世界在破晓的瞬间前埋葬于深渊的黑暗

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Manchester United Are In The Champions League Finals!!!

And who better to score the winning goal that brings them into the final than my favorite player in the Manchester United Squad, the underrated Paul Scholes.... 

This is a video that I found on YouTube which is a highlight of the goals Paul Scholes scored....

Man I hope we meet Liverpool in the Finals so that we can beat them. 

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Religion a figment of human imagination??

This is from the original article here. This is a theory of religion that is not that different from that of Pascal Boyer, which I like very much and have written an article for the local newspaper about it before  (search this blog, it is there). 


Religion a figment of human imagination
00:01 28 April 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Andy Coghlan

Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.

"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.

"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."

Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic "Ummah" uniting Muslims.

Stuck in the here and now

No animals, not even our nearest relatives the chimpanzees, can do this, argues Bloch. Instead, he says, they're restricted to the mundane and Machiavellian social interactions of everyday life, of sparring every day with contemporaries for status and resources.

And the reason is that they can't imagine beyond this immediate social circle, or backwards and forwards in time, in the same way that humans can.

Bloch believes our ancestors developed the necessary neural architecture to imagine before or around 40-50,000 years ago, at a time called the Upper Palaeological Revolution, the final sub-division of the Stone Age.

At around the same time, tools that had been monotonously primitive since the earliest examples appeared 100,000 years earlier suddenly exploded in sophistication, art began appearing on cave walls, and burials began to include artefacts, suggesting belief in an afterlife, and by implication the "transcendental social".

Once humans had crossed this divide, there was no going back.

"The transcendental network can, with no problem, include the dead, ancestors and gods, as well as living role holders and members of essentialised groups," writes Bloch. "Ancestors and gods are compatible with living elders or members of nations because all are equally mysterious invisible, in other words transcendental."

Nothing special

But Bloch argues that religion is only one manifestation of this unique ability to form bonds with non-existent or distant people or value-systems.

"Religious-like phenomena in general are an inseparable part of a key adaptation unique to modern humans, and this is the capacity to imagine other worlds, an adaptation that I argue is the very foundation of the sociality of modern human society."

"Once we realise this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, nothing special is left to explain concerning religion," he says.

Chris Frith of University College London, a co-organiser of a "Sapient Mind" meeting in Cambridge last September, thinks Bloch is right, but that "theory of mind" – the ability to recognise that other people or creatures exist, and think for themselves – might be as important as evolution of imagination.

"As soon as you have theory of mind, you have the possibility of deceiving others, or being deceived," he says. This, in turn, generates a sense of fairness and unfairness, which could lead to moral codes and the possibility of an unseen "enforcer" - God – who can see and punish all wrong-doers.

"Once you have these additions of the imagination, maybe theories of God are inevitable," he says.

Journal reference: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, (DOI:10.1098/rstb.2008.0007)




The Freeway Blogger

This will never work in Singapore though, with all the CCTVs and the lack of sense of humor from those in charge... Remember the white elephants at BuangKok MRT??



Sunday, April 27, 2008

Tony Benn Interview on Sicko Outtake

This is Tony Benn's interview by Michael Moore, not in the actual movie, but in the outtakes of the Sicko DVD. What he says is pretty enlightening. 

Part 1


Part 2

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Brian Greene On The String Theory....

This is a TED lecture where Brian Green attempts to explain the String Theory in layman's term.... 

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Hamster Video

More pictures from the life of Mr Hamster...

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Clips From An Unreasonable Man

This is a clip from the documentary: An Unreasonable Man... When you hear Ralph Nader speaks and his friends talk about his accomplishments, you will have nothing but admiration for this man...

Bill Maher - New Rules 18 Apr 2008

It is a strong batch of new rules this week.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Ralph Nader on The Hour

This is an interview of Ralph Nader on the Canadian TV show, The Hour. 


Part 1


Part 2

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Ralph Nader On His Family's Seventeen Traditions

A talk by Ralph Nader on his book. The first part of the talk was an introduction on his book. It is the second part, the Q & A session, that is interesting...


Stale Pizza


What would happen if you left a pizza in the fridge for months???
Well, a friend of mine did and the answer is in the picture above....
Note: The grayish thing you see in the middle, those aren't the ingredients....

The Unreasonable Man



The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the
unreasonable man.




This is a must see documentary... I really like this man and what he stands for...

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

诅咒

(This story was written two years ago, and this is the original version. The published version was the shortened and edited version... Half of this story is actually true and part of my life... I will let you guess which half it was...)

(刊登于2008年4月15日)

“等等。如果我没有听错的话,你的意思是我们都被诅咒了?” 我认真地问阿耀。尽管是通过电话交谈,不过我却可以想像他在电话线另一端紧张和不安的表情。或者他现在正强忍着不让自己狂笑出来也说不定。关于阿耀,我总是无法预测他何时认真或者开玩笑。虽然我们是从中学就认识的朋友,不过他的捉摸不定总是让我束手无策。

“对啊,这就是我的意思。” 阿耀的语气听起来非常认真和坚定。

“你不是在开玩笑吧?”

“如果有人凌晨一点打电话到你的家把你从睡梦中惊醒,他大概不会只是为了开玩笑吧?天啊,虽然我喜欢恶作剧,不过我做事也有些分寸。”

我想了想,觉得阿耀说得有理。毕竟我们已经有将近两年没见面了,要不是因为中学同班同学结婚的话,大概也不会在几个小时前于婚宴上相遇吧。多数的人都不会跟一个没有见面两年的朋友开这种玩笑吧?

“那么你想怎么样?” 我问。

“嗯,明天是星期天,你早上没事吧?” 阿耀问。

“没事。” 我有些犹豫不决。

“那很好。我现在就马上飙车到你家了。你给我二十分钟。”

“什么?不需要吧?现在凌晨一点了,你别发神经了……”

“干!你难道还不明白事情的严重性吗?别多说了,这是我们必须做的事。反正你准备两杯热咖啡,在家里等着我过来就是了。”

“喂,你这个家伙别擅自做决定!” 我急躁地对着电话筒大声说。

然而,回应我的只是电话挂上后所发出类似哭鸣的声音。真是的,阿耀那家伙一点都没有改变,还是和以前一样冲动,一样不听他人的意见。看来我只好起床到厨房去泡咖啡,陪那家伙一起胡闹了。


我放下了电话,不禁回想几个小时前在婚宴上所发生的事。当时我们一帮好久都没有见面的老同学坐在一起,互相谈着自己的近况和以往中学时代的事。这其中的谈话内容其实可以预料,大夥儿相聚不聊过去,难道聊深奥的哲学问题吗?我已经忘记当时谈话是怎么开始了。不过,我猜应该会是以一些寒喧的问侯话开头。哦,你现在在哪里工作啊?打算结婚了没有?哦,这是我的名片。诸如此类的对话。这是多数人和很久不见的朋友相遇时所会说的话。首先把气氛弄得融洽些,聊一些无关痛痒的话题,让彼此因为久未交往而僵硬的关系上涂上一层润滑油,以方便谈话往比较尖锐的方向前进。两三杯啤酒下肚后,情绪比较可以放得开时,就可以聊一些较尖锐的话题。嘿,他妈的,我的上司简直就不是人。天啊,房屋贷款快把我压垮了。他娘的,我公司现在正裁员呢。这似乎是所有久未相见的朋友在某个聚会见面时所会演出来的剧本,仿佛大家都读了一本叫做 ‘如何面对久未相见老朋友完全手册’ 的书,而根据这本书的指示行事。

如果真的有这么一本书的话,那么阿耀一定没有看过。那家伙一到现场,还没有跟其他人打招呼,便开始埋怨他的上司如何在工作时为难他。没记错的话,当时的谈话好像如此开始。


“真他妈的,我今天的心情简直是差透了。” 阿耀大声地埋怨说。

“怎么了?” 我好奇地问。

“被上司训了一顿。”

“是吗?你现在在哪里工作呢?” 有人问了阿耀。

“我在会计行里工作。这不是重点。重点是我那个上司真他妈的鸟。”

“到底发生什么事呢?”

“哼,我今天也没招惹谁,只是安分守己地在我的办公桌上计算着某间大型公司的税务。谁知道当我正算到紧要关头时,那个混蛋的上司就突然出现在我面前,问我是不是非常不喜欢打领带上班这种无聊问题。” 锦耀说。

“哦,你上班都不打领带吗?” 我有些惊讶地问。

“打领带会增加我的生产效率吗?” 阿耀的语气带有些讽刺意味。

“等等,你该不会是这样回答上司吧?” 坐在阿耀旁的康辉不可思议地问。

“对啊,我就是这样回答他。” 阿耀理直气壮地说。

“然后他就发飙了?” 我猜测地问。

“何止发飙,他还几乎要炒我鱿鱼呢!不过最终没有,因为这几个星期赶工,公司人手不足,所以他需要我。哼,再怎么说,我也是整个部门效率最高的员工。”

“哎呀,真是的,这么多年了,你还是这种鸟性格。” 我叹气说。


结果,我们那桌的谈话从阿耀抵达的那一刻开始,就围绕着他人生所承受的不幸和不公的话题一直进行。他在婚宴开始前把上司骂得一文不值后,在新郎和新娘随着结婚进行曲的音乐手牵手往台上走去时就埋怨着公司某个女职员私生活不检点,然后在第一道菜送上来时就向整桌人控诉他邻居每天早上练气功时所开的音乐把他从睡梦中吵醒。也不知道是不是受到了阿耀的影响,结果到了第二道菜呈上来时,其他人也开始抱怨着他们生活所承受的不公。有人埋怨失业,有人埋怨交不到女朋友,更有人埋怨天气越来越热。我也不甘示弱,向大家抱怨交往五年的女友无缘无故把自己甩掉的事。反正抱怨就好像学运一样持续到第五道菜,直到新郎新娘再次上台向大家敬酒时,欢乐的喝彩声才好像驱魔咒语一样把埋怨声驱走。


我一边拖着疲惫的身躯走向厨房泡咖啡,一边回想着大夥儿在敬酒后所谈的话题。大概是为了调和敬酒前那充满怨气的场面,婚宴后半段的话题都围绕着以往中学时代荒谬和疯狂的风光事迹。例如我们以前庆祝生日的荒唐方式,大夥儿合力把寿星公抬到校园的旗杆旁,把他双脚撑开,扛着他的身躯,然后将他双脚之间的地方狠狠地往旗杆上撞。或者是放学后,大家觉得无聊,结果就把学校成绩最好的学生拐带起来,把他的衣服拔光,然后将只穿着内裤的他推到学校的操场上去。反正就是这些无聊和幼稚的事迹,只有年少时才会做出的事。人在年少时总是会觉得时间过于充裕,就如同满天的蝗虫。如果不打发的话,就会慢慢地啃噬着我们的内心,将精力过于旺盛的我们逼疯去。

反正,就是因为聊到以往的疯狂事迹,所以才会想起露营时发生的那件事,也导致阿耀联想到 ‘我们或许受到诅咒’ 的可能性。那是我们中三时所发生的事。我们所就读的男校每年六月假期都有举办集体露营的传统,目的是为了让我们这群臭男生体验所谓的团体生活,以培养大家的领导能力和借此让我们学习如何与他人合作的机会。当然,这是校方单方面的想法。至于我们这些学生,只是觉得露营这回事非常麻烦。毕竟,如果是要培养大家的领导能力和让我们学习互相合作,我们平常放学后踢球和打篮球时就已经学到这些道理了,不需要学校大费周章搞出这么一个集体露营来教导我们。反正根据中一和中二的露营经验,我们到了营地一定是对导师们所安排的节目不感兴趣,然后敷衍地参加为我们安排的活动,最后还是会溜到营地附近的空地踢球。或许对十五六岁的男生而言,随时随地就可以聚在一起踢球算是一种本能吧。

然后,有人提起了那次露营第二晚才艺表演的事。我也忘记是谁提起了,只记得我当时并不是很愿意谈论那件事。毕竟,自己就是那件事的主角之一。然而,尽管我企图把话题引开,其他人还是对那件事谈得津津乐道。

关于那晚的事,我还历历在目。露营的其中一个传统是每班在第二晚时,必须准备一项才艺表演给全校的人观赏。通常在这种场合,有些班级不是表演唱歌,就是想出一些天马行空的闹剧逗大家笑。要不然就是表演模仿秀,模仿校内一些熟悉的人物来取悦大家。换句话说,所谓的才艺表演只不过是大家觉得无聊而想出来的一些无厘头的点子,目的只是为了取悦老师们和确保我们这些男生不会趁着晚上多余的时间溜出营地去。更简单的说,对必须表演的我们而言,这简直就是极度无趣的事。

我记得当天下午时,我们班上的臭男生大概为了这件事烦恼了五秒钟,结果当时的班长阿耀拿出了足球,我们就把晚上必须表演的事抛到九霄云外,拍拍屁股去踢球去了。结果到了晚餐时,我们对表演的内容依然没有头绪。

“ 要不然就表演歌唱吧?这最简单了。” 有人提议。

“干!我们班上的男生都五音不全,而且没有人会弹乐器,怎么表演歌唱呢?” 有人否决。

“不如我们搞个模仿秀,模仿所有在场的老师?”

“不行啦,刚才我看到H班已经也这样表演了,而且他们班上有很多戏剧学会的人,我们如果表演这个,一定被他们比下去的。”

“刚才我看J班在排练他们今晚所表演的喜剧,可真笑死人,不如我们也表演一个喜剧?”

“天啊,人家排练一整个下午了,我们只有四十分钟的时间准备呢,怎么可能来得及?或许今天下午开始准备还来得及,现在要想出一个好笑的故事都很难了。”

“哎呀,这都怪阿耀,怂恿我们去踢球,现在都没有时间准备了。” 有人抱怨说。

“干你娘!你刚才也不是踢得很爽?现在怪我?” 阿耀不客气地回应。

“哦,是你自己说船到桥头自然直的,现在不见得你有办法。”

“你鸡蛋啦,是不是欠扁?反正还有四十分钟,我们随便想一个东西去表演就可以了。这么认真做什么?又不是角逐奥斯卡金像奖,只不过是一个下三烂的校园表演罢了。” 阿耀不满地说。

“其实我有个好主意。” 我说。

全班同学的眼光都在刹那间注视着我。

“其实我们把现在这种情况表演出来就可以了嘛?我们就直接告诉全校的人说,我们因为觉得这种表演非常无聊,所以宁愿去踢球也不愿准备吧?这不是大家的想法吗?我们还可以把整个情况弄得幽默些,例如我们可以表演假装建议演一部色情剧,然后我们几个男生都要争着做主角而发生争执。诸如此类的鸟东西,反正到时即兴表演就是了,就把我们现在的情形演出来,在大家面前扮演回自己原本的角色就可以了。不需要伪装,也不需要排练,因为我们就是这么样子的嘛。你们觉得如何?”

全班顿时鸦雀无声,大家都在认真考虑我的建议,有些人稍微点了点头表示赞同,有些人托着下巴认真思考,而有些人只是一脸毫无表情地木讷着。大家就这样什么话都没说,直到阿耀犹如获得至宝一样很兴奋地用力拍着我的肩膀,说:“This is a fucking brilliant idea!这个主意真他妈的屌!完全不需要准备,随便上场表演就可以了!哦,天啊,阿彪,你真是个天才。”

“哈哈,不敢当,只不过我比较懒惰罢了,所以才会想出这么鸟的东西。”

“嘿,这个主意还不错嘛,这其实就是所谓的后现代手法哦。我们以前戏剧学会的一位学长也有写过类似的东西哦。” 在戏剧学会混的永庆说。

“管他什么后现代不后现代,还是谁的后代,反正我们今晚就这么表演吧。有谁有什么意见的?” 阿耀大声地说。

“有,有,我有意见!”

“什么鸟啦!”

“对啊,你有更好的主意吗?”

“这个很轻松了,不要叫我们去装小丑唱歌,还是模仿老师们,太无聊了!”

“没有啦,我是说现在离表演时间还有半个小时,要不要再去踢球?反正还有时间。”

“好啊,好啊,这样子我们满身大汗表演更会有说服力!”

“还等什么?球呢?”

“在国辉那边!”

“Come on everybody,我们到草场去吧!”


我们到表演的现场时都理所当然地流着满头大汗,而且有些人在铲球时过于积极,弄得膝盖擦伤,流得整只脚都血淋淋。不仅如此,我们踢球踢得过于兴奋,结果把表演的事忘得一干二净。要不是老师派遣其他班级的人来寻找我们,我们大概会真的把表演和露营的事遗忘吧。当我们抵达表演现场时,我们的级任老师向我们使出愤怒的眼色。老实说,我们当时跟级任老师的关系不是很好。由于我们这班在学校算是成绩比较弱的一班,而且非常顽皮,因此常跟老师发生冲突。虽然级任老师当时碍于在场的其他老师和学生正在等我们出现的事实,什么话都没说,不过我们从她的眼神可以看出她恨不得把我们绑在刑台上,对我们施予鞭刑以发泄她心里的怨恨。大概是这样子吧,反正年过三十的未婚女子在心理上应该是有些变态。然而,我们级任老师的眼神仿佛是预告整件事情的不详凶兆。

我们当时的表演非常差劲。也不知道是不是在我们前面的几个班级表演时都赢得观众热烈的掌声,无形中给我们增加压力,或者是班级任老师时不时给在旁显得很无聊的我们使的肮脏眼色,让我们感觉浑身不自在。反正轮到我们表演时,大家的动作都非常僵硬和不自然,而且讲话都非常拘谨。虽然全班在表演前都想到了许多幽默的话,不过到现场时大家都紧张地不知所措,把先前所想到的台词都忘光了。结果,整个表演只有我、阿耀、戏剧学会的永庆、比较顽皮的国辉和原本就非常厚脸皮的宏立带动。其他班级的学生在观看我们的表演时不但没有大声赞好,反而显得非常惊讶,仿佛不能够相信我们就这样表演。我们的级任老师只是一直摇着头,并且用手遮住自己的双眼。当我大声地宣布说 ‘反正在这种无聊的露营里,这种无聊的表演节目不需要太认真,只需要敷衍了事就可以了’ 时,我看见她非常厌恶地站了起来,并且不屑地离开了现场。
我们的班理所当然地被所有的老师骂得狗血淋头。首先是班级任老师、然后是训导主任、接着是负责策划露营节目的老师、就连平时在学校不怎么骂人的一位老师也跑过来凑一脚。如果不是众老师把我们训完时已经超过营地规定的入眠时间,我们或许还会被拉去游街示众,让全校的学生、在露营地负责打扫的阿婶、以及营地养的那几只看门狗对对我们亵渎这片营地的罪行提出不满的抗议。


“你还记得莫老师当时落下的狠话吗?” 阿耀一边接过我递过去的咖啡,一边坐在沙发上问。

“依稀记得吧。好像什么我们是没出息的学生,什么当其他的同学都努力地配合老师把整个露营经验弄得非常充实时,我们却在一旁搞破坏。还有什么我们如果是以这种态度面对人生的话,是永远都没有出息的。诸如此类的话吧?事情已经过了这么久了,我没办法一字一句地记得。如果是你在当时演出结束时,为了打圆场所说的那番话,我倒是还比较有些印象。” 我也坐在沙发上,面对着阿耀说。

“重点就在这里。”

“什么,你当时所说的话?”

“不是啦,天才,我说的是当时我们的级任老师所说的话啦。”

“你刚才在电话里说了嘛,你认为这是个诅咒。”

“你不觉得吗?我问你,你不觉得我们从当时开始做事就不顺利吗?我到了初级学院参加足球队,结果不但没有被选入校队,而且还把膝盖弄坏了。会考成绩无法进入本地大学,结果得自掏腰包到外国的三流大学去。虽然在外地大学想认真地读书,不过大学的成绩却一直平平,没什么出息,尽管当时自己是非常努力地念书。现在工作也不怎么样,还被上司威胁说要炒我鱿鱼。天啊,我觉得自己的人生从那天开始就衰到现在。”

“可是……”

“别说我,你也不是一样?你到高中时最拿手的华文在会考时拿了非常差劲的成绩,导致你没办法申请奖学金到国外深造。以你的素质,肯定可以到外国念书,而不需要待在本地的大学忍受他们鸟不拉屎的教育制度。你的感情生活也一直不理想吧?”

“不过,我们班的几个人现在混得不错啊!例如仁勇和策伟,现在是跨国公司的高级经理呢!还有若申,当上了空军的机师。裕明接管他父亲的小型生意后听说也搞得不错啊。” 我指出。

“不,当时莫老师所说的话并不是针对全班,只是几个人罢了。她把矛头指向当时几个比较顽皮、以及在表演时说话比较多和比较大声的几个人。例如你、我、友庆、国辉、宏立等等。你知不知道,我们这些人现在的成就跟班上其他人相比,的确是逊色很多。例如宏立,他毕业了快一年了,还找不到一份全职的工作,现在还在做兼职呢。” 阿耀认真地说。

“那么你的意思是……”

“很显然的,我们都被诅咒了。”

“诅咒?”

“对。”

“你是说莫老师诅咒了我们?”

“对。”

“这未免太荒唐了吧?虽然莫老师常常会莫名其妙地骂我们大家,导致我们都对她没什么好感,不过你说她诅咒我们,这不是把人家说得好像巫婆或者魔女一样吗?好像她是那种会搞巫术或者下降头的巫女。” 我带着质疑的语气说。

“不,我指的不是她刻意诅咒我们,而是她当时那种行为在某种方面无意地导致我们这些人受到诅咒。可以这么说吧,当时她的愤怒过于激烈,无形中就变成了一股怨气。结果这股怨气就好像幽灵一样缠着我们,导致我们这些人做事一直都很不顺利。我想事情大概就是这么一回事吧?” 阿耀非常认真地分析。

“这个说法未免太扯了吧?”

“不会扯啊!你仔细想吧,如果我们不是被诅咒,怎么人生会这么不顺利呢?我再也想不到其他的解释了。”

“或许是因为……”

“别什么 ‘或许’ 了。我跟你说,一定是诅咒,没错的。”

“好吧。如果就好像你所说的是诅咒,那么我们能做什么呢?”

“做什么?你不是在问废话吗?当然是想办法解除诅咒啦!难道去开香槟庆祝吗?”

“哦,耀哥,说的很简单哦。可是我没学过茅山法术,也没有特异功能,就连变魔术都不会。你要我怎么样解除诅咒呢?”

“天啊,这种东西不需要会法术,也不需要特异功能啦,只需要稍微动一动大脑就可以了。”

“你的高见是……”

“Okay,你仔细想。导致诅咒发生的是莫老师当时的责骂,对吧?”

“嗯,没错。”

“那么导致莫老师责骂我们的原因是我们当时把她惹火吧?”

“啊,对。”

“听好,这非常重要。追根究底,导致莫老师骂我们的原因,是我们在当时露营的表演节目中呈现了一场她认为是烂到透顶,完全常没有水准的演出吧?这种说法没错吧?”

“到现在为止听起来还算合理。”

“Okay,那么我们就知道应该怎么做了啊。”

“啊?我还是不明白。”

“嘿,你脑筋转快一些好不好?这就是简单的推论法嘛。问题的根源就在于那场非常糟糕的演出。因此,如果我们把这个结解开,那么其他的麻烦就会迎刃而解了。”

“什么?”

“很简单,只要我们找回莫老师,在她面前做一次认真的表演,那么所谓的诅咒就会被解除了。”

“我想事情恐怕没有这么简单吧。”

“为什么呢?我觉得事情蛮简单的啊。”

“你当时在国外,所以不知道这件事。莫老师在几年前在乘搭地铁时发生了意外。当时她在月台正非常专著地读着学生的作业,一个不留神不小心掉下了月台,结果被刚好经过的地铁列车碾过,当场丧命。也就是说,她现在已经往生了。你怎么在一个死人面前表演呢?” 我冷静地分析给阿耀听。

“Oh,shit。”

“对啊,也就是说你的理论是错误的。由于莫老师已经不在这个世界上了,因此她的怒气啊、怨气啊、还有一大堆莫名其妙的东西,是不可能影响我们的。”

“Fuck!你难道不了解吗?”

“你说什么鸟?”

“现在我更确定我的看法是真确的。对,这一定没有错。难怪这股怨气会持续这么久!”

“等等,你在说什么?我都弄糊涂了。”

“你难道不了解吗?Look,我们从中学毕业这么久了,为什么还会这么衰呢?即使是莫老师有再大的怨气,只要她在三五年后忘记我们这批学生,所谓的诅咒也会随着时间消失啊!我刚才在提出这个关于诅咒的理论时,其实一直纳罕说为什么诅咒可以持续这么久,现在我终於明白了!死者的记忆在他们死去的那一刻就会被永久地以当时的那种状态保存下来,不会再改变了。也就是说,在莫老师死去的那一刻,她的内心仍然对当年那件表演的事非常不满,而因为她把这份不满带入坟墓里,因此所谓的诅咒才一直阴魂不散。”

“这个未免……”

“也就是说,我们必须想办法超渡她的亡魂。” 阿耀一脸认真地说

“超渡?”

“对,超渡,而且我们必须在天亮之前完成这件事。”

“今晚?现在半夜两点了,即使你想超渡,也得等到明天吧?”

“不能等!你难道不明白吗?今晚所发生的一切东西其实是一个契机,让我们察觉到自己其实已经受到了某种程度的诅咒。或许今晚是我们唯一可以解除这个诅咒的机会。过了今晚的话,我们就永远无法甩脱这个诅咒了。”

“没这么严重吧?”

“你不觉得事情未免也太凑巧了吗?为什么我们会突然聊到中学露营那件事,然后我会把它联想到诅咒的事?我觉得这一切有某股力量在操控着,而这股力量正在暗示我们,如果不尽快解决这件事,我们就永远会受到诅咒。不,我非常肯定,如果在天亮之前不把这股怨气超渡的话,我们一辈子都会被诅咒。” 阿耀的语气变得非常激动。他大概认为这件事已经牵连到他整个人生了。

“好吧,好吧,就算是你的看法是真确的。不过现在是凌晨两点。我再重复一次。现在凌晨两点。我们应该怎么要帮她超渡呢?现在这种鬼时间找不到道士或者和尚,而且我根本不知道她葬在什么地方,怎么超渡啊?” 我有些泼冷水地说。老实说,我对阿耀的看法并不完全赞同,因为我本人不相信怪力乱神论。

“不,不,我觉得即使不到她所埋葬的地方也没关系。至于道士或者和尚,这些都是不重要的。因为我们现在的问题不是一个恶灵,而是一股因为对学生的表现失望而产生的怨气,这两者在某种程度上是有差别的。也就是说,要化解这股怨气,我们必须要利用其他的方法,也就是我刚才所跟你说的方法。”

“这个嘛……”

“对了!你知道莫老师是在哪个地铁站发生意外的吗?”


结果,我们到了几年前发生意外的那个地铁站。

地铁站四周一片死寂。除了一只路过的野猫以外,地铁站四周可说是空无一人。那只野猫在看到我和阿耀后停了下来,以那双会反光的眼睛好奇地看着我们。阿耀把车子停在地铁站前的巴士车站。引擎的声音好像小孩的低吟哭声一样,仿佛在控诉为何要在三更半夜偷偷摸摸地来到地铁站干莫名其妙的事。

“好了,现在怎么办?” 我问。

“什么怎么办?” 阿耀不解地问。

“我是说,现在凌晨三点啊,地铁站都关了,都锁起来了,铁门都拉下来了。你要怎么到月台上去呢?”

“我们不需要到月台上去。”

“哦?不过你刚才说是要到老师过世的现场嘛?”

“对啊,那不在月台上,而是在轨道上。”

“等等,你要我们到地铁轨道上?”

“你怕什么,现在不会有地铁列车经过的。”

“这不是重点,好吗?重点是我们如何到地铁轨道上呢?虽然这个地铁站的轨道不是那种悬空的,也不是在地底下的,而是我们从地铁站旁往下看就可以看到的,不过你知道从地铁站上面到轨道上有多高吗?至少有三到五公尺吧?我们要如何下到轨道那里去呢?我可不会轻功哦。”

“没问题,我有办法。” 阿耀一边把汽车的引擎熄灭,一边自信满满地说。他打开了车门,然后示意我一起下车,陪他一同到车子的后方。当我有些心不甘情不愿地走到车后的行李箱时,阿耀便打开了行李箱,指着里头的一捆绳梯。

“这个大概有五公尺长吧,要下到轨道应该没问题。” 阿耀说。

我非常不可思议看着那捆好像蟒蛇一样蜷缩在行李箱里的绳梯,然后摇着头问阿耀:“你平时把这种东西放在车子干嘛?”

阿耀没有回答我,只是默默地把绳梯从行李箱搬出来。我看他搬得有些吃力,于是便帮忙他扛。阿耀把绳梯放在地上,然后便关上了行李箱。在他把行李箱关上时,我看到里面还摆放着许许多多古怪的东西,例如有大型的工业手电筒,有一把砍草刀,有用来抓螃蟹的网,还有一双登山用的鞋子。天啊,这家伙平常就把这些东西都摆在车里吗?

我们半拖半拉把绳梯扛到了轨道正上方的围墙,然后阿耀便非常有技巧地把绳梯的一端固定在围墙上,并且把另一端放下。我听到了绳梯与地面碰撞的声音。看来阿耀说得没错,这捆绳梯的长度绰绰有余。

“现在怎么样?” 我问。

“好,你听好了,可别搞砸了。我们等会儿下去后,你就提议说 ‘我们不如唱一首歌来表演吧’ ,然后我们就一起唱歌。歌曲唱完后,你就什么也别说,让我发表感谢辞。我说完后,我们便立刻爬上来,听懂吗?” 阿耀非常认真地说。

“等等,为什么要这么做呢?”

“你忘记了吗?当时提议表演项目的人是你,而在表演完毕后发表感谢辞的人是我,如果要完全解除这个诅咒,就必须按照原本的次序把事件重新搬演一番,了解吗?” 阿耀有些不耐烦地说。

“呃…..那么我们唱什么歌曲呢?必须唱一首我们两人都熟悉的吧?”

“我其实刚才在驾车时有考虑到这个问题。我平时都没有听歌的习惯,而你平常都听一些我不可能听过的莫名其妙古怪音乐,所以我认为只有两首歌是我们彼此都知道的。”

“什么歌?”

“国歌和校歌。”

“呃……校歌我已经忘记了。” 我有些惭愧地说。

“只有唱国歌了。”


在阿耀的坚持下,我们爬下绳梯时一句话都没有说。阿耀说这是为了确保解除诅咒的仪式会有效。当我们抵达轨道上时,阿耀跟我使了眼色,然后以非常夸张的声音问我:“啊,你说我们应该表演什么好呢?”

“呃……不如表演唱歌吧?”

“好啊!”

于是我们两人便一起非常严肃地并排站着,然后阿耀用手指摆出 ‘一,二,三’ 的手势。当阿耀数到三时,我们两人便开口大唱。如同杀鸡的歌声顿时在寂静的夜里响了起来。也不知道是否是自己的心理作祟,我总觉得在我们唱歌时,轨道上吹着了有些寒冷的风。我不敢四处张望,只是非常胆小地把视线集中在自己的脚下。

当歌曲唱完时,阿耀做了一次深呼吸,然后再度以夸张的声音演说:“各位,这就是我们的表演。虽然表演的不是非常精彩,也不是非常出色,不过这却是我们最真诚和尽力的表演。希望你们大家会喜欢。谢谢,晚安。”

这段感谢辞跟当年阿耀所说的感谢辞一模一样。


当我们爬上去,然后把绳梯收回后,阿耀似乎松了一口气说:“终于结束了。”

“嗯。”

“说实在的,我刚才真的有些紧张,差一点连国歌的歌词都忘了。” 阿耀笑着说。

“耀哥,你怎么会用同样的感谢辞呢?难道是为了忠于历史吗?” 我好奇地问。

“哦?我的感谢辞跟以前的一模一样吗?” 阿耀有些不可思议地问。

“是啊,难道你没察觉吗?”

“嘿,没有。我都忘记以前自己的感谢辞是怎么讲了。没想到你还记得。”

“我当然记得,因为那段感谢辞对我而言是非常震撼人心的。”

“哈哈,那是当年吧,刚才我太紧张了。”

“没有啊,我还是觉得跟当时一模一样,甚至还有过之而无不及呢。”

“哈,你真会开玩笑。”


我们把绳梯放回车后的行李箱后,阿耀问我说:“嘿,你现在要急着回家吗?不如我们去喝点咖啡吧?”

“好啊,就当做是在吃早餐。” 反正我闲着也闲着,就答应了。车子沿着快速公路行驶时,我闭上了眼睛歇息。也不知道为什么,阿耀当年在我们失败的表演后发表感谢词的画面就一直在我脑海中浮现,尤其是阿耀当时在脸上严肃和认真的表情。这个画面就一直在我脑海中播出,直到我听见有人呼叫我的名字。


Sunday, April 13, 2008

I'm Not Your Friend, Buddy!!

This is the I'm not your friend/guy/buddy skit from the recent South Park Episode, which I found freakingly funny for some reasons.... Anyway, I found this absolutely brilliant remix of the skit on YouTube, and it is a must see for all South Park Fans. 


真的不能批评宗教吗?

(刊登于联合早报, 2008年4月13日)


近来,由于三位男子密谋杀害两年前其中一位绘画莫罕默德漫画的丹麦画家而被捕,以及荷兰议员把批评《可兰经》的短片上载到网上,因此有关尊重宗教信仰的话题再度受到关注。在许多回教徒以武力攻击和抵制荷兰产品的背景下,有些关注此问题的评论者都分别谴责这些欧洲国家的行为,不仅声称丹麦画家的行为和其政府善后的反应是咎由自取,还指责荷兰议员的举动是庸人自扰。

本人在阅读这些批评文章后,发现它们都有几个相同的论点:第一,西方国家滥用自由言论,完全不考虑文化上的差异。第二,批评必须经过自我审查,不能明知道会引起事端还坚持批评。第三,所谓宗教信仰是神圣和敏感的东西,不能随意批评,要不然就会形成亵渎和不尊敬。在某些层面上,我稍微赞同以上的首两个论点。然而,对于不能批评宗教信仰的说法,本人却无法完全苟同。

一般人都认为批评他人的宗教信仰是非常不尊敬的行为,尽可能的话都避而不谈。著名生物学者Richard Dawkins指出,就算许多宗教信仰里头有许多不合理的教条,多数人都会声称非信徒是无权过问和批评这些教条,因为这毕竟是信徒和神明沟通的方式。然而,有趣的是如果同样的教条成为政治人物所推行的政治理念,就会突然变成受争议的课题。例如,许多宗教现在还积极提倡男尊女卑的看法,不仅是许多回教社会,就连前些时候美国共和党角逐总统候选人提名的虔诚基督教徒 Mike Huckabee也曾发表过同样的看法。 唯一不同的是多数人都会把回教社会的这种普遍看法解读成是宗教和文化的差异,旁人无权过问,而Mike Huckabee却因为相同的言论而成为许多美国人批评的对象。

当然,如果要做任何批评,必须是合理、有建设性和在尊重的前提下进行。这不仅是对于宗教的特别规则,而是身为批评者所必须拥有的修养。然而,这也是批评宗教的争议点。尊重的界线应该如何定义呢?换另一个角度来看待此问题:与其问尊重的界线如何定义,不如思考每个人是否会被得罪的极限。对于许多宗教狂热份子,合理的评论就等同是严重的亵渎。本人在国大念书时也几次碰过此状况:在某信徒面前讨论有关进化论的课题就等同不尊重他的宗教,或者告诉另一位信徒我没有理由相信圣经里的故事后被辱骂。

在我们的世界里,就算再善意的批评都会得罪到一些人,而有时我们自己认为是理所当然的事物却被宗教狂热者解读成亵渎他们宗教的行为。李资政于2004年在美国访谈节目The Charlie Rose Show里曾指出他无法了解为何新加坡成为伊丝兰祈祷团的攻击目标之一。李资政指出新加坡仅是允许美国航空公司使用我们的机场,以及允许美国的货船使用我们的港口。恐怖份子就从此举动决定新加坡是美国政府在对付卡伊达组织的帮凶,而决定以恐怖行为教训新加坡。尽管李资政在该访问没有表明地说出,不过从他的语调可以推测他对此事件感到荒谬。

从任何正常人的观点而言,伊丝兰祈祷团的逻辑实在是不合逻辑到极点,无法让人苟同。如果在这种缺乏逻辑和蛮不讲理的思维的威胁下还因为害怕得罪或者不想引起事端而沉默不语的话,或者说看到某些人利用宗教的名义来进行伤天害理的事却视而不见的话,那么我们或许就应该遵循许多宗教激进份子所发布的录影里头的要求,都按照宗教的法律去生活算了。要不然,按照这些宗教激进份子的思考逻辑,咱们的存在就等同在亵渎他们的宗教信仰了。

毕竟,当咱们异口同声地谴责宗教激进份子所策划和实行的恐怖行为时,在某种程度上就已经是在批评某些不合理的宗教份子了。如果说咱们完全不能批评任何的宗教,那么不就得容许这些成天把宗教挂在嘴边的激进份子吗?

A Bug's Life

Taken with my new camera... Was just looking for subjects to test the camera's capabilities when I saw this little guy on the sink....

Bill Maher - New Rules 11 Apr 2008

The last part was nice.

The Smiths - Last Night I Dreamt That Somebody Loved Me

A very old song by the Smiths... though not one of their most popular songs, one of my favorites...

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Bill Maher Interviews Richard Dawkins

One of the few interviews of Richard Dawkins where the interviewer agrees with him (i.e. is an atheist).

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Working Memory Have Limited Slots


A new study by researchers at UC Davis shows how our very short-term "working memory," which allows the brain to stitch together sensory information, operates. The system retains a limited number of high-resolution images for a few seconds, rather than a wider range of fuzzier impressions.



The original article is from here. I like this because the kind of research I am doing right now is somewhat similar to this...

No Atheists Here!!!


Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

Apparently it's still open season on some views of God.


This can only happen in America, where atheism, free-thinkers or rationalists can be castigated as though they were the devil incarnate (here). And this coming from a government official no less... 

Hopefully this will never happen in Singapore (although I know the people in general are quite religious)...

Keith Olberman has some comments on this incident in his "Worst Person" segment:


Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Time Lapse Photography

This is my first try with time lapse photography ... (after I bought the Canon Powershot G9, a fantastic camera)... The scene is the from my office window, and the background music is Boards Of Canada's Olson.


Saturday, April 05, 2008

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want

The first time I heard this song was on this show, House M.D., which I absolutely adore. This is a clip I found on YouTube that uses clips from the show set to the song.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Blind to Change

This is a report in New York Times on change blindness, a phenomenon that I have done some research on as an undergraduate. The original article is here, and you might be interested in some demonstrations found here.


Blind to Change, Even as It Stares Us in the Face

By NATALIE ANGIER
Leave it to a vision researcher to make you feel like Mr. Magoo.

When Jeremy Wolfe of Harvard Medical School, speaking last week at a symposium devoted to the crossover theme of Art and Neuroscience, wanted to illustrate how the brain sees the world and how often it fumbles the job, he naturally turned to a great work of art. He flashed a slide of Ellsworth Kelly’s “Study for Colors for a Large Wall” on the screen, and the audience couldn’t help but perk to attention. The checkerboard painting of 64 black, white and colored squares was so whimsically subtle, so poised and propulsive. We drank it in greedily, we scanned every part of it, we loved it, we owned it, and, whoops, time for a test.

Dr. Wolfe flashed another slide of the image, this time with one of the squares highlighted. Was the highlighted square the same color as the original, he asked the audience, or had he altered it? Um, different. No, wait, the same, definitely the same. That square could not now be nor ever have been anything but swimming-pool blue ... could it? The slides flashed by. How about this mustard square here, or that denim one there, or this pink, or that black? We in the audience were at sea and flailed for a strategy. By the end of the series only one thing was clear: We had gazed on Ellsworth Kelly’s masterpiece, but we hadn’t really seen it at all.

The phenomenon that Dr. Wolfe’s Pop Art quiz exemplified is known as change blindness: the frequent inability of our visual system to detect alterations to something staring us straight in the face. The changes needn’t be as modest as a switching of paint chips. At the same meeting, held at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University, the audience failed to notice entire stories disappearing from buildings, or the fact that one poor chicken in a field of dancing cartoon hens had suddenly exploded. In an interview, Dr. Wolfe also recalled a series of experiments in which pedestrians giving directions to a Cornell researcher posing as a lost tourist didn’t notice when, midway through the exchange, the sham tourist was replaced by another person altogether.

Beyond its entertainment value, symposium participants made clear, change blindness is a salient piece in the larger puzzle of visual attentiveness. What is the difference between seeing a scene casually and automatically, as in, you’re at the window and you glance outside at the same old streetscape and nothing registers, versus the focused seeing you’d do if you glanced outside and noticed a sign in the window of your favorite restaurant, and oh no, it’s going out of business because, let’s face it, you always have that Typhoid Mary effect on things. In both cases the same sensory information, the same photonic stream from the external world, is falling on the retinal tissue of your eyes, but the information is processed very differently from one eyeful to the next. What is that difference? At what stage in the complex circuitry of sight do attentiveness and awareness arise, and what happens to other objects in the visual field once a particular object has been designated worthy of a further despairing stare?

Visual attentiveness is born of limited resources. “The basic problem is that far more information lands on your eyes than you can possibly analyze and still end up with a reasonable sized brain,” Dr. Wolfe said. Hence, the brain has evolved mechanisms for combating data overload, allowing large rivers of data to pass along optical and cortical corridors almost entirely unassimilated, and peeling off selected data for a close, careful view. In deciding what to focus on, the brain essentially shines a spotlight from place to place, a rapid, sweeping search that takes in maybe 30 or 40 objects per second, the survey accompanied by a multitude of body movements of which we are barely aware: the darting of the eyes, the constant tiny twists of the torso and neck. We scan and sweep and perfunctorily police, until something sticks out and brings our bouncing cones to a halt.

The mechanisms that succeed in seizing our sightline fall into two basic classes: bottom up and top down. Bottom-up attentiveness originates with the stimulus, with something in our visual field that is the optical equivalent of a shout: a wildly waving hand, a bright red object against a green field. Bottom-up stimuli seem to head straight for the brainstem and are almost impossible to ignore, said Nancy Kanwisher, a vision researcher at M.I.T., and thus they are popular in Internet ads.

Top-down attentiveness, by comparison, is a volitional act, the decision by the viewer that an item, even in the absence of flapping parts or strobe lights, is nonetheless a sight to behold. When you are looking for a specific object — say, your black suitcase on a moving baggage carousel occupied largely by black suitcases — you apply a top-down approach, the bouncing searchlights configured to specific parameters, like a smallish, scuffed black suitcase with one broken wheel. Volitional attentiveness is much trickier to study than is a simple response to a stimulus, yet scientists have made progress through improved brain-scanning technology and the ability to measure the firing patterns of specific neurons or the synchronized firing of clusters of brain cells.

Recent studies with both macaques and humans indicate that attentiveness crackles through the brain along vast, multifocal, transcortical loops, leaping to life in regions at the back of the brain, in the primary visual cortex that engages with the world, proceeding forward into frontal lobes where higher cognitive analysis occurs, and then doubling back to the primary visual centers. En route, the initial signal is amplified, italicized and annotated, and so persuasively that the boosted signal seems to emanate from the object itself. The enhancer effect explains why, if you’ve ever looked at a crowd photo and had somebody point out the face of, say, a young Franklin Roosevelt or George Clooney in the throng, the celebrity’s image will leap out at you thereafter as though lighted from behind.

Whether lured into attentiveness by a bottom-up or top-down mechanism, scientists said, the results of change blindness studies and other experiments strongly suggest that the visual system can focus on only one or very few objects at a time, and that anything lying outside a given moment’s cone of interest gets short shrift. The brain, it seems, is a master at filling gaps and making do, of compiling a cohesive portrait of reality based on a flickering view.

“Our spotlight of attention is grabbing objects at such a fast rate that introspectively it feels like you’re recognizing many things at once,” Dr. Wolfe said. “But the reality is that you are only accurately representing the state of one or a few objects at any given moment.” As for the rest of our visual experience, he said, it has been aptly called “a grand illusion.” Sit back, relax and enjoy the movie called You.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

"god" on Your Brain???

There is no god. It is just in your mind.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5