6th Meditation This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes 6th Meditation Of the existence of material things and of the real distinction between the mind and body of man There now only remains the inquiry as to whether material things exist. With regard to this question, I at least know with certainty that such things may exist in as far as they constitute the object of the pure mathematics, since, regarding them in this aspect, I can conceive them clearly and distinctly. For there can be no doubt that God possesses the power of producing all the objects I am able distinctly to conceive, and I never considered anything impossible to Him, unless when I experienced a contradiction in the attempt to conceive at a right. Further, the faculty of imagination which I possess and of which I am conscious that I make use when I apply myself to the consideration of material things, is sufficient to persuade me of their existence. For, when I attentively consider what imagination is, I find that it is simply a certain application of the cognitive faculty to a body which is immediately present to it and which therefore exists. And to render this quite clear, I remark in the first place the difference that subsists between imagination and pure intellect or conception. For example, when I imagine a triangle I not only conceive that it is a figure comprehended by three lines, but at the same time also I look upon these three lines as present, by the power and internal application of my mind.  But if I desire to think of a chiliagon, I indeed rightly conceive that it is a figure composed of a thousand sides, as easily as I conceive that a triangle is a figure composed of only three sides. But, I cannot imagine the thousand sides of a chiliagon as I do the three sides of a triangle, nor, so to speak, view them as present with the eyes of my mind. And although in accordance with the habit I have of always imagining something when I think of corporeal things, it may happen that in conceiving a chiliagon I confusedly represent some figure to myself, yet it is quite evident that this is not a chiliagon, since it in no wise differs from that which I would represent to myself if I were to think of a myriagon, or any other figure of many sides. Nor would this representation be of any use in discovering and unfolding the properties that constitute the difference between a chiliagon and other polygons. But, if the question turns on a pentagon, it is quite true that I can conceive its figure, as well as that of a chiliagon, without the aid of imagination. But I can likewise imagine it by applying the attention of my mind to its five sides, and at the same time to the area which they contain. Thus, I observe that a special effort of mind is necessary to the act of imagination, which is not required in conceiving or understanding, and this special exertion of mind clearly shows the difference between imagination and pure intellect. I remark, besides, that this power of imagination which I possess in as far as it differs from the power of conceiving is in no way necessary to my nature or essence, that is, to the essence of my mind. For although I did not possess it, I should still remain the same that I now am, from which it seems we may conclude that it depends on something different from the mind. And I easily understand that if some body exists, with which my mind is so conjoined and united as to be able as it were to consider it when it chooses, it may thus imagine corporeal objects, so that this mode of thinking differs from pure intellect only in this respect, that the mind in conceiving turns in some way upon itself and considers some one of the ideas it possesses within itself. But in imagining, it turns toward the body and contemplates in it some object conformed to the idea which it either of itself conceived or apprehended by sense. I easily understand, I say, that imagination may be thus formed, if it is true that there are bodies. And because I find no other obvious mode of explaining it, I thence, with probability, conjecture that they exist. But only with probability, and although I carefully examine all things, nevertheless I do not find that from the distinct idea of corporeal nature I have in my imagination. I can necessarily infer the existence of any body. But I am accustomed to imagine many other objects besides that corporeal nature which is the object of the pure mathematics, as, for example, colours, sounds, tastes, pain, and the like, although with less distinctness. And in as much as I perceive these objects much better by the senses, through the medium of which, and of memory, they seem to have reached the imagination, I believe that, in order the more advantageously to examine them, it is proper I should at the same time examine what sense perception is, and inquire whether from those ideas that are apprehended by this mode of thinking, I cannot obtain a certain proof of the existence of corporeal objects. And, in the first place, I will recall to my mind the things I have hitherto held as true because perceived by the senses and the foundations upon which my belief in their truth rested. I will, in the second place, examine the reasons that afterward constrained me to doubt of them, and, finally, I will consider what of them I ought now to believe. Firstly, then, I perceived that I had a head, hands, feet, and other members composing that body which I considered as part, or perhaps even as the whole, of myself. I perceived further that that body was placed among many others by which it was capable of being affected in diverse ways, both beneficial and hurtful. And what was beneficial I remarked by a certain sensation of pleasure, and what was hurtful by a sensation of pain. And, besides this pleasure and pain, I was likewise conscious of hunger, thirst, and other appetites, as well as certain corporeal inclinations towards joy, sadness, anger, and similar passions. And, out of myself, besides the extension figure and motions of bodies, I likewise perceived in them hardness, heat, and the other tactile qualities. And, in addition, light, colors, odors, tastes, and sounds, the variety of which gave me the means of distinguishing the sky, the earth, the sea, and generally all the other bodies from one another. And, certainly, considering the ideas of all these qualities which were presented to my mind, and which alone I properly and immediately perceived, it was not without reason that I thought I perceived certain objects wholly different from my thought, namely, bodies from which those ideas proceeded. For I was conscious that the ideas were presented to me without my consent being required, so that I could not perceive any object however desirous I might be, unless it were presented to the organ of sense, and it was wholly out of my power not to perceive it when it was thus present. And because the ideas I perceived by the senses were much more lively and clear, and even, in their own way, more distinct than any of those I could of myself frame by meditation, or which I found impressed on my memory, it seemed that they could not have proceeded for myself, and must therefore have been caused in me by some other objects. And, as of those objects I had no knowledge beyond what the ideas themselves gave me, nothing was so likely to occur to my mind as the supposition that the objects were similar to the ideas which they caused. And because I recollected also that I had formally trusted to the senses rather than to reason, and that the ideas which I myself formed were not so clear as those I perceived by sense, and that they were, even for the most part, composed of parts of the latter, I was readily persuaded that I had no idea in my intellect which had not formally passed through the senses. Nor was I altogether wrong in likewise believing that that body which, by a special right, I called my own, pertained to me more properly and strictly than any of the others. For in truth, I could never be separated from it as from other bodies. I felt in it, and on account of it, all my appetites and affections, and in fine I was affected in its parts by pain and the titillation of pleasure, and not in the parts of the other bodies that were separated from it. But when I inquired into the reason why, from this I know not what sensation of pain, sadness of mind should follow, and why, from the sensation of pleasure, joy should arise, or why this indescribable twitching of the stomach, which I call hunger, should put me in mind of taking food and the parchedness of the throat of drink, and so in other cases, I was unable to give any explanation, unless that I was so taught by nature, for there is assuredly no affinity, at least none that I am able to comprehend, between this irritation of the stomach and the desire of food, any more than between the perception of an object that causes pain and the consciousness of sadness which springs from the perception. And in the same way, it seemed to me that all the other judgments I had formed regarding the objects of sense were dictates of nature, because I remarked that those judgments were formed in me before I had leisure to weigh and consider the reasons that might constrain me to form them. But afterward, a wide experience by degrees sapped the faith I had reposed in my senses, for I frequently observed that towers, which at a distance seemed round, appeared square when more closely viewed, and that colossal figures raised on the summits of these towers looked like small statues when viewed from the bottom of them. And, in other instances without number, I also discovered error in judgments founded on the external senses, and not only in those founded on the external, but even in those that rested on the internal senses. For, is there ought more internal than pain? And yet, I have sometimes been informed by parties whose arm or leg had been amputated that they still occasionally seemed to feel pain in that part of the body which they had lost. A circumstance that led me to think that I could not be quite certain even that any one of my members was affected when I felt pain in it. And to these grounds of doubt, I shortly afterward also added two others of very wide generality. The first of them was that I believed I never perceived anything when awake which I could not occasionally think I also perceived when asleep. And as I do not believe the ideas I seemed to perceive in my sleep perceived from objects external to me, I did not any more observe any ground for believing this of such as I seem to perceive when awake. The second was that since I was as yet ignorant of the author of my being, or at least supposed myself to be so, I saw nothing to prevent my having been so constituted by nature as that I should be deceived even in matters that appeared to me to possess the greatest truth. And with respect to the grounds on which I had before been persuaded of the existence of sensible objects, I had no great difficulty in finding suitable answers to them, for as nature seemed to incline me to many things from which reason made me averse, I thought that I ought not to confide much in its teachings. And although the perceptions of the senses were not dependent on my will, I did not think that I ought on that ground to conclude that they proceeded from things different from myself, and perhaps there might be found in me some faculty, though hitherto unknown to me, which produced them. But now that I begin to know myself better, and to discover more clearly the author of my being, I do not indeed think that I ought rashly to admit all which the senses seem to teach, nor, on the other hand, is it my conviction that I ought to doubt in general of their teachings. And firstly, because I know that all which I clearly and distinctly conceive can be produced by God exactly as I conceive it, it is sufficient that I am able clearly and distinctly to conceive one thing apart from another in order to be certain that the one is different from the other, seeing they may at least be made to exist separately by the omnipotence of God, and it matters not by what power this separation is made in order to be compelled to judge them different, and therefore, merely because I know with certitude that I exist and because, in the meantime, I do not observe that ought necessarily belongs to my nature or essence beyond my being a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists only in my being a thinking thing, or a substance whose whole essence or nature is merely thinking. And although I may, or rather, as I will shortly say, although I certainly do possess a body with which I am very closely conjoined, nevertheless, because, on the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself in as far as I am only a thinking and an extended thing, and, as on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body in as far as it is only an extended and unthinkable thinking thing. It is certain that I, that is, my mind by which I am what I am, is entirely and truly distinct from my body, and may exist without it. Moreover, I find in myself diverse faculties of thinking that have each their special mode. For example, I find I possess the faculties of imagining and perceiving without which I can indeed clearly and distinctly conceive myself as entire, but I cannot reciprocally conceive them without conceiving myself. That is to say, without an intelligent substance in which they reside for, in the notion we have of them, or to use the terms of their schools in their formal concept, they comprise some sort of intellect. Once I perceive that they are distinct from myself as modes are from things. I remark likewise certain other faculties as the power of changing place of assuming diverse figures and the like that cannot be conceived and cannot therefore exist any more than the preceding apart from a substance in which they inhere. It is very evident, however, that these faculties, if they really exist, must belong to some corporeal or extended substance. Since in their clear and distinct concept there is contained some sort of extension, but no intellect at all. Further, I cannot doubt but that there is in me a certain passive faculty of perception, that is, of receiving and taking knowledge of the ideas of sensible things. But this would be useless to me if there did not also exist in me, or in some other thing, another active faculty capable of forming and producing those ideas. But this active faculty cannot be in me in as far as I am but a thinking thing, seeing that it does not presuppose thought, and also that those ideas are frequently produced in my mind without my contributing to it in any way, and even frequently contrary to my will. This faculty must therefore exist in some substance different from me in which all the objective reality of the ideas that are produced by this faculty is contained formally or eminently, as I before remarked, and this substance is either a body, that is to say, a corporeal nature in which is contained formally and in effect all that is objectively and by representation in those ideas, or it is God himself, or some other creature of a rank superior to body, in which the same is contained eminently. But as God is no deceiver, it is manifest that he does not of himself and immediately communicate those ideas to me, nor even by the intervention of any creature in which their objective reality is not formally, but only eminently contained. For as he has given me no faculty whereby I can discover this to be the case, but on the contrary, a very strong inclination to believe that those ideas arise from corporeal objects, I do not see how he could be vindicated from the charge of deceit if, in truth, they proceeded from any other source or were produced by other causes than corporeal things. And accordingly, it must be concluded that corporeal objects exist. Nevertheless, they are not perhaps exactly such as we perceive by the senses, for their comprehension by the senses is, in many instances, very obscure and confused, but it is at least necessary to admit that all which I clearly and distinctly conceive as in them, that is, generally speaking, all that is comprehended in the object of speculative geometry, really exists external to me. But with respect to other things which are either only particular as, for example, that the sun is of such size and figure, etc., or are conceived with less clearness and distinctness as light, sound, pain and the like, although they are highly dubious and uncertain. Nevertheless, on the ground alone that God is no deceiver and that consequently he has permitted no falsity in my opinions, which he has not likewise given me a faculty of correcting, I think I may with safety conclude that I possess in myself the means of arriving at the truth. And in the first place, it cannot be doubted that in each of the dictates of nature there is some truth, for by nature considered in general, I now understand nothing more than God himself, or the order and disposition established by God in created things, and by my nature in particular I understand the assemblage of all that God has given me. But there is nothing which that nature teaches me more expressly or more sensibly than that I have a body which is ill-affected when I feel pain and stands in need of food and drink when I experience the sensations of hunger and thirst, etc. And therefore, I ought not to doubt but that there is some truth in these informations. Nature likewise teaches me by these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst, etc., that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I am besides so intimately conjoined and as it were intermixed with it that my mind and body compose a certain unity. For if this were not the case, I should not feel pain when my body is hurt, seeing I am merely a thinking thing, but should perceive the wound by the understanding alone just as a pilot perceives by sight when any part of his vessel is damaged, and when my body has need of food or drink, I should have a clear knowledge of this, and not be made aware of it by the confused sensations of hunger and thirst. For, in truth, all these sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, etc., are nothing more than certain confused modes of thinking arising from the union and apparent fusion of mind and body. Besides this, nature teaches me that my own body is surrounded by many other bodies, some of which I have to seek after and others to shun. And indeed, as I perceive different sorts of colors, sounds, odours, tastes, heat, hardness, etc., I safely conclude that there are in the bodies from which the diverse perceptions of the senses proceed certain varieties corresponding to them, although perhaps not in reality like them. And since, among these diverse perceptions of the senses, some are agreeable and others disagreeable, there can be no doubt that my body, or rather my entire self in as far as I am composed of body and mind, may be variously affected, both beneficially and hurtfully, by surrounding bodies. But there are many other beliefs which though seemingly the teaching of nature are not in reality so, but which obtained a place in my mind through a habit of judging inconsiderately of things. It may thus easily happen that such judgment shall contain error, thus for example, the opinion I have that all space in which there is nothing to affect or make an impression on my senses is void, that in a hot body there is something in every respect similar to the idea of heat in my mind, that in a white or green body there is the same whiteness or greenness which I perceive, that in a bitter or sweet body there is the same taste, and so in other instances, that the stars, towers, and all distant bodies are of the same size and figure as they appear to our eyes, etc. But that I may avoid everything like indistinctness of conception. I must accurately define what I properly understand by being taught by nature. For nature is here taken in a narrower sense than when it signifies the sum of the things which God has given me, seeing that in that meaning the notion comprehends much that belongs only to the mind, to which I am not here to be understood as referring when I use the term nature, as for example, the notion I have of the truth, that what is done cannot be undone, and all the other truths I discern by the natural light without the aid of the body, and seeing that it comprehends likewise much besides that belongs only to body, and is not here any more contained under the name nature as the quality of heaviness and the like of which I do not speak. The term being reserved exclusively to designate the things which God has given to me as a being composed of mind and body. But nature, taking the term in the sense explained, teaches me to shun what causes in me the sensation of pain, and to pursue what affords me the sensation of pleasure and other things of this sort. But I do not discover that it teaches me, in addition to this, from these diverse perceptions of the senses to draw any conclusions respecting external objects without a previous, careful, and mature consideration of them by the mind. For it is, as appears to me, the office of the mind alone and not of the composite whole of mind and body to discern the truth in those matters. Thus, although the impression a star makes on my eye is not larger than that from the flame of a candle, I do not nevertheless experience any real or positive impulse determining me to believe that the star is not greater than the flame. The true account of the matter being merely that I have so judged from my youth without any rational ground. And, though on approaching the fire I feel heat, and even pain on approaching it too closely, I have, however, from this no ground for holding that something resembling the heat I feel is in the fire, any more than that there is something similar to the pain. All that I have ground for believing is that there is something in it whatever it may be which excites in me those sensations of heat or pain. So also, although there are spaces in which I find nothing to excite and affect my senses, I must not therefore conclude that those spaces contain in them no body, for I see that in this, as in many other similar matters, I have been accustomed to pervert the order of nature because these perceptions of the senses, although given me by nature merely to signify to my mind what things are beneficial and hurtful to the composite whole of which it is a part, and, being sufficiently clear and distinct for that purpose, nevertheless used by me as infallible rules by which to determine immediately the essence of the bodies that exist out of me, of which they can, of course, afford me only the most obscure and confused knowledge. But I have already sufficiently considered how it happens that, notwithstanding the supreme goodness of God, there is falsity in my judgments. A difficulty, however, here presents itself, respecting the things which I am taught by nature must be pursued or avoided, and also respecting the internal sensations in which I seem to have occasionally detected error, and thus to be directly deceived by nature. Thus, for example, I may be so deceived by the agreeable taste of some viand to which poison has been mixed as to be induced to take the poison. In this case, however, nature may be excused, for it simply leads me to desire the viand for its agreeable taste, and not the poison which is unknown to it. And thus we can infer nothing from the circumstance beyond that our nature is not omniscient, at which there is assuredly no ground for surprise since, man being of a finite nature, his knowledge must likewise be of a limited perfection. But we also not infrequently err in that to which we are directly impelled by nature, as is the case with invalids who desire drink or food that would be hurtful to them. It will here perhaps be alleged that the reason why such persons are deceived is that their nature is corrupted.  And therefore it is as repugnant to the goodness of God that the nature of the former should be deceitful as it is for that of the latter to be so. And as a clock, composed of wheels and counterweights, observes not the less accurately all the laws of nature when it is ill-made, and points out the hours incorrectly than when it satisfies the desire of the maker in every respect, so likewise, if the body of man be considered as a kind of machine, so made up and composed of bones, nerves, muscles, veins, blood, and skin, that although there were in it no mind, it would still exhibit the same motions which it at present manifests involuntarily, and therefore without the aid of the mind, and simply by the dispositions of its organs. I easily discern that it would also be as natural for such a body, supposing it dropsicle, for example, to experience the parchedness of the throat that is usually accompanied in the mind by the sensation of thirst, and to be disposed by this parchedness to move its nerves and its other parts in the way required for drinking, thus increase its malady and do itself harm, as it is natural for it when it is not indisposed to be stimulated to drink for its good by a similar cause. And although looking to the use for which a clock was destined by its maker, I may say that it is deflected from its proper nature when it incorrectly indicates the hours, and on the same principle, considering the machine of the human body as having been formed by God for the sake of the motions which it usually manifests, although I may likewise have ground for thinking that it does not follow the order of its nature when the throat is parched and drink does not tend to its preservation, nevertheless, I yet plainly discern that this latter acceptation of the term nature is very different from the other, for this is nothing more than a certain denomination depending entirely on my thought, and hence called extrinsic, by which I compare a sick man and an imperfectly constructed clock with the idea I have of a man in good health and a well-made clock, while by the other acceptation of nature is understood something which is truly found in things, and therefore possessed of some truth. But certainly, although in respect of a dropsicle body, it is only by way of exterior denomination that we say its nature is corrupted when, without requiring drink, the throat is parched, yet, in respect of the composite whole, that is, of the mind in its union with the body, it is not a pure denomination but really an error of nature for it to feel thirst when drink would be hurtful to it, and accordingly, it still remains to be considered why it is that the goodness of God does not prevent the nature of man thus taken from being fallacious. To commence this examination accordingly, I here remark in the first place that there is a vast difference between mind and body in respect that body from its nature is always divisible and that mind is entirely indivisible. For in truth, when I consider the mind, that is, when I consider myself in so far only as I am a thinking thing, I can distinguish in myself no parts, but I very clearly discern that I am somewhat absolutely one and entire. And, although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, yet, when a foot, an arm, or any other part is cut off, I am conscious that nothing has been taken from my mind. Nor can the faculties of willing, perceiving, conceiving, etc. properly be called its parts, it is the same mind that has exercised all entire in willing, in perceiving, and in conceiving, etc. But quite the opposite holds in corporeal or extended things, for I cannot imagine any one of them, how small so ever it may be, which I cannot easily sunder in thought, and which therefore I do not know to be divisible. This would be sufficient to teach me that the mind or soul of man is entirely different from the body, if I had not already been apprised of it on other grounds. I remark in the next place, that the mind does not immediately receive the impression from all the parts of the body, but only from the brain, or perhaps even, from one small part of it, namely, that in which the common sense, senses comunis, is said to be, which, as often as it is affected in the same way, gives rise to the same perception in the mind, although, meanwhile, the other parts of the body may be diversely disposed, as is proved by innumerable experiments, which it is unnecessary here to enumerate. I remark, besides, that the nature of body is such that none of its parts can be moved by another part a little removed from the other, which cannot likewise be moved in the same way by any one of the parts that lie between those two, although the most remote part does not act at all. As for example, in the chord A, B, C, D, which is intention, if its last part D be pulled, the first part A will not be moved in a different way than it would be, where one of the intermediate parts B or C to be pulled, and the last part D, meanwhile, to remain fixed. And in the same way, when I feel pain in the foot, the science of physics teaches me that the sensation is experienced by means of the nerves dispersed over the foot, which, extending like cords from it to the brain when they are contracted in the foot, contract at the same time the inmost parts of the brain in which they have their origin, and excite in these parts a certain motion appointed by nature to cause in the mind a sensation of pain, as if existing in the foot. But as these nerves must pass through the tibia, the leg of the loins, the back, and neck in order to reach the brain, it may happen that although their extremities in the foot are not affected, but only certain of their parts that pass through the loins or neck, the same movements nevertheless are excite in the brain by this motion as would have been caused there by a hurt received in the foot, and hence the mind will necessarily feel pain in the foot, just as if it had been hurt. And the same is true of all the other perceptions of our senses. I remark finally that as each of the movements that are made in the part of the brain by which the mind is immediately affected impresses it with but a single sensation, the most likely supposition in the circumstances is that this movement causes the mind to experience among all the sensations which it is capable of impressing upon it, that one which is the best fitted, and generally the most useful for the preservation of the human body when it is in full health. But experience shows us that all the perceptions which nature has given us are of such a kind as I have mentioned, and accordingly, there is nothing found in them that does not manifest the power and goodness of God. Thus, for example, when the nerves of the foot are violently or more than usually shaken, the motion passing through the medulla of the spine to the innermost parts of the brain affords a sign to the mind on which it experiences a sensation, namely, of pain, as if it were in the foot, by which the mind is admonished and excited to do its utmost to remove the cause of it as dangerous and hurtful to the foot. It is true that God could have so constituted the nature of man as that the same motion in the brain would have informed the mind of something altogether different. The motion might, for example, have been the occasion on which the mind became conscious of itself insofar as it is in the brain, or insofar as it is in some place intermediate between the foot and the brain, or finally, the occasion on which it received some other object quite different, whatever that might be. But nothing of all this would have so well contributed to the preservation of the body as that which the mind actually feels. In the same way, when we stand in need of drink, there arises from this want a certain parchedness in the throat that moves its nerves and by means of them the internal parts of the brain, and this movement affects the mind with a sensation of thirst, because there is nothing on that occasion which is more useful for us than to be made aware that we have need of drink for the preservation of our health, and so in other circumstances. Once it is quite manifest that notwithstanding the sovereign goodness of God, the nature of man insofar as it is composed of mind and body, cannot but be sometimes fallacious, for if there is any cause which excites not in the foot, but in some one of the parts of the nerves that stretch from the foot to the brain, or even in the brain itself, the same movement that is ordinarily created when the foot is ill-affected, pain, will be felt as it were in the foot, and the sense will thus be naturally deceived, for as the same movement in the brain can but impress the mind with the same sensation, and as this sensation is much more frequently excited by a cause which hurts the foot and by one acting in a different quarter, it is reasonable that it should lead the mind to feel pain in the foot rather than in any other part of the body, and if it sometimes happens that the parchedness of the throat does not arise as is usual from drink being necessary for the health of the body, but from quite the opposite cause, as is the case with the dropsicle, yet it is much better that it should be deceitful in that instance than if, on the contrary, it were continually fallacious when the body is well disposed. And the same holds true in other cases. And certainly this consideration is of great service, not only in enabling me to recognize the errors to which my nature is liable, but likewise in rendering it more easy to avoid or correct them, for knowing that all my senses more usually indicate to me what is true than what is false in matters relating to the advantage of the body, and being able almost always to make use of more than a single sense in examining the same object, and, besides this, being able to use my memory in connecting present with past knowledge and my understanding, which has already discovered all the causes of my errors, I ought no longer to fear that falsity may be met with in what is daily presented to me by the senses, and I ought to reject all the doubts of those bygone days as hyperbolical and ridiculous, especially the general uncertainty respecting sleep, which I could not distinguish from the waking state, for I now find a very marked difference between the two states in respect that our memory can never connect our dreams with each other and with the course of life in the way it is in the habit of doing with events that occur when we are awake. And in truth, if someone, when I am awake, appeared to me all of a sudden, and as suddenly, disappeared, as do the images I see in sleep, so that I could not observe either whence he came or whether he went, I should not without reason esteem it either a spectre or phantom formed in my brain rather than a real man. But when I perceive objects with regard to which I can distinctly determine both the place whence they come and that in which they are, and the time at which they appear to me, and when without interruption I can connect the perception I have of them with a whole of the other parts of my life, I am perfectly sure that what I thus perceive occurs while I am awake, and not during sleep. And I ought not in the least degree to doubt of the truth of these presentations if, after having called together all my senses, my memory, and my understanding for the purpose of examining them, no deliverance is given by any one of these faculties which is repugnant to that of any other. For since God is no deceiver, it necessarily follows that I am not herein deceived. But because the necessities of action frequently oblige us to come to a determination before we have had leisure for so careful an examination, it must be confessed that the life of man is frequently obnoxious to error with respect to individual objects. And we must in conclusion acknowledge the weakness of our nature, and sixth meditation, and Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes. Translator John Veich. This recording is in the public domain.


The story of science, changing man's way of life in our time, always yearned and tried to fly. Some of the earliest motion pictures ever made recorded mechanical birds and other efforts of 19th century inventors. Dragonfly shape, designed by America's Samuel P. Langley, resembles those later flown by pioneers George Cayley of England, Santos Dumont of Brazil and Henry Deutsch of France. The experiments of the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina were another step into the sky. The first of a thousand needed to attain useful practical flights. In the years and decades that followed, new records for speed, altitude and distance were constantly set. Yet until very recently, the priorities of aviation science have remained unchanged. Faster, larger, longer ranging, higher performance aircraft. Only in the 1970s have growing problems, spiraling costs, crowded skies, the need for greater efficiency of men and machines led to new and revised priorities for aviation researchers. Today's wind tunnels, for example, are being applied in the search for safer, fuel saving, high performance designs. In the test section, sensors measure the model's responses to stresses, pressures, dynamics. Computers store the test results as an electronic record. Later changes are guided by the test findings, a dialogue of man and computer. The optimum compromise in speed, safety and economy becomes the final design. A different problem is being researched in a 100 meter long hydrodynamic water test tank. The aircraft model, mounted on a motor driven carriage, is moved below the surface. The test tank project is concerned with wake vortices. Normally invisible funnels of air formed behind aircraft, here revealed by smoke plumes, a plane that encounters a vortex may go out of control or even crash. Test tank, a vortex creating aircraft rides ahead of a smaller plane. As the test proceeds, dye is released from the first model's wing tips so that the vortex can be seen and photographed. From these and other studies, new ways are being found to detect and avoid vortices and to prevent their formation. In an arid lakebed in the Mojave Desert of California, another model is being tested, a scissors-like design called the oblique wing. This seven meter model employs ideas that may someday allow full scale passenger jets to fly faster than the speed of sound without producing a sonic boom as well as make large fuel savings. A controller on the ground will fly the one fifth size model. The ground based pilot will observe and guide the model's flight by using an onboard television camera. Such aircraft may make living near major airports a good deal more tolerable. For takeoff, the oblique wing is at a conventional angle. During flight, the research team records the vehicle's responses as the wing is gradually pivoted to a sharp angle. The data will be studied to learn how and why the plane reacts to different flight forces. The theory predicts that oblique wing aircraft will use less fuel and cause milder sonic booms than fixed wing planes. The wings may be adjusted to various angles to achieve optimum performance at different speeds. These tests were so successful that a piloted version is now being built. Designs have also been completed for a full scale oblique wing transport. The wing would return to a normal angle for takeoffs and landings. Together with new plane designs, better aircraft components are being sought. Here, a new strong lightweight composite material, a blend of metal and plastics, is being used to fabricate an experimental wing. Using composite materials rather than metal alone can decrease aircraft weight, reducing fuel consumption. Such materials are now undergoing flight evaluation tests. Besides designs and components, new, quieter, less polluting engines are on the way. Some will be powered by economical alternate fuels, such as liquid hydrogen and aviation gasoline made from coal or oil shape. Aircraft tires are being improved. Keeping modern aircraft in tires is a definite economic problem, since the lifetime of a tire tread can be as short as 10 takeoff landing cycles depending on the airplane and its operations. Unlike automobile tires, aircraft tires are retreaded five or six times before being scrapped, mainly because the tire body does not deteriorate as quickly as the tread surface. Several years ago, the United States Aeronautics and Space Agency began developing a new synthetic rubber calculated to increase the strength and durability of aircraft tires. The new rubber compound combines strength and longevity, key qualities for airplane wheels. The testing program for the tires included evaluations on a landing load track, which exposes tires to braking on both dry and flooded concrete runway surfaces. After further experiments, the now fully certified polymer tires are coming into active use. To date, the new compound's wear performance remains superior to that of conventional tires. Perhaps they may eventually be applied to cars and other vehicles as well. One focus of modern flight research is the link between flyer and aircraft. A current project aimed at making this relationship more efficient employs a television camera scanning a model runway from which a computer abstracts the key landing data. The key information is then presented on an electronic display. Many of today's studies are aimed at improving such man-machine systems. In general, one can easily design systems which respond well under ordinary conditions. But can these systems be made to perform usefully in an emergency? This special aircraft is being used to improve plane safety under bad weather conditions. Inside the fuselage is a blind cockpit equipped with a new type of landing system. As the real plane makes its approach, the experts in the experimental cockpit must fly blind using only what their instruments tell them to land correctly. Fires have used the force of their muscles multiplied by gears and motors to adjust wing and tail surfaces. By contrast, the pilot of this experimental aircraft need only indicate the desired flight path to a computer, which then calculates and actually executes the control changes needed to stay on course. A large aircraft receive much attention, small general purpose planes which outnumber the world's transports by 100 to 1 are also being improved. Several recent studies are concerned with spins and stalls, the largest single factor in general aviation fatal accidents. The research objective to provide design data for efficient light aircraft that will not stall or spin unintentionally. Even the worst eventualities are considered. Crashworthiness tests determine how to minimize impact effects.  Today's priorities may change again in the future, yet flight will remain both craft and science, the technological art form of the 20th century.


Okay, a very good afternoon to all of you, respected, respected VCs are registered sir, dean academic, dean study center, director Sika, directors of various schools, officers, teachers and other colleagues, research scholars, students and other attendees. On behalf of Manikanto Kakoti Research Institute, I, Dr. Prasanchit Das, welcome you all to the fifth Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture to be delivered by Professor Solyan Moraleser. Manikanto Kakoti Research Institute was established in the year 2016 with the joining of Professor Abu Nasir Sahib Ahmed as the honorary director of BKRI. The main objective has been to promote and conduct research on various social and cultural aspects of the state of Sam, as well as the north of India in a wider perspective. The aim of this Institute is to undertake independent research on the problems and processes of social and cultural transformation, as well as economic and human development and contribute to the formation of strategies, as strategic programs for integrated local and regional development. Since its inception, since its inception, the Institute has conducted various programs like organizing public lectures, round table discussions, outreach programs and so on. The University through this Manikanto Kakoti Research Institute also celebrates November 15th each year, which is also the birth and date anniversary, anniversary of Dr. Manikanto Kakoti with a Memorial Lecture. Let me quickly inform all our participants today about the past Memorial Lectures that we have conducted on 15 November. The first Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture was organized at Sipmarsun Hall Cotton University on November 15, 2017. The lecture was entitled Paradise Sift in Intellectual History and Manikanto Kakoti, which was delivered by Professor Ranjit Kumar Deva Goswami, head of Simonto Shankar Deva Chair, Desperate University. Professor Goswami highlighted the Paradise Sift in Asemist Literature and also the writings initiated by Manikanto Kakoti. Then the second Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture was held on 15 November 2018 at the Netfi Auditorium Guwahati. The lecture was delivered by Dr. Jay Vini Bhagavati, former Indian High Commissioner for the United Kingdom. And the topic of his lecture was stress in India's financial sector and the trade front. The third Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture was held on 15 November 2019, again the same venue that is Netfi Auditorium Dispour. The lecture was delivered by Dr. Orobi Deka Hazarika, Professor Mahapuru Srimonto Shankar Deva Viswapitalay and former Laxminath Bhurva, Bhejh Bhurva, Chair Professor, Dibhugore University. The title of Dr. Hazarika's speech was Manikanto Kakoti Rasonar Nandonic Kundurja, it is Samu Vislekhon. Dr. Hazarika, in her speech, gave an analytical interpretation of Dr. Manikanto Kakoti's educational experiments, his writings and laid emphasis on his exceptional literary skills. The fourth Memorial Lecture was delivered by Professor Pune Mohondo, a leading SMS intellectuals of our contemporary times. The title of the lecture was Drama, Shankar Deva and Shakespeare, where he made an excellent comparative study on Shankar Deva and Shakespeare as spirits. Though there existed hundreds of years of gaps or difference between the life and times of both Shankar Deva and Shakespeare, both of them were so unique, remarkable, innovative and progressive in their own times. Before I request our speaker today, Professor Solland Horali sir, may I now request our Honorable Vice Chancellor sir to deliver his inaugural speech. Over to you sir. Thank you, Dr. Prasannjeev. Am I already full now? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Aziree, Manikanto Kakoti, Smarok Bokitar, Karni, Bihar Pabeli Montito, Amar Poron Sardar, Oidapok Solland Horali sir, Amar Resister, Dr. Aurob Dutri Shodri, Deans and Senator Dr. Dipojati Mohondo, Vivino Schoolor, Amar School of Sardisore, Khatra Amur Honsalokokol, Amar Viswavidhaler, Tehkati members of our friends. This is indeed a pleasure for all of us that we have been able to organize this Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture today. I would like to thank Amar Karna Parang Bhuvayko, who has helped us to organize this Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture. I would like to thank Amar Karna Parang Bhuvayko, who has helped us to organize this Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture. I would like to thank Amar Karna Parang Bhuvayko, who has helped us to organize this Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture. I would like to thank Amar Karna Parang Bhuvayko, who has helped us to organize this Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture. I would like to thank Amar Rastiopuri, who has helped us to organize this Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture. I would like to thank Amar Rastiopuri, who has helped us to organize this Manikanto Kakoti Memorial Lecture. Thank you, sir. Before I request Swellan Boraleesar for his lecture, let me quickly have a glance at his contribution. Professor Boraleesar has been an important name in the field of academics within the state and beyond, and he does not need introduction. A teacher most loved and liked by his students, he proved his acumen as a critic of literature, culture and drama, as well as a translator. Professor Boraleesar also started his teaching career as a lecturer in English at Tihu College in 1964 in Luar Assam. Then in 1965, he joined Arya Bidavid College as a lecturer in English. In 1976, he joined as a lecturer in the department of SMEs at Guwahati University. Professor Boraleesar has been able to receive wide acclaim for his contribution to academics. In 1979, he took part in a series of lectures on drama in various universities of the UK, organized by the British Council. In 1994, under the International European Theatre Congress, he took part in the discussions on drama held in Nepal and Bannerus. In 1995, under the same platform, he visited Germany to participate in similar discussions. In 1999, he was appointed the most coveted General Nehru Professor in Guwahati University. In 2000, he was also nominated as a member of the General Council of Sahitya Academy. In 2001, he was also nominated as a member of Bharatiya Vasa Unnang Puri Khan, informed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The topic of today's memorial lecture is Banikanta Kakoti's contribution to Indian literature, and the lecture will be delivered in Asimis. Over to Boraleesar. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for your time. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today. I would like to thank all of you for joining me today.


good report he's gonna put it out down here day on your park areas I told him they're cutting back all this stuff we just got a cut like hell you can save an election and the budget's gonna run down your hundred and forty billion and we had two years under a hundred so they're doing it but they came up with two pretty sizable whacks in national parks I told them to review those gain and look at them see if you couldn't find it some other place you know how strongly we feel about the park things and if you don't mind you take a look at see if we can hold back some damn or something like some way to cause Republicans we've got a if we hold back parks they'll never give it to us on the other hand you hold back a damn they shove it through six months from now and they get over there intoxication that's precisely what I've been telling Charlie and I think he and Sam you're pretty good on this they well they like you and they said all right they go back and talk to you so I just want you to know it now I want to say that you got any problems your department I need to know about no I really have Mr. President it's pretty solid I think and looks like we had a ride there Arizona didn't it yeah we had a weak governor out there just very clumsy and they really took us out but I'm not worried about the future they're really I think the Republicans have never really had responsibility and that's the thing I've been telling everybody here that Ronald Reagan and these others beat the governor for a year a year from now pictures don't look a lot different let them take some of the slings and arrows thank you my friend go back


Opening the cages was the wrong idea. Welcome to our holiday special. For those of you who are new here, we are about to have so much fun. For those of you who are always watching my videos, I love you guys so, so much. Thank you. Yes! So, we here on this channel, love, love animals, especially when George, you didn't wrap this present. What are you doing opening it? Present, this is a George present. I'll let everyone loose. Let's let everyone loose. Come on. Vinnie presents, come open the presents. On her present bag, I'm gonna start to try to open it. There might be cat in there. Vinnie's coming to see the game. We have it. She's not? Oh, you mean all separated? All right, I have another one. You want another one? Please leave me a chop, please leave me one. Look, he likes it, he's pushing on it. He knows. Really for you, George. Look at Sandy, she's excited. Opening it, go back and open it. There's another ball. Oh! This totally wishes that was his, I'm telling you. Ronke's gonna wanna go in there. Why didn't we get this for Ronke? Let's try a baby doll. Oh my God, we should try that. Cody! All right, baby. Good girl. This holiday special is exhausted from having this. Go. No, you probably really can't.


The prevalence of hearing loss is high in rising, but only about 20% of adults seek help. Fortunately, modern technology allows for alternative, more accessible solutions to hearing care. One such example is, the Digits and Noise Test, which is available directly to the public over internet-based platforms. So, how does a Digits and Noise Test work? In an adaptive procedure, digit triplets are presented in speech-weighted masking noise to determine the level at which 50% of digit triplets could be recognized correctly. Previous versions either sequentially tested each ear, taking about 7 minutes to complete. Or, used binaural dietic testing, where identically-faced digits and noise are presented to each ear, simultaneously, cutting test time in half. Although binaural testing is fast, it precludes detection of unilateral sensory neural hearing loss. Neither monoral, or binaural dietic versions, detect conductive hearing loss. This is an important subgroup, where medical evaluation may be indicated. A newer version, phase inverted the digits in one ear 180 degrees, while leaving noise in phase. This is called the antifasic digits and noise test. By engaging binaural interaction, normal hearing listeners can better segregate digits from the noise. However, antifasic processing is disrupted in cases of unilateral sensory neural, or, conductive hearing loss. Making the tests sensitive to detect those types of losses, as well. Therefore, we have a great tool for hearing loss detection, which has combined sensitivity and specificity of more than 85%. Although highly accurate, a single antifasic digits and noise test cannot discriminate between hearing loss type. Therefore, everyone is referred along the same pathway. To the audiologist. Is there a way to discriminate between hearing loss types? Turns out, there is. Using a combination of antifasic and dietic tests, we can determine three categories of hearing. Normal hearing. Bilateral sensory neural. And, unilateral sensory neural or conductive hearing loss. Normal hearing listeners will be able to pass both tests, while in cases of bilateral sensory neural hearing loss, both tests should be a failed result. Unilateral or conductive hearing loss, should fail an antifasic test, while passing a dietic test. Using fixed cut-offs, we could correctly classify 75% of hearing loss types. When using a fixed antifasic and varying dietic cut-off, we could improve classification, to 79%. By distinguishing between these types, we could optimize referral pathways and resource allocation in constrained settings. That's our study in a nutshell. Thanks for listening.


Here is the example of the multivariate characteristics function, student moment generating function her distribution key determine nahi huti, but characteristics function her distribution key develop huti hai. So here is the example of the multivariate characteristics function, hum yaha pe bi-variate normal distribution ke saath apni example ko solve karenge. So this is the example of the multivariate characteristics function, suppose we have a bi-variate random vector, okay bi-variate random vector hum nahi yaha pe consider kiye bi-variate x and y. And we want to find its characteristics function hum nahi kya leneh iski characteristics function develop karni hai. Pehle to aap yeh dekhon ke bi-variate ka PDF kya hota? Me hi pe likhri hum bi-variate ka PDF f of xy, which is equal to 1 over 2 pi sigma of x sigma of y square root of 1 minus rho square. Pehle of the minus 1 over 2 1 minus rho square x minus mu of x divided by sigma of x whole square plus y minus mu of y divided by sigma of y whole square minus 2 rho x minus mu of x into y minus mu of y and whole divided by sigma of x sigma of y. This is the bi-variate normal distribution with the parameters of mu of x sigma of x square and mu of y sigma of y square and the rho. This is the function of the bi-variate random vector. Aap yeh hape jo hum leneh, this is the joint probability density function of x and y. Yeh aap ke paas aagye ji joint probability density function of x and y. Yeh bhi aam hape paas jointer. Baad yeh joint kiska hai? Yeh aap hape hum ne random vector ya random variable ko independent show kye hai. Jab hum independent show karte hai, it means ki unke between correlation nahi hai. Correlation kya hogi? Correlation aam hape paas 0 bhi. Yeh aap hape hum ne correlation 0 kye? Kyuki wo independent hai. Meen aap ke paas kya hogya 0? Variance aam hape paas 1 and correlation 0. Kyuki hum kya karein joint probability distribution find karein bi-variate ki? Kis ke liye independent variable ke liye? Independent meh rho 0. Variance aam hape paas sigma jo hai, wo hape paas hogi 1 and mean 0. Standard normal, independent aam hape paas. Uske according aap ke paas kya banke, yaan se aap ke paas result kya ajayega? Usko hum abhi evaluate kar lethe. Result hum aap hape paas ajayega? Factor 0 kya factor, hum aap paas 1, 1 kya sadya factor multiply ok? This is the 0, 1 square multiplied by this, to hum aap paas ajayega is the 2 pi exponential minus 1 by 2. This is 0, 1 by 2 and then x square, kyuki mu 0, variance 1, x square plus y, y square mu 0, variance 1 and rho, rho which is equals to 0 to the 3rd factor aapka poora eliminate hogya, 3rd factor hum aap paas 0 kya kal aajayega ok? Then further hum aap paas ki aage, this is the joint probability density function hai and x ki limit bi-variate normal hai, minus infinity to infinity, y ki limit minus infinity to infinity. To find the characteristics function of x and y, we need to evaluate the following integral. Tkya ab hum ne uska integral liya, janal hum aap paas kya yeh function hai. This is the psi of x t expected value of e exponential iota imaginary value t prime into x. This is the p random variable ke liye, multivariate case hai na, this is the p ab hum usko baad me bi-variate milange. So, yeh uska janal expression aap ke paas hai minus infinity to infinity upto so on minus infinity to infinity, unit into its function kya aap uski probability kao upto so on. Now here is the psi of t1, t2, kyuki bi-variate hum ne aap liya t1 and t2, isko aap open karlo for 2. Here is the exponential iota t1 x plus t2 y and the function of xy dx dy. So, function of xy, aap paas yeh hai joint of probability xy. Now here psi of t1, t2 is the characteristics function and t1, t2 are the values of the variable in the frequency domain. Aap hum ne further kya karna hai wo aap ke paas, this is the function aap uski value enter karne to solve the integral, we substitute the given joint probability function into the integral expression. Yeh aap ke paas integral hai, this is the unit into its probability or the function enter oge. Since the joint probability density function issko aap hum ne separate karna hai, separate me aap hum usko kis tari kese separate karne hai, wo hum further dekh lethe hum ne two functions uski kye, we can express at the product of two separate function. Yeh aap issko function ko separate karlo, one over pi exponential minus xk alaad, then hum ne minus y square, because this minus multiply by plus, which is equals to minus y square. Function hum aap paas aage separate karne aap usko. Now we can rewrite the characteristic integral, hum ne function ki value enter karne hai. To evaluate the integral by using the properties of the exponential function, now here use the properties of the exponential function, double integral iota t1 x1, hum ne iss funkko iss ne multiply kar liye, and second hum aare paas jo hai, wo yahan se multiply oge, oge dy dy. The integral is separate, so we can evaluate the product of two separate integrals. Aap yeh aap ke paas minus infinity to infinity hai na, yeh integral aap ke paas xk liye separate ho gaya, then next aap ke paas integral jo hai, y ke liye separate ho gaya. The first integral can be recognized as the characteristic function of the univariate standard normal distribution. This is the univariate of the standard normal distribution, yeh uska characteristics function hai. Jab hum ne usko separate kiye na, to separate karne ke baat hum aare paas, first function jo hai wo univariate standard normal distribution ka ban gaya. Aap yeh aap dek ho aap ke paas ke aura exponential of iota square t1 by 2, jo univariate me hum dek rehte iota square t1 by 2, aap yeh aap ke paas iota square hum main nazan nahi aara kyu, because the iota square which is equals to minus 1, iota square ki value hum aare paa use ho gaya, which is equals to minus 1, t1 square by 2, this is the first characteristic function, and the second integral ko hum dekhtein to uski hum, characteristics function, again iota square which is equals to minus 1, hum aare paas, second ka characteristics function aagaya. Finally, we multiply the two characteristic function together to obtain the characteristic function of the bivariate random vector, multiply aap ke paas exponential of minus, first characteristic function hum ne liye liya, then hum aare paas, second characteristic function hain usko hum ne joint ka liya, therefore the characteristics function of the bivariate random variable which is equals to this one, this is the function of the bivariate random vector. This particular example se hum ne detalmin kya kya, aur hum aare paas characteristics function develop ho gaya bivariate, standard bivariate distribution ka independently hum ne usko deal kya, aur hum kya chek ka rahe hain ke movement generating function, hard distribution ke develop nahi hota, but the characteristics function hard distribution ke develop ho gaya. Characteristics function aane ke baat further aap wo study kr logay probability distribution me, ya agar aap ne koi mathematical probabilities liye ya mathematical statistics liye, to further iski paat wo aap wahan study kr logay.


Good evening. Good evening. Cheers. You've got ice in your drink. I have a summer, haven't I? Summer months. Got a cool down. So, what have you got? I can see where you're dressed for summer. Shorts and tea. I am on very casual tonight. I'm looking at the camera here for our video viewers. I look a bit scruffy. Did you wear that to work today? No, I didn't work today. I was working at home. I was doing paperwork today at home. But here we are in London Village. In a pub called The Princess Louise, which boasts about never having updated its interior decor since 1891. I can't believe that though. We're upstairs in the dining room and that wallpaper is never over a hundred years old. I'm sorry. Really? Maybe it's just certain parts of the decor. The carpet. Certainly the furnishings downstairs look a bit more original. It's probably the same layout. That fireplace looks old. Yeah, fireplace maybe. It's got a kind of men's Uranus. Uranus are listed. Heritage listed. So they can't move them. They can't change them. They can't adapt them? No. I've had a look and they do look old. Do they? Marble. Marble. Good quality stuff. They don't make them like that anymore, Geoff, do they? Currently not. We had an electrician man at home recently and he was trying to fix an extractive fan in our downstairs toilet. Done well for myself, got a downstairs toilet. Yeah, and he said, I think we were talking about this extractive fan. It's not broken. It's just he had to rewire it when he was putting a new light in. I said, I'll go for it. I'll go for years. It's probably part of the original house 1963 I think it was put in. He said, I'll go forever with that. There is a lot of truth in the statement. They don't make them like they used to. Part of our throwaway culture. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Cheap and replace it. Things are not built to last. It's kind of a throwaway culture, isn't it? I was asked about... I was in a taxi. I thought, I had a taxi today. It was somewhere. Somebody asked me what my thoughts were about the fast fashion industry, such as things like ASOS and places like that. And they were, in many ways, they were at the forefront of the agile movement. Making the value chain of clothes much shorter and leaner. But they're getting a lot of stick, aren't they, about the effect of the environment. And the human aspects of the lifecycle, I think, they're getting a lot of stick about. I saw Sarah publish a statement today saying that by, I'm going to say 2021 might be in 2025, something like that. All of their clothes are going to be sustainable. Whatever that means. So there's a lot of pressure on that. And it's tough, isn't it? It's tough. The pressure on the whole lifestyle. And in the supermarkets, the pressure on the price, they squeeze the local farmers, which encourages bad practices, which encourages pesticides, which makes it harder to get good yields, which increases the pressures again. It's a vicious cycle. It's not introduced in technical data into the product cycle. And we're probably going to go full circle on a lot of this stuff. So a lot of families as well. And something my daughter came home and asked me the day is that she wants to go back to glass milk bowls to have milk deliveries. She goes back to that? She's had that? No, but she doesn't realise. Because obviously they're doing a big thing about single-use plastic at school, so they're trying to cut down that, be a bit more wary of it. I think a few more localised kind of dairies are starting to offer that service. And I think it's going to get a lot bigger. Milk delivery.  That was 40 years ago. Exactly, exactly. It was a milk float. Not just milk either, orange juice, eggs. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know how we got into that. No, weird, wasn't it? That's Australian Segway. Segway is one of my favourite words. It's one of those words that somebody tweeted this the other way. I think it was Dave Grant tweeted about this the other day. Granty? Yeah. About one of the words you didn't realise was spelt until quite long through your life. So I didn't realise it. I always put a picture of Segway as someone that I was around on. Yeah, you've probably seen that written more. Yeah, and that's what I blame it on. Anyway, what are you drinking? We haven't done that bit, yeah? No, true, true. Well, we've been in a couple of these types of pubs before. It's Sam Smith Pub, where they have their own... It's quite a limited... Is it a limited choice? It's quite a lot of beer, I think. It's just... Yeah, there's more than one lager, there's more than one ale, there's more than one bitter, there's more than one cider. But yeah, you don't get your standards. No, it's a bit... It's all a bit different, isn't it? Yeah, their own, which I kind of like. Which, yeah, I suppose it's no traditional, isn't it? Yeah. Anyway, so what am I drinking? I think it's called double four. It's double fermented. Yeah. I don't really know what that means. Four, I think it's four percent, so maybe it's just... I guess that double fermented means it's been fermented twice, but I can't understand what that means about why that's a good thing or why it's a bad thing. It's like triple cooked chips, isn't it? Maybe it's, you know, that kind of gastronomy. You see, I kind of understand that, but I don't understand the double fermented. But it makes chips sound more attractive. Yeah. So double, this isn't just single, it's like Mark's expensive. This isn't just regular lager, this is double fermented lager. I mean, it's smooth, it's light, it's a bit fizzy, creamy head. It's refreshing, it's a nice beer to have after a long, hot walk, you know what I'm saying? It was a ten minute walk. Hang on, I'm not saying I had a long, hot walk. You could have let that to the imagination of the listeners. They didn't need to know that. So, yeah, what about you? I've got, unsurprisingly, it's a cider, but it's pear cider today. Well, that's not a cider then, is it? What it says here is sparkling pear cider. Which is called? Perry. But I thought you could still class it as a cider. Probably. But yeah, it's very nice. It's very cold, like a cold drink in the summer. It's a nice refreshing drop. That's a nice ten minute walk. Yes. It's raining. Yeah, it is raining actually. But no, it's very nice. Apparently though, it's brewed in Yorkshire in a small independent British brewery. It doesn't say, I assume it's the Sam Smith, the old brewery. Tadcaster. So you can't really say it tastes like apple juice. You're going to have to give us a better... Tastes like pears, mate. More in depth. Tastes like pears. Yeah. When was the last time you had a pear? Today, just now, drinking this. No. I don't know. I generally... I don't eat... I don't like pears. No, I'm not fond of pears. I'm just quite wary of pears.  Out of your diet. Out of the world. Out of the world. Yeah, I'd cut a pear. Would you? Yeah. It's not hard. It wouldn't be higher on my list. I can't think of many fruits that I know. I like less. Really? Yeah. I don't like pear flavoured sweets. Not on a pear drops? No. That's not even real pear flavour. It's like artificial pear flavour. Yeah, they can't even do that. Anyway. Anyway, off to my fruit rant. The digress. Talking about rants. I was in the middle of a... found myself in the middle of a rant. This week. Recently. I was showing these this week. Where? On Twitter. On the Twitter sphere. Yeah. A Twitter feud. Yeah. And someone will find the fantastic. Can't say anything these days, can you? It's got to be prepared to have a debate. What did you say? And who did you say it to? So, I tweeted. You said quite an excerpt. A very short excerpt. From one of my books. And it said, Nobody is inspired by a sin. My great scrum master is my infectiously positive. Yes. And optimistic. Yes. And they embody the art of the possible. And they role model the values and principles of greatness. Yes. So that was what I'd written. And that was what I'd said. Meant to be a bit of a... I suppose there's a bit of a... point of reflection. Yeah. Maybe some people with inspiration are a bit of a... Okay. Let's be positive today. Yeah. Glass half full. Kind of tweet. And I was met with a lot of... backlash, I suppose. A lot of people disagreeing with that. Very strongly disagreeing. In what way? So, the first thing was about... I should probably read them out. Name and change. But it's going to test my memory. Because a lot of this I think is how you interpret things right. So people read that and interpreted within it. Yeah. They put their own perceptions on it. Some of which perhaps I did. So it would be interesting for me to see better people listening to this. What I interpreted from their tweets. The first one was effectively saying interpreting infectiously positive and enthusiastic as a happy clapping yes ban. Yeah. And saying how someone who's always positive and overly enthusiastic and un-genuine. Ingenuine. Yeah. Enthusiasm is demotivating. So kind of almost suggesting that I'm... We're implying that I'm suggesting that that's what I should be. Yeah. When in fact what I'm thinking is looking at a situation as well there is a way forward. No situation is hopeless. Yeah. No situation is beyond recovery. Yeah. And it probably is more helpful to think of how you can move forward and what you can get from it than thinking about how it's gone wrong. And if you're looking for a leader then you're probably looking for someone who's positive. I'm saying. Well I think also if you're looking for change if you're looking for to... And by definition projects are change aren't they? Regardless of what they're doing. Yeah. If you're looking to build something you're looking to change something. So to go from one state to another. In my opinion. And I'm agreeing with you but in what... Maybe you should maybe... Maybe because it will be a pretty boring but public aspect. Alright. Okay. I'll go with that. Right. I disagree. Yeah. Okay. So well we can't be positive all the time. Right? No. We can't be positive all the time. And sometimes a very serious situation you've got to take... You have to take a glass half empty viewpoint. Yeah. Look at all the worst case of what could happen. Yeah. I tried to add a little extra context to my 140 character statement. Yeah. And saying how I think there's a difference between cynicism and a cynic. Alright. Explain. And I think cynicism is a valuable trait. Yes. Because if you can adopt a cynical mindset, cynical approach it allows you to identify risk. It allows you to identify all the ways things can go wrong. Being naive and making silly mistakes that could have been easily avoided. But if you are a cynic then... Does that mean you're constantly... Yeah. ...means it's an unalterable state? Yeah. And I think people, there are people who wear that as a sort of badge of honour. Yeah. You know, I'm a grumpy old so and so. Yeah. And I think that in my experience they don't tend to make great team members. They drag people down. Whereas being able to step into the mindset of a cynic and be cynical for a while is very valuable. So I'm trying to make a differentiation between being cynical and being a cynic. What about people that can't help it? I think everyone can. I don't know about that. I think, I think, I think my mother, right, certainly... I'm pretty sure my mum doesn't listen to this pubcast. So I can be brutally honest then. Cheers, Mrs. Jean. Cynical... What is a cynical... What is the definition of a cynic? Well, that was an interesting thing, actually. I don't know if I'd be able to bring this up. Because I don't want to label my mother a cynic in actual fact she isn't. My mum, while you're doing that, my mum is just a very, very negative, has a negative outlook. Especially in her later years, has had a very negative outlook on most things. It's, and... And just seems to naturally fall into looking at all of the problems that might occur in daily life. I don't think, and I don't think, the reason why I said that is I don't think she can help it. I just think that's how she's wired. And I don't even think that she realizes how much she does it sometimes. Well, that is an important final statement. Because if she doesn't realize she's doing it, she might not realize the consequences for her and others of doing it. And if it's unconscious, then it's not making a choice. Whereas if she was conscious of it, she was able to see the consequence of it. She may then make a choice to try something different. We do point it out to her. We do try and point out the consequences to her, but she doesn't... I think she's aware of it, but she finds it very hard to change it. So somebody tweeted me a definition. Is there a universal definition of this? Yes, there is. The quote is a definition from, let's say, the Cambridge dictionary. I see that as a definition, but I don't think that's necessarily a universal decision. But then maybe I'm being picky about that. So the definition that comes up when you Google it is a person who believes, a person who believes that other people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons, an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. Right. When I wrote about cynicism, I wrote about it from the point of view of looking at things as glass half empty. Assuming negative intentions of other people rather than assuming positive intentions. The natural state of finding despair rather than joy and fulfilment instead of happiness. Finding all the... focusing on all the things that went wrong rather than things that went well. That wasn't what that said, was it? No, no, no, that's what I'm saying. That was what I was thinking. I think that all traits are valuable. What I would say to use your mother's example there, I would say her cynicism traces out a balance. I'd say it's overdone. Whereas in the past she's got some value from that. I think she's missing out on the potential value of being able to step out of a cynical mind. And awareness is the first step. Is she aware that she's doing this? Does she see any value in changing and being able to adopt a different mindset? So I think to answer that, I think she is aware of it. But the second step in that is regulating. I don't think she knows how to adjust it. So knowing how is the third step. The middle step is really important in that. Does she see any potential value in regulating and experimenting with something different? There's potential step one and a half which is are there some examples where she isn't cynical? Even what? It's what it is to label people as constantly. If there's one type of situation where she isn't, we can look at what is it about that type of situation that encourages different responses, different processes. And we can perhaps magnify that and leverage that for others. So yeah, it's difficult in there. I'll throw another spanner in your works. I think, again, to play the devil's advocate here, I think it can unite people in cynicism. And I think maybe we're a little bit biased because I think it's quite a British thing as well. I think we are naturally, we tend to common struggle that kind of idea that we're in this together and it's all shit and we've got to fight it together and we're all kind of... Yes, that kind of... And I think we're a little bit... We take an element of pride in that as well that it's easier perhaps sometimes to bitch and moan and complain and almost feel that you can gain friends who've got that common struggle rather than trying to... It's sometimes harder to lift people up. Oh, it's definitely harder to lift people up. And I think there is a right fear about this idea that happy-clappy, everything's amazing when it's not. That's a right fear, it's a just fear. The bonding together I think is valuable, I think it's a good thing and we often call it the siege mentality as well. So yeah, everyone's against this, everyone's out to get us and it makes us feel stronger and brings a bonding.  And I remember we mentioned him before but the guy that we call Ian who was probably one of these most cynical people that we've ever worked with who openly said to me, yeah, everything's shit, Jeff, but I'd rather fail with what I know than what I don't know. Just assuming that failure is going to happen is not even worth trying. And was that true then that he failed? I know he perhaps wasn't in a leadership position but did people tend to get rallied behind him or did people tend to move themselves away from him? So he had been in the organisation longer than anybody else and he was still at the same grade that he was at when he entered the company. He hadn't progressed and he was quite bitter about the fact that he hadn't progressed but nobody would follow him. There was no reason to follow him. Why would you follow him? Because that's a different... There's nothing to follow. Bitterness is a different thing, isn't it? So bitterness for me is a different to cynicism. Bitterness almost suggests that there's an element of jealousy or envy from what someone else or something else or the company is doing or another individual is doing.  So to me that's bitterness of the world. Yeah. And I think there's... It takes a bit of time to get there. I wonder if it's previous... Is it nature or nurture? Do you think it's a trait people are born with or do you think it's something you build? Do you think cynicism is something that grows on you? I'm not really qualified to answer that very well but I'll give you my opinion which is that I think some people are more prone to, for example, depression and that has an impact on your mood. And that's kind of a genetic thing, I believe. But I think the environment is a massive part of that as well. If you're brought up in an environment where your parents are very negative and very cynical you role model people that you see as leaders in your life and your parents are leaders, like it or not. So I think... So we came from a company called British Telecom where there was a history of... Well, let's be honest, there was a history of... failure is a strong word but... delay and kind of changing initiatives and constant flux that can be quite unnerving. I think that can have an impact on people's bitterness. Bitterness at the company. In terms of... then it becomes a struggle against their employer for many people in that company as well. And it's a kind of that siege mentality. We've got to look after ourselves there because no one else is looking after ourselves. I'm not going to go that extra mile for the company because they've never gone the extra mile for me. So I think that's united a lot of people that we used to work with about the common struggle in the pub like now moaning about how difficult life is and work is. And I think it does grow on people. Certainly, maybe it's... I'm not qualified enough to say either but certainly with my mum, I can talk about my mum and it's something that's changed with age, I think. Yeah. It's something that perhaps she's struggled with more as she's got older. Yeah. I think that's quite normal. You do tend to see more... as your life experiences grow, maybe. You do tend to see more failures and the failures tend to hurt more and they tend to stay with you longer than where you've been let down by people or fate or luck or whatever you want to call it. And I think that those stay in the memory and so you'll have just more of that tally chart or be longer. I'll give you a different example. This is to do with me. I've got an Achilles problem, right? Okay. In my leg. Don't really know how I did it. I've got a physio mate who had a look at it and he thinks it was through... Get this. He thinks it's through overuse. Me, running too much. But what does... I use the phrase get me down. What brings me down is the length of time it's taking to get better and that has an impact on me personally. My outlook, my... Everything seems like as I'm getting older. Everything seems like it's taking longer to do. I think that brings you down. That kind of allows this negativity, this business to grow. Certainly within me. Definitely. I think so my... Impatience maybe? When you get... So I was listening today to a podcast, the Bad Ass Agile podcast. Yeah, yeah. He was talking about getting into funk and trying to get out of the funk. Yeah. I think it's quite important to realize when you are in a funk and get out. I think that's part of this from Masters Rock. Yeah. We bring this all the way back to the reason I first wrote it a long time ago. Is that changing an organization is hard. It's difficult. You can't see the end of the tunnel. You have to do... You have to almost take a leap of faith in a way. You have to look at yourself and reflect and improve and move forward. And that's very difficult. And there's going to be some bumps along the way. And it's quite easy to focus on those bumps and think, you know, this is never going to happen. We're never going to see the end of this. We're never going to get there. But if you've got...  It will be okay. Yes, it's difficult. Yeah.  Yes, it's difficult. And it will get better. If the scrum master can't do that, if a leader can't do that, then we've got to know them. There is just no chance of success. And that's part of their role. A funk and negative attitude could be an impediment to them. Yeah. Put it that way. Having said all that, they're only human.  No, you can't. So when you were a scrum master routine, and you weren't feeling particularly optimistic or positive, what did you do? I don't know. I'm trying to think now. I think I used to... I'm quite... I work quite a lot of other people as well. So I might take myself out of that situation. I'm trying to think of a perhaps a more recent example that... Where was I? It plays a huge part. I consciously... I don't know why I was confused with the story, but I basically just switched everything off in terms of closing my laptop, turn my phone off. I think I went out for a walk or something. I was outdoors. And I was consciously trying to look around for stuff to distract me. So it was something I think my daughter said at the time. And that element of realism that... You know what? There's bigger things at stake here. Because when it's something in particular that's getting me down, my kids or my home life, my family environment, just take stock for a minute and think, hang on a minute, you've got a lot to be positive about here. There's a lot more going on than just that particular issue. So trying to widen my perspective consciously is what I try to do now. I can't honestly remember if I used to do that before, but that's what keeps me... Oh yeah, we all have bad days. We all have days when we feel like you've got at the proverbial one side of bed, but I think I just try to realise that there's more at stake. And even when you've got negative experiences at work, there's still a lot more... There should be a lot more other things going on that you can draw energy from, whether it's people or whether it's just environment, a different environment, different experience. I think that's quite, personally, I think that's quite important. That self-awareness, how do I recharge myself? How do I replenish myself? How do I realise that I am in that place and I need to step out and look after myself? I use the phrase, fit your own oxygen mask before you fit out. Because you can't have it with people, if you don't have it yourself, if you don't have a good place. You haven't got energy to give. Yeah. So, how do you do that as a scrum master if you're the one expected to do that? Well, you have... In most places, there's more than one scrum master. Yeah.   If it's going outside, get a walk-in touch with nature. If it's shut off, go and have a bath, if it's good for a run, whatever it is, if you know what works for you, then you can engage in it. I've already said this before. My wife's got a... I won't go into this whole story behind this, but my wife's got a punch bag in the garage. So, when things get really stressful at home, I'm sure it's nothing to do with me, but when things get quite stressful at home, I'll have to say, this isn't the reason why she bought the punch bag, because it's for fitness and stuff like that, but she's got a pair of boxing gloves in the garage, and it's particularly if... I'll blame it on the kids. If the kids have been running right all day or if they're particularly difficult, she used to... When my kids were really little, she'd just lock herself in the cupboard or something and scream at the top of her voice, step out of the room and scream, because screaming is quite therapeutic, isn't it? Kind of, and we tell my boys, if he's hurt himself, or if he's angry, go and scream into the pillow, or go and punch the pillow or something like that, just to try and get that... get that energy out of you, and then you can... Cold shower works as well. I'm starting to get more and more fans of a big fan of cold shower. I know a qualified and likes laughter therapist. Right, okay. He teaches you to laugh that, and use that energy to turn that laughter... turn that energy that would have been a scream to you, into exaggerated laughter. Yeah, deliberate laughter. Yes, whatever works really. That's good, yeah, yeah. So when I look back at that tweet, and obviously we all have responsibility for the messages that were going out there in the world, I was directly taking it from text. So if I was going to change it, I'd have to rewrite the book, I suppose. But would I change that? I suppose in an ideal world I probably would. Mainly because I do encourage people to never use the word. Never. Never. Or always, or nobody, or everyone. And I, myself, use the word nobody. Nobody is inspired by a cynical. Well, there you go. So I would say most people are not inspired by a cynical. Well, especially you're not. Correct. But I'm not sensitive to the population. Yeah. And it was somewhat of a generalisation. I still believe somewhere in the region 99% of people aren't inspired by a cynical. What about someone like Brian Clough? Would you say he's cynical? He was cynical? I'm trying to think of very outwardly... I mean, we are really splitting our audience down to a very small portion here. Who knows, Brian Clough? Not many people know Brian Clough. I'm trying to think of a fairly iconic, yet more dour, cynical manner. The fact that you can't really think of one very easily. No, I know. I suppose there's a lot. I think the public, or maybe the person in the media is very different to how they deal with people on a day-by-day basis, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah, Alan Sugar's. Yes. Alan Sugar is a good example. Lord Sugar. Again, would that translate to our international audience? Maybe, probably not. Alan Sugar is the former. I don't think he's... Is he still in charge? Is he still of Amstrad? He's a fairly big media mogul in the UK. He comes across as very cynical. He has a persona of belligerent, grumpy old boss, but very successful. And at the top of his game commercially and as a business thinker. He basically was the Donald Trump version in the UK version of The Apprentice. I would like to see out of 100 people, we surveyed 100 people. How many of them would prefer to work for Alan Sugar as opposed to Richard Branson? That's a great question. Maybe we should Twitter poll that on our agile podcast. Let's do that. So we'll do that, where after this goes out we'll put that Twitter poll out and we'll see what people think. Nice. I like that. Yeah. So all else being equal. So the job's the same, the location's the same, the pay's the same. Everything's the same. The only thing is you would be working for one of those two people. And we'll tell you in a later podcast what the result was. Good place to stop, I think. That's nice. I'm a bit slow on the old pint tonight. I'm sorry. Glass half empty and all that. Nice work. Cheers, mate. Cheers, everybody. Cheers.