夢: 鬧鬼學校失身記

我似乎是到了小學母校劉皇發夫人小學當代課教師，我在這裏工作近乎是最長的，又遇到一個樣子極像冰漓的Ivan/Irene，這裏有個都市傳說以為教師不能工作到深夜，這裏鬧鬼，不準時回到班房就會變成鬼再沒法回來，但我生性反叛，一向不理別人的勸告，就算我直覺以為真有其事也一於小理，我始終就是不相信這類東西。
這次我在康樂室留到夜深，其實也不是因為工作太忙，或者在和學生談話，我似乎只是在呆着，或者潛意識中就是想試一下要是過了深夜會有什麼事發生，說這是康樂室卻是過譽，這裏不過是有一張桌球桌，前面似乎用梳化圍了個半圓形(C字?)而已。不久，我就感覺不妥了，因為這兩個最後離開的學生給我的感覺像鬼，但我沒有伸手去摸他們來證實，因為在我的概念中，人和鬼是互相摸不到，不能互動的。而其實人之所以說鬼是鬼乃是相對於人而言，鬼同樣會說自己是人而這些自認是人的卻是鬼，就是當人在視覺上見到一件物件，例如我在桌上看到的一對不知是什麼的裝飾，即媽常常買一些只用來觀賞，不切實際的東西，總以為它會帶來什麼對應物理常識的觸感，而如果動念去對它做什麼動作，一般來說，它也會依視覺系統給我它當時的資訊再以合乎已知物理學框框以內的理論，假設我的手和它接觸了之後應有的反應而在視覺系統中顯示出來，不是像今次一樣穿越它而過，好像手是在推空氣一樣，這不合乎常理，於是我就當自己是鬼，而他們是人。我雖然有強烈的直覺但一般來說尚需要常識/理論的支持，我非常強調就是客觀性，或日公共物理現實，其實說穿了就是以多數人的感覺為依歸，例如明明我覺得他們是鬼，但因為他們一定以為自己是人，而又覺得他們一定覺得和我不同，鬼就是不同又可以觸摸到，或者是不會和自己反應的東西，他們有兩「人」而我只有一人，於是自然以他們為主當自己是鬼了，我就似乎是因為附和別人而失去了人的身份了。人鬼理應不是絕對，但在我感覺上卻是絕對的，我似乎預設了這個放在桌上的物件一定為真實而不是某種立體投影。我為什麼又不懷疑自己或者都是一個立體投影呢?我憑什麼去說這物件為假而我一定為真，不過是我永遠預設自己一定是對的，自己都不對就什麼觀察都不能作實了，還談什麼進一步推斷呢?
既然成了鬼，也就是說我完全自由了，理論上不要再備明天的課，也不用回班房的，剛才我就是不聽別人的勸告而變成鬼的，我其實不是感覺到別人是錯，只是凡事以自己為準。不過，雖然說是鬼就不用上課，我依然依習慣走樓梯回班房，這間康樂室說起來像小學製的觀星儀，或者像中學生物科的人眼模型。命運似乎是想繼續嘲弄我，於是當我在走長長的兩段樓梯時，它長不知是不是因為我心情沉重之故，有時連心情沉重我自己也不知不覺的，爸住的老人院主事就冒出頭來和我打聲招呼，我對人人都充滿敵意自然是不回應了。不過這裏明明是小學，卻又成了老人院，好像是小學人被老人院式管理，或者是老人院的管理似小學生。

Why Hydrochloric acid aren't classify as organic acid?

I can still remember the look of my F.4 Chemistry teacher when I ask him the question as stated in title.My thought is like this: Organic acid must related to what organism produce and secret, therefore we can assume any chemical found in any organism, that must be organic. However Hydrochloric acid is such an troubling exception to the rule. Only did later I found the accurate definition of ogranic acid as any acid contain the element of life: The all powerful Carbon. Why must they use this definition instead of mine?
Furthermore, I thought that natural is by definition resist classification, for order is what conscious mind impose to the universe.(Classification is what make conscious mind conscious.) Thus this could be taken as evidence against any variant of Intelligent Design/Creationism, since it would be difficult for any human being to imagine such an unogranized creator/designer.
Now, since inorganic substance could be produced by organic organism using mechanisms and rules of organic Chemistry, why can't we reverse the process for inorganic material to produce organic compound using inorganic Chemistry, logically speaking?

為什麼胃酸不是有機酸?

我中四時修化學提出的問題,既然胃酸是在人或哺乳類的消化器官分泌出來,為什麼它不如在生果中常見的果酸一樣,被歸類作有機酸?
此一問題一出,中四教化學的老師頓時啞口無言,後來他四處宣揚我是天才,大慨也因為此事。我後來才知道果酸被視作有機酸,因為它的化學成份有地球生命必不可少的元素:炭,炭特別的地方在於它是化學週期表第四,可化合出最大種類的化合物。
另一個想法是,有機和無機只是人類相當隨便的分類,想凡是自然過程而來的,則必不然能可清清楚楚的分類,如此是反駁智慧設計論最好的證據,因為人類意識的基礎在於分類,很難想像出如此「雜亂無章」的設計者;此外,我又想到如果有機的生物可以化合出無機的氫化氯(Hydrochloric acid),為什麼無機之物不可以用相反的過程化育出有機之物?有情孕育無情,無情自是有情!

Euler: The feeling I had when I shake your hand

Shall I call you the dearest person whom I want to give you the prefix Ms. C,

The day before yesterday I am standing outside the school you studied, eager to give you flower which I never gave any female before. I have already evaluated all possible consequence, include which you would outright reject me and throw the flower in the rubbish bin, then surely it is an relieve to me for this seeming non-reproached ‘love affair’ for 10 months. 10 months, what kind of man am I that can endure 10 months of your indifference toward me, and what is the motivation that propel me for that long period of time?

Now, it would be very old-fashion to said that is because of your unusual beauty, extraordinary intelligence, vast knowledge in Philosophy and Psychology, and Devil’s body that could drive any man crazy. Although in Psychology of Love, one or any combinations of above four factor could made any man infatuate with you so much he delude himself that you are the one, while at the same time deny the logic to be applied to other attractive females. However, none of above applied to me in this case, which is why I am writing this to you. In terms of my ‘Choice Theory of Love’, I think choice of love object merely as a conscious decision later with many unconscious attempts for justification. Forgive my poor expressive power, what I embedded in the theory is that it only describe the love process between layman and laywoman, that is to be distinguish from my idea of True Love.

For me, it is necessary for the True Love to have the quality of uniqueness and exclusiveness that can not be established/defended by logic, which is a feeling only hearts with organismic trust can comprehend. That is the shocking feeling I have when I shake your hand, which can never be explain by logic, reason, neurology of sexual arousal and psychoanalysis. I am a man mature enough to distinguish between the feeling of sexual arousal, excitement and infatuation; yet that is a feeling that is simply indescribable by any means of words. It satisfy the uniqueness and exclusiveness criteria that you as my ‘a prior’. I dated several times before, but however intimate we got, it is never as so strong, intense and shocking as the feeling of shaking your to me. To me, it is like the feeling of ‘Being one with Universe’, ‘Atonement’ or the peak of male orgasm; which the only comparable experience I had before is when I meditate in 16 which resulted in my ‘End of the World’ prophecy. It is the second time in my life, I thereby immediately know for certain that you are my Princess White.

What a shame on me to wait until this day to reveal that to you. Right at the moment I am in contact with your hand and look you in the eye, I literally shocked out of my conscious. If memory serves you, you must remember that dazing look on my face, silence and my unusually inarticulate speech to you. I call tell you never in my life my tongue is so tangled like that in front of a female, whether that person is my girlfriend or not. That is very unnatural to me. I dig into myself hard for reasons which I can never found, none of the physiological or neurological or psychological reaction from me that can happen just like lightening. Remember I never have any idea of who you are before, it is simply impossible for me to rationalize what happen.

All I could remember is, at the exact moment that happen. It is like a lightening strike into my mind. I could only remember images, visions and thoughts rushing into my unconscious mind like tremble. It is literally so much that my conscious mind can not handle and shut itself off. So I get the vague sense that I am in a dream-like state, and see the world like it was through glass, and I literally lost my soul. The sense of time is completely distorted, there appears to be two parallel time sequences going on: One in line with the physical time, another is running at extremely slow. My conscious is blurred, is that what people call Transcendence or Oneness with Universal Mind?

Then it just getting curiously strange, as soon as I try to recollect the whole experience I forgot them all, it is like my unconscious mind is actively blocking me from analyze any of it. Imagine my state of puzzlement in whole day, so I am distracted from the slogan of demonstration and all that, I simply can’t take my mind of that feeling even until now. From the limited evidences I collected, my conclusion is that my unconscious somehow ‘recognize’ you and take immediate action to shadow my memory of it. So later I even have difficulties in recognizing your face. My unconscious mind later repress this memory and downplay its importance to me on my relationship with you. So, forgive me, there was a moment in time I think astrology, numerology, Chinese astrology is the just the trick to get me to be in bed with you. I don’t know what really behind my unceasing effort of writing over 200 emails to you in a month before you reject me, with the later emails which contain more than thirty thousand Chinese character, which is 90% of all Chinese I ever written. It consume me over 200 hours of effort and countless lost of sleep. I am really amaze that the level of self-deception that my mind can afford.

Likewise, I think it is illogical that you don’t share at least a bit of my feeling when we shake hands. So your rejection of me after 1 month become the target of my wrath, since I think your unconscious is also playing tricks on you. You may just suppress this raw, primitive and feeling from the deepest recess of your mind like me, or you are so much fond of playing psychological games with other that you get lost in your own mind. When I look at the photos in your blog, I immediately get the sense of you being ‘Lost, Lack of Direction in Life’. Let me be the one who save your soul, who give your new direction and meaning in life, who make your life a walk in the heaven.

I never said such thing to any other female and I will never do so in the future. That is my promise and my swear. I recognize from the earliest day that we are two of a kind, just that you love the feeling of being lost in love affairs. You intentionally or unconsciously deny yourself the distinction between sexual arousal, psychological effect elicited by well organized situation and symbolism; and the Reckoning of Soul. My soul am deeply hurt by your careless words, and live only by the Hopes steaming from the Love of you. Please let our soul joined together in everlasting union.

My confidence in you that it is not as unsubstantiated as my hope for your love, because I belief once we joined hands, you simply can’t deny the feeling come directly from your soul. So you can never resist me. Our union would mean the completion of the sequence of destruction of this sick old world, and the forces from our bond can build the Heaven on Earth for all human being. All that begin with meeting of you in 7.1. demonstration, and end with your wise decision to join me. Do you want to bet on this? You got nothing to lost, I am willing to bet my whole life and everything on you. Would you like to find out the validity of my hypothesis?

I feel sad for you when you habitually trivialize the great phenomena of love as a merely a combination of the four factors in psychology, or a delusion afforded by our DNA for the sake of propagation of human animal through neurological mechanism. Thus you are self-deceiving and comprise your intellectual integrity by giving the uniqueness and exclusiveness to where it’s not due. Deep in your mind, you recognize every male that you are interested are similar to other males working hard to impress you, you just deny yourself this knowledge. I am the solution to this dilemma you created. Love base itself not in logic and rationality but gut feeling. Can you still feel your heart? Can you remember all of your feeling toward me right at the moment we meet?

In strict accordance to my own principles, I never said the same word twice. You can keep this in anyway, anywhere in any form you desired. This is the written proof of love from me, and I waive all my right to any change of terms.

The one whom lost his soul for you,
then waiting for you to give him back
Someone who love to call your soulmate

依然是非常重要的話—我生存不可沒有你

前天買了花,然後送花,誰不知香港的中學到今天依然是用隔離的方法去「對付外人」,似乎任何中學都承繼了中國的內外有別文化。外面=壞,內面=好, 以同一年齡來算比我還聰明的人,怎麼會選了如此的一間「介備深嚴」的中學來讀?在互聯網無孔不入的時代,基督教去管教「學生」的方法,依然是走不出舊式保守思想的死胡同。或者真的該問一問校長,我送花給一名中七的女生如何可以在消費感情的時代背景下如何腐敗其他學生?他的心理學理據在哪兒,有什麼研究支持?有沒有想到如此銷國式管治對中學生的壞影響?在外國,朋友之間也可以送花,收花不一定要在床上見,如此的思維邏緝,到底我是在太平天國還是香港?
結果今天我買的是玫瑰花,和前天買的花躺在我家,和我的一樣等死。當然是等死,沒有希望的人生,在沒有未來的都市,由沒有未來的國家統治,這是任何頭腦清醒的人都可以想到的。我的性格不是妥協型,不過據說學校再發現我的話會記你的缺點。我會以為,愛到迷頭迷腦的時侯,還理如此荒謬的操行來乾什麼?你不是真的以為以品學兼優,升上大學會有前途?你不是沒有修經濟的,知不知道供求定律?再者,你為了小小的操行而不理制度背後的合理性,你又如何稱自己為無神論者?不再想了,否則我又打算變掛放棄你。
我想我不可以天天以如此的方式去想念你,因為如此一來,我不單生活有問題,快要連生存都有問題,收不到你的回應,飯不下嚥,吃不甘味。可能戀愛是保持身裁苗條的一好方法,昨天吃不下,前天又吃不下,今天連煮都免了。我是如此情緒化的人,今天的工作量是零,寫給你的信是例外。我慢慢明白為什麼你是如此喜歡「和稀泥」愛情,既不甜也不苦,最重要是可以學業如常,生活如常,一切沉悶、無聊、反智如常;因為你怕受傷害,你不會想知道什麼是最好的食物都沒有味道, 甚至連餓飽都忘了的感覺。但沒有極悲,又如何有極樂呢?人要經歷極悲、極樂才可以算是完整的人,才可以成長,有我在你身旁,集我們兩位天才之力有什麼事是撐不來?如果你怕極悲、極樂,則你一生最好都不要談戀愛,你的冒險精神又去哪兒呢?你是對自己沒有信心,還是對我沒有信心?
我的真心話,愛上你而又得你的心令我很痛苦,但比起沒有愛情,不知方向的空虛,還是可以接受。還是老一句,你愛我一分,我愛你十分,你對我忠心,我比你更忠心,你背叛我,我必以千部來報複。我不怕發動一場世界大戰來得到你,就算是核子彈把我炸到灰飛煙消,我的心沒有一刻會離開你。世上只有你最配我,亦只有我最配你。
還再想什麼: 有花須折直須折,莫待無花無折技!

在你中迷失,再在你中找回自己的人

非常重要的說話—握你手的感覺

我最想成為我妻子的XX,

前天除了想送花給你,算是一種了斷,如果你當時當面拒絕我,我會傷心但會如釋重擔,10個月的擔子真的很痛。我想告訴您,是什麼原因可以撐我達十個月之久,想喜歡心理學的你一定有興趣知。
不是最老土的你有什麼不平凡的長相、過人的聰明、相當豐厚的心理學知識,又或者身材令人想入非非。一切單獨條件和組合對一般人都可以是十足的理由,就算他們對另一位異位有同樣的感覺,都會當前一位的感覺是唯一的。這是我提及的愛情決擇理論,意識事後為事前的決定找過漂亮的理由。我的用意是說,這只是凡夫俗子的愛情,沒有什麼深奧的唯一性及大智慧在內。你給我的是一剎那觸電的感覺,一種我在與異性握手以致拖手時都未曾有過的感覺,對我來說是非常非常的震撼, 說出來真羞家,我的潛意識一直壓抑了「我被這種感覺所迷」的全部記憶,我真的以為是紫微斗數的論據、星座、時辰八字、數字學、姓名學以致心理分析可以證明我們是天生一對。但我一直忘記了,這些只可以在事後證明是否合拍,將來的發展會如何,但沒有一個以至全部可以提供一個先驗的理由,提供不可以用邏緝分析推出來或排斥的唯一性。有一段時間,我也以為你只是我衆多的心理遊戲對象之一,我以為自己和一般凡夫俗子一樣,都是利用這些客觀的數字來堆磡和你上床的理由。沒讀心理學的人不會明白我在說什麼,一來是遺忘了這段經歷,二來更高超的手段是使我不自覺地把這段經歷當成平凡的事。

如此平凡的事,如此震撼的感覺,只發生了兩次,上一次是在我打座時看到的「世界未日」預言期間。如果你有一點印象,你會留意到我在握你手前後的反應是相當呆滯,而口齒亦相當不流利。我當時亦很納悶,就算是即時對你有好感,因而產生怕羞的感覺,亦沒有可能有這樣的快,和如此的入心入肺。我當時只覺得好像是打開了某一扇的心門,有大量不同的影像和思想湧進來,一時間我的意識完全不懂如何處理,而我又有仿如身在夢中的感覺,有點像三魂唔見了七魄,最奇怪的是時間有一點被歪曲了的感覺,忽然有兩種時間並行,一種快一種慢,一方面看到外面的世界好像有點模糊及不清楚,另一方面又是正常的意識。如果你有留意一下我,你會發覺我似乎一直在發呆,因為我想捕捉這一閃即逝,非常模糊但奇怪的感覺,有點像transcendence 或 oneness with the universe,難聽一點是性愛最高峰的感覺(但在生理上不覺有任何的性興奮,亦不可能如此的快)。奇怪的事,就只是和你握完手剎那間,我又似乎完全遺忘了這種感覺,我記性不至於是如此的差,居然不到十秒鐘便忘記之前的感覺?

這種感覺,不單是和其他異性握手時沒有,就是拍拖時手拖手亦沒有,我的潛意識因此認定你一定就是具唯一性的這個人,而意識後來做的事,其實是為潛意識的動機找籍口。我亦因此認定,你在收了我一個月共二百多封電郵後再拒絕我是你有心隱瞞事實,是你有心逃避自己最心底、最原始、最真實的感覺。不可能我感受到震撼,而你竟然一點反應都沒有,你欺騙自己同時在嚴重傷害我,我不知你又和自己在玩什麼心理遊戲,最後受傷的一定是你自己。如果不是這種感覺,世上再沒有人可以令我寫二百多封電郵共三萬多字,用了二百小時以上,然後被你拒絕後不知再寫了幾多封,我想寫給你的中文字(別忘記我打中文是很慢的)是我的一生人的90%,竭而不捨地寫了八個月?如此的投入全因這種「失億」感覺令我100%認定,我們的緣份是天註定,再不會有任何的人可以如此的震撼我的靈魂。

我從來未曾和任何異性說過雷同的話,一字一句,直接出自真心。我以為你有和我同質的靈魂,只是你太沉迷於愛情的迷失感覺中,分不清什麼是由性興奮帶來的快感、什麼是用文字/場景刻意經營的心理效果、什麼是由靈魂深處發出的震撼。我的靈魂,曾經受創傷,但仍健在,它以愛和希望來生存。我見過沒有靈魂的人,但我當我看到你的相片,你只是迷失,你的靈魂尚在掙扎求存,請讓我來和你一生一世共同分享,這種和宇宙合一的奇妙感覺!

我是如此的有信心,因為我的直覺肯定當我們雙手一握,你將無法抗拒這種來自靈魂深處的震撼,我們的結合將代表舊世界的全面崩潰,世界為我們預備了一個最美麗的將來;這一切,由握你手的一刻開始,由你的決定作結。我可以放膽賭一舖,我可以把身家、性命、財產、靈魂全放在一個單是握手就可以為我帶來天人合一感覺的人;你夠不夠膽?你是否對任何一位異性,都有如此大的信心?亦或你把戀愛平凡化了,位位都是相差無幾?位位都是你事後創造出來的感覺來欺騙自己?你的愛情觀裏,沒有前世註定,沒有來世,什麼都是腦神經為繁殖下一代而做出來的幻影?

我這一世不會再說同樣的話兩次!你可以留下來,公諸於世,以任何方式保存,是為千秋萬世的明證,決不變心。我的路走完了,而且決不走回頭路,只要你肯和我一同走的話。

當你無法去分辨真假時,用你的直覺,忘記你的理性和邏緝吧!

此致
因你而迷失,再因你而找回自我
永遠愛你,此志不渝的

Is evolutionary theory a better ‘explanation’?

There is a growing debate between the Creationism and Evolutionary Theory in USA as raised by Christian Right, and, of course it argue that the former is a better explanation than later, while scientist argue otherwise. Although this is the topic of my thesis paper when I was studying in a Christian College, I am not going to dwell into this issue here. There are good discussion of it on the Internet. My point here is to play Devil’s Advocate on the common sense that evolutionary theory in Biology is a better explanation.

What people often missed in the debate is what is qualified as an explanation? I would like argue for the point that although Creationism is not consider as an explanation since it replace one unknown with another, there are some issues associated with calling evolutionary theory an ‘explanation’.

Evolutionary Theory belong to realm of science, what essentially it gave is the how of the process of evolution but not the why. Some has considered that science is not suited to answer this set of questions. Although once we know the process, we can extend the theory to test its external validity(see if it can made accurate prediction), or even applied that to application in daily life (genetics); but can process be consider as ‘explanation’? Does knowing how we breath ‘explain’ what is breathing? Does knowing how our mind works means we can understand what our mind is? What I believe is that evolutionary theory is only the first layer of onion, the process of peeling the onion could go on indefinitely as we want it. Suppose we get the Physicist’s holy grail: ‘Theory of Everything’. Does it means not that we can further ask: Why is Theory of Everything is one way but not the another? Can we dig further into TOE and understand how is what it is? Therefore I could sympathy with religionists stop the investigation in the very first step, they may just know that they can’t finish peeling the onion, and they want to save time to do something else.

Evolutionary theory, in my opinion, by its nature is not really about explanation but predicting what is going to happen next, because what it said essentially is: Now is because of what is happened in the past led to this now but not the other now, follow logics from Mathematics and Statistics; plus some accidents.’ Thus Evolutionary theory, like history, suffer the same problem as it belong to ‘retrospective’ science. We can’t verify how history develop since we can’t test one hypothesis against another in the sense that the past is gone. How could we know what happen if ‘Martin Luther King is not murdered?’, or ‘Al Gore instead of George W. Bush is elected in 2004′? Similarly, although we can do experiment to test the hypothesis in the laboratory, but we can never be sure that the parameters in the laboratory is identical to the parameters of the part of evolutionary history we inquire. Therefore, the internal validity of experiments against hypothesis in evolutionary theory can never be completely ascertained (unless we have a time traveling machine to collect the sample from the past). And we also must not ignore that evolutionary process is full of accidents, since we don’t know exactly how those accidents happen, therefore the ‘explanation’ afforded by evolution theory can never be completed. It is not the fault of this theory itself, but because of the nature of object we inquire about. But it never rules out that there maybe better methods and framework (other than the scientific method) to understand the phenomenas of what evolution theory talked about.

Thus my conclusion is ‘Evolutionary theory’ is the better one at least because it could be argue against, and we can use this framework to build more powerful explanation; as compare to Creationism which can never be objectively falsify. Notice there is a philosophical bias toward intellectualism: Those which allow we to think and argue must be better than those doesn’t allow to think. Why must this be right?

What is the internal validity of Philosophy?

I remember one line of the philosophical inquiry into the perception process like this: By the logic that a perceiver must be separated from perceived, therefore there must exist ‘little man’ who observe what we observe in our brain. But then how does these ‘little man’ know what they observing? Then it require a little man inside another little man’s brain. We can easily see how this lead to an absurd conclusion. So the conclusion is either perception is logically impossible or there is something wrong with this picture, likely its hidden assumption.
I prefer the later since there are obvious logically error with the picture: Why must perceiver must be separated from perceived? Why can’t perceiver also perceiving itself? Where does this notion that perceiver must be separated from perceived, which sounds so natural to us, come from?

I am not interested to dwell into the actual psychological history of this idea. I only think it is very likely it is coming from the logical rule of our mind rather than fact of physical reality. It has everything to do with the habit of our mind to separate the perceiver and separated in our Cognitive process. Thus it is natural to infer from this logic that there must be some mechanism to observe what is observed, since it is assumed that the observer itself has no explanatory power. Observation is obviously different from the process of understanding, therefore we habitually separate them into two categories. It thus follows that there must be two set of brain cells devoted to two different neurological process, since in our mind it is ‘natural’ to place one category in one slot.(Against the Pigeonhole Principle in Discrete Mathematics.) When one set of brain cell is responsible for observation, then another set of brain cell must be responsible for analyze it. How logical is it to infer the process in Physical space from the bias inherent in our Cognitive Process in Psychological Space?

This, I see it as the example of the issue in Philosophical reasoning. If only we can obliterate all assumption then we can arrive at the best understanding of the world, otherwise we may think we are analyzing the world objectively while we are subtly biased in one way or another.

The thought of the idea of Prophecy

I had the benefit of born in cultures which heavily influenced by Buddhist Philosophy, therefore my inquiry into the idea of Prophecy has an headstart compare to people in non-Buddhist culture. To have a coherent world and to be logical, Prophecy is a special information object that doesn’t disrupt the original chain of causality(which it assume there is only one world but not many exists parallel to each other.) So we can likewise identify information object which has such a special property,

The logics are actually very simple:
A. There is only one future,
B. Prophecy allow an information travel backward from future to now,
If Prophecy can change future, then it follow that the Prophecy itself is either invalid, or at worst, it destroy the chain of causality which lead to the existence of Prophecy itself. Since neither is allowed to exists logically, then it follows that Prophecy is a self-servicing information object which seeds its only existence, or at least it always produce an effect that will not destroy the chain of causality lead to formation of itself. In other words, Prophecy is something never change the future.

熱和涼

(思想史:中三)

熱和涼是感覺,而冷和暖是溫度,一直以來都以為它們是指同一件事,因為天氣冷所以覺得寒,因為天氣暖所以覺得熱。直至後來有一次,翻開了高等物理的 課本,才發覺當風在動時,代表空氣粒子動能增加,換句話說,效果和溫度上升一樣?因此出現了矛盾,溫度上升反而令人更涼快,何解?是不是說身體的感覺並不 真實反映外界的環境?
後來才知道,風之所以令人涼快,不是在於風的本身,而在於風帶動空氣粒子做成的效果,因為天氣熱,人的生理反應是會流汗,而空氣粒子動能增加的後果是增加 汗的蒸發速度,汗的蒸發的效應就是被空氣的熱能啟動了液態轉氣態的物理反應,而在過程中反而吸入了比啟動能更多的熱能,因此做成身體溫度下降的效果。因 此,是身體本身變得比空氣涼快,而神經系統產生感覺所反映的不是過程的本身,只是過程的結果;而感覺反映的不是外界的環境的變化,而是身體內在的環境的變 化。因此科學書本上說人的感覺不敏銳,有誤差,只是對了一半,而是因為人的感覺系統只是為了人類的生存而設,不是為了準確偵測外在的環境,熱和涼是人的神 經系統經過複雜的運作,而外界環境又和生物反應不停互動反饋,理性思維為了表達這一過程而用語言創造出來的慨念物件,理性思維的前提是自我意識,而自我意 識又是神經系統活動的結果。我們本來是生活在一個抽象世界,而所感知的世界其實是我們神經系統整體活動所形成出來的自我意識所建構出來的心理世界,真實的 物理世界我們永遠接觸不到。
人的本質,是自我中心,人是不可能完全客觀的,因此人必須明白自己的本質是什麼,才可以理解世界。人最大的錯誤,是把主觀印象的誤會為客觀的事賁,眼晴看 不到眼晴自己在看,如果人再明正言順在性格上「自我中心」,則他/她和事實的實相愈走愈遠,由「being-in-the-world」變成全知全能全善 的「world-being」!

真哲學和偽哲學的分別

常常聽見別人說他的人生哲學,我於是想:哲學其實有兩個功用,亦可分作真偽。有一些人的哲 學,在心理上的作用是文過飾非,為自己的行為、選擇找一個漂亮/抽象/冠冕堂皇的籍口,在事情發生以後來建立自己行為的連續性,其實他自己心裏比誰都清 楚,他只是不經思考而隨便做的決定,這是我心目中的偽哲學;相反,有另一些人事事都講求原則和理由,時刻都追求自己行為的合理性,因此他會盡量在事前想清 楚一件事才做,希望事情的動機、過程和結果盡量和他的做人原則/哲學相乎,例如他的人生哲學是「平等主義」者,則他做什麼事都是以平等的理念為先,盡量對 所有人一視同仁,而不是對人的態度一時一樣,隨自己的情緒起伏而定。另外,前者會檢討自己的人生哲學看起來合不合理,想一想如何在過往不同的選擇建立連貫 性,像中共一樣調整整體哲學/理論來適合自己的行為,例如一時又毛澤東理論,一時又鄧小平理論,一時又「三個代表論」等等;後者則會檢討自己的行為合不合 乎自己的人生哲學,如何令未來自己的行為更有一致性及整體性,如何避免自己的行為出錯,如何減低行為和人生哲學不相乎發生的機會等;保守主義者,可能因為 一次待油站惡劣態度的店員太有禮貌而深深懊悔,檢討自己在什麼情況會忽然對低下階級的人友善,如何避免此等情況發生等。
在心理學的研究,亦支持人可以以行為的連貫性來分類的說法,有一些人的行為可預測性較高,因為他們講求原則,要世界乎合他們的做事方式;相反,另一些人的 行為可預測性較低,因為他們較重視的是適應環境,如何和環境配合而作出最有利自己的選擇。一般來說,行為的內在連貫性對於同一個人來說,多數是常數,即真 哲學的人行真哲學的路,偽哲學的人行偽哲學的路,各不相干。

心理學算不算科學的一門?

我在大學讀書的時侯,因為我讀的是心理學,有一天被同房們為難,說我讀的不是科學,而心理學及社會科學,因為心理學針對的對象是不可以量化的人,而所謂研 究亦不過是一個慨念/思想的文字遊戲,在本質不如物理及化學等是具體可以量化、看得見的科學。我不得不同意他們的部份觀點,即如果以研究的對象來劃分,心 理學及社會科學把人量化,是有點勉強,即用來研究的方法和研究的對象並不配合。物理學可以數粒子的數量、波鋒和波谷,全部研究數據都可以直接由觀測被研究 對象而來,研究的抽象性低,可以用客觀的工具來建立客觀性,所以較客觀;相反,心理學/社會科學研究人的情緒、喜惡,幾乎所有的研究數據都必須透過「旁敲 側擊」來獲知,因為研究者不是被研究者本身,你如何去保證你得到的數據一定是被研究者本身的「客觀、真實」情況?又如何去定義在心理學上什麼為之「客觀 性」?如果各研究者有各研究者的客觀性標準,則心理學的本質似乎是由一開始便註定陷入了沒完沒了的爭辯,得不到一些客觀有用的內容。
但是我不同意他們的論點在於我心目中的科學是以科學方法來定義,即研究的過程而不是研究的對象本身來決定該學科的屬性,因此不論研究的對象本質是什麼,用 合乎邏緝的科學方法學過程去研究任何對象,得出數據用有數學理論支持的統計學方法來分研、歸納,它就是科學。而科學理論本身一定是抽象的,只有最基礎、最 表層的現象才是看來是十分具體,所謂測量本身就是一個抽象化的過程,其實不單人是一個整體,而每一件事都可視作完整的整體,測量就是把整體的一部份孤立出 來用公共的客觀性標準來量;例如物理學,為什麼我們去觀量一個性質如粒子的數量、波鋒和波谷而不是它的形狀、顏色或其他特質?到底所謂研究的方法和研究的 對象配合不配合的結論是如何由被研究的對象導出?物理學和心理學還不是從它們的理論去導出來?物理學用的客觀性標準是公制的尺,是因為所有人看來的結果都 不會相差得太遠,其實和心理學的各種問卷如WICS、MMPI不是用反覆的研究去確保它在所以研究者依預定的程序來問而得出來的數據不會因研究者而異,在 本質上不是大同小異嗎?如果說心理學是反過來由理論主導整體心理學研究過程,則物理學何嘗不是先有理論,再由理論決定研究什麼和用什麼方法研究?物理學可 以做實驗,心理學同樣可以做實驗,大家都是在驗證抽象的理論,物理學的理論為何會抽象得比心理學具體?所有科學背後其實是由最抽象的數學在背後支持?有人 可以解釋為什麼用統計學理論的方法可以合理地由邏緝導出它的統計學結論?數字背後本身亦不過是數字!如果心理學是思想遊戲,整個科學都是思想/文字遊戲!

哲學和心理學的分別

哲學的目的是使人在思想上在任何時侯任何處境上都戰勝生活裏任何的窘困,人因此而得到精神上自由,心理學的作用是在使人明白自己及其他人的 心,因為明白是自己的心是如何運作,因而活得更自在,哲學是比心理學更勝一籌,因為它是終極的通識,可以應用在任何知識範圍上(即任何學科),因此它太抽 象,不及心理學具體;而心理學可以處理的範圍較窄,不及哲學可以遍及生活上任何一部份。
不過,哲學和心理學都是抽象的科學,談的不是數字而是本質,因此思想深度不足的人是不可能明白的。

語理分析在香港

因為香港是個以普通法管理的城市,而法律主要的作用是防止市民做違法的事,而不是規定市民在什麼時侯該做什麼事。因此,要在香港生存,一定要熟悉法例的字 面解釋和定義,所以一般人傾向用「咬文嚼字」的方式來分析法律問題,習慣性地把這個分析方式來其他非法律問題,如社會時事等。因此李天命教授的語理分析在 香港在衆多哲學中是最受歡的一門。

What is Heaven's Will?

Heaven's Will seems to be an elusive concept in both Eastern and Western culture, many layperson's understanding of that is just ‘Anything happen to me must be the will of heaven, otherwise it wouldn't happen.’ My thought on this is Heaven's Will does manifest through the History of mankind, and the vehicle which it express itself is through the individual psychology of human being. I name this concept Psycho-religion.

How does one knows about Heaven's Will? One just need to introspect intensively. Once one understand and appreciate the uniqueness of oneself, one already know how Heaven's Will manifest on oneself. It is akin to know the purpose of your existence though it is less intellectual. Once you know what you are good at and what you are bad at, then you know the purpose of existence in Heaven's Will must be related to your ability to perform certain action under certain situation. Although it is difficult to tell exactly what the Heaven-given-goal, it is however to logically infer Heaven wouldn't prefer a cook to do a sailor’s work if it ‘want’ that to be done nicely. Heaven's Will is more like a general direction of how humanity develop but not how individual of us develop, and it is reflected in the individual psychological level.

超神和尼采的超人的關係?

超神傳說中的超神,以性為毀滅天地的力量,在性愛中表現超強的意志力,意志力是為其力量的根源。尼采的超人是勇於作自我超克及價值重估的人,兩者有無關係?自我超克可不可以體現在性愛上面,超神算不算在某種意義上的超人?

The painful problem in C. S. Lewis's ‘The problem of pain’

C.S. Lewis is one the ‘popular’ apologetic of Christianity in the West. My first impression of his book is that is really painful to read. It is a shame that an writer could have organized the book in such a chaotic way. That also reflect the quality of his argument to defend the omniscient attribute of Christian God. His way of explaining ‘away’ Christian God's responsibility of allowing evil to take place show how far is the (his) Christian way of thinking from the logical thinking of ordinary folks. If anyone start to covert someone to Christianity via this book, then the conversion itself really demonstrate the omnipotent attribute of the existence of Christian God, since it can override logic and rationality.

If I am going to discusses all problems in his arguments, then I may need to use up all spaces in this blog, so I just focus on what intrigue me the most. One of his main thrust is that pain is necessary for happy to exists. In order to have happiness then we must also have sadness. It made sense in psychology of human being but not necessary for an Omnipotent God: because he create not just a universe but create the physical framework(rules) which hold all physical object include the universe, and he also create the psychological framework(rules) which our mind operate. Why must Christian God devise a finite world which happiness of some of us would translate to sadness of other due to inadequacy (finite) of natural resources? Why must Christian God must create a Psychology which would require sadness to co-exist as happiness? Wasn't that Christian God omnipotent? So an omnipotent God can't create psychological framework which would respond to any physical framework which God devise in such a way pain is unnecessary for human to know God? It is not Christian God that is not omnipotent, it just demonstrate how much does this theologian lack imagination! And how the conversion of anyone into Christian would immediate damage his/her intellectual and imagining capacity!

One of lesson I learned is that conservative often see what exists as what is necessary to exist, and fails to see what necessarily doesn't exist.

(Thought History: U2)

The two kind of freedoms

When liberal talks about freedom, they often confuse two kinds of freedom. One kind of freedom is what usually guarantee by law: The freedom from fear, The freedom from deprivation, The freedom from torture, the freedom from religion. However, there is one kind of freedom which many of us ignore because of its nature: It is the freedom to become a better human, the freedom to self-actualize, the freedom to realize one’s potentialities. That is the freedom which Eric Fromm talked about in his books, and is a central tenet of Humanism.
One of disadvantage of Liberalism as compare to Humanism is that it lacks a goal of how to apply the freedom. Liberal only said what the state shouldn’t do, but it seldom said what the state should do to promote the physical and psychological health of its citizen, or at least how should the citizen use the freedom from state for a goal not just better themselves but also benefit the society as a whole. Those liberals have a strong case when conservative is imposing their ideal life into everyone else, but conservative has an upper hand in the sense which it give clear direction to its follower. Humanist could compete with conservative in the merit of the goal of freedom, which liberal can’t.
It appears to me that the major difference between political left and right is on the issue of freedom. For the political right, the left is imposing their positive freedoms onto the society, thus deprive the citizen a choice of not using the freedom positively. For the political left, the right is forcing their negative freedoms onto the society, thus deprive the citizen a choice of using the freedom positively.

科學方法與後果

在大學一直有過想問又不敢膽問的問題:大學第一堂課一定是教科學方法學,通常用瞎子摸象的比擬,真相如象,而科學是盲人,因此不同的學派都永遠只能接觸真 相的一部份。因此,科學可以接近真 理、排除謬理,卻不一定可以得到真理。科學不能看到真理是不是因為該科學方法學的假設,還是真相本質上是永遠在科學方法之外?

脫髮有罪?

這次被我嘲笑的廣告不是來自電視,來自報紙;同樣亦是邏緝的問題。男子脫髮會不會影響自我形 象及人際關係呢?依某廣告的調查研究,男子脫髮會被其他人認為脫髮會惡性影響脫髮者的人際關係,其他人會認為脫髮的男子的人緣差。好了,記得中六讀的英文 應用科強調意見和事實的分離,其他人以為你怎樣怎樣是他們的意見,不代表什麼事實。因此其他人認為脫髮的男子的人緣差,不代表脫髮的男子本身的人緣差。是 不是在後現代世界,意見就是現實?客觀性不存在,所以所有的事實都是代表了一種意見而已?

想深一層, 就算在後現代世界,意見可以當成一種事實,但其他人認為脫髮的男子的人緣差,只可以勉強代表「在其他人心目中脫髮的男子的人緣比較差」這一個事實,如何從 「在其他人心目中脫髮的男子的人緣比較差」的論述跳到「脫髮的男子覺得自己人緣比較差」或「脫髮的男子的人緣真的比較差」的結論?內裏是不是隱含了「其他 人的意見就代表我的現實」或「其他人的意見就代表我的意見」的奇怪邏緝?
前者,是賣廣告的人頭腦不清醒,還是在乘機開闊讀者的眼界,讓他們了解心理學中的「我不是我,亦不是自己以為的我,而是我以為其他人以為的我」?但是心理學卻沒有說:其他人心目中的我就是我。 後者,「其他人的意見就代表我的意見」,亦是香港常見的「主流主義」思想模式,香港人是凡事沒有自己意見的,只有「他/她認為是主流的意見」就代表了是自 己的意見;甚至進一步,自己的意見就是自己。因此,「主流主義」以為廣告交代的是顯而易見的常理:脫髮的男仕人緣一定不會好的哪裏去,因此猜想大部份香港 人都是這樣想,因而形成了自己的意見:脫髮的男仕人緣一定不會好,所以要快快依廣告的指示去解決脫髮的問題。
不知是不是廣告還要讀者深入思考哲學/心理學中的我的定義的問題?我是什麼?我是我執?我執是我?我是我的意見?我的意見是我?我是他人的意見?還是他人的意見是我?