TED Community » Thomas Niikura

Comments

• TEDCred score: +2.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Talk: Wayne McGregor: A choreographer’s creative process in real time

  Sep 17 2012: I see a lot of people here saying how they 'don't get it.'
  (This is expressed by reference to some expression of lack of appreciation).
  
  I can only say one thing, and that is 'accept'.
  Life requires wisdom, experience, and awakening.
  Open your eyes people...
  TED is only an instrument, a medium that may or may not help you awaken, but you are the one that must do the awakening process.
  There are many individuals awaken here in TED.
  Here's a classic example of an individual that is awake: Elizabeth Lindsey. She spoke right here in TED. Re-watch her talk and see if you can learn something from her. Then, revisit this video.
  
  c:

• A reply on Talk: Jill Tarter's call to join the SETI search

  Mar 12 2012: I'm not sure about the details of the 'strong argument' you've shared with us above...but i would like to ask a few questions, in case you'd like to respond.
  What exactly is the "difference" between 'plants', 'humans', 'rodents' and 'amoebas' besides whatever definition that 'humans' (or 'plants' or 'amoebas') gives to themselves and the others? According to 'plants', for example, 'humans' and 'rodents' etc. are just stuff that moves around, much like 'wind', 'bees', and 'sun'. mutatis mutandis for every 'thing' that humans have 'defined'.
  Also, what do you mean by "Once" (from ...why did life only arise once on earth")? does this mean "in-this-perimeter"? "temporally-near-this-time"? "in-these-dimensions-that-humans-can-detect"?
  it seems that the definitions of "all ... life has the same source" and "why did life only arise once on earth" is begging the question (even without the word "earthly" in "all earthly life has the same source")
  also, almost every sentence is circular... e.g. "and yet, it only happened once, here, and never again."... you KNOW that it will NEVER EVER EVER happen ever again, anywhere? ...interesting fact.
  "a lot less common"? ...i can't even fathom what this phrase is attempting to convey.
  
  p.s. i'm not trying to be mean, anyone, even yourself mr. holmer, should be aware of the rather lack of cogency in the 'strong argument' at least in the way you had summarized above.

• A reply on Talk: Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

  Feb 13 2012: I seem to be equivocating the word 'believe' in our conversations. To allow SOME disambiguation, i'll use the term 'blind-belief' and 'belief' where the prior is the form more akin to 'faith' and the latter meaning more or less 'to-have-some-evidence-to-posit-the-understanding-of". When you said "i believe in evolution" you're using the latter form of 'believe' while the original post meant more or less 'faith'.
  If this is wrong i'll just stop lol =b.
  but anyways, i'll address this particular post.
  
  I am going to criticize your view towards 'believing in evolution' (though this reply will be similar to the prior one, unfortunately for you).
  Once geocentric view was FACT. and every logical evidence led to this FACT. and no 'faith' was necessary; everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe, just in the way you believe darwin. This allowed us to logically reason almost all of reality, why earth was center, then water, then air, then fire.
  Once universe was thought to be infinite and consistent, and all logical facts and evidence led to suggest this.
  Once Geometry was thought to exist only in space.
  All of these FACTS with EVIDENCE are not really facts at all when we look back on them today. all the evidence are not really evidence at all when we look back today either. They were both laden with bias, belief, and faith so that all the evidence suggested the so called 'truth'.
  Whether one believes in 'evolution' or one believes in 'god'... they are both the same level of blindness to me. I see no reason to be committed to one more than the other... (btw, darwin's theory of evolution has many many philosophical challenges, though many people today believe in it without any questioning)
  
  I don't know if this post was constructive at all... but if you would entertain this, feel free to comment back, perhaps the succeeding comments will be constructive in conveying what we both thing so that we can both arrive at a single conclusion.
• +1

  A comment on Talk: Malcolm Gladwell: The strange tale of the Norden bombsight

  Jan 19 2012: to all that are confused about the atomic bomb on japan...
  1. what he is stating in the video is the relationship between the norden bombsight and its use.
  2. what many is stating in the comments is how the bomb resulted in less deaths (presumably) than had the atomic bomb not being dropped.
  These two are completely different concepts and should not be mixed up.
  Norden would be disappointed because his technology was used in the use of the atomic bomb, which killed a lot of people, which is what was exactly what he didn't want. The second irony was that it was used when it mattered the least.
  The idea that the use of the bomb will result in less death than had the bomb not been dropped is another issue that has nothing to do with Norden or this talk. norden's technology has nothing to do with the effects of the bomb, nor the decision to drop the bomb; the people that would of died would of died, with or without the bombsight.
  
  also, as hinted in the video, the POINT of the story has little to do with the bombsight at all, it is the tension between creator and their intention. the intended purpose, and its actual use. the pure beauty of creativity and innovation versus the corruption and perversion of this very spirit. it is how we wish technology to perform, and how they actually perform.
  
  there is more to this talk than mere factual pollution.
• +2

  A reply on Talk: Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

  Jan 19 2012: Being logical may be important, and claiming that religion makes one blindly believe may be true to some extent, however, being logical isn't the most important (though many may disagree), and religion is not all about blind belief (and if one thinks that is all there is to religion, perhaps watching the TED video by Alain de Botton titled Atheism 2.0 might help illuminate this point).
  
  note: one must always start by blindly believing in things to start something; e.g. we need to assume 'atoms' exists to do chemistry. we need to assume 'humans' exist to do ethics. we need to assume that 'things' exist to do physics. however, little did these atheists/logical people know that 'atoms' don't actually exist in the way we thought they do, they're perhaps strings of energy. what is the definition of 'humans'? (if we knew this abortion would not be of any issue, or euthanasia, and so on). do 'things' exist? what does it mean for something to 'exist'? how can things be THE thing? (do we look to haecceity? do we look to perdurantism? 5 dimensionalism?) as you can see, even those who think are 'logical' cannot fail to be illogical, sc. have assumptions.
  So then if this is true...why are we so hard on blind belief? all humans have some blind belief as i have exemplified above, it is just that religion is more open about it, rather than those who claim to be logical, to claim to teach only logically, and ridicule blind belief...who is truly ignorant? again, being logical gives us 'bits of information', while religion gives us morality...whether this is via blind belief or not is rather a mundane point.
  
  have i addressed your comment accurately?

• A reply on Talk: Cynthia Kenyon: Experiments that hint of longer lives

  Nov 19 2011: what is "life", that you speak of, which has the capacity to "end" (aka "death")?
  
  all i see are atoms (in life) and more atoms (in a non-life).
  
  would you call me crazy if i held a cup of water and said it was "alive" and then, emptied the cup, point to the puddle on the floor and said it was "dead"? of course you wouldn't, unless you either call yourself crazy, or know you are a hypocrite =]
• +2

  A reply on Talk: Joan Halifax: Compassion and the true meaning of empathy

  Sep 10 2011: Understanding the self allows understanding in others. Also, through understanding others one understands the self.
  Also note that even if you did "really know yourself", this has little to do with whether you have "real compassion" or not, though this process may aid in the achievement of compassion. On the same logic, one can have compassion whether they know the self, or not.
  "Real" compassion, I know not what such thing is.
  
  Without a strong back, you will merely be dead weight supported only by others. Strong back allows you the privilege of helping others. So yes, you do need a strong back, or you are useless, and only a hindrance to your loved ones.
  Without a weak front no one can ever come near you; in a sense, the sense of fragility is what allows us to depend on each other, and is the core of this bond. If we were completely self sustaining, strong, and solid, you will make others feel like THEY are the hindrance to you.
  It is the strong back to not make yourself a hindrance to others and gives you the opportunity to express compassion, and the weak front to not make others feel like they are hindrance to you, so you can actually express compassion, and the compassion will be accepted, which promote a strong, synergetic relationship.

• A reply on Talk: Joan Halifax: Compassion and the true meaning of empathy

  Sep 10 2011: One must realize that amrica, as well as many other first world countries such as japan, china, france, etc. are also paternalistic.
  
  To have concerns such as yours shows how young your mind is to the history of humanity, and must harbor the capacity to understand why her emphasis is made as such.To have concerns such as yours shows how her speech is already in motion, as well.
  
  Nonetheless, one must understand the moral and principle of this talk, rather than the specific technical mode of transduction. You can do this, right?
• +4

  A reply on Talk: Svante Pääbo: DNA clues to our inner neanderthal

  Sep 1 2011: "none of us are humans"..."humans" you say?
  "destroying the world"? are you suggesting the way the world was, before we began "destroying it", is the way the world is meant to be? (water came about from earth, it can be said that it is part of earth. plants came about from earth, thus is part of earth. animals came about from earth, thus is part of earth. water "destroys" rocks, eroding them; thus destroys earth. plants tear through earth with their roots, thus "destroying" earth. animals alter earth, drink water, and thus, "destroys" earth...."Destroys" is a synonym for "changes"; earth is merely changing. To say that we won't destroy earth, to think that we can somehow NOT destroy earth might translate to "keep earth just the way it is"; which is "to prevent earth from changing"... all temporal, spacial things that EXISTS necessarily must change. Hubris, had we believe we, mere animals, harbor the capacity to prevent earth, or anyTHING, to prevent change?)

• A reply on Talk: Alice Dreger: Is anatomy destiny?

  Jul 3 2011: just as a disclaimer, bryan, i agree with everything you're saying =]. i just wanted to point out a prime example of where "rational communication is compromised".