1,000 knives of thought - answers

For all creatures on Earth, the rate of growth will not be the same for all individuals belonging to any particular species. Two factors: hereditary characteristics and environmental conditions - such as humidity, temperature, nutrition, sunshine - will decide how fast, for example, an insect can transform into its adult form. A human being is no exception.

However, in Japan, any citizens over age 20 are considered to be adult. It is so specified in a law.

A law abstracts biological properties of individuals, and treats everyone in the exact same manner. Such a thing can only be achieved by a brain. Because abstraction occurs in the process of perception, and perception is always done by a brain. Of course, it is a brain (or brains) who made a law. Hence, human beings are equal before brains.

Kenji Saito

Fundamentally speaking, mind is a kind of natural phenomenon, and human beings shouldn't really be able to control it. Mind is something inherently not peaceful to begin with. If one says peace of mind is (able to be) achieved, I think it just means he or she believes so. Beliefs can vary among individuals and depend very much upon cultural backgrounds. Also, by definition a belief is righteous for its believers, and if they are righteous the others are wrong. A group of people who share the similar beliefs become a team, and others become enemies. I think the beginning of many conflicts is something like this.

Kenji Saito

Of course there is a view which recognises a naked body to be real. In such a case, the word "real" means being natural instead of looked through human perception. In this question however, it is stated that a naked body is not real, therefore the word "real" here means real to human perception which does not necessarily equal to being natural.

It is considered that human beings wear clothes because they do not recognise their naked bodies to be real in the first place. Other than that, there are not so many reasons why people have to wear anything at all. If we wear clothes for functional reasons such as protecting ourselves from coldness, then we should very well be happy to be naked when there is no need to wear them. Yet in Japan, if we go out naked even on a hot day, we are likely to be arrested, not to mention we will feel very embarrassed. A naked body is something which would cause a trouble if it appeared in a broad daylight in Japan's everyday life. If it did, it would surely fail our senses of reality, meaning we would doubt what our eyes are seeing. Would anyone call something real if appearance of it fails our senses of reality? (Actually, some would, but then everything customary should look unreal to them. Often they are called artists or scholars.)

Kenji Saito

True. I think that there can be lots of reasons to insist on vegetarianism, but if one doesn't take any foods made out of animals as one of his or her principles, then the most obvious reason is that he or she believes that human beings should be able to live without killing other lives. On the other hand, if one doesn't eat animals by preference, then it just means he or she doesn't like certain kind of foods.

But, it should be apparent that even though they don't eat animals they surely have to eat dead bodies of plants, and living with the immune system means most life forms which intrude their bodies are being killed routinely. Maybe they step on some small insects all the time too. If they feel relieved by not eating animals, that is because they are animals themselves, and are empathising only toward those beings which they think are similar to them. Another point is if a belief, which is a function of a brain, may take control of eating, which is a matter of life or death for an individual, then that's what I would call a brain-centric way of thinking.

Kenji Saito

Whatever digitisable can be digitally recorded by definition. If you ask me if my whole life can be digitised, I'd say it should at least be partially possible (like the amount of taxes I pay each year (laughter)), but the amount of data won't be that small to be put into one compact disc even if everything can be digitised. Because by everything I would imagine everything I have felt and will feel through my five senses since the birth until the death.

However, I think the principle of digital recording is sampling. If the sampling rate can be significantly lowered for this particular purpose, the amount of data should be able to be reduced to 682MB which one compact disc can hold. Yet there is no guarantee people can retrieve the meaning of the recording when it is played back.

One peculiarity of human senses is that vision is much more tolerant than hearing with respect to low sampling rate (I think this should be true for other animals also). For example, about 40kHz is minimal to cover the whole range of sound a human being can hear, but 30Hz is enough to reproduce moving image to a human eye. Furthermore, even 1Hz play back should be enough for a human brain to complement the movement between two frames, as any cartoon readers can easily imagine (although in cartoons a lot of techniques are used for making it easier).

So how about this: make a QuickTime movie out of compressed images which are pictures of one's face photographed from the front everyday at the same hour since his or her birth to their death. If this is played back by 30 fps, an 80-year life will be a 16-minute cinema (as short as "An Andalusian Dog"). Isn't this perfect for a record of a life? You can also look at the frames one by one without losing the significance of the record. This is an application of the importance of a face in human recognition as well as the peculiarity of vision I described earlier.

Kenji Saito

The word "humanistic" has two different meanings. One is "humanitarian" and the other is "human-centric." I think the trend of the usage of the word by the questioner is the latter.

Both nouns and adjectives are words, which are manifestations of human's abstraction capability. Therefore they both are closely related to being human. However, nouns are words to signify things, events or idea. On the other hand adjectives are words to modify them, which requires comparison (e.g. beautiful, light, fast, big, expensive) or observation of the situation where they subsist (e.g. red. Because colour is a reflection of light). Comparison and observation has to be performed subjectively by a human being who utters the word if it is a direct speech. I'd say for this reason adjectives are closer to the idea of being human-centric.

Kenji Saito

False as there are cases in which the woman is not depending on the man by her choice. i.e.,

• She is victimised by the man's pride.
• She doesn't have time for labour because of her non-profitable work.
• She is unable to work because of her illness.
• She is forbidden to work by a law.

and so on.

Kenji Saito

False. There is a class of smells which can be transmitted through the Internet. i.e.,

• Means to reproduce such smells exist and are standardised, and
• Such smells can be named.

For example, smells of perfumes belong to such a class. These smells can be sent by their names, and the receiver can reproduce the smells.

Kenji Saito

False. Theoretically, colours can be heard by using a device which converts the frequency of visible lights into that of audible sounds.

Kenji Saito

I think that people are anthropomorphised when I try to understand a person I don't know very well by using one I do know very well as a model.

Kenji Saito

It's rather common to think money is impure, but I think this view is inaccurate. As the word "pay" was derived from "pacify," I think it's likely that money was invented to solve impurity rather than to create it. If this is correct, it's also likely that people associate impurity and money as these two always appear together. However, I think what is actually impure is a transaction that requires payment.

Kenji Saito

"HEN'S TEETH AND HORSE'S TOES," a book by Prof. Stephen Jay Gould, describes the same opinion. If an opinion is derived from a reasoning, it is always refutable by showing that the reasoning doesn't correspond to facts, or by proving that the reasoning is not logical. For example, measurement of an age of a fossil by using isotopes would be incorrect if the half-life of the isotopes were inaccurately measured. Therefore, if anyone has a doubt he or she can verify its accuracy. On the other hand, the age of the Earth written in Bible is not refutable as long as Bible is said to be absolute. It means no one can verify its accuracy even if anyone has a doubt. Nothing is worth believing if it cannot be verified by anyone.

Meanwhile, "CONTACT," a film based on the novel by late Dr. Carl Sagan gives further thoughts on this matter by introducing the problem of subjectivity. In the film, Ellie, a radio astronomer who believes in proofs, is asked by a priest who is her lover if she loves her father, and if she can prove it. Subjectivity is not something we can easily prove. However, there are times when it is worth believing.

Kenji Saito

When we try to explain what telekinesis is, we'd say "to move a thing without touching it," but touching usually implies with hands instead of feet. It seems as if by default we use our hands or arms to move things. Actually, we often move things without directly touching them with our hands. We'd use tweezers when we try to move small objects, and in many cultures foods are eaten using forks or chopsticks. Most instruments we use are designed to be used with our hands, and certainly the very first instrument in the history of human race was, or so it has been thought.

Why do many of us conceive something like telekinesis and believe in it without giving it much thought in the first place? One answer, I think, is that it is a human nature, or more precisely, a byproduct of a human nature. For example, when you hold a tennis racket to hit a ball, the movement of your muscles (not only those of your arm) must be different from when you hit it with your own hand. The reason is, obviously, that the distance between your shoulder and the point of impact is extended when you hold a racket. It should feel as if your own arm is extended, and since that is exactly how you should control the movement of your body, your body must be extended at least in your brain when you hold a racket. Conversely, since you have such a brain which can extend your body as necessary, you are able to use instruments. If your body gets extended without holding an instrument, you would feel as if you can use telekinesis.

If your brain tries to move an object in distance while your body gets extended without an instrument, it would try to move the extended, invisible body of yours, resulting in the movement of your own, non-extended body which is supposed to be connected with the extended body. Such part of your body would likely be your arms or hands.

Kenji Saito

I played tenpin bowling the other day. For some strange reason, the ball I threw touched down on the lane adjacent to the one I was playing at. The ball rolled, and knocked all of the tenpins down. (Almost a true story)

Kenji Saito

True. Equality doesn't exist in nature.

Kenji Saito

False. In fact, a war is always righteous. The reason is that it is always a common sense which decides what is righteous and what isn't, which is liable to change. In wartime, the war is justified for some reasons, and the justness of one's country becomes the common sense in the society.

Kenji Saito

True. When a behaviour is said to be pathological, I think it just means that it is deviated from the common sense of the time and place. If we talk about the origin of a behaviour, it should naturally follow that the behaviour did not exist before then, and it was indeed outside the common sense of such time. Therefore, every behaviour was pathological in its origin.

Of course, the only ones who can decide what is pathological are the ones with the concept of common sense, in other words only limited species whose lives are culturally oriented.

Kenji Saito

What kind of sounds surround my apartment building. How accurate my mental map is. When an automobile passes near me, how it is to feel my life is in danger. How much I depend on my sight everyday. How much is considered about blind people in my town. How friendly my neighbours are to me. Someone said that courage is to take one step forward when its outcome is unclear, and if it is true.

Kenji Saito

Because whatever I perceive now is a product of an on-going process in my brain, and was produced in the past for me to perceive it now.

Kenji Saito

False. To think it is beneficial for other animals to be treated like human is a form of chauvinism.

Kenji Saito

Discipline your sight, hearing and sense of touch as you have done so with your sense of smell and taste of foods.

Kenji Saito

This may sound like a cliché, but a lie tells you something false while a joke lets you catch a glimpse of truth.

Kenji Saito

Dr. Nada y Nada, a psychiatrist, wrote a book named "On Craziness and Insanity" in which he says craziness is a deviation from a common sense, and one would look insane if he or she deviates from the courses of their society, and the society would look insane to them if it deviates from their courses. As one's common sense is developed through the early stage of his or her life, and say, it is developed before they are 20, they would spend the rest 80 years (if they'd live up to 100) to think the world is crazy every time it changes. If for example we can live up to 1,000, then we would be able to know that the common sense of a society can so easily change, and learn how we should cope with it when it happens. Perhaps then we won't think the world is crazy anymore. Of course, this insight if you like is able to be obtained without living for 1,000 years but by living in multiple cultures. In this sense, living in many countries is as valuable as living many years.

Kenji Saito

True. If becoming insane is to think in a deviated manner from a common sense, then it might as well be said that learning, which sometimes result in a new discovery which would overturn the common sense, is to come closer to insanity.

Kenji Saito

True. If you observe someone in a state of culture shock, you will know that he or she is indistinguishable from someone so-called insane.

For example, think of a custom in Japan to take your shoes off when you enter a house. Suppose you are a Japanese, and there is a third-generation Japanese American visiting your house who looks exactly like a typical Japanese man. You don't know that he is American. He studied a lot about Japan before he came to visit this country, and can speak Japanese fluently. On the other hand, you don't understand a single word of English. After some greeting at your door, he comes into your house, totally forgetting to take his shoes off. You get surprised and say "Your shoes, your shoes!" He panics. He says, taking his shoes off, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to surprise you," but he is so upset that he doesn't realise he is speaking English. How would you look at this man jumping on one foot at your door, yelling something intelligible to you?

Kenji Saito

Having made a big mistake of not taking his shoes off at a house in Japan, his beloved grandmother's country, he swears he would not ever make the same mistake again. Since then, he successfully continues to take his shoes off at every house he visits. However, he doesn't realise the idea of taking his shoes off has become an obsession. Then he found himself taking his shoes off when he got on a train.

Kenji Saito

1. It's an exercise for my sense of balance. 2. It's an exercise for my muscles. 3. Foods will taste better as it will make me hungrier. 4. It would be a thrilling experience to use cutting instruments. 5. It would be a good refreshment (for the first few times).

Kenji Saito

It is difficult to translate music into languages. It is even more so in the case of primitive ones. If something cannot be translated into languages, it means that that something doesn't have a basis to be understood commonly by many human beings. It also means that that something is less abstracted and more personal. If such music is exchanged then each others' differences will be made clearer.

Popular music today is more or less translatable into languages, because such music is typically created together by multiple people, which requires communication using languages. The resulted music can often be described by signs and/or words (e.g. scores).

However, technology today has made it unnecessary to communicate using languages. Even when multiple people are involved, the languages aren't necessary because they don't have to be in the same place at the same time to create one piece of music. Music created using such technology is now collectively called "techno," but in fact these are very diverse and personal pieces of music. It seems that music is certainly going back to its origin.

Kenji Saito

For a fetishist who adores the feel of mud, the both should hold.

Kenji Saito

As gravitation is always an attraction, there is no opposite feeling of fear. On the other hand, as electromagnetism can be both an attraction and a repulsion, there is an opposite feeling of love, which is hate.

Kenji Saito

True, because insanity is really a way of thinking deviated from the common sense of the society in question, and a way of thinking can be transmitted through communication.

Kenji Saito

Humanism is stupid.

mailto: ks91@cornell.edu