Foolishness of the Week IV (Yes, it's back again!)

In a certain (unnamed) magazine, a certain (unnamed) journalist used David Hume's quote concerning the rules for science and sophistry as a punchline against the credibility of religion in general.

Now old Dave Hume was a notable skeptic, and he never really liked the metaphysics of religion a lot, so one of his tirades against it, he wrote:

"If a theory cannot be observed by any of the 5 senses, or be verified by the laws of mathematics, then it is pure sophistry and should be consigned to the flames."

Promptly, however, on further thought, he went on to write something else. Upon reading the note, I called him honest and an intelligent man indeed.

In Your Head, Or On Your Head? - Reflections II

I spent a lot of time drawing in choir lately...when other sections were being grilled, and when it came to my section, I did my best to play a role in causing us to be dismissed from the grilling faster.

But I reflected that in some ways, the fine arts are very similar: The detail works must be intelligently drilled, not drilled in mindlessly. They had to be in the head, not on the head.

By in the head I refer to the fact that concepts at all costs must be memorized and understood fully, and then drilled out. You can't drill and hope people will understand. That is like dumping books on their head, and saying: "do them", and ignoring the question "why?"

Instead, it should be done by letting them understand fully what it is about, and what for it is there, and have them memorize it and record it just in case. Then and only then do you begin to drill them. Then they will have the ideas in their heads, and can get it right.

If they don't understand the concepts, drilling them will just let them know that you want them to do something, they will forget once in a while. Worse, they won't be able to extrapolate it, because they don't understand how it works.

But if they do know how it works, then not only will they be able to be drilled more easily, you will also find it easier to extrapolate the idea.

You can study very hard for a test, but still fail it because you don't understand the concepts and fail to extrapolate the ideas. But if you understand the concepts, it makes your life so much easier!

The Best is Yet to Be - Reflections I

SYF time rolls along again, and as per normal, the onus is on RV to bring the gold, as much as it is laid on every other CCA participating.

But are we just gonna go out there and get some GwH? Or is there something else?

A Gold is nothing really. It's just a reflection of your standard as far as everyone else is concerned. It may, or may not, reflect your standard as far as you are concerned.

The similarity? That it is not easy to get either one done well. The difference? That the first one is secondary, and the second one is primary. It's not only the gold we should be looking for, it is to attempt to realize our fullest potential at the stage we are at.

Some do their best, but only get a Silver. That "best" is their reward, more than the silver ever will be. Some slack off, but still get a Gold. But do they have that intrinsic reward, or the maturity to realize whether they even have it? Perhaps not.

Let us then, be CCAs in RI who can walk off proudly from the stage, satisfied, and still get our GwH for the bragging rights back at school. Now that's the perfect combo.

The Strange case of Me and Myself - EL Blog Post

Taken From: The Straits Times, 24/2/07
Title: New Media: A Case of Jekyll and Hyde

With the rise of the new age of technology, so too, follows the new age of crime.

Before, the crime was done in person, and belonged solely to those bold enough to do so in person, but today, improvements in cyber technology has given rise to a new breed of lawbreakers: Those emboldened and uninhibited by the supposed anonymity on the internet, and driven by peer pressure and/or the misguided belief that things on the internet are "free".

They think they aren't seen. They think they won't be caught. They think it's alright. Better, they actually don't mind going on like this. Best of all, they can be anyone.

There have already been many examples of such people, even here in Singapore, who have been caught on the wrong side of prosecutions for law infringements on the net. But yet, there are many who persist in such practices, and there are even those who have a “till the last thing is mine” attitude.

While the rise of technology has provided us many new benefits, as always, there are ways to misuse these benefits, and there are those who would exploit such opportunities.

For example, the email can be used to send emails, to share vital information, and even just to talk. Cameras are now installed in hand-phones, and there are now even tiny cameras available, for security and for convenience. But yet, the good aspects of these things, could, too be used for evil purposes, such as online scams, and to promote the notorious art of voyeurism, both now made so easy by technology.

Why then, is this happening? Why is there this rise of a morality of “It’s alright, it’s all free anyway, and it’s not that serious, I won’t get into trouble, so long as I’m not hurting anyone”? Why are people who are the average person normally, the criminal on the internet?

It has a lot to do with two things: Dishonesty, and Greed. It’s whether we have enough integrity as we think we do when no one is around to stop you. It’s whether we will settle for the things we already have, or if we want to succumb to the temptation of getting something we want but don’t have, and get it free.

In the eyes of these people, they think that when no one is watching, they can do whatever they want, and get whatever they want.

But “Code Blue is Watching Them”. In order to counter the rise of these “cybercrimes”, many IT consultancies are now working double time as cyber sleuths, seeking out and reporting these “cyber criminals” to the police. In addition, private music industries and even the MOE have been roped in to stem the Red Tide of cybercrime, through talks educating students, the most high-risk age group for cybercrime, about the dangers of illegal acts on the internet.

And as I said before, many here in Singapore (I shall not name them here) have already been arrested and sentenced to various punishments, for various crimes, such as stealing wireless signals, illegal downloading, cyber-voyeurism and the like, thus displaying, albeit in a very limited way, the effectiveness of the enforcement of the legislation

Alas, forbidden fruit tastes all the sweeter because it is forbidden.

Will these “preventive measures be successful, or will they all just go down the drain as wasted resources, or as the Chinese say it, be “taken as wind around the ears”?

In my opinion, it’s the people who are on the receiving end of these legislations, and their mindsets that matters. It really boils down to whether people will be willing to listen to these warnings, and refrain thereafter from these illegal acts.

Even if the legislature were to ban illegal downloading altogether, if the people’s hearts are not turned to the law, then it will either be rule by force, or just an empty shell of a law, with the occasional “example of what happens” cyber-martyr that makes ripples everywhere but where it would really bang a nail into the coffin of cybercrime: The minds of the people.

Only if there is a change of mindset, can there be a real change in the situation.

The Illusionary Idea of the Illusionary World

The idea that the world is illusionary is rather strange, at least the way I see it.

Given Set Theory, if the world is an illusion, then if you are within the parameters of the world, you are an illusion yourself, and therefore do not exist.

What on earth does anything matter to something that doesn't exist, and what on earth does something that doesn't exist matter to anything else?

Taking an example of escaping a situation of being under threat, you would require a self, a threat, and a freewill to escape. If any one or more of the three were an illusion, or if all were an illusion, it wouldn't make any sense anymore.

For example, if the threat were illusionary, there would be no logical need to escape it, and if you and the freewill were illusionary, it wouldn't matter if the real threat hit you anyway.

Best of all: How about the existent illusionary self, using an existent illusionary freewill to escape the existent illusionary threat.

You need existence to breed an existing freewill, and then again you need something existent to run from. There's no point in running if your freewill is illusionary, there's no point in running if you were, and there's no point running if the threat was an illusion too. And the argument would break down in itself if all of them were illusions. Ha, ha.

And another thing funny, is that people bother to think about such things, all the while assuming that they have existent, non-illusionary knowledge to illuminate the existent illusionary people of the world in an existent illusionary world.

Or, they make some cheapskate, non-provable, non-disprovable, intellectually dishonest idea concerning the absolute truth of their premise, which usually has no rational grounds whatsoever.

Checkmate.

The Foolishness of the Week III

A rather angry woman was sitting in on a sermon on the Meaning of Life. Rather angry with the pastor's statements about coherence and incoherency, she stood up and railed at him, "WHO TOLD YOU THINGS IN LIFE HAD TO BE COHERENT?"

The pastor looked at her in an amused fashion, but said rather seriously, "Ma'am, I have an answer for you, but would you like it coherent or incoherent?"

Oopsie Daisies.

Checkmate: Nirvana Lost

"Can one not need, and be free of all desire?"

At times, we may think life is so burdensome, that we want to quit, and we wish we needed nothing, and desired nothing.

It happened to me before, and I thought I could do it. Pity it was an illusion, a chasing after the wind.

Why? Why the end to such a desire?

Because it was a desire. I realised it was impossible for me to not need, or be free of desire, because I needed the desire to desire nothing as a premise, and then have the need to believe I need nothing as another premise, and also as the conclusion.

I couldn't do that without making a walking fallacy out of my life, so I gave up.

The Foolishness of the Week II

"There is no such thing as an exclusivistic truth, in terms of religion. Anything else would be epistomological arrogance."

Very funny.

One, truth by definition is exclusive. I can't say "I am me" and the next "No, absolutely not, I am my grandfather" and think that it is logical, that is ridiculous.

Two, they are assuming that "pluralism is the way to go in terms of religion" is the exclusivistic truth in terms of religion. Interesting, but a self-contained fallacy.

------NEXT FOOLISHNESS-----

Student: "Sir, How do I know I exist?"

Teacher: "And whom, shall I say, is asking?"

Even funnier.

For one thing, the student, if he didn't exist, couldn't have asked the question, and the teacher wouldn't have answered it, because he would never even have heard it.

For two, the teacher was purposely assuming he could hear the question from a non-existent person, but gave such an answer to inform the student of the fallacious nature of his question.