Philosophy

After all, I'm working towards a Doctor of Philosophy! But, I have done this before, in my bachelors - here. And I came across a similar post, though oriented more to why Spirituality is sidelined - here (Thanks Priya!). Firstly, I'd like to commend the author for the impartial stand he's taken. A fairly well written article. I just wanted to note a few points, more for myself than anyone else.

Though I do agree that we are all inquisitive by nature, I definitely wouldn't say that the purpose is only a by-product and not the aim of inquiry. In fact, it would be a self-contradicting statement to say that the cause is a result! The example cited -that Technology is a by-product of Science, and not the reason for Science - is totally anachronistic. It was true at the early years of the development of Science - when people were asking 'why the sky is blue, why the sun rises and sets, why trees grow, why there are so many species around us, why eclipses occur'. But once man started answering some of these questions, the control freak within himself was awoken. And since he had started to understand some of the things around him, he wanted to control them, and thus was born Technology. And today, leaving out a few scientists who are not bothered about what the rest of the world is interested in, it is definitely true that Technology is driving Science, and is not a mere result of our inquisitiveness. Defining Technology broadly as man's use of things around him to help himself would allow us to see that man's discoveries weren't always because of his inquisitiveness. Many were also serendipitous, like discovering fire. The reason I am agitated is that the author compares Technology to Religion, implicitly, when he says Technology is a result of Science and Religions are a result of Spiritual inquisition and Science and Spiritual inquisition are two faces of the same coin. Though I believe in the latter, I would consider it sacrilegious to even speak of Technology and Religion as being comparable.

The comparison between learning the external world, and learning one's mind, the two complementary inquiries into reality, is neatly done. I completely agree with most of it...

Inaudible Walls...

This is another occasion when one of my status messages on GTalk is turning into a post here. But, this one is really weird. It all started when my roommate got a new set of speakers for his laptop. We were amusing ourselves with some good music until we were asked by our neighbours to turn the volume down. What's the point in having a good set of speakers and not making use of it? But, we had to oblige, for the fear of getting sued is ever-present in this country.

This made me wonder about how 'inaudible' these walls are. Now, if walls can be invisible, why can't they be inaudible? When you see the light reflected from an object, you 'see' the object. But, when you hear the sound reflecting off a surface, you don't 'hear' the object, do you? So, my theory was that if you can listen as to what is happening in the next room, the wall separating the rooms allows sound to pass through, i.e. is 'transparent to sound', or is 'invisible for sound' - thereby making it 'inaudible'. If you are in a sound-proofed room, you are 'hearing' the silence of the wall. So, in that sense, the walls of my home are inaudible.

This made me ponder about the reason why such an idea is almost non-existent, though common sense would allow such an analogy to be drawn immediately. I could zero-in on the fact that sight is the most dominant of our senses, far more dominant than the others. Dominant to an extent that such an idea is almost baloney!

Imagine the sensitivity of our sight and auditory senses swapped. You would enter your room, turn on a 'sound bulb', listen to everything in the vicinity and do stuff. Sounds like a rather boring life. The awesome blue of the sky replaced by the high frequency squeaks, the red of the stove by deep and bass tones, the pleasing green by the irritating mid-range gibberish.... Aah! I love the way things are... Or am I just not imaginative enough?

Backspaced words...

Hasn't it happened that you've typed in something, then you quickly read it yourself, and backspace those to say something that is usually a lot less intense than your original words? Would you prefer that you always said what you thought? Put in another way, would you want to first think about your thoughts before saying something? The IM, gives ample scope for this - thanks to our typing speeds being infinitesimally small compared to our thinking speeds. Wouldn't it all be good if the whole world was IM-ish? So you see, it's more than just being emoticonal!

Cricketism

With all the buzz about Harbhajan being a racist, Ponting being unsportsmanlike, the umpire's being incompetent, I'm left wondering whatever happened over the last two weeks... This is how I see it.

Harbhajan's comments - whether he's guilty or not (I saw two reports, one claiming that he is guilty, and the other that he's not!) - it's best if everyone just accepts ICC's judgment and continues with what each is supposed to be doing. It'll leave cricket less tarnished, ICC with some authority, BCCI with some shame. The only loss would be Harbhajan for three matches, which isn't much anyway! Three matches isn't a long time, especially considering that we already know the results of the next two matches, and more importantly, Harbhajan is no more the Turbanator he was in 1998.

Ponting's antics. How's that new? He's always been the fast-scoring batsman, the I'm-everywhere fielder who quite often pushes his luck on the field. He's always been the cunning mind under the baggy green. Why then this upsurge this time around?

Coming to the umpires. When have the umpires been right throughout a match? I believe umpires are biased coins with a probability of correct decision roughly 0.8, but that doesn't make a sequence of 10 roughly consecutive wrong decisions impossible. Improbable, yes. But, definitely not impossible, especially given the number of matches being played these days. Why all the hue and cry about Bucknor and Benson then?

The more I think about it, the more I feel that it is the continuing dominance of the Australian Cricket team that has made the difference this time. An Aussie victory, and an Aussie whitewash have become so common, that people have started to question other irrelevant trivialities of their games. It makes sense of the Aussie media, the Australians in general, to question these nuances in view of improving their game. But, when Indians do so, it's just a blame game. Much has been said about 'playing the game in the spirit of the game'. But, how many times have you seen an Indian walk when he's been judged not-out, and he's known he was out? Ironically, the only person I've seen doing that has been Adam Gilchrist!

This is just cricket being cricket...

The glass ceiling...

With the elections up close, I can't escape from news of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Mc Cain, and the rest doing this, saying that and being the change America needs. I came across an interesting jargon in US Politics - the glass ceiling, and it's sad relevance in my case.

The explanation - the invisible boundary that separates top posts from certain people. In this context, it refers to the President's chair. A position that has been out of reach of the African American (or a minority) community and the fairer sex thus far - though it is supposed to be an open slot for anyone, with no discrimination.

Whether Obama or Clinton break the glass ceiling or not, I will definitely not be able to break the glass ceiling between me and the perfect 4! Sigh...

What's in a name?

White rabbit?

Literally, the rabbit Alice follows, into the rabbit hole. Discovering the Wonderland.

Figuratively, delving into the blog to note the simple and complex things in life, the convoluted cosmos, this Solar system, the Blue planet, about man, his society, his deeds. Trying to question the accepted - Life is unfathomable.

An attempt to reduce the chaos in my thoughts, finding meaning in my actions, in my life...

Why?

The most important question for a believer in Science... I had asked myself this before. So I do again. I hope to articulate my thoughts here.

Had blogged before. Lost interest. Blamed it on my laziness. Partly true. This time, the blog is for a very selfish reason. I just want to store my thoughts in some place. And believe they are being shared. I won't promise anything this time. I don't believe that matters... To me, or anyone else.