TED Community » Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

Comments

• TEDCred score: +38.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Is this adult life?

  9 hours ago: Oh the professors are same everywhere I guess ! Because something like what you describe happen during the 'interrogation' (a student's term for the viva voce). If one chooses theory of structure, one may not be asked about equilibrium of a space frame in a given force field, but say how collar bones and a part of spine of a human body act to hold the weight of the head.
  Nice to know that the basic thinking process is examined everywhere not merely the theories.

• A comment on Conversation: Why does E=mc²?

  11 hours ago: E = mc^2 does not imply that mass may be converted to energy but it allows for matter to be converted to energy. Mass and matter are not exactly the same. E = mc^2 essentially states that all energy is mass and vice verse.

• A comment on Conversation: Is equality feasible and is it worth achieving? Subquestion: By your definitions, is equality synonymous with fairness?

  11 hours ago: No to both. I think you are mistaking equitable as equal.

• A reply on Conversation: Is this adult life?

  11 hours ago: It is a standard practice here for almost any professional degree. I remember with fondness that there were many with more damaged ego than I had :) One guy when asked about the ingredients of concrete mentioned everything but forgot water ! Funniest thing of it all is that we were given the chance of choosing our subjects of strength (So Mr. Mukhopadhyay what is your area of strength?) and get grounded in the process. I chose advanced surveying and theory of structure and almost repented :)
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Is this adult life?

  17 hours ago: I think the message like that of DFW, the true essence of it (the video and the speech) is what the young ones should hear more than the idea that they are too young to handle the essence of it.
  When I graduated as an engineer, I had to take what is called a grand viva voce. I was jubilant, confident, eager young man rearing to go and here was five of the famed professors who would grind me for an hour asking questions, doubting my answers, often frowning upon my enthusiasm. I was appalled by the very process of it. Why would they do that to me?
  It's only much later I knew why. They wanted to tell me from within the system that what I learnt at the classes was nothing compared to what had been intended to. Real learning happens in life outside of colleges.
  Just like DFW said : Just simple awareness will do.

• A reply on Conversation: Is it time for philosophy to do away with metaphysics?

  21 hours ago: Have peace. It's a brief sojourn. It is most important to imagine a good purpose for it and act accordingly. Have you not seen children pretend play?

• A comment on Conversation: What makes you care?

  21 hours ago: I care because I have feelings. I know about detachment and nirvana. But I am too entangled with life, too silly not to trust once more, too connected with the small things of life. I have to be an ascetic not to care and I am not one.
  Perhaps there is no salvation in the end for me, but this waking present is so wonderful.
  
  Edit: The story itself.

• A reply on Conversation: What makes a good judge?

  21 hours ago: Thanks. My uncle was a simple village farmer who till the day of his death never used chemical fertilizer. My cousins, who are younger and cleverer than him will use it to increase 'production'.
  If you include judgement (the one with an 'e' as Brits do), both my uncle and my cousins seem to have exercised theirs when it comes to interacting with nature and make livelihood. The judgements are different and suitable for them.
  In that way, who is a good judge then? I think one who judges the least to make meaning of life, is a good one.
  Given the liberty, I shall prefer not to judge at all. :)
  Cheers!!

• A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

  21 hours ago: Ben,
  Do we really see infra-red and x-ray and radio waves? Or we see rendered images (of infra-red, x-ray or radio waves) in the visible range of em waves that human eyes can see? I mean do we see sonics exactly the way bats do?
  Our sensory perceptions are results of biological evolution and that way I agree with Gord that we are limited. Any technological intervention, like the goggles you re talking of or even an Electron Microscope are interfaces between our limited range of sensory perceptions and the full range of waves and frequencies (both in lights and sonics) that are there.
  We have been using automobiles to cover distances at impressive speeds for long, does that mean it is humanly possible to move at those speeds?
  Just look at the full range of frequencies of electromagnetic waves to see what a pitifully narrow range is relevant for sight. Same goes with sonics. In the scale of temperatures, human sensations works within a range of 6 to 40 degrees Celsius. A human being cannot tell the difference between -5 and -15 degrees Celsius just by feeling.
  If reality is experiential, it cannot be but limited too.
  We know light travels at a speed of 1.86,000 miles per second. Do we realize just how fast is that? Experientially?

• A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

  22 hours ago: G. Srinivasan,
  You claim that physics is defunct. If you believe that way, why do you use the concept of harmonics at all? Is it not that harmonics is a concept developed in classical mechanics?
  I have checked your website. It is too detailed to have a considered opinion on it, but if it so to propound something fundamentally different from how science works, it should develop, expound and resolve questions completely independent of standard science.