‎"Moyangku Berteriak Dari Kubur" - LB Philosophy

Moyangku berteriak dari kubur,

"Apakah benar yang aku dengar ini?,
Sejak bila Negeri ku ini miskin?
...Aku tidak mengerti erti miskin,
Apa lagi tempat tumpah darahku ini;
Gudang padi ku tidak habis 7 generasi,
Sehingga kelabu beras, sehingga kembali jadi debu,
Tidak habis;
Tanah tempat aku pijak,
Benih kacang panjang yang separuh hidup,
Bisa tumbuh sehingga 7 generasi;
Aku berkawan dengan hutan rimba,
Sehingga 7 keturunan pun tidak habis kayu kayan;
Perlukah aku berbicara tentang kerbau dan ayam ternak?
Perlukah aku berbicara tentang sungai yang jernih?
Perlukah aku berbicara tentang ikan-ikan liar,
Yang 7 keturunanpun tidak habis,
Walau berkongsi dengan duyunan 7 keturunan memerang;
Takkan habis sudah semua itu,
Atau terlalu lamakah aku sudah mati?
Hingga tidak terjaga apa yang aku tinggalkan.
Aku marah, walaupun aku sudah dalam kubur ini,
Aku marah kerana generasi ke-8 sudah hilang akal;
Aku marah kerana aku peduli,
Anak cucuku yang masi melata, miskin di Negeriku yang kaya;
Mana pergi tukang-tukang, man pergi penjaga,
Mereka sudah jadi pencuri?
Negeriku yang kaya ini mereka jarah,
Gudang padi seketurunanpun tidak ada sudah?;
Terlalu lama aku di kubur.
Biarlah. Aku sudah mati, Aku gembira,
Kerana seketika aku kaya,
Bersma dengan negeriku yang kaya ini."
"Engkau sudah mati, buat apa kau peduli!"
"Ia, benar"

Diversity of Species - I finally understood to bits

I support the concept of Evolution. I don't agree with Creation. So I guess I am an Evolutionist, not Creationist, so to speak.

Evolution is remarkable. If one understand it to bits I mean. One might study biology, agrees with Darwin's idea; but it does not mean he or she understood evolution, or the diversity of species for that matter.

Diversity of species is one of the key question that evolutionist and creationist disagree always. Creationist 'want' everything 'been' created. Evolutionist, in the other hand, always suggests that there is origin of everything.

I know that it is so hard to understand why the diversity. Why there are differences between every species. It is difficult to accept that bird and elephant was descended  one form of species very long time ago. It is very hard to accept everything because what wee see is differences.

Well the best way to understand the diversity of species is not to ask the question 'how two different species be similar', but to ask 'how two similar species be so different'. Shifting one's point of view is always the hardest thing to do.

Although explaining why there is diversity in species is lengthy, I shall bring the focus of discussion to the element that creationist always forgot to take into consideration, which is time, and the magnitude of time itself.

Time magnitude of time is the key component of why there is such diversity. Scientists found that genes of all species are relatively similar in some sense. Human genes are only 1% different from Chimps, and a few percent different from fish. Suppose a fish lives in an aquatic region, thriving. Like always, offspring and their parents a different in look and features. Some features are from the female and some are from the male. Imagine for a bit that in many offspring, there is some random mutation of genes, thus that offspring has one different feature and that feature did not came from either of the parent. If that feature gives an advantage to that offspring, it will be good. If that feature gives disadvantage to the offspring, the bad news. Imagine for a bit that there is predator to this species of fish. Lets imagine that the new feature that the offspring has due to that random mutation of genes is that the colour of the skin become dark, while the parents are bright. And this darkening of skin gives an advantage of the offspring to camouflage and gets undetected by the predator. If this offspring can survive until it gets to the cycle of reproduction, the new feature will be propagated through  his generation, the dark skin generation of fish. Thus, there will be two generations of fish, of similar species but of different features. This differences will be noticeable only after a magnitude of time and it is often large magnitude. It takes generations to propagate the new features. One mutation may causes the fish to be able to get oxygen from air. Some mutation may cause the fish to have longer limb. For the fish, it is just happen to have that feature, no realisation of its advantage yet, until a moment comes where the new feature gives them advantage over the others. Since there is food chain in all species, every features developed can have remarkable impact on the survival or destruction of that species. Thus Darwin recognises that only the fit survives, and it is natural selection.

It just happened that for many-many magnitude of time, new features came about due to mutation of genes once in a while, until it gets to ancestor of human and chimpanzee. Along the way, the genes of their ancestor mutated and thus came along human like figure, and another mutation causes chimp like figure. Chimp so adapted to their environment, and human also so adapted to their environment. Thus even they are similar, they look different, just because of that 1% difference in genes. The 1% accounts for genes that are turned on in human but not in chimps or vice versa.

Imagine, for every species with new features adapted to its environment. If the species' genes mutate again, whole new generation will be created, which probably look alike but somehow different. And after many-many generations, it is common sense to think that the parent should be so different in look and features compared to the species many-many generations after.

Magnitude of time that one should think of is not in years, in tens of years but in millions of years. This mutation is so commonplace in species that has short life span but not in species with longer life span. One good example is the virus and bacteria that causes illness to human species. The more we use anti-bacteria, the more the bacteria mutates and resistant to the anti-bacteria.

There is no explanation of species being 'created'. I have not heard any reasonable explanation. It is only 'explained' by 'having faith' that species are 'created'. That is not an explanation. That is a Conjecture.

Jewish Bohemian

It is interesting to note in Hebrew, Arabic and Sanskrit there is no word for religion; the concept of religion is a manufactured apparatus meant to skew reality by making it appear as if they had captured God in there story, or book or even on video. Theirs is a false witness and like every witness who stands before the judge the testimony of the witness requires no corroboration.

When You Are Hungry, You Should Eat!

When you are hungry, you should eat. When you are thirsty, you should drink. Simple statements.

I can always say this to people. In fact, anyone can say this, without hesitation, to anyone. It is a clear message. In fact, it is a simple message that feeble mind can understand, comprehend, grasp. How difficult it is to understand that. Thus how difficult it is to follow. Extremely simple, when you are hungry, you should eat.

Lets think. The irony of this statement is that it is so difficult to follow, at least in some situation. And at least once in their lifetime human been into such situation. How easy or how difficult is it to understand the difficulties that lies behind that statement? Well, only the one that has experienced it knows that answer. Or if one still unable to understand what I mean, just imagine our parents, skipping lunch just because he or she had used all the cash  he or she has to buy our new uniform for school. In the midst of hunger, they persist. In some situation, the statement 'you should eat' will truly hurt.

Why there is pain when we are hungry? Hunger is not fun. Its like a craving for drug. Thirst likewise. Well, there is no pain in hunger if we are plentiful. Hunger, oddly, goes along when we have less.

It is so easy for human with plentiful to speak about 'When you are hungry, you should eat'. It is easy because they have plenty. But it is so hurting for human with need to do it. Logically, why should the hungry go hungry if there is something to eat. And should one resist himself from eating if he is able to eat. This question often missed by the human of plenty.

Albert Einstein's Words on Spirituality and Religion. . .

So many ways religions used Albert Einstein to promote their religion. This is his views on Spirituals and God.

Albert Einstein's Words on Spirituality and Religion. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following quotes are taken from The Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press unless otherwise noted)

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

(The following is from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press)
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."


(The following is from The Quotable Einstein)
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."

"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature."

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that , compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of  human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

". . . In spite of all this, I don't let a single opportunity pass unheeded, nor have I lost my sense of  humor. When God created the ass he gave him a thick skin." Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald W. Clark, Avon Books.

"Where dull-witted clansmen of our tribe were praying aloud, their faces turned to the wall, their bodies swaying to and fro. A pathetic sight of men with a past but without a future." (Regarding his visit to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, February 3, 1923)

"Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us."

"I appeal to all men and women, whether they be eminent or humble, to declare that they will refuse to give any further assistance to war or the preparation of war."

"It is my belief that the problem of bringing peace to the world on a supranational basis will be solved only by employing Gandhi's method on a larger scale."


The following is from Elsa Einstein, Albert Einstein's wife, regarding Einstein's development of the theory of general relativity. It's taken from the outstanding book Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer. It's originally taken from Charles Chaplin's autobiography.

The Doctor came down in his dressing gown as usual for breakfast but he hardly touched a thing. I thought something was wrong, so I asked what was troubling him. "Darling," he said, "I have a wonderful idea." And after drinking his coffee, he went to the piano and started playing. Now and again he would stop, making a few notes then repeat: "I've got  a wonderful idea, a marvelous idea!" I said: "Then for goodness' sake tell me what it is, don't keep me in suspense." He said: "It's difficult, I still have to work it out."

She told me he continued playing the piano and making notes for about half an hour, then went upstairs to his study, telling her that he did not wish to be disturbed, and remained there for two weeks. "Each day I sent him up his meals," she said, "and in the evening he would walk a little for exercise, then return to his work again. Eventually," she said, "he came down from his study looking very pale. "That's it," he told me, wearily putting two sheets of paper on the table. And that was his theory of relativity."

Is there limit to Randomness?

*Sigh*
This thought again...

What is random?
How many random numbers out there?
Is random finite or infinite?
Is randomness a rational definition?
Or is randomness a real world entity?
Is random mean chaos?
If random mean chaos, is chaos mean random?
Or is it that random is chaos?
And chaos is random?
Or is it totally two different thing?
How one can tell if random is not, or is chaos?
Is random measurable?
Is random quantifiable?
If it is quantifiable, then will it mean that it is finite?
How can something finite be not rational?
Is there rationality in randomness?
How many random numbers between 0 and 1?
Is the largest integer unknown to man is random integer?
Or is the smallest rational numbers unknown to man is random?
What is the smallest random number?
What is the largest random number?
If 0 is the smallest random number, then 0 will be unknown. But why it is known?
What is the next number after 0?
Is there any other numbers between 0 and the next number after 0?

*Sigh*