I was watching a TED talk and it occurred to me that this can be a wonderful "orkut about me". I wrote the following "about me" on that weekend. To my surprise, no one commented on this about me. The only comment I got was "Its too lengthy". However, I love the concept of this "about me". Enjoy reading.
This is not just an "about me", its also an "about you".
We always make a distinction between what is our's what is other's. What we never bother to think is, what is "me" and what is "rest of the world"
Think about it.... I am giving you 10 seconds...
(and please don't confuse it with the great philosophical question "WHO AM I ?" )
.
.
.
I knew you won't bother to think. Never mind, you are just another example of I-don't-have-time-for-all-this-shit and I-just-want-to-know-how-you-think type of person.
There was nothing much to think ... on a very vague level, it just that everything that sticks to us when we move, excluding
... clothes
... hmm shoes
... hmm dead skin (dandruff!!! ... that can't be me)
... the air inside our lungs
... shit and similar waste products (yuk, that's not me, even if its inside me)
If we exclude the tumor that develops inside us or the stones that we may generate in various parts of our body, our definition is almost correct.
But what if we try to refine our definition of "What constitutes me" ...
Everything that sticks to me when I move, except the "things" that I don't care about even if I loose them, constitute "me".
Though I don't care if I loose 1 cm of my hair, but I really consider them a part of "me"...
If you are a very logical person, you may have noted that I have made the definition highly subjective by introducing a psychological factor "things that I don't care".
The moment I say that "the things that I don't care to loose", the definition becomes dependent on the person who is defining himself. For example, a person, who is planning a plastic surgery of his face, do not really cares to loose his skin (under anesthesia). He may actually hate his skin for being so ugly that he decided to undergo a plastic surgery, and do not consider it to be a part of himself.
OMG! another complexity, what about organ transplant ? Does the original organ constitutes me, or the new transplanted organ ?
Even if my whole body gets transplanted (including those that impossible to transplant yet), lungs, heart, liver, stomach, pancreas etcetera etcetera and I still have the memory of myself, and if I still can remember who was I, then all the organs that form a part of my body at that time will be "me".
While defining "me", a statement that I want to mention is "He just loves my body, not me." This statement creates an impression that the speaker thinks himself to be different from his body. This is also preached by religion, the concept of a spirit.
I don't really think that I am different from my body, in fact there is a part of my body that, if transplanted, will make me die even if my body continue to live; and that is my memory. If some forgets everything and starts everything from scratch, that is equivalent of being reborn.
So "What is me" ?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Just another blog on eating habits
Did you ever get involved in a debate when you needed to justify yourself as a vegetarian ? Well, I get myself into this trouble very often.
The easiest way of justifying vegetarianism is to blame it on religion or culture. But I can't do that because I believe that culture should keep changing as the society progresses. Then religion is nothing but a bunch of rules, written by our respectable ancestors, that can not be amended at any cost. (Imagine a constitution that can not be amended :o).
Trivial objections
1. Animals are animals and plants are plants: Obviously, for non-vegetarians this distinction does not matter. The dictionary definition does not mentions anything like animals are living beings the can locomote and that can not be eaten. So this is not any sort of argument in fact.
2. Food chain efficiency: This one is my favorite. If we eat plants then we get almost 10% of the captured solar energy. While in the other case when we eat a herbivorous animals then we get only 1 % of the captured solar energy.
Assume that 1 sq m of vegetated land produces 1 kg of eatable plant product in 1 year, which in turn provides say 1 kJ of energy. Further assuming that a man needs 1 kJ/year to survive, then a herbivorous can survive on only 10 sq m of vegetated land while a herbivorous-eater need 100 sq m of vegetated land to survive.
Thus non-vegetarians are wasting a resource on the planet which is actually limited.
Though this argument fails if animals being reared on waste food from humans and this argument clearly discourages the use of animal products as eatables.
3. Nutrition and health: These days non-vegetarian food can be made as healthy (fat-free) as a vegetarian food and there are, of course, hygiene standards set.
4. Cruelty: This one seems reasonable, but non-vegetarians argue that plants are also living being and have been observed to feel pain, so what makes them different from animals.
So lets have a deeper thought on this.
Cruelty, sympathy and similarity
Cruelty is strictly emotional, and it develops from a feeling called sympathy.
Why is it more cruel to kill a dog, then to kill a chicken or a cockroach or a mosquito for example ?
Sympathy for someone develops when we can feel the feelings of the person or thing . We have more sympathy for people that look more like us or look like the people that we love. For example, regionalism. A bus accident killing 100 children in punjab is more likely to disturb a punjabi then a hyderabadi. No one even reports a bus accident in North America to Indians.
Since, sympathy directly depends on the degree of similarity we (or our loved ones) have with the object of similarity, so we are more sympathetic towards humans and other higher mammals like monkeys, horses and dogs than cockroaches, mosquitoes and plants.
In many places of the world, fish and other sea-food is considered to be vegetarian.Though literally speaking they are not vegetarians, but I think that is the best thing to do because they are not wasting 90 sq m of vegetated land. It is true that vegetarianism develops at places where there is are is lot of cultivable land. Eating habits has lot to do with the cost of eating options available.
I would like to include fish in the examples of sympathy and similarity. Since fish is an aquatic animal, does not even possess blood, it can be considered quite dissimilar to us when compared to chickens, lambs or pigs.
So if we arrange organisms in the decreasing order of sympathy
1. Yourself
2. Relatives and loved ones
3. Other humans ----------------------Limit of cannibalism
4. Dolphins (brainy creatures, help humans)
5. Dogs (common pets)
6. Parrots (common pets)
7. Apes and chimpanzees
8. Monkeys
9. Horse
10. Cow--------------------------------Limit of most non-vegetarians
11. Pig
12. Lamb
13. Chicken
14. Snakes
15. Crabs
16. Fish
17. Mosquitoes ( not commonly eaten due to filthy habitat)
18. Cockroaches ( not commonly eaten due to filthy habitat)
19. Plants-----------------------------Limit of vegetarians
We see that the animals on the top of sympathy graph are most similar to us in feeling things, they feel love or pain and have highly developed emotional system. We have more sympathy towards common pets.
So we are all part of a natures food chain with different eating habits, we all have set some limits for ourselves ( I can't argue with you if you advocate cannibalism). Though there seems to be no reason why we should not cross those limits in case we need (or want) to do so.
The only distinction between vegetarians and non-vegetarians is that vegetarians have set there limit at number 17 while non-vegetarians are liberals to go up to 8 in the sympathy graph. But because of some emotional constraints no normal human will go beyond 2 in that graph
Please feel free to come up with a counter argument, fallacy in logic, mistake or spelling mistake.
Disclaimer:
I am not an activist nor I want to convert any non-vegetarian to a vegetarian. I just want to prove that vegetarianism is not unjustifiable even in the world of liberalism. I didn't had these reasons in my mind when I decided to remain a vegetarian.
I was reared as a vegetarian, then I came to understand about vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism, then there was time when I had a choice to remain vegetarian or become non-vegetarian. My parents have been vegetarian all the way long and I had experienced 18 years of vegetarianism. I thought this is my identity and I can preserve it without appreciable amount of "sacrifice".
The easiest way of justifying vegetarianism is to blame it on religion or culture. But I can't do that because I believe that culture should keep changing as the society progresses. Then religion is nothing but a bunch of rules, written by our respectable ancestors, that can not be amended at any cost. (Imagine a constitution that can not be amended :o).
Trivial objections
1. Animals are animals and plants are plants: Obviously, for non-vegetarians this distinction does not matter. The dictionary definition does not mentions anything like animals are living beings the can locomote and that can not be eaten. So this is not any sort of argument in fact.
2. Food chain efficiency: This one is my favorite. If we eat plants then we get almost 10% of the captured solar energy. While in the other case when we eat a herbivorous animals then we get only 1 % of the captured solar energy.
Assume that 1 sq m of vegetated land produces 1 kg of eatable plant product in 1 year, which in turn provides say 1 kJ of energy. Further assuming that a man needs 1 kJ/year to survive, then a herbivorous can survive on only 10 sq m of vegetated land while a herbivorous-eater need 100 sq m of vegetated land to survive.
Thus non-vegetarians are wasting a resource on the planet which is actually limited.
Though this argument fails if animals being reared on waste food from humans and this argument clearly discourages the use of animal products as eatables.
3. Nutrition and health: These days non-vegetarian food can be made as healthy (fat-free) as a vegetarian food and there are, of course, hygiene standards set.
4. Cruelty: This one seems reasonable, but non-vegetarians argue that plants are also living being and have been observed to feel pain, so what makes them different from animals.
So lets have a deeper thought on this.
Cruelty, sympathy and similarity
Cruelty is strictly emotional, and it develops from a feeling called sympathy.
Why is it more cruel to kill a dog, then to kill a chicken or a cockroach or a mosquito for example ?
Sympathy for someone develops when we can feel the feelings of the person or thing . We have more sympathy for people that look more like us or look like the people that we love. For example, regionalism. A bus accident killing 100 children in punjab is more likely to disturb a punjabi then a hyderabadi. No one even reports a bus accident in North America to Indians.
Since, sympathy directly depends on the degree of similarity we (or our loved ones) have with the object of similarity, so we are more sympathetic towards humans and other higher mammals like monkeys, horses and dogs than cockroaches, mosquitoes and plants.
In many places of the world, fish and other sea-food is considered to be vegetarian.Though literally speaking they are not vegetarians, but I think that is the best thing to do because they are not wasting 90 sq m of vegetated land. It is true that vegetarianism develops at places where there is are is lot of cultivable land. Eating habits has lot to do with the cost of eating options available.
I would like to include fish in the examples of sympathy and similarity. Since fish is an aquatic animal, does not even possess blood, it can be considered quite dissimilar to us when compared to chickens, lambs or pigs.
So if we arrange organisms in the decreasing order of sympathy
1. Yourself
2. Relatives and loved ones
3. Other humans ----------------------Limit of cannibalism
4. Dolphins (brainy creatures, help humans)
5. Dogs (common pets)
6. Parrots (common pets)
7. Apes and chimpanzees
8. Monkeys
9. Horse
10. Cow--------------------------------Limit of most non-vegetarians
11. Pig
12. Lamb
13. Chicken
14. Snakes
15. Crabs
16. Fish
17. Mosquitoes ( not commonly eaten due to filthy habitat)
18. Cockroaches ( not commonly eaten due to filthy habitat)
19. Plants-----------------------------Limit of vegetarians
We see that the animals on the top of sympathy graph are most similar to us in feeling things, they feel love or pain and have highly developed emotional system. We have more sympathy towards common pets.
So we are all part of a natures food chain with different eating habits, we all have set some limits for ourselves ( I can't argue with you if you advocate cannibalism). Though there seems to be no reason why we should not cross those limits in case we need (or want) to do so.
The only distinction between vegetarians and non-vegetarians is that vegetarians have set there limit at number 17 while non-vegetarians are liberals to go up to 8 in the sympathy graph. But because of some emotional constraints no normal human will go beyond 2 in that graph
Please feel free to come up with a counter argument, fallacy in logic, mistake or spelling mistake.
Disclaimer:
I am not an activist nor I want to convert any non-vegetarian to a vegetarian. I just want to prove that vegetarianism is not unjustifiable even in the world of liberalism. I didn't had these reasons in my mind when I decided to remain a vegetarian.
I was reared as a vegetarian, then I came to understand about vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism, then there was time when I had a choice to remain vegetarian or become non-vegetarian. My parents have been vegetarian all the way long and I had experienced 18 years of vegetarianism. I thought this is my identity and I can preserve it without appreciable amount of "sacrifice".
Sunday, June 7, 2009
New age music ... cool
When I first heard Ameno-era song, I was intrigued. I downloaded it then, it was not until now that I decided to dig about its artist and genre. Through my trusted source Wikipedia, I came to know that this album, Era, is a New Age Music. New age music is a genre of music that concentrates on creating positive feelings like inspiration, relaxation, and positive feelings. And this is what exactly Ameno-era song did for me, I felt inspired, motivated and energetic after listening to this song.
Though the album era on a whole is not effective as Ameno-era, but the effort is worth appreciating. Divano is also worth listening.
Though the album era on a whole is not effective as Ameno-era, but the effort is worth appreciating. Divano is also worth listening.
Monday, May 18, 2009
A prevalent email hoax
You may have received this email. Lets dig the truth about this email.
Subject:
PLEASE FORWARD IT TO ALL WHOM YOU CARE.
Mobile
Don't put your mobile closer to your ears until the recipient answers, Because directly after dialing, the mobile phone would use it's maximum signaling power, which is: 2watts = 33dbi. Please Be Careful. Please use left ear while using cell (mobile), because if you use the right one it may affect brain directly. This is a true fact from Apollo medical team.
Truth:
A lot has been said about mobile phone and health risks, but no reports claims that cellphones causes health hazards. The current consensus view of the scientific and medical communities is that health effects are very unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations. Though as a precautionary principle you may minimize its usage near your head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#Health_risks
Appy Fizz
Do not drink APPY FIZZ . It contains cancer causing agent.
Truth:
Appy FIZZ is carbonized apple juice. So take apple juice, blow carbon dioxide into it, (may be under pressure ) and make it carcinogenic. I found no claims that it is not carcinogenic, but I don't like to believe that. It tasted good. :)
Mentos and coke
Don't eat Mentos before or after drinking Coke or Pepsi coz the person will die immediately as the mixture becomes cyanide. Please fwd to whom u care
Truth:
Mentos and coke produce an interesting reaction, which cause coke to release large amount of carbon dioxide. This may be used to make a fountain out of coke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentos_and_coke
This guy eats mentos and then drinks coke, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFf-kW1E0Tc
but he is still alive to repeat that again: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgQ9kvLGXS8
Kurkure
Don't eat kurkure because it contains high amount of plastic if U don't Believe burn kurkure n u can see plastic melting. Please forward to all!!!!!!!!! !! News report from Times of India
Truth:
Kurkure is made of rice barn, and its manufactured have claimed that it do not contains plastic on NDTV.
http://kurkure.co.in/FAQ.aspx
http://kurkurefacts.wordpress.com/
Drugs with PPA
Avoid these tablets as they are very dangerous.* D cold * Vicks action- 500 * Actified * Coldarin * Co some * Nice * Nimulid * Cetrizet-D They contain Phenyl- Propanol -Amide PPA.Which Causes strokes, and these tablets are banned in U.S.
Truth:
I myself prefer to avoid drugs if possible. Its true that some of these medicines contain, PPA, that is found to increase the risk of haemorrhage stroke. Please look at the wrapper of medicine to look for its ingredients. You may ask the chemist for alternate medicine. Equip yourself with full information here:
How much harm can PPA cause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylpropanolamine#Side_effects
What common brands contain PPA?
Popular brands in the cough and cold segment include Johnson and Johnson's (J&J) Coldarin, Procter & Gamble's Vicks Action 500, Glaxo Wellcome's Actifed and Reckitt Piramal's Dispirin. The other major players in this segment are Pfizer (Corex), Parke Dav is (Benadryl), Rhone Poulenc and Alembic.However, it is not clear whether all these brands contain PPA.
PPA is available in India in the form of a combination tablet with
Cetirizine as Alerid-D manufactured by Cipla.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2000/12/27/stories/14275105.htm
US - FDA knows about PPA hoaxes on the net.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/ppa/
Doctor ndtv has its own ideas about ppa containing drugs.
http://www.doctorndtv.com/faq/detailfaq.asp?id=13598
Cotton buds
Cotton Ear Buds... (Must read it) Please do not show sympathy to people selling buds on roadside or at Signals..... Just wanted to warn you people not to buy those packs of ear buds you get at the roadside. It's made from cotton that has already been used in hospitals. They take all the dirty, blood and pus filled cotton, wash it, bleach it and use it to make ear buds. So, unless you want to become the first person in the world to get Herpes Zoster Oticus (a viral infection of the inner, middle, and external ear) of the ear and that too from a cotton bud, DON'T BUY THEM! Please forward to all this may be helpful for someone..... ....... Please forward to all your near and dear ones....!
Truth:
Its good to be sure of the hygine of the things you buy. But you may like to know more about this disease: Herpes Zoster Oticus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_zoster_oticus
Friendship dies ? (Caution: Emotional content ahead)
Friendship is complex. Like any other human it is born, reaches peak and dies. Wait a minute, did I say friendship dies ? Do friendship really dies ? To answer this question, lets have an academic analysis of friendship. I am going to classify friendship into four phases.
1. *** : This is the moment when two persons meet as potential friends. This phase is quite influential in the future course of relationship between those two persons. Each of the two persons form an opinion about each other.
"Wow, he is so funny, I don't know from where does he get all those jokes."
"He is so cool, he doesn't even care what other people think about him."
"He seems quite arrogant, quite boastful about his knowledge."
"What's the problem with this guy, he is so creepy"
"He is so shy."
Though this opinion might change over a period of time, still this first opinion carries a lot of weight. After all first impression is the last impression. This phase results in birth of friendship.
2. Infancy: This is the phase when both persons involved start to know each other. Whenever they talk, they get to know something more about each other. In this period, each one of them is extra careful about friendship and the friend, so as not to loose any of them. They are most of the times a little more formal in this phase. This phase is marked by thoughts like,
"Does he likes me or not ?"
"Did I hurt him ?"
"Did I say something wrong ?"
"May be he do not likes such behaviour."
3. Youth: This is the phase when you reap most out of your friendship. You share jokes, play pranks on each other, get help, give help. Sometimes you hurt your friend, then apologize. Activity and energy is the key characteristic of this phase.
4. Maturity: I could have called this adulthood, going with naming scheme but I find this name more general than adulthood. At some point of time, usually because of a big change in life, the activity of the youth phase starts declining. There are some *things* more interesting and more important to our friend (or to ourselves) then playing pranks and sharing jokes with old friends. As a result we still remain as close as ever but still we don't share everything, we don't play pranks, we don't bother each other much. Sharing less is an exponentially declining process. As you start to share less with someone, you will share even less about your next time you talk. This is because, by nature humans are lazy so you don't want to start the story right from the start just because you want to share. Even after all this I believe, this maturity phase is not that all bad. You will find your mature friend with you whenever you will need him.
This is for all my friends with whom I have enjoyed youth phase of the friendship and entered into maturity phase. Our friendship has not died its just grown up from pranks and jokes. Talk to you soon.
1. *** : This is the moment when two persons meet as potential friends. This phase is quite influential in the future course of relationship between those two persons. Each of the two persons form an opinion about each other.
"Wow, he is so funny, I don't know from where does he get all those jokes."
"He is so cool, he doesn't even care what other people think about him."
"He seems quite arrogant, quite boastful about his knowledge."
"What's the problem with this guy, he is so creepy"
"He is so shy."
Though this opinion might change over a period of time, still this first opinion carries a lot of weight. After all first impression is the last impression. This phase results in birth of friendship.
2. Infancy: This is the phase when both persons involved start to know each other. Whenever they talk, they get to know something more about each other. In this period, each one of them is extra careful about friendship and the friend, so as not to loose any of them. They are most of the times a little more formal in this phase. This phase is marked by thoughts like,
"Does he likes me or not ?"
"Did I hurt him ?"
"Did I say something wrong ?"
"May be he do not likes such behaviour."
3. Youth: This is the phase when you reap most out of your friendship. You share jokes, play pranks on each other, get help, give help. Sometimes you hurt your friend, then apologize. Activity and energy is the key characteristic of this phase.
4. Maturity: I could have called this adulthood, going with naming scheme but I find this name more general than adulthood. At some point of time, usually because of a big change in life, the activity of the youth phase starts declining. There are some *things* more interesting and more important to our friend (or to ourselves) then playing pranks and sharing jokes with old friends. As a result we still remain as close as ever but still we don't share everything, we don't play pranks, we don't bother each other much. Sharing less is an exponentially declining process. As you start to share less with someone, you will share even less about your next time you talk. This is because, by nature humans are lazy so you don't want to start the story right from the start just because you want to share. Even after all this I believe, this maturity phase is not that all bad. You will find your mature friend with you whenever you will need him.
This is for all my friends with whom I have enjoyed youth phase of the friendship and entered into maturity phase. Our friendship has not died its just grown up from pranks and jokes. Talk to you soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
