DARK PEN

Every civilisation or geographically identified people go through certain phases of civilizational evolution. There needs to be an old history of being nomadic. A few nomads settle and become tribes. Tribes fight for control over geography and resources. A few stable or remaining tribes become political entities of some kind for structural leadership and later evolve to be small governed entities and communities. Then they go through the Iron Age, Bronze Age, and begin to identify geographically. Evolution happens with advancements in technology, agriculture, and societal values (unified morals, ethics, etc.) since agriculture allowed for more stable living conditions, leading to population growth and slow or maybe infinitesimal but a constant technological advancement (e.g. writing, metallurgy, architecture, art, martial art) laid the cornerstones for more complex governance systems. We're not going deep into an anthropological discussion, but hear me out. At certain points, this ...

There is this question I got asked by someone on Quora Hindi that ‘ The existence of carnivorous animals in the jungle depends on consuming other animals alive by tearing them apart. If this universe is created by an intelligent creator, what was the need to create such a horrific system of ripping and slaughtering fellow creatures? ’ The moment you phrase the question in such a way from that specific point you dewalls in the field of primary philosophical arguments of The Problem of Evil proposed by St. Augustine . Your concern that this cruelty in nature, where carnivorous animals eat innocent herbivorous animals, is completely contrary to the fundamental idea of ​​an intelligent and benevolent god. Because maybe god is there to protect every living being and resolve their materialistic problems and whenever you pray or burn incense, pray or do aarti or sajda you intentionally asking god to provide you something that you desire and from that moment onwards if there is a god he starts...

Gift of genius is haunting. It haunts the man who possesses it. It makes them suffer, immeasurable existential crisis that creates nightmares. Walking and multiplying nightmares. Imagine you can see everything yet you can do nothing about it because no one is doing anything about anything. In an abnormal society, genius is so unorthodox, unwanted, and undesirable that true genius wants to cease to be original and normal so he can become normal among the abnormal so the abnormal can identify him as normal. How paradoxical it is that one wants to be abnormal to be called normal. Like a philosopher who taunt and degrades society for not being philosophically profound yet forgets that the layman who has no ability to understand ontology, metaphysics, and the nature of reality, that layman himself is the reason for the philosopher's own survival. Layman doesn’t want to understand philosophical elements because this knowledge breaks the framework of his social structure. Philosophy is a ...

Does science achieve statistical probabilities, not certainties? Well, I think that, like all the other questions asked about natural sciences, life science, and philosophy, there isn’t a very straightforward answer to this question. Knowing about particles' momentum and position is not a certainty; it’s a probability . [1] But if you compare an electron with an M777 Howitzer shell, you can know precisely where it will hit, given you have done a fantastic amount of calculations on drag, air resistance, wind, barrel length, shell weight, and type of propellant [2] . There are so many variables [3] , and the more variables you add, the more probable it is that the certainty of your answer eventually shifts towards a probable answer . It does not mean the laws of classical mechanics don’t work; it simply means that statistical probabilities override certainties in a complex world like ours. Knowing something with certainty is as relative as the depth of the question. If you ask...

Someone asked me this question on Quora: If artificial intelligence developed to such an extent that it starts to consider itself aware, will we treat it as a person? I have already posted the translated version to Quora Hindi, but this is the original writing for this blog. I want to understand what we should consider intelligence. Neuroscience and psychology dictate that there are different kinds of intelligence. There is cognitive intelligence: the ability to process information, learn, solve problems, and make decisions. A sophisticated computer software, nothing more than thousands and thousands of lines of properly defined code, has been doing this for the last 3 decades. You input data, they analyze it, make a proper assessment and solve the problem for you and show results on screen. So the simple question is: are these softwares Intelligent software? If through lines of code one can achieve intelligence, does this mean that CAD or any physics engines are intelligent by design ...

 I do not feel any sense of accomplishment after achieving something. All I feel is a mild sense of relief that it is done. Maybe this feeling is linked to the way expectations around success or success stories have bent our minds to think. Distorted perception that now achieving an academic or financial milestone can set everything on the right track. Everything that has gone wrong is supposed to vanish within a night after a successful ball through the hoop. These expectations may or may not come more from internal pressure or external influences but I think after achieving anything, I feel that achievement to be nothing but a pointless struggle against time. A meaningless meager task that was overhyped and overrepresented through the means of individuals who have already wasted unfathomable amounts of resources achieving the same place in that rat race, and now your own wants you to conquer an already won battlefield for the sake of their own pride and preconceived notions. Your...

यह लेख एक एक कठिन दार्शनिक पुस्तक का सरलीकरण है। जो आप इस लेख में पढ़ेंगे और जो आप मूल पुस्तक में पढ़ेंगे उस भाषा और Analogy में जमीन आसमान का फर्क मिलेगा क्योकि यह लेख किताब की मेरी व्यक्तिगत समझ है। जितने भी उदाहरण आप नीचे पढ़ेंगे वह सब मैंने मेरी समझ के आधार पर लिखे गए है। किताब में इन सब का कोई जिक्र नहीं है। मेरा प्रयास है की इससे पहले आप किताब पड़े अगर यह लेख  पढ़ लेते है तो आपको पुस्तक समझने में बहुत सहायता मिलेगी। - m.दिनेश ----------------------------------------  द स्ट्रक्चर ऑफ साइंटिफिक रेवोल्यूशन्स को थॉमस कुहन( Thomas S. Kuhn ) ने लिखा है। क्या लिखा है इस किताब में ? देखिए अगर आपका बैकग्राउंड S.T.E.M. नहीं है और उसमे भी आप ने कभी दर्शन, समाजशास्त्र और अन्य Interdisciplinary क्षेत्र की कोई किताब कभी नहीं पढ़ी है तो यह किताब आपके लिए नहीं है। अगर आपकी विज्ञान और उसके दर्शन में अत्यंत रूचि है, आपने दर्शन और समाजशास्त्र पढ़ा है और आप के पास पुस्तके पढ़ने की कला है तो यह किताब बिना STEM से होते हुए भी आपके लिए है। किताब की भाषा जटिल है क्योकि जैसा मैंने कहा यह STEM म...