Asylum of the Logically Insane

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

2011-01-12T12:52:00.002+08:00

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is, in truth, bad advice. The most obvious reason is the difference in values. People do not all want the same treatment. I may enjoy getting punched in the face but most people probably do not. One may argue that on a higher level, the application of the rule would mean being nice to people if you want them to be nice to you, taking into account their individual preferences. This would only lead us to the bigger problem of "what do other people really want?".

There is also an implicit motivation in the rule, which is that people will tend to treat you the way you treat them. Unfortunately, this assumption of reciprocity is often invalid. People will treat you the way they do, regardless of how you treat them. The correlation there, while positive, is almost zero.

The best strategy to adopt is therefore to do whatever the heck one wishes.

Why? Because if one tries to be nice to someone, they might not give a damn. Or worse, from their perspective, one might be acting like a jerk. Since the outcome, whether success or failure, is so random, the optimum thing to do is to act in a manner that is at least guaranteed to make oneself happy.

More Plausible Explanations of Some Superpowers

2008-02-05T23:39:00.000+08:00

In this entry, I shall discuss some common superpowers portrayed in comic books and TV and propose alternate mechanisms for how these powers work.

Phasing, defined as a person's ability to move through another solid object.

The usual explanation is that the person who possesses this ability can somehow change the nature of the material that makes up his body such that it can pass through typical solid matter. There are many problems with this mechanism. For example,why doesn't the person fall through the floor? Why doesn't his clothes fall off when he phase? A better explanation would be that it is not the man who becomes ethereal but rather, he can temporarily change the nature of other objects so that he may pass through them.

Invisibility. Once again, to explain invisibility by attributing it to the matter that makes up the person creates all sorts of problems. How does he see if light goes right through his eyes without getting focused by his lens or detected by his retina? What happens when he eats? At what point does food become part of the person and turns invisible? (And what about the food that is not absorbed?)

It would be better to ascribe invisibility to light being forced to travel around a person rather than through him, perhaps by means of some light bending force. There is still the problem of being blind to a certain extent but at least one is spared the hassle of walking around naked.

Strange Logic

2007-07-07T21:48:00.000+08:00

Here are some "proofs" for the existence of God. Logic is a funny thing.

1. Proof by Truth Teller
Fairies do not exist, therefore lying fairies do not exist.
This implies that all fairies tell the truth.
Fairies do not exist, therefore atheist fairies do not exist.
This implies that all fairies claim that God exists.
Since all fairies are truth tellers, their claim is true, therefore God exists.

2. Proof by Contradiction
Define God as any omnipotent being.
Suppose God does not exist, then there does not exist an omnipotent being. Therefore, everything is not omnipotent. If everything is not omnipotent, then God must also be not omnipotent. But we already define God as being omnipotent. We arrive at a contradiction. Therefore the assumption is false and God exists.

Technorati tags: proof god

The Illusory Improvement In Traveling Time

2006-10-01T17:17:00.000+08:00

In an hour, a person can walk 5km, run 10km and cycle 15km at a reasonable pace. A motorized vehicle, unobstructed, can easily cover 60km in the same time. I live about 10km from the city centre, which means that in the days before public transport became available, I could expect to get downtown on a bicycle in about 40min.

The transportation system has developed much since then. In place of dirt tracks, we now have a complex and efficient network of roads. Everything is optimized. From the routes and schedules of buses and trains to the timing of traffic lights, nothing escapes the improvement process.

Yet strangely enough, if I were to take a bus with a direct route downtown today, it would take me at best 40min and at worst 60min, excluding the waiting time. Obviously not a great improvement. Unfortunately, this is not a localized anomaly. Despite the tremendous advancement in transportation technology in terms of speed and passenger capacity, the impact of such progress to the traveling individuals is actually quite small.

This is so even for car owners. While the automobiles of today are far superior to their predecessors, their drivers can hardly claim a mind-blowing savings in time.

Why is this so? Is the progression of technology just barely able to keep up with the increase in population? Or did the authorities fail to exploit the technology that is available to us?

Probably neither. It seemed unlikely that the government's only concern in this area is to get people where they want to go as fast as possible.

Many things have been implemented to improve traffic conditions. Roads have been widened. Expressways were built. ERP was implemented. With all these in place, traffic conditions are bound to improve. But they did not. The only possible explanation is the constant addition of cars to the network of roads. But COE controls the number of cars. And that brings us to one conclusion, that making the traffic super smooth is not the primary goal of the government.

And why should they? I certainly would not build plenty of roads just to improve traffic for a few cars. If you are going to have this much road, then you should have as many cars using it as is reasonably possible. If you did something that drastically improved traffic flow, then it makes sense to allow a few more cars on the road and earn some profit from the COE at the same time. Just stay within reasonable limits and this scheme will work.

What is considered reasonable? As long as the average traveling time for the general public does not increase over the years, it is deemed acceptable.

Take the NEL for example. It travels much faster than the older trains. But its waiting time is also longer. Add the fact that now many people are forced to travel to the train stations due to the removal of other options, namely direct bus services, it is not difficult to realize that the average travel time via that route did not really improve much. It's a lot faster if one lives near a train station but slower if one is forced to take a bus to the train station.

The only difference is that the new system can carry a larger volume of passengers using less vehicles and making more profit. For the average commuter, the significant improvement in traveling time is but an illusion.

Technorati tags: singapore transport

I is Singaporean v1.1

2006-07-08T12:50:00.000+08:00

Hi, my name is Mingde.

I live in trees and eat peppermint candy. I don't own a car, or a credit card, or a condominium, or any freehold property that is now MRT tracks. I don't know Michael Fay, Annabel Chong or the VR Man, although I'm certain they're really, really uncourteous.

I have a Prime Minister AND a President...and a Senior Minister and a Minister Mentor. I speak Engrand and JAVA, not English, and I pronounce it "flo-wer", not "flour".

I can proudly sew my mouth to avoid trouble. I believe in public caning, not multiple lifetime imprisonment; integrated resorts, not casinos; and that chewing gum is a truly vile and disgusting product.

Today is a newspaper, Tomorrow is a metablog and it is pronouced "awthonticate"; not "authenticate" - "awthonticate"!

Singapore is the most eager importer of "talents"! The first nation of acronyms! And the best part of China!

My name is Mingde! And I is Singaporean!

So say we all!

So say we all!

Technorati tags: iamsingaporean

Live Each Day Like Your Last

2006-06-29T22:24:00.000+08:00

"If you live each day as if it were your last, someday you'll most certainly be right."

I do not know from where this piece of advice originated but I am confident that many people will continue quoting it to inspire people around them. Frankly, I think having this kind of life philosophy is plain stupid.

When I first encountered this saying, I was unsure whether it encouraged or discouraged living each day as if it were my last. "...someday you'll most certainly be right" - and since I most certainly do not want to be right in this case, doesn't that mean I shouldn't live each day as if it were my last?

But since this saying is supposed to promote a positive attitude (ironic since one must pretend one is going to die tomorrow), I guess it encourages one to live each day as if it were truly the last. But what does that really mean?

If I were to die tomorrow, I'll spend half the time executing my will and the other half spending all my money in one day and having an absolutely fabulous time. In short, living life to the fullest as they call it, in one day. Is this really how I should be living every single day of my life? Is this the logical, optimum and most preferred thing to do?

I think the answer is trivial but since so many people have been telling me to live each day like my last (implying that they believe in that stuff), I must very well be insane to reason so differently from normal, clear-minded people.

Psychic Appendix

2006-04-13T11:03:00.000+08:00

People are always telling me that they believe that humans are using only 10% of their brains and that if they can only unlock the dormant 90%, they could accomplish amazing feats such as mind reading, telekinesis, making their homework do itself and even thinking logically! This 10% urban legend has been around for some time and I personally do not think I am using less than half my brain but I am not so sure about a lot of people.

Let's forget for a moment that most experts with any credibility do not support the 10% claim and assume that 90% of the human brain has no known function. Isn't it strange that just because people don't know what that body part does, they can assume it possesses miraculous ability waiting to be unlocked? Why hasn't anyone propose that the source of ESP comes from the appendix, a part of the anatomy whose function is still debatable? How else can you explain why most so-called psychics have not yet have their appendices removed?

Then some guy, whom Mingde has probably been constantly irritating with his arguments, will come along and point out that since the brain is the organ related to thought, it is reasonable to assume that psychic abilities would come from the brain. Why of course! Mind reading comes from the brain! But since the appendix is so near the caecum, which digests cellulose, it must have the hidden ability to psychically digest cellulose for other people! Think of the wonders we can perform if we can only unlock the secrets of the appendix. We would be able to psychically break down the cellulose in the bodies of people with indigestion!

The Inefficiencies of Certain Gentlemanly Behaviours

2005-11-19T11:47:00.000+08:00

1. Leaving the toilet seat down

This one is so obviously inefficient that it requires little explanation. In a house where both men and women share the toilet, some women will demand that the men put the toilet seat down after using it. Clearly, we see that this is a redundant step if the next person who uses the toilet is a man. If we adopt the system where the next person who wants to use the toilet adjusts the seat himself/herself accordingly, there would be no unnecessary adjustments of the toilet seat.

This not only saves effort but also extends the lifespan of the toilet seat as the hinges does not wear out as quickly. In fact, if you perform a quick approximate calculation considering a toilet with equal but random male and female usage (assuming the male only uses it for peeing), you make 50% less toilet seat adjustments by leaving the toilet seat the way it is after use.

Some people would argue that this scheme is analogous to washing the dishes only when you want to use them but that is just plain stupid. What we have here is a false analogy. First, you would never want to use dirty plates for your next meal but some users might actually want to use the toilet with the seat placed up. Second, between this meal and the next, dirty dishes are really gross and can stink. However, toilet seats left up for a long time does not produce undesirable side effects in any way.

2. Offering help, food and drinks

This one irks me the most.

It is generally considered gentlemanly if you offer help without being asked or occasionally ask "Are you hungry? Do you want me to get you a drink?". Yes, it is nice when people are so considerate and sensitive to your needs but it is also bloody inefficient.

Compare the two approaches. Number 1: Periodically offer assistance to someone carrying heavy looking objects. Number 2: Help only when the person carrying the heavy object asks for it.

The first approach is what is known as 'polling' in computer engineering. The CPU periodically asks the keyboard, mouse, etc. whether there is any new input. The second approach is called 'interrupt'. The CPU ignores the other components and performs its own tasks. Whenever there is new input, the keyboard sends a signal to interrupt the CPU, telling it that there is new input to be processed. It doesn't take a genius to realize which is more efficient or which method most computers use. Polling is so inefficient that if your computer uses polling for all its processes, you probably wouldn't be reading this right now.

In short, you can't be a perfect gentleman and absolutely efficient at the same time. They don't call it cold-blooded efficiency for nothing.

Pairs of Socks

2005-09-02T10:42:00.000+08:00

Suppose you just bought several pairs of socks. Would it be better for you to wear out one pair of socks first before wearing the next pair or would it be better for you to rotate the pairs on a regular basis? Is there even any difference?

It is quite intuitive to realize that rotation wears out the pairs evenly. But what about the first strategy of wearing out each pair one at a time? Are your socks newer on an average day? Do your socks last longer or shorter?

We can examine this problem by using a simplified model below:

1. One of pair of socks is worn per day.

2. Let us assume each pair of socks has a lifespan of 8n units. If a pair of socks is left unused for a day, 1 unit is consumed. If a pair of socks is worn for a day, 2 units are consumed. Essentially, when a pair of socks is being used, it wears out twice as fast as a pair that is not.

3. The age of a pair of socks is equal to x when the pair of socks has used up x units of life by the end of the previous day.

4. A pair of socks has age = 0 on the first day of the experiment and age = 8n-2 on the last day of its life if it is being used on that day.

5. The objective is to minimize the average age of the pairs of socks worn per day and to maximize the number of days the whole batch of socks will last.

Now, suppose you just bought 3 pairs of socks.

Strategy 1: Wear them out one pair at a time
Calculate the total sum of the age of the socks worn on each day.
Total age = 0 + 2 + 4 + ... + (8n-2) _{1st pair worn out after 4n days}
+ 4n + (4n+2) + (4n+4) + ... + (4n+(4n-2)) _{2nd pair worn out after 2n days}
+ 6n + (6n+2) + (6n+4) + ... + (6n+(2n-2)) _{3rd pair worn out after n days}
= 7n(5n - 1)

Total number of days the socks last = 4n + 2n + n = 7n
Average age per day = 7n(5n - 1)/7n = 5n - 1

Strategy 2: 3-day cycle rotation
Calculate the total sum of the age of the socks worn on each day.
Total age = (0+1+2) + (4+5+6) + (8+9+10) + ... + ((8n-4)+(8n-3)+(8n-2))
= 6n(4n - 1)

Total number of days the socks last = (2n cycles)(3 day per cycle) = 6n
Average age per day = 6n(4n - 1)/6n = 4n - 1

Conclusion
Clearly, strategy 2 allows us to appear to wear socks that aren't that old on average while strategy 1 allows the socks to last longer. The reason is rather simple. Strategy 1 is able to use the socks for more days because it tries to minimize the amount of time the socks are rotting away in the dresser. Of course, the price to pay is that you end up wearing really old socks on many days. A strategy that randomly chooses the pair of socks to be worn will probably achieve a result between these two extremes.

Equilateral Triangle Vertices with Integer Cartesian Coordinates

2005-06-25T14:00:00.000+08:00

Here's a picture of three seeds on a Weiqi (Go) board.

If we treat each seed as a vertex, we see that the seeds form a triangle that is almost equilateral. Here comes the question: Can we place the seeds on the board such that they form a perfect equilateral triangle? Of course, the seeds can only be placed on the intersections of vertical and horizontal lines. What if the game board extends infinitely in each direction, can we form an equilateral triangle of finite size?

A more formal way of phrasing the problem is this: Does there exist three points with finite integer Cartesian coordinates such that they form an equilateral triangle? The answer is no.

Although it is trivial that a line that is 30 degrees from the horizontal or vertical will never intersect two points with integer Cartesian coordinates, it is not so obvious if we can form equilateral triangles that does not have any edges that are either vertical or horizontal.

Anyway, here is my proof that there does not exist three points with finite integer Cartesian coordinates such that they form an equilateral triangle.

Proof:

Assume such a set of three points exists.
Let the set be translated and/or reflected such that one of the vertices is at the origin as shown in the diagram below. The equilateral triangle in the diagram exists if and only if the above mentioned set of three points exists because translation and reflection maintains the shape of the triangle.

Is it time to die?

2005-05-29T14:07:00.000+08:00

I have a friend who once said that one does not have to live so cautiously because everything is fated. If it is time for you to die, you will die no matter how careful you are. If it is not, then you simply will not die and there would be no point in being so careful.

There was another fellow who also used this argument when I told him that his smoking habit might eventually kill him. He replied that a car might hit him tomorrow, regardless of whether he smoked. On the other hand, there have been cases of smokers living to a ripe old age. While what he said is not impossible, his line of reasoning is clearly fallacious. This sort of argument akin to saying that determinism implies the absence of responsibility.

If we apply this argument to any actions by any individual, we would arrive at ridiculous conclusions. We can say that if a murderer kills someone, he is not responsible for his actions because he is fated to kill the victim and that it is time for the victim to die. (In fact, the friend whom I mentioned in the first paragraph agreed to this statement.) If this is true, then there is no need for law enforcement. No one is responsible for anything. Things happen because it is fate. The future is fixed.

The future is fixed because the universe is deterministic. There are many kinds of determinism and I shall not go into that. When I use the word determinism here, I am using it in a very broad sense. In this case, determinism means that events of the future do not happen randomly, they are caused by events preceding it, i.e. events in the present and the past. Simply put, cause and effect. It should be quite easy to see why the future is fixed. Everything that is happening now, on the cosmic and the subatomic scale, will cause the universe to turn out in a particular way the next moment in time. Of course, this keeps going on and on. There is no room for the universe to be drastically unpredictable. The laws of physics are pretty strict about that.

Since everything we think and do are predetermined, caused by factors in the past such as upbringing, education, mass media, butterfly flapping wings, etc., then surely we can not be held responsible for our thoughts and action, can we? We have no choice, no free will, therefore no responsibilities. This is incorrect because while the future is predetermined, we do not know how it is predetermined. We do not have true free will but we do have illusionary free will.

When we toss a coin, the outcome is already determined by the way we toss it, the force applied and the mass of the coin. However, since we have no knowledge of these parameters, it is reasonable to view the outcome as a probabilistic distribution. When information is limited, statistics becomes important in predicting the outcome of any event.

Therefore, it is not alright to smoke tonnes of cigarettes a day because statistically, smoking is highly correlated to lung cancer and premature death. In fact, we can say smoking causes death. Even though a person can die in a car accident before developing cancer, a rational person would realize that it is far more probable that he die of smoking-related complications.

Similarly, we do not know when a person is "fated" to die. But we do know that if you stab him with a knife, there is a very high chance that he will die. In this way, any man who stabs someone has to take responsibility for his actions. And we should imprison criminals because they are a lot less likely to inflict harm on others when they are in jail. If anyone tries to argue that he had no choice because everything is fated, then we can say that it is fate that we arrest him. Cause and effect, it is that simple.

If it is rational to think that we can do whatever we want irresponsibly because our lives are all predestined, then we should all just not do anything at all, not even eat or drink. If we are not fated to die, then we will not starve to death. If we are fated to get rich, then we will be billionaires just by staring at the wall. People who think like that should impale themselves and test their theory. If they die, it does not matter since they would not be able to avoid it anyway. If not, good for them!

So people out there who blame the universe for their misfortunes, please stop complaining and do something about it. Your future is fixed but you do not know how. As far as you are concerned, it has not happened yet, you can influence the outcome by your present actions. Of course, whether you choose to believe me is your choice, although I dare say that your choice is already predetermined!

Nightcrawler vs Newton & Einstein

2005-05-15T13:15:00.000+08:00

There is a character in X-men named Nightcrawler who has the ability to teleport himself from one point in space to another. From the X2 movie, it seems like not only can he translate himself in space instantaneously, he can also ignore all the rules of Newtonian mechanics.

When Nightcrawler teleports a metre forward, how far did he move? Was it one metre relative to his previous position? Not necessarily. For all we know, he could have been moving at a hundred miles an hour (relative to an arbitrary point) the moment before he teleported. A more correct way of seeing this would be that he teleported one metre from his previous position in the inertial reference frame where he was stationary just before he teleported. For the not-scientifically-inclined, an inertial reference frame can be roughly explained as a point-of-view that is not accelerating.

According to Newton's Laws of Motion, an object that is not subjected to any force will continue moving with the same velocity (i.e. same speed and direction) - no matter viewed from any inertial reference frame. This is where Nightcrawler amazingly accelerates without any force applied to him. He can disappear while stationary and reappear somewhere else with a velocity (and angular velocity) greater than zero. This clearly violates the conservation of linear (and angular) momentum. He can also teleport great distances upwards, against gravity, meaning he just gained potential energy from nothing, violating conservation of energy.

It is as if Nightcrawler can choose to exit from his teleportation being stationary in a different inertial reference frame as the one he was in when he entered. If that is the case, then he is very powerful indeed. He can never die from falling off a building because before he hits the ground with enormous speed, he can just lose all his momentum by teleporting. He can also fight without even moving his limbs. He can be standing there one moment and the next moment, his whole body can be flying at his opponent at any speed he chooses when he teleports.

Applying Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Nightcrawler's ability to change velocities without having to pay for it has profound implications. Nightcrawler can effectively accelerate himself to any speed, even close to speed of light or beyond. That means he can time travel. The instantaneity of his teleportation is also a kind of time travel since he effectively broke the light-speed barrier.

Of course ,the strangest part of his power is he can somehow appear in a place where there already is matter. Where did all the matter go? Did the air just disappear when he appears?

Naturally, we never get to see him time travel in the stories. Just like we will never see Magneto manipulate matter at the molecular level even though the primary force between virtually everything is electromagnetic. People with super powers always have limited imagination - or little knowledge of physics.

The Age of Machines is here. To fear or not to fear?

2005-04-22T22:13:00.000+08:00

The idea that machines with artificial intelligence might one day take over the world has been around for a long time. And a long time ago, that idea was ridiculous and existed only in the realm of fantasy. But as technology advances, it becomes apparent that computers becoming more intelligent than humans is not as improbable as we once thought. If machines do indeed become more intelligent than us, it is likely that humans will either become extinct, domesticated or kept in the zoo. We are to the machines what animals are to us.

Many experts have made detailed analysis as to the likelihood of such a scenario. I am therefore not going to spend time discussing that. What I shall discuss is whether it is rational to fear this scenario.

If we do succeed in producing a race of mechanical beings that is fitter than us in the evolutionary sense, then they will replace us as the dominant species on the planet. But if seen from another perspective, we are not really replaced by another race but are merely evolved. Human beings are not immortal. We are constantly replaced by our children who are not us but are created by us. They differ from us but are linked to us and our ancestors by the continuous chain of creation. Similarly, intelligent machines are our creation and hence our children. Of course, on a personal level, no one would consider a computer his child but putting aside emotions, there seems to be no logical reason why one should fear the human race being replaced by machines and yet accept the human race being replaced by smarter superhumans a thousand generations from now. Being afraid of machines taking over the world is like people who grew up riding horses fearing the next generation of people who grew up driving cars.

By now, you should think that there is something wrong with my argument because you have this uneasy feeling that machines are not humans while children are. The reason is that humans are irrational and this is your irrational side talking. Machines and children are not clear cut categories. What if instead of machines, I was talking about genetically engineered children? Or mutants, like in Xmen? What about cyborgs? Are they machines? How about mutants and genetically engineered children who are also cyborgs? Children with artificially enhanced brain? Children with partial synthetic brains? Children with fully synthetic brains, i.e. artificial intelligence with organic body? Where do you draw the line?

Any rational person should be able to see by now that there is nothing to fear when machines take over the world. Perhaps humans will become slaves, but that might happen even if human children take over the world. Humans are well-known for enslaving other humans.

Now, consider a similar scenario. Instead of machines, we created a supervirus that destroyed all humans but is very capable of surviving generations after generations, i.e. a virus that is fitter than us. Should we fear such a virus? The virus is not intelligent. It is not even visible. As with all viruses, they can barely be considered alive because if left unattended for a long time, they do not die. Viruses do not need to feed. It is far less human than machines. Now instead of viruses, what if we created a dangerous molecule that can replicate itself and it destroys all humans. Should we fear that? Where do we draw the line here? It is clear the line separating what is alive and what is not is fuzzy. Just as the line separating what we should fear and what we should not.

So should we be afraid of being ruled by computers? Of course not! Because we already are!

Where is Mingde?

2004-10-20T17:10:00.000+08:00

"Where is Mingde?"

When a typical human named X poses this question to a typical human named Y, what does the former really want to know? The question is simple and apparently straightforward. However, a more careful examination will reveal unstated assumptions and hidden implications that reflect the ambiguity of human languages.

A naive interpretation would be that X wants to know the location of Mingde. But to what precision? If we accept this interpretation, then "He's in the office", "He's in town", "He's on Earth" and "He's in this universe" are all equally valid answers. Yet some of these answers, e.g. "He's in this universe", are clearly not what X wants. Therefore, we must find a more fitting interpretation.

Suppose we interpret the question as asking for Mingde's location given to the greatest possible degree of accuracy, then the answer would always be "I don't know". The reason being that Y can not possibly know Mingde's location with infinitesimal accuracy. Once again, the problem of precision comes into play.

Let us refine our interpretation to "What is Mingde's location given to the greatest accuracy that you can provide?". This would seem close enough to reality. However, if Y does not know Mingde's location, then he would be forced to say something like "He's on Earth" because that would indeed be the best description Y can provide. But no one does that in real life! Normal people would reply with "I don't know". Hence there is still something lacking in this interpretation.

By now it should be obvious that interpreting this question in a strict logical sense is not a simple matter. There is most probably no absolutely correct interpretation since there is no clear definition of what a typical human is. But the best interpretation I can provide is "If you can give me Mingde's location with greater accuracy than I already know, then tell me Mingde's location, given to the accuracy that I need or you can possibly provide, whichever is less (since too accurate a description is redundant). If not, reply with 'I don't know'".

Hence if Y only knows that Mingde is in a certain building, but X knows that Mingde is on a certain floor and wants to know which room Mingde is in, then Y should reply with "I don't know". However, if Y knows that Mingde is in the third cubicle in a particular washroom and X only wants to know which room Mingde is in, then Y should only reply "He's in the washroom". Notice that this interpretation requires Y to know two pieces of unavailable information:
1) the accuracy that X knows
2) the accuracy that X needs
In real life, this is done by guess work. Point 2 is usually easier to guess since it is reasonable to assume that X needs an accuracy that allows him to find Mingde easily. Point 1 is more difficult to guess and is sometimes guessed incorrectly. This is commonly seen when a person asking such a question has to rephrase the question, usually by adding more details, to better convey point 1 to the person whom the question was posed, allowing the latter to give a more appropriate answer.

The funny thing is that most people apply these complex assumptions and implications in their statements and questions unwittingly. Moreover, they expect others to understand these hidden meanings even though they are unaware of these conditions themselves! Humans speak so ambiguously it's no wonder the world is in such a mess.

Fuzzy Soul

2004-10-17T13:53:00.000+08:00

The Claim:
Every human has a soul.

My Questions:
Does a cyborg (human with mechanical parts, e.g. a mechanical hand) have a soul?
Does an android (fully mechanical human shaped robot) have a soul?
How about an android with a patch of human skin?
How much organic parts must a cyborg possess to be considered having a soul?
If I were to remove half of every organ (brain included) from a human and replace them with synthetic equivalents, does this cyborg have a soul?
What if I were to use those removed half organs and combine them with synthetic half organs to make another cyborg, does he then have a soul too?
So can one make two souls from one or is there such a thing as half a soul?

p.s. While I was performing sentry duty at the live-firing area at Poyan, my fellow sentry told me that every human has a soul when I confessed I did not believe I had one. Professor Steve Mann from the University of Toronto just popped up in my mind since he was, being a cyborg as he claimed, not entirely human. The chain of questions naturally followed to which my companion had no clear answers. After all, who would have applied fuzzy logic when discussing the ethereal?

It is begun.

2004-08-07T12:53:00.000+08:00