某人說我的次元魔女creepy，本來想把心一橫換成應該更creepy的Q版須奈子，無奈須奈子的衣服太黑，不用白色背景很難襯得出她，但我這個如此滿意現在的深色的人，又怎能把背景換成白色呢？唯有暫時作罷，再想想怎樣把須奈子突出得來又保留深色佈局。。。若我把史提芬和阿泰也放進來，可能會更有氣氛呢。。。XD
29 June 2007
未來的天才
結了婚的朋友們不是快生孩子就是努力著準備製造一個孩子，我和小王子還在享受生活中，決定三四年後再算；若真的有了倒是無話可說的，那是給我們的產業吧。但小王子和我還是不想這麼早有孩子，我自己則是還沒有決定要孩子。
理由多的是。一來我很滿足現狀；二來我的情緒不穩定，這會兒抱著他愛愛，轉個頭可能就打扁他了；三來我六個月會說話，祈祈四個月會說話，我怕我接受不了他六個月不會說話，一歲零十個月不會背誦滿江紅，兩歲不會背誦清平調水調歌頭虞美人明日歌，不會讀兩個娃娃和吉吉和磨磨這些書。。。我怕他不夠我小時候聰明，會接受不了，繼而火起，失耐性，卻又無能為力；四來又怕他像我小時候那麼惹人生氣；五來我們現在很窮困，要我不做全職唯恐家持艱難；六來我愛心不足，小王子責任心未成；七來我不認為我能教出一個好人，只能教出一個怪人。。。還有些不便明言的理由，也有一個必然的問題需要先達到共識。總而言之，理由多的是。
若有人覺得這些九成不是理由，那只因為那人不是我而已。
理由多的是。一來我很滿足現狀；二來我的情緒不穩定，這會兒抱著他愛愛，轉個頭可能就打扁他了；三來我六個月會說話，祈祈四個月會說話，我怕我接受不了他六個月不會說話，一歲零十個月不會背誦滿江紅，兩歲不會背誦清平調水調歌頭虞美人明日歌，不會讀兩個娃娃和吉吉和磨磨這些書。。。我怕他不夠我小時候聰明，會接受不了，繼而火起，失耐性，卻又無能為力；四來又怕他像我小時候那麼惹人生氣；五來我們現在很窮困，要我不做全職唯恐家持艱難；六來我愛心不足，小王子責任心未成；七來我不認為我能教出一個好人，只能教出一個怪人。。。還有些不便明言的理由，也有一個必然的問題需要先達到共識。總而言之，理由多的是。
若有人覺得這些九成不是理由，那只因為那人不是我而已。
未來的天才 (無線銀禧兒童節 主題曲)
眼睛裡是圖畫 靈活的小骨架
在世間中塗上 點點雪花
每天發問傻話 純白得那樣無價
然而嫩幼小芽 某天開花
思想中是雲彩 哭與笑一切都可愛
是你思巧會帶來 全人類冀待
天真的未來天才 不管風雨驟來
來夢你嚮往的所愛
趕快面對 時日的決賽
去奔向自由吧 靈活的小骨架
用你天生財富 分真與假
耳朵聽著童話 純白得那樣無價
來年嫩幼小芽 散出煙花
28 June 2007
書書書書書
很累呢。。。這個星期像是很漫長，跟著的兩個星期應該更辛苦，因為MB七月九日到，有很多analysis要做。
我想看書，但家裡沒有書，唯有看雜誌。許久沒看新小說，只有看Times和NS，總像缺少了些甚麼似的。亦舒近這兩年的小說差不多都沒看過，有機會要找些來看看。可惜我不能看螢幕上的書(除了白痴愛情小說外)，總要拿在手才高興。
想呀想，其實我不是很現代化的類型。喜歡用手寫字在紙上，喜歡看一本本的書，喜歡親身去商店買東西，喜歡收實實在在的一封信。做Web App的人，常說網絡是虛擬的世界，而且抗拒在網上看書和買賣，好像欠一點說服力呢。。。
我想看書，但家裡沒有書，唯有看雜誌。許久沒看新小說，只有看Times和NS，總像缺少了些甚麼似的。亦舒近這兩年的小說差不多都沒看過，有機會要找些來看看。可惜我不能看螢幕上的書(除了白痴愛情小說外)，總要拿在手才高興。
想呀想，其實我不是很現代化的類型。喜歡用手寫字在紙上，喜歡看一本本的書，喜歡親身去商店買東西，喜歡收實實在在的一封信。做Web App的人，常說網絡是虛擬的世界，而且抗拒在網上看書和買賣，好像欠一點說服力呢。。。
冷天氣
這幾天很忙，連寫Blog的心情也沒有，倒是很久沒寫Blog的人有心情了。
昨晚三個朋友來了我家，說很整齊。當然了，我常常執拾的。Lou Lou說和我以前的房間差得遠了，哈哈，那也是當然的吧，因為還有很多東西沒搬來我們家，現在考完試了，要把它們都搬過來。但我總是懶懶散散的，提不起勁來。
這兩天很冷，我吃多了很多，胖了很多，也只好算數，等天暖再減一減吧。這麼冷的天氣，我連動一動也不願意呢。
昨晚三個朋友來了我家，說很整齊。當然了，我常常執拾的。Lou Lou說和我以前的房間差得遠了，哈哈，那也是當然的吧，因為還有很多東西沒搬來我們家，現在考完試了，要把它們都搬過來。但我總是懶懶散散的，提不起勁來。
這兩天很冷，我吃多了很多，胖了很多，也只好算數，等天暖再減一減吧。這麼冷的天氣，我連動一動也不願意呢。
26 June 2007
沒有銀兩的日子
Lou Lou昨天回來了，逗留兩星期，我們約明天吃飯，因為今晚我要看House，哈哈。
由於飛鷹一號的問題，我們變得非常窮困，還不知道是長期還是四個月，總之現在財政上非常緊張，我和小王子要更節儉些了。再加上是冬天，電費高企。。。唉，很窮困呢。。。
可能要找些兼職了。。。
由於飛鷹一號的問題，我們變得非常窮困，還不知道是長期還是四個月，總之現在財政上非常緊張，我和小王子要更節儉些了。再加上是冬天，電費高企。。。唉，很窮困呢。。。
可能要找些兼職了。。。
Simple IQ test
Two identical coins of equal radius are placed side by side with one of them fixed. Starting head up and without slipping, rotate one about the other until it is on the other side of the fixed coin. Is the rotated coin now head up or down?
25 June 2007
陌生人愛上XXX的第963天
路過陌生人的Blog,內裡只有21篇，主題全都是"愛上XXX的第YYY天"，XXX真的是那男孩子的名字。
我沒有記著我愛上小王子多少天。是該遺憾我沒有記著，還是該慶幸我沒有記著？我認為數日子是屬於失落的人的，因為幸福的人只享受日子。或者這只是我用來縱容自己不夠細心的借口，但想來若對方每天提提我那是他愛我第幾天，我想我會厭煩多於感動吧。
單戀的時候我也不會計，因為有一剎的曖昧值得回味，就享受那一剎。計著日子，只會發現享受過的曖昧相比悠長的日子實在少得可憐，那就破壞了僅有的滿足了。
還是不要數日子的好。
我沒有記著我愛上小王子多少天。是該遺憾我沒有記著，還是該慶幸我沒有記著？我認為數日子是屬於失落的人的，因為幸福的人只享受日子。或者這只是我用來縱容自己不夠細心的借口，但想來若對方每天提提我那是他愛我第幾天，我想我會厭煩多於感動吧。
單戀的時候我也不會計，因為有一剎的曖昧值得回味，就享受那一剎。計著日子，只會發現享受過的曖昧相比悠長的日子實在少得可憐，那就破壞了僅有的滿足了。
還是不要數日子的好。
下雨天
下雨天，是曖昧的暗黃色。但見灰濛中有一撮藍，像在垂死的掙扎。
中學時寫了一篇有關下雨天的文，沒記錯的話，是好得被拿到別的班去讀的。我自覺寫得很差，因為我在說謊，因為其實我討厭雨天。由於那篇是描寫文，結果我又把它寫成擬人了。很難為情的，我只會寫說明文、議論文、抒情文和描寫思想的描寫文。我的記敘文和描寫人、事、物的描寫文都是垃圾。所以說明文和議論文是一定高分的，記敘文和描寫文則是靠正確的句子結構搭救。
這輩子寫得最好的文章，應該是給小王子的情書吧，因為真心，也是抒情。不過以我對收情書的人的認識，相信他是不太懂得欣賞我的詩意的，哈哈。跟媽媽一樣，選了一個不太浪漫也不太感性的男人。
中學時寫了一篇有關下雨天的文，沒記錯的話，是好得被拿到別的班去讀的。我自覺寫得很差，因為我在說謊，因為其實我討厭雨天。由於那篇是描寫文，結果我又把它寫成擬人了。很難為情的，我只會寫說明文、議論文、抒情文和描寫思想的描寫文。我的記敘文和描寫人、事、物的描寫文都是垃圾。所以說明文和議論文是一定高分的，記敘文和描寫文則是靠正確的句子結構搭救。
這輩子寫得最好的文章，應該是給小王子的情書吧，因為真心，也是抒情。不過以我對收情書的人的認識，相信他是不太懂得欣賞我的詩意的，哈哈。跟媽媽一樣，選了一個不太浪漫也不太感性的男人。
禮物
昨晚我成功煮了一餐飯(除了那煲飯，因為是爸爸帶來的)。今晚只有我和小王子，讓我想想吃甚麼吧，但一定不會是飯的了。
朋友為我們買了一個鐘，因為我們家欠一個鐘，而我又找不到漂亮的，所以就請朋友買一個給我們的家。我很喜歡這個鐘，很有我的blog的味道。其實我甚喜歡花花東西，尤其是黑襯白或黑襯粉紅。我叫小王子今天幫我掛起它，不知他會不會了。
綠色、紫色和粉紅色一向都是我的最愛。對綠色像是一種迷信的心態，無論甚麼，綠色都是好的；對紫色和粉紅色則只是一種感覺。我看顏色是非常傳統的，我指教會的傳統：綠色是生命，紫色是懺悔，粉紅色是喜樂，白色是聖潔，黑色是悲傷。
很喜歡收禮物，覺得自己對別人而言有重要性，非常幸福的感覺。價錢從來不是一個指標，心思才是。選禮物的原因，一切想法，都包含在禮物裡。或者只是剛巧看到那個時想起我，就足夠了。
朋友為我們買了一個鐘，因為我們家欠一個鐘，而我又找不到漂亮的，所以就請朋友買一個給我們的家。我很喜歡這個鐘，很有我的blog的味道。其實我甚喜歡花花東西，尤其是黑襯白或黑襯粉紅。我叫小王子今天幫我掛起它，不知他會不會了。
綠色、紫色和粉紅色一向都是我的最愛。對綠色像是一種迷信的心態，無論甚麼，綠色都是好的；對紫色和粉紅色則只是一種感覺。我看顏色是非常傳統的，我指教會的傳統：綠色是生命，紫色是懺悔，粉紅色是喜樂，白色是聖潔，黑色是悲傷。
很喜歡收禮物，覺得自己對別人而言有重要性，非常幸福的感覺。價錢從來不是一個指標，心思才是。選禮物的原因，一切想法，都包含在禮物裡。或者只是剛巧看到那個時想起我，就足夠了。
22 June 2007
Friday
昨晚小王子在飯廳開圓桌武士會議，我纏著狗狗被拿著布仔在房Sims了一會，又Civ IV了一會。因為把暖爐給了他們，所以我很冷呢。我的西班牙王國還未進入industrial revolution，圓桌武士們就要走了，我也洗澡睡覺去。
說起Knights of the Round Table，Shrek 3有King Arthur, Merlin和Lancelot呢。祈祈看時竟沒留置意到，一定是因為和女孩子去看了!小王子連他們是誰也不知道，真過份。沒有故事的童年，連王爾德是誰也沒聽過，格林是兄弟也不知道，很慘呢。
近來迷上吃Mini dinosaurs。大的Dinasours比較軟，沒那麼好咬，還是mini的好吃。
又到週末。許久沒有週末不用溫書或做功課了，今次可以歇一歇(雖然也許久沒有試過週末沒打機，哈)。
說起Knights of the Round Table，Shrek 3有King Arthur, Merlin和Lancelot呢。祈祈看時竟沒留置意到，一定是因為和女孩子去看了!小王子連他們是誰也不知道，真過份。沒有故事的童年，連王爾德是誰也沒聽過，格林是兄弟也不知道，很慘呢。
近來迷上吃Mini dinosaurs。大的Dinasours比較軟，沒那麼好咬，還是mini的好吃。
又到週末。許久沒有週末不用溫書或做功課了，今次可以歇一歇(雖然也許久沒有試過週末沒打機，哈)。
21 June 2007
Little Twins Stars
我喜歡金毛和啡毛的Little twins stars多過粉紅毛和藍毛的。要強調，lala和kiki是姊弟，不是情侶(這麼小怎麼可以學人家拍拖!)，所以我見到心型圖案為圍著他們兩個會覺得有點嘔，很亂倫的感覺。
我總認為lala有點bossy，是欺負弟弟的類型。
我總認為lala有點bossy，是欺負弟弟的類型。
摸頭頭
我很喜歡人拍或摸我的頭。
小王子摸我的頭，問我以前有沒有人摸我的頭，我說我不知道。他說那為甚麼我會喜歡人摸我的頭頭，我說可能我像狗。突然想起祖祖的狗都不喜歡人家摸牠的頭，可能我只跟阿Mel相像。我覺得拍或摸頭頭，是說我乖和寵愛的一種表現，所以我很喜歡朋友拍我的頭，也很喜歡拍朋友的頭，而且常常拍小孩子的頭。不過要是對方太高就很難做到了。
我有一本黃巴士，裡面有個故事叫"莫當娜摸頭事件"，我可能被感染了。
小王子摸我的頭，問我以前有沒有人摸我的頭，我說我不知道。他說那為甚麼我會喜歡人摸我的頭頭，我說可能我像狗。突然想起祖祖的狗都不喜歡人家摸牠的頭，可能我只跟阿Mel相像。我覺得拍或摸頭頭，是說我乖和寵愛的一種表現，所以我很喜歡朋友拍我的頭，也很喜歡拍朋友的頭，而且常常拍小孩子的頭。不過要是對方太高就很難做到了。
我有一本黃巴士，裡面有個故事叫"莫當娜摸頭事件"，我可能被感染了。
20 June 2007
倚門回首，卻把青梅嗅
蹴罷秋千，起來慵整纖纖手。露濃花瘦，薄汗輕衣透。
見有人來，襪鏟金釵溜，和羞走，倚門回首，卻把青梅嗅。
見有人來，襪鏟金釵溜，和羞走，倚門回首，卻把青梅嗅。
--李清照
註：點絳唇詞牌格式為
(仄)仄平平，(仄)平(平)仄平平仄。(仄)平(平)仄，(平)仄平平仄。(仄)仄平平，(仄)仄平平仄。平平仄，(仄)平(平)仄，(平)仄平平仄。
(仄)仄平平，(仄)平(平)仄平平仄。(仄)平(平)仄，(平)仄平平仄。(仄)仄平平，(仄)仄平平仄。平平仄，(仄)平(平)仄，(平)仄平平仄。
可以調素琴，閱金經
終於考完試了。今晚小王子和我去看Shrek 3，真好。
媽媽今天上飛機，我們有一個月左右要自生自滅。爸爸說放term break時我可以過去吃，但祈祈要上學的日子就叫我們自己找吃的，也不用煮給他們吃了。今晚因為看Shrek 3，所以我和小王子出外吃。明晚我看看買到甚麼來煮吧，一定是西餐的了，因為我們是"無飯夫妻"嘛。其實我也不喜歡吃飯，所以沒有飯也可以生存，吃不同種類的pasta和中國式粉麵就夠了。
沒有工作的意欲，不如早點回家，寫意寫意，明天做多兩小時吧。
P.S. 寫意寫意，"可以調素琴，閱金經"是假的；"可以打下機，訓下覺"則貼切矣。
媽媽今天上飛機，我們有一個月左右要自生自滅。爸爸說放term break時我可以過去吃，但祈祈要上學的日子就叫我們自己找吃的，也不用煮給他們吃了。今晚因為看Shrek 3，所以我和小王子出外吃。明晚我看看買到甚麼來煮吧，一定是西餐的了，因為我們是"無飯夫妻"嘛。其實我也不喜歡吃飯，所以沒有飯也可以生存，吃不同種類的pasta和中國式粉麵就夠了。
沒有工作的意欲，不如早點回家，寫意寫意，明天做多兩小時吧。
P.S. 寫意寫意，"可以調素琴，閱金經"是假的；"可以打下機，訓下覺"則貼切矣。
Four legs new, Two legs much older?!
I never believe in large scale of evolution, well, obviously, coz I'm a Christian.
The theory of large scale evolution is just so shaky.
our upright walking started in the trees
Paul O’Higgins, of the Functional Morphology and Evolution unit at the University of York, UK, says the finding makes it more difficult to find a feature unique to the human ancestral line. "If extended hip and knee bipedalism did indeed arise in the distant past, this makes the task of identifying possible ancestors of the human line much more difficult," he says.
There has been tantalising fossil evidence suggesting an early origin for bipedalism, says Crompton. "And the orang-utan is the only ape with a knee joint similar to that of humans."
19 June 2007
Tell the Good News
I am so happy today.
As the concept of universal salvation arose from yesterday conversation, W and I declared that we do not believe in it, so do H and MW. A is a non-Christian, and he asked what is universal salvation. Upon my explanation about the idea, I finally had a chance to tell A the Gospel clearly and directly.
W, MW and I always talk about our beliefs in front of A, and A has an interest to all sorts of metaphysical discussion. MW lent A "The Purpose-Driven Life" and A has finished the whole book. Although A said he read it in a scientific way, I believe that there is some part deep in him is motivating him to do so. W concurred and said he thinks A is seeking the truth but doesn't know the truth is our God yet. I told A that we are not trying to persuade him to believe, but we always want him to know what exactly we believe in so he can understand and really think about it.
I study philosophy just because I want to. I am not interest in "philosophy" itself, but how people see things and what people think about something. Honestly I don't really care how strong or weak a theory is because it is still a perspective that some people hold or believe. That's why I am not interest in studying particular philosopher's ideas, but broad issues like different perspective towards human nature, science, law, culture, religion, etc. I am happy to see God values it too. Studying different aspects give me more and more chances to discuss with A and other non-Christians about my belief.
This is the first time I convey the Gospel in English. Actually I have not done it even in Chinese for a long long time. God helped me to make it just right, not too lengthy and not too short. I value this experience so much.
As the concept of universal salvation arose from yesterday conversation, W and I declared that we do not believe in it, so do H and MW. A is a non-Christian, and he asked what is universal salvation. Upon my explanation about the idea, I finally had a chance to tell A the Gospel clearly and directly.
W, MW and I always talk about our beliefs in front of A, and A has an interest to all sorts of metaphysical discussion. MW lent A "The Purpose-Driven Life" and A has finished the whole book. Although A said he read it in a scientific way, I believe that there is some part deep in him is motivating him to do so. W concurred and said he thinks A is seeking the truth but doesn't know the truth is our God yet. I told A that we are not trying to persuade him to believe, but we always want him to know what exactly we believe in so he can understand and really think about it.
I study philosophy just because I want to. I am not interest in "philosophy" itself, but how people see things and what people think about something. Honestly I don't really care how strong or weak a theory is because it is still a perspective that some people hold or believe. That's why I am not interest in studying particular philosopher's ideas, but broad issues like different perspective towards human nature, science, law, culture, religion, etc. I am happy to see God values it too. Studying different aspects give me more and more chances to discuss with A and other non-Christians about my belief.
This is the first time I convey the Gospel in English. Actually I have not done it even in Chinese for a long long time. God helped me to make it just right, not too lengthy and not too short. I value this experience so much.
God, nature, and humanity
God hath created nothing simply for itself: but each thing in all things, and of every thing each part in order hath such interest, that in the whole world nothing is found whereunto any thing created can say, "I need thee not."
Richard Hooker (March 1554 – November 3, 1600)
18 June 2007
Where is your memory? II - Our Conversation
One very good thing about my company is that here we have a group of Christian people. I've started up the memory discussion, and people have some ideas, both Christians and non-Christians.
W: I must be terribly brain damaged, cause I have a shocking memory!
R: I choose not to attempt to answer the unanswerable.
Although isn’t it pretty much scientifically accepted that memories are in your brain – I think I read that somewhere
J: Nope. There is actually no proof that memory is in our brain. There is proof that damage what part would affect what faculty, and when thinking of what then which part of the brain use more energy. However from that we cannot deduce memory is locate in the brain.
M: Yeah, you probably read it in New Scientist and not New Philosopher :p
H: I’m curious about 1ai – i.e memory is in your brain, but have a soul. (I’m in this camp)
But, if your soul leaves your body, do you not remember anything then?
What about people that have near death experiences where their soul apparently leaves their body, and they come back to life and have a story to tell (retelling what they saw in the afterlife etc).
Where abouts were these memories stored?
Also, isn’t a lot of your memory which makes you who you are? But isn’t that also your soul?
My theory is that in this physical world, you need physical things for things to work, i.e cells in your brain to remember things.
Is that also why God works through naturalistic ways most of the time? Maybe the rules of this universe just require it.
But outside of that dimension – maybe the soul can take over in its own way in a way that we don’t understand.
A: Like… when the soul is going to leave the body it backs up what’s in the brain and goes into working offline mode?
Then it comes back and syncs with the brain whatever experiences it had “out there”
H: Yes exactly – maybe it’s that :P
And it does a sync when it comes back into dock.
I reckon that our body/brain is like a physical representation of our soul. So we as a person are essentially a soul, but because of the limitations of the physical world, God had to use infinite intelligence to construct pretty basic chemicals all together is ridiculously complicated combinations in order to mimic what the soul is capable of.
Can’t really think of a good example, but maybe it is like a piece of software, you have the complete program written in an abstract language – but when it comes to the grind, it has to be twisted around and converted to total other dimension (language) that the machine understands (in a series of 1’s and 0’s).
i.e it has to be compiled to suit whatever environment (dimension) it is operating in!
That’s something interesting to think about.
Our entity is outside this dimension that can be transported to any other dimension with totally different rules as long as we have the correct compiler :P
J: I believe our memory is in our soul, where brain is the tool for revealing/retrieving memory. So for brain damage, it should be damaging the channel or the retrieving device for a particular part of the memory in the soul. Memory lost indicates a blockage in the channel or maybe a short circuit in the device.
H: That’s a pretty interesting theory too.
I like it.
Also makes you think about someones personality, i.e people think it is 50% nurture, 50% nature. I.e 50% is your genetics and 50% is your life experiences.
So, continuing my last thread - we are like a database, where the schema/stored procedures are like our dna, and the data is our life experiences!
To get output though, you need a combination of the two!
So really, before we export to another dimension, we have to do a full database backup (including data/memory) as schema alone just wouldn’t be enough.
S: I think I tend to agree with H on this one. What good are memories? The allow you to recognise people (physically), they provide a basis for judgement, they help you decide whether or not to trust people or love people, they help you to code in C#, allow you to remember how to drive, what to eat, what will kill you, what won’t. They are effectively your way of knowing how to live in this life.
So perhaps they don’t belong to the soul at all. Surely I don’t need them when I die. What good is remembering how to drive after I die? Or remembering that I owe Robert $1. If we are in heaven surely I don’t need to remember if you murdered my mother or not?
In this life I love my mother more than I love your mother. In this life, the way I feel about people is determined by my memories of them. In the next life, aren’t I going to love everyone the same?
J: However if we do not bring any memory to the judgement after death, if someone were told that he/she has done something really bad and he/she didn’t truly receive God, that person may have no idea what God is talking about and cannot feel the responsibility on anything he have said about him/her.
S: Why would we need to feel bad at Judgement – wouldn’t it be a little like, ok fair enough – but why are you telling me now? What can I do about it?
A bit like now if someone told you that you had been a bad toddler because you spat out your food. As an adult you know that is bad manners, but as a toddler you don’t understand. Surely judgement will be the same – ‘I didn’t understand!’.
Are we meant to live our eternity in heaven in guilt for what we did on earth while we were still toddlers?
H: It would be really interesting to dig up some bible verses that indicate whether you still have your earthly memories or not.
I’m sure they are around.
Say though, if someone hung around Jerry Seinfield lots and ended up having an awesome sense of humour because of it and it sort of integrates into your personality until it is integral to who you are, and people like you for it – and you like your new you.
But then, but isn’t this learnt “you” part of your memories almost?
Would this be stripped away – and then people wonder where your sense of humour has gone?
Is there sense of humour in heaven?
J: I think there is, coz God himself has an awesome sense of humour.
Obviously, H got a lot to say. I believe the main reason is that he is no longer in our company... so he can slack a little bit more. :D
W: I must be terribly brain damaged, cause I have a shocking memory!
R: I choose not to attempt to answer the unanswerable.
Although isn’t it pretty much scientifically accepted that memories are in your brain – I think I read that somewhere
J: Nope. There is actually no proof that memory is in our brain. There is proof that damage what part would affect what faculty, and when thinking of what then which part of the brain use more energy. However from that we cannot deduce memory is locate in the brain.
M: Yeah, you probably read it in New Scientist and not New Philosopher :p
H: I’m curious about 1ai – i.e memory is in your brain, but have a soul. (I’m in this camp)
But, if your soul leaves your body, do you not remember anything then?
What about people that have near death experiences where their soul apparently leaves their body, and they come back to life and have a story to tell (retelling what they saw in the afterlife etc).
Where abouts were these memories stored?
Also, isn’t a lot of your memory which makes you who you are? But isn’t that also your soul?
My theory is that in this physical world, you need physical things for things to work, i.e cells in your brain to remember things.
Is that also why God works through naturalistic ways most of the time? Maybe the rules of this universe just require it.
But outside of that dimension – maybe the soul can take over in its own way in a way that we don’t understand.
A: Like… when the soul is going to leave the body it backs up what’s in the brain and goes into working offline mode?
Then it comes back and syncs with the brain whatever experiences it had “out there”
H: Yes exactly – maybe it’s that :P
And it does a sync when it comes back into dock.
I reckon that our body/brain is like a physical representation of our soul. So we as a person are essentially a soul, but because of the limitations of the physical world, God had to use infinite intelligence to construct pretty basic chemicals all together is ridiculously complicated combinations in order to mimic what the soul is capable of.
Can’t really think of a good example, but maybe it is like a piece of software, you have the complete program written in an abstract language – but when it comes to the grind, it has to be twisted around and converted to total other dimension (language) that the machine understands (in a series of 1’s and 0’s).
i.e it has to be compiled to suit whatever environment (dimension) it is operating in!
That’s something interesting to think about.
Our entity is outside this dimension that can be transported to any other dimension with totally different rules as long as we have the correct compiler :P
J: I believe our memory is in our soul, where brain is the tool for revealing/retrieving memory. So for brain damage, it should be damaging the channel or the retrieving device for a particular part of the memory in the soul. Memory lost indicates a blockage in the channel or maybe a short circuit in the device.
H: That’s a pretty interesting theory too.
I like it.
Also makes you think about someones personality, i.e people think it is 50% nurture, 50% nature. I.e 50% is your genetics and 50% is your life experiences.
So, continuing my last thread - we are like a database, where the schema/stored procedures are like our dna, and the data is our life experiences!
To get output though, you need a combination of the two!
So really, before we export to another dimension, we have to do a full database backup (including data/memory) as schema alone just wouldn’t be enough.
S: I think I tend to agree with H on this one. What good are memories? The allow you to recognise people (physically), they provide a basis for judgement, they help you decide whether or not to trust people or love people, they help you to code in C#, allow you to remember how to drive, what to eat, what will kill you, what won’t. They are effectively your way of knowing how to live in this life.
So perhaps they don’t belong to the soul at all. Surely I don’t need them when I die. What good is remembering how to drive after I die? Or remembering that I owe Robert $1. If we are in heaven surely I don’t need to remember if you murdered my mother or not?
In this life I love my mother more than I love your mother. In this life, the way I feel about people is determined by my memories of them. In the next life, aren’t I going to love everyone the same?
J: However if we do not bring any memory to the judgement after death, if someone were told that he/she has done something really bad and he/she didn’t truly receive God, that person may have no idea what God is talking about and cannot feel the responsibility on anything he have said about him/her.
S: Why would we need to feel bad at Judgement – wouldn’t it be a little like, ok fair enough – but why are you telling me now? What can I do about it?
A bit like now if someone told you that you had been a bad toddler because you spat out your food. As an adult you know that is bad manners, but as a toddler you don’t understand. Surely judgement will be the same – ‘I didn’t understand!’.
Are we meant to live our eternity in heaven in guilt for what we did on earth while we were still toddlers?
H: It would be really interesting to dig up some bible verses that indicate whether you still have your earthly memories or not.
I’m sure they are around.
Say though, if someone hung around Jerry Seinfield lots and ended up having an awesome sense of humour because of it and it sort of integrates into your personality until it is integral to who you are, and people like you for it – and you like your new you.
But then, but isn’t this learnt “you” part of your memories almost?
Would this be stripped away – and then people wonder where your sense of humour has gone?
Is there sense of humour in heaven?
J: I think there is, coz God himself has an awesome sense of humour.
**************************************************
Obviously, H got a lot to say. I believe the main reason is that he is no longer in our company... so he can slack a little bit more. :D
Where is your memory?
1) your brain
2) your soul
3) somewhere else (be specific)
1a) Do you have a soul?
i) yes
ii) no
1ai) What's the role of your soul if the memory is in your brain? Do you really need a soul in this case?
1aii) Cool, you are a materialist. That's fine.
2a) What does your brain do if the memory is in your soul? What would you say about brain damage, memory mess up or memory lost?
3) So where is it?
2) your soul
3) somewhere else (be specific)
1a) Do you have a soul?
i) yes
ii) no
1ai) What's the role of your soul if the memory is in your brain? Do you really need a soul in this case?
1aii) Cool, you are a materialist. That's fine.
2a) What does your brain do if the memory is in your soul? What would you say about brain damage, memory mess up or memory lost?
3) So where is it?
等候
今天我帶了布仔上班。出門時小王子叫我放下，我才不要呢。剛過了的週末，所謂地獄式的讀書告吹了，唯有今晚和明晚努力努力吧。
小王子的教會有某個問題。當他說有人說"巴不得。。。"的時候，我問他到底說這話的人背後是甚麼意思。是要從此失去一只羊，還是最好把問題送到別的教會？為甚麼不是解決這個問題？教會有甚麼理由可以如此？小王子答了一個violation，我贊成；但我指出那只是給他們找到的把柄，並不是問題的本身，也不是激起"巴不得。。。"的原因。小王子說那也是原因，我說若不是因為問題的本身，最多這個原因只值一個溝通溝通。說給足面子也是笑話。只不過是當時他們想不到怎樣應對有備而戰的話題，及後想到了一些，已死無對證，就說給足了面子。就是因著那個原因而行駛那種權力，其實也沒甚麼意思，這個問題依然能在日後同樣的情況下出現。想想我現在這種身份，也有足夠的權去引發同樣的問題，所以這個解決辦法不能解決些甚麼。我絕對明白這樣的問題是怎樣的難堪。前兩年在小王子的教會的退修營裡我為著當時我教會內類似的問題哭了起來，愈是著緊，愈是傷心。有時候真的只能等候。
至於我們要去不同教會的問題，隨著諸聖中文堂行政上溶入英文堂，主日學和英文主日學溶合，剎那間我心理上的擔子輕省了。由教會變成附屬團契，對長期沒有合資格的牧者的中文堂只有好處，我們一家所要負的壓力也少了很多，順道還解決了類似小王子的教會(但十倍嚴重)的問題和小王子的教會的問題所延伸到我們教會的問題。我也可以較放心去小王子的教會。再加上小王子的教會分設了英文部，因著部份行政獨立，我也好過些。為一個圓滿的解決方法，祈求了很多很多次；我們自己費心想了又想，還是無法想到一個可行的。
但我還是叫小王子的教會做"小王子的教會"，而不是"我的教會"，也沒有打算改變。
小王子的教會有某個問題。當他說有人說"巴不得。。。"的時候，我問他到底說這話的人背後是甚麼意思。是要從此失去一只羊，還是最好把問題送到別的教會？為甚麼不是解決這個問題？教會有甚麼理由可以如此？小王子答了一個violation，我贊成；但我指出那只是給他們找到的把柄，並不是問題的本身，也不是激起"巴不得。。。"的原因。小王子說那也是原因，我說若不是因為問題的本身，最多這個原因只值一個溝通溝通。說給足面子也是笑話。只不過是當時他們想不到怎樣應對有備而戰的話題，及後想到了一些，已死無對證，就說給足了面子。就是因著那個原因而行駛那種權力，其實也沒甚麼意思，這個問題依然能在日後同樣的情況下出現。想想我現在這種身份，也有足夠的權去引發同樣的問題，所以這個解決辦法不能解決些甚麼。我絕對明白這樣的問題是怎樣的難堪。前兩年在小王子的教會的退修營裡我為著當時我教會內類似的問題哭了起來，愈是著緊，愈是傷心。有時候真的只能等候。
至於我們要去不同教會的問題，隨著諸聖中文堂行政上溶入英文堂，主日學和英文主日學溶合，剎那間我心理上的擔子輕省了。由教會變成附屬團契，對長期沒有合資格的牧者的中文堂只有好處，我們一家所要負的壓力也少了很多，順道還解決了類似小王子的教會(但十倍嚴重)的問題和小王子的教會的問題所延伸到我們教會的問題。我也可以較放心去小王子的教會。再加上小王子的教會分設了英文部，因著部份行政獨立，我也好過些。為一個圓滿的解決方法，祈求了很多很多次；我們自己費心想了又想，還是無法想到一個可行的。
但我還是叫小王子的教會做"小王子的教會"，而不是"我的教會"，也沒有打算改變。
14 June 2007
Euthyphro dilemma: Open to discussion
"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
In monotheism terms:
"Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"
If we take the first horn of the dilemma, then we seem committed to the idea that "goodness" precedes God and limits the sorts of things he can command. It infringes upon his sovereignty and omnipotence since it makes his willing subject to an independent moral form. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.
If we take the second horn of the dilemma, then "goodness" seems arbitrary: if "goodness" comes to nothing more than "willed by God" and if God can will anything, than anything can, in principle, be good. Also, it implies that calling God good makes no sense.
********************************************************
I have my opinion on this dilemma but let me discuss that later. Tell me what you think first.
In monotheism terms:
"Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"
If we take the first horn of the dilemma, then we seem committed to the idea that "goodness" precedes God and limits the sorts of things he can command. It infringes upon his sovereignty and omnipotence since it makes his willing subject to an independent moral form. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.
If we take the second horn of the dilemma, then "goodness" seems arbitrary: if "goodness" comes to nothing more than "willed by God" and if God can will anything, than anything can, in principle, be good. Also, it implies that calling God good makes no sense.
I have my opinion on this dilemma but let me discuss that later. Tell me what you think first.
13 June 2007
12 June 2007
發夢
我常常發夢，並會記得自己發甚麼夢。我的夢都是奇怪的，無論是建於現實還是荒誕，都鐵定不會發生。而且，九成九沒有滿足我任何希望，除非真的有完全無從稽考的repression吧；我相信是Freud搞錯了。
據說常發夢是睡得不穩，我倒是沒甚麼感覺。
據說常發夢是睡得不穩，我倒是沒甚麼感覺。
天黑黑
這幾天的blog post都是英文，我也不知道為甚麼，就是提不起勁來打中文字。直到發現自己都是在打英文，覺得很納悶，卻又想不到說些甚麼。
最近我過得不怎麼好，但若被問及為甚麼，我猜我是不能說一個大概的。生活嗎？愛情嗎？工作嗎？考試嗎？都沒有甚麼特別。一個人過得好不好，其實主要在心態吧；現在正是心神恍惚的時候，所以過得不太好。也有可能是與天色掛勾；一早離家是黑黑的天，一晚回家也是黑黑的天。間中有驟雨，晚晚來風急。怎會有好心情呢。
忽而想起一件事，星期五晚團契有祈禱的時間，我們那組為右手邊的人祈禱。AM在我的左手邊，說感謝神賜開朗的性格給姊妹。是嗎。有時候我很懷疑我是真的有開朗的性格，還是因為認同了人心的黑暗與死亡的既定，故對事情抱沒甚麼大不了的態度。很興奮是很陰霾的極端，而我總走向兩極，或者只是為了逃避受傷。脫線和分身我都不喜歡看見，但一大班人在我四周時我總不能平衡。不太懂得和人相處，我想這不能算開朗吧。不過應該不難看得到我很努力與正常相容。
我跟小王子說我和某人很像，只是黑暗版吧。
最近我過得不怎麼好，但若被問及為甚麼，我猜我是不能說一個大概的。生活嗎？愛情嗎？工作嗎？考試嗎？都沒有甚麼特別。一個人過得好不好，其實主要在心態吧；現在正是心神恍惚的時候，所以過得不太好。也有可能是與天色掛勾；一早離家是黑黑的天，一晚回家也是黑黑的天。間中有驟雨，晚晚來風急。怎會有好心情呢。
忽而想起一件事，星期五晚團契有祈禱的時間，我們那組為右手邊的人祈禱。AM在我的左手邊，說感謝神賜開朗的性格給姊妹。是嗎。有時候我很懷疑我是真的有開朗的性格，還是因為認同了人心的黑暗與死亡的既定，故對事情抱沒甚麼大不了的態度。很興奮是很陰霾的極端，而我總走向兩極，或者只是為了逃避受傷。脫線和分身我都不喜歡看見，但一大班人在我四周時我總不能平衡。不太懂得和人相處，我想這不能算開朗吧。不過應該不難看得到我很努力與正常相容。
我跟小王子說我和某人很像，只是黑暗版吧。
Nerdy Nerdy
THAT brother was giving me a hard time again today. Well, have to say it's not their problem, but some old stupid problem we have here, dated back to 2005.
Aquinas, Finnis, Austin, Hart, Realism, Formalism, Dworkin, CLS, Raz, Inclusive Positivism... How am I going to answer 4 questions out of these? Guys, don't try to get me out on Saturday. This is much more to study than PofS. I have to turn myself into a nerd, a nerd, a nerd... you are a nerd Jacq, you are a nerd...
Aquinas, Finnis, Austin, Hart, Realism, Formalism, Dworkin, CLS, Raz, Inclusive Positivism... How am I going to answer 4 questions out of these? Guys, don't try to get me out on Saturday. This is much more to study than PofS. I have to turn myself into a nerd, a nerd, a nerd... you are a nerd Jacq, you are a nerd...
Comment moderation
Ah, I have turned comment moderation on, for some not-so-obvious reason. Anyway, if any of you say "I hate you" or "You are terrible" etc in the comment, I would approve it only when I have a good mood.
You are warned. :D
You are warned. :D
11 June 2007
如果你愛我
在這一刻 讓我於高處跌下而無懼怕
如你愛我 用你的方法承受承受我嗎
但你沒有答話 相信仍在尋覓對白
有些細沙 令一室空氣現在混濁了吧
難得一刻 讓我將真相透露如同病發
如你愛我 用你的一切明白明白我嗎
但我沒有說話 不算疲累 仍舊坐下
轉一個彎 讓灰色知覺慢慢如微塵降下
如你愛我 用你的方法承受承受我嗎
但你沒有答話 相信仍在尋覓對白
有些細沙 令一室空氣現在混濁了吧
難得一刻 讓我將真相透露如同病發
如你愛我 用你的一切明白明白我嗎
但我沒有說話 不算疲累 仍舊坐下
轉一個彎 讓灰色知覺慢慢如微塵降下
Feeling bad
I am feeling miserable. All because of brother -- not my brother. THAT brother. There's a live problem we cannot reproduce locally, and there's no error or message logged anywhere. I am feeling so bad now.
On Saturday night I was feeling miserable as well. It has nothing to do with work or study. It was sparked by a small thing, then I became hysteric. We went home. My mood just went down to the bottom of the valley. We were watching rugby on Prime, then when ads were on, I started to cry silently but unreasonably. After a while I was kind of settle, and started to discuss with little-prince about my reaction. Little-prince said I should have gone to see psychologists although I don't have hysterical reaction that often now. Well, I don't think i really have a problem, and I don't believe in psycho people anyway.
08 June 2007
P of S exam
Today I've my philosophy of science exam. Since I have to pass the exam, all three questions I have answered are "safe questions", i.e. they are questions about "what is" rather than "why is" or "what do you think". Safe questions usually guarantee that you'd have certain marks given you can spell out what's in the course book. Unsafe questions are more interesting, but can't guarantee you'd pass. Especially people like me who probably will answer in a skeptic way although the markers (R & A) have a completely different point of view and are looking for completely different answers. People say given you have strong reasoning you will always get good marks, yet I tell you, it doesn't work.
The two questions I really want to answer were about Individualism/Holism and theory laden/neutral observation.
The two questions I really want to answer were about Individualism/Holism and theory laden/neutral observation.
Nothing's really logical in beliefs
I am quite annoyed when people try to persuade others to believe in Christianity by claiming the arguments they make are "logically followed". No religion in the world can be logically followed, if you understand that "logically followed" means a deduction. if we talk about validity, all these statements are not valid. However they can be logically probable.
Many people never understand why someone has certain beliefs. Most of the time we believe in something not because it logical follows, nor it does have very strong support. Oh yeah, of course in theory it sounds great if all of us only believe in something known to be true or say have deductive support to be true. Nevertheless this is not the case. How often do we have deductive reasoning for our beliefs and actions? Why would we believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning? Why would we believe that all living things in the world are going to die some days? There's never a deductive reason for all these believes.
Therefore I never argue with people about how sensible or how logical Christianity is. Non-Christian would not believe in our God just because the argument "sounds reasonable". It's something you have to feel in order to accept.
P.S. Note that, something logically followed (deductively valid) does not imply that it is true, well, basic logic 101 knowledge. e.g. ((p->q)^p)->q, but p may be false.
Many people never understand why someone has certain beliefs. Most of the time we believe in something not because it logical follows, nor it does have very strong support. Oh yeah, of course in theory it sounds great if all of us only believe in something known to be true or say have deductive support to be true. Nevertheless this is not the case. How often do we have deductive reasoning for our beliefs and actions? Why would we believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning? Why would we believe that all living things in the world are going to die some days? There's never a deductive reason for all these believes.
Therefore I never argue with people about how sensible or how logical Christianity is. Non-Christian would not believe in our God just because the argument "sounds reasonable". It's something you have to feel in order to accept.
P.S. Note that, something logically followed (deductively valid) does not imply that it is true, well, basic logic 101 knowledge. e.g. ((p->q)^p)->q, but p may be false.
06 June 2007
我們都要成為過去
婆婆的肝也有癌細胞了，第四期，醫生說約有半年左右；媽媽遲些可能回去看看。
「我們一生的年歲不過七十，健壯的可能到八十；但所得的只是勞苦愁煩；生命轉瞬即逝，我們都要成為過去。」
其實生命是否真的有一種實質的存在，也是一個疑問呢。
「我們一生的年歲不過七十，健壯的可能到八十；但所得的只是勞苦愁煩；生命轉瞬即逝，我們都要成為過去。」
其實生命是否真的有一種實質的存在，也是一個疑問呢。
05 June 2007
Hypothetico-Deductive method
Popper's theory of corroboration
E is a severe test of T with respect to background theory B:
S(E,T,B) = Defn prob(E,T) is much greater than prob (E,B)
NB: prob(E,T) is probability of evidence E given theory T; prob (T,E) is probability of theory T given evidence E
If it's true for the severe test, then the prediction P is said to corroborate theory T.
Degree of corrooratuib of T by E with respect to background theory B:
Corr(E,T,B) = Defn [prob(E,T)-prob(E,B)]/[prob(E,T)+prob(E,B)]
(worst case -1 and best case +1)
Given a number of theories of which T has the highest degree of corroboration, should one use T for the purpose of prediction, or of action, rather than one of the other less well corroborated theories? The dispute here concerns the problem of induction. Popper rejected induction, but cannot avoid it entirely.
David Hume's problem of induction
Hume's problem for induction
1) If we are to justify the belief in any conclusion got by reasoning, then we will have to give some argument from premises to that conclusion.
2) Either the argument is deductive of inductive.
3) If the argument is deductive, then it is said to be unproblematic.
4) If the argument is inductive then it can be given either (a) a deductive reconstrual or (b) it remains inductive.
5) If (a) then this is unproblematic.
6) If (b) then we assume that we have a justification for the inductive proof.
7) But this is just what we are looking for, a justification of inductive inference; (6) assumes what we are to establish.
8) So the search for a justification either head off on an infinite regress, or it is circular in that it appeals to some other inductive form of reasoning.
Hume's conclusion
We must believe the conclusion of inductive inferences; but we lack a rational justification for believing the conclusion.
1) If we are to justify the belief in any conclusion got by reasoning, then we will have to give some argument from premises to that conclusion.
2) Either the argument is deductive of inductive.
3) If the argument is deductive, then it is said to be unproblematic.
4) If the argument is inductive then it can be given either (a) a deductive reconstrual or (b) it remains inductive.
5) If (a) then this is unproblematic.
6) If (b) then we assume that we have a justification for the inductive proof.
7) But this is just what we are looking for, a justification of inductive inference; (6) assumes what we are to establish.
8) So the search for a justification either head off on an infinite regress, or it is circular in that it appeals to some other inductive form of reasoning.
Hume's conclusion
We must believe the conclusion of inductive inferences; but we lack a rational justification for believing the conclusion.
惰性
上星期五買了House的season one，已經看到第四隻DVD了。星期日晚小王子沒有陪我吃飯，所以承諾買season two給我。嘿嘿，我沒有想過自己買，一早想好了要小王子買的。小王子說Hugh Laurie的樣子他已記得很熟，因為最近見得太多，好像天天都有House看似的。
這個星期五考試，看了全部Notes的一半。。。也沒有。太懶了。。。
這個星期五考試，看了全部Notes的一半。。。也沒有。太懶了。。。
今日聽了的歌
可能我真的有點out了。偶然地聽到江若琳的《傻豬》，很難聽。然後我看了那個MTV，很嘔。我可能太老了。王菀之的《面具》填得比以前的歌踏實很多，雖然沒有驚喜，還有點商業化，但至少她作的詞有進步。有時候從簡單開始是最好的，一開始想要寫林夕那種實在太操之過急。SHE的《中國話》讓我想起以前學平仄，學五言和七言絕詩和律詩的時候；台灣倒是對這首歌很感冒。我對盧巧音就肯定偏心的了，很喜歡《愛到不能》。也是對周耀輝偏心的，所以泳兒的《黛玉笑了》當然也是好的。鄭秀文的《Mi》是陳少琪的典型作，剛好何韻詩的《幽默感》也是Wyman的典型作。關心妍的《送舊迎新》由林夕操刀，我就覺得不及Jade Loves裡的歌了，當然可能也是偏心吧。
03 June 2007
It's complicated
It's complicated. Sometimes I have no idea what myself is looking for. It's all me, just me.
胡扯
朋友R有了三個月身紀，這麼急呢。匆匆的結婚，匆匆的有小孩(不肯定次序，哈哈)，比我還小的朋友呢。。。不過我有一個朋友M，在我們二十歲左右就結了婚生了仔(也是不肯定次序的)，唉~大家都很匆忙的，不知趕甚麼。我媽叫我不要生了，因為我們的下一代會很慘，正當我們很迷惑為甚麼的時候，她說是因為Global warming；我想起了NS裡一個讀者去信說殺了所有牛羊就不會有global warming了，然後下面有一小格漫畫，兩隻牛說我們吃牠們，現在還怨他們放屁了。
世界這麼亂，人心這麼險惡，連nature也在投訴了。
世界這麼亂，人心這麼險惡，連nature也在投訴了。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)