My 10 star hotel rating standard
For each star, you experience...
1 star
Daily life of factory worker
2 stars
Daily life of an office worker
3 stars
Daily life of a manager
4 stars
Daily life of a CEO
5 stars
Daily life of a CEO in an MNC
6 stars
Daily life of the son of a CEO in an MNC
7 stars
Daily life of a King
8 stars
Daily life of a princess
9 stars
Daily life of a deity
10 stars
Daily life of ... Shiva?
iPhoneから送信
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
If religion were an escalator...
If religion were an escalator...
Some people will insist that you must stand on the left.
And others who think you should stand on the right will quarrel for all eternity with you.
But basically both believe that if you don't get one the escalator you will never get there.
Then there are those who take the elevator and they quarrel about whether you should stand at the sides of the lift instead.
And there are those who don't give a damn which side you're standing on.
And those who are strict on following whoever is in front of you, whether left or right.
And there are those who will stand right in the middle, and those who stand exactly out of line.
In some cultures there are protocols where you should stand - your personal belief is irrelevant.
But no matter what your belief, everybody takes the stairs when the escalator is getting serviced.
iPhoneから送信
Some people will insist that you must stand on the left.
And others who think you should stand on the right will quarrel for all eternity with you.
But basically both believe that if you don't get one the escalator you will never get there.
Then there are those who take the elevator and they quarrel about whether you should stand at the sides of the lift instead.
And there are those who don't give a damn which side you're standing on.
And those who are strict on following whoever is in front of you, whether left or right.
And there are those who will stand right in the middle, and those who stand exactly out of line.
In some cultures there are protocols where you should stand - your personal belief is irrelevant.
But no matter what your belief, everybody takes the stairs when the escalator is getting serviced.
iPhoneから送信
A study on the provability of life after death
I'm not an expert, but is it possible for a study along the lines of the following pseudo-paper prove whether or not life after death exists in a meaningful way?
Abstract
A study on the provability of life after death
Introduction
1. We are born into this world without memory of what was before life, and we do not spend our time lamenting about what we might have done before life as we know it started.
2. If life after death exists, and any memory of life before death does not survive death, life after death would be the same as life before death - ie, we would not spend time lamenting about what life before death might have been like, but rather just go on with whatever existence that may exist.
3. As such, if a soul that survives death exists, the existence of memory would be pivotal to whether we need to be concerned about life after death.
Nomenclature
4. By "memory" I mean all reference points that the soul may use to identify itself, toward the result of formulating what the self is. For most practical means, I construe this to be synonymous to the ability to remember, but do not at this stage want to preclude the possibility of there existing elements that contribute to the concept of self-identity outside the bounds of this ability.
5. By "soul" I mean a consciousness that is able to separate itself from other consciousnesses beyond death.
6. For the soul to exist in a way that is meaningful to our current existence, either memory must exist, or something else that is able to pin-point our current existence must exist. Let me call this "Identity". To limit the scope of this study, the consideration of complex memories and complex Identities shall be omitted. That is to say, the concept of Identities and memories that merge or otherwise get transformed after death, shall at this stage be assumed not to exist.
7. By "surviving death", I refer to the immediate retainment of memory after an individual's death, as opposed to there being an instantaneous process of off-loading one's memory into another realm after death. If the latter were true, it would be possible to destroy a soul through the instantaneous destruction of the body, unless the nature of our existence prohibits such a process because of limitations in how we are able to access the mechanics of time.
Hypothesis
8. Therefore, I hypothesize that to prove that for life after death to exist in a meaningful way, we have two basis to prove: (1) whether or not memory survives death, and, (2) whether or not Identity can exist outside the flesh.
Methods
9. If memory can survive death, it should be possible to formulate a technique to transplant memory. And since we are interested in the immediate retainment of memory after death, there must exist a location to which memory continually being off-loaded to when one is living. Quantum entanglement is one possible method, but there may be other methods not yet discovered.
10. If Identity can exist outside the flesh, cross-transplating whole organs, including the brain, or portions of organs between two individuals could be done to verify if there is any correlation between Identity and the physical body.
NOTES
1. All religions just assume that the self/soul exists, and builds theories around that to reinforce that believe. Why don't religions explain more about whether the self/soul exists, since that is the basis on which all life-after-death theories stand?For me, I draw a line between the "meaningful" and "de-facto" self. Maybe the examples below sound childish but...
[de-facto self]
If we recycle a magazine into a toilet paper, it's still the same paper, but what the paper used to be would not be relevant to the toilet paper, since what the magazine was like is irrelevant to the toilet paper. In this case, the self may exist (same pulp that made the paper), but I wouldn't care about it since there's nothing I can do about it.
[meaningful self]
But if we recycle a magazine into a child's art project, it would mean a lot, because the child would use the magazine because of its colors and pictures. In this case, the nature of the magazine is brought into its after-life as an art project. If it's possible for science to establish anything about life after death, this would be the once that is worth studying....
Abstract
A study on the provability of life after death
Introduction
1. We are born into this world without memory of what was before life, and we do not spend our time lamenting about what we might have done before life as we know it started.
2. If life after death exists, and any memory of life before death does not survive death, life after death would be the same as life before death - ie, we would not spend time lamenting about what life before death might have been like, but rather just go on with whatever existence that may exist.
3. As such, if a soul that survives death exists, the existence of memory would be pivotal to whether we need to be concerned about life after death.
Nomenclature
4. By "memory" I mean all reference points that the soul may use to identify itself, toward the result of formulating what the self is. For most practical means, I construe this to be synonymous to the ability to remember, but do not at this stage want to preclude the possibility of there existing elements that contribute to the concept of self-identity outside the bounds of this ability.
5. By "soul" I mean a consciousness that is able to separate itself from other consciousnesses beyond death.
6. For the soul to exist in a way that is meaningful to our current existence, either memory must exist, or something else that is able to pin-point our current existence must exist. Let me call this "Identity". To limit the scope of this study, the consideration of complex memories and complex Identities shall be omitted. That is to say, the concept of Identities and memories that merge or otherwise get transformed after death, shall at this stage be assumed not to exist.
7. By "surviving death", I refer to the immediate retainment of memory after an individual's death, as opposed to there being an instantaneous process of off-loading one's memory into another realm after death. If the latter were true, it would be possible to destroy a soul through the instantaneous destruction of the body, unless the nature of our existence prohibits such a process because of limitations in how we are able to access the mechanics of time.
Hypothesis
8. Therefore, I hypothesize that to prove that for life after death to exist in a meaningful way, we have two basis to prove: (1) whether or not memory survives death, and, (2) whether or not Identity can exist outside the flesh.
Methods
9. If memory can survive death, it should be possible to formulate a technique to transplant memory. And since we are interested in the immediate retainment of memory after death, there must exist a location to which memory continually being off-loaded to when one is living. Quantum entanglement is one possible method, but there may be other methods not yet discovered.
10. If Identity can exist outside the flesh, cross-transplating whole organs, including the brain, or portions of organs between two individuals could be done to verify if there is any correlation between Identity and the physical body.
NOTES
1. All religions just assume that the self/soul exists, and builds theories around that to reinforce that believe. Why don't religions explain more about whether the self/soul exists, since that is the basis on which all life-after-death theories stand?For me, I draw a line between the "meaningful" and "de-facto" self. Maybe the examples below sound childish but...
[de-facto self]
If we recycle a magazine into a toilet paper, it's still the same paper, but what the paper used to be would not be relevant to the toilet paper, since what the magazine was like is irrelevant to the toilet paper. In this case, the self may exist (same pulp that made the paper), but I wouldn't care about it since there's nothing I can do about it.
[meaningful self]
But if we recycle a magazine into a child's art project, it would mean a lot, because the child would use the magazine because of its colors and pictures. In this case, the nature of the magazine is brought into its after-life as an art project. If it's possible for science to establish anything about life after death, this would be the once that is worth studying....
Friday, April 05, 2013
Hey I'm now working with quite a few japanese and wanted to check back with you on their culture. Would it be true to say that trust is hardwon with Japanese, more so than other countries? I'm finding myself acting as a bridge between my japanese and American colleagues - they can't understand each other. Would you also agree that the Japanese mindset to solve a problem is to consider all the situation in entirety, before they will commit to a solution, rather than to move forward with part of the information? My american colleague is trying to understand why a japanese colleague seems unwilling to trust that we will make the best decision, and wants all the information to be laid out as well
Trust takes a long time to build and Japanese base the game on mutual trust rather than clearly spelt out rules. Decisions are made by spending lengthy amounts of time through long meetings in which people communicate their total sum of feelings rather than personal opinions.
Once trust is established, people move on without questioning minor details, but that can sometimes result in unclear objectives with which results can e measured against.
Americans think in layers, Chinese think in units, Japanese think in clutters.
Americans can for eg just consider the design side or just the environmental side of things
Japanese think as far as their personal abilities allow them to
Get your American colleagues to drink with your Japanese colleagues.
It helps build an impression of mutual trust.
Americans build know-how into formal systems, Japanese build it into the company culture. Get your american colleagues to communicate their passion not just their proposal.
For Americans, a solution is as good as its possibilities, for Japanese a solution is only as good as its implementation.
Quite enlightening. No wonder Japanese make such good designers but not so good innovators.
Trust takes a long time to build and Japanese base the game on mutual trust rather than clearly spelt out rules. Decisions are made by spending lengthy amounts of time through long meetings in which people communicate their total sum of feelings rather than personal opinions.
Once trust is established, people move on without questioning minor details, but that can sometimes result in unclear objectives with which results can e measured against.
Americans think in layers, Chinese think in units, Japanese think in clutters.
Americans can for eg just consider the design side or just the environmental side of things
Japanese think as far as their personal abilities allow them to
Get your American colleagues to drink with your Japanese colleagues.
It helps build an impression of mutual trust.
Americans build know-how into formal systems, Japanese build it into the company culture. Get your american colleagues to communicate their passion not just their proposal.
For Americans, a solution is as good as its possibilities, for Japanese a solution is only as good as its implementation.
Quite enlightening. No wonder Japanese make such good designers but not so good innovators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)