
Monday, April 23, 2007
SPRING 2007!

Thursday, April 12, 2007
Feedback about recent heated Intelligent Design debate
Here are some recent articles in CNN about the science and intelligent design debate. The first article [download] considers a scientists reasons for why he believes in God as a scientist. The second article [download] talks about the possibility that religion is simply a matter of evolutionary necessity.
Recently, this author has heard about some incidences which reflected a bias of non-religious scientists who think that religious people do not consider what the evidence is suggesting. This comment arose out of a scientific discussion on how our personal beliefs do affect the way we interpret objective data.
I think I will have to comment on this as I feel that the discussion has a very crucial point, and the remark made by non-religious scientists may not be a fair one. Firstly, I do not think that the discussion point was wrong. In fact, I agree with it. Beliefs most certainly bias our interpretation of the world, and of reality. In fact, that is fundamentally what belief is. It is attributing meaning and cause to what we see around us. In this sense, the idea that belief is a psychological state innate in human beings (since we do not seem to see animals that have beliefs) out of evolutionary necessity. One theory is that if we do not have something to believe in, human beings would not function, we would in fact go crazy. Thus, to resolve this state, we developed religion.
This might be true, it might not. Scientifically, we cannot prove that it does not exist. No science can prove that anything does not exist. I think scientists have to conceed to this. This author is a scientist too, and I think there is no reasonable argument to suggest that science can ever get past this problem of proving non-existence, at least with current empirical methods. Similarly, science cannot prove the non-existence of God.
But back to religion as an evolutionary outcome. If in fact this is true, it says nothing about whether God is real. Just because we think our ideas of God are a result of our neurons firing, which are a result of our DNA "directing" our neurons to wire in a certain way, that results in this "feeling" or state of thinking there is a God, these do not have bearing on whether God exists or not. If God exists, he exists whether I think he does or not, he exists whether my thoughts about his existence arise out of a reflection of truth or if they arise due to pure chance.
That being said, religious people, specifically Christians, do not necessarily disagree with the existence of evolution. In theory, God could implement evolution as his way things should work? Is it not also a theory that he did not? What I mean is, these are theories, not facts. And science has yet to show that it can prove that evolution = no God.
So, in sum, we all belief something. For the non-religious scientist, it is simply that they believe that all they can observe has no intelligent cause. For the religious scientist, we also need to look at the objective evidence that there is intelligent cause for everything we see. No one is spared this burden. And surely, which side we are on, will bias the way we see thing. The point is not to say the other side believes what they do because they are not objective. The point is to recognize how we ourselves are biased, and how others might have different biases, and consider the data together.
If God exists, then the data will show it, if indeed this method can show it. If he does not, then the data will show it too, if this method permits, however, we know that this method cannot show that something does not exist. So perhaps we should be thinking if there is ever any way to show that something does not exist?
Recently, this author has heard about some incidences which reflected a bias of non-religious scientists who think that religious people do not consider what the evidence is suggesting. This comment arose out of a scientific discussion on how our personal beliefs do affect the way we interpret objective data.
I think I will have to comment on this as I feel that the discussion has a very crucial point, and the remark made by non-religious scientists may not be a fair one. Firstly, I do not think that the discussion point was wrong. In fact, I agree with it. Beliefs most certainly bias our interpretation of the world, and of reality. In fact, that is fundamentally what belief is. It is attributing meaning and cause to what we see around us. In this sense, the idea that belief is a psychological state innate in human beings (since we do not seem to see animals that have beliefs) out of evolutionary necessity. One theory is that if we do not have something to believe in, human beings would not function, we would in fact go crazy. Thus, to resolve this state, we developed religion.
This might be true, it might not. Scientifically, we cannot prove that it does not exist. No science can prove that anything does not exist. I think scientists have to conceed to this. This author is a scientist too, and I think there is no reasonable argument to suggest that science can ever get past this problem of proving non-existence, at least with current empirical methods. Similarly, science cannot prove the non-existence of God.
But back to religion as an evolutionary outcome. If in fact this is true, it says nothing about whether God is real. Just because we think our ideas of God are a result of our neurons firing, which are a result of our DNA "directing" our neurons to wire in a certain way, that results in this "feeling" or state of thinking there is a God, these do not have bearing on whether God exists or not. If God exists, he exists whether I think he does or not, he exists whether my thoughts about his existence arise out of a reflection of truth or if they arise due to pure chance.
That being said, religious people, specifically Christians, do not necessarily disagree with the existence of evolution. In theory, God could implement evolution as his way things should work? Is it not also a theory that he did not? What I mean is, these are theories, not facts. And science has yet to show that it can prove that evolution = no God.
So, in sum, we all belief something. For the non-religious scientist, it is simply that they believe that all they can observe has no intelligent cause. For the religious scientist, we also need to look at the objective evidence that there is intelligent cause for everything we see. No one is spared this burden. And surely, which side we are on, will bias the way we see thing. The point is not to say the other side believes what they do because they are not objective. The point is to recognize how we ourselves are biased, and how others might have different biases, and consider the data together.
If God exists, then the data will show it, if indeed this method can show it. If he does not, then the data will show it too, if this method permits, however, we know that this method cannot show that something does not exist. So perhaps we should be thinking if there is ever any way to show that something does not exist?
Binding and Bandwidth
This is an idea about what might happen if different types of information were attended to. Consider this thought experiment:
There is an item A, and another item B. A and B both contain sub-features A1...An, B1...Bn. When we attend to A or B, we are in fact binding A1...An, and/or B1...Bn, to represent A, B.
Now, we have limited bandwidth. Which means, we can only process a limited amount of information at any one time. Consider for the moment that we can only process 4 bits of information. So, if we attend to A, we only process A1-A4, and if we process B, we process B1-B4. We could, by way of divided attention, process A1,A2,B1,B4. Assuming that there is minimal cost in having to dissociate between two different groupings of features (which is rarely the case, but lets just assume that this is possible for argument's sake). This also means, we do not process the other information about the other features that are present.
Now, consider another type of processing, or rather, another level. If in fact we process something called A-B. That is, we bring the binding function up from the item level of A and B, to a higher representation that binds both A-B. What would this result in terms of the amount of information we can process at a time?
This is now only 1 bit of information. We would have more capacity left over (3 bits) from our initial 4 bits. Furthermore, within the 1 bit, we might be able to reinstate the original A1-A4, and B1-B4 via past experience. However, we will suffer from interference in this case, since we did not explicitly process A1-A4 or B1-B4, but rather A-B. Thus, there should be a cost of attending to this higher level at the expense of the lower levels. Likewise, there is a cost of attending to the lower levels at the expense of the higher levels. This is also known in the literature as chunking.
Thus, in summary is that the level of binding should be inversely related to the bandwidth, or the amount of information we can process at any one time.
There is an item A, and another item B. A and B both contain sub-features A1...An, B1...Bn. When we attend to A or B, we are in fact binding A1...An, and/or B1...Bn, to represent A, B.
Now, we have limited bandwidth. Which means, we can only process a limited amount of information at any one time. Consider for the moment that we can only process 4 bits of information. So, if we attend to A, we only process A1-A4, and if we process B, we process B1-B4. We could, by way of divided attention, process A1,A2,B1,B4. Assuming that there is minimal cost in having to dissociate between two different groupings of features (which is rarely the case, but lets just assume that this is possible for argument's sake). This also means, we do not process the other information about the other features that are present.
Now, consider another type of processing, or rather, another level. If in fact we process something called A-B. That is, we bring the binding function up from the item level of A and B, to a higher representation that binds both A-B. What would this result in terms of the amount of information we can process at a time?
This is now only 1 bit of information. We would have more capacity left over (3 bits) from our initial 4 bits. Furthermore, within the 1 bit, we might be able to reinstate the original A1-A4, and B1-B4 via past experience. However, we will suffer from interference in this case, since we did not explicitly process A1-A4 or B1-B4, but rather A-B. Thus, there should be a cost of attending to this higher level at the expense of the lower levels. Likewise, there is a cost of attending to the lower levels at the expense of the higher levels. This is also known in the literature as chunking.
Thus, in summary is that the level of binding should be inversely related to the bandwidth, or the amount of information we can process at any one time.
Unsupervised Learning

vdmulearning.R
Here's the code to display the hexagonal outputs you see in this page.
vdmhexplot.R
This is a specific instance of an unsupervised learning network used by Von Der Malsburg, hence VDM. He was interested in getting the network to exhibit similar behavior to what is observed about the human primary visual cortex. In humans, the primary visual neurons are organized in a columnar fashion according to their sensitivity and selectivity to visual line orientations. That is, each neuron in the primary visual cortex is maximally active for a specific orientation of lines that it receives visual signals from in the environmental space. Furthermore, these neurons are grouped together such that adjacent neurons are each sensitive to close orientations.

This R code implements the VDM network specifically using the following line orientation stimuli. The stimuli consist of 19 input units selectively made active (1 or 0) to give rise to "orientation". In fact, the input stimuli is realized in R as a matrix of 1s and 0s in the right positions.
At first, the network outputs a roughly clustered pattern of activity to a particular orientation (bottom left). But after several training iterations (about 100 cycles, which is quite fast!), it displays columnar organization (bottom right).


Interesting directions to pursue from this code are: object-level representation, color, moving stimuli, 3D representation, binding, repetition suppression.
Here's my paper which describes the model in greater detail [VDM.pdf].
Perceptron Neural Network: Backpropagation

trainnet_perceptron.R
testnet_perceptron.R
The network learns by propagating the input activity to the output layer, then comparing the resulting output with desired outputs. The difference is computed as an error which is backpropagated to the lower layers to effect a weight change that will reduce this error magnitude.
The network is then tested with original or distorted inputs. In general, this network can compute input-output mappings effectively (within network limits which are a function of the number of bits of information required to distinguish inputs, and the number of hidden layers and units). However, it is poor at generalization and distorted inputs compared to the Hopfield network.
Check out my paper that explains in greater detail [Backprop paper].
Also check out this website http://www.gregalo.com/neuralnets.html
Hopfield Neural Network

trainnet_hopfield.R
testnet_hopfield.R
Here's an brief on how it works. Every unit in the network is connected to every other unit (see weight matrix configuration in figure). Input patterns are used to trained the network using Hebbian learning. The network learns by additively changing its weights to reflect instances of unit co-activation. Unit dissimilarities and inactivations are ignored.
The network is then tested on original or distorted inputs, and it will robustly return one of the original trained inputs (within limits).
Check out my paper that explains in greater detail [Hopfield paper].
Also check out this website http://www.gregalo.com/neuralnets.html
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Parko Beero!

Monday, March 19, 2007
Soba Tempura


Ingredients
For soba:
Soba
Soba sauce
White radish
For miso soup:
Spring Onions
Silk Tofu
Miso
Fish stock (dashi)
Dried seaweed (kombu)
For tempura:
White onion
Carrots
Shiitake mushroom
Anything else you want to fry
Flour
Oil
White radish
Sesame oil
Soy sauce
Fish stock
Method: Initial preparation
Batter
Place a bowl of flour into the freezer, this is to make the batter, and it is lighter cold. While waiting, prepare the soba.
Soba
Boil the soba noodles until soft. Drain the noodles and rinse with cold water to stop the cooking. Place the noodles on ice cubes in a bowl and put in the freezer. Prepare the tempura pieces.
Tempura
Slice the onions, carrots, mushrooms and others into bite size pieces.
Method: Ready for the frying
Prepare the batter. Take the cold flour out and set aside a small portion on a flat surface, this is the coating flour. Take the rest and pour water to mix in small amounts while stirring. Add and mix only enough water so that you get a sticky mixture with some lumps in it, this is the dipping batter.
Heat up enough oil so that the tempura pieces can float in the fry. Heat the oil hot enough by testing it with some of the dipping batter. Throw some in and if it floats, then the oil is ready.
Take one tempura piece and coat it in the dry coating flour, then dip it into the dipping batter. Make sure it is well covered. Fry the tempura in the oil for about one minute, constantly turning and watching. The tempura is done when it becomes relatively stiff and floating freely in the oil. Remove it and drain the oil on a napkin. Prepare the miso soup.
Method: Miso soup
To make the miso soup, prepare the fish stock by either dissolving some pre-made fish stock or powdered dashi. Boil the stock. While waiting for the boil, prepare the seaweed by soaking bits of it in cold water. Cut the spring onion into small pieces for soup, and the tofu into small cubes. Dissolve the a spoonful of miso into one cup of cold water. Once the stock is boiling, add the miso mix under low heat. Add the seaweed and cubed tofu and let the soup warm under low heat. Do not over boil miso soup, it will taste bad. Serve the miso soup with the chopped spring onions.
Method: Sauces
Soba sauce
Shred some white radish and chop some spring onions. Pour some soba sauce in dipping bowl and add the spring onions and the shredded white radish. The soba sauce is ready. You can add wasabi and raw egg in it if desired.
Tempura sauce
Prepare the tempura sauce. Mix the soy sauce, a little sesame oil, the fish stock, and boil the mixture. Add shredded white radish. Serve in another dipping bowl.
Method: Serving
Take the soba out from the freezer. Serve the soba on ice cubes, the tempura pieces on a plate, the miso soup, and the soba and tempura dipping sauces. Recommended to serve with a cup of green tea or roasted tea (hoji-cha).
Enjoy your meal!
Lake of the Woods
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Science and Intelligent Design I
One debate that is current is that of the existence of Intelligent Design. There are two basic camps. On one side, people believe in a God who started it all. On the other, people claim that there is no such thing, and things are simply the expression of physical laws that govern space and time. People from both camps can get quite heated and emotional argueing for each case. But I don't see why they should. When dealing with this matter, it is of utmost importance that one keep personal emotions and preferences and predispositions out of the arguments. One MUST sit down and cooly think through with reason the merits and pitfalls of either accounts of life as we know it.
I prefer to think of this matter in this way. First, how can we think about things or argue about the matter at hand? Here, we have to assume one thing. That anything which considers anything, and anything which communicates anything, must do so within the boundaries of logic. That is, if my opponent were to form conclusions from what I say that did not follow from prior premises, then there is no way to proceed, because the arguments would be arbitrary. Anything goes, and therefore there is no argument, no final goal for a truth. So, we must debate this within the confines of logic, or insofar as it is necessary, inference.
Second, are things real? Or is everything we experience part of a dream, or non-substantial, and thus inconsequential? Descarte had a brilliant answer. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. He approached the problem by doubting everything. But in the end, he realized that no matter how hard he tried, there was one inescapable truth (yes, there is apparently such a thing), that he could not doubt that he was doubting. It was impossible to think of such a state since to doubt that one was doubting, one would in fact be doubting, and end up concluding that if anything ever existed, it would be doubt. And to doubt, is to think, and to think, requires a thinker. Hence, cogito ergo sum. So, the thinker exists. And if a thinker exists, something exists.
More to come...
I prefer to think of this matter in this way. First, how can we think about things or argue about the matter at hand? Here, we have to assume one thing. That anything which considers anything, and anything which communicates anything, must do so within the boundaries of logic. That is, if my opponent were to form conclusions from what I say that did not follow from prior premises, then there is no way to proceed, because the arguments would be arbitrary. Anything goes, and therefore there is no argument, no final goal for a truth. So, we must debate this within the confines of logic, or insofar as it is necessary, inference.
Second, are things real? Or is everything we experience part of a dream, or non-substantial, and thus inconsequential? Descarte had a brilliant answer. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. He approached the problem by doubting everything. But in the end, he realized that no matter how hard he tried, there was one inescapable truth (yes, there is apparently such a thing), that he could not doubt that he was doubting. It was impossible to think of such a state since to doubt that one was doubting, one would in fact be doubting, and end up concluding that if anything ever existed, it would be doubt. And to doubt, is to think, and to think, requires a thinker. Hence, cogito ergo sum. So, the thinker exists. And if a thinker exists, something exists.
More to come...
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Catfish Creation


Catfish fillets
Broccoli
Potatoes
Carrots
Thyme
Parsley
Mustard seeds (black)
Olive oil
Chilli powder
Gin
Lemon
Salt
Pepper
Portabella Mushroom
Milk
Method
Season the catfish in a stock of gin, lemon, chilli powder (just a little), salt and pepper. Let the mix set in the fridge for about an hour or so. In the meantime, cut up the broccoli into bite size pieces, the potatoes and carrots as well, and the mushroom. Boil the broccoli, carrots and potatoes. Once well cooked, remove and set aside the broccoli, seasoning it with salt and pepper. Place the boiled carrots and potatoes in a mixing bowl. Season with salt, pepper and add some milk, and mash the mixture.
Heat some olive oil in a pan, and some mustard seeds. Lightly fry the mushrooms for just a little while, then remove them and set aside. Next, lightly saute the catfish in the olive oil, mustard seed mix, with the seasoning sauce as well. Let the mixture simmer over medium fire for about 10-15 min.
Arrange the broccoli, mash, mushrooms and fish on the plates. Pour the sauce over the fish. Serve with White Zinfandel (chilled).
Blizzardy Evening






Storm finish. From top left to bottom right: Snow pile in Beckman Circle lot, Walkway lit by lamps in Beckman Circle lot, Charlene's car stuck, my car stuck, block of snow, bigger block of snow!
Lots of cleaning up, but even today, there's another snowfall, another 2-3 inches. But its not as bad as the previous one. Here's a video report of the day.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Post Blizzard Desert

The next morning brought better news. Sunlight. Something we haven't seen in a day. In all its glory. But it shines through the aftermath, through my kitchen window. Yet, the warmth is welcome as I have my coffee.

Of to the lab then! Stepping out, we are greeted with what appears to be last nights deposits. People will have to dig their way out of this one.
And yes, its about a foot of snow, but in some places it comes up to your waist. That's me in the middle, see where the snow stops. There's another view.


Onward still! Charlene's feet are in a foot. The cars are all under, and I had to dig my car out of its icy prison.




Finally, we arrive at the Beckman again, it is still standing. This monolith, impervious to yukimon. Impervious I say.


So coming into the Beckman, we hang around and work a little, then we go for coffee. Here are some shots taken while on coffee break. And then eventually head back for the classic approaching Beckman shot again.





Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Blizzard!!!!
According to wikipedia, a blizzard ain't a blizzard until:
1. There is snow or ice precipitation
2. Visibility must be reduced to 1/4 mile (400 km)
3. Wind speed must be at least 35 mph (56 kph)
Here's footage of a blizzard happening outside my door right now. [blizzard movie]
UIUC never closes because of snow, but today, classes are canceled and movement is down to almost nil. The snow ploughs are working over time and the snow just keeps coming and coming...estimated about a foot or more of snow by the end of today.
1. There is snow or ice precipitation
2. Visibility must be reduced to 1/4 mile (400 km)
3. Wind speed must be at least 35 mph (56 kph)
Here's footage of a blizzard happening outside my door right now. [blizzard movie]
UIUC never closes because of snow, but today, classes are canceled and movement is down to almost nil. The snow ploughs are working over time and the snow just keeps coming and coming...estimated about a foot or more of snow by the end of today.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Joseph's life as an example of Christ
I just discovered for myself this amazing message in the story of Joseph. Joseph was most favored, and also was "worshiped" by his brothers and father in his dreams. Joseph was then betrayed by his brothers and sold into slavery in Egypt. Just as Jesus was crucified at the hands of men, His brothers, and took on our sins, and also became limited from His divinity during His time on earth, a sort of Egypt. While Egypt is rich and has comforts and wonders, it is temporary and it worships false gods. That is, they stop short of the ultimate reality. The true God. Instead, they attribute the wonders they see to half-way icons, idols. Just like here on earth. That is what we do.
But Joseph, even though he was in Egypt, he prospered it. He established it. In fact, if you read carefully, it was Joseph who brought Egypt and Canaan under Pharoah's control, and its seemed as if Pharaoh and the other Egyptians weren't doing much at all. It seemed that Joseph brought the lands and servants under Pharoah using economic superiority and also established a 20% tax system (the first national tax ever with priests exempt? at least the first mentioned in the bible - Moses might have later taken this up in the 10% tithe to God, and the Levite concept). We think we do great things on earth. Might it be that it is the Creator of the earth that actually knows how it really works that does these great things for us?
And later, Joseph is instrumental in saving his brothers and father from the famine as he is revealed to them, and also in sharing all that he has in Egypt (the world) with them. How he was once dead but is alive again! And more than alive, he brings his family with him into prosperity. In return, they are to take care of livestock, use their skill to prosper Egypt in kind. Sound familiar? It sounds like Christians, being blessed to bless in return, being saved by Christ in a "foreign land".
Note though, that there is a sense that Egypt is not the final destination for Israel. There is an even greater finality. And that is played out in layers upon layers, cycle upon cycles of biblical records. Moses, David, Judges, prophets, Abraham, Isaac, Joshua amongst others and finally the ultimate reality all these are pointing to - Jesus. Note also that this story of Joseph was probably written by Moses. And he probably had access to some historical records in Egypt to investigate how things turned out they way they did at that time. In faith then, he wrote this down, and we now have the benefit of the the revelation of Jesus to see how when Moses wrote this down, it was truly the Holy Spirit writing in him to tell us of Jesus that is to come. Who He is and what He does. Also, we see how God uses human knowledge to reveal a little of His plans to us. And even more so, we see how those who did not yet have a change to know Jesus at that time, since He had not come yet, could still hope in God through these themes of God's deliverance, and that is credited to them as righteousness through their faith and His faithfulness.
But Joseph, even though he was in Egypt, he prospered it. He established it. In fact, if you read carefully, it was Joseph who brought Egypt and Canaan under Pharoah's control, and its seemed as if Pharaoh and the other Egyptians weren't doing much at all. It seemed that Joseph brought the lands and servants under Pharoah using economic superiority and also established a 20% tax system (the first national tax ever with priests exempt? at least the first mentioned in the bible - Moses might have later taken this up in the 10% tithe to God, and the Levite concept). We think we do great things on earth. Might it be that it is the Creator of the earth that actually knows how it really works that does these great things for us?
And later, Joseph is instrumental in saving his brothers and father from the famine as he is revealed to them, and also in sharing all that he has in Egypt (the world) with them. How he was once dead but is alive again! And more than alive, he brings his family with him into prosperity. In return, they are to take care of livestock, use their skill to prosper Egypt in kind. Sound familiar? It sounds like Christians, being blessed to bless in return, being saved by Christ in a "foreign land".
Note though, that there is a sense that Egypt is not the final destination for Israel. There is an even greater finality. And that is played out in layers upon layers, cycle upon cycles of biblical records. Moses, David, Judges, prophets, Abraham, Isaac, Joshua amongst others and finally the ultimate reality all these are pointing to - Jesus. Note also that this story of Joseph was probably written by Moses. And he probably had access to some historical records in Egypt to investigate how things turned out they way they did at that time. In faith then, he wrote this down, and we now have the benefit of the the revelation of Jesus to see how when Moses wrote this down, it was truly the Holy Spirit writing in him to tell us of Jesus that is to come. Who He is and what He does. Also, we see how God uses human knowledge to reveal a little of His plans to us. And even more so, we see how those who did not yet have a change to know Jesus at that time, since He had not come yet, could still hope in God through these themes of God's deliverance, and that is credited to them as righteousness through their faith and His faithfulness.
John 3:1-21
Nicodemus, Pharisee, ruler of the Jews...
This event occured while Jesus was in Jerusalem, after He has cleared the temple. Nicodemus' question shows that he has been considering Jesus for quite some time, along with others. And this reflects a certain contemporary thought at the time: that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to come and deliver. Jesus seemed to be a suspected candidate, but the things He did did not square with a lot of their conceptions about what Messiah would be like. And there, they were tripped up in all their thinking, even as Pharisees.
Note how Jesus begins the conversation. It has nothing to do with Nicodemus' statement. But Jesus knows his heart even before his mouth spoke and started the conversation immediately on what is important for Pharisees to know: the idea of being born again, to be saved.
"The wind blows where it wishes..."
Somethings happen, we experience it, and we believe that it is there. The wind. And we do not question it. How is it that we cannot bring that same faith into spiritual matters? That is the point in Jesus' declaration here about being born in the spirit. To be born again means to be born in of water and the spirit. Baptism? This is linked with John the author's references to baptisms before and after this passage.
"We know and testify what We have seen..."
Simply this, the only way to really know, is to believe the testimony of the one to whom true knowledge is found. We can try to increase knowledge through observing for our own, to believe only when we see things or experience things. But how often, even though the truth is before our very eyes, we still refuse to believe, but choose to explain it away by other "theories" or worse, ignore it. So then, perhaps this is something to consider with respect to philosophy of knowledge, perhaps the only true knowledge can only be obtained by faith in another. And this Another is the ultimate Another, who has seen what is the truth. So we can rest assured in His testimony.
"For God so loved the world..."
The famous verse. The only hope we have. Note, how we cannot do anything to have everlasting life other than to believe. And how this all stems from one point only. God's love. Love that saves, but also, love for which the rejection of is unimagineable.
Jesus' pleads here are entirely logical and reasonable. He who does truth comes to the light. Why then do people still not believe in the One? Choosing other alternatives? If they truly do what is true? What is their thinking and answer to Christ's words here?
This event occured while Jesus was in Jerusalem, after He has cleared the temple. Nicodemus' question shows that he has been considering Jesus for quite some time, along with others. And this reflects a certain contemporary thought at the time: that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to come and deliver. Jesus seemed to be a suspected candidate, but the things He did did not square with a lot of their conceptions about what Messiah would be like. And there, they were tripped up in all their thinking, even as Pharisees.
Note how Jesus begins the conversation. It has nothing to do with Nicodemus' statement. But Jesus knows his heart even before his mouth spoke and started the conversation immediately on what is important for Pharisees to know: the idea of being born again, to be saved.
"The wind blows where it wishes..."
Somethings happen, we experience it, and we believe that it is there. The wind. And we do not question it. How is it that we cannot bring that same faith into spiritual matters? That is the point in Jesus' declaration here about being born in the spirit. To be born again means to be born in of water and the spirit. Baptism? This is linked with John the author's references to baptisms before and after this passage.
"We know and testify what We have seen..."
Simply this, the only way to really know, is to believe the testimony of the one to whom true knowledge is found. We can try to increase knowledge through observing for our own, to believe only when we see things or experience things. But how often, even though the truth is before our very eyes, we still refuse to believe, but choose to explain it away by other "theories" or worse, ignore it. So then, perhaps this is something to consider with respect to philosophy of knowledge, perhaps the only true knowledge can only be obtained by faith in another. And this Another is the ultimate Another, who has seen what is the truth. So we can rest assured in His testimony.
"For God so loved the world..."
The famous verse. The only hope we have. Note, how we cannot do anything to have everlasting life other than to believe. And how this all stems from one point only. God's love. Love that saves, but also, love for which the rejection of is unimagineable.
Jesus' pleads here are entirely logical and reasonable. He who does truth comes to the light. Why then do people still not believe in the One? Choosing other alternatives? If they truly do what is true? What is their thinking and answer to Christ's words here?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Japan House Winter Tea



Atsunobu, Charlene and I take a short walk in the Japane House, Arboriteum area in Urbana, IL. We also stop for some hoji cha and make some snow angels. Check out the movie Snow Angels: [click here for movie]. The temperature is 11F (feels like -1F). The hot tea in the hut warms you up, and feels good in contrast to the cold environment. The brown tea contrasts with the white snow. We also had cookies and some rice crackers. Some people were cross-country skiing and sledding down the hills, the highest natural point in Urbana. Highly recommended!
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Guess what this is in the Beckman?
Ugli Fruit
Breaking News: SNOW!!!!


So its finally here. Today, temperature is -13C (-6F). And its snowing and snowing all day...these two pics from left to right, Beckman Institute, and The Boneyard Creek. Here are some clips as I walk from Psychology to the Beckman.
Snow1, Snow2, Snow3, Snow4, Snow5.
And here's one from Starbucks at Green Street: Snow6.
As you can see, plenty of the white white thing. About 6 to 8 inches maybe!
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Olive Oil Chicken Pasta

Ingredients:
Spaghetti
Mushrooms
Chicken
Parsley flakes
Garlic
Shallots
Asparagus
Pepper, salt, chilli powder
Olive oil
White wine
Method:
Slice mushrooms and chicken into bite size pieces. Cut asparagus bottoms off. Mince garlic, and slice shallots. Boil spaghetti in seperate pot first. When done, rinse with cold water to stop cooking and set aside. Fry garlic and shallots in olive oil until golden brown. Add chicken, asparagus and stir fry until chicken starts to turn white. Add spaghetti, mushrooms, pepper, salt to taste, a little chilli powder. Stir to mix and fully cook the chicken. Add white wine and let mixture simmer a little. Add more olive oil and parsley flakes and mix it in. Ready to serve! Serve with tomato soup and Beringer White Zinfandel recommended.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Breaking Arctic Blast Newses!
As if in answer to the warmer than normal December, today's temperature went down to a feels-like of -8F! Flurries all day, and tomorrow. Little snow powder falling down all day long.
Another news, Bill Meier said he would step down this July, to move on to another ministry. Kinda sad. He is a good man and pastor. He shared that he felt that he had completed all that God had led him to do at TCBC. And this was God's calling for him to move on. May the peace of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit go with him.
The Wii is sold out at Target and Meijer's. It is supposed to be selling at $250 USD. Hopefully it will be in stock again in a couple of months. In the meantime, save up.
Another news, Bill Meier said he would step down this July, to move on to another ministry. Kinda sad. He is a good man and pastor. He shared that he felt that he had completed all that God had led him to do at TCBC. And this was God's calling for him to move on. May the peace of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit go with him.
The Wii is sold out at Target and Meijer's. It is supposed to be selling at $250 USD. Hopefully it will be in stock again in a couple of months. In the meantime, save up.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
What is this thing at the back of the Beckman?
Winter Shots of Champaign
Birthday 2007

Photos not I take one, but I got them and put them on my photo site anyway, see them here.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
What is consciousness = What am I?
I am a wave of existence/influence in the medium of space and time. I have a defined peak and full-width-at-half-maximum. I change the medium through my existence in it, as it, in turn, limits me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)