It turns out

So it turns out that Douglas Adams had this to say,

Incidentally, am I alone in finding the expression ‘it turns out’ to be incredibly useful? It allows you to make swift, succinct, and authoritative connections between otherwise randomly unconnected statements without the trouble of explaining what your source or authority actually is. It’s great. It’s hugely better than its predecessors ‘I read somewhere that...’ or the craven ‘they say that...’ because it suggests not only that whatever flimsy bit of urban mythology you are passing on is actually based on brand new, ground breaking research, but that it’s research in which you yourself were intimately involved. But again, with no actual authority anywhere in sight.

I'm convinced that every professor knows about this, and chuckle to themselves every time they use this phrase.

End of Entry

A note on believing

I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. -- Bertrand Russell

The thing that confuses me the most about most religions is the idea of "faith", the idea that one should believe in something without having (enough) evidence for it. Even more puzzling are those who tries to convince others of their God by telling them to "believe". If you step back for a moment, it becomes quite humourous, actually. Just imagine:

Person A: Believe in my God!
Person B: Ok.

What I'm really confused about is this: what does it actually mean for Person B to say "Ok, I've decided to believe in God"? Or rather -- does it actually mean anything? Do we really get to choose what sounds reasonable in our minds? Isn't what we end up believing based on the evidence that we have (i.e. our experiences) and how we interpret those? Thus to change our opinion on something, we could (a) bring out new evidence that we haven't considered, or (b) refine our methods of reasoning about those evidences.

I'm really curious about this -- do you think you can decide what you believe to be true? I don't think I can. Sure I can lie to myself, and I'm perfectly capable of pretend to believe in something. I can want to believe something, and notice myself biasing the evidence towards it. But deep down, I'd still know that it's wrong, that perhaps there's not (yet) enough evidence. This knowing is much stronger than the pretend-belief, and my hypothesis is that we all have this compass inside of us that knows how plausible things actually are.

Of course, I might be wrong.

End of Entry

Nostalgia: 雷锋 revisited

Some of you might remember this grade 1 reading, it's written by 雷锋*.

有的人总说工作忙，没有时间学习，我认为问题不在忙，而在于你愿不愿意学习，会不会挤时间。要学习的时间是有的，问题是我们善不善于挤，愿不愿意钻。

一块好好的木板，上面一个眼也没有，但钉子为什么能钻进去呢？这就是靠压力硬挤进去的。由此看来，钉子有两个长处：一个是挤劲，一个是钻劲。我们在学习上，也要提倡这种‘钉子’精神，善于挤和善于钻.

Translation, albeit with a loss of elegance.

Some people always say work is too busy, there's no time to study; I don't think it's about being busy, but about whether you want to study or not, and whether you know how to squeeze (make) time. If you want to learn things, there is time, problem is whether we're willing to make time.

A piece of wood has no holes on it, but why can a nail still squeeze inside? This is done by using pressure to force it in. Thus, the nail has two strengths: it can squeeze, and it can drill/pierce. When we learn, we should also use this "nail" mentality: willing to squeeze and drill/pierce (drive?).

*Or at least, it was purported to be written by him in his diary, which is full of "flowery language" praising of chairman mao and communism. However there are critics who believes that this is a fabrication. Doesn't matter in this context, though, I hope.

End of Entry

old quote

When you come to think of it, almost all human behavior and activity is not especially different from animal behavior. The most advanced technologies and craftsmanship bring us, at best, up to the super Chimpanzee level. Actually, the gap between say Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that Chimpanzee and the average human. The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher is rarely achieved. Why so few? Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress but rather this endless and futile addition of zeros. No greater values have developed. Hell, the Greeks 3000 years ago were just as advanced as we are. What are these barriers that prevent people to reach their fullest potential? The answer to that question can be found in another question, and that's this: Which is the most universal human characteristic, fear or laziness?

(from "Waking Life" 2001)

End of Entry