META - 美國真理部 case study

圖一

美國真理部呢兩年好興旺。

不過我哋遠在香港，身邊又唔太多原教指主義反疫苗撚，好少見到真理部嘅威能。

咁啱見到某位唔多熟（但我好尊敬）嘅朋友出 post，咁啱佢係美國嘅反疫苗撚，咁啱佢個 post 俾臉書標咗係 #FAKENEWS，機會難逢梗係走去望下個遊戲點玩。

 

圖二

其實打唔打疫苗，我自己睇完啲資料，參考埋有資格評論嘅專業朋友意見之後，都係覺得⋯ 好難講。不過既然打唔係一定衰過唔打，咪做順民打咗先囉。

個重點唔係打定唔打。我就尊重大家身體自主嘅。我有興趣嘅主要係真理部嘅遊戲規則。

啲潛規則就唔使討論啦，好明顯支持打疫苗嘅論述錯少少都冇壞（例如，一開始大把人9up話打疫苗會防止傳播，之後先「爆大鑊」話其實開始嗰陣冇試過預防功能。事實上打咗應該點都有少少作用嘅，不過未有科學證據嗰陣，你咪 fake news 囉。不過真理部梗係唔會標你 fake news。） 問題係，真理部「表面上」嘅指控本身 make 唔 make sense 先？

（圖一）所示，用戶一開始睇到嘅係「False information」。重點係「False」。假。 嗱「真」同「假」其實有好多唔同層次，例如臉書用呢個 fact check 網站就有分以下幾個程度：

圖三

個 fact check 網站話啲內容 "misleading"，臉書真理部就話佢係 "False"。究竟 "Misleading" 係咪 "False" 呢？我自己就覺得將兩者當一樣係幾 misleading 嘅。睇返佢啲仔細指控，咩 spike proteins 會唔會傷害血管，基本上就係話啲內容冇足夠嘅科學證據。

「冇足夠嘅科學證據」係咪「假」呢？睇返美國權威部門對口罩嘅立場就知道，一開始佢哋認為口罩冇用，係因為「冇足夠嘅科學證據」。但當佢哋搜集到更嘅證據之後，忽然之間口罩就好有用喇。所以「冇足夠嘅科學證據」其實係「假，除非之後發現唔係」。

作為美國真理部，將「冇足夠嘅科學證據」直接標示為「假」，一個唔好彩之後呢啲嘢後發現唔假嗰陣，咁曾經被真理部個標籤呃咗以為呢啲嘢係「假」嘅人，咪全部中晒伏？都唔好講啲反疫苗撚又多個理由話係真理部強權壓迫。（謎之聲：不過唔緊要，到時 bam9 晒佢哋就得）

不過 anyway，美國係民主自由國度，唔似得我國咁鍾意 bam9 人，所以其實條 link 係 click 得入去嘅。

一 click 入去 ⋯⋯ 嘩！ 

篇文根本唔係講啲 spike proteins 會點點點⋯⋯ 而係「你唔好彩打咗疫苗嘅話，應該食啲咩補品排毒」呀！

咁個 fact check 網站話「spike proteins 冇足夠科學證據」係講緊咩呢？原來係講緊另一個網站、另一篇文，唔係原本臉書見到嗰篇。只不過兩篇文都提過類似嘅嘢，所以就撈埋一齊講咋！

我個人認為「食補品排疫苗毒」更加似 fake news 囉。本身啲 spike proteins 造成傷害嘅證據都唔係好夠（我唔敢講話冇，但明顯唔係多到好明顯），又點可能搵到十幾廿樣針對spike protein嘅補品去排毒呢？呢個先至係問題所在嘛！（其實篇文嘅內容就大概係講：你食多啲有益嘅嘢就啱㗎喇，斷估會令你好啲。）

不過呢啲健康食品嘢唔係反疫苗吖嘛。「打完針食啲乜」暫時唔係真理部管轄範圍，所以 fake 成點都唔理你。問題只係你順口講過打疫苗會有副作用，所以先標 False Information。

當然， 99% 嘅用戶唔係痴線佬，唔會見到一個 fake news link 就走入去查大半小時資料再寫篇包膠出嚟。佢哋只會見到「標題 => False Information」然後留下印像：哦，原來《標題》係假嘅。

貼多一次真理部嘅 UI 出嚟。你係咪完全諗唔到原來click入去會見到咁多神奇嘢呢！

圖一

個《標題》係真係假，同文章被指控 fake 嘅內容係可以完全無關係嘅。不過99%隨便碌facebook嘅用戶就會記得：哦原來《標題》係假嘅。

真理部嘅問題唔單只係指鹿為馬。有時啲嘢，你（真理部）真心以為係假，搞一大輪之後發現原來係真，咁你一係承認「真理部」未必係「真理」嘅絕對權威，一係夾硬死撐話自己冇錯。講真，諗「真理部」呢個概念出嚟嗰啲人 （按：從來都係西方民主社會嘅人諗出嚟㗎） 都真係幾 on9。

我國直接刪 post 㗎啦，唔使解釋係真係假 （其實真嘅更加要刪呀）。擺明車馬話係「政治理由」，咁就一定唔會「錯」。

中六中七

中學最後一兩年，太過囂張。

明知係燃燒生命嘅決定，仍然去做。

或者人唔挑戰自己嘅極限唔會心息。

條路自己揀，就係搞到有少少 PTSD。

果然係人不 on9 枉少年。

(well, 起碼只係傷害自己精神，唔係直接傷害物理身體....)

Grana Padano Oatmeal

 This looks like oatmeal, but probably more than 50% of the dry weight is Grana Padano (bought at discount and frozen for a couple months!).

Basically just make oatmeal and slowly stir in the cheese. I added some milk and olive oil as well. Salt and pepper to taste. Dash of Soy Sauce for fusion.

PS: also stirred in an egg for texture (yes, kind of oatmeal carbonara)

Intentions

Either intentions exist, in which case they are inferred from actions.

Or they don't, and we're just imagining them.

So the question of "why did the chicken cross the road?" really is "because it wanted to". Or more comprehensively, "because it wanted to, and preferred all the (expected?) consequences of doing so".

We can highlight one of the consequences to form a narrative, but the truth is more boring than that.

先見

唔知其他人有冇嗰種「一遇到命運注定嘅嘢，就會忘記其他嘅一切去追逐」嘅感覺。

佢哋係「睇」唔到，定係決定無視？

而家人生最重要嘅嘢都係當日「見到」某個未來，然後出盡全力爭取返嚟。

但我已經好幾年冇試過清楚咁「見到」自己應該行啲咩路。

又或者其實我都係一早就「見到」，只不過係唔敢去做。

投資

最近無聊起嚟拎起 Ben Graham 本 The Intelligent Investor 嚟睇。

Ben Graham 係專業嘅資產管理者，佢話用佢啲方法投資，可能會比市場贏多幾個巴仙，講緊嘅係好大筆數入面好穩陣咁比一般人賺多啲，當然係好勁。

但，我望返自己，甚至大部份人，其實每年多幾個巴仙係咪真係差咁遠？用返傳統財金佬𠱁人買基金嘅講法就係，啲錢越滾越大(compound interest)，十幾廿年後就會好大分別。呢個固然係事實，但相對於人生大部份嘅決定，呢啲單位數%嘅影響，好多時係微乎其微。

人生最大嘅投資，通常都唔係錢，而係生活裡面佔最重要比重嘅嘢。細個就係學業、朋友；大個就加埋事業、婚姻。點解我感慨到要開個 post 特登講，就係啲金融才俊九牛二虎之力又 diversification 又剩，先賺多幾%，但正常人生活最重要嘅決定，幾乎全部都係(被迫) all-in 嘅。學業 all-in，最多咪讀個 double degree？工通常都係每份工做幾年以上，唔會同時做幾份；婚姻更加係冇得唔 all-in，預計綑綁成世。（香港人多樣嘢：買樓都係成副身家 all-in）以上幾樣嘢，每一樣都影響緊你人生包括身家總值唔只幾個%，但好少人會純粹用金錢回報計數。冇夢想同條咸魚冇分別？係都要講咩個人興趣呀、愛情呀，懶係冇咁俗氣。

對於大部份人嚟講，你揀嘅工作、行業、公司、老闆， 對你嘅收入嘅影響先至係最大；而你揀嘅伴侶同朋友，對你嘅支出嘅影響先至係最大。如果你連最大嗰條數都唔係咁 care 金錢回報率，例如娶個老婆返嚟有 30% 機會廿年後身家俾佢分走咗一半，或者拒絕咗個二世祖追求同個窮撚結婚 opportunity cost 三千萬，咁結婚之後你走去買個儲蓄保險，佢同你講最高年回報有 3% 定 4% 其實係咪真係咁大分別呢？

所以某程度上，Ben Graham 徒弟 Warren Buffet 推薦嘅投資方法可能更加切合普羅大眾嘅實況：搵啲值得投資嘅嘢，all in，長揸。而「值得投資」嘅嘢唔多，一世人可能得幾次機會，要好好珍惜。

Beliefs

Given a subjective interpretation of reality, can we show that some beliefs cannot be identified as encodings in physical reality?

My gut feeling is that the answer is likely yes, and even if the answer is not as interesting as I thought it would be, the process of exploring it would yield interesting results.

For example, if we had a machine that, somehow purported to accurately decipher your brain neurons and tell you what you (objectively) believed, what would it be like?

Perhaps there would be instances in which the machine would claim you believed in X, but you actually believe you honestly believe in Y. Assuming the machine is really reliable due to some physical law or whatever... is this possible to have a belief that isn't encoded in physical reality, something that the machine cannot detect or will contradict you? This might be a parallel with free will vs determinism, in the objective interpretation of reality the two might not be that different, but in the subjective interpretation, beliefs seem to have more power than mere "will".

Perhaps it is useful to imagine something slightly different -- a machine that can tell you what color you perceive. It doesn't do so by just asserting the colors it displays on the screen, but rather, in addition to displaying colors on the screen, probe into your brain to try to figure out which neurons are firing. Is it possible for such a machine to misreport what you perceive?

This goes back to the question of whether we perceive the color "red" in the same way. While most people (those without a colorblind situation) can usually agree whether an object is objectively "red", there seems to be nothing physical that ensures one's perception of "red" is the same as another's. What if there is the same thing for belief?

Another funny thing about the a "belief probe" is that it might actually be able to probe the brain for "beliefs", and might actually be accurate in doing so for the overall person. But if it were only one belief, it might still not be able to accurately probe the subjective beliefs within a person. What if multiple "consciousnesses", with conflicting beliefs, were within the same physical body (as in the case of multiple personality disorders).  The "tsundere" factor might also come into play, where while the probe might accurately predict behaviors, the subjective consciousness might dismiss it as superficial, because thoughts might not necessarily translate to concrete action. Is it necessary for a mere subjective feeling to always have a physical basis?

There is also the issue of meta beliefs, i.e. "belief of belief of belief ... ". Do they complicate the picture? I don't know.

It feels as if sorting this out properly could make way for identifying room that metaphysical entities might theoretically reside, if they exist.