Sunday we had class outing!
The nicer parts, to me, are pooling and the time at the beach. I got a few ultra tyco shots (4 balls in a row... for a person who only went pooling 3 times). And shaosheng had the ultimate shot: there were two balls of his own colour right in front of the hole at the corner, and his cueball was right behind the two balls. He took a shot, and the cue ball jumped over the two balls and went into the hole...
At the beach we played frisbee and card games, then rode the tandem with yan an. Talked quite a bit with him on the way. When we came back, we played murderer. The longest game we had was when sarge was the murderer and nobody could tell whether he was winking or not.
After that we went to the beach, as libing was quite... erm... persuasive... in telling us how nice the beach was. At first we just went to the breakwater. Then i went down to play with sand. Later libing built a sand heart with 6D written on it. I copied her and built a bigger, but not-so-nice heart. We built it close to the water so it was quite a challenge to prevent them from getting destroyed by the waves. Then we wrote our chinese names on the sand. Yishan's name isn't as easy to write as i thought. Kin wai refused to tell me his chinese name.
The sun set. We went to have dinner, but the place was kinda crowded, so we couldn't sit together at first. we only got a big seat with a shelter later. yan an treated us to chicken wing. some people had curfew, so they had to rush back home. played with sparklers by putting all the powder into a yakult bottle and adding zippo, then lighting the mixture up with a sparkler fuse. frankly speaking, the effect was kinda disappointing. The yakult bottle totally vanished after the 'fireworks'. then we went home. ='(
time passes fast when you are having fun.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Friday, February 03, 2006
What are the implications of assuming the Leibniz's theory of self (which I would call LTS)?
Note:
he refers to the person at any point in time, a conventional use of the word he.
"he" refers to the person at that particular point in time mentioned in the context. The point in time may not be explicitly stated, because doing so would break the flow of the discourse.
In my opinion, any theories of self are basically unfalsifiable, as long as they are logically watertight. This is because
1. People only know their own self.
2. People can only come up with a theory of something if they are very certain of a few examples and counter-examples
3. One can never be sure if something else is conscious or not, because only the conscious self would know if it is conscious, so you cannot make comparisons between conscious and unconscious beings, since you cannot be sure if anything is conscious or not.
4. One can never experience unconsciousness, thus one can never compare the state of consciousness and unconsciousness and attempt to tell the difference between the two.
Thus, in choosing which theory of self to adopt, one can only consider the implications, because the "correctness" of each theory doesn't come into the picture at all. In my opinion, the Leibniz's theory of self seems to offer the most pragmatic "solutions" to certain issues that one would need to confront at some point in his life. In the following paragraphs I shall briefly talk about my interpretation of the Leibniz's theory of self, and after that state certain implications of assuming such a theory.
The Leibniz's theory of self states that the self is a summation of every stage in the person's life a time progresses. A more logical way to put it would be that the self is a "definite integral of each stage of a person's life with relation to time, starting from the attainment of consciousness to the present".(Well, after all Leibniz invented calculus, so maybe that's what he was thinking of) This implies that the self is a different self after every infinitesimally small division of time (...okay alwyn, Planck's time) passed. Every change in the point in time, "I" vanished, and a new "me" comes into existence.
It seems that it would be easy for a person who assumes such an identity of self to "live for the moment", because indeed "he" only exists for that very moment, thus he ought to cherish every single moment in life. Yet, the way he chreishes it would not be a life with his future carefully plotted out and painstakingly realised, because he is aware that the life "he" is looking forward to may not be the life "he" would enjoy in the future. If he does plan for the future and sacrifice joy for it, "he" is sacrificing himself for another person in the future whom "he" believes is actually himself. This, to a person assuming the LTS, would not be rational, because putting off what "he" enjoys now would in no way benefit "himself".
However, this does not imply that the person would be rash and superficial. If the person was conditioned to seek joy from what he believes would happen, takes pride in working for a future goal, and fears the consequences of living an unplanned life, he would instinctively seek to work for the future. In this case, "he" is not working for the future, but working for the moment, because his belief in a successful future motivates him, and gives him joy at that very moment to work for it. If he does anything else, he would suffer guilt from the belief that not working for the future would lead to a worse future. Hence, his choice of working for the future is really one of the means of attaining joy. It would not be paradoxical for a person who assumes the LTS to plan for the future and work towards it.
The difference between a person who assumes the LTS and another eprson is that the former would not be willing to suffer too much to reach a future goal. If the sufference exceeds the difference between the pride of working and the guilt and fear from not working, he would not work towards his goal. It is simply not rational to trade off "his" own happiness for "someone else".
Another implication of assuming the LTS would be that the person cannot logically regret. This is because by seperating the identity of "himself" in the present and "himself" in the past, he realises that it is not possible for "himself" to have made any other choice in the past, simply because they are different people altogether, and given the same circumstances, different people would react differently. Hence, it would be illogical to blame "oneself" for the mistakes "one" had made in the past, because "he" in the present is helpless regarding his present circumstances, despite being aware of the correct choice. However, emotions precede reason. The natural guilt and frustration that sinks in due to a mistake in the past are all instinctive in nature. Such feelings of guilt would still prevail at times, thus it would not too surprising for a person who assumes the LTS to occasionally blame himself. The difference between a person who assumes the LTS and another person would be that the former can always "forgive himself" by rationalising, while the latter might not.
Following from the previous argument, if the person assumes the LTS for his own identity, he would also assume such for others (if he is not a solipcist, that is). If such is the case, it may not seem logical to bear grudges too. However, if a decision has to be made regarding the person whom the grudge is borne against, then that person must have changed in such a way that he would no longer make the decision in such a way that would had led to the bearing of the grudge in the first place. For example, if B had been tardy and uncooperative in returning a loan to A before, and now B wants to take a loan from A again, it would not be logical for A to lend money to B if B has not changed enough to make him more cooperative in returning a loan. Yet if B has changed enough for him to return a loan promptly next time, it would be alright for A to lend money to B. The problem with all this is that it would be near impossible for A to tell if B has changed "enough". In fact, A risks losing money if he lends money to B, and yet he doesn't gain much from lending money to B. Thus, in this case, it would be logical for A not to lend money to B again. It may seem like bearing a grudge, but it is really a logically sound decision that protects the interests of A. That said, not all grudges are logical. It was implicitly mentioned within this paragraph that if the person whom the grudge is borne against has changed enough to cause him to make a decision that would not lead to the bearing of the grudge in the first place, then the grudge bearer can allow the grudge to not affect his decision. For example, if A dislikes B because B is racist, and 10 years later, after serving in NS, and meeting many people from different races made him not racist anymore. A is in a position to decide whether to hire B or not. Since B had changed in such a way that B would not do the things that made A dislike B in the first place, A should not allow his perception of B being a racist to affect his decision on whether to employ B or not.
Perhaps the most important implication of assuming the LTS is that the person would not easily make promises. If someone says "I would love you forever.", according to the LTS, indeed, "he" would love her forever, but "he" in the future, with more knowledge of her and more experiences with other people, would have changed in such a way that the promise made by "him" in the past does not apply to "him" in the present. (Note, I could have instead inserted an "anymore" at the end of the previous sentence, but i didn't, and for a very good reason) Making a promise for the future would be like making a promise for someone else, and expecting that someone else to keep it. If he can empathise for a person having to keep a promise he wouldn't want to make, he would not make promises at all, if possible.
In my opinion, assuming the LTS would allow a person to free himself from many of the thoughts that may burden him, and at the same time, make logical and rational decisions regarding his own well being. With the added awareness of the irresponsibility in making promises, one would attempt to avoid making any promises at all. (if he ever faces the choice of getting married he would be forced to make a promise, and assuming the LTS would make him consider even more carefully about his decision) It seems to me that such a life is worth living for.
Note:
he refers to the person at any point in time, a conventional use of the word he.
"he" refers to the person at that particular point in time mentioned in the context. The point in time may not be explicitly stated, because doing so would break the flow of the discourse.
In my opinion, any theories of self are basically unfalsifiable, as long as they are logically watertight. This is because
1. People only know their own self.
2. People can only come up with a theory of something if they are very certain of a few examples and counter-examples
3. One can never be sure if something else is conscious or not, because only the conscious self would know if it is conscious, so you cannot make comparisons between conscious and unconscious beings, since you cannot be sure if anything is conscious or not.
4. One can never experience unconsciousness, thus one can never compare the state of consciousness and unconsciousness and attempt to tell the difference between the two.
Thus, in choosing which theory of self to adopt, one can only consider the implications, because the "correctness" of each theory doesn't come into the picture at all. In my opinion, the Leibniz's theory of self seems to offer the most pragmatic "solutions" to certain issues that one would need to confront at some point in his life. In the following paragraphs I shall briefly talk about my interpretation of the Leibniz's theory of self, and after that state certain implications of assuming such a theory.
The Leibniz's theory of self states that the self is a summation of every stage in the person's life a time progresses. A more logical way to put it would be that the self is a "definite integral of each stage of a person's life with relation to time, starting from the attainment of consciousness to the present".(Well, after all Leibniz invented calculus, so maybe that's what he was thinking of) This implies that the self is a different self after every infinitesimally small division of time (...okay alwyn, Planck's time) passed. Every change in the point in time, "I" vanished, and a new "me" comes into existence.
It seems that it would be easy for a person who assumes such an identity of self to "live for the moment", because indeed "he" only exists for that very moment, thus he ought to cherish every single moment in life. Yet, the way he chreishes it would not be a life with his future carefully plotted out and painstakingly realised, because he is aware that the life "he" is looking forward to may not be the life "he" would enjoy in the future. If he does plan for the future and sacrifice joy for it, "he" is sacrificing himself for another person in the future whom "he" believes is actually himself. This, to a person assuming the LTS, would not be rational, because putting off what "he" enjoys now would in no way benefit "himself".
However, this does not imply that the person would be rash and superficial. If the person was conditioned to seek joy from what he believes would happen, takes pride in working for a future goal, and fears the consequences of living an unplanned life, he would instinctively seek to work for the future. In this case, "he" is not working for the future, but working for the moment, because his belief in a successful future motivates him, and gives him joy at that very moment to work for it. If he does anything else, he would suffer guilt from the belief that not working for the future would lead to a worse future. Hence, his choice of working for the future is really one of the means of attaining joy. It would not be paradoxical for a person who assumes the LTS to plan for the future and work towards it.
The difference between a person who assumes the LTS and another eprson is that the former would not be willing to suffer too much to reach a future goal. If the sufference exceeds the difference between the pride of working and the guilt and fear from not working, he would not work towards his goal. It is simply not rational to trade off "his" own happiness for "someone else".
Another implication of assuming the LTS would be that the person cannot logically regret. This is because by seperating the identity of "himself" in the present and "himself" in the past, he realises that it is not possible for "himself" to have made any other choice in the past, simply because they are different people altogether, and given the same circumstances, different people would react differently. Hence, it would be illogical to blame "oneself" for the mistakes "one" had made in the past, because "he" in the present is helpless regarding his present circumstances, despite being aware of the correct choice. However, emotions precede reason. The natural guilt and frustration that sinks in due to a mistake in the past are all instinctive in nature. Such feelings of guilt would still prevail at times, thus it would not too surprising for a person who assumes the LTS to occasionally blame himself. The difference between a person who assumes the LTS and another person would be that the former can always "forgive himself" by rationalising, while the latter might not.
Following from the previous argument, if the person assumes the LTS for his own identity, he would also assume such for others (if he is not a solipcist, that is). If such is the case, it may not seem logical to bear grudges too. However, if a decision has to be made regarding the person whom the grudge is borne against, then that person must have changed in such a way that he would no longer make the decision in such a way that would had led to the bearing of the grudge in the first place. For example, if B had been tardy and uncooperative in returning a loan to A before, and now B wants to take a loan from A again, it would not be logical for A to lend money to B if B has not changed enough to make him more cooperative in returning a loan. Yet if B has changed enough for him to return a loan promptly next time, it would be alright for A to lend money to B. The problem with all this is that it would be near impossible for A to tell if B has changed "enough". In fact, A risks losing money if he lends money to B, and yet he doesn't gain much from lending money to B. Thus, in this case, it would be logical for A not to lend money to B again. It may seem like bearing a grudge, but it is really a logically sound decision that protects the interests of A. That said, not all grudges are logical. It was implicitly mentioned within this paragraph that if the person whom the grudge is borne against has changed enough to cause him to make a decision that would not lead to the bearing of the grudge in the first place, then the grudge bearer can allow the grudge to not affect his decision. For example, if A dislikes B because B is racist, and 10 years later, after serving in NS, and meeting many people from different races made him not racist anymore. A is in a position to decide whether to hire B or not. Since B had changed in such a way that B would not do the things that made A dislike B in the first place, A should not allow his perception of B being a racist to affect his decision on whether to employ B or not.
Perhaps the most important implication of assuming the LTS is that the person would not easily make promises. If someone says "I would love you forever.", according to the LTS, indeed, "he" would love her forever, but "he" in the future, with more knowledge of her and more experiences with other people, would have changed in such a way that the promise made by "him" in the past does not apply to "him" in the present. (Note, I could have instead inserted an "anymore" at the end of the previous sentence, but i didn't, and for a very good reason) Making a promise for the future would be like making a promise for someone else, and expecting that someone else to keep it. If he can empathise for a person having to keep a promise he wouldn't want to make, he would not make promises at all, if possible.
In my opinion, assuming the LTS would allow a person to free himself from many of the thoughts that may burden him, and at the same time, make logical and rational decisions regarding his own well being. With the added awareness of the irresponsibility in making promises, one would attempt to avoid making any promises at all. (if he ever faces the choice of getting married he would be forced to make a promise, and assuming the LTS would make him consider even more carefully about his decision) It seems to me that such a life is worth living for.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Thursday, January 26, 2006
indeed. so a theist can openly express his faith, and everyone else is supposed to respect that for "religions are sensitive issues". and yet the faith of a solipcist is considered disrespectful?
i do not see the importance of religious tolerance. i see how respecting other people's faith is critical to my survival and my well being. i see that might makes right.
indeed the time has come where we are allowed to question more. still, we are supposed to ask what the teacher want us to ask. nothing more, preferably nothing less. it seems contradictory to the idea of thinking out of the box. but, oh well, they give the grades, they call the shots, and so we shall obey, or we land into some kind of trouble.
i remember in p6 science prelims, there was an mcq question that contained a circuit. the circuit had the wire coiled around an iron nail, a wooden doll, and a part of straight wire. the question asked, which one of the above would attract paper clips? well, being the honest me i chose "iron nail and wooden doll". WRONG. answer is iron nail only. i was quite indignant, i showed a book i borrowed from the library and told the teacher that the wire coil would act as a solenoid, and it can still attract paperclips. "well, you are not supposed to know that anyway." indeed. and i didn't get my marks.
i remember in sec 2 exam, there was an mcq question that asks if a fish in water directly underneath a fly would see the fly as nearer, farther, or same distance away. i chose farther, because a fly still has positive horizonal dimensions, and a fish has two eyes. WRONG. the answer is "same distance away". why? i asked the teacher. i had no chance to speak. "i had told you so many times that when you are directly above you cannot tell the distance, and you got it wrong and serves you right!" next year i clarified the answer with my sec 3 physics relief teacher. he said that my answer was correct. and of course i never got my marks back.
i remember my sec 4 math performance task asking us for the velocity of a spaceship in terms of light years per hour. and no, the answer was not in decimal point with many zeroes in front. it was around 44 light years per hour. when i saw that question i immediately knew that it is physically wrong. oh well, they are math teachers and they probably know about the theory of relativity. it is a math question, not a science question, and i didn't like the idea of challenging a question that accounts for 40% of the marks for a performance task and getting it wrong "because you are not expected to know that", or "because you are supposed to apply what you have learnt". so i faithfully did the question, and got an answer that defies science.
and guess what? people who pointed out that the question is wrong got 2 bonus marks.
oh well, those we give the marks call the shots. whether "they" value creativity, or understanding of the syllabus, or the courage to stand up for the truth, ultimately your teacher decides your score.
indeed, such is the case, based on my experiences.
i do not see the importance of religious tolerance. i see how respecting other people's faith is critical to my survival and my well being. i see that might makes right.
indeed the time has come where we are allowed to question more. still, we are supposed to ask what the teacher want us to ask. nothing more, preferably nothing less. it seems contradictory to the idea of thinking out of the box. but, oh well, they give the grades, they call the shots, and so we shall obey, or we land into some kind of trouble.
i remember in p6 science prelims, there was an mcq question that contained a circuit. the circuit had the wire coiled around an iron nail, a wooden doll, and a part of straight wire. the question asked, which one of the above would attract paper clips? well, being the honest me i chose "iron nail and wooden doll". WRONG. answer is iron nail only. i was quite indignant, i showed a book i borrowed from the library and told the teacher that the wire coil would act as a solenoid, and it can still attract paperclips. "well, you are not supposed to know that anyway." indeed. and i didn't get my marks.
i remember in sec 2 exam, there was an mcq question that asks if a fish in water directly underneath a fly would see the fly as nearer, farther, or same distance away. i chose farther, because a fly still has positive horizonal dimensions, and a fish has two eyes. WRONG. the answer is "same distance away". why? i asked the teacher. i had no chance to speak. "i had told you so many times that when you are directly above you cannot tell the distance, and you got it wrong and serves you right!" next year i clarified the answer with my sec 3 physics relief teacher. he said that my answer was correct. and of course i never got my marks back.
i remember my sec 4 math performance task asking us for the velocity of a spaceship in terms of light years per hour. and no, the answer was not in decimal point with many zeroes in front. it was around 44 light years per hour. when i saw that question i immediately knew that it is physically wrong. oh well, they are math teachers and they probably know about the theory of relativity. it is a math question, not a science question, and i didn't like the idea of challenging a question that accounts for 40% of the marks for a performance task and getting it wrong "because you are not expected to know that", or "because you are supposed to apply what you have learnt". so i faithfully did the question, and got an answer that defies science.
and guess what? people who pointed out that the question is wrong got 2 bonus marks.
oh well, those we give the marks call the shots. whether "they" value creativity, or understanding of the syllabus, or the courage to stand up for the truth, ultimately your teacher decides your score.
indeed, such is the case, based on my experiences.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
libing said something extremely quotable today.
and inspired by jimr's tag, i shall post it!
LB: "why are u going on a diet? at this age it would make u shorter."
me: "i'm not missing out on anything. i'll drink milk for the food i'm not eating."
LB: "you can't get everything from milk!"
me: "milk is a complete food!"
LB: "nonsense."
me: "well babies drink milk and they grow so fast!"
LB: "you are not a baby. and besides they drink human milk. so it won't work unless u get someone... nvm."
and inspired by jimr's tag, i shall post it!
LB: "why are u going on a diet? at this age it would make u shorter."
me: "i'm not missing out on anything. i'll drink milk for the food i'm not eating."
LB: "you can't get everything from milk!"
me: "milk is a complete food!"
LB: "nonsense."
me: "well babies drink milk and they grow so fast!"
LB: "you are not a baby. and besides they drink human milk. so it won't work unless u get someone... nvm."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)