If you got something worth sharing, then share it!

Many things are known, handful are realized and just few pinch adapted. Here's the list that I know, please post your share too.

---

(%)   Learning history is easy. Learning its lessons is almost impossible. - Anonymous

(%)   That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach. - Aldous Huxley

(%)   Every time history repeats itself, price of lesson goes up. - Anonymous.

(%)   It's only when the tide goes out that you realize who has been swimming naked. - Warren Buffet

(%)   Wisdom is not just in having right answer for all question but more than that in knowing to ask the right question. - TriVinDreamer

(%)   I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant - Alan Greenspun, quoted by Rebecca Saxe at TED.

(%)   The grand moments forms the majority of memories that we form in life; but those other millions of tiny moments that we sometimes ignore actually forms majority of the life. - TriVinDreamer

(%)   Let men picture their God, and you get creative open minds.. Preach of one God fixated upon, and you make them all half-baked moronic sheep. - TriVinDreamer

(%)   My biggest problem is that I believe almost everything I tell myself. - Anonymous

(%)   If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right. - Quoted by Steve Jobs at Stanford Commencement Speech

(%)   But while 10 wise people cannot make a fool wise, one mere fool can drive 10 wise people mad. - Hans Bauer quoted on TED

(%)   You got to persist through CRAP! which means Crtiticism, Rejection, Assholes and Pressure. - Richard St. Johns, TED.

(%)   We appreciate to be appreciated by those we appreciate; and that explain our action, motivated towards gaining that appreciation. - TriVinDreamer

(%)   Discovery consists of seeing what everyone has seen and thinking what no one has thought. - Albert Szent-Gyorgi, quoted by William Li on TED.

(%)   Everyone is special because they have some special abilities, and I have no special speciality that makes me any special of all the special beings around me. But I am different from all of them. - TriVinDreamer

(%)   Hope does not consist of the expectation that things will come out exactly right, but the expectation that they will make sense regardless of how they come out - Vaclav Havel, in book "Breaking the Peace"

(%)   Its better being a flexible spring that has some limit for how much pressure it can sustain, rather than hard metal that shouts for every thing that strikes it. - TriVinDreamer

(%)   A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
- Robert A. HeinleinSee More

(%)   If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him; is he still wrong? - Anonymous

(%)   A kiss is a lovely trick designed by nature to stop speech when words become superfluous. - Anonymous

(%)   I always try to go the extra mile at work, but my boss always finds me and brings me back. - Anonymous

(%)   All I ask for is the opportunity to prove that money doesn't buy happiness. - Anonymous

(%)   All mankind is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who are movable; and those who move. - Benjamin Franklin

(%)   A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. - Anonymous

(%)   A wise person has something to say, a fool has to say something. - Anonymous

(%)   A sharp tongue and a dull mind are usually found in the same head. - Anonymous

(%)   After all is said and done, more is said than done. - Anonymous

Why do we need someone to clock our life?

When did I started thinking about it? Not very long ago - until I heard a dialogue from movie, 'Shall We Dance'; "We need a witness to our lives... Your life will not go unnoticed because I will notice it. Your life will not go un-witnessed because I will be your witness."

---

   Here I try to find all possible reasons I can think of, why do we need to have someone to clock our life, or so called to have a life-partner? And just what are our expectations? Why cant we get the same from somewhere else? And finally what we need to look for and prioritize before committing to one final decision.

   When asked 'Why do we need a life partner?'; most would definitely say; we need a life partner to share our feelings, emotions and thoughts, someone who understand, appreciate and respect them.

   One will be utmost comfortable to share their deepest feeling, inmost emotions and craziest thoughts with someone who is like their best pal. Someone who know them for a long time, understand them very well and care for them with all their hearts; like someone's mother, father, siblings or childhood friends. If one already has someone like this, why do we need to introduce a new being with such expectations?

   Others might say, we need a helping hand in the ups and downs of the life. Life is never smooth, we get into financial, social, health, emotional, all sorts of possible troubles. We need someone who care, empathize, guide and help us in such times.

   One may be into all sorts of problems, and would need help and support of people from all many different backgrounds. Why to expect from just one being to be willing and capable to help in every situation?

   Other similar view could be - Life is hard, sharing the burden helps live a smooth and reliable life. Being single, its hard to live a life taking care of things both in and out of the house. Living with someone, work and load gets shared and distributed.

   This sure got some truth, sharing the work does makes it a pleasure and manageable. But to be able to do it efficiently and make it possible to reap the benefits, we need to have fine understanding and chemistry inbetween.

   Think in terms of life science, and obvious answer is - To have offspring and to provide them proper enviornment to grow and prosper. 

   This is so obvious, that there is no argument except that we are almost 7 billion soon and growing. :)

   Talk to a creationism, and he would fervently say - We are created like that, since the early time of Adam and Eve.

   Just one argument - No one dies of being alone, many lived solitary lives and were successful too. Though it brings another question - whats the definition of success? But we know across the world, religion and culture, we have those who chose to live life of a hermit - from St. Jerome to Peter the Hermit to Hindu, Buddhist and Sufi saints to Obi-Wan Kenobi of Star Wars.

   Talk to a socialist, and he probably might say - for the social and cultural upbringing. 

   I agree partially, but cant deny it completely, unless one is totally on the path to Himalayas. :)

  Finally a very philosophical one, from movie 'Shall We Dance' - We need a witness to our lives and to bear witness into another's life. 

  This does sounds way too philosophical to be true, but at very subtle level means a lot; its not just the expectations of getting help in ups and downs, sharing the burden, understanding and respect, propagating the species or maintaining the order of the God and society. It means that someone among the billion, like a peer, like a best pal is always there to be a part, to notice, to share and be a witness of every moment of life - good, bad, terrible, mundane. What else is a human life otherwise, but the star dust.

   I think, all the above mentioned points have some significance. At least in the current society that we are born into, getting married at some point of time is the way of life.

   So finally, accepting it just as the way of life, so many of my friends happily and readily are surrendering to the risky business of taking marriage vows, I think it will be beneficial to summarize the points one should take into consideration before taking the big leap.

(%) Love should never be, 'The Basis', for getting married, rather love is the result of a healthy relationship when other factors match and fits well.

(%) Find someone with whom you have common interests; living with someone for 20 more years, you need to know how you will spend your time together - travelling, eating, sleeping or alone in a corner. With each other, you can either grow together or grow apart.

(%) Make sure you feel calm, safe and trust in expressing your craziest thoughts and innermost feelings; that they do not hurt or offend the person. This sure is the most important one not be be ignored.

(%) There are two aspects of life - principles and practise. And so are two kind - those who live for their principles and those who ignore them anytime to achieve the desired practise. Differentiate them as Democratic and Republican, if you may; but you need to make sure which one you are confortable and are dealing with.

(%) And at the very end, try to find if there is anything that you wish and want to change or improve about the person. If so, either forget about it or forget this person. Dont fool yourself that you can change someone or the faults you see are not that important. Dont let the lust, desperation, immaturity, ignorance, pressure and low self-esteem blind you to any of these signs.

   And finally an African proverb, "Before you get married, keep both eyes open; afterwards, close one eye."

---

References -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358135/quotes

http://www.lifeworkcounseling.net/hello-world

http://www.aish.com/d/w/48955756.html

Tragedy of Commons Or Tragedy of Ignorance?

   Today I saw the special episode of one really nice reality series on Sony title 'Crime Patrol'. I like this series because it's based on real incidents and how they gets solved and mainly because it always ends with a message about what could have been done to avoid it.
   This special episode was based on the March 2011 Nagpur Murder case. I wont discuss the whole episode, I leave it for those interested to find on own; but one thing that started my think-tank was - What makes one to be just the mere spectators when they witness a crime happening? Is it because of fear, or awe, or uncertainty, or hesitation or just apathy.
   I saw a documentary once, criticizing New Yorkers for having such a busy life that makes them little concerned about anything happening around them that has no direct and obvious impact on them. In one incident, a woman was robbed and killed by stabbing in a parking lot. Later it was reported that several local resident admitted to have witnessed the crime, but didn't bothered to inform the cops or even help the lady; thinking that someone else might have already done whats needed. This is clear case of apathy, and perfect example of "Tragedy of Commons", an unfortunate case when no one takes any action in belief that others might have already done whats needed.
   But we cannot compare New York case with the case in Nagpur. A girl was stabbed 17 times, right in the daylight around 10 AM, in the main market with tons of crowd around. The killers stopped and washed their hands and threatened people around that they too would be murdered if they reported anything about them. When cops came, no one was ready to identify the killers, claiming that they have not seen them clearly. Interestingly and I feel real embarrassed to tell, no one around the gathered crowd was even ready to help the girl who was still breathing and was asking for help.

   Minutes later a passer-by saw the crowd, and saw the girl stabbed in back lying on the road and realized she needs to be taken to hospital immediately. The girl could not be saved, because even in the hospital, the doctors were not immediately available; and once they came, with all the needed legal formalities after which doctors are supposed to start operating, that all was way too late.
   Its easy to be a part of blame-game. In one sense, I am too not just reporting this incident and my thoughts; I also seems and feel like playing the same blame-game. And same was done after this incident. Students and people came on the streets to demonstrate against the day-light murder, girls and students protection and inability of police. 

   I don't think its just for Nagpur, it could be in our own neighbours, could be with our own loved ones. Whatever be the reason that Nagpur crowd acted like this; one thing that I believe caused such an apathy - we don't take even the simple everyday opportunity to help someone around.
   I don't know what else to be concluded with this incident, I end with these quotes -
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." by Tolstoy,
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." by Winston Churchill
"He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help." by Abraham Lincoln
   I decide, though I will not go out looking to find someone to help; but to keep my eyes and ears open, to find every and any opportunity on my way to help someone in need. And to keep the record I will update them here, whenever I get any such an opportunity.
   The purpose of 'Crime Patrol' series is to spread the awareness, I hope my this little article also helps the cause.

Spirit of Mumbai

   I am writing after long time, not because I have stopped thinking or writing; just was busy with other 'not so important' stuff. :) But I do have my writing, just needs some editing when I will get them down here. For now I have something that I thought to get down asap.

---

   Today I had experience of traveling in a Mumbai Local Train. Just for the record, its not the first time I was boarding Mumbai Local; once before I've been in Mumbai Local from Dadar to Mumbai Central station, about 7 years back when I was in Pune. I had to get back to Delhi urgently for some reason and only train I got confirmed was from Mumbai to Delhi. But this experience was definitely very different from my previous one. This experience was after knowing about the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train serial bombing when seven bomb-blasts were executed in just 11 minutes. This experience was after watching movies like "A Wednesday" and "Mumbai Meri Jaan". This experience was after watching the huge crowd on platforms and in trains, people crushing in like in a concentration camp and hanging out of the bogies (compartment) and not a single place for security checks.

   All the time I was in the train, scenes of movie "Mumbai Meri Jaan" was running in my mind; in which Nikhil Agarwal (played by R. Madhavan), an executive who got luckily saved from being a victim of Mumbai train bombings, made him too scared to take train again and later diagnosed with acute stress disorder. Also running in my mind were the dialogues of the movie "A Wednesday", where "A Common Man" (played by Naseeruddin Shah) talks about his fear of boarding train or to travel in a bus after the blasts. And I was wondering if I should be concerned as well; but interestingly I saw such a large crowd, none seemed to be bothered by any such thoughts. Probably because that's their everyday life.

   This brings another thought; why after the blasts (not just the Mumbai train serial blast, Mumbai has big list of them), we hear so many times in media, praising the spirit of Mumbai and Mumbaikars who soon are back to their everyday work, being not intimidated by any such terror attacks. Or probably the "Common Man" of "A Wednesday" is right - 'We common man just thanks the God that we are saved being victim, and soon forget everything'. And the media, do they intend to sympathize with unfortunate ones or to fend off the seriousness of the issue.

   Only two types can avail the luxury of being unconcerned about anything like this - those who think they are never going to be in any such place which can be target of terror attacks; and I can't think of any such place when we have 2001 Indian Parliament attack and Sept 2011 Delhi High Court attack. Second kind are those who are dead.

   Its so strange and unfortunate that even after all these attacks, there is hardly any security. I mean forget about any security, hardly I have seen any cops around the place. It reminds me of a real wise answer to question - why to put locks when you know that there is always someone who can break it. Or in IT terms, why to have security when we know that there is always someone out there who can break it. Well the answer is quite simple and obvious, security needs to be placed to get 'not so skilled ones' out. With no security, its becomes so easy for anyone to get along with their mischievous acts without any doubts of being caught.

   I am not sure what I can do about, or any of the guys who board these local trains everyday; but one thing I am sure now, the media claims of spirit of Mumbai or Mumbaikars is a pun played with us. When such a crowd traveling everyday in Mumbai Local trains, that clearly shows its role like the backbone of the city. Thousands if not millions travel everyday through these local trains. Even when there is an attack like these, they can't sit in their houses or stop doing their job. It may seem cynical, but it is not the much applauded 'courage' that defines the so-called 'spirit' of Mumbai. It is simply the 'survival instinct', which we all have. ^[1]

   Its not the spirit of Mumbaikars, its their only option.

---

References

1. Survival instinct, not spirit, defines Mumbai

Ode of Life

This is a creation of the poetic self of me. Influenced by Hindi Song - Tujhse Naraaz  Nahi Zindagi.

---

Not complaining, I am just surprised,
with you my Life.
I am troubled with simple question,
You bring along as strife.

Never envisaged to live you life,
I need to solve your puzzles.
For one desire of cheery smile,
There's lot of inflictions to cuddle.

Today that you endue me,
I am accepting it graciously.
Who knows about tomorrow, may be,
I will be craving for it breathlessly.

Can mind go beyond the capacity of the brain?

   Today finished the movie, 'Paa'; that I started 2 days back (it’s another of my ideas, to rarely finish a movie in one sitting). 'Paa' is based on a rare condition called Progeria, an extremely rare genetic condition (1 in 8 million birth); where aging like symptoms are marked in relatively very early age. It’s a genetic condition that occurs as new mutation and is not inherited. ^[1]

   As I was watching the movie, there was a question in my mind all the time. Auro, the character played by Big B, is a 13 year old kid suffering from Progeria. As in Progeria, though Auro is a kid, he looks like a very old guy, got glasses (though it’s not rare to find 13 year old having glass), is bald, has wrinkled skin and looks probably like a old Lilliputian guy. But interestingly, he behaves just like any 13 year old would do. He hangs out with guys of his age, he does things, plays and talks like a 13 year old. Does this means that though he is aging physically, his brain seems to be growing at normal pace. For once I thought maybe it’s another Bollywood flick, where you are not supposed to think too much and apply too much logic. But later I started looking about Progeria to find if it really does has no affect on the pace of brain growth.

   I found few information about Progeria, but none that answered my question. I found characteristic symptoms include extreme short stature, early loss of hair, wrinkled skin, head disproportionately large for face, prominent scalp veins, low body weight, high-pitched voice, etc. that starts to show from 18-24 months. However, individuals retain normal mental and motor development. ^{[2] [3]} This is interesting to know; but then does it means that - though rest of physical body is deteriorating fast; brain which is also a physical lump of mass, does not deteriorates.

   One interesting finding is related to the abnormal formation of lamin A protein caused by mutation in the gene known as lamin A (LMNA). The LMNA gene codes for two proteins, lamin A and lamin C, that are known to play a key role in stabilizing the inner membrane of the cell's nucleus. Abnormal formation of this protein seems to destabilize the cell's nuclear membrane in a way that may be particularly harmful to tissues routinely subjected to intense physical force, such as the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems. ^[3] But then does this explains all the symptoms of Progeria, or maybe there is more than this.

   This does sound a good explanation for the causes of Progeria, but it does not seems to answer my question - does physical deterioration of brain occurs and if it does, why cognitive development is normal? So, I started my own thinking machine and came to following argument -

   We are born with this physical mass sitting on top of our body, which grows in size as we grow old; but note that no new neurons are formed other than the ones we are born with. Interesting fact is, as a new born, we have the most number of neurons that we will ever have in our life. Because as we grow right as infant, many of the earlier neurons die. So a person with Progeria, should also have same brain capacity to start with as a normal human would. So Progeria person is not disadvantaged by not having grown enough neuronal count, because as said, even though he has Progeria, he is born with more neuronal count than he will have later in his life.

   This physical lump, even when taken off a dead person, kept in some laboratory, showing no signs of life, doing no function and no neuronal firing, is still a brain. But when its working, its produces what we will call certain behavior, which in itself is the product of our mind. In simpler terms, mind is the product of the processing going on in the brain, that gets manifested into certain actions that we perceive as behavior.

   A person with Progeria has a disorder where his physical body is deteriorating faster than that of a normal human being. So I assume that the physical brain might also be deteriorating and maybe at the same pace. But does that physical deterioration of brain has any affect on his mind, or eventually to his behavior. Maybe yes, but probably not too much. Our mind is created out of the physical connections, i.e. synapses between the neurons. Those synapses are different in different person, and formed mainly by a person's own experiences. And so does behavior changes, as the experiences change, as person grow old (not considering the hormonal changes).

   In Progeria, the brain may be deteriorating, but mind is still evolving. Even in a normal person, as he gets old, his brain is definitely deteriorating, causing things like forgetfulness and hallucinations. But his mind might still be evolving, probably the reason why old guys are considered the most wise ones.

---

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/
2. http://lifehugger.com/
3. http://www.genome.gov/

When to decide to let your heart decide

I saw a movie today, 'Paa'; really really nice movie, but I am not writing a review of the movie. What I want to discuss, is a thought, that came to my mind as I was watching a scene in the movie. Vidya Balan, one of the protagonist, is with her mother, and having discussion if she should give birth to the child, considering she is now out of her relationship, would be a single mother and still has three years of education left. In this scene, she is portrayed as sobbing and counting all the problems she will face, if she gave birth to this child. While in response to her each argument, her mother just kept on asking - if she really wants this child or not. Finally her mother gave example of her own, how she raised Vidya when her father died while she was just two years old, and then her mother didn't even had any help, Vidya at least has her mother along to help her.

---

   Sometimes when its really hard to take a decision and choose between the options; its easier and often better to look inside for what we really want, rather than looking outside to see all the problems associated. Doing this way, it definitely makes it easier to take a decision, and channels all our thoughts towards how it can be achieved, rather than concentrating just over its problems. And of course one would rather be more happier to strive for and would put more efforts for something that person really wants from depths of heart.

   However there is a limitation to this principle, following one's heart sure make it easier to take a decision among choices as I said before, but its not always recommended in every situation. It might only be beneficial to follow, when all the options have same weight, or I must say are equally tempting; so much so that it becomes really difficult to decide which one to choose. However, for most of the important decisions, its not recommended to just follow one's heart, rather all aspects of the options needs to be given consideration.

   And final note, for decision that concerns those we love and care, just follow the heart, considering their wishes, for decisions that comes under the category of 'KFP', "Kee Farak Painda (hai)", meaning "What difference does it make". Whereas when deciding something that would come under the category of 'BFP', "Bahut Farak Painda (hai)", meaning "It does make lot of difference", even if it makes some of the loved ones gloomy for a while, just follow the mind, consider the logic, what it thinks is more feasible and rational. If the decision taken is well thought over, even if it makes few gloomy for a while, chances are they would appreciate and be thankful for it, in the end of the day.

Patriotic or Matriotic

  
Patriotic ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} is a masculine word, comes from the same Greek root as of the word paternal, "pater" meaning "of one's father".
   We Indians regard our country not as father, rather as a mother nation. In our National Song, when we say
"Vande Mataram" ^[5], it literally means - "I bow to thee, Mother Nation".
   Then is it right to use the word patriotic, or rather we should have a new word, lets say Matriotic, from the root "mater" meaning "of one's mother".
Any thoughts?

PS: Please respond to poll and comment.

Patriotic or Matriotic?

If time travel in past be possible, would we be able to make changes?

Thoughts on Episode 3 - "Is Time Travel Possible" of Season 1 of "Through the Wormhole" by Morgan Freeman.

---

   If there be a time travel machine through which we did travel in past, would we be able to grab things or to say make any changes to them?

   In my view, traveling in past is not the same thing as being part of it. Whenever we see in far distances in universe we actually are traveling in past. When we see Andromeda Galaxy, nearest spiral galaxy to Milky way, 2.5 million light years away from Earth, we are actually looking Andromeda as it was 2.5 million years in past.

   To explain this, lets consider this case - It takes light 8 min from Sun to get to our eyes on Earth. That means every time we see Sun, its 8 min in past. And if Sun disappears now, we will realize that 8 min later. Lets say, we design a robotic arm that can extend from earth all the way to Sun in just 1 min and tries to grab it. If at this very moment the Sun disappears, but because of time it takes for light to travel the distance, we will still see the Sun. Now if we try to grab the sun at this very moment, when our fictional robotic hand would reach near the Sun, we wont feel like it grabbed onto anything. But when we look towards the Sun, we will still be able to see it. Not just for moment, but for whole 8 min we would see the Sun, but wont be able to grab onto anything.

   I think, even if we did travel in past, it would be like being in a Virtual Reality simulation, a perfect Virtual Reality, where you cannot infer artificial as not being real, but when you would try to grab something, you wont be able to get a hold of it.

Four levels of wisdom

   In my view, there are four levels of wisdom - knowledge, understanding, acceptance and application/adaptation.

   The first level is of course very important, so considered the very root - knowledge or learning. One start learning right since they are born, and this continues through out life. Of course the ability and rate of learning new things may slow down as one grows old; but to say one is alive means he is learning new things every day, every moment. Knowledge is not just the complicated things that one read or listen, but also the constant chatter going on every moment in the mind allowing to learn about oneself better and learn about others and things around.

   Second level in my view is the most important, and also the most neglected. Unfortunate to say, its not just ignored by individuals, but parents, education institutions and teachers themselves sometimes discourage a child to follow through this level; so I got to say a lot about it. Understanding doesn't mean just to remember things read, heard or learned; but to truly appreciate it, by understanding its every aspect, like its nature, behavior, relations, etc. Since childhood, one is often encouraged to take the words as told, read or taught; and discouraged to think otherwise. If only they know, if Nicolaus Copernicus didn't had understanding against the knowledge been taught those days, we probably still would have considered Earth as the center of the Universe.

   To understand something, the very first step should be to leave some place for denial. Then think in every other way for its validity; think contrary, contradict, argument, experiment, test and validate; and then only one can truly understand and appreciate that knowledge. Its not to say that we have to verify every piece of knowledge, but to know how it can be verified, gives a deeper understanding of it.

   Ignoring this level of wisdom is detrimental, and often dangerous. Problem with fundamentalist and fanatics is that they jump from the first level of wisdom to further levels, skipping this very important level. Quite often they are encouraged to skip this level with arguments like, its sin to question and doubt the veracity and validity of religious symbols, traditions and stories.

   Some people who ignore this level, are the kind, who constantly seek for any knowledge irrespective of its source. And very often, they are the ones who keep changing their views and position. Whereas, those who are persistent and unwavering in their views, are the ones who experiment with this wisdom level, and so they truly appreciate and cling to their knowledge and understanding.

   Third level, that's acceptance, doesn't always means to consent, rather also to reject, if its realized in the understanding level that knowledge is not true. Whatever be the acceptance type, agreement or rejection, it should be firm. And as said before, more we spend time in the second level of wisdom, strong and firm becomes its acceptance.

   Fourth and the last level, application or adaptation, often is the hard one and requires commitment, diligence and perseverance. Quite often there are wisdom that are known, understood, accepted yet failed to be applied, e.g. ill effects of anger. Wisdom that fails at this level are often related to addiction, emotion, compulsion, obligation, etc.

My understanding of talk by Daniel Kahneman - "The riddle of experience vs. memory"

   I would like to discuss a talk titled - "The riddle of experience vs. memory" by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, and later my comments on it.

   Daniel says that layman and even scholars seems to be confused with what happiness really means. One big reason is because of its complexity, we can't restrict it to one particular meaning. Another reason is the confusion between experience and memory, that is to say being happy in your life vs being happy with your life. For example, someone who had really good 20 minutes listening to glorious symphony, but in the end one dreadful screeching sound; told that his whole experience was ruined by it. But it did not ruined his experience actually; what it ruined is his memory of the experience. These are two completely different entities - one being "experiencing self" that lives and knows the present, and other being "remembering self" that keeps stories and scores of events in past.

   A study done in 90's, on two patients going with painful experience of colonoscopy, shows this difference. They were asked to report their experience every 60 second. As we see in chart, clearly patient B had longer procedure and so seems to have suffered more than patient A. But patient A, when asked, had much worst memory than patient B, because it ended when pain was at its peak. If for same patient A, colonoscopy is done a little longer to make a better ending, that sure will worsen the experiencing self, but makes remembering self a lot better.

Stories we make up in our mind as memories, are made of changes, significant moments and most dominated and important is the ending.

   Experiencing self is continuous, but most of the moments in experiencing self are completely ignored and are lost in remembering self. For experiencing self a two week vacation, where second week is as good as first one, would be twice as good as one week vacation; but for remembering self there is barely any difference since no new memories are being added.

   Decisions we take in life are guided by the remembering self, cause we don't make choices based on experiences but based on memories of our experiences. A very nice thought experiment - A vacation, where in end all your pictures will be destroyed and your brain memories would be erased; would you choose that vacation? If answer is 'no', then there is a conflict between your two 'selves'.

   So these two notions give answer to - "how happy a person is living their life" vs "how satisfies the person is with their life".

   Another reason for complexity of the concept of happiness is because of differences in opinions of the person's own memories. So in opinion of a person living in Ohio, those living in California must be really happy, because lets say they are thinking in terms of contrast of climate. But when someone from Ohio migrates to California, their experiencing self won't have any difference because climate is not that much important for experiencing self. But they sure would think they are happier and satisfied because that will remind them of the horrible weather of Ohio.

---

   This is one awesome piece of talk and I truly admire Daniel Kahneman; but I have one argument against his idea of what makes the experiencing self and remembering self. I argue that ending is not always as important for making the remembering self; as a bad ending has bigger impact and creates bigger difference between the experiencing self and remembering self as compared to a ending with relatively good experience.

   In example of a person in concert, having good 20 minutes but that ended with rather bad creepy sound, ruining his whole experience. Here Daniel found a gap between experiencing self and remembering self, and seems remembering self is completely constructed by the way the story ends, explaining the significance of ending in construction of a story of remembering self.

   I argue that, if the person in the concert instead had a rather boring 20 minutes, but in end, really good final moments, it won't make his remembering self better to same degree, as it ruined it in above example. In this case, person did had rather bad experience for a length of time, but ends rather in a better way. Ending in this case wont be of that much significance, and even this good ending wont change his ruined remembering self, making it any better.

   The reason I give, individual differences set aside, as very human nature we cling easily to negative than to positive. And this also explains the example by Daniel, why remembering self did not considered the good 20 minutes of music, but stuck to one moment of bad creepy sound.

Any thoughts?

Consiousness - as I understood.

   Imagine designing a software that can scan and identify an object, its name, its color. Lets say further, once identified the color, it can even find many other objects of same color, and relate to events that has significance in terms of that color, etc. But given this behavior, would we conclude that program is conscious of that color. Whats missing in it?
   We associate emotions with everything, with color - with things of that color, or with events in our experience that relate to that color. Is this experience of emotion or our feeling, the very essence of what we term as consciousness?
   As is said, the brain is constant predicting machine. We constantly make predictions about ourselves, others around us and our surrounding. When we find someone who do not acts as we would have predicated, based on what degree it violates our expectation according to our experiences and the context; we may consider it as inebriated, stupefied, absurd or magical.
   How is consciousness effected of someone who is inebriated? When someone is highly drunk, he doesn't seems to have control over his actions and in extreme case - later has no recollection of his own actions. This seems to show that alcohol affects first our senses, how we perceive our environment. Later it seems to starts affecting brain's memory centers. Does this means that our experience of senses, automatically creates an false illusion, that we consider as being conscious. And when drunk and with no control over our own senses, we start feeling we are losing our consciousness.
   Probably consciousness is nothing but an illusion. Consider the case of patients with phantom limb, they can be said being conscious of an arm that is no more there. Or take an example of patient with scotoma or blind spot (caused due to damage to the primary part of visual cortex called V1, which is an area that has cells laid out in a map of the visual world, and so damage to it creates a blind area). They are conscious that there is no blind spot and they have perception of able to see everything, till they are pointed to things they missed.