Friday, June 17, 2005
moved my blog to http://www.livejournal.com/users/solitarystar89/ so i'll be abandoning this doggy blog...
Thursday, June 09, 2005
been watching too many tv dramas recently. so does an afterlife really exist? (you know what i've been watching now? the plot sounds like a whole lot of rubbish, but all the same the parting and tearing is touching) i have not really read anything that confirms such stuff. but it appears that such afterlife is closely tied to our religion, like going to some christian heaven or hell for the christians, or joining their ancestors after death for the taoists, arrrgh, whatever. i also suggest a unified after world for all, regardless of race, language, religion, gender, or hair colour. but then does such a world really exist?
based on my limited scientific knowledge (btw, i used to think that science is something like a religion people suscribe to, but it's actually a set of tried and tested principles and what makes it different from religion is taht it is tentative. theories are created to be toppled by other, firmer theories. not that i'm beginning to worship science, but what else can i use to explain phenomenons in the environment?) we are made of cells, DNA, RNA, proteins, yeah and fats and amino acids, and atoms. when we die, these fleshy stuff will decay - i do mean rot - atoms will reassemble to become something else. taht's the end of us, but in a way, we still carry on in another form when our atoms become, say the trees. how does an afterlife come in then? assuming that there is no soul and what i say above stands, i will try to explain how all this concept of afterlife and ghosts roaming the earth come about.
we humans are egoistic and hence, we cannot accept that fact that we dissipate just like what i've said above after death. our words and wisdom will still be recorded in books, art and languages. but that is not enough. we believe that we have consciousness, the ability to think, to have emotions. in a way, these are a kind of power that transcends the durability of our physical form and so how can such greatness die off with a mere body?
but how does all our intelligence, consciousness and emotions come about? hormones, brain cells and neurones? all the 'greatness' will go with our physical form. to us, taht is unacceptable, so people come up with the concept of afterlife to ensure that we 'live on'. that there is something beyond our mere bodies.
or maybe our grief and fear conjured all those spirits and ghosts. we still want to know that our loved ones are still around albeit in another form. and the ghosts in our heart that comes from the cauldron of fear continues to haunt us.
it is terribly ironic. many people believe in the greatness of humans, their ability to lord over other animals, yet they refuse to face up to it. they still wnat to think that they are small, being the pawns of creators, sheep of a shepherd...maybe several of them.
"man has to continually define himself and continually escape his defination"
based on my limited scientific knowledge (btw, i used to think that science is something like a religion people suscribe to, but it's actually a set of tried and tested principles and what makes it different from religion is taht it is tentative. theories are created to be toppled by other, firmer theories. not that i'm beginning to worship science, but what else can i use to explain phenomenons in the environment?) we are made of cells, DNA, RNA, proteins, yeah and fats and amino acids, and atoms. when we die, these fleshy stuff will decay - i do mean rot - atoms will reassemble to become something else. taht's the end of us, but in a way, we still carry on in another form when our atoms become, say the trees. how does an afterlife come in then? assuming that there is no soul and what i say above stands, i will try to explain how all this concept of afterlife and ghosts roaming the earth come about.
we humans are egoistic and hence, we cannot accept that fact that we dissipate just like what i've said above after death. our words and wisdom will still be recorded in books, art and languages. but that is not enough. we believe that we have consciousness, the ability to think, to have emotions. in a way, these are a kind of power that transcends the durability of our physical form and so how can such greatness die off with a mere body?
but how does all our intelligence, consciousness and emotions come about? hormones, brain cells and neurones? all the 'greatness' will go with our physical form. to us, taht is unacceptable, so people come up with the concept of afterlife to ensure that we 'live on'. that there is something beyond our mere bodies.
or maybe our grief and fear conjured all those spirits and ghosts. we still want to know that our loved ones are still around albeit in another form. and the ghosts in our heart that comes from the cauldron of fear continues to haunt us.
it is terribly ironic. many people believe in the greatness of humans, their ability to lord over other animals, yet they refuse to face up to it. they still wnat to think that they are small, being the pawns of creators, sheep of a shepherd...maybe several of them.
"man has to continually define himself and continually escape his defination"
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
i was on the bus today thinking about why most of my close friends, not that i have many, dislike me a great deal. much as i'm distraught and amused at the same time, i realized taht the reason behind it is very simple.
firstly, for most who have not been in contact with me for a long time, i have become and am irresponsible, vulgar, has a blatant disregard for rules (to me, rules are meant to be broken and you can break any rules as long as you are not caught. ha! to speak of morals), joke at the wrong time, am not serious at the right time, adn above all, very corrupt. yeah...i'm quite like that...leaving when i wish, not bothering abt others and the occasion. i care only about myself, and i hate the human-conjured material world and its practices.
taht really sounds like a detestable girl. but more importantly, they dislike and even hate me because i'm their inner self, someone they really hate to be, but would really love to be...someone who follows her own heart and only her own heart, and does not care about others. but they can't be like that because they are too fettered by their morals, the expectations of society and their expectations of themselves. that's why they hate for being to be someone they wish to be but cannot be. :D it's the jealous psychology working.
i'm sorry...my split personality is coming out again. one is apple, the other is siew ching. siew ching is the better natured one and apple is the one with all the weird ideas. i'm still more siew ching, but sometimes, apple takes over completely. apple siew ching apple siewching siewching apple siewching apple apple siewching apple .......
firstly, for most who have not been in contact with me for a long time, i have become and am irresponsible, vulgar, has a blatant disregard for rules (to me, rules are meant to be broken and you can break any rules as long as you are not caught. ha! to speak of morals), joke at the wrong time, am not serious at the right time, adn above all, very corrupt. yeah...i'm quite like that...leaving when i wish, not bothering abt others and the occasion. i care only about myself, and i hate the human-conjured material world and its practices.
taht really sounds like a detestable girl. but more importantly, they dislike and even hate me because i'm their inner self, someone they really hate to be, but would really love to be...someone who follows her own heart and only her own heart, and does not care about others. but they can't be like that because they are too fettered by their morals, the expectations of society and their expectations of themselves. that's why they hate for being to be someone they wish to be but cannot be. :D it's the jealous psychology working.
i'm sorry...my split personality is coming out again. one is apple, the other is siew ching. siew ching is the better natured one and apple is the one with all the weird ideas. i'm still more siew ching, but sometimes, apple takes over completely. apple siew ching apple siewching siewching apple siewching apple apple siewching apple .......
Thursday, June 02, 2005
new post that's not about religion.
it's about stories and writing. i read a mini-story about a poems yesterday. it's really a mini- story by a singaporean writer. the protagonist told a doctor that being a poet, he couldn't live without applause. and the doctor's response was, he was addicted to applause, as though addicted to heroin.
the conversation is briefly as follows:
"so what should i do?"
"be a true poet"
"but i AM a poet"
"but you are a poet that enjoys applause"
so i wonder what is a true poet? or waht is a true artist? for whom and for waht do we write? i started writing stories late last year and i thought that was a good way for me to put forward my ideas. ie. any social comments on society or analysis could be expressed in the form of stories..they are like metaphors. so that was and still is my way of writing stories because i want to use them to make a statement. and of course, if anyone has read my few stories, they would know what i'm talking about when i say i use them to exercise my imagination (actually, only two people have read my stories and only one reads them seriously) as well.
to conclude, asc, you think you are writing mainly to make a social statement, or to pen down some weird ideas? anyway, i sent a story i wrote very recently to chb and he commented that,
'plot a bit weak... the ending is very very very abrupt. too abrupt. i think the problem is you are still writing in terms of a "concept" or "idea" rather than a story. a story is different from a concept, it needs to be fleshed out...
(c) nothing wrong with writing a "concept", but the problem here is you are neither here nor there. '
of course, this guy really knows what he's doing. i seriously thought there were problems with my writings, but i couldn't exactly put a finger to them. i think for my case, i have to define my idea of story. to me, what is a story? waht i have been doing was, wait to be struck by some social statement i want to make adn then try to tie it with some weird concept...sometimes they gel, but mostly they don't. that's the problem. i try too hard to put two things together. but that's not how stories work. writing weird concepts (which i will later illustrate how weird) are fine. but i want my stuff to have meat, to be taken seriously (ok, at least by myself in the event taht i am the only audience. i don't want to write for the sake of hearing applause. i write because i want to say something) and not as a joker, or entertainer..which was how literary stuff began, yeah?
if i'm going to take social statements as my starting point, the metaphors/concepts will slowly develop from there. i guess this is something i have to get used to doing. however, as a speaker once said, i don't think i should nail myself to one way of doing stuff or the other. instead make myself flexible and keep changing. this is the closest i can get to being "nothing, so that i can be everything" (asc)
it's about stories and writing. i read a mini-story about a poems yesterday. it's really a mini- story by a singaporean writer. the protagonist told a doctor that being a poet, he couldn't live without applause. and the doctor's response was, he was addicted to applause, as though addicted to heroin.
the conversation is briefly as follows:
"so what should i do?"
"be a true poet"
"but i AM a poet"
"but you are a poet that enjoys applause"
so i wonder what is a true poet? or waht is a true artist? for whom and for waht do we write? i started writing stories late last year and i thought that was a good way for me to put forward my ideas. ie. any social comments on society or analysis could be expressed in the form of stories..they are like metaphors. so that was and still is my way of writing stories because i want to use them to make a statement. and of course, if anyone has read my few stories, they would know what i'm talking about when i say i use them to exercise my imagination (actually, only two people have read my stories and only one reads them seriously) as well.
to conclude, asc, you think you are writing mainly to make a social statement, or to pen down some weird ideas? anyway, i sent a story i wrote very recently to chb and he commented that,
'plot a bit weak... the ending is very very very abrupt. too abrupt. i think the problem is you are still writing in terms of a "concept" or "idea" rather than a story. a story is different from a concept, it needs to be fleshed out...
(c) nothing wrong with writing a "concept", but the problem here is you are neither here nor there. '
of course, this guy really knows what he's doing. i seriously thought there were problems with my writings, but i couldn't exactly put a finger to them. i think for my case, i have to define my idea of story. to me, what is a story? waht i have been doing was, wait to be struck by some social statement i want to make adn then try to tie it with some weird concept...sometimes they gel, but mostly they don't. that's the problem. i try too hard to put two things together. but that's not how stories work. writing weird concepts (which i will later illustrate how weird) are fine. but i want my stuff to have meat, to be taken seriously (ok, at least by myself in the event taht i am the only audience. i don't want to write for the sake of hearing applause. i write because i want to say something) and not as a joker, or entertainer..which was how literary stuff began, yeah?
if i'm going to take social statements as my starting point, the metaphors/concepts will slowly develop from there. i guess this is something i have to get used to doing. however, as a speaker once said, i don't think i should nail myself to one way of doing stuff or the other. instead make myself flexible and keep changing. this is the closest i can get to being "nothing, so that i can be everything" (asc)
i'm depressed. there's this big ugly patch on my left cheek that occupies about 40% or is it 60% of the cheek. if i'm not wrong, it all started from two pimples that were a result of five late nights and then my father told me to apply this don't know what thing on them and ok...it appeared to get a bit better and after that i don't knwo what happened. i swear i didn't scratch them...ok..i scratched a little...they just morphed into the big ugly patch that occupies about 60% of my left cheek. it could well have been 100%. and i really don't know what happened?! shit..am i going to live with this for the rest of my life? ok, i'm not the ultra-vain sort, but how can anyone live with this?! arrrrrrgh...what if i don't get well? what the hell.
come to think of it, it's this kind of experience that makes me realize how easy it is for humans to deceive ourselves. you have just witness a scene of blatent self-deceival. anyways, i'm trying to talk about religion. since we can easily trick ourselves into believing something, is it posssible to fake those spritual experiences? many people talk about spiritual encounters, meeting god and blah blah blah. my question is, how do they differentiate between such paranormal encounters as real and those that are conjured up by their senses? it is neurologically difficult if possible for humans tell the difference. that's what i think.
speaking of religion, if there really is a god or smth up there, how many are there or how many can there be? i mean, for authenticity, there should only be one right? i quote mark twain, "Man is the only animal with the True religion, several of them". it appears to me that the various sects of religions are claiming that they are the ONE TRUE belief. so who is lying, if there really is something up there? otherwise, why can't they just tell others that there are actually taoist, christian, buddhist, islam, hindu, even atheist (!?) gods up there. maybe they are coexisting peacefully. so in this scenario, could it be some religions are lying to get more followers. or maybe all of them are lying. it's plausible that they have managed to deceive themselves as well.
i don't think i should even try to answer the question regarding the existence of god. but while i was in the temple yesterday, i saw this woman kneeling down and praying for quite some time. a long time, in fact. it was quite obvious that she was trying to ask for something from the deities. i'm nnot sure how other religions work, but some religious people are seeking solace from those so-called 'religious experience', whereas other hope for blessings and divine help. and some say it's afinity. (again, how do you know? you are sure you didn't fool your senses unconsciously?) back to that woman, this argument is fallacious, but i thought, how can the deities be omipotent and omnipresent if they have the faults and habits of humans?(now, having those faults and habits doesn't make them impossible to posses great abilities. afterall, in the eyes of humans, they are not humans) how can they manage to listen to the wants of everyone? sadly, the temple was very empty yesterday. could it be that in the case the chinese, these temples are more like a part of our heritage and culture and a gathering place for them during the festivals then a place of worship and spritual experiences?
i'm beginning to lean towards the stand of an atheist. but the way i see religion, is something for solace, to comfort ourselves, rather than blind worship and unfounded belief in those stuff up there. i don't rule the possibility that i could be lying to myself. because i'm so deeply prejudiced, i refuse to open myself up to any meeting with god/allah/deities/ganash/bodhisittva/whathaveyous.
what i have been trying to say is, it's not hard to fool our brains and senses. and since there are many ways of looking at things and making our way in any arguments, it's difficult to be discerning. i'm not really referring to spotting for fallacies and logical slips in argument, but whether we can know if those spiritual things we meet/ think we met are real. then again, what is real? material? reality in terms of perception?
if i can't get rid of that patch, i'm going to become unreal...:( :( :(..just kidding.
come to think of it, it's this kind of experience that makes me realize how easy it is for humans to deceive ourselves. you have just witness a scene of blatent self-deceival. anyways, i'm trying to talk about religion. since we can easily trick ourselves into believing something, is it posssible to fake those spritual experiences? many people talk about spiritual encounters, meeting god and blah blah blah. my question is, how do they differentiate between such paranormal encounters as real and those that are conjured up by their senses? it is neurologically difficult if possible for humans tell the difference. that's what i think.
speaking of religion, if there really is a god or smth up there, how many are there or how many can there be? i mean, for authenticity, there should only be one right? i quote mark twain, "Man is the only animal with the True religion, several of them". it appears to me that the various sects of religions are claiming that they are the ONE TRUE belief. so who is lying, if there really is something up there? otherwise, why can't they just tell others that there are actually taoist, christian, buddhist, islam, hindu, even atheist (!?) gods up there. maybe they are coexisting peacefully. so in this scenario, could it be some religions are lying to get more followers. or maybe all of them are lying. it's plausible that they have managed to deceive themselves as well.
i don't think i should even try to answer the question regarding the existence of god. but while i was in the temple yesterday, i saw this woman kneeling down and praying for quite some time. a long time, in fact. it was quite obvious that she was trying to ask for something from the deities. i'm nnot sure how other religions work, but some religious people are seeking solace from those so-called 'religious experience', whereas other hope for blessings and divine help. and some say it's afinity. (again, how do you know? you are sure you didn't fool your senses unconsciously?) back to that woman, this argument is fallacious, but i thought, how can the deities be omipotent and omnipresent if they have the faults and habits of humans?(now, having those faults and habits doesn't make them impossible to posses great abilities. afterall, in the eyes of humans, they are not humans) how can they manage to listen to the wants of everyone? sadly, the temple was very empty yesterday. could it be that in the case the chinese, these temples are more like a part of our heritage and culture and a gathering place for them during the festivals then a place of worship and spritual experiences?
i'm beginning to lean towards the stand of an atheist. but the way i see religion, is something for solace, to comfort ourselves, rather than blind worship and unfounded belief in those stuff up there. i don't rule the possibility that i could be lying to myself. because i'm so deeply prejudiced, i refuse to open myself up to any meeting with god/allah/deities/ganash/bodhisittva/whathaveyous.
what i have been trying to say is, it's not hard to fool our brains and senses. and since there are many ways of looking at things and making our way in any arguments, it's difficult to be discerning. i'm not really referring to spotting for fallacies and logical slips in argument, but whether we can know if those spiritual things we meet/ think we met are real. then again, what is real? material? reality in terms of perception?
if i can't get rid of that patch, i'm going to become unreal...:( :( :(..just kidding.
Monday, May 30, 2005
it just struck me that painting could be a product probabilty. at least to me when i paint, i don't exactly plan out all my strokes assiduously, but just make sure that the parts that should be darker a considerably darker then the other parts, get the tones and paint some picture. how this links to probability is because while the strokes and distribution of colours are pretty random, most of them will eventually end up where they should be. ie. the probability of colour x settling on y region is much higher than it settling on other parts of the paper. :D though in this case, i would like to correct my words on the randomness of the strokes since they are navigated by the human mind and most of the time with purpose. it's not really random then. however, the redeeming quality about painting in the case of probability is, we cannot really control how all the strokes will turn out to the exact precision. so to a certain extent, the strokes will still appear out to be 'accidental'.
another thing that came to my mind when i was jogging was: is it possible that time actually behaves in accordance to the laws of quantum mechanics? precisely, i'm referring to the behavior of particles/photons/electrons. if i've got my facts right, when electrons are not observed, they are in a superposition of states which is something like existing in all possible states. in classical physics things might only exist in one state at any one time, but in the quantum world, particles can exist in many states simultaneously. they will exist in one state when they are observed. coming back to time, perhaps we have often experienced how time seems to fly when we are enjoying ourselves? or when we are just bored with nothing to do or doing something really dreadful, time just seems interminable? one explanation for this feeling (or should i call it phenomenon?) is due the psychological state of the oberver's mind. in this case, time is still travelling at the same speed but it only seems to travel faster/slower because the observer thinks so. it's all the perception of the person.
however, i was just thinking that this phenomenon could be a case like schrodinger's cat. time can have many states at the same time, however when we observe/ take conscious note of it, it will settle at a certain state. that's why sometimes it appears to be faster/slower. of course, this is just my hypothesis and there are still many questions to be answered. when does time travel faster/slower? does it always go faster when we are enjoying ourselves? ( at least i don't think so) a clock is more physical and much bigger than atoms, can the quantum theory apply to it too?
i'ver finally understood what black and white means. at least i think so. it means two extremes, so when something is not black it's white. but this is not always the case. most of the time, there exists gray areas. and everything is contexual.ie. rules don't always apply everywhere, everytime. we have to go according to the dictation of the situation instead of holding to rules that can't apply steadfastly. that's why nothing is absolute. some might say that if waht i say hold true, what i am saying is not absolute either. but i'm talking about things not being absolute, so can something that describes things not being absolute be absolute?
finally, we do live in a world of assumptions, even to the extent of taking some of them for granted. when we cross the road, we assume that the car will stop at red light. we assume that the food we are going to eat stays on the table. we assume that gravity will always exert a pull on objects - as long as we stay on earth. assume to the extent that when such assumptions (i can't say for the other two, but often, a car might not stop, or a pedestrian might dash onto the road voluntarily and shock the cars) break down, we find it kind of hard to accept. but i can't say for sure the sun will rise tomorrow, all i can say is, there is a 99.9 maybe probability that the sun will rise tomorrow.
another thing that came to my mind when i was jogging was: is it possible that time actually behaves in accordance to the laws of quantum mechanics? precisely, i'm referring to the behavior of particles/photons/electrons. if i've got my facts right, when electrons are not observed, they are in a superposition of states which is something like existing in all possible states. in classical physics things might only exist in one state at any one time, but in the quantum world, particles can exist in many states simultaneously. they will exist in one state when they are observed. coming back to time, perhaps we have often experienced how time seems to fly when we are enjoying ourselves? or when we are just bored with nothing to do or doing something really dreadful, time just seems interminable? one explanation for this feeling (or should i call it phenomenon?) is due the psychological state of the oberver's mind. in this case, time is still travelling at the same speed but it only seems to travel faster/slower because the observer thinks so. it's all the perception of the person.
however, i was just thinking that this phenomenon could be a case like schrodinger's cat. time can have many states at the same time, however when we observe/ take conscious note of it, it will settle at a certain state. that's why sometimes it appears to be faster/slower. of course, this is just my hypothesis and there are still many questions to be answered. when does time travel faster/slower? does it always go faster when we are enjoying ourselves? ( at least i don't think so) a clock is more physical and much bigger than atoms, can the quantum theory apply to it too?
i'ver finally understood what black and white means. at least i think so. it means two extremes, so when something is not black it's white. but this is not always the case. most of the time, there exists gray areas. and everything is contexual.ie. rules don't always apply everywhere, everytime. we have to go according to the dictation of the situation instead of holding to rules that can't apply steadfastly. that's why nothing is absolute. some might say that if waht i say hold true, what i am saying is not absolute either. but i'm talking about things not being absolute, so can something that describes things not being absolute be absolute?
finally, we do live in a world of assumptions, even to the extent of taking some of them for granted. when we cross the road, we assume that the car will stop at red light. we assume that the food we are going to eat stays on the table. we assume that gravity will always exert a pull on objects - as long as we stay on earth. assume to the extent that when such assumptions (i can't say for the other two, but often, a car might not stop, or a pedestrian might dash onto the road voluntarily and shock the cars) break down, we find it kind of hard to accept. but i can't say for sure the sun will rise tomorrow, all i can say is, there is a 99.9 maybe probability that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Friday, May 27, 2005
let me try to justify prostitution. and this is not a case of saying the f word to shock others, or trying to say something erotic/lewd to amuse myself and play the clown. rather it's because i really think prostitution fulfils an important aspect of our nature.
logically, we need to have our sexual desires fulfilled. but to go about doing so, is it possible to just drag anyone off the streets and get her to 'do it with you'? hence, what about those never-been-kissed? they will have to lead a deprived life, missing out on this an important aspect of procreation and also i think, sexual pleasure.
considering that this essential thing in life as i call it, is a hormone-driven activity, are we slaves of our hormones then? like the cats when they go on heat, they have to mate to satisfy their hormones. unlike them, humans can control their sexual urge better, but this doesn't mean they don't need such pleasures. with suppression, there is also emotional pain and torture.
along then comes the prostitutes. come on, they are doing less fortunate men with raging hormones a favour and in return, they are paid for their services. it's a fair trade-off. and without prostitutes, there would probably be more rape cases (actually, should look up the real cause behind rape) where the victims don't consent to having sex and worse still, after being taken advantage of by others, they don't get money.
anyway, in this case, i feel that prostitution is justifiable. they are just doing a favour to others and in turn get paid. but this whole thing unfortunately morphs into a lucrative sex trade where sex workers are exploited and a chance for men at promiscuity.
can we put some limits to allow only desperate men to visit prostitutes? then again, how do we draw the line? how do we know if they are desperate? doesn't seem viable.
logically, we need to have our sexual desires fulfilled. but to go about doing so, is it possible to just drag anyone off the streets and get her to 'do it with you'? hence, what about those never-been-kissed? they will have to lead a deprived life, missing out on this an important aspect of procreation and also i think, sexual pleasure.
considering that this essential thing in life as i call it, is a hormone-driven activity, are we slaves of our hormones then? like the cats when they go on heat, they have to mate to satisfy their hormones. unlike them, humans can control their sexual urge better, but this doesn't mean they don't need such pleasures. with suppression, there is also emotional pain and torture.
along then comes the prostitutes. come on, they are doing less fortunate men with raging hormones a favour and in return, they are paid for their services. it's a fair trade-off. and without prostitutes, there would probably be more rape cases (actually, should look up the real cause behind rape) where the victims don't consent to having sex and worse still, after being taken advantage of by others, they don't get money.
anyway, in this case, i feel that prostitution is justifiable. they are just doing a favour to others and in turn get paid. but this whole thing unfortunately morphs into a lucrative sex trade where sex workers are exploited and a chance for men at promiscuity.
can we put some limits to allow only desperate men to visit prostitutes? then again, how do we draw the line? how do we know if they are desperate? doesn't seem viable.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
i just feel like blogging. why? i don't know. a story said that if we do things on sponeity and there is no real explanation of it, we have probably been possessed. do you believe this? incredulous people would probably snort at these seemingly ludicrious ideas and beliefs. a visit to borders yesterday left me amazed that there is a whole bookshelful (i don't mean one row, but a whole shelf consisting of a few rows) of books committed to supernatural and spiritual things. there was even an idiot's guide to meeting spirits. and i realized (sort of) that the best way to persuade non-believers to their side is to start off with "initially, i didn't in this too.. " and other lines of that ilk. do they really exist? an atheist would dimiss it, but i don't think science has progressed to the stage where it can confidently expunge the existence of these spirits. neither can science confirm it.
and do we have a soul? rumours has it that a soul weighs about 3 or 23 grams because studies have shown that each time a person dies, his corpse is lighter by 3/23 grams. actually if this rumour is a fact, then aren't souls made of solid atoms and molecules? how can it be invisible then? or maybe it is just not visible to our naked eye. i'm thinking of testing it out by rolling out a 3/23 grams of dough. will it become so thin that it can't be seen?
on the contrary, if we don't have a soul, it will mean that through cloning, we can get back the same person, with the same thoughts. can we?
so much crap
and do we have a soul? rumours has it that a soul weighs about 3 or 23 grams because studies have shown that each time a person dies, his corpse is lighter by 3/23 grams. actually if this rumour is a fact, then aren't souls made of solid atoms and molecules? how can it be invisible then? or maybe it is just not visible to our naked eye. i'm thinking of testing it out by rolling out a 3/23 grams of dough. will it become so thin that it can't be seen?
on the contrary, if we don't have a soul, it will mean that through cloning, we can get back the same person, with the same thoughts. can we?
so much crap
