雪国

我被困在一个人的下午
冷窗框着白茫茫飘雪的回忆
零下空气吐纳出我漂浮形体
在紧闭空间隐形了忘却的方向
只能如去年冬天在我躯体内流浪

此时落下的冰雨仿佛让人穿梭时空
回到曾经漫步于春雨湿润的幸福牵手
唯独此刻失去了手心的温暖
肌肤上的弯眼默默地冻结成瓦解的重量
睁开或闭上双眼都无差别

你是否已经乘着火车离开此地
穿过延绵的黑暗抵达另一端
你应有的光明
只留下
你昨日的心似水
负载我今日的愈情未了

Link to this poem @ Heteropoetry Club

Bill Maher -- New Rules 18th May 2007

Bill Maher talks about Jerry Faldwell, one of the biggest prick ever to lived (together with Pat Robertson)... ...

How Dare You Call Me A Fundamentalist!

Richard Dawkins

The hardback God Delusion was hailed as the surprise bestseller of 2006. While it was warmly received by most of the 1,000-plus individuals who volunteered personal reviews to Amazon, paid print reviewers gave less uniform approval. Cynics might invoke unimaginative literary editors: it has “God” in the title, so send it to a known faith-head. That would be too cynical, however. Several critics began with the ominous phrase, “I’m an atheist, BUT . . .” So here is my brief rebuttal to criticisms originating from this “belief in belief” school.

I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language.

Objectively judged, the language of The God Delusion is less shrill than we regularly hear from political commentators or from theatre, art, book or restaurant critics. The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility.

A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would, in other contexts, sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a shrill rant. My nearest approach to stridency was my account of God as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction”. I don’t know how well I succeeded, but my intention was closer to humorous broadside than shrill polemic. Restaurant critics are notoriously scathing, but are seldom dismissed as shrill or intolerant. A restaurant might seem a trivial target compared to God. But restaurateurs and chefs have feelings to hurt and livelihoods to lose, whereas “blasphemy is a victimless crime”.

You can’t criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology.

If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise. For the rest, I cannot better the “Courtier’s Reply” on P. Z. Myers’s splendid Pharyngula website, where he takes me to task for outing the Emperor’s nudity while ignoring learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear. Most Christians happily disavow Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reference to monographs of Baalian exegesis or Pastafarian theology.

You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

You’re preaching to the choir. What’s the point?

The nonbelieving choir is much bigger than people think, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks that showered my North American book tour, my articulation of hitherto closeted thoughts is heard as a kind of liberation. The atheist choir, moreover, is too ready to observe society’s convention of according special respect to faith, and it goes along with society’s lamentable habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You’d never speak of a “Marxist child” or a “monetarist child”. So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.

You’re as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise.

No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.

I’m an atheist, but people need religion.

“What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to fill the need, or comfort the bereaved?”

What patronising condescension! “You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, Orwellian proles, Huxleian Deltas and Epsilons need religion.” In any case, the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true. The God Delusion doesn’t set out to be comforting, but at least it is not a placebo. I am pleased that the opening lines of my own Unweaving the Rainbow have been used to give solace at funerals.

When asked whether she believed in God, Golda Meir said: “I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God.” I recently heard a prize specimen of I’m-an-atheist-buttery quote this and then substitute his own version: “I believe in people, and people believe in God.” I too believe in people. I believe that, given proper encouragement to think, and given the best information available, people will courageously cast aside celestial comfort blankets and lead intellectually fulfilled, emotionally liberated lives.

==================================================================

From this website:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece

Story of an Ostracized Atheist Teenager

This was a story aired on ABC in the United States recently. It was about how a teenage girl in Oklahoma is discriminated by her whole school just because she is not a Christian and does not believe in a supreme supernatural being...

Just a side note: Aren't Christians supposed to love all fellow men (and women) as their own brothers or sisters? I guess that only applies to fellow Christians......

让每一天都是地球日

(刊登于联合早报2007 年5 月13日)

在全球变暖阴影的笼罩下，今年的4月22日对许多人而言意义更为深刻，因为这是环保份子为了提高大众的环保意识于70年代设定的地球日(Earth Day)。在今年的地球日，美国许多民间机构和环保组织都在各大城市举行许多教育性的活动。本地也不例外，除了遴选出所谓的地球小姐(Miss Earth)、举办以环保意识为主题的数码艺术比赛之外，各大报纸也在当天特地报导有关环保和绿化的新闻， 以提高读者的环保意识。

这实在是令人鼓舞的消息！看来地球所面对的各种环境问题大概就可以迎刃而解了，因为我们已经把环保的讯息传达给大众了！

然而，年纪较大的观众或许会记得80年代末有关臭氧层被破坏的讯息。即使是地球暖化和温室效应也并不是近几年才普及的词语，这些词语在90年代初就已经存在了。我记得在好多年前读到一篇文章，叙述的是70年代末许多环保组织在美国的大城市举办的活动，结果讽刺的是活动制造出大量的垃圾，完全违背了活动本身所要传达的讯息。由于那篇文章的结尾非常深刻，因此我至今还可以记忆犹新：所谓的地球日仿佛只是让所有的参与者得到某种心灵安慰的空洞节日，因为大家只要以为自己在大街上高喊自己支持环保就等同为环保尽了一份力，结果什么东西都没有改变，而环境问题依然存在。

我不是反对提高大众的环保意识，而是担心这并不足够，尤其是在许多科学家都提出了人类只有大概十年的时间解决地球暖化问题，以致它不会发展成无可挽回的局面的看法下，解决环境问题已经是刻不容缓了。在此背景下，有关当局许多针对环境问题的措施更显得难能可贵，如安装太阳能的街灯和种植树木。然而，要解决环境问题仅仅靠这些小措施是不足够的，还需要更大和更多的改变。

或许最难改变的是多数人对于经济发展的看法吧。我曾经和许多来自中国和印度的朋友交谈，问他们对于控制发展中国家的温室气体排量的看法如何，而他们的答案总是非常相同，就是这样子会影响发展中国家的经济发展，是个不公平的做法。换句话说，环保措施固然重要，不过经济发展必须放在优先。我相信持有此看法的不只是来自发展中国家的朋友和领袖，就算是询问本地或者是欧美的朋友和领袖，十之八九也会得到同样的答案吧。

对于此看法，本人觉得非常难理解。如果整个地球的环境都搞砸了，还有什么经济发展可言呢？难道被保存的大自然不算是一种可贵的资源吗？根据路透社的报导，中国政府最近发表的一份探讨全球暖化问题的报告就充满了矛盾，一方面承认全球暖化或许会为中国脆弱的生态环境带来前所未有的破坏，另一方面却拒绝减少温室气体排量。不仅是中国，就连由布什领导的美国政府也如此，一方面对于地球暖化问题表示关注，另一方面却不肯签署京都议定书。难道各国政府对于环保的关注只不过是某种达到自我安慰的行为，其心态就跟那些70年代末参与地球日庆祝的大众一样吗？

我很少庆祝母亲或者父亲节，只因为我相信子女应该无时无刻尊重和爱惜自己的父母，无需等到父母亲节才如此。或者说，对于子女而言，每天都应该是父母亲的节日。此逻辑大概也可以运用到地球日上吧。在解决地球暖化问题的时限慢慢减少的情况下，或许各国政府和全球人民应该开始把每天都当成地球日，把解决地球暖化和环境问题放在最优先的位置。

看不见四方形的男人

(刊登于联合早报2007年5月11日)

如果不仔细观察，阿杰其实和普通人没有什么两样。他的智力属于中等，身体和基本认知能力没有明显的缺陷。虽然说话有些缓慢，不过从来没有人不会了解他所传达的讯息。然而，阿杰却有一个先天性的视觉缺陷，也就是他无法看到四方形。也就是说，当其他人都可以清楚地看到一个四方形时，阿杰只看到一些毫无关联的线条、交叉点和直角。

与其说这是视觉上的缺陷，到不如说是某种认知概念上的缺陷。因为阿杰不仅没有办法看到四方形，他也无法了解所谓四方形的概念。如果你向他形容有关四方形的定义，也就是要求他在脑子里将两对同样长度的直线并排以致它们之间的角度是90°，然后问阿杰他看到什么时，他会告诉你他什么都看不到，只看到四条毫无关联的直线和直角。如果他看到 ‘四方形’ 这个词，他总是会表现地一脸疑惑，转身问周围的这个词的意思。当然，熟悉阿杰的状况的朋友和家人总会以 “不知道” 来回应阿杰，因为他们知道再怎么想阿杰解释‘四方形’ 一词只是白费功夫。

阿杰的先天性缺陷只限于四方形。他可以看到三角形，圆形和其他不同的形状，就是无法看到四方形。至于长方形，只要其宽度和长度有明显的区别，阿杰依然可以分辨出来。然而，如果其宽度和长度过于相近的话，阿杰就无法察觉此接近四方形的长方形了。在高中时期，有些比较顽皮的同学经常针对阿杰此缺陷而想出恶作剧来整他。这些同学会趁阿杰在课室内时利用纸皮和胶带把长方形门的上方给遮住，使得课室的门变成四方形。然后，他们就会派某个人在课室外呼唤阿杰，让阿杰一直在课室四周围徒劳无功地寻找他所看不到的出口。

尽管此认知概念上的缺陷给阿杰带来不少困扰，不过却也让他无意间成为了对抗四角催眠法的英雄。

何谓四角催眠法呢？基本上，这是某个邪教组织利用媒体散发的催眠法。受害者通常会收到讲述所谓四方和平论的电邮，或者是透过广告接触到此理论的简介。四方和平论所要阐述的讯息如下。如果要得到心灵自由和肉体解脱，必须满足四大条件：(1) 对未来有寄托；(2) 舍弃过去的不快乐；(3) 对上苍有绝对信仰；(4) 必须将自己的所有归还给自然界。每个条件就如同四方形的其中一个线条，而由这四个条件所形成的四方形就包含着心灵自由和肉体解脱的最终目的。每封电邮除了阐述四方和平论的文章外，还附加了一张显示四方和平论的图案。然而，许多打开和阅读此电邮的人都万万没有想到，此图案里的文字竟然暗藏玄机。只要把文字稍微转换，就会变成：(1) 舍弃未来；(2)归还过去；(3) 自然寄托；(4) 信仰绝对以达到心灵肉体解脱自由的境界。反正邪教的目的是透过电邮、平面广告、电视广告等媒介将此图案和概念深深地烙印在每个人的脑海中，于某个四月的早晨利用武力占据无线电话公司的总部，然后利用可以干扰和改变人类脑电波的仪器将人们脑子里对于四方和平论的原先概念转换成暗藏玄机的概念。这样一来，被转换的概念就变成了催眠仪器所能够攻击的概念种子，让邪教可以达到催眠大众的目的。因为此邪教所发明的催眠仪器不能够硬生生地把人们脑子里原本不存在的概念输入而进行催眠，反而得利用人们脑子里已经存在的概念，所以他们才会想出此策略。先用毫不起眼的方法将某个看似无害的讯息烙印在大家的意识里，然后利用概念转换仪器把此讯息稍微做改变，再利用催眠仪器把此讯息于大众的脑子扩散，使得看到阐述四方和平论的图案和听到 “四方和平” 此词语的人都得服从于拿着此图案或者是说出此词语的邪教组织成员。

由于此计划的前提是受害者必须先在脑海中产生四方和平论的概念，因此对于四方形的概念拥有先天性缺陷的阿杰理所当然没有受到催眠。反之，在该邪教组织大力宣传四方和平论的期间，阿杰其实非常困扰，因为他总是收到一些莫名其妙的电邮和在观看电视节目时突然什么东西都看不到。

在大家被催眠的当天，阿杰一如往常地从家里走到地铁站去。阿杰在沿途中并没有发觉事有蹊跷，直到他到达地铁站，发现四周围都显得有些冷清，没有平时的人潮，而地铁站还是锁着时，他才发现今天跟平常不一样。

“嘿，你怎么还在这里呢？你没有听到教主的指令吗？”

阿杰转过身去，看到一名身穿白色袍子的人手里拿着一张纸。纸上印了一些莫名其妙的符号、线条和文字，不过阿杰一直没有办法看清楚。那个男子身后站了三五个看似无精打采的人。

“什么指令？你在说什么？你知道地铁站为什么没有开吗？那些在你身后的人是谁？” 阿杰问。

然而，那个穿着白袍的人没有直接回答阿杰的问题，只是把手里的那张纸拿靠近阿杰的脸颊，然后口里一直念着 “和平” 一词。当然，那个男子其实是在念着 “四方和平” 这四个字，不过阿杰只是听到和平罢了。

“呃，你们是在做反战示威吗？这不是非法的吗？” 阿杰有些紧张。如果有关当局现在路过此地，他们会不会把自己和这些非法示威者看成是一伙的，然后把他也逮捕呢？

“和平！和平！和平！” 那个身穿白袍的男子的表情越来越激动，而他手中所挥着的纸张也越来越靠近阿杰的脸颊。

“对不起，我对你们的活动没有兴趣。” 阿杰说，然后示意要离开。

那个男子看到阿杰要离开就突然变得更激动，直接把手中挥着的纸张拍在阿杰的脸上。阿杰这时被惹恼了，就毫不客气地伸手把纸张从白袍男子的手中抢过来，然后二话不说地把纸张撕成碎片。

当然，阿杰不知道其实解除催眠的方法就是在被催眠者面前把画着四方和平论图案的纸张撕掉。阿杰也更不可能知道一旦催眠被解除，受害者就不可能再被催眠了。从阿杰的理解，他只是在某个早晨因为纯粹不爽某位抗议战争的示威者过于激烈的态度而愤怒地把那个示威者手中的传单撕烂罢了。他怎么也想不到自己这个举动导致白袍男子身后的人的催眠术被解除，也没有想到那些人会积极地去帮忙其他人解除催眠。最重要的是，他万万也没想到在那个第一批被解除催眠的人群当中，竟然有人在邪教教主被逮捕后无意间在大街上认出阿杰其实就是最先帮助人们解除催眠的人。因此，阿杰对于自己被选为时代周刊年度风云人物这回事一直感到莫名其妙，尤其是因为阿杰怎们也无法完全了解把奖项颁给他的理由。他只知道自己阻止了某个邪教组织，但却不知道是怎么样做到的。

或许，更可笑的是许多人开始把阿杰看成是神的使者，尤其是许多前 “四方教” 的信徒。他们组织了自己的宗教，并且在教所张挂着许多阿杰的肖像。这个新冒起的宗教的教义是四方形是魔鬼的化身，而在这些信徒的生命中是完全没有四方形存在的。当然，他们曾多次邀请阿杰参加他们的仪式，不过很多次都被阿杰婉拒了。主要原因是阿杰无法理解他们邀请自己的理由。由于阿杰无法了解四方形的概念，因此 “反四方形” 一词在他的耳朵听起来也只是莫名其妙的杂音。然而，阿杰的婉拒无法阻挡此宗教的扩散。尽管许多科学家之后对阿杰的脑部作了扫描，得到阿杰之所以有此先天性缺陷是因为阿杰的脑部有些损伤，不过此解释无法满足信徒们。有些信徒甚至声称这是政府要压迫该教的阴谋，而科学家所得到的结论其实都是虚构的。

此事件是阿杰三十岁时发生的，之后他又活了五十五年，于八十五岁在信徒为他设立的安老院中去世。当阿杰死后，信徒中预测他将会重新投胎到这个世界，而阿杰的转世所拥有的特征就是具有对四方形概念的先天性缺陷。当然，信徒一直在寻找，不过类似的小孩却未曾出现。虽然信徒们不知道阿杰的转世会长得什么模样，不过可以确定的一点是，这个小孩一定会和阿杰一样永远无法理解此宗教存在的意义、起源的历史和所追寻的宗旨。

尽管如此，信徒们都耐心地等待第二个看不见四方形的人。

四方和平论的简介图

Bill Maher New Rules - 11 May 2007

Bill Maher on policeman in United States, Gum Favours and George Bush's ability.....

不见

These three short stories are part of a series of short stories published two years ago in Lianhe Zaobao. The editor of the literature corner invited a few local writers to write short stories that were somehow related and connected around the theme of "missing". I was one of the invited ones, together with my friends Sam and Weicheng. Below are the short stories in chronological order.


===================================================================================
美人痣


冼文光


他阅读这代号为Catherine的电邮。开始的几天，他老是将她名字拼写为Katherine。她说就称她为Cat吧。电邮交流到第三封，Cat要跟他见面。他想是太快了，虽然她于第四封电邮里附上照片并提及不妨在那个地方搽Chanel No.5 做爱做的事。

他犹豫着。这Cat可能是男的。网络上，谁不知化个女性名字容易招来注意。他自己也试过用Pink登场，回应的男人（以男性之名）多得应接不暇。是否要接受对方的邀请？Cat的电邮此后一封比一封露骨，往往使他发热并分泌了一些体液。网络上的照片不能尽信。怎么说呢？Cat可能是个比他更丑陋的男人。不管怎样，照片里的Cat教他心神荡漾。他知道也许一切虚拟，可是暂时沉醉于这虚拟的想像，发生在身体上的感觉却是真实；他习惯性地往下自抚－－－啊，怎么，那个好像不见了！



他回到住处；他心情沉重；他并不认识死者－－－HK镇G小学体育教师裸死－－－但一个人那样死去，总教人悲伤。

据报导，HK镇G小学女体育教师V断气已13天，至今仍未入土为安。

13天前，22岁的V被发现毙命后，先由该镇警局作尸体检验鉴定；由于当地机关认定V是自然死亡，故不予立案。V的家属不服，请求对尸体进行复检。复检结论：V是因肺梗死引起急性心力衰竭与呼吸衰竭而死亡。V的家属对这份尸检报告还是不服，随即向上级单位提出再次复检申请。不久，V的家属复请B市医科大学司法鉴定所做书证审查，并作出《书证审查意见书》，该意见书对前两次法医鉴定书进行审查，最后得出“尸体有进一步检查必要”的结果。

经中央警局安排，五名专家为V再做尸检。据了解，此次为V做尸检的是由全国法医病理委员会主任D、B市大学法医学教授博导F、B市大学病理学教研组主任L等5人组成。D说，他们首先对前面两次尸检鉴定、尸检切片及B市医科大学的书面文字鉴定等做了一次细致的审查，并再次对V进行长达两个小时的尸检：V的死亡存在三种可能：自然死亡、暴力死亡和自然疾病混合暴力而致命的死亡。

五名专家将对V的死亡原因拿出一个客观公正的事实依据；而警局负责人也表示，V事件将会严格按照法律程序予以处理等云云。

他把晚报丢一边，启动电脑查看电邮。

他打开电邮信箱，期待Cat；没有；临睡前查看一回，还是没有。他关上电脑，想起照片内她右眼角下的美人痣。Cat也许已自名单中删掉他的名字───这对他们来说无所谓。对Cat而言尤其是如此。一个人对另一个失去兴趣，悄然消失，这很正常；也不会对两人造成什么伤害：网络往来就有这妙处。
他删除了Cat的电邮，关电脑，一切消逝如暗中的潮水。


两年后，他成了某小报的记者。一日，因G小学女体育教师V裸死一事有戏剧性的重大发现而拜访HK镇。当他经过那老旧的火车站，看到一张似曾相思的脸孔。他叫了她一声，对方回过头，一脸茫然：“你是……？”

他忆起照片里的Cat－－－消失的美人啊消失的美人痣－－－他依稀记得Cat说过她是某小学的体育教师！

==================================================================================

那个教会我们的事


方伟成



“我的那个不见了。”电话里的阿彪，显得十分焦急。

“哦，好的。”我没把阿彪的话听进去，挂上电话，倒头继续睡。起来的时候已是傍晚，我前去阿彪家探访他的时候，他动也不动地躺在床上，瞟了我一眼，又虚弱地把眼睛合上。

“天哪，怎么会这样？”

“世事就是如此难以预料。”

阿彪说，昨天他儿子放学回家时，神态很奇怪。问儿子出了什么事，儿子说学校里的同学都讥笑他全家穷酸，没有那个。阿彪对儿子说，乖儿子，你要懂事，然后就入房睡觉了。怎知今早起来，发现那个竟然真的不见了，自己则躺在一滩浓稠的血泊中。老婆冷漠地说了一句“上梁不正下梁歪”，接着便继续作家务去了。说到这里，阿彪眼里盛满了浑浊的泪水；我替他感到难过，但不知道要说些什么来安慰他。我看到床下满地都是色彩鲜艳的玻璃弹珠，深怕有人踩着它们滑倒，赶紧曲身把它们拾起来。

“别瞎忙了，一会儿我儿子回来，我叫他捡起来好了。”

“好的。”于是，我们之间重新恪守着一阵尴尬的沉默。

“没有了那个，你以后怎么办？”

阿彪艰难地把自己撑起来。“那大概就只能像猥鄙的虫虱一样蠕动了。”

“你打算一辈子都像虫虱一样蠕动着吗？”

“当然不！”

阿彪于是恳求我帮他找回那个。他说他那爱慕虚荣的骚货在得知他那个不见了之后，下午竟然开心地出去逛街，还买了一瓶Chanel No. 5回来。我为自己今早没有在阿彪向我求救时及时赶来而感到愧疚。现在看着他老泪纵横的样子，一副流浪狗的可怜相，我也就答应下来。
我搜遍了全岛，还是没把阿彪的那个找着，热得心烦，干脆前往警署碰碰运气。

“这位仁兄有什么事么？”

“我来找我朋友阿彪的那个。他家里穷酸，非常需要那个。于是他托我帮他找，我找遍全岛都找不着，于是便找上这里来了。”

“你秀逗啦？你觉得来警署，可能找到你朋友的那个么？”

“不碰碰运气又怎么知道？再说你们领的薪资是国家纳税人的钱，百姓有事求助时，你们怎么可以置之不理？”

警察叔叔耸了耸肩，拿我没办法，只好替我备了案。

隔了一个星期，这位可爱的警察叔叔打电话给我，说他们在一次行动中，于兀兰草丛中找到我朋友的那个，但它基本上已面目全非；要不是表层模糊地刻着“阿彪”两个字，还真认不出是谁的。警察叔叔问我要如何处置我朋友的那个，他建议说，既然已经是废物，不如让他们拿来喂警犬。我说好的，然后挂上电话。

一刀邪恶的阳光透过窗沿照射进来，好像要戳穿我的瞳孔。我感到一阵晕眩，不经意地揉起了眼睛。我走到梳妆台前，打开抽屉，发现自己的那个还是完好无损地储藏着，于是便松了一口气。
“这世界到处都是怪人，你乖乖地待在里面，别乱跑哦。今晚Catherine嫂子来时，还得劳驾您跟我配合一下呢。”

“知道了。”“那个”苍白无瑕的脸上露出浅浅的笑意，仿佛是在向我微笑。

===================================================================================

消失的厕所

陈华彪


如果厕所在一个人肠胃不舒服时突然消失，这种状况绝对惨不忍睹。

当然，这也是阿正所面临的问题。其实，厕所本身并没有消失。与其说是厕所消失，不如说是打开厕所的钥匙消失了。从物理的角度来看，厕所并没消失，还好端端存在于这个三度空间里。从建屋局的观点，厕所并没消失，整个建筑物的结构也没有受到影响。因此，所谓厕所的消失只是在某种有关存在主义的哲学理论层次上的吹毛求疵，就如同 “如果一棵树在无人的森林里倒下，那么它是否发出声音？” 此类问题的逻辑一样。

然而，情绪失控的肠胃对这类问题并不感兴趣。它只想能够找到可以依靠的马桶，然后好像感情世界受到挫折的女人想要找一个肩膀宣泄的状况一样。或许这是整个问题的关键吧。如果不是肠胃不舒服，阿正才懒得管厕所是否消失。

其实追根究底，这一切都是阿彪的错。要不是他沉迷于寻找失踪的那个，阿正就不会陷入现在的状况了。由于阿彪担心和那个一起消失的妻子会突然回家，因此特别拜托阿正帮忙在他的家里等候。如果嫂子真的突然回家，阿正可以马上联络阿彪。

“冰箱里有啤酒和食物，如果饿了可以随便拿来吃。书房里有漫画、电脑、A片和电动游戏，如果闷的话可以自便。客房里有一张床，累的话可以在那里睡。” 阿彪在离开前交待了阿正。

然而，阿彪并没有考虑肠胃宣泄的问题。或许，他以为厕所的空间已经开放了，不过事实上仍然上锁着。或许，阿彪没有在家里上厕所的习惯，就干脆把它上锁。或许，厕所里藏着某些不可告人的秘密，打开后会惨遭天谴。

当然，阿正并不是没有想办法解决问题。人在遇到困难时就必须变通，这是他在服役时所学到的人生道理。他企图打电话给阿彪，叫他返回把厕所门打开。然而，电话响了许久没有人接。最后听到的只是电信局例行的预录留言，说阿正现在所拨的号码没人接，待会再尝试。阿正也企图打电话给其他人，问他们是否可以到阿彪的家帮忙顶替一下。不过大家不是没有空，就是嫌麻烦。当然，阿正有考虑到楼下咖啡店的厕所解决，不过偏偏阿彪匆忙离去时又忘了把他家的钥匙交给阿正。阿正总不能不锁上大门，万一有不法之徒闯入怎么办？他又不能把大门锁上再下楼，这样子他就无法再进入这里了。虽然说他可以在大门外等待阿彪归来，不过要他就这样放弃屋里的福利，心里总觉得有些不爽。

要不然在客厅里解决？不过，这毕竟不是自己的家，在客厅里做这种事，心里总觉得有些怪怪的。就算把报纸铺在地上，解决后把排泄物包好丢下垃圾槽，谁也无法保证秽物不会沾到地上。尤其是肠胃现在歇斯底里的状况，出来的东西很有可能是难以控制的液体。嗯，也许可以找一个没有用的桶，然后利用它来装排泄物。阿彪的家里总会有一个没有用的桶吧？不过，阿正又怎么知道哪个桶是没有用的呢？万一他以为没有用的桶其实是阿彪的传家之宝，那么岂不是闯大祸了？搞不好还会被阿彪告上法庭。

正当阿正左右为难，在客厅里来回地走，希望可以借着走动所消耗的能量激发脑细胞想出一个完美的办法时，他突然觉得肠胃已经渐渐不痛了。是因为肠胃已经逐渐习惯了吗？还是因为不断地走动使到排泄物规规矩矩起来了？或者说从一开始肠胃就没有在闹情绪，只是他把肚子饿和肠胃不适的状况搞错了？无论如何，肠胃似乎是平静下来了。看来他也不需担心厕所消失的问题了。
阿正松了一口气，如释重负地坐在沙发上。然而，他坐了下来后又即刻站了起来，仿佛沙发上有电流。原来，阿正在坐下来时突然察觉身体上的某处有异状，与平常的感觉不一样。他感觉自己心跳加快，并且可以听到自己急促的呼吸声。不过，阿正还是鼓起勇气，紧张地把手伸到那处，用无法控制发抖的手指确认。

他的那个不见了。

Shadows In the Snow

影子的黑
雪花的白
只可惜世间是非
从来都不如此分明

Another Kurt Vonnegut Interview

Another of Kurt Vonnegut's interview... This was aired on American TV PBS soon after he died, as a tribute to him.

R.I.P. Kurt, the world will miss you.

R.I.P -- Kurt Vonnegut

I was a late Kurt Vonnegut reader... only started on him a few years back, and one of the first books I picked up was "Slaughter House Five".... From then on, I read almost all of his books.... and none of them disappoint.

Kurt Vonnegut passed away recently and this was an interview that was done on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (another admirable person) two years before his death....

If you have never read a Kurt Vonnegut book, please go ahead and pick up any one of them now. I would recommend "Slaughter House Five", "Cat's Cradle", "Breakfast of Champions", and "Welcome to the Monkey House".... you will not be disappointed...

The Scream in Pixels...

就算是隔着一层层的斩钉截铁
仿佛还是能够看到
那个失控的惨叫

Bill Maher New Rules: 04 May 2007

Bill Maher on all things French ......

The Uniqueness of Human Recursive Thinking

This is an article from the magazine "American Scientist", which I thought was very interesting.....

=============================================================

The Uniqueness of Human Recursive Thinking

The ability to think about thinking may be the critical attribute that distinguishes us from all other species

By Michael C. Corballis

On a visit to Kyoto once, I encountered a gate with a posted sign written in Kanji. I asked the guide what it meant, and he replied that it could be translated as "Post no bills." One need only be moderately astute to realize that the sign itself is a bill and so violates its own message. To prevent such bills from being posted, we might consider posting another sign that says, "Post no 'Post no bills' bills." But this in turn is a bill, so perhaps we need another sign that says, "Post no 'Post no "Post no bills" bills' bills." The problem, as I'm sure you now see, is that this process leads to an infinite sequence of signs that would not only cover the gate, but eventually the entire universe, since each bill is longer than the last. Better, perhaps, just to allow people to stick a few bills on the gate.

The self-referential bills are examples of recursion. Another instance comes from an anonymous parody of the first line of Edward Bulwer-Lytton's infamous novel, Paul Clifford:

It was a dark and stormy night, and we said to the captain, "Tell us a story!" And this is the story the captain told: "It was a dark and stormy night, and we said to the captain, 'Tell us a story!' And this is the story the captain told: 'It was a dark.…'"

In computational terms, recursion is a process that calls itself, or that calls a similar process. In the example of "Post no bills," the sign is, albeit unwittingly, referring to itself, whereas in the parody of Bulwer-Lytton's novel, the story in the story is the same story.

Alternatively, one can put the definition in dictionary style:

Perhaps it is best not to dwell on this.

I propose that recursion is a ubiquitous property of the human mind and possibly the principal characteristic that distinguishes our species from all other creatures on the planet. Recursion is a well-known property of language, but I shall argue that the phenomenon applies to a number of other putatively human domains, including "theory of mind," mental time travel, manufacture, the concept of self and possibly even religion.

Language

Grammatical rules in language exploit recursion to create the infinite variety of potential sentences that we can utter and understand. Perhaps the simplest example is a sentence that is composed of sentences, according to a rule that might be expressed as

S → S + S

where the arrow is a symbol for can be rewritten as, and S stands for sentence. Rewrite rules of this form are a conventional way to show how language is constructed. This particular rule, invoked twice, creates the following sentence, found in A. A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh: "It rained and it rained and it rained." This example, though, is rather trivial, since it simply amounts to repetition, presumably to create a sense that it rained for rather a long time, causing Piglet some ennui.

Recursion can be much more complex than simple repetition, and it is used in human language to provide qualification or to add complexity to an utterance. For example, we can break sentences down into phrases, and then apply recursive rules to tack phrases onto phrases, or embed phrases within phrases. There are noun phrases (NP), verb phrases (VP) and prepositional phrases (PP).

On a visit to a publishing house in Hove, England, I was greeted by the publisher with the unlikely sentence "Ribena is trickling down the chandeliers." (Ribena is the brand name of a flavored drink in the United Kingdom, and it was indeed dripping off the light fixtures.) Here, the sentence is first broken down into an NP ("Ribena") and a VP ("is trickling down the chandeliers"). But the VP is itself composed of a verb ("is trickling") plus a PP ("down the chandeliers"), which in turn is composed of a preposition ("down") plus an NP ("the chandeliers"). The sentence can therefore be parsed in terms of the following rewrite rules:

1. S → NP + VP
2. NP → noun
3. VP → verb + PP
4. PP → preposition + NP

Applied to more complex sentences, such rules involve recursion. For example, an NP may include aPP, which may in turn include an NP. In principle, one could cycle repeatedly through rules 2 and 4. Had the publisher not been in something of a panic, he might have elaborated: "Ribena is trickling down the chandeliers onto the carpet beside my desk." (There was a nursery upstairs).

Children quickly learn to appreciate the power of recursion (if not of Ribena), as illustrated by these sentences from the well-known children's story, "The House That Jack Built":

1. This is the house that Jack built.

2. This is the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.

3. This is the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.

4. This is the cat that killed the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.

5. This is the dog that worried the cat that killed the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.

And so it goes on. It is important to understand that this is not simply a matter of adding disconnected elements. New sentences are added progressively at the beginning, and the rest of the sentence increasingly qualifies the noun. In the fourth sentence, for example, the cat in question is precisely the one that killed the rat that ate the malt, and so on. A cat that killed a rat that did not eat the malt that lay in the house that Jack built simply will not do.

The sentences in "The House that Jack Built" are examples of what is called end recursion, in which the recursive rule is invoked at the end. The fourth sentence, for example, begins with the sentence "This is the cat," but then the relative clause "that killed the rat" is added to qualify the cat. This relative clause mentions a rat, and a further relative clause, "that ate the malt," is added to qualify the rat, and so forth. In principle, recursive elements can be added ad infinitumor until your short-term memory can hold no more.

Another kind of recursion is center-embedded recursion, in which constituents are embedded within constituents. For example, in the third sentence of "The House That Jack Built," one might wish to make the malt rather than the rat the subject of the sentence, and so embed a relative clause describing the malt into a sentence about the malt: The malt that the rat ate lay in the house that Jack built.

Such embedded phrases, as in this very sentence, are common. But if phrases are embedded in embedded phrases, things can get complicated. For example, let's convert the fourth sentence into one featuring the malt: The malt that the rat that the cat killed ate lay in the house that Jack built. Now try the fifth sentence: The malt that the rat that the cat that the dog worried killed ate lay in the house that Jack built. Are you still following me?

That last example is perfectly grammatical, but more than one level of center-embedded recursion is hard to follow, for psychological rather than linguistic reasons. Center-embedding requires a memory device, such as a stack of pointers, indicating where to pick up the procedure once an embedded constituent has been completed. This is not so bad if there is just one embedded structure, since a single pointer can be held in memory to show where to pick up the original procedure. With multiple embedding, you need to keep track of several pointers, which can overstretch working memory. Examples of sentences with more than one level of center-embedding are rare in natural discourse.

In a recent Science article, psychologist Marc D. Hauser of Harvard University and his colleagues suggested that recursion is a basic characteristic that distinguishes human language from all other forms of animal communication. Chimpanzees and bonobos have been taught a form of language, sometimes known as protolanguage, with some of the characteristics of human language, including the use of symbols to represent objects or actions, and some ability to combine symbols to create new meanings. There is no evidence, though, that these apes use these symbols (or combinations of symbols) in recursive fashion, to create anything like the unlimited set of meanings that we humans can create.

What About Birds?

Superficially, at least, the songs emitted by some birds seem to have something of the complexity of human language. American ornithologists Jack P. Hailman and Millicent S. Ficken once argued that chickadee calls have a computable syntax and therefore qualify as "language." These calls are made up of four qualitatively distinct sounds, which we may label A, B, C and D. These elements are always in the same order, although any element may be repeated any number of times or may be omitted altogether. The sequences ABCD, B, BD, AAABBCCCD are all legitimate. Although there is considerable variety in such sequences, they do not involve recursion beyond the simple repetition of elements. Unlike human language, the sequences can be specified by what is known as a finite-state grammar, in which the choice of element at any point in the sequence can be specified by the preceding element. Thus B may follow A, or B may be the first in the sequence, but it can never follow C or D. Of course, the birds may well have used more complex rules, but we do not need to suppose more than that they merely stepped from one element to the next, without any appreciation of what went before or what comes after. In contrast, human language involves the combining of constituents into phrases, and the generation of sentences by recursive rules whereby phrases may be defined in terms of phrases, and every element in the sequence contributes to the grammatical construction.

Neuroethologist Timothy Q. Gentner at the University of California, San Diego, and his colleagues have recently argued that European starlings can parse sequences of sounds consisting of as many as four levels of center-embedded recursion. The starlings were taught to identify sequences of sounds, drawn from eight sounds classified as rattles, A, and eight classified as warbles, B. The sequences were generated either by a finite-state grammar in which AB sequences were simply repeated up to four times (as in AB, ABAB, ABABAB or ABABABAB), or in which AB pairs are embedded in AB pairs with up to four levels of recursion (as in AB, AABB, AAABBB, and AAAABBBB). The actual choices of As and Bs were generated randomly, so that the birds could not simply learn particular sequences. Some, but not all, of the birds learned to discriminate these kinds of sequences from each other, and also from sequences that did not obey the rules, suggesting a capacity to understand recursion.

The problem here is that the starlings need not have parsed the recursive sequences according to the recursive rule. A simpler solution is simply to count the number of successive As and the number of successive Bs, and accept the sequence as belonging to the recursive category if the two numbers are equal. Such a strategy is probably not beyond the computational capacity of a starling. There is abundant evidence for a number sense in birds. For example, the famous African gray parrot, Alex, raised by Irene Pepperberg of Harvard University, can count up to six and understands the concepts of same and different. Starlings are also known for their intricate songs, suggesting sophisticated production and perception of sequences. The final movement of Mozart's Piano Concerto in G Major, K. 453, is said to be based on a song by his pet starling. There is no suggestion, though, that the songs of starlings, although Mozartian, are recursive. It should also be remembered that even humans have considerable difficulty parsing sentences in which the number of embedded phrases exceeds two.

Again, we do not know what really goes on in the mind of a starling, but parsimony dictates that we accept the simpler explanation for their behavior. The challenge to show that any nonhuman species can either produce or parse recursive combinations of elements remains.

Theory of Mind

Recursion is not restricted to language but applies to other aspects of human thought. One of these is known as "theory of mind," which refers to the ability to imagine what might be going on in the mind of another individual. The mental processes of thinking, knowing, perceiving or feeling might be regarded as zero-order theory of mind, and are probably common to many species. They are not recursive. First-order theory of mind refers to thinking, knowing, perceiving or feeling what others are thinking, knowing, perceiving or feeling, and therefore is recursive. It is implied by statements such as "I think you must be thinking that I'm an idiot," or "Ted thinks Alice wants Fred to stop bugging her."

Are nonhuman species capable of this? How could we know? The problem is that language itself is well designed to express recursive ideas, and it is difficult to test theory of mind without language. So far, no nonhuman animal has shown us that it has a communication system powerful enough to reveal theory of mind, so we must rely on nonlinguistic tests.

One such test involves tactical deception, where one animal performs some act based on an appreciation of what another animal might be thinking, or what it might be able to see. A young chimpanzee might wait until a dominant male is not looking before stealing food. In a more complex example, a young male baboon may see another baboon eating corn. He screams in mock fear, and his mother comes and chases the other baboon away. The young baboon then seizes the corn. The question here is whether the young baboon actually knew what would be in his mother's mind when he screamed or whether the behavior had simply been learned through trial and error.

Psychologists Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten at the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland, collected examples of possible tactical deception from observations made by primatologists in the field and carefully filtered out those that might depend on simple trial and error. From a total of 253 cases only 26 observations passed the test. There were 12 examples from common chimpanzees and three each from bonobos, gorillas and orangutans. Five more instances from mangabeys, which are closely related to baboons, also passed. Nevertheless, Byrne and Whiten suggested that true tactical deception, requiring theory of mind, might be restricted to human beings and great apes, and even among the latter the evidence is not very compelling. In marked contrast, a search for "tactical deception" on the Google search engine results in roughly 967,000 responses, most of them relating to human warfare.

Other tests have been proposed for nonhuman species, but the results are scarcely more compelling. For example, psychologist Daniel Povinelli and his colleagues at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, have shown that chimpanzees are as likely to beg for food from a person who is blindfolded, or who has a bucket over her head, as they are from one who can see, suggesting that the chimps are incapable of the recursive understanding of whether another individual can see. Michael Tomasello at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and his colleagues argue that chimpanzees are actually smarter than that and under some circumstances do understand what others can see, although the authors do acknowledge that "chimpanzees do not have a full-blown, human-like theory of mind."

If there is doubt over whether great apes are capable of first-order theory of mind, there is certainly nothing to suggest that they are capable of higher orders. Human affairs run easily into many orders of theory of mind, as is well conveyed in literature and the theater. In Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet thinks that Darcy thinks that she thinks he thinks too harshly of her family. Or in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, Maria foresees that Sir Toby will eagerly anticipate that Olivia will judge Malvolio absurdly impertinent to suppose that she wishes him to regard himself as her preferred suitor. Each italicized word after the first indicates another level of recursion.

Theory of mind may even be a prerequisite for religious belief, according to evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool. The notion of a God who is kind, who watches over us, who punishes and who admits us to Heaven if we are suitably virtuous depends on the understanding that other beings—in this case a supernatural one—can have human-like thoughts and emotions. Indeed, Dunbar supposes that several orders of recursion may be required, since religion is a social activity, which depends on shared beliefs.

The recursive loop that is necessary runs something like this: I suppose that you think that I believe there are gods who intend to influence our futures because they understand what we desire. This is fifth-order recursion. Dunbar himself must have achieved sixth-order recursion if he supposes all this, and if you suppose that he does then you have achieved seventh-order recursion. Call it "Seventh Heaven," if you like.

The Self and Mental Time Travel

The belief that one has thoughts of one's own is theory of mind about one's self. Philosopher René Descartes is famous for the phrase "cogito, ergo sum," although what he actually wrote was "Je pense, donc je suis"—"I think, therefore I am." Descartes took this as the basic proof of his own existence, because even if he doubted it, doubt was a form of thinking, so his actual existence was not in doubt. The phrase is fundamentally recursive, since it implies not just thinking, but thinking about thinking. The fact that we can be aware of our own thinking (and not just of our own thoughts) implies a concept of self.

One way to investigate whether animals have a concept of self is the mirror test, first devised in 1970 by psychologist Gordon G. Gallup Jr., now at The State University of New, York at Albany. A mark is placed on the animal in such a way that it can only be viewed in a mirror. The question then is whether the animal will attempt to remove the mark, or otherwise indicate that it realizes the mark is on its own body. The evidence suggests that only dolphins, great apes and elephants pass the test, which has been taken to mean that they have a concept of self. The results are controversial, though, because it might mean no more than that these animals understand that the object in the mirror corresponds to their own physical self, but need not mean that they understand that the physical self is capable of thoughts or desires.

To be properly recursive, the concept of self should be involved—that is, not merely knowing that one is a physical object, but knowing that one knows, or knowing that one has mental states. There is little evidence that shows this to be the case for any nonhuman species.

Another way to test the concept of self is through the awareness that one can exist at different points in time. For example, we might remember what we were thinking or experiencing yesterday, which is again a recursive process. It indicates that we can not only understand that we have thought processes in the present, but that we also had them in the past and will have them in the future. To extend Descartes' dictum, we might say "I thought, therefore I was," and "I will think, therefore I will be." The concept of self can be extended through time.

The notion of a past self depends on memory. There are two kinds of conscious memory, according to the Canadian neuroscientist Endel Tulving. Semantic memory refers to your storehouse of knowledge about the world, such as knowing that Wellington is the capital of New Zealand, or that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius. Episodic memory refers to the particular episodes in your life that you can relive in your mind. You probably remember what you did yesterday, not just as a succession of facts, but as events that you can bring to consciousness and replay in your mind. Such memories, unlike semantic memories, are recursive because they involve making mental reference to your earlier mental self. Recovery of semantic memories implies what Tulving calls noetic awareness, which is simply knowing, whereas the recovery of episodic memories implies autonoetic awareness, which is self-knowing.

Tulving has also claimed that episodic memory is unique to humans. This is not to deny that other species have memories, often prodigious ones. Among birds that cache food, for example, the Clark's nutcracker is among the most prolific, storing seeds in thousands of locations and recovering them with high, but not perfect, accuracy. This does not mean, though, that the bird remembers the act of caching the food itself; rather, it may simply remember where the food is located. I believe I know the meanings of tens of thousands of words, but with very few exceptions I cannot remember the episodes in which I first encountered these words.

Clever experiments by Nicola Clayton and her colleagues at the University of Cambridge have suggested that at least one species of bird, the Western scrub-jay, may have more detailed memory than one might have imagined. The birds can remember where they have stored particular items, such as worms or nuts, and they will recover one or the other depending on how long they have been cached. They generally prefer worms, but they will avoid the nightcrawlers in favor of nuts if the worms have been cached for too long, and are therefore likely to have decayed and become unpalatable. This has been taken to mean that the jays know what has been cached, where it has been cached and when it was cached. These three conditions, known as the WWW criteria, have been claimed by some to be sufficient evidence for episodic memory in the scrub-jay—a humbling thought. Even so, this may not be sufficient proof that the birds relive the act of caching. The memory for where a food item has been cached might carry a time tag, equivalent to a "use-by date," which indicates how long the item has been cached, but this need not involve a specific memory for the caching episode itself.

One might stand a better chance of demonstrating mental time travel in primates than in birds, especially in our closest nonhuman relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The German-American psychologist Wolfgang Köhler, who is famous for his experiments on chimpanzees while stationed in the Canary Islands during World War I, noted that, for all their improvisational skills, chimpanzees had little concept of the past or the future. Work over the past 50 years on teaching language-like communication to chimpanzees and bonobos provides little reason to question this conclusion. So far, there is no evidence for the acquisition of tense, nor any sense that these animals communicate about specific past events or possible future ones.

Psychologist Thomas Suddendorf at the University of Queensland has argued that episodic memory is but one part of a more general capacity for mental time travel, which includes travel into an imagined future as well as into the recalled past. Amnesic patients who lose episodic memory also lose a sense of possible future events, and children seem to understand the concepts of past and future at about the same time, around age four. Indeed, episodic memory may function as not so much a record of the past as a repository of information about events that can supply a kind of vocabulary for the generation of future events. Perhaps this explains why episodic memory is both unreliable and incomplete, and often a bane to courts of law. In cases of amnesia, it is typically episodic rather than semantic memories that are lost. It does not matter that episodic memory is incomplete and fragile, so long as it supplies sufficient information to generate plausible and effective future scenarios. After all, it is the future that matters to us, not the past.

It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that human beings are obsessed with time, as we ponder the past and plan our futures. We measure time in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, eras and eons. We measure it both back to the past and forward to the future. We extrapolate it beyond our own life spans, even back to the Big Bang, which is said to have created the universe. Through time we understand death, and perhaps because of this we have appealed to religions for the promise of an afterlife. Time creates stress, as deadlines draw near, but we can also appeal to time to heal our woes. When Viola in Twelfth Night, masquerading as a man, finds herself in an impossible situation, she is moved to say, "O Time, thou must untangle this, not I; It is too hard a knot for me t'untie!"

Language itself is infused with time. We use many prepositions, such as at, about, around, between, across, against, from, to and through, to apply to time as well as space, and some, such as since or until, are restricted to the time dimension. The use of tense allows us to incorporate time into language, even in recursive fashion. For example, the past perfect, as in "I had already eaten," refers to an event that is further in the past than some reference time in the past, while the future perfect, as in "He will have arrived," refers to something that will be in the past at some future date.

Whatever the capacity for nonhuman animals to travel mentally in time, it seems safe to say that once again the generative, recursive way in which we imagine events in time seems to surpass anything that has been demonstrated, or even hinted at, in our closest primate relatives.

Counting and Tools

Another example of recursion, probably derived from language, is counting. By using recursive rules, humans can count indefinitely. All you need is a finite set of digits and a few simple rules that you can use to progress from one number to the next. We now know that many animal species can count, but they can only do so accurately up to some small value. Even that is not strictly counting but is closer to the human capacity for subitization, which is the ability to enumerate at a glance quantities up to about four. Beyond that, our ability to enumerate without actually counting is increasingly inaccurate as the actual number increases. You might estimate the number attending a lecture as around 75, or the crowd at a football game as 15,000, but in neither case are you likely to be accurate. Counting, though, can lend perfect precision up to any number—although it can of course be time-consuming. Counting is a further illustration of how recursive principles can vastly increase the power and capacity of the human mind. More generally, human computation is recursive. Programmers use subroutines that call subroutines, and my laptop contains folders that contain folders that contain folders.

The use and manufacture of tools may also include recursive components. Tool use itself is not uniquely human. Chimpanzees use stones to crack nuts and twigs to extract termites from their holes; they even fashion "spears" to stab prey. Capuchinmonkeys are exceptional tool users, using objects in a variety of ways to achieve their own ends. They use sticks to rake in food, stack boxes to reach food and even throw objects at people. New Caledonian crows strip and shape pandanus leaves, or fashion twigs with hooks on the end, to extract grubs from holes. But human beings are surely the most prodigious makers and users of tools. The American comparative psychologist Benjamin B. Beck, an expert on tool-making behavior, once remarked that "man is the only animal that to date has been observed to use a tool to make a tool." This again implies recursion. Modern technology is at least repetitive, if not always truly recursive; consider the assembly lines that began with the Model T Ford. Nevertheless there are wheels within wheels, engines within engines, computers within computers. Ultimately, perhaps, we may swamp the globe with the products of our recursion.

Evolving the Recursive Mind

Human beings may well be unique in our attempts to find criteria that define our own uniqueness—we think uniquely, therefore we are unique. Among the characteristics that are often claimed as uniquely human are language, theory of mind, the concept of a knowing self, episodic memory, mental time travel, making tools that make tools and counting. All, I submit, are unique because of the human capacity for recursive thought.

Evolutionary psychologists maintain that the essential characteristics of the human mind evolved during the Pleistocene, the period from about 1.8 million years ago until around 10,000 years ago. During this era, our hominin forebears were hunter-gatherers, and social bonding and communication became essential to survival. According to evolutionary psychologists, such as Leda Cosmides and John Tooby at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the mind evolved in modular fashion, with specific modules dedicated to specific functions, such as language, theory of mind, cheater detection and romantic love. Because recursion applies to several domains, it is unlikely that the phenomenon comprises a module in the sense that evolutionary psychologists use the term. I suggest rather that it is a mode of computation that can be applied to several different mental domains.

From around two million years ago, and through the Pleistocene, the brains of our hominin forebears increased dramatically in size, to become about three times as large as expected in a primate of the same bodily size. American zoologist Richard D. Alexander has suggested not only that social bonding was necessary to ensure survival in a hostile environment (shared with killer cats and other dangers), but also that our forebears faced increasing competition from their own kind. This led to runaway cycles of Machiavellianism countered by social bonding and mechanisms for the detection and expulsion of freeloaders, leading to such complex but fundamentally social phenomena as language, theory of mind, religion and wars. It was this complex calculus of social affairs that may have led to the selection for larger brains with the capacity for recursive neural systems.

The expansion of the frontal lobes, in particular, may have been especially critical. The frontal lobes are known to be involved in language, theory of mind, episodic memory, and mental time travel, and these recursive faculties may also depend on the fact that humans, relative to other primates, undergo a prolonged period of growth. To conform to the general primate pattern, human babies should be born at around 18 months, not 9 months. But, as any mother will know, this would be impossible given the size of the birth canal. The brain of a newborn chimpanzee is about 60 percent of its adult weight, whereas the brain of a newborn human is only about 24 percent. Our prolonged childhood means that the human brain undergoes most of its growth while exposed to external influences, and so is finely tuned to its environment.

Patricia M. Greenfield of the University of California, Los Angeles, has documented how children develop hierarchical representations for both language and the manipulation of objects at around the same time. Just as they begin to combine words into phrases and then use those phrases as units to combine into sentences, so they begin to combine objects, such as nuts and bolts, and then use the combinations as objects for further manipulation. Greenfield argues that both activities depend on a region corresponding to Broca's area, that part of the cerebral cortex primarily responsible for the production of language, on the left side of the brain. She goes on to suggest that this relation between language and hierarchical manipulation persists into adulthood, citing evidence that people with Broca's aphasia are also poor at reproducing drawings of hierarchical tree structures composed of lines.

In the further course of development, though, the frontal-lobe structures involved in recursion may differentiate. Greenfield also refers to evidence that, in a sample of mentally retarded children, some were skilled in hierarchical construction but deficient in grammar, whereas others showed the reverse pattern. She relates these findings to neuro-physiological evidence that the same brain area may be involved equally in both functions up to the age of two. Beyond that age there is increasing differentiation in the vicinity of Broca's area, such that an upper region is involved with the physical manipulation of objects and an adjacent lower region organizes grammar.

Greenfield's analysis may be widely applicable, pertaining to the growth and differentiation of a number of recursive skills, including language, theory of mind, episodic memory, the understanding of time and object manipulation. All of these skills seem to emerge early in childhood, at a time when the brain is growing. The critical period of postnatal growth is both an evolutionary and a developmental phenomenon. It probably began to appear as a characteristic of the genus Homo some two million years ago and governs the way children acquire skills. This extended growth pattern takes us beyond simple associative networks toward more dynamic processors that can parse hierarchical structures and use rules recursively.

Although recursive skills appear to be somewhat dissociable, their co-development, and perhaps co-evolution, may be linked. For example, the emergence of recursive syntax may have been evolutionarily selected precisely because it maps onto the recursive structure of theory of mind and allowed our ancestors to communicate their Machiavellian thoughts—no doubt to their accomplices, not their rivals. Theory of mind may be involved in a different way in language, allowing us to modulate our speech in conformity with the mental state of the listener. The recursive understanding of time may have been critical to the evolution of language itself, which is exquisitely equipped to recount events at different points in time, and at locations other than the present one. Recursion, then, is a property that infuses the early development of basic skills, providing us with the flexibility and creativity that characterizes the human mind.

Bibliography

• Alexander, R. D. 1989. Evolution of the human psyche. In The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, ed. P. Mellars and C. Stringer. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Barkow, J., L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, eds. 1992. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Beck, B. B. 1980. Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. New York: Garland STPM Press.
• Byrne, R. W., and A. Whiten. 1990. Tactical deception in primates: The 1990 data base. Primate Report 27:1-10.
• Clayton, N. S., T. J. Bussey and A. Dickinson. 2003. Can animals recall the past and plan for the future? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4:685-691.
• Corballis, M. C. 2003. Recursion as the key to the human mind. In From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology, ed. K. Sterelny and J. Fitness, pp. 155-171. New York: Psychology Press.
• Corballis, M. C. In press. Recursion, language and starlings. Cognitive Science.
• Dunbar, R. 2004. The Human Story. London: Faber & Faber.
• Gallup, G. G., Jr. 1982. Self-awareness and the emergence of mind in primates. American Journal of Primatology 2:237-248.
• Gentner, T. Q., K. M. Fenn, D. Margoliash and H. C. Nusbaum. 2006. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440:1204-1207.
• Greenfield, P. M. 1991. Language, tools, and the brain: The ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 531-595.
• Hailman, J. S., and M. S. Ficken. 1986. Combinatorial animal communication with computable syntax: Chick-a-dee calling qualifies as "language" by structural linguistics. Animal Behaviour 34:1899-1901.
• Hauser, M. D., N. Chomsky and W. T. Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569-1579.
• Köhler, W. 1925. The Mentality of Apes. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Povinelli, D. J., and J. Vonk. 2003. Chimpanzee minds: Suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:157-160.
• Suddendorf, T., and M. C. Corballis. 1997. Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 123:133-167.
• Suddendorf, T., and M. C. Corballis. In press. The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
• Tomasello, M., J. Call and B. Hare, 2003. Chimpanzees understand psychological states—the question is which ones and to what extent? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:153-156.
• Tulving, E. 1983. Elements of Episodic Memory. London: Oxford University Press.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Jon Stewart's legendary appearance on CNN's crossfire three years ago... He basically slammed the media for failing to advance political discourse in America....

Old Lady at Angkor Wat

凝思是生命的常态
原来所有
人事物
都只是为了填补
凝视间的时空

Lewis Black - Queers

Lewis Black on the "dangers" of homosexuality......

What an absolutely bigoted and crazy comment on the gay community....

These are some of my thoughts on two forum letters that appeared on the straitstimes recently talking about homosexuality in Singapore...

========================================================================

I am not a homosexual, and for friends who know me well, whenever I make the "joke" that I am gay and is going to come out of the closet, they have always rebutted with: "Oh yeah right. You will be the last person we expect to be gay."

Even if I am not a homosexual, and even if it is true that I sometimes make low-brow crude jokes regarding homosexuals (but I make low-brow crude jokes with regards to everything else... nothing is sacred), I am quite sympathetic to their plight. Given that in Singapore most people are still not receptive to the "gay lifestyle" or think that being homosexual is an abomination, I cannot imagine the kind of pain and unfair treatments that gays have to endure in our society.

I remember hearing a story one of my catholic friend has told me. In her church, the pastor (or priest? whatever) was telling the congregation something like this: homosexual is a (sinful) choice... these young people go onto the internet and learn about the decadent lifestyles of the homosexual, and then they choose to be homosexuals... This is something that Ms Agnes Chai alluded to in her letter to straitstimes (see below). First of all, I must say her argument is wrong. I've looked at the journal articles she cited, and it seems that she is just cherry-picking through the data. Her argument is that homosexuals are not born gay because the study found that only 50% of identical twins (i.e. similar DNA) are both homosexuals. The argument goes like this: If identical twins have similar DNA, then they should always be gay. However, as not all identical twins are homosexual, hence genetics plays no role at all.

First, this argument is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that genetics influences ALL our behaviors. However, ask any first year psychology student and they will tell you that it is never that simple. Yes, our DNA influence most of our behaviors, but not all. Second, Ms Agnes Chai forget to include the fact from the same study: non-identical twins (still share DNA, but not 100%) and adopted siblings (do not share DNA at all) have a lower probablitiy of being both homosexuals (22% for non-identical twins and 11% for adopted siblings). If anything, this suggests to me that our sexual orientation is highly affected by our DNA. Ms Agnes Chai has managed to distort the interpretation of the original study by cherry-picking the data (from the perspective of someone trained in scientific research and statistics, this is just pure evil). Furthermore, even though it was true the authors were cautious in their interpretation of the data in the original study (as all scientists are...... you will never catch a scientist saying: huh, I've proved this to be true......), more and more studies that have come out to suggest that our sexual orientation is innate. Doesn't it strike you strange that Ms Agnes Chai said that a new article in Science (a very highly respected journal) said that they have overwhelming evidence that our sexual orientation is innate, and then goes to cite a study 15 years old ago to reject that point. Unlike wine which gets better with age, scientific research gets obsolete with age, as scientists are always coming up with better techniques, and better measures in order to address the issues they are investigating. The area of genetic research has blossomed during the past decade, and to cite a study that is 15 years old to counter new and recent evidence just sounds retarded.

With regards to the second letter posted in straitstimes written by Jonathan Cheng, this is just pure bigotry at its worst. To link homosexuality with pornography, promiscuity, and a whole lot of social problems without any empirical evidence to back it up is just pure evil again... To quote comedian Lewis Black: Yeah, that is the problem. The wars, global warming, social inequality, etc, it is all the gay's fault. Son-of-a-bitch, that is the real problem.... GAYS! If we get rid of all the gays, then the war in Iraq will end and the Sunnis will be hugging the Shites.

Also, while Jonathan Cheng claims the pro-homosexual lobby as being aggressive, I find the christian right's oppression on homosexual individuals as even more aggressive. I suspect both Ms Agnes Chai and Mr Jonathan Cheng are christians in name, people who say that they are christians but who do not follow the teachings of jesus, who said that (to paraphrase) one must avoid judging people. But then again, you don't need to be a chrsitian to understand this very concept.... it should be readily apparent to those who have a bit of empathy for individuals who were treated unfairly.....

And what is this about the "Singapore-ness" if homosexuality were not made legal??? I always thought that the guiding principle behind the ideal Singapore's society is that we are an inclusive society, given the difference in race, language and religion. I always thought the success behind the Singapore story is because we are able to put aside all our differences and work towards building a better society. How are we able to do that if there are people out there like Jonathan Cheng???

And by the way, whether homosexuality is innate or not should not be the deciding factor so to whether we legalize homosexuality.. Homosexuality should be legalized on humanitarian grounds, on the very same reasons why countries like USA and South Africa decides that apartheid and segregation should not be allowed. I don't see the homosexuals oppressing anyone, unlike Mr Cheng who seems eager to oppress others in order to maintain a false ideal society which does not exists (wholesomeness singapore? no porn? have you ever not surfed the internet???)

===============================================
Are homosexuals truly born gay?

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in a dialogue with 400 Young PAP members on Saturday that, 'if in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?'

Are homosexuals born gay? Why the importance to prove this issue? The reason is simple: If society is convinced that some people are indeed born gay, then there would be a need for the Government to not criminalise this behaviour, and, by extension, even protect homosexuals as a designated minority class.

In the United States, this debate is far from over. While a publication by research journal Science, claiming that we were 'on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable, a normal variant of human nature', generated much media interest in the early 1990s, scientific attempts to prove homosexual genes have yet to really bear fruit.

A study conducted in 1991 which attempted to show that homosexuality occurs more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins actually provided support for environmental factors versus genetics.

If homosexuality were indeed in the genetic code, then both of the twins should be homosexual 100 per cent of the time, yet this was not the case.

The LeVay brain study of 1991, which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of homosexual and heterosexual men found no evidence that there is any genetic cause for homosexuality.

Other prominent researchers concluded that there was a lack of evidence to support a biological theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where 'temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges'.

With respect to possibly decriminalising homosexual behaviour in the upcoming Penal Code review, I urge the Government to refrain from proceeding hastily in view of inconclusive findings on 'homosexual genes'.

Agnes Chai Shiang Jen (Ms)

============================================
MM's comments have me and family worried

I AM writing about the review of the criminal code. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent comments about liberalising laws regarding homosexuality have got my family and me very concerned.

My expatriate friends find Singapore a conducive place in terms of its low crime and cleanliness. More importantly, they comment that it is a wholesome place. One does not find pornography sold openly in a neighbourhood shop. Having lived in the West myself, this down-to-earth wholesomeness is what makes Singapore special.

Singapore today faces the challenge of a declining birth rate and families are breaking down at the same time. To legalise homosexuality will compound these problems, given that homosexual couples do not reproduce.

The homosexual lobby in the West is extremely aggressive. It is the same here. Observe how it is now considered intolerant when one criticises them.

What would it be like to have a homosexual teach our children that it is normal to be gay? You might scorn the idea but this is what is happening in the West.

Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle. What else can you expect when you do not have children to live for or be in a loving and committed relationship? This increases the risk of STDs, Aids, etc, further increasing the risk to the general population.

Homosexuality is not going to go away. All I am saying is that we do not make it easier to be a homosexual by legalising their activities. Singapore is our home and I am proud to be Singaporean. Let us keep it a wholesome place.

Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn

==========================================================================