyzing Nozick’s analysis of his experience machine thought experiment. He says we would not want to plug into the experience machine because:

1. We want to do certain things, and not to merely experience doing certain things.
2. We want to be a certain way, to be a certain person, and not a thing in an experience machine.
3. We want a deeper reality instead of shallow experience.

Actually, there is only one necessary explanation. It is that we think in reality, and we love it to much to really leave it behind. What does that mean? Well all that has meaning to us is from this reality. In fact, our conception of other realities is from our understanding of this reality. We are hardwired to think of this reality, as reality. We therefore take it as an assumption wherever we go in our thought experiments. Plugging into the experience machine means exiting this reality. Yet when we do this experiment, we are inside, observing ourselves from the outside. As experimental psychologists would tell you, this is a bad idea. Introspection is known to give highly biased and wildly inaccurate results. Which is what happened with Nozick’s experience machine.

There are actually 2 mistakes in Nozick’s analysis of the thought experiment. The 1st is that, as mentioned, we are observing ourselves. And we are actually observing “ourselves”. Because even while doing this thought experiment, we are not actually in the machine. We are out here, in this reality. We therefore think from here. From here it seems that “we” are merely experiencing things, instead of actually “doing” them. From here it seems too that, “we” are just a thing plugged into a machine, not really a “person”. From here it also seems that, “we” are having but induced stimulation and experience, and not having a “deeper reality”. All fallacies. Experience is how we live our lives. An alien would look at us and, without a human theory of mind, pass us by as inanimate matter. And reality is our experience.

Yet why do we not think so? Please note that I’m not advocating thinking so, I’m advocating not thinking so when, engaging in dangerous thought experiments such as Nozick’s. We do not think so, because like the person in the experience machine, we are each in our respective realities. The person in the experience machine, might choose to, in a thought experiment in the experience machine, enter another experience machine. And he would, like you, perceive “himself” from outside. “He” in the experience machine is just a thing, while he is a person. While you think that he is a thing, and you are a person. Now what if you are like him and “him”, just a thing in a thought experiment and perceived by someone outside this reality?

Clearly, thinking of ourselves as things is undesirable. And that is the 2nd mistake. We are not things, we are people. We live our lives, not experience it. And so is the life of the person in the experience machine real. But we still wouldn’t want to go in there because from our vantage point, such a life would be unreal. And we are right! But then is our lives real? If you still insist on asking such a question, you have been neglecting the fact that our lives are seen to be real only from our experience of it. We cannot look at it from the outside. When we think we can, we merely fool ourselves and think still from the inside anyway. Outside of us, there is no freedom, which is always only in our head. We therefore really cannot think from the outside at all. And denying that we are part of this reality is not the solution. When we invent the immaterial soul, we are merely delaying the problem. The immaterial soul may be in an experience machine you know?

The solution is actually quite simple. You see, we are in this reality, so we truly cannot see ourselves from outside it. So what we should do is introspect. Whatever we are to anybody or anything else, what matters is that we know what we are from our point of view. This is where we find meaning. Not anywhere outside but in our minds. Freedom therefore is here and now, as we see it. We should acknowledge that we are who we are only to ourselves. Therefore we should take physical laws as granted and not question them when we really cannot do so. And that we have all the physical freedom we have, because if we were to have more, we wouldn’t be ourselves anymore, because it would require a change of our physical makeup. And also if we were to perceive a “truer” reality (e.g. seeing the entire electromagnetic spectrum), whatever that might mean. Freedom is not any physical thing, freedom is something that means something only to ourselves, and only exist in ourselves, not anywhere else. Freedom is independent of “reality”. It is like multiplatform software, that can run on any hardware system. In conclusion, we are not a slave. We are inhabitants of this home we, by our nature, built ourselves, and which we call reality.

We must accept the fact that we are in this reality, and not anywhere else. And that meaning is to be sought and found in this reality. Or we would forever be lost and plagued with senseless contradictions that threaten the meaning of our lives.

In final conclusion, we have free will and freedom, at least in the sense in which we often think we don’t. Now we can live our lives with a peace of mind. And work out real solutions, to real problems of freedom such as slavery and human rights.

subtlety

2006-01-10T19:22:00.000+08:00

Multiculturalism is Ethnocentrism Repackaged

2005-12-30T23:34:00.000+08:00

Multiculturalism is Ethnocentrism Repackaged
by Saerk

this is actually an answer to a question for homework. poor teacher who has to read this…

Recount and reflect on a cultural clash you have had.

culture clash? I’m afraid I am not really part of any culture, since I self-enculturalize myself (not completely, but to a relatively great extent). People who experience culture clashes experience a clash because they were involuntarily encultured by their society when they were young enough to be done so. Their very thought is affected by their culture. Their minds are closed systems. Until they experience a culture clash. Then they simply cannot comprehend the other party’s culture. Their culture has always explained itself for them. Cultures are self-contained. When a culture clash occurs, both parties try to assess the other party’s culture in their own culture’s terms. That is the problem.

Culture is often confused with tradition. Culture can exist without tradition. In fact, culture needs to rid itself of tradition for it to retain its meaning. Who needs a way of life of the past for the present? It is ludicrous.

Traditional culture is a bad thing for humanity. Since it assumes inherent differences in the nature of those of different culture. It evokes primitive tribal feelings within us, of which we no longer need, now that we have civilization, especially now that we are so close to a global one. Humans need group feeling to function in the group, as a group for a particular cause. But one culture against another, one all encompassing way of life against another? It is of course true that people of different geographical regions need different ways of life. But different cultures? Different closed frameworks for thought when we are of the same species?

The confused in the culture clash might just say that the other party’s culture is wrong. But then they both say that. How can they both be right? And there is also an intuitive understanding, suppressed by culture that they may well be the same, and their culture due to the different paths their respective people took in life. And now that they have met each other, perhaps it is time to together reflect their different experience of their shared humanity.

But there are others in culture clashes, due to their self-proclaimed belief in reason, find saying the other culture is wrong problematic. Since they cannot defend a similar attack on their own culture. They propose “cultural relativism”. If they cannot criticize other cultures while defending their own, they just give up. They close in again. Cultural relativism is just ethnocentrism repackaged (a parallel is “creation science” being just biblical fundamentalism repackaged), selfish and denying our common humanity.

Cultures need to interact and try to understand each other, not ignore. Yet some people claim to have tried understanding when what they have done is merely searched for a justification for their ignorance of other cultures. Their explanation of the culture would be something like: ”Oh, people of culture x belief what they belief because they were brought up by the previous generation to do so.” Which is of course, merely the cultural mechanism. They don’t seem to be able to assess their own culture. It is to them right, forgetting that they were encultured in the same way too.

No, we don’t need cultural displays, and detached academic studies of culture, and the like. What we need is true communication between all human beings. When that happens , we will all find that we share the same humanity, and that we have a wider and richer sense of human experience from diverse cultures. Not only do we need to accept each otherm we have to understand each other too. Is the present preferred formula of avoiding all possible “controversy” really tolerance? Is not letting people understand us, and not willing to understand them really tolerance? We are only tolerant if we can set aside superficial differences to truly understand each other. Then we can love each other. Then we will have peace. And rightly claim to have it.

the life of a ball picture video

2005-12-27T08:12:00.000+08:00

a lousy picture video at http://offshoot.worldfreeweb.com/ball.gif
then crticize it at http://offshoot.worldfreeweb.com/forum/

nonsense

2005-10-29T22:53:00.000+08:00

this is a true story

*time and identity unrevealed

one day there was an expedition of 9 to an island
they were to camp for one night and come back the next day

there were 5 boys and 3 girls. after dinner, 4 boys got bored, while the rest went to sleep. therefore 2 of the boys proposed going to town, which is about 2-3km away, they invited the other 2 boys to come along. they agreed

the night was cloudy, it was dark enough that you could barely see your hands if you stretch the as far as you can in front of you.

one of them had a weak 3-LED headband torch, the 2 began running without asking the opinions of the other 2 at all. the other 2 tried to keep up from behind. it was very dark, and the light from the torch ahead was weak. they were running in darkness

soon, however, the 2 in front got tired, and they rested at a rest hut. there was a map there, so they began to plan their route to the town

they decided to walk quickly instead of jogging as it was too tiring. when they reached the town, they all drank some beer. one of them finished early, and he went about town. he then came back with a stolen bike. the bike was meant for rental, but it was unlocked. the other 3 thought it was a great idea. so they went about the town searching bike rental stores or even people's houses for unlocked bike.

when they had got one for each of them, they decided to explore the island along its paved roads. along the way one of them saw an unlocked truck, and tried to find the key to start it. fortunately, he failed.

they all arrived at another map, then they searched about for a place to go to. they decided on the resort.

they cycled (would be much worse had they not bought a brighter torch, still very hard to see at all) to the resort.

the gates were locked, so they all climbed over the fence. they saw rock climbing walls, so they headed there. without safety they didnt climb high. there were also other crazy structures there meant for brave people to do.

they arrived at a bar by the swimming. it was unoccupied, they tried to take some drinks from the fridge, but it was locked. while they were trying to do that, the owner came. fortunately he didnt thought them trying to steal. so the 4 people bought some drinks from him. they lied to him that they were staying at the resort and etc.

then a stupid thing happened. 2 of them went to pee in the lake there. one of the properly did it in the shade. but unfortunately one of the did it in the light. some of the resort operators were there, and they stared at him. one of them came up to them, they ran. until they saw that he wasnt following anymore. unfortunately, it is just that he went to take his bike. so the 4 were caught.

so that the 4 lied. that they are staying in a non-existant room 203, that they are staying 4 in a room. the 4 were told to follow him. then one said that the other 2 of the other 3 were guest, and the guy told the other 2 to get out of the place. all of them went to the gate, and the guy told 2 to climb over and get lost.

all 4 climbed over and ran to their bikes and fled. just before they got back to camp, they decided to ditch the bikes. 4 bikes were ditched some distance from each other into the jungle. and they walked the rest of the way back to camp.

after that there was no trouble, and they got back home

Some Study Tips

2005-10-18T22:20:00.000+08:00

Some Study Tips

first of all dont memorize
do not read then recite, repeat, repeat ad infinitum
it is useless
we remember things properly only when it is related to something
else in any certain way

so i suggest reading without any attempt to remember at all, the entire
textbook
of course you must understand what you are reading
the point is to get some kind of 'map' of the subject you are studying
then when you to really study, you can kinda fit in the info into your 'map'
at all times, relate info with other info with other info...
the more 'links' you establish for your infos, the better you will remember
and because you remember infos in relation with each other you actually
use up less memory than those who memorize rote

how to link it???

relate it to other infos
in order to do it you must truly understand what you are learning
another thing is to identify the 'axioms'(to use a mathematical analogy,
it means something that is most fundamental it is used as a basis to
other more advanced stuff) of the topic you are learning
and not only the mechanical means to solutions
for example, with electromagnetism you have (at our level) that the
-magnetic lines of force flows from the north to the south pole of magnets
-and also when current is flowing towards you, the magnetic lines of
force it generates are anticlockwise around the wire

-and also that magnetic lines of force reinforce when in the same
direction(stronger)
-and also nature always tends to equilibrium( a gradient(kecerunan) in a
magnetic field cause the wire to move into the area where the magnetic
lines of force are lessed 'compressed' (close together))
it is not fundamental in physics, it is just fundamental in the topic
you are studying
that means it is fundamental in a sense that it is not DERIVED from
other more basic stuff, and also it is also a basis for other things you
learn in the topic
take our electromagnetism example, in the topic you learn about a live
wire moving when put into a magnetic field
you are also taught 'tangan kiri/kanan Fleming'
this 'tangan kiri/kanan Fleming' is used to solve problems such as the
wire in the magnetic field
this 'tangan kiri/kanan Fleming' is just a TOOL, it is DERIVED from the
fundamentals of the topic which we have outlined earlier
it is an INTERMEDiATE STEP between the FUNDAMENTAL and the PROBLEM
that is used to solve for
you can also work out the direction in which the wire will move by using
the FUNDAMENTALS (this is something like multiplication which is numbers
added together for a specified number of times, fpr example 3 x 3 is the
same as 3 + 3 +3 , that is 3, 3 times, or 3 times 3, that is essentially
what multiplication means)
now when you use a TOOL you are successful if you know how to USE it
you dont have to know how it WORKS
now you see the problem is sometimes, people use the tool so much the
forgot the fundamentals
now you see how important are LINKs dont you
you see somebody who only learns hos to USE the tool remembers the USAGE
of the tool and the FUNDAMENTELs of the topic SEPARATELY
therefore that somebody use more memory storage space and cant remember
them so well like a person who LINKS the stuff together can
GET IT???

good luck for your spm

damn good reply...

2005-10-16T18:50:00.000+08:00

From: Dang <dang_357@m3net.net>
Subject: Re: +++++++ IS "GOD" REAL? ++++++++
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:01:17 -0400
Message-ID: <3BACFC1C.3BF7A8AD@m3net.net>
Lines: 124

Gold_Top wrote:

> Q) If energy can neither be created or destroyed, then how was it created in
> the first place??
>
> A) It can from the universal God mind/Spirit, which brought matter/energy in
> to place by becoming CONCIOUS of it.
>
> Perhaps you should check out some metaphysics to go with your other list of
> very interesting subjetcs that you have studied...
>
> Taff <taff@wales.com> wrote in message
> news:9a01ntg5vvoj82i6a60cnlnv5mh24j47h0@4ax.com...
> > The universe is the way it is because it is that way.
> >
> >
> > Taff. ( new to the group ).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:27:56 GMT, BW <zl1xvettex@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Do you know "SkepticL1" from the 49ers NG???  Never mind.  Here is a
> > >post that I sent in response to a thread he started entitled "No Such
> > >Thing as Jesus".
> > >
> > >> Religious stories, fables, myths, or whatever you'd like to call them
> > >> have been passed around since the dawn of time.  There are over 70
> > >> different cultures that have an account of the Great Flood with animals
> > >> on a ship, etc.
> > >>
> > >> What this really comes down to is a matter of Faith, or what do you
> > >> believe.  Like Dirty Harry once said, "You gotta ask yourself a
> > >> question: do I feel lucky?"
> > >>
> > >> I've spent the last 30 years studying science, hold a degree in
> > >> Chemistry, and firmly believe in the theories of evolution and the Big
> > >> Bang.  I've also studied religion and philosophy along the way.
> > >>
> > >> A few observations and scientific laws:
> > >>
> > >> 1.  Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.
> > >> 2.  Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed, but its form can be
> > >> changed.
> > >> 3.  For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.
> > >> 4.  Life only comes from life.
> > >> 5.  Once something is proved, faith is no longer relevant concerning
> the
> > >> matter.
> > >> 6.  Today's fact can be tomorrow's fallacy, and vice versa.
> > >> 7.  The concept of time is relative only to one's frame of reference.
> > >> 8.  Sooner or later, it comes time to pay the Piper.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What then is my point???
> > >>
> > >> If we accept the laws of science, the known Universe and everything in
> > >> it did not spring forth out of nothing. An energy that has always
> > >> existed, and contained life, will always exist, and had to be the
> origin
> > >> of everything we know.  The order, structure, and consistency of matter
> > >> and physical laws throughout the universe, from a macroscopic down to a
> > >> subatomic level, remain virtually unchanged irrespective of any
> > >> conditions or venue we might try to impose, and discrepancies are
> either
> > >> a case of limited understanding or observational error.
> > >>
> > >> The world as we know it did not come into existence by some grandiose
> > >> accident.  Even then, who or what is responsible for the accident???
> > >> Someone or something, call it what you will, had to have a design in
> > >> place for it to work.
> > >>
> > >> Either you believe in a higher power, or you must then conclude that
> man
> > >> is the highest form of being.  Or did the Space Aliens colonize our
> > >> planet???  No problem.  Just tell me who created the Space Aliens.
> > >>
> > >> My response is not to "shove religion down your throat" or anything
> like
> > >> that.  Were I to possess all the answers, I would write a book.
> > >>
> > >> But if you're man enough, or woman enough as the case may be, then take
> > >> this simple challenge: appeal to the Higher Power to make known its
> > >> presence to you.
> > >>
> > >> After that, keep an open mind, and wait to see what happens...
> > >>
> > >
> > >I firmly believe that there is a Higher Power that created this Universe
> > >and I'll spend the rest of my life trying to gain a minute
> > >understanding.
> > >
> > >
> > >BW
> >
> >

Gold Top, BW: You're both assuming it was created. The concepts of causality
you are familiar with from everyday life and "classical" (pre-quantum) science
are not guaranteed to work the same way at the top or bottom end of the scale.

(In fact, they are known not to at least at the bottom end (bottom of what
we've discovered, anyway), and, with some qualifying restrictions, energy and
matter do come into existence out of nothing, and vanish back into
nothingness.)

There is no solid foundation for the idea that the universe was brought into
existence. There are a lot of questions, and something related to consciousness
may have something to do with the answers, but we're a long way from certainty
of those answers.

We all have a natural tendency to want to know "what came before ________" or
"what caused _____" but there are situations in which those questions are
literally meaningless. The challenge (IMO) is to discover the right sorts of
questions, find ways of testing and answering those, and then integrate that
knowledge into what's already known.

Faith is faith. One is entitled to it, and may well be right about it, but
generalized conclusions from science, mixed in with assumptions that are not
borne out by factual evidence, don't prove or disprove the validity of one's
faith.

Dang

The Plight of carbonferum

2005-10-11T16:32:00.000+08:00

The Plight of carbonferum

Ok, this was inspired by “The Speaker of the Dead” by Orson Scott Card.
Yeah, I know. I’m weird.

carbonferum is my friend. Over the course of approximately 3 years, I got to know him quite well. And I understood his plight. carbonferum is suffering, he wants something that he doesn’t have. He is in a plight because the thing he wants, he inadvertently and unknowingly prevents himself from achieving. It is ironic. It is sad.

carbonferum believes in knowledge. He believes it as a matter of faith. He nevertheless, does not agree with me. He thinks his belief in knowledge is somehow “justified” without actually trying to justify it at all. I have probed him to get him to explain his source for his belief in knowledge. He gives vague answers, then leads off-topic. I catch him, he merely shuts up. He does not seem to be even sure of what he means by knowledge. He spends a lot of time reading factual texts. And he takes pride in understanding and recalling them.

Yet he contradicts himself. Let me give you an example. carbonferum has long been interested in Physics. And in school, when the teacher is teaching a certain topic. We would, since we would already very quickly understood what was taught, discuss the current topic in more detail. As I have stated, he takes pride in understanding and recalling facts. So what he would do is bring up quite a number of facts, mostly in the form of “Did you know…?”. I am more interested in the meaning and significance of facts. I like to observe how the teacher teaches the students in our class. The futility of the method employed. The passive way the students received the teachings. I was sad and frustrated in the lack of true understanding and misunderstanding of the subject and the purpose of it being taught. Then of course, I will voice my opinion to carbonferum, who would then use what I have said to make some statements that, to him, supposedly justify his interest in facts. But always, and frustratingly so, he would, in his enthusiasm, totally miss my point. He would then criticize the others for not being able to understand what the teacher was teaching. He would the criticize their lack of reading. Then he would ask a friend of ours, petersp88, a physics question resembling “Do you know what is a photon?”. And then petersp88 would say that he don’t know. Then carbonferum would shake his head as if petersp88 did something sad. And say something like, “Why do you, in your obsession with grades, neglect general knowledge?”. From this, you can see that carbonferum considers knowledge of what is a photon, general knowledge.

Now let me take you to Biology class. We would be studying a lot of names of an organism’s or its constituents’ parts. And a lot of Greek derived or Greek names would be used. He would then rant on the pointlessness of studying biology. I would then bring back what he said in Physics class; something like “You said that knowledge of what a photon is is general knowledge”. Then I would ask him why some things in biology are not general knowledge too. Then I would tell him that all the things he considered general knowledge, he already knows, and takes pride in knowing. And yet he complains about biology simply because he does not like it. He would then either by changing the topic or shutting up, ignore what I just said.

carbonferum’s performance in school is moderate. But since meeting me, his exam results have been getting worse. Yes, I did influence him, but not intentionally. You see, I am the kind of person who can easily understand what is being taught in school. Unfortunately, I’m not that kind of person who excels or even does well in school. Now, why is that? People never seem to understand why.

I don’t know since when, but as I grew up, I began to question the things I have so easily accepted when I was young. I threw, without hesitation, away those beliefs I held that I consider to be unjustified. I sought to address the inconsistencies that seem to pop out into my notice everywhere where I had not noticed them before. I sought coherence in life. And I was in the Malaysian school education system. Things naturally would go bad. There came to point where I did not care about school, I didn’t do homework, I never studied. But instead, I began intensive study on my own. But that is my story. Lets get back to carbonferum.

carbonferum was unconsciously influenced by my “laziness”. That happened because carbonferum sorta think I am “better” than “the others”. Now carbonferuem is a selfish and arrogant person, although he does not seem to be aware of it. He therefore has few friends. That is how he inadvertently got influenced by my “laziness”. So his grades plumetted. Being the proud man he is, he had to come up with an excuse for that. And so, he began using my arguments against the education system, for himself.

Now carbonferum fell in love with a girl. But when he confessed his feelings to her, she aggresively rejected him. They were once friends, but after that incident, she wouldn’t even talk to him anymore. carbonferum was really hurt, and he tried again and again to win her back without really understanding why she rejected him in the first place. Neither did he understand why everyone dislikes him. Sometimes he tries to help others, but he does this in a condescensing manner. And he doesn’t even notice his true motives for helping people, which is to merely satisfy his ego, his “justification” for his obsession with facts.

carbonferum wants to feel special, he thinks that he is superior in intellect to others.

That is why carbonferum is in plight. I have no idea how to help him. No matter how I advice him, he either don’t seem to get it, or is too stubborn to listen. I am now asking help from anyone: is there a way to help carbonferum?

search xdcc.py

2005-10-11T15:12:00.000+08:00

//some lousy code to use many web xdcc searches
//it sucks
//teach me if you can, how to improve it
//thankyou
from os import system
from sys import argv
url=[]
extra='+xdcc'
url.append('http://www.packetnews.com/search.php?type=0&kw='+argv[1])
url.append('http://www.ircspy.com/search.asp?searchtext='+argv[1])
url.append('http://www.ircklipper.info/search.php?Description='+argv[1])
url.append('http://isohunt.com/files.php?ihq='+argv[1]+'&ext=&op=and')
url.append('http://gogloom.com/XDCC?q='+argv[1]+'&submit=Go')
url.append('http://www.mydownloader.com//default.asp?searchstring='+argv[1]+'&submit=Go')
url.append('http://searchirc.com/search.php?I='+argv[1]+extra+'&submit=Go')
url.append('http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/?query='+argv[1]+extra+'&submit=Go')
for i in range(0,7):
system('e: & cd \\ & \"Program Files\\Opera\\opera.exe\" \"'+url[i]+'\"')

fallacy of the undistributed middle

2005-10-05T23:28:00.000+08:00

All accountants are tennis players.
All youngsters are tennis players.
Therefore all accountants are youngsters.

To me it is obvious that the third statement DOES NOT follow from the first two premises. It is an INVALID syllogism. It is INVALID logic. It can clearly be seen in set notation:

That is basically what the three statements meant. As you can see now, the third statement is clearly ridiculous. The fallacy arises because of thinking that the statements mean:

Accountants = tennis players
Youngsters = tennis players
Accountants = Youngsters

That is false because we don’t mean accountants IS tennis players, we mean accountants ARE tennis players. tennis players is a category, and the accountants are categorized in it.

<--is that not possible?(i.e. complying with the premises of the syllogism)

That piece of erroneous deductive logic occurred to me in TOK* class in school today. The whole class including the teacher thought it was valid.

what do you think eh?

(more information:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle)

*TOK (Theory of Knowledge) is a subject that is compulsory for students taking the IB (International Baccalaureate) Diploma course.

my philosophy homework. assess, criticize

2005-09-15T20:22:00.000+08:00

//note that it is supposed to be limited to 400 words, i am 177 past that...
//so i just stopped when i realized it
//i'm too lazy to edit it

//Pg. 34 from Philosophy textbook.

“Life is but a dream”
How would you prove that it is not true?

//and my answer is:

What is a dream? A dream is quasi-consciousness when we are asleep. We would know that we were dreaming if we wake up from it, and then we wouldn’t have to ask if life is a dream, unless we think we can dream about dreaming. But what if it was in the middle of the day and we somehow lost our memory of our last immediate state of consciousness?

We don’t remember anything prior to birth. Unless we somehow lost our memory during our dream, that means we weren’t awake. How could be dreaming without first falling asleep? Of course, we might have never have been awake, and started out dreaming all along. But then asking the question if we are in a dream would be pointless.

Dreaming is a brain activity. When we are not dreaming we are conscious, when we are, we are unconscious. We don’t know we are dreaming when we are. When we wake up from a normal dream, we knew we were dreaming because we don’t then remember any immediate conscious experience. When we were young we didn’t know we were dreaming. It is something we learn, when we wake up and don’t remember anything right before waking up, and right after going to sleep the last night. The point is, that to realize that we have dreamt, we need to have memory. And that memory is shared for our dreams and our conscious experience. The transition between sleep and consciousness requires a physical brain, which generates both states of dreaming and waking and provides the memory they use. The physical brain has to be there to store memory of dream and wake.

Also, it is impossible to dream without memory. All our dreams are based on memories of our waking life (including the dreams we remembered). When we dream, the brain is basically consolidating our sensory perceptions and thoughts when we were awake.

Can we be dreaming our dreams when we dream about sleeping? Memories that dreams produce are not consciously accessible until we are awake. Memories are also not consciously recallable when we are dreaming. That by itself might be evidence enough that we are not dreaming. If our life is a dream, we would have to dream up memory. But dreaming of memory and its use during two dreamt brain states (dream and wake) is absurd. And dreaming of another consciousness is even more so.

Or is it all just coincidence, that we dream our waking hours and our dreams and they somehow are coherent? There is also the argument of coherence of our dream and waking life. When we dream, our dreams are based on memories of our conscious experience. When we go to sleep, and then awake the next day, we see that it was some experience when we were conscious that gave shape to the dream. If life is a dream, then we have to dream of consciousness and dreams. So where does the memories that give shape to the dream of life and the dream of dream come from? And why are the dream of life and the dream of dreams coherent? Why do we have to dream a dream (life-dream) where we dream (life-dream-dream) about the dream (life-dream)? Why not dream about experiences when we were really, conscious?

And do we think when we dream? We don’t. Dreams are just replays of brain activity when we were awake.

And so we can only prove if we are dreaming if we change brain states. One way is to wake up, if we cannot wait, then we can take drugs…