I just saw Kick Ass yesterday,
Review:
The beginning was nice, exploring the idea of why nobody amongst the millions of fans of superheroes dares to be one themselves? I could identify very much with Dave (the main character) in the beginning. And the first time he fought crime was suitably portrayed. The second time was courageous, but still possible. The third time was plain stupid and he had to be saved by Hit Girl, who murdered the gangsters like they are zombies.
After that, the adventures all get unbelievable. There's enough real live gore and violence there. And even an almost real lesson to be taught of what really happens to superheroes. But Hit Girl is the extreme part. Anyway the movie would be sad without her. So it's idealistic, but more real than other Marvel or DC superheroes stories.
Compared to Watchmen, it's more like the watchmen's superhero age started early, Kick-Ass superhero age starts now. So Kick-Ass's world is still pretty nice overall, but it is more realistic in the sense that we have one amateur superhero: Kick-Ass.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday, October 04, 2010
Whatup?
Oh man, it's been one month since I take up the Vice President of NUSBS role. It's a bit more taxing than the last one I had, but I've gotten used to it.
And pardon my talking like this, I've been watching "How I met your Mother" until the 4th season by now in less than 2 weeks.
Oh let's see what happened since last month.
- I've gotten the Vice President role of NUSBS in the AGM. Done some handover stuffs and planning for the 1st Management Committee Retreat which was held 2 weeks after the AGM. In the meantime, there's a lot of stuffs to do for Dharma Camp, the weekly activities, and Ajahn Brahm coming to NUS for a Dharma Talk (18th November). That's 1 for CCA.
- For studies, hmm... it seems to be taking a back stage audience as I seem to prefer to busy myself with NUSBS stuffs than doing my homework. Or studying.
- Then for Mid-Autumn Festival, I've gone briefly to the Physoc celebration and then Prof. Lee invited us to go for a Mid-Autumn gathering! It's the NUSBS MC and we have the chance to chat!
- Then there's also the Tzu Ching 1 day camp at Tzu Chi Singapore. That was last Saturday and it's really fun to join in and lots of things to learn from.
- There's also Johan's Birthday yesterday and we went to celebrate it with him.
- Oh ya there's also the SPS board game day! I organised it.
- I went for the NUS President Appreciation Lunch with Student Leaders. It was a nice thing of NUS to do for us!
- I went to Muscular Dystrophy Association Singapore to volunteer and to get to know the organisation better for my group project in the Human Relations module.
- And mainly busy with the Dharma Camp preparations.
- And also went to NTUBS AGM as an observer. It was nice meeting them all again.
- And having lots of Mid terms now.
- Oh and I'm going for the USP honour's roll tonight! I've got to update my CV /Resume soon.
Okie, that's all I see for now. Whatup?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Crackpot Index and Social Cognition
The Crackpot Index
John Baez
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Bibliography
Baez, J. (n.d.). The Crackpot Index. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
The Crackpot Index lists down 37 pointers that identifies someone as a “crackpot”, (Baez) it falls neatly into the role schemas as it is “organised knowledge about the expected behaviours of occupants of particular social positions” (Howard, 1995) where in this case it is academic positions. The term crackpot is used as a stereotype as it is clear from the ironic description of “potentially revolutionary contributions to physics” (Baez). It is meant to ridicule and to create laugher from the ironic treatment of the crackpots. “Role schemas are basis for stereotyping” (Howard, 1995).
Other than that, there is on point 8, “each mention of 'Einstien', 'Hawkins' or 'Feynmann'” (Baez) suggested that anyone who encourages the readers to use availability and representative heuristics can be considered crackpots. Availability heuristics happens when the public gets recent news about Hawking’s genius, and representative heuristics is obvious from the collections of geniuses in the list. It is quite appropriate as the heuristics are “mental shortcuts” (Howard, 1995) and in Physics, one is supposed to be able to derive from scratch the whole theory without relying on heuristics. Therefore one who overuses heuristics is suspicious in the eyes of Physicists. Someone who relies too much on others while presenting their own theory is most likely one who is out to find fame instead of finding the truth.
Point 21 and 34 can be explained by attribution theory where self serving bias is doing its work. When praising one's work, one says that one deserves a Noble Prize and when work fame does not go well, one blames a conspiracy blocking the work (instead of the work is wrong). This is also the fundalmental attribution error and whoever displays such error openly can be easily dismissed as “crackpots”.
Point 9, 18, 22, shows a base rate fallacy happening to the “crackpot”. Ignoring the many experimental evidences for Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and Classical Mechanics (Baez), the “crackpot” thinks the theories are wrong because physicists are struggling to unite them and yet still unsuccessful therefore the “crackpots” think that the base theories are wrong. The failure to take the numerous times when the base theories are correct and to refute them all just because of one difficulty is a base rate fallacy.
All in all, the crackpot index displays a lot of theories and skills from social cognition and is able to be studied by the concepts in social cognition. What we found out is that the crackpots are not only bad in physics but also bad in social cognitions skills. So bad are their theories that they resort to the various baises and heuristics to convince the readers of their theories instead of scientific rigour.
Bibliography
Baez, J. (n.d.). The Crackpot Index. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Conceptions of Self and Identity. In Fifty Years of Personality Psychology (pp. 177-186). New York: Plenum Press.
Howard, J. A. (1995). Social Cognition. In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (pp. 90-117). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
O'Brien, B. (n.d.). Skandha. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from About.com: Buddhism: http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/skandhadef.htm
John Baez
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Bibliography
Baez, J. (n.d.). The Crackpot Index. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
The Crackpot Index lists down 37 pointers that identifies someone as a “crackpot”, (Baez) it falls neatly into the role schemas as it is “organised knowledge about the expected behaviours of occupants of particular social positions” (Howard, 1995) where in this case it is academic positions. The term crackpot is used as a stereotype as it is clear from the ironic description of “potentially revolutionary contributions to physics” (Baez). It is meant to ridicule and to create laugher from the ironic treatment of the crackpots. “Role schemas are basis for stereotyping” (Howard, 1995).
Other than that, there is on point 8, “each mention of 'Einstien', 'Hawkins' or 'Feynmann'” (Baez) suggested that anyone who encourages the readers to use availability and representative heuristics can be considered crackpots. Availability heuristics happens when the public gets recent news about Hawking’s genius, and representative heuristics is obvious from the collections of geniuses in the list. It is quite appropriate as the heuristics are “mental shortcuts” (Howard, 1995) and in Physics, one is supposed to be able to derive from scratch the whole theory without relying on heuristics. Therefore one who overuses heuristics is suspicious in the eyes of Physicists. Someone who relies too much on others while presenting their own theory is most likely one who is out to find fame instead of finding the truth.
Point 21 and 34 can be explained by attribution theory where self serving bias is doing its work. When praising one's work, one says that one deserves a Noble Prize and when work fame does not go well, one blames a conspiracy blocking the work (instead of the work is wrong). This is also the fundalmental attribution error and whoever displays such error openly can be easily dismissed as “crackpots”.
Point 9, 18, 22, shows a base rate fallacy happening to the “crackpot”. Ignoring the many experimental evidences for Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and Classical Mechanics (Baez), the “crackpot” thinks the theories are wrong because physicists are struggling to unite them and yet still unsuccessful therefore the “crackpots” think that the base theories are wrong. The failure to take the numerous times when the base theories are correct and to refute them all just because of one difficulty is a base rate fallacy.
All in all, the crackpot index displays a lot of theories and skills from social cognition and is able to be studied by the concepts in social cognition. What we found out is that the crackpots are not only bad in physics but also bad in social cognitions skills. So bad are their theories that they resort to the various baises and heuristics to convince the readers of their theories instead of scientific rigour.
Bibliography
Baez, J. (n.d.). The Crackpot Index. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Conceptions of Self and Identity. In Fifty Years of Personality Psychology (pp. 177-186). New York: Plenum Press.
Howard, J. A. (1995). Social Cognition. In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (pp. 90-117). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
O'Brien, B. (n.d.). Skandha. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from About.com: Buddhism: http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/skandhadef.htm
Comparison of the 5 Aggregates with Conceptions of Self and Identity by Baumeister
About.com: Buddhism Skandha
The Sanskrit word skandha means "heap" or "aggregate." The Buddha taught that an individual is a combination of five aggregates of existence, called the Five Skandhas. These are:
1. Form
2. Sensation
3. Perception
4. Mental formations
5. Consciousness
Various schools of Buddhism do not interpret the skandhas in exactly the same way. Generally, the first skandha is our physical form. The second is made up of our feelings, emotional and physical, and our senses -- seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling.
The third skandha, perception, takes in most of what we call thinking -- conceptualization, cognition, reasoning. This also includes the recognition that occurs when an organ comes into contact with an object. Perception can be thought of as "that which identifies." The object perceived may be a physical object or a mental one, such as an idea.
The fourth skandha, mental formations, includes habits, prejudices and predispositions. Our volition, or willfulness, also is part of the fourth skandha, as are attention, faith, conscientiousness, pride, desire, vindictiveness, and many other mental states both virtuous and not virtuous. The causes and effects of karma are especially important to the fourth skandha.
The fifth skandha, consciousness, is awareness of or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualization. Once there is awareness, the third skandha might recognize the object and assign a concept-value to it, and the fourth skandha might react with desire or revulsion or some other mental formation. The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as base that ties the experience of life together.
The Buddha taught that our egos, personalities and the sense that the "self" is something distinctive and permanent enclosed within our bodies, are just illusory effects of the skandhas.
Bibliography
O'Brien, B. (n.d.). Skandha. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from About.com: Buddhism: http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/skandhadef.htm
TThe article Skandha strongly parallels the Baumeister’s Taxonomy of the Self.
The Form, Sensation and Consciousness can be classified as the Natural Self. The definition of the Natural self in Conceptions of Self and Identity by Baumeister includes “the body”, “the little window of consciousness called the 'knower' ” and “sensations” (Baumeister, 1993). This definition includes and embodies what Buddhism defines as the form as the physical body, the Sensations or feelings and the consciousness as the awareness factor, which is the called the 'knower' (O'Brien).
This is re-enforced by the description of consciousness in Buddhism as the basis for perceptions and mental formations to arise. Parallel to this is the use of the term universal (Baumeister, 1993) to describe the Natural self by Baumeister. One point to note here is that Baumeister integrates sensations into consciousness and consciousness with body inside the Natural Self, whereas Buddhism reclassifies them into three. Despite the differences in numbering, they both agree on the Universal self, which is natural, and supports the notion that the Natural Self is indeed universal.
For Perception, the definition from Buddhism is “that which identifies”. It is the one doing the “conceptualization, cognition” (O'Brien). This is clearly the Conceptual Self from Baumeister which is the self as a construct. The difference here is that Buddhism attributes Perception as one of the 5 aggregates of the thing we call self whereas Baumeister seems to take it for granted and is more interested in the construct itself, namely the “self concept” and “identity” (Baumeister, 1993). In Buddhism, we see that the concept of Perception is a superset of Baumeister's Conceptual self, one is the creator, and the other is the creation.
Mental formations in Buddhism refer to the identity in the conceptual self and also the action self. “Habits, prejudice and predispositions” (O'Brien) of mental formations are most likely seen by Baumeister as “structure of values and priorities” (Baumeister, 1993) in the identity of the conceptual self. Whereas the “volition and willfulness” (O'Brien) of mental formations is the “actor and the wanter” (Baumeister, 1993) in the action self. Thus it is seen that Buddhism regards mental formations as the rest of the mind other than the sensations, perception and consciousness. Thus it is not so surprising that we find the identity in mental formations along with the action self. The separations of self concept and identity in the classification by Buddhism seems to imply that the self concept is just a construct that can change with time and with person and also possibly not necessary, so it is not explicitly stated, just the function that constructs, namely perception is named, whereas Buddhism would regard identity, or the habits and prejudice more solid and empirical than self concept.
As the two articles contains very similar parts of the self that both using different classification managed to compartmentalise them, it is worth noting that the Buddha can be considered as a superb Psychologist whose findings 2500 years ago are being rediscovered by modern psychology in the last 100 years. Bibliography
The Sanskrit word skandha means "heap" or "aggregate." The Buddha taught that an individual is a combination of five aggregates of existence, called the Five Skandhas. These are:
1. Form
2. Sensation
3. Perception
4. Mental formations
5. Consciousness
Various schools of Buddhism do not interpret the skandhas in exactly the same way. Generally, the first skandha is our physical form. The second is made up of our feelings, emotional and physical, and our senses -- seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling.
The third skandha, perception, takes in most of what we call thinking -- conceptualization, cognition, reasoning. This also includes the recognition that occurs when an organ comes into contact with an object. Perception can be thought of as "that which identifies." The object perceived may be a physical object or a mental one, such as an idea.
The fourth skandha, mental formations, includes habits, prejudices and predispositions. Our volition, or willfulness, also is part of the fourth skandha, as are attention, faith, conscientiousness, pride, desire, vindictiveness, and many other mental states both virtuous and not virtuous. The causes and effects of karma are especially important to the fourth skandha.
The fifth skandha, consciousness, is awareness of or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualization. Once there is awareness, the third skandha might recognize the object and assign a concept-value to it, and the fourth skandha might react with desire or revulsion or some other mental formation. The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as base that ties the experience of life together.
The Buddha taught that our egos, personalities and the sense that the "self" is something distinctive and permanent enclosed within our bodies, are just illusory effects of the skandhas.
Bibliography
O'Brien, B. (n.d.). Skandha. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from About.com: Buddhism: http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/skandhadef.htm
TThe article Skandha strongly parallels the Baumeister’s Taxonomy of the Self.
The Form, Sensation and Consciousness can be classified as the Natural Self. The definition of the Natural self in Conceptions of Self and Identity by Baumeister includes “the body”, “the little window of consciousness called the 'knower' ” and “sensations” (Baumeister, 1993). This definition includes and embodies what Buddhism defines as the form as the physical body, the Sensations or feelings and the consciousness as the awareness factor, which is the called the 'knower' (O'Brien).
This is re-enforced by the description of consciousness in Buddhism as the basis for perceptions and mental formations to arise. Parallel to this is the use of the term universal (Baumeister, 1993) to describe the Natural self by Baumeister. One point to note here is that Baumeister integrates sensations into consciousness and consciousness with body inside the Natural Self, whereas Buddhism reclassifies them into three. Despite the differences in numbering, they both agree on the Universal self, which is natural, and supports the notion that the Natural Self is indeed universal.
For Perception, the definition from Buddhism is “that which identifies”. It is the one doing the “conceptualization, cognition” (O'Brien). This is clearly the Conceptual Self from Baumeister which is the self as a construct. The difference here is that Buddhism attributes Perception as one of the 5 aggregates of the thing we call self whereas Baumeister seems to take it for granted and is more interested in the construct itself, namely the “self concept” and “identity” (Baumeister, 1993). In Buddhism, we see that the concept of Perception is a superset of Baumeister's Conceptual self, one is the creator, and the other is the creation.
Mental formations in Buddhism refer to the identity in the conceptual self and also the action self. “Habits, prejudice and predispositions” (O'Brien) of mental formations are most likely seen by Baumeister as “structure of values and priorities” (Baumeister, 1993) in the identity of the conceptual self. Whereas the “volition and willfulness” (O'Brien) of mental formations is the “actor and the wanter” (Baumeister, 1993) in the action self. Thus it is seen that Buddhism regards mental formations as the rest of the mind other than the sensations, perception and consciousness. Thus it is not so surprising that we find the identity in mental formations along with the action self. The separations of self concept and identity in the classification by Buddhism seems to imply that the self concept is just a construct that can change with time and with person and also possibly not necessary, so it is not explicitly stated, just the function that constructs, namely perception is named, whereas Buddhism would regard identity, or the habits and prejudice more solid and empirical than self concept.
As the two articles contains very similar parts of the self that both using different classification managed to compartmentalise them, it is worth noting that the Buddha can be considered as a superb Psychologist whose findings 2500 years ago are being rediscovered by modern psychology in the last 100 years.
Bibliography
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Conceptions of Self and Identity. In Fifty Years of Personality Psychology (pp. 177-186). New York: Plenum Press.
O'Brien, B. (n.d.). Skandha. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from About.com: Buddhism: http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/skandhadef.htm
Monday, September 06, 2010
Hawking, God, Physics and Religion
http://news.discovery.com/space/stephen-hawking-is-such-a-troublemaker.html
In reference to the above link and news, (please click and read first before reading this post) I wish to response to it for the interchanging use of the term "God" and "Religion".
I better define what I mean by "God" and "Religion" then.
"God" is the supreme being, the creator of the Universe, the all good/all knowing/ all powerful entity.
"Religion" is a collection of teachings that teaches humans to do good, avoid evil.
The intersection of "Religion" and "God" is very big, as in most of the religions, the teachings comes from God. But it is not complete, nor is it not separable. (For one example of a religion without God, see Buddhism.)
In Physics, whatever opinion anyone had said of anything. It is still subject to revision and verification. Even if Physics doesn't need a "God" to start the Big Bang, it doesn't mean that humans don't need religion.
"In this most recent saga, religious figures are taking it personally, saying physicists can't disprove the existence of God, so this is a non-debate. He's even being accused of having an Atheist agenda. But primarily, Hawking is being interpreted as vocalizing the point that religion has no place in a scientific field."
In the quote above (from the link), it seems to imply that the religious figure had integrated their teachings with the concept of God and the refutation of the God concept refutes the teachings of religions for humans to do good. However, what Physicists are saying is just that Physics can be fully pure, without any space left (in terms of creation) for God.
It doesn't mean that there's no space for God to spread good and love in the world through religion.
In fact the world today faces many mental problems, including but not limited to the elusive self, that is too many options for the individual to become (having no direction in life), materialistic, being afraid of dying (by simply ignoring the fact that we all die one day). All these problems are handled very well via religion. And psychology is still trying to catch up.
So all in all, whatever Physics decides to do with God, it doesn't reduce the importance, the esteem and the role of religion in our current society. Let that be known to all.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Growing Up in the University
"Once you're in the University, you'll be fine, you'll graduate." My mom said that to me countless times when I was studying hard to get full As during my secondary school time.
Back then, I didn't know what University entails, why is it so cool to be in one. I just got the conception that if I will certainly graduate, it should be easier than right now. It wasn't until High School that I realised that studying and learning is just going to be more and more packed and tough the more you advance.
The first semester in NUS is a heaven of playing for me. I stayed up late to the wee hours of the morning just to catch up with gaming and batman episodes that I missed before. The advantage that I had of having a silver medal in the International Physics Olympiad
And indeed, every semester of trying to avoid the hectic stress of deadlines during week 11, 12 and 13 fails every single time. I suppose it's also the attitude during the normal weeks that counts too. Also my involvement with so many academic programmes certainly should make me realise that I more so than most should be burdened with more than normal amounts of stress.
Lucky for me, one of the programmes I joined in is SPS, Special Programme in Science. I had to explain this to many people when I mentioned SPS room. It's a room, bigger than most homes of Singaporeans, and it's air-conditioned, with permanent seats for the students if they wish to have one.
It's a study haven, with many seats on the tables complete with power sockets for laptops; friends around complete with seniors of various majors in science that you can ask questions anytime; computer clusters complete with Windows Vista or Ubuntu and free printing; seminar room complete with projector and seats for 50, a lounge room and even a library complete with books from all disciplines of science.
It was also SPS that takes up a lot of my time too. Being a research intensive course, it exposes us to the skills of writing a review paper during our year 1 semester 2 itself. And we had to work in groups of 3. It was a taxing experience, what with the weekly lectures, interactive sessions, group project meeting and reading up papers on our own, and for me taking seven and a half module for that semester. Days and nights of sleeping in the SPS room and for 4 hours per night helped me gone through this period. I bent so much on studying that I spend over 100 hours per week just studying. In the end, I managed to score a Dean's Tea SAP and pulling my CAP up to the first class level.
So there you go, the story of my first year in University. Thanks!
Me? Right Now? Again.....
Ok, continuing on to the next update.
SPS Junior Mentor training was surprisingly harder than I thought. In the end, I didn't make it.... (I was given a second chance through next sem....and that's better than straight rejection, Yay!)
After a few days of moody-playing-board-game alone and joining the SPS Newbie Orientation Camp Briefing and recap on what to do as a game master, I went back to Malacca with my uncle (Since it was a long weekend, due to National Day) and I really need to take charge and see my perspective a little more.
Coming back, I had to mention that Hariom becomes my room-mate, he's my year 3 physics course-mate in SPS and we wanted to stay in the same double room, but as usual, we were too late in informing the housing people about it. It came as a pleasant surprise that he is assigned as my room-mate.
And came on the start of year 3. I'm taking the modules of
- MA2101S LINEAR ALGEBRA 2 (VERSION S)
- MA2216/ST2131 PROBABILITY
- PC4130 QUANTUM MECHANICS III
- PC4248 RELATIVITY
- UHB2201 HUMAN RELATIONS
- PC3288 ADVANCED UROPS IN PHYSICS I
2 Physics, 2 Maths, 1 USP 1 UROPS (USP & SPS & Physics)
And I do try to do the tutorials this time..... It's not easy to be a good student, quite little or no time to play.....
All these time, I've been out of touch with NUSBS's Matric Fair and Camp Ehi Passiko..... but the Welcome Tea on the first Friday of Week 1 we all did a fantastic job. After that, I went to the SPS NOC and had a fantastic time playing with the SPS newbies and the year 2 people. Next it was YOG, youth Olympic Games volunteering.
I went there after coming back from Changi Village on Sunday to do my first duty. They gave free T-Shirts, Pants, transportation, meals, and a Celebration Party at Universal Studios! How cool is volunteering!
Over week 2 I've adjusted to the hectic lifestyle of going for volunteer and doing homework.
With NUSBS activities coming up again, I can readjust to the lifestyle of sleeping early and waking early!
Now's the end of week 3, with significantly lower amount of events that I can relax on updating my life. With the upcoming NUSBS AGM I can finally step down as the Deputy Dharma Director and take up another new post!
See ya all next time!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Timetable for Sem 5
| A.M. | P.M. | ||||||||||||
| | 8:00- 9:00 | 9:00- 10:00 | 10:00- 11:00 | 11:00- 12:00 | 12:00- 1:00 | 1:00- 2:00 | 2:00- 3:00 | 3:00- 4:00 | 4:00- 5:00 | 5:00- 6:00 | 6:00- 7:00 | 7:00- 8:00 | |
| Monday | | PC4248 S12-04-03 | | | LA2 S16-0304 | CCA | |||||||
| Tuesday | | | | | | Lecture: Humans Relations SR1 | |||||||
| Wednesday | Prob LT27 | LA2 | Prob Tutorial | PC4130 S16-0436 | | UROPS | CCA | ||||||
| Thursday | | PC4248 S12-04-03 | PC4130 S16-0436 | Tutorials: Humans Relations SR1 | LA2 | CCA | |||||||
| Friday | Prob LT27 | | UROPS | | | CCA | |||||||
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Something about me-Ng Xin Zhao
I was born in Malacca in 1989, and raised there until form 6, where I took STPM (Malaysia's equivalent to A-levels) and then I came to NUS studying Physics and second majoring in Mathematics.
On financial aid, I decided to make full use of the opportunities in NUS, so I joined in University Scholar's Programme, Special Programme in Science and Special Programme in Mathematics in addition to my double major. Other than that, I also dabble in CCA, joining in Physics Society, Nam Wah Pai (Chinese Martial Art) and Buddhist Society. Currently I'm only active in NUS Buddhist Society as the Deputy Dharma Director and going to take up the Management committee again this year.
Well, let me talk more about my social life, which is more relevant to the module of Human Relations. During my (all boys) secondary school life, I was labelled as a bookworm, for bringing a book wherever I go and reading whenever I got the chance to. I was a social clutz and mostly live in my own world.
After going to High School, I started to actively interact and be more outspoken in the class, also it is a bit of adjusting to do sitting in a mixed (gender) class. This is because I got inspired by the few “Jokers” in my classes who got lots of attention and popularity. Being addicted to the taste of popularity after getting top results and skipping a grade in my primary school, I modelled myself to be funny, strange and good to regain the popularity, and I was the most infamous person in school!
Due to some good fortune and lots of reading due to interest, I got selected to represent Malaysia in the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO) in 2007 and 2008. This did much to boost my self confidence and make me even more famous. My blog which I started in 2007 (my last year of high school) http://ngxinzhaomonk.blogspot.com/ got lots of hits after I got silver medal in 2008. During the 2007 IPhO, I collected the emails of almost every participants, thus almost all my shyness in talking to strangers at a social event evaporated there.
The Olympiad allows me to have the opportunity to stay in a local University (UKM) to study physics there even before I got admitted to any university. So for the two months there I felt the first real taste of what loneliness is in the nights. I was away from family and friends and there wasn't much to do at night. This is in stark contradiction with the self-image that I had of me being a lonely traveller (and liking it).
The loneliness ends when I joined in their Buddhist Fellowship activities and made new friends there. I even got to star as the baby Prince Siddhārtha (the Buddha) in their biggest annual activity! My involvement in Buddhist Society in NUS (attending 4 out of 5 of the weekly activities per week during my second year) continues on mainly through interest and spiritual commitment. Using my new found social skills (not being shy) and weird (and unique) personality, I felt just at home in NUSBS.
However there is another home in NUS for me, and that is SPS. It's mainly because I spend so much time in the SPS room (sleepovers, homework, permanent placement of my laptop, friends and boardgames). Being a relatively small community (50-30 people per batch), I know everyone in SPS and everyone knows me!
Despite all these homes, I still feel that I'm in adequate in social skills and human relationships as exemplified my friends at both homes that I'm just like Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory (Social skills wise, but at least I do learn). Hence the interest in this module!
On financial aid, I decided to make full use of the opportunities in NUS, so I joined in University Scholar's Programme, Special Programme in Science and Special Programme in Mathematics in addition to my double major. Other than that, I also dabble in CCA, joining in Physics Society, Nam Wah Pai (Chinese Martial Art) and Buddhist Society. Currently I'm only active in NUS Buddhist Society as the Deputy Dharma Director and going to take up the Management committee again this year.
Well, let me talk more about my social life, which is more relevant to the module of Human Relations. During my (all boys) secondary school life, I was labelled as a bookworm, for bringing a book wherever I go and reading whenever I got the chance to. I was a social clutz and mostly live in my own world.
After going to High School, I started to actively interact and be more outspoken in the class, also it is a bit of adjusting to do sitting in a mixed (gender) class. This is because I got inspired by the few “Jokers” in my classes who got lots of attention and popularity. Being addicted to the taste of popularity after getting top results and skipping a grade in my primary school, I modelled myself to be funny, strange and good to regain the popularity, and I was the most infamous person in school!
Due to some good fortune and lots of reading due to interest, I got selected to represent Malaysia in the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO) in 2007 and 2008. This did much to boost my self confidence and make me even more famous. My blog which I started in 2007 (my last year of high school) http://ngxinzhaomonk.blogspot.com/ got lots of hits after I got silver medal in 2008. During the 2007 IPhO, I collected the emails of almost every participants, thus almost all my shyness in talking to strangers at a social event evaporated there.
The Olympiad allows me to have the opportunity to stay in a local University (UKM) to study physics there even before I got admitted to any university. So for the two months there I felt the first real taste of what loneliness is in the nights. I was away from family and friends and there wasn't much to do at night. This is in stark contradiction with the self-image that I had of me being a lonely traveller (and liking it).
The loneliness ends when I joined in their Buddhist Fellowship activities and made new friends there. I even got to star as the baby Prince Siddhārtha (the Buddha) in their biggest annual activity! My involvement in Buddhist Society in NUS (attending 4 out of 5 of the weekly activities per week during my second year) continues on mainly through interest and spiritual commitment. Using my new found social skills (not being shy) and weird (and unique) personality, I felt just at home in NUSBS.
However there is another home in NUS for me, and that is SPS. It's mainly because I spend so much time in the SPS room (sleepovers, homework, permanent placement of my laptop, friends and boardgames). Being a relatively small community (50-30 people per batch), I know everyone in SPS and everyone knows me!
Despite all these homes, I still feel that I'm in adequate in social skills and human relationships as exemplified my friends at both homes that I'm just like Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory (Social skills wise, but at least I do learn). Hence the interest in this module!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Me? Right Now?
It's been half a month since my last update on my life. And a lot of things has changed.
First off: There's no strong reason to suspect parallel universes for me yet... Cause I just found out that there is more than one LT12 in NTU! Well, I got the wrong place by not reading fully about the location of the Youth Olympic Village on the online modules.
Well talking about the online modules, there are a lot of them. 9 to be exact. Teaching us about YOG and Volunteer stuffs.
First off: There's no strong reason to suspect parallel universes for me yet... Cause I just found out that there is more than one LT12 in NTU! Well, I got the wrong place by not reading fully about the location of the Youth Olympic Village on the online modules.
Well talking about the online modules, there are a lot of them. 9 to be exact. Teaching us about YOG and Volunteer stuffs.
Opps,
I stopped writing about it and before I knew it, one month has passed.
So many events and stuffs happened (Since my last update on my life) that it seems that unless that I do this every week, I'm bound to miss out some or most of the interesting things to write about.
Anyway, I suppose that the most important thing to mention since the last update was that my intern-ship is over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yay! And Dr. Lee treat us to two more lunches!
Then after my internship, I've gone back to Petaling Jaya straight! Man it's a no wonder since my cousins are there! Jia Long who studies GeoPhysics in Imperial College, London came and live in my room while having his internship in EXxonMobil! William is also having his holidays then.
That weekend was also the one where I when back to Malacca and had a webcast meeting with my fellow MCs in the NUSBS. I didn't expected to stay for so long, but... my family does have a point in pointing out that since I'm still in the holidays, and considering the long journey, I should stay for at least a week. (In which I saw Despicable Me and Inception)
After that I came back to Singapore, mainly for the USP fellows meeting and by July 30th, tomorrow would have been my SPS Junior Mentor training.
Ok, this should be continued in another post.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)