Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions. (David Borenstein)

There seems to be a slight contradiction here. If feelings are not logical, then one cannot rationalise his emotions. It would only seem so. Behind all his justifications, there would lie a decision made by emotion. (Think hidden premises.)

If feelings are not supposed to be logical, and one can still rationalise his emotions, then the writer of that statement is just making a value judgement. Not very useful info.

Since I believe that people cannot rationalise their emotions into a series of purely logical self-justifying statements, I would try to see how a person who seem to have rationalised his emotions can be dangerous.

I would consider a dangerous person to be one capable of causing much more harm than the average person. Now, how would a person who seems to have rationalised his emotions be able to cause more harm than the average person?

For one who seem to have rationalised his emotions, it would mean that he has a certain theory of emotion to account for all emotions. He uses emotion to judge what he should feel, and why he is feeling the way he does. The first is an arbitrary value judgement, and the second is based on the theory he accepted, which has no guarantee of being accurate. Hmm. A theory of causation may be helpful if you could use it to do something about the effect, but in this case it is unlikely. If he follows the evolutionary approach to derive a theory of emotion, then he can't do anything about his emotions, since it is already predetermined. If he follows the biochemical approach, then the most he can do is to take drugs to change his emotions.

Okay, if you can come up with something that allows you to control how you feel, then the following parts of my argument would fall... but the thing is, you can't do anything about how you feel. While your theory of emotion can affect your emotions, ultimately you can't control your emotions when your emotion surfaces. While you can stop yourself from hitting someone in the face when you are angry, you cannot help feeling angry given the situation. Telling yourself that there is no reason to be sad doesn't help much when you are sad.

So what makes a person who seems to have rationalised his emotions different from one who has not, if both of them ultimately judge by their emotions? If there is a difference, how might this cause the one who has rationalised his emotions(I would call him "the rational" from here on) to be able to cause much more harm than one who has not("the emotional")?

Since both of them judge by their emotions, we could propose that "the rational" base his judgements on emotions that tend to lead to harm-causing actions, while "the emotional" base his judgements on emotions that cause less harmful actions. What might cause this? It seems that "the rational" may have reached a conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the harm-causing emotions and is more likely to act by judgements based on them, while "the emotional" has been taught not to feel the way that would cause him to cause harm(and has not reasoned enough to refuse these teachings), and this has an effect of him being less likely to act by judgements based on "harmful emotions". This may result in "the rational" being more dangerous than "the emotional".

However, from here on, I cannot conclude that the people who have reasoned out their emotions are dangerous even if all of the statements above are true; that would be committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Indeed, if "the rational" has reasoned enough and he accepts that he should not act the way that his harmful emotions dictates him to, then a person who has rationalised his emotions may not be dangerous.

So, I don't really agree that the man who has rationalised his emotions is dangerous.

Random stuff.

Why is Juliet a linguistic phenomenalist?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."


How many times can bromine attack toluene in the presence of UV light?

Once, because after that it would be bromomethylbenzene.


One guy is playing computer games, but someone who needs the computer for work asks him to let him use, so the guy who needs it for work gets to use the computer while the gamer is kicked out. What do you call this?

Electrophilic substitution.


What do you call a woman with breast cancer?

Heterolytic cleavage.


What mechanism did Chairman Mao use to get into power?

Free radical substitution.


Why can't you believe everything Lincoln says?

Luks can be deceiving.


Ok no offense to anyone really. If you are offended by anything I'll take it down, but do state your real name.

How old are you now?

What makes a person seem younger or older (maturity, as I would term it) when you discount the statistics given about that person, his appearances and voice? Some people are physically older, but seem less "mature".

Firstly, I think the way the term "mature" is sort of defined as implies that it is a quality that we can find in older persons, so perhaps we shall see what this quality is, and how it is acquired.

We could first identify what qualities old people have, then see if given this quality and nothing else, this person can be considered as mature. If not, then that is not maturity. Otherwise, it *might* be (considering the syllogism it would be, but I cannot think of all possible counter-examples).

-Physical age: certainly not, old people with serious dementia?

-Lots of experiences: I would not consider one with lots of experiences but extremely cynnical to be mature.

-Amount of time spent thinking: This implies that people with or without experiences have the same potential of being mature. However, that does not seem to be the case.

-Independence: This is interesting. Could one be independent and not mature? But it seems like one could be mature without being independent.

-Pragmatism: On the extreme end of pragmatism, one could be cynnical, and cynnical people are generally not considered to be mature.

Okay I'm too lazy to think of more things. It seems like maturity isn't very easy for me to define.

So where does maturity come from? Does it come with age? I think this is certainly the case, because all mature people are of a certain age, and except in cases where mental diseases come in, there are no cases where a person becomes less mature as he grows up. Perhaps other things that come with age make a person mature.

Let's try a different route. Let's see the traits that mature people have and see how they might be acquired.

-Practical: They may have dreams, just like children, but they have an idea of how to achieve it.

-Sensitive: They are aware of how their actions can affect other people.

-Humble: They are aware that they are not so good at certain things and are willing to listen.

I think those are the most outstanding traits of a mature person. These traits have one thing in common: they are aware of something important. How did they find out about these: from experience or thought? It seems like only a combination of both can yield maturity.

So, in order for a person to "acquire" maturity, one would need to go out and gain exp, then think through these experiences. Reading would help too, because it enable a person to learn certain things without experiencing it himself. A person with lots of experiences may not be mature if they do not reflect on it. Analogy: In MMORPG games there are many people who are at a high level, but there are some who know more about the game than others. This comes from reading, thinking, and interaction with other players.

But is maturity something one would like to acquire? Mature people don't seem to be happy (though they seem less disgruntled than cynnical and weatherbeaten people), yet they don't piss others off either. While it is a good thing to have mature people around, is it a good thing to be mature? Perhaps immature people can bicker about petty things and be proud that they won a quarrel, but mature people don't get such cheap thrills. It may be harder for a mature person to be happy.

Yet is being happy the ultimate goal? Although the theory of hedonism can account for almost all behaviour, it is afterall a theory used to explain something that people can measure, and the "hedons" themselves cannot be measured. This theory is only internally and externally consistent; and this say little about whether it is true(it only means that it is not disproved until another better, testable theory is found).

So perhaps people can aspire to be mature, despite the consequences. Oh well, good luck and have fun. I would want more mature people around me. (No, this is not to say that people around me are immature. This sentence has somewhat the same effect as saying "I wish my boyfriend was richer.")

Existence

I think the idea of existence is kinda taken for granted. In fact, it is so fundamental that it seems difficult to explain what it is.

Why do we think that atoms exist? Or electrons? Or photons? It is because the idea of their existence can help to simplify a lot of things. Similarly, it seems that everything else also "exists" to account for our sense data. Existence is created by a thinker and observer. It is not something inherent in an object. Or rather, existence is part of our template of ideas.

So it would not be accurate to speak of something existing at any point in time when you are not directly observing it. It would make sense if it does, it would make sense if it doesn't, but whether something exists or not makes sense doesn't affect whether it really exists or not.

Fuzzy wuzzy doesn't like morals.

I was thinking of the idea of morality. Finding out what is moral and what is not is like guessing what fuzzy wuzzy likes. There are certain things that fuzzy wuzzy like, and things fuzzy wuzzy do not. Nobody would tell you what exactly emcompasses all the things that fuzzy wuzzy likes. Similarly, we grow up being taught what is moral and what is not, but nobody tells us what exactly is morality.

In the fuzzy wuzzy game, usually more than one person already "knows" what fuzzy wuzzy likes, and they would whack one or two people who don't. They'll throw them with things that fuzzy wuzzy likes and what fuzzy wuzzy don't. They would then hypothesize what fuzzy wuzzy likes. When someone gets it correct 10 times in a row, they can say that the guy "knows" what fuzzy wuzzy likes. So this person is able to play the game with others.

The interesting thing about the fuzzy wuzzy game is that nobody can be sure if the guy really got what fuzzy wuzzy likes. Nobody would tell you what is it that fuzzy wuzzy likes. The interesting thing here is that whatever fuzzy wuzzy likes is dictated by the people who have already gotten it. There is no assurance that fuzzy wuzzy really likes what they say fuzzy wuzzy likes. Even if the guy who "founded" fuzzy wuzzy disagrees, his voice would be drowned out by the majority who think they know what fuzzy wuzzy likes.

Likewise, we were taught what is moral and what is not. Yet, nobody taught us what morality is. They are probably not very sure too. This fuzzy idea of morality is passed down from generation to generation, and is dictated by the masses.

Alas, the rules to fuzzy wuzzy seems simpler than morality. I think, if there were a game with harder rules, it would be interesting to watch the progression of the rules from one generation to the next.

w00t! much joy! First time I score higher than average in my KI class!

One thing I recently read (ok I read very little so I make a big fuss about anything I read) was that the idea of rational behaviour in economics is a self-fulfiling prophecy. In behaviour tests, subjects who have studied economics are shown to be more self-centred than others who have not. Interesting. Perhaps if they have a before-and-after test it would be more conclusive.

If it is true that economics does make people more self-centred, that would be interesting to look at. Suppose a person who studied economics will become more self-centred, and he is "aware" that by studying economics, he would become more self-centred.

For this person, he may then have reservations about taking economics. The notion of being self-centred can be disturbing. To him, it would not be so much of a "realisation" that he is self-centred, but a transformation to become more self-centred. He might not want that. Hence, he might not take economics.

Yet, he may also be aware that by taking economics, he would become acquianted to the notion of being self-centred. So, whether he takes economics or not, he actually would not become relatively better-off or worse off. That statement was made, however, with the assumption that his becoming more self-centred or less would not make him better-off or worse-off, and that he was not already curious about economics.

It is too late to wonder if I should have learnt economics in the first place. Economics has changed me completely. I can longer think as I used to.

YES I can finally blog properly.

Why did I keep wanting to blog? Well, I had much to say about "The Interchange" (zhuan3 huan4 zhan4). For a person who has watched it, it is too good not to talk about.

The whole thing is made up of 4 parts. 1 short drama, followed by 1 crosstalk (xiang4 sheng), followed by another short drama, followed by interval, then big drama "The Interchange".

The first 2 were corny. And funny.

First one:

When they tried to be funny they were funny, and their mandarin is better than that in "lai2 ye4 fang1 chang2" I watched in sec 3(cannot be helped though, considering where the actors came from). However, the whole thing was so corny that the ending felt very... abrupt when they talked about less and less kind people in the society. It doesn't really matter though, the moral values part didn't seem to be important. I don't think Haoran would be very concerned about morals.

Second one:

Starring Deng Yufeng! Cool! I didn't know he would be playing such a major role. Recited some powerful tongue twister.

Third one:

Wasn't really impressed, because the mandarin was not pleasing to the ear. It's not their fault though, it is meant to be that way.

THE INTERCHANGE:

Okay... I admit I coined this term. There was no mentioning of any interchange in the ticket or advertistments, but nvm its zhuan3 huan4 zhan4 used literally. They were there waiting for some transport to send them to heaven or hell, so its an interchange nonetheless.

Anyway, the first thing that blew my mind away was the setting and the lighting. They had this white coloured eye drawn with one spiral on a black background, so even when the lights go out there is this afterimage of an eye. Pretty cool effect.

In the beginning the lights were flashing. Flashing very fast. They had people prancing around in the flashing light, so there was this stroboscope effect, where the people looked like they were moving in discrete units. (you could also say that their movements were quantized)


Some of the more memorable characters:

The Ah Beng. Or Ricky. Very interesting character. Very cheerful, despite being an unfortunate character. He was only important to the story towards the end, but he still managed to make the whole thing very comical throughout. He only became more serious when he discovered something about himself, and the moment he became serious the whole show was serious. Comic deflation at its best.

The Old man from hell. Extremely cool guy. When he speaks people would listen because he makes a lot of sense, and he seems very wise.

The Havard Graduate(alive). When I saw his parents hug his photo crying I couldn't share their misery because he had this huge grin in the photo which made me laugh.

The female Genie. It obviously came from Fiona Xie's role in "wo3 ai4 jing1 ling2". Good attempt. Close enough. Especially the voice.

The Mistress. The Mistress is a her(obviously), and Lian Sheng is a he(not-so-obviously).

And of course, the Mother! Two minute scene, scary enough. It would be interesting if her future child chances upon the videotape of this scene.


Some of the more memorable scenes:

When the Ah Beng saw that he was denied the prize meant for him, and the lights dimmed, the effect was... woah... could imagine the boss getting ggxxed. It was kinda sad for the ah beng.

The moment the bad guy walked into the office of the Havard graduate you could tell he is a bad guy. From his looks, the way he behaves, the way he talks. He just has the whole xiao3 ren2 feel. I hope he is not like that in real life. Imagine him trying to buy something from 7-eleven at 3 am in that make-up.

When the Havard graduate confessed to his online date. The memorable part was not all about the two of them, but also the Ah beng and the boss.


Some of the very impressive things was that they managed to move the props very quickly. When the lights were dimmed I couldn't see anything. They were not just moving black boxes, but also things like office desks(withs lots of stuff on them), sofa, arm chairs etc. They moved them quickly and silently. Good crew.


Overall, it was good! Worth the money and time. Time is money, so it was absolutely worth the money.

Not very random comment:

Let's imagine this.

Suppose A is a girl and B is a boy. And the convo goes like this:

A: What is your dialect?
B: I'm Cantonese.
A: *exclaims* OH I like Cantonese!

What do you think A is implying?

Note that in B's speech, "Cantonese" refers to a person.

Another not-very-random comment:

I'm amazed at how wangrui has the energy to blog after she performed. When I reached home from WATCHING the performance I feel asleep with my wax on. And woke up 2 hours later in the midst of asking wangrui how to do physics tutorial 6.

Yet another not-too-random comment:

I am proud of my past for having the courage to confess. I thank my past for helping me get over this.

Empathy

I feel for others. I wonder if you do. If you don’t, reject this whole thing.

I have no reason to feel for others. I just do. I would assume that you feel for others too from here on.

I shall not talk about why we feel for others; it would just be a speculation that cannot be tested. I shall just ponder over what I have observed. Once again, if you don’t agree with my observations, reject this whole thing.

I see someone suffer, and I feel sympathy. I hear someone get away with injustice, and I become displeased. I anticipate someone getting a dressing down, and I feel worried for him. I note that someone gets what I feel that he deserves, and I feel glad.

Yet does it matter if that someone exists or not? As long as you think that such a person exists you will feel that way! It doesn’t matter if there really is a person to sympathise for. So, crying when watching TV or reading a book seems justified.

An extension of this would be that all emotions related to interpersonal interactions could be triggered without the existence of the people. I can love, hate, or envy someone who doesn’t exist. Perhaps you say I shouldn’t. But if I do then that’s just what it is! (On a side note, quite some time ago Hong Jia said that she would marry Harry Potter if she could. But that is really quite some time ago.)

I’m really just interacting with concepts. I talk to them, play with them, combine them, and laugh at them. They are constructs based on raw data. Since I have no direct access to raw data, all I have is really just concepts.

If I wake tomorrow and I find that someone important to me doesn’t exist, I am okay if my mind just rejects it as absurd, like it does all the time to absurd connections. But the concept of that person remains deeply etched enough, I think I’ll be quite sad. I hope it does not happen. There aren’t many important people to me. If it does, I hope that person can vanish from my mind too.