jabdakhata

In an artificial neural network, every neuron chosen has certain parameters or weights and biases associated with every feature. So decision making is basically dependent on the weights that we assign to the different parameters and the assigned biases. The weights are adjusted as we move through the back propagation so that the loss is minimized. This is also the way in which a rational choice happens. All our decisions are based on certain evaluation criteria or factors. We already have inherent biases that influence that decision making process. The weights are adjusted according to our perception or analysis of the situation often driven by our ego or emotional conditions. We rationalize our decisions. So in effect there is nothing black and white. Its all shades of gray that we operate with. The world is a complex maze of choices that operate within the realms of gray of varying degree. In choosing our partners to choosing the political party to choosing the religion or for that

There are certain views that are floating around in intellectual circles that Rabindranath Tagore was an anti Nationalist. I am not sure why Nationalism has become a dirty word with some people, esp. with the liberal elites and the media. Nationalism, which conveys deep sense of pride and respect for one's own country is now synonymous with war mongering, chest thumping and positioning one's own country as greater than the others. No harm in taking that position, in fact the dictionary meanings also convey the similar impression. The dictionary definition of Nationalism as per  https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/ nationalism  - begins with "Loyalty and Devotion to Nation". To me that's important, even though the next few lines dilutes the main definition a little bit. Oxford dictionary defines Nationalistic as Having or expressing strong identification with one's own nation and vigorous support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or d

The great poet shared a unique relationship with Ramakrishna. He made repeated demands to him that he be born as his son. Ramakrishna refused saying that his father was a pious brahmin. Girish, in a  drunken state abused him profusely for this refusal, but at times while abusing he prostrated on the dirty ground and made pranaam. When Ramakrishna visited his house the next day, Girish was dejected thinking about the colossal blunder that he did. But Sri Ramakrishna's lack of ego made him exclaim that Ramakrishna was nothing but God. That reinforced his belief. Sri Ramakrishna also told him that he would become purer day by day, people would be amazed by his transformation. Exactly that happened. In his later days people used to visit Girish just to hear about Sri Rmakrishna for hours. He was never tired of speaking about his guru. He used to take dip in Ganga during the Dasahara festival saying that he was not doing it to become pure and get absolved from his sins as others do. H

Now we come to the most important part - the relationship between Girish and Sri Ramakrishna. The lion of the Bengali stage had a tremendous talent. Yet this talent was going haywire owing to the rebellious spirit and the tremendous suffering that the person underwent. This intellectual giant spared nobody in debate and intellectual discussions. His tremendous scholarship and intellect enabled him to have many arguments with eminent scholars of that age, including good natured banters with Swami Vivekananda. But to one person this lion was nothing but a rebellious child. And he turned the actor-director-producer's life to the right course just when he had reached the pinnacle of glory and was about to ruin himself. Sri Ramakrishna had a vision of a naked child holding a glass of wine before Girish had come to him. He always used to have a vision about the real nature of the people of his "inner circle". He saw Narendranath as an ancient sage of the divine realm of t

Krishna did not want the Mahabharata war. Yet he knew that Mahabharata war was inevitable. He knew the consequences and he knew his larger duty as a friend of Pandavas and as an incarnation to set the wheel of dharma running for ages to come. He knew that given the attitude of the Kauravas towards the Pandavas, given their greed and hatred, a peace treaty was not possible. Duryadhana was sure of his superiority. He had Bhisma, Drona and above everybody else Karna to fight for him. Yet one thing he did not have, dharma, on his side. His mother told him before the beginning of the war - yatah dharma tatah jaya, but he did not listen. He was sure that Pandavas with their limited resources esp. after spending 13 years in the forest and in exile would not be able to muster enough manpower to wage a war. Even if they dared to do so, he had his full army, support of many kings whom he had won over a period of time through either good behavior, bribe or treachery, warriors like Bhisma, Drona

This prolific actor director had produced many dramas in a span of thirty years. Some of them are masterpieces. When Girish used to write a play, he also used to act in multiple roles so that the characters became living to him. He could smell them, talk to them, hear them and even see them. Once Swami Brahmananda saw him in a pensive mood after writing Mirkasim. When asked the reason he said that the character would not leave him in peace. He was dreaming Mirkasim and could smell the odour of onion and garlic coming from the character's mouth. He wrote 28 songs in one night for one of his plays. He was untiring in his effort and was demanding as well. His actors and actresses would have to give their best, no compromise. For them Girish was a guru, a living god, who taught them everything by picking them up from the gutter. Aparesh Mukherjee, a noted actor who later married co actor Tinkadi Dasi was one of them. Girish's influence did not go away from Bengal stage anytime so

Can artificial intelligence be ever conscious? That is, can artificially created intelligence surpass human beings? This is an interesting speculation. Many of the leading atheist philosophers, technology heads and scientists think so. In fact they have pointed out the dangers of making an intelligence that may someday become too intelligent to claim power and dominate over its creator, the mankind. There is a perception that it will happen by the turn of this century. The general thought behind is nature given intelligence originates in our brains. More powerful our brains are, more intelligent we become. Humans dominate over animals because of their superior brain power. There is nothing called consciousness other than the one manufactured within the factory of brain and central nervous system, through interactions of neurons. An animal is inferior because its brain is not as developed as that of a human. So if we create intelligence that can perform one task, we can create intelli

There is a beautiful story in the Upanishadas. Once gods, demons and human beings received an instruction from the supreme Brahman on what they should be doing. The word they all heard is "Da", and they interpreted it as their own deficiencies that needed to improve. The gods, belonging to the subtle realms were addicted to sense pleasures. They were asked to exercise "Dama" (beginning with Da. Dama implies control, controlling of the mind and the senses, not giving in to external impulses. The Asuras or the demons heard the word "Daya", implying compassion. They are by nature cruel, mean and selfish and have least consideration for others. The Humans heard it as "Dana" or Gift. The humans, being intermediary between gods and asuras in terms of tendencies were in best position to practice selflessness by giving away what they possessed. This story has a very wide implication. In today's world gods are the powerful, mighty, great men, sc

Girish Ghosh was a Bohemian, in every sense. In his young days he destroyed a Durga idol that was mischievously put in his house by some people to embarrass the family. He chased an astrologer and a pretentious sannyasin away when he discovered their falsehoods. He flaunted his atheism to anybody and everybody. Nobody could argue with him as they were sure to get defeated by his tremendous intellectual acumen. But Girish also had a large heart. He collected a group of young boys and helped anybody who was in need - like takings the unwanted corpse for cremation, providing health care to the sick, providing financial help to the poor and needy and many such selfless activities. He first set up his theater, the National Theater, as an amateur actor and  produced Sadhabar Ekadashi, a satire written by Michael Madhusudan Datta, the famous poet, and Neeldarpan, based on the novel of the same name written by Dinabandhu Mitra against the brutal tyranny and oppression of the indigo planters

An article appeared in Times of India by a certain Mr. Verma on the distinction between Nationalism and Patriotism. Thankfully, unlike other "liberals", the author has not used the term jingoism to denote the Nationalistic fervours. One of course cannot accuse ToI to be either a Nationalistic or a Patriotic Newspaper. It just wants to position itself as a "secular", "liberal" paper and therefore happy to give opportunity to like minded secular and liberals to express their view points, however fallacious they may be. First, on the point of Nationalism. There is a misguided perception prevalent that supporting the country's rights to defend itself from the inimical interests and protecting its interests by raising a pitch against the arch enemies is "Nationalism". Earlier they used to call it jingoism, now mercifully they have toned down the rhetoric as it finds no takers. The author carefully pins the blame on the present Government to

From 1880 onward Girish was a sensation on the stage. Yet his life was empty. His personal tragedies clouded his judgement and he became a rebel in the truest sense. He was always a rebel. Now he worked against all social conventions and norms. He was addicted to drinking. It is not evident if he had sinned as he always claimed to have done. He had a propensity of overstating his sinners, by comparing himself to Jagai Madhai, the two ruffians who were converted by Sri Chaitanya. However Girish received the grace soon. In 1879 he had met Ramakrishna in a devotee's house, but he thought that Ramakrishna was full of pretension. He was not impressed. He had seen too much of hypocrisy in the name of religion to be confounded by it. He had some spiritual experiences but nevertheless he continued with his exploits on the stage. 1884 was a phenomenal year. In this year he composed his masterpiece that drew him closer to his guru - Chaitanya Leela - after the great saint Sri Chaitanya Mah

Naval Revolt was one of the greatest revolts in Indian history, inspired directly by the INA saga. Our history books are silent about the great sacrifices borne by the revolutionaries and the price that they had to pay. The books are also silent about another fact - the great betrayal of the politicians, esp. of Indian National Congress leaders which included Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. Jinnah's communal betrayal is anyway legendary but of Gandhi, Nehru? Of Sardar Patel - the iron man who has now the tallest statue? Well, history was written by favour seekers, not by truth seekers. That is the reason why naval revolt has been relegated to the darkest corner and we do not even remember one of the greatest events of our nation. Does Indian Navy celebrate it? Don't think so - to Navy the mutineers are traitors, just as for a long time INA was just an army of traitors to the Indian Army leadership who had to seek favour from their own political bosses. Let us now recollect what

Very few people in India outside Bengal know of Girish Chandra Ghosh, the prolific play writer, the father of theatre in Bengal and in India who was once widely regarded as Shakespeare of Bengal and Garrick of Bengali stage. Girish Ghosh was a playwright, a director, an actor, a poet, all moulded into one. He was a versatile genius. He was a lion among men and like a lion he dominated everything that he did. He never cared for conventions. He did not tolerate hypocrisy. He ensured decent living for many women who were otherwise considered "fallen" by the society. He led an intemperate life in a rebellious spirit for sometime, till he met the ultimate man whom he was searching for throughout his life. Girish was appreciated by many eminent personalities, actor and intellectual Utpal Datta being one one of them. In his book Girish Mahima (Greatness of Girish), Utpal Datta was full of praise for him. Recently veteran actor Soumitra Chatterjee enacted as a solo actor in one of

Is calling for war justified? In the past few weeks the events that unfolded almost resulted in a skirmish between the two bitter enemies. There have been a lot of fights over it in the social media, and in political circles. The peaceniks had started a hashtag #saynotowar. Now is that a good or a bad move? What does dharma say? Of course waging war is abominable. Any person in his or her same mind would be averse to war. However does that apply to the right to defend oneself? One's own territory? When dharma is being brutalized everyday, when one's people are killed everyday by a devious, cunning and ruthless enemy who has anyway waged a third grade proxy war for decades now? What about fights with the evil forces who kills, tortures, and subjugates, spread lies and hatred? Is war an option or should we still aim for peace? Mahabharata is clear, peace is preferable over war only when we are able to achieve a solution to our problem, i.e when we are able to turn the tides

If we carefully study the history of India in the last millennium, we shall see that its a continuous history of backbiting, treachery and undoing of good work through personal hatred, animosity, jealousy and extreme selfishness that would often overshadow national and community interests. Every stroke of misfortune that India suffered had been on account of one of these reasons. Great men rose into prominence, great, self sacrificing men who were ready to do everything possible to resist evils in the form of conquests, but petty, mean, selfish men became their thorns, did everything to put a stop to their efforts and in the process helped India sink deeper and deeper into darkness. Blind hatred caused many problems - it invited enemies to attack the country, opened up great possibilities for its conquests and plunder and helped hatred mongers to come on a common platform to deliver a crushing blow to the object of the hate. In many cases such hatred was driven by communal passion, i