Wednesday, December 19, 2007

My All-Time Favorite Joke

A lawyer jumps out of his chair exclaiming: "My client is innocent, my client is innocent!!"... The judge awkwardly looks at him and asks: "How do you claim that your client is innocent when he just has admitted a murder and robbing a bank?!"... The lawyer argues: "So are you going to question me and take the words of a murdering thief?!"

I know it may not make sense, but thats the beauty of the joke... Sometimes non-sense seems to make a persuasive argument to unsuspecting audience!!

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Become A Minister Today

Have you ever wanted to be a minister?! Becoming a Priest\Imam\Rabbi can be tedious task, but not anymore! Now for as low as 10$ you can become a minister of any religions you want: No questions asked! Name it, pay, and you'll be a registered minister of whichever faith you wish - you'll have a certificate too!

Whether you wish to unite people in marriage, preach to people with divine authority, or just hang the certificate on the wall, its your call....

Those privileges can be obtained through the Universal Life Church Monastery (Wikipedia Article). They offer you anything from a simple certificate for just 10$, to a 140$ box containing numerous certificates as well as books to the religion of your choice. You can even order a wedding kit for 130$ that has everything you need to perform wedding ceremonies!

The Church has several mottoes, including:
  • We are all children of the same universe.
  • We are one
  • Everyone has a right to tell others how to live their lives!

Please note that those certificates are legal in USA and a select number of other countries. You may wish to consult a lawyer whether or not those certificates are valid in your country.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Why This Blog Is Not Being Updated...?

Simply said, I am on an open-ended break... I have absolutely no idea when I will continue my work here, but my work is not done yet... I still want to carry on this work on my blog, but currently I have no enthusiasm to write.

To make things even clearer... I, Devil's Mind, have more than one hobby... Writing down my thoughts -in a blog or otherwise- is one of those... But currently I am more occupied with one of my other hobbies, programming!

Its kind of a cycle. For all the period of my blogging, I have been occupied by blogging and neglected programming. This is the time when I shift gears, I got back to programming and neglected my blog... I guess this blog shall wait until I finish some programming projects, and get enough of programming... That would be the time I get back to this blog with new enthusiasm...

I hope this would answer most inquiries of why this blog is not being updated!

Friday, July 27, 2007

Be A Hedonist: Sing And Never Frown

Nancy Ajram in "El-Donya 7elwa" (Life is Good):
Forget the past forever
Never let the anger linger
Be happy and smile
Always let your spirit be high
O dear heart, sing again and again
And let my singing be heard all around
If it were upto me I would come hither
And tell the frown to go far far away
Life is good

The original lyrics in Arabic language:
Ensa elli raa7 3ala 6oul 3ala 6oul
Matsebshi za3lak marra ye6oul
Efra7 shwaya w ed7ak shwaya
Keda khalli rou7ak 3alya w high
W ya albi ghany kaman w kaman
Wa9al ghonaya la-kol makan
W ana law 3alaya delwa2ti gaya
3alashan 2a2oul ya za3al bye bye
El-donya 7elwa

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Interpersonal Relationships ABCs

In some previous posts (like this one), I discussed my support for open relationships. At those times I skipped a good habit that I have been doing, which is starting with the basics before getting into the details. This entry can be considered as a late introduction into the basics to my personal views about relationships. As obviously expected all views expressed may not apply to everybody, and although I'll try my best to establish universal statements, those statements may not apply to all...

The first and most important statement, I believe, is that interpersonal relationships are "opt in". Relationships require consent. You cannot force someone to be in a relationship with you. This leads us to the second important realization, which is that interpersonal relationships are established through mutual agreement. Another important realization is that relationships are not necessarily permanent. This simply means that consent is not only required to start a relationship, but consent is also required for the continuity of the relationship. So if at a later point of time one does not want to be in a relationship, the relationship would be forfeited.

After realizing that no person can be coerced into a relationship, we come to understand the contract-based nature of relationships. For two people to be in a relationships, they have to both agree to be in a relationship. If any of the parties of a relationship don't agree to have a relationship, then that relationship is forfeited. Mutual agreement is the answer to the "how". How can two people be in a relationship, the answer is: By mutual agreement.

Now that we know "how" a relationship can be established, the question that begs itself is the "why". Since relationships are optional, why would someone choose to be part of a relationship. The answer to this question can be complex, but one word suffices: Benefit! Any relationship needs a motive, a motive can be a simple "I want someone to chat with...", or maybe just sex. Sometimes this motive can be a more complex emotional need like someone who wants love, or another who needs someone to rock their world! At other times, the motive is less direct, like wanting to establish a family... This leads us to the third conclusion which is: Whatever the motive is, Relationships need a motive.

Going back to the previous statement, relationships need mutual agreement, for this reason if one party has a motive to establish a relationship, but the other does not, then no relationship would happen. This leads us to the fourth conclusion: Relationships need mutual interest. So if we ask "why" relationships happen, the answer would be: Mutual interest!

This last conclusion is a really important conclusion. Without mutual interest there is no basis to establish a relationship. This means two things: First, unbalanced relationships are doomed to end. That's to say, a relationship where one partner gives too much, while the other contributes nothing to that relationship, that relationship would be on the self-destruction sequence. No-one is ready to take another's crap forever for free. It's that simple. Second, we can conclude that relationships need nourishment. It's cause-and-effect: Relationships survive upon mutual interest. Once one of the partners loses interest, that relationship will cease to exist!

An important factor in relationships, I believe, is communication. Even at the most basic step of initializing a relationship, communication plays an important part. How else than communication can two people reach mutual agreement?! But since relationships are not necessarily permanent, mutual agreement should be reassured at several points in the time-line of an ongoing relationship. The word "Relationship" means a bond, and communication is the tool that binds.

At this point I just want to compile a list of the statements and conclusions I have discussed about relationships that would sum all up:
  1. Interpersonal relationships are opt-in. (ie. consent is required)
  2. Interpersonal relationships can be opt-out. (ie. are not necessarily permanent)
  3. Relationships are established through mutual agreement.
  4. Relationships need a motive.
  5. Relationships need mutual interest.
  6. Unbalanced and\or abandoned relationships would deteriorate.
  7. Communication is a key element for the continuity of a relationship.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Nothing Ever Happens And I Wonder

The other day, sitting in the car listening to the radio, I heard a cool song that describes the pointlessness of life... The song is by Fool's Garden and called "Yellow Lemon Tree", and it goes like this:
I'm sitting here in the boring room
It's just another rainy Sunday afternoon
I'm wasting my time
I got nothing to do
I'm hanging around
I'm waiting for you
But nothing ever happens and I wonder

I'm driving around in my car
I'm driving too fast
I'm driving too far
I'd like to change my point of view
I feel so lonely
I'm waiting for you
But nothing ever happens and I wonder (Full lyrics)

And I, too, am still waiting for the changes to come... And I wonder: Will they ever come?!

Thursday, July 05, 2007

My Dream House

As a person, I admire a few things. The first thing I admire is functionality. I simply hate useless things, thats why a dream place for me should contain everything I need, and nothing I don't need. The another thing I admire is coziness. My place should be a relaxation center, everything related to relaxation should be easily available. Because of my admiration of coziness, the bedroom is in my opinion the most important room in any house.

My dream house should contain 3 Master bedrooms. Each one of them should contain all of the following: A master bed, a big screen TV with surround system, a phone, a computer, a closet, and at least two comfortable couches. My dream house contains NO separate guestroom. If I got any guests, I would host them in my bedroom (thats why I have couches in the bedroom)...

Each bedroom must be fully equipped, so that I might watch TV while in bed, or on the couch if I will. The computer is also in the bedroom, so that I wouldn't have to leave the bedroom except to either get something from the kitchen or go to the bathroom.

The house should contain two bathrooms where at least one of them contains a Jacuzzi that can host upto four individuals. Also, I would have a big kitchen and a minibar.

Supposedly, I would live in this house with my girlfriend. We have three bedrooms, so I would have a bedroom of my own, she would have a bedroom of her own, and we'd still have an extra bedroom. This way, we would have the choice of sleeping together in three different rooms, which can be very refreshing. Having more than one bedroom can give us a great amount of privacy and space.

This way, I can bring any girl I want to my bedroom and she can get any guy she wants to her room without any problems. If we want to share our sex lives we can do so freely, and if we decide to have separate sex lives we can easily do so as well. She wouldn't have to put up with any girl I bring home, neither would I have to put up with any guy she brings home. The extra bedroom can be used for guests. For example, if a friend of mine visited with his girlfriend - they can sleep the night in the extra bedroom.

It is obvious that my dream house is suited to host highly active sexual life, thats why it is important that each room would also be ready with sex tools, including: dildos, vibrators, and gels. It would also be a good idea to have one of the walls as a big mirror, so that we can watch ourselves as we are doing sex.

The Jacuzzi can also be used as an asset for sex. The Jacuzzi would hold upto four individuals, so if me and my girlfriend feel adventurous, each one of us would invite a friend, and then can have hot foursome in the tub... Big dreams, I know!!

Finally, the house should be a one-story house. Next to the house is a beautiful garden and a swing for the romantic nights: Sitting on the swing looking at the moon surrounded by beautiful roses - a perfect night out. Thats about it, this is my imagination of a perfect house that satisfies my two most adored features: functionality and coziness. This dream house also realizes my view on relationships, where it is possible to have an open relationship with side affairs, without causing any conflicts, without invading anyone's space or comfort zone.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Brief Look At Buddhism - Part 1: Basic Tenets

Having visited Sri-Lanka whose majority are Buddhists, I developed a small curiosity to learn about that religion. My first impression was that Buddhism was unlike anyother religion I have known before. Buddhism started 2500 years ago, around 500 years before Christianity.

The first important observation is that Buddhism is an atheist religion compatible with atheism. The Buddha (literally means "The Enlightened One") denied the existence of God as a supreme being that controls our humans' fate to either Heaven or Hell. Hedonism is one of the basic tenets of Buddhism. The goal of Buddhism is the state of eternal pleasure (called "Nirvana"), which can be achieved through methods described in Buddhism. The Nirvana idea is similar to the idea of Heaven in most religions (strictly speaking, religions like Christianity and Islam that advocate Heavens are considered as Hedonist religions). But unlike Christianity, Nirvana can be achieved through "personal effort", NOT bestowed by an upper authority called God!!

Buddhism introduces the concept of rebirth. Nirvana and rebirth are interconnected. Rebirth is the equivalent of suffering. Nirvana is the equivalent of the end of suffering, which is the goal of Buddhism. Buddhism starts with few axioms (assumptions) called "The Four Noble Truths". They are called "Noble", because they make the person who understands them a Noble person (at least that's what is claimed).

The first Noble Truth is that "Life means Suffering": Buddha based his visions on the indisputable(?) fact that any person who lives has to suffer one way or another at some point. The second Noble Truth is that "Suffering is caused by Desire": Buddha elaborates on the first truth and tries to explain why people suffer. Desiring transient (earthly) things causes suffering. So if someone wants to get something, but they don't get it, they will feel the suffering. Similarly, the process of acquiring things includes suffering. To get something, you have to pay something... Finally, it is by human nature that we have a never ending desire, that is whenever we achieve one thing, we will start looking for the next thing!! This concludes that life is a series of endless suffering. That's why Buddha has said: "Contentment is the greatest wealth".

The third Noble Truth claims that ending of suffering is possible by eliminating its cause (ie. releasing oneself from seeking earthly things). This axiom is simply conforming to the cause and effect philosophy. The fourth Noble Truth, is that to be able to release yourself from suffering, you can follow "The Eightfold Path", which is a path to the Nirvana.

Buddhism states that desire to live causes a person to live again through a process called "Rebirth". Since living, by the Buddhist definition, is equivalent to suffering, then being reborn means the continuation of suffering. Rebirth can be viewed as transferring the mental energy from a deceased body, to a newly formed living form (fertilized eggs in the case of humans). It is believed that a human can be reborn as a different species on earth, species in distant planets in this galaxy, or even a completely different dimension than this universe. But when a person eliminates his desire to live, he will not be reborn, and thus reaching a state of inexistence... Such state is free from suffering, thus is considered as the goal of the Buddhist. This state is called Nirvana.

Edit: Since some variations of Buddhism accept theism, the general statement "Buddhism is atheist" cannot hold. Although it can be noted that the most spread variations of Buddhism are atheist, particularly Theravada variation which is the oldest and most conforming to the original teachings of The Buddha.

An Inevitable Question

Sitting with my friends on the TV, they were passing through channels, they stumble on Melody channel (An Arab music channel, known for showing newcomer half-naked female singers) and Qur'an (The Islamic bible) was being broadcasted. "Whats this channel?" I asked. "Melody!" a friend replied, and then came the inevitable question: "So now Qur'an is some kind of new sexual fetish?!"

Sunday, June 24, 2007

My Trip To Sri-Lanka

Its been really a long while since I lasted posted here. Part of the reason is that for the past 9 days I was visiting Sri-Lanka as a vacation with my family... The schedule was full and I had no time to check online... Anyways, the trip was magnificent and Sri-Lanka is indeed a beautiful country in terms of natural scenery. Sri-Lanka is a small tropical green island in the Indian ocean. It takes about 6 hours 20 minutes to reach Sri-Lanka from Jordan. We stayed in 3 different cities in Sri-Lanka, and in each city we were hosted at a different five-stars hotel. Five-stars hotels in Sri-Lanka are much more elegant than those in Jordan, there is a huge gap of quality between them.

Sri-Lanka as a whole country seems like a resort. Wherever you set your sight on, there is either a beautiful river, a wild ocean, or some exotic looking trees. Greenness is everywhere, but Sri-Lanka's tropical greenness is more attractive than the greenness you might encounter in some European countries. For example, I visited Romania in the old days and was astonished by its greenness, but the problem was that their thick forests are almost inhabited by one type of trees, so although its green, all that green looks the same. On the other hand, in Sri-Lanka, forests are inhabited by a wide variety of trees making them more enjoyable to watch.

Sri-Lanka's people seem too concerned about elephants as for them elephants are historically Royal animals... They have both wild and domestic elephants... They even have an orphanage for elephants, so if an elephant was hunted, killed, or died for any reason, that orphanage takes care of their children (it seems that elephants are family-loving animals). And as my dad jokingly pointed out, they seem to take care of elephants more than humans!! The most stupid thing was that they on the first day, we paid $30 to see the elephants, while they have elephants in the streets. Its like making someone pay money to visit a cats zoo here in Jordan - when cats are found in every garbage dump around the country!!

One of the scenery that really made me say "WOW" (which I very rarely would say) was a small Island in the ocean from one of the hotels' balcony. Just when I got to that hotel went up to the room, and opened the curtains it was out there... A small Island visible from the balcony... I couldn't but say "WOW"!! It felt like Hawaii was right next to me!!

Buddhism is the major religion in Sri-Lanka with 69%, Hinduism has 15%, while Christianity and Islam take almost 7.5% each and 1% others. Religions in Sri-Lanka co-exist peacefully without complications. You can find a Buddhist temple, a Christian church, and a Muslim mosque built all next to each other, and people respecting each person's choice. For example, marriage between couples of different religions is a widely acceptable practice in Sri-Lanka. Unlike say Jordan, where marriage between people of different religions is a highly charged phenomenon.

I have bought a book titled "The Buddha and His Teachings"... Having read a little about Buddhism, it seems to be different from other religions like Christianity and Islam that enforce the belief in God, on the other hand, Buddhism is mainly an atheist religion that isn't based on the idea of God. I might post one or two posts regarding Buddhism after I read more about it. One interesting thing I learnt about Muslims in Sri-Lanka is that they may marry upto seven wives... I dunno how they managed to stuff marriage with yet 3 more wives than the four they already had!!

The trip was costly - almost 800JDs per person - so this makes it 3600JDs paid for our four individuals family!! That amount includes everything from the Airplane ticket, the tourism agency, and day-to-day charges, shopping and others. The tourism agency provided residence in five-star hotels with breakfast and dinner. It also provided a guide, a small van and a driver. The van was under our full command since we didn't join any other group.

Check these photos:
1- The elephants orphanage: 1 2
2- Tribute for the horny girls: 1
3- My parents riding an elephant: 1 2
4- River: 1 2
5- Island on the balcony: 1 2 3

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Suicide Booths: Convenient Death

Why should killing your own self be a messy procedure?! We really need well-designed suicide booths for the convenience of those tired of life... Don't we?! Life is tough, why should death be so as well!!

Imagine having a small booth, you pay service charge and the machine kills you the way you wish to die. Maybe it can ask you about your favorite death mode. In the futuristic vision of Futurama (a cartoon series), they envision such a machine that offers two modes of death: "Quick and painless", and "Slow and horrible"!! A nice offer indeed and only for 25cents!!

If you are having trouble imagining how such booths would look and operate, maybe you should check this small clip. If the Futurama writers are correct, "Stop'n'drop is America's favorite suicide booth since 2008", this means we have about one year until the first general public designs will come into the market!! Lets hope these superb services would become available to our pathetic generations...

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?

Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?: A question posed by Natasha in this blog entry that I felt is interesting to further analyze.

Personally, I would argue that it is okay to get what you believe is rightfully yours even by stealing it. The issue is diverse, but approaching the subject from several ways lead to the conclusion that, if you think something is yours, it is up to you to take it. Lets take a look at three different case scenarios: The first is stealing out of need, the second is Robin Hood theft, and third social rebellion.

Consider a poor person who does not have the money to buy food, so he steals that food. This is probably a humanitarian case. The social system exists to protect its members, and failing to deliver the minimum required amount of protection to the most basic needs for human survival, gives the person zero incentive to abide the rules of that system. To value the social system above the lives of its members is simply unreasonable.

Robin Hood theft is a redistribution of wealth concept where the money (allegedly stolen by the people in high positions) is stolen from the wealthy and given to the poor. It is based on the simple idea that, if someone steals something, then it not rightfully theirs, which legitimizes that the original owner to steal it back. Such reasoning is widely opposed where it is claimed that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that the legitimate way is to get your goods back through legal means, by reporting to the police or through the justice system. The problem arises when the social system does not grantee retrieval of whatever is stolen, as in corrupt systems. In short, if the system fails to get your stolen rights back, Robin Hood is your friend.

Consider social contractism, in such view, property laws among other laws are based on mutual agreement of the members of a society to abide the civil laws. If we consider these contracts as opt-in contracts, where the individual is given the choice whether or not to participate in those contracts, it seems that it is natural that disagreeing parties may rebel above those laws. Since most individuals are coerced by their peers to submit to social order, regardless of their agreement to its terms, it seems reasonable that breaking those laws is a natural consequence.

Social order is created through rebellion. Not necessarily through physical and\or violent rebellion, but rebellion in its most general sense is required to form social order. (Unlike what totalitarian systems tries to convince the people, that social order is achieved through obedience, when the fact is that rebellion is what creates social order.) It is known throughout history, that any failing system is meant to be abolished through some kind of revolution. The "slaves" fought for their freedom, no-one would come to a "slave" and hand them their (rightful?) freedom, they had to take it by their own hands. Thats how things work!!

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Serious Plans To Establish A Blogs Aggregator (Updated)

Why a New Aggregator:
It has become clear to me that although the blogs aggregation for our small country (Jordan that is) is high, with numerous blogs aggregators serving the readers, there is still something that is missing. Respect. Most Jordanian bloggers started blogging with one reason in mind: To avoid the restrictive one-sided journalism, a free voice to speak up their mind with no censorship or boundaries. But it seems to me that none of the currently existing aggregators have had any serious policies that give the readers a grantee against censorship.

For this reason, I am planning one such aggregator that will actually promise its readers their right to know what goes behind the scenes. No blogs or posted entries will be censored abruptly. There might be some criteria to delete some posts, but all such criteria will be publicly announced. In the extreme cases where one post\blog has to be removed, that case will be announced publicly along with the reason for it. There will be NO silent removals while secretly hoping no-one will ever notice [like some have previously done!!]. The reader will have the right to know what material has been removed, and why it was removed... But my hope is that there will be no such removals to start with.

What Has Been Done So Far:
I registered my own domain and I am working now to configure an aggregator. I have installed several aggregation (content management softwares) and I am testing which one suits my vision best. In a few days, I will post preliminary links to temporary test aggregation attempts in order to ensure their suitable configuration. After I become satisfied with the result, that aggregator will hopefully go to wide-scale consumption and site feeds will be added.

Note: Updates on this project will follow in the coming days. Please provide my with preliminary thoughts whether or not you think I should go on with the project.

Please Tell Me What You Think:
1- Should the aggregator be strictly for Jordanians?! For Arabs?! Or multi-cultural?!
2- Should the aggregator have low requirements for inclusion?! Should new and\or mediocre blogs be included?! Or should it be picky with high requirements?!
3- Any other recommendations?!

Update: (May 19, 2007) An aggregator is setup and running. Please note that I am in the process of adding blogs as I am exploring blogs to find good blogs. The policy of the aggregator is not ready yet. Also note that, neither the site look or feature set are final. I am working on a completely new look and feature set, but this will take a while (maybe two months)...

Thursday, May 17, 2007

My Simple Pleasures

Upon, The Arab Observer's request, I am asked to list "10 Simple Pleasures"... So here we go:

  1. Physical pleasures, including: masturbation, sex, massaging, and hot bathes.
  2. Sleeping.
  3. Thinking alone in bed.
  4. A drive in a car.
  5. Delicious foods, including: Pepsi, Ice-cream, Chips, Shawerma.
  6. Simulation (open-ended) games, like "The Sims 2" my current favorite game.
  7. Relaxing music, including: Oud (3ood), instrumental, Enigma, Fairouz.
  8. Being with friends.
  9. Being drunk.
  10. Interesting chat, including: heart-to-heart talks, mind-to-mind talks, and bad jokes.

Lets just note that, pleasure is the most important aspect in life... No matter what we do, lets just work towards a happy life... No matter how serious things might seem, there is always time for laughter and pleasure :)

Monday, May 14, 2007

Keeping Myself Alive Through Your Empathy

Keeping myself alive...
Through your EMPATHY (Slipknot - Skin Ticket)

Begging is an art. Sure we all get annoyed by those nuisances who get in our ways in public places asking for our money. But from a different perspective, they have learnt some lessons in life that an average person wouldn't know: The human fragility, ego, sympathy and empathy.

Humans express a wide range of emotions, and being able to interact with those emotions is an art. Consider this little girl, dressed in a nice modest-looking dress, selling a small white or red flower for at some overpriced rate. Guess most of us have seen her one time or another.... A classic, we've all heard bedtime stories about a princess with a flower in her hand... So boom, there goes that girl shattering all that you know as child, asking for your "generosity"... Can you resist the temptation?!.... So, how much of an effort did that girl put to come up with such a brilliant idea?! It needs an expert psychologist to figure this one out!!!

In some cultures, parents would not give their daughters to a man for marriage if he didn't get out begging for at least a week. They believe that a man who cannot beg is not worthy of their daughter... Why is begging so important in such a culture that it can make a difference between a worthy husband and an unworthy one?!

It is true that in many cases a nice word or a simple gesture, can achieve more than hardship. Maybe this is the lesson that beggars understand better than anyone else. Maybe we can have a new requirement for certain jobs to get a "begging tour". Jobs like customer care, or maybe sales representatives (practically, "sales" is "corporate beggary") can make use of experience gained through begging.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Language is the way of communication, so studies in the field of language can be very useful in the field of communications, especially the protocol part of communication. Protocol encryption is very similar to communicating through a foreign language, and protocol decryption is very similar to the process of acquiring language. Someone who is working to decrypt a message, is like a baby trying to understand what his parents are talking about. Currently humans are communicating with their direct environment, the earth. If human ever reach inter-galactic space, they would need advanced techniques for protocol decryption in order to communicate with alien species -if they existed-. So "practicing" communication with alien species by trying to communicate with animals is a good exercise, I hope research would come up with good results in this regard.

As a practical side to a 7-parts article, here is a list of four possible applications for this proposed investigation:
  1. Revolutionized encryption: Deep structure hypothesis suggests that all human languages have common trends. In message decryption routines, statistical analysis is used to find patterns in streams of data. With enough information and processing, messages in any language and with a wide-range of encryption methods can be decoded using computer programs. In order to make even harder encryption techniques we need more knowledge in coding schemes. New ways of language would mean one such revolution.
  2. In order to discover new ways of language, we can investigate the languages of non-humans. This has the double effect of better understanding of coding techniques and leading to better encryption, and better methods to decrypt foreign messages.
  3. Maybe, and only maybe, aliens are already sending out messages in their own views of language in the universe. If we can identify such foreign messages, they might help us locate alien species.
  4. Implementing Artificial Intelligence that has language recognition capability. If a machine can learn human language just like human babies can learn their parents' language, this would be a revolution in the AI field.
  5. Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP): Some researches claimed positive clues to the existence of ESP in the human brain. Some tests show that some people have been able to use "Telepathy". If humans had such capabilities then it is their lack of understanding of communication are unable to unlock these parts of the brain. Better understanding of language may help humans unlock ESP - if it existed.

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Friday, April 20, 2007

Contractism And Social Order

Contractism is the notion that humans have their full spectrum of personal liberties where ONLY some forms contracts (mutual agreement) can be binding by law. Many of current practices involve contractism. Capitalism is one of the systems that closely resemble contractism. In our world, almost everyone is familiar with the standard procedure for making contracts. A printed paper with two signatures. The terms of the agreement are binding to both parties. This is the simplest form making contracts.

In contractism, all laws are abandoned in favor of contracts. Thats to say, contracts are the whole law. People are born with neither rights nor duties. No law applies to anyone unless they explicitly agreed to be binded by that law. This is the simplest concept contractism. Our current policies are not completely compatible with contractism. The first problem is that contracts are NOT fully enforced. Second, the current laws impose limitations on contracts.

Living in society is a form of a social contract. A community of people agree to certain rules that members of that community (alternatively called "citizens") are expected to follow in order to retain certain services back from their community. This would be the simplest form of what we might call a "government".

Think about it this way: You are born with neither rights nor duties. [This is the natural state everyone is living in.] The place you live in is a Jungle. People are killing each other, stealing from one another, everything is in a mayhem. Being concerned about your own security, you reach out to other people in your community as agree that: "I will not fight you, if you dont fight me. I will not take your food, if you don't take mine. I promise not to attack you, if you promise not to attach me.".... This is the simplest form of social order. This mutual agreement now becomes the new law. At this point, not all those who live with you have agreed to this "peace agreement", so you make more agreements with your fellows. Say, you agree that: "If a person or an animal attacked you, I will get your back, if you promise to get my back in a similar situation." In this example, we can see how people can agree to a law, and how they can protect one another and defend them from external threats. This collection of social contracts and conventions are called social order.

In this view we can realize a few things: In contractism, social contracts are optional. Social contracts are reached through mutual agreements. If someone refuses to be bound by the social contract, that would be their free choice, but they have no rights and no grantees about anything. To give a few examples of what this means, consider these scenarios: A person has the right to refuses to pay taxes, but this would exclude him from public services like public schools, social security,...etc. A person who refuses to respect the property rights of others [ie. steals their property], would have no grantee that his property would not be stolen as well.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Omnisexuality: The Unrestrained Sexual Orientation

Introduction and Basic Definition:
Omnisexuality (sometimes called Pansexuality) is a term used to describe undiscriminating choice for sexual and\or romantic partners. Most people are familiar with the term "bisexuality", which includes both "homo" and "hetero" partners for sexual and\or romantic affairs. Pansexuality extends beyond bisexuality, to include the sexes that are usually referred to as "others", including -but not limited to- transsexuals (people who undergone a sex-change operation) and intersexes (people who don't fall in either male or female profiles). Omnisexuality even expands beyond pansexuality to include sexuality with non-humans.

Personally, I like to identify myself as omnisexual, which roughly means: "I'd fuck anything that has a hole I can put my dick in!" Okay, that was an overshoot of a simplification, but guess you got the idea.

Some might think that extending sexuality to non-humans would include "zoosexuality". Technically yes... But since I consider consent to be an important precondition to sex, which pretty much excludes animals of the list. The reason I extend non-human species on the list is because [in my futuristic fantasy] I would be open to have sex with intelligent alien species - [Okay, guess Star Trek messed me up in this part]. So, I consider myself open to relationships with any species that I can have a mind-to-mind chat with.

Sensual Side of Sexuality:
Sexuality is a primary carnal drive. Sex is generally considered as a source for pleasurable sensations. Since, the primary reason for engaging in sexual activity is pleasure, then it seems unreasonable to discriminate pleasure according to its source. That's to say, if two things provide exactly the same sensual experiences, then those experiences are equal regardless of their source.

Consider this simplest act of getting a blow job, that is, using the mouth for sexual stimulation. Since a male's and female's mouths provide roughly equivalent experiences, then if you close your eyes and someone (either male or female) gives you a blow job, the sensation is the same, and the pleasure is the same!

I remember a friend once telling me about a film where the camera starts rolling with really nice feet, moving up to show nice shaved tall legs, moving further up to show a really nice ass... At that point, as that friend describes started wanking his dick... The camera kept moving up until it was revealed that the person shown was a guy - not some hot chick. As that friend describes, it totally blew the moment! He then goes on to explain that he thought about the incident for a while and later on realized that, since that nice ass was indistinguishable from a hot chick's ass, that the marginal fact that its a guy's ass shouldn't stop him from enjoying that nice ass!! And I totally agree with him, it's exactly the point I am making.

Emotional Side of Sexuality:
In my personal understanding, sexuality represents acceptance. When you can accept someone then you would not mind getting naked around them, and allowing the exchange of pleasure. In this understanding, it seems to me, the more people you accept, the wider the sexual orientation would expand.

Mutual acceptance seems that most emotionally gratifying product of sexual activity.

In that light, I consider my hypothetical acceptance of the idea of having sex with an alien, as a symbolic acceptance of what might seem weired or "alien" to us as earthlings.

Conscious Choice of Sexual Orientation:
Opposed to the popular view that sexual orientation is determined during early stages and is immutable, I disagree and think that sexual orientation is a choice conscious choice plays an important [but NOT exclusive] role in sexual orientation. I think that anyone would naturally attain gratification from any sexual experience, and that the choice of limiting the sources of sexual gratification is a product of a psychological process biological AND psychological factors on both conscious and subconscious levels, as well as prenatal experiences.

It is known that most people have bisexual urges, but people later on focus their sexual orientation towards one of the sexes (usually the opposite sex). I don't really see why some people insist on limiting their sexual orientations to "hetero only" or "homo only"... It doesn't make perfect sense to me. Why make only 50% of people as potential sources of pleasure, when it is possible to have 100% of people as potential sources of pleasure?!

Obviously, our social constructs increase the tendency of people to pick one of the genders as potential sexual partners. These constructs usually defined stereotyped views of males, females, and the relationships between people of different genders. For example, the socially constructed views about the importance of sexuality between males and females drive most people to the opposite sex, while this social pressure might negatively affect others and drive them away from the opposite sex towards the same sex. In my opinion, in many cases [but not all] sexual orientation is an extension of gender stereotypes AND stereotyped gender roles formulated by the society which are strongly reinforced by the society.

Edit: The last section was modified to resolve some ambious interpretations

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Excuse My French

"If you put 'Le' in front of a word, it does make it classy... like 'Lesbian' – the classiest woman of them all."

Captain Hero / Drawn Together

Friday, April 06, 2007

Seinfeld: Men\Women Jokes

  • I was the "best man" in a wedding one time. That was pretty good title I thought. If I was the "best man", why is she marrying him?!
  • Men and women will not understand eachother... Its just not gonna happen! Just forget it!! I know I will not understand women, I know I will never be able to understand how a woman could take boiling hot wax, pour it on her upper thighs, rip the hair out by the root... AND STILL be afraid of a spider!! I am not spending more time working on THAT!!
  • I bet women would like to know what men are really thinking: The Truth, the honest Truth of what men are really thinking... Cause I could tell ya! Would you like to know?! Alright I'll tell you: NOTHING!! We're not thinking anything... We're just walking around, looking around... This is the only natural inclination of Man! We're just gonna check stuff out.
  • We like women, we want women, but thats pretty much as far as we've thought! Thats why we are honking car horns, yelling from construction sites: These are the best ideas we've had so far!!
  • Why do the men behave in these ways?! We men know, no matter how poorly we behave, it seems we somehow end up with women anyways!! Look around this room, look at all the men we see with lovely women. Do you think these are special men?! Gifted men?! One-of-a-kind men?! They are the same jerks and idiots that I am talking about: They're doing just fine!
  • Men as an organization are getting more women than anyother group working in the world today! Wherever women are, we have men looking into the situation. We explored the earth looking for women. We even went to the moon just to see if there were any women there!! Thats why we've brought the car. Why would you bring a car [to the moon], unless there is a chance of getting out on a date!!
  • All men think of themselves as some kind of low level superheros in their own world. When men are growing up and they're reading about Batman, Spiderman, Superman,.. these aren't fantasizes. These are OPTIONS! This the deep inner secret of the male mind.
  • Dating is not easy... What is a date really, but a job interview that lasts all night.
  • Women have two types of orgasms: The actual orgasms, and the ones they make on their own. And I can give you the male point of view on this, which is: We're fine with it, you do whatever the hell you gotta do!
These last two jokes are not Men\Women jokes, but... well, I liked them:
  • I enjoy any sporting event where nations get involved, I find that to be the most exciting. The Olympics is really my favorite sporting event, although I think I have a problem with that silver medal. I think if I was an Olympic athlete I would rather come in last, than win the silver. If you think about it: You win the gold you feel good. You win the bronze you think at least I got something. But if you win the silver, its like: "Congratulation, you ALMOST won! Of all the losers you came in first of THAT group. You are the number one loser! No-one lost ahead of you!"
  • There are many things that we can point to that prove that the human being is not smart. "The Helmet" is my personal favorite. The fact that we had to invent "The Helmet". Now, why did we invent The Helmet?! Well... Because we were participating in many activities that were cracking our heads, we looked at the situation, we chose not to avoid these activities, but to just make little plastic hats so that we can continue our head-cracking lifestyles. The only thing dumber than The Helmet is "The Helmet Law", the point of which is to protect the brain that is functioning so poorly that its not even trying to stop the cracking of the head its in!!

source: I'm Telling You for the Last Time

Monday, April 02, 2007

Excuse Me: I Have To Hate You!

Philosophies and religions exist to enrich people of their world and their understanding of it. And through the meditations and the deep thoughts, humans have been able to compile their ideas in the forms of religions and philosophical views. But in the dire need for humans to create conflicts, they basically shove one another's views over the others, people started fighting those who reach different answers. One episode of South Park highlights this phenomenon, in an episode called "Go God Go". Cartman now is in the future, five hundred years after Richard Dawkins has freed the world from religions:
Cartman: Wait!! Isn't everybody is at war over atheism?!
Leader 1: Atheism?!! No, we've learned to get rid of all the "isms" in our time.
Leader 2: Yes... Long ago we realized that "isms" are great for those who were rational, but in the hand of irrational people "isms" always lead to violence!!
Cartman: So there is no war now in the future?!
Leader 3: Of course there is war, the stupid French Chinese think they have a right to Hawaii!!
All: [Angrily] YEAH!!

The above excerpt parodies the never ending humans' resolution to create war, and that religion IS NOT the "reason" for humans to kill eachother, but merely an "excuse" to do so!! It would be naive to think that when -and if at all- humans dumped religions then the bloodshed would stop... It really doesn't work that way!!

And finally, as Marilyn Manson puts it in "The Beautiful People":
There's no time to discriminate,
Hate every motherfucker
That's in your way (Full lyrics)

If for just a second you thought you were discriminated against because of your religion, skin, sex, or whatever.... THINK AGAIN!!

Friday, March 30, 2007

Vomiting Rocks

The best thing about getting drunk is that vomiting becomes the most enjoyable experience imaginable!! I can't really say how good it feels to be laying right over the toilet, letting all the shit out!!

Its funny, how last night I was feeling down, and tonight things feel cool, that even vomit tastes great!! Nothing beats getting over the "3rg" (my favorite alcoholic drink) while parking at a hill, the sun rising, and the "3ood" (a traditional Arabic music instrument) in the background. Once the sun rose, "Fairouz" -the ONLY good quality Arab music- started on the radio.

Guess with this post I have to end my day, and get to a good night sleep!! Hope this entry will still make sense after getting sober! :)

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Fucked From The Inside

The hardest moment is when you realize that you have failed BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS!! Failing when the Judge is YOU!!

I failed a long time ago...

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Open Your Mind

"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push." (source)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

When you are stuck at a problem, approach it from other angles..

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis

At several points so far, I discussed how our environment and physiology influences our language. I also supported this view by three hypotheses, the first one is the deep structure hypothesis, the second is the critical period hypothesis, and the third is Wittgenstein's view that humans cannot understand animals because they live in different environments and have different needs.

But the interaction between us as humans and language is a two way lane. Thats to say, the human nature affects language (as explained previously). Not only that, language affects our abilities and understanding of our surrounding, it might even cripple the human understanding.

This view is usually called "Linguistic Determinism", which simply means that human thoughts is determined by (or limited by) their language.

In a study of a Brazilian tribe whose language only defines the numbers one and two, it has been shown that those people had difficulties recognizing groups of four items or more. For that tribe, numbers are one, two, and "many"!! In an experiment, the members of that tribe were shown a random number of items (with a maximum of ten items), and were asked to make another pile that contains the same number of items. For piles made up of one, two, or three items, the members were able to make such a pile. Most of them failed to create piles of four or more items!!

The above study shows that because the tribe members couldn't verbally specify the number of items in each pile, they consequently failed to represent that number in piles.

Also, think about why certain linguistics professionals insist that in order to eliminate sexism in our communities, we should use non-sexist language. For example, "chairperson" replaces "chairman", "mailperson" replaces "mailman", and say "businessperson" replaces "businessman". This replacement might seem useless "political correctness", but experts believe that changing the use of such words can dramatically catalyze fighting sexism.

Humans since the beginning were aware of the differences between males and females, and they consequently reflected that in their language. Humans ever since starting of thinking of everything as male or female, black or white, ...etc. Thats an example of how our world affected our language, and consequently our language affected our thoughts. It is hypothesized that changing language can act in the reverse manner of reshaping our thoughts.

In extreme cases, some believe that what we define as "logic" is merely a consequence of the grammar we use in languages, and that language eliminates all forms of objectivity. If Linguistic Determinism was true, one has to think of how our personality, perceptions, and views are limited by the language we acquired as infants. Wittgenstein recognizes this limitation when he says:
"The limits of my language are the limits of my world. All I know is what I have words for." (source)

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Friday, March 23, 2007

Political Systems Oversimplified

Ten friends are sitting in a coffee-shop. Eight of them want to order black coffee, and two of them want to order coffee with milk.
  • If the two decide for the whole group that they have to drink coffee with milk, and order ten coffees with milk, we call that dictatorship.
  • If the eight decide for the whole group that they have to drink black coffee, and order ten black coffees, we call that democracy.
  • If they decide to have two separate orders, two coffees with milk, and eight black coffees, we call that liberalism.

Why follow a system where one size fits all (as in majoritarian democracy and dictatorship), when we can give each exactly what they need?!

PS: This blog is not affiliated with any political parties

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Dreams And Hallucinations

Hallucinations are defined as perceptual sensing of non-existing objects, or shortly delusions of perception. So when someone hears, sees, or smells things that have no basis for existence, we call those people as delusional.

Imagine a place where "normal people" don't have dreams. And one day, a guy wakes up and tells his fellows about his visions while sleeping... It's a no-brainier: He is delusional... And we cannot change the fact that dreaming is an act of delusion.

So back to our earth where people dream at night. One has to ask: Why is the delusion of dreaming not getting intensive treatment by psychologists?! Guess we have generally accepted dreams as healthy delusions. What I am trying to say, is that medicine isn't treating cases of hallucinations because hallucinations are bad or anything, just because people have labeled certain people as lunatics, while overlooking the obvious hallucinations that people get almost every night.

There is another case of delusions that I experience on daily basis. Thinking. Yes, thinking is a delusion. When I think of some formula I see it forming in my imagination... I actually see a formula and manipulate that formula in my head... If thats not delusion, I dunno what is!!

So one has to ask the question: Based on what do we label people as lunatics?! Another question that comes to the surface is: Is medicine an objective science or is it simply based to enforce the normative view of a society?! - This latter question begs itself strongly. For example, in psychology we label pedophiles as mentally sick... Why mentally sick?! Is there a biological reason to consider them mentally sick?! Or is it simply because people don't like pedophiles so we label them as mentally sick?!

Medicine can make things work both ways... We can make a hallucinating person stop being delusional using some drugs. On the other hand, we can make a non-delusional person become hallucinating by prescribing other types of drugs... So we have drugs for both cases, so based on what we choose one but not the other?! Also a psychologist might be able to turn a non-pedophile into a pedophile, and might be able to turn a pedophile into a non-pedophile... Which one do we choose?! Based on what?!

Medicine has considered homosexuality as a mental illness, but now this is no longer the case... Based on what?! The normative view?!

Friday, March 16, 2007


Lady Sovereign in "Love Me or Hate Me":
If you love me then thank you!
If you hate me then fuck you! (Full lyrics)

We don't need no faces, it doesn't need to be complicated...

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

A God That Exists

Isn't it funny how many religious people mock Hindus for believing that COWS are sacred?! They brag about having a God that is more powerful and more thoughtful and stuff... I can't help myself but laugh!! Even if those Hindus think COWS are GOD, at least we know that their God does exist!!

PS: Hindus don't actually worship cows - This is a common misconception

Saturday, March 10, 2007

The Assembly Line In The Acedemic Field

Can you imagine how life would be without Philosophers, Mathematicians, Scientists, and Engineers?! It would be so dull! But which one of them is most important to society?! My answer is: All of them are equally important. The four of them integrate together to make inventions.

I want to make this analogy. In any computer system, someone has to build the computer, another develops a compiler, and a third writes code. Could one of them be useful without the other?! NO! If someone writes a C++ code, but there are no C++ compilers, whats the use?! If someone has designed a compiler, but we have no computer to run the code on, whats the use?!

This analogy gives rise to what is conventionally called "Black Box" models and "White Box" models. Where one person uses basic components to create a more complex system that can later be used without actually understanding how the component system was created in the first place.

Philosophers create the machine which drives the mathematics - They founded the basis on which mathematics can be coherently defined. Mathematicians create ready to use formulae for scientists and engineers to use. Its all "Black Boxes" handed from one to another.

But the "White Box" view gives the person more understanding of the system being used. It enables them to use that system more effectively, and even more flexibility to create more complex systems.

For that, it is not enough to have Philosophers. Not enough to have Mathematicians. Not enough to have Scientists. And even not enough to have Engineers. For a good system we need all the four combined together!

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation

The important question now is: Can we resolve all lingual non-equivalence representations?! - Superficially, yes - or better say, might be. But only superficially. Many inconsistencies will remain implicit and non-detectable, and some of those might be impossible to resolve. Consider the following scenario:
Say PersonX sees Red as Blue. He will NOT notice the difference between him and regular folks since he will start to refer to what he sees as Blue as "Red", but other people would see it as Red, thus avoiding confusion. Also say that PersonY sees Red as Green.
  • Imagine PersonX and PersonY as a baby brothers (with no knowledge of language).
  • In front of them is a red apple.
  • PersonX sees a blue apple.
  • PersonY sees a green apple.
  • Their parents refer to the apple as "red".
  • PersonX learns that the word "red", represents what he sees as blue color. (Result-1)
  • PersonY learns that the word "red", represents what he sees as green color. (Result-2)
Now, one year later:
  • Imagine PersonX and PersonY having learnt language.
  • PersonX sees a blue car.
  • The car is actually red. (Since PersonX sees red as blue)
  • PersonX says: "This red car looks amazing". (He says "red" because of Result-1)
  • When PersonY hears the term "red car", he visualizes a green car. (Because of Result-2)
  • PersonY agrees that the "red car" is amazing. (Result-3)
From Result-3, notice that both PersonX and PersonY refer to the car as "red", while each one of them sees a different color. They superficially agree about the color of the car being refer to as "red", while to each one of them the word "red" refers to different visual experiences (blue for Person X, and green for PersonY).

The above mentioned scenario reveals the shocking possibility that we might use consistent notation to represent our ideas, but those representations are not the same for all people. More importantly, there is a good chance that we superficially agree!! How can anyone be sure that when they refer to a certain experience by a certain word that others actually use the same word to represent that same experience?! I guess, we cannot!

Now assume that the visual experience of the color Blue is good, and that the visual experience of the color Red is ugly.
  • PersonX sees blue color as a good experience.
  • Regular people see red color as an ugly experience.
  • When presented by a red object, PersonX argues that its "red" color looks good. (Since he sees blue color)
  • Other people disagree with PersonX stating that the "red" color looks ugly. (Result-4)
In this scenario, using Result-4, disagreement is only superficial, because they disagree about what the term "red" refers to, not the visual experience itself, as PersonX and other people have different visual experiences.

So when we study Wittgenstein's quote:
"If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." (source)
We realize that the "understanding" that Wittgenstein refers to deals with deep meaning, not superficial meaning.

Communication in any form -or any language- is a communication of representations. We communicate representations of our feelings and ideas NOT the ideas and feelings themselves. It is impossible to communicate ideas, only representations of those ideas. This problem of representation is the basis of Representational Skepticism. Representationalism (study of the relation between reality and representations) is the main concern of cognitive sciences in general.

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Monday, February 26, 2007

Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities

Lingual ambiguities have lead to numerous paradoxes; One of the more famous of these paradox is the Heap paradox that states: When one considers a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Is it still a "heap" when only one grain remains?

A similar paradox arises if we ask this question: Imagine a tall man - say, 2.5 meters. If we take a millimeter of his height he'd still be a tall man; If we take another millimeter, he'd also still be tall... If we continue the process of taking one millimeter at a time, after which millimeter the man becomes no longer tall?!

The above two paradoxes emphasize the inconsistency of vague (unquantified) terms in our everyday language, such as "big", "a lot", "tall", "short", "medium" ...etc. We have generally accepted ranges of say, how tall is tall, but a lot of complexities still arise.

Other ambiguities also arise from incompatible definitions. For example, is Atheism a religion or anti-religion?! Does an atheist have a religion or lack one?! People can give different interpretations to the word religion. Personally, I would argue that Atheism is in fact a religion, consider:
According to Babylon: Religion: collection of beliefs concerning the origin of man and the universe.
According to Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

Following the above definitions we can say that Atheism is a collection of (non-theistic) beliefs, and thus is a religion. Some might disagree.

Can we resolve all lingually ambiguous representations?! My personal conviction is: NOT REALLY!! - The reason for this conviction follows in Part 5.

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Friday, February 23, 2007

Emotional Rape: What Is It?

Emotional rape can be defined as: Emotional abuse characterized by patterned and purposeful behavior which purpose is to undermine and control the victim. It is an attack on the victim's personality rather than their body. The term "emotional rape" implies a horrific crime, and that is exactly what the victim is going through. In sexual rape, the term "without consent" refer to the victim having not agreed to sex. Emotional rape is the abuse of someone's higher emotions -love, self-respect- without consent. Experts agree that emotional rape is far more complex than verbal abuse. While the latter tends to be erratic and direct response to specific situations, emotional rape is, quite simply, a systematic destruction of someone's personality.

source: Cosmopolitan magazine - September 2001 (ZIP/JPG)

Awareness is the fist line of defense for many hazards. For this reason, it is important that people become more educated about issues of psychological and emotional abuse. There are several forms of psychological abuse, like: Brainwashing, emotional blackmailing, emotional exploitation, emotional rape, and sometimes even hurtful verbal insults. I bet that most people don't even know that there is something called "Emotional rape".

The reason that people don't recognize emotional rape is because it is not recognizable under civil laws. No-one has ever been sent to jail because they emotionally abused another! It makes sense, because emotional damage cannot be quantified, and no-one can be held responsible for another's psyche. For this reason, it is important to spot and deal with emotional offenders, because no civil law would help.

Emotional rape aims to undermine the victim's self-respect and self-image leaving that person vulnerable to abuse. The victim starts developing a sense of dependence on the abuser, and thus feels incapable of escaping the emotional abuse circle.

I will not go into further details about emotional rape; I recommend that you read the full article issued in Cosmopolitan magazine September 2001.

Brainwashing techniques are widely practiced in cults. Because of lack of awareness about brainwashing, we find that numerous people become victims to cultist organizations. Many other forms of psychological abuse exist and as mentioned above, I believe awareness is the best line of defense.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Devil's Mind The Blog Is Censored On JordanBlogs.Net

Censorship on JordanBlogs.Net has reached intolerable extents. This blog -Devil's Mind- has been suspended from that aggregator. This censorship act follows a series of questionable blog removals from JordanBlogs.Net including -but not limited to- Jordanian Issues which has been censored recently for expressing political views that are not "nice" to the Jordanian regime. Khadder, the maintainer of the blog Jordanian Issues has written a post objecting on that act of censorship.

Other fellow bloggers have also addressed this recurring issue of censorship, you can read some of them here and here.

Regarding the censorship of Devil's Mind Blog, this is the reply I got from JordanBlogs.Net maintainer:
Dear Blogger,

Please refer to our policy, your blog has been suspended till further notice for publishing porn materials.

Publishing porn?! What the fuck?! I think, he is referring to my latest entry on Valentine's Day. First of all, the entry itself contains no pornographic content. Secondly, the entry warns the reader of the explicit sexual content that follows some of the provided links.

But most importantly, this blog has always supported pornography, and will hopefully keep on supporting pornography in all of its legitimate forms. Censorship needs to be abandoned, because once we put limits on the freedom of speech, we become the pathetic nation that we already are!!

Finally, I recommend my readers to visit this blog directly without intermediate services or aggregators because only here you are assured to receive the content I publish as is - without censorship or filtering. Nonetheless, if you want to use aggregators, my blog is currently enlisted on Qwaider Planet (Thank you Qwaider, again!). Please note that Qwaider Planet also does have some policies that support censorship, although I have not noticed them being enforced.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Perfect Valentine's Gift

Disclaimer: Some links include sexually explicit content

Matchbox 20 in "Could I be you":
And I was wondering
Could I just be you tonight (Full lyrics)

On Valentine's Day boys and girls are looking for the perfect gift to give their loved ones. A perfect Valentine's gift should be able to demonstrate the love between the couple and increase their intimacy.

It is understood that many couples fantasize of walking in one another's shoes. Such experience would give intimacy its maximum boost. With that in mind, I have thought of the perfect Valentine's gift to get your loved one: A strap-on dildo.

On this special occasion, you can share with your loved one intimate moments where each one of you walks in the other's shoes - Swapping of souls you may say! For a unique life experience, girls and boys can swap their roles and see life in the eyes of the other person. If you are not sure how to use this unique tool, check this demonstration of the tool being used in action.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis

In Part 2, I asked: How closely related are the physiological and biological formation of a being with the language being used? Some hypothesis in Linguistics try to make a kind of "unified grammar" for all languages known to humankind. I will use such hypothesis to support my confirmative view that language is influenced by physiology.

All languages we learn are based on VERBS, NOUNS, ADJECTIVES, ADVERBS. All languages!! Isn't that a curious observation. So maybe this is just a coincidence?! Can you try making up your own language that defies that trend?! What could be a totally new way of language?! You might be surprised how tough answering the aforementioned question will be!

In the field of Linguistics, the deep structure hypothesis states that all human languages share what is called a "deep structure". It is also stated that human languages only differ in what is called the "surface structure". So somehow, there can be a systematic match-and-replace procedure to translate one language to another. Google Translator provides one such automated translation service.

To illustrate this idea, I have provided an example. Check the picture below:

Notice that once we establish the relative positions of the lexemes (lexeme: basic construct of a language) of any language, we can replace every word with its dictionary translation to provide a whole translation. Say, in the example given below, we replace the verb "eaten" with "thrown". All we need to do is replace the verb with its equivalent verb in other languages to produce a translation.

This striking resemblance between all human languages raises my doubt whether or not, this "deep structure" is actually engraved in our biology and physiology. Could a human mind innovate a totally different method for language construction?! Could we create a language that needs some more elaborate form of processing than match-and-replace?! And the most challenging question is: Could we create a language that is impossible to translate into any of today's known human languages?! - A language that defies the rules of the "deep structure".... If not, does that mean that the "deep structure" is the only way a language can be?!

For this reason, if a professional happens to find an old scripture belonging to an ancient civilization, they naturally start by matching the language lexemes. Its almost the only way we know languages to be. The question that comes to my head, if we happen to come by a scripture made by some aliens (roughly, beings with different biological build than earthlings) would our methods of language analysis still be able to make sense of that scripture found?! Lets face it, scientists have difficulties analyzing animal language - those animals that are anatomically very similar to us. It would be a disaster to meet up with anatomically different beings!

In this series:
Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion
Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation
Language Acquisition - Part 3: Deep Structure Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 4: Ambiguities
Language Acquisition - Part 5: The Problem Of Representation
Language Acquisition - Part 6: Linguistic Determinism Hypothesis
Language Acquisition - Part 7: Possible Applications For The Investigation

Friday, February 02, 2007


Linkin Park in "My December":
And I give it all away
Just to have somewhere
To go to
Give it all away
To have someone
To come home to

This is my December
These are my snow-covered trees
This is me pretending
This is all I need

And I
Just wish that
I didn't feel
Like there was
Something I missed (Full lyrics)

I Think Therefore I Exist, Or Do I?

One of the famous quotes in history is the "I think therefore I am" statement by Descartes. But is this statement true?! I think not! At least not objectively. In subjective theories, that assumes cognition at some point, this statement might be justified within that context.

I think therefore I exist, is a complex statement that can be reduced to three simpler statements:
  1. If it thinks then it exists
  2. I think
  3. I exist

This statement is in the logical deductive reasoning form:
  1. p => q
  2. p
  3. q

Here we have two premises (1) and (2), and one conclusion (3). In order to verify the claims of Descartes we have to inquire the validity of its premises. In this post, I will not discuss the first premise, but the second one.

Do Humans have the ability to think?! Some might argue positively... Descartes apparently supports this view. I disagree. Humans cannot think.

To think is to be creative. To think is to be free. Humans are neither creative nor free! We might think we are creative and free - This is the illusion that eluded even the most reputable philosophers. This view is influenced by my pessimistic incompatibilism views.

So how do we explain those illusions?! What most humans fail to see is that our consciousness is merely an advanced form of Artificial Intelligence. Actually, its more like Naturally-Implied Intelligence, but my point is, we are no better than an intelligent machine. If we consider things more deeply, we find that an intelligent machine is not much different from a non-intelligent one. So we're no better than any machine if we consider things at the low level. I already discussed this perspective before. Our survival depends on being self-protective. This recognition of self is the source of our illusion to think and existence. We would not protect what does not exist. If we acknowledge our inexistence, then our survival will be endangered. Nature has its own ways of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest... Its ironical that an illusion is what gives us our strength, but well.. Thats how things work!

So far, I have considered "thinking" in a very strict notion. A notion that requires creativity and freewill. To ease things up, one can consider a less strict concept of thinking. Such model would be even more tolerant, that it might even include machines as being able to think. Personally, I got no problem with this view. If a machine was so sophisticated in a way that is comparable to humans, I guess we have to acknowledge it as a being of worthy existence. If we adopt this view, maybe few years later, we will see "Machine Rights" activists!! Seriously!

Back to the fist premise... Does ability to think imply existence?! I will leave this question open for the time being...

Monday, January 22, 2007

Is God Just? - A Christian Universalist View

Universalism is the belief that all humans will be saved. That no human will suffer for eternity, because God -the creator- loves us and will save us. Christian Universalism is a belief that encompasses both Christianity and Universalism. Christian Universalism states that God is all-loving, that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus is a spiritual leader, and finally that all humans will be saved by the greatest sacrifice in history: The crucifixion of Jesus.

According to Christian Universalism, Jesus has a deeper understanding of the nature of God. Some interpretations of the New Testament reveal that Jesus, through his understanding of God, revealed to humans that God is not Just, but rather Generous. Generosity and Justice are contradicting terms. Justice is to give each exactly what he deserves. Generosity is to give each more than he deserves. Some argue that Jesus through his teachings revealed a generous God rather than a just one.

To inquire the validity of those blatant interpretations, those Christian Universalists provide biblical stories from the New Testament.

One such story is the parable of the "prodigal son" (Luke 15:11-32). A man had two sons. The younger asked his father to divide his father's fortune between the two of them. The man divided his fortune between his two sons. The elder son stayed with his father, helped his father, and was very obedient. On the other hand, the younger son took the fortune and moved out of his father's mansion and started spending the money on luxury. The day came when that youngster lost all his money and was in dire need. He thought to himself that he'd better get back to his father's mansion. He thought that working as a servant at his father's mansion was better than how he is living now. The youngster headed back home, and when his father saw him from a distance, he ordered his servants to make a feast. The father joyfully welcomed his returning son and asked him to join the feast to celebrate the return of his son. The elder son was confused, he asked his father: "I have been always by your side. I have been always your obedient son. You never made a feast in my honor.". The father answered: "You have been always with me, and all I have is you. But your brother was dead and now alive, he was lost and now found."

The injustice in the parable of the "prodigal son" is evident. The elder son was surprised by the obvious injustice, and reported to his father. The father in that story is being generous to his youngster. He didn't deserve his father's compassion, but the father gave it anyways. So if Jesus wanted to teach humans something by that parable, it would be that God is generous, not just.

I believe Jesus had a greater understanding of God than perhaps any other man. In turning to his parables, I believe that Jesus teaches us that God is not just. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) the landowner (God) is not just, he is generous. In the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) the elder brother is quick to point out the injustice of his younger brother’s being welcomed back home. But the father’s love and compassion for both his sons outweighs any concerns for justice. When the woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus (John 8:1-11) he came to her defense, even though the just law of Moses would have had her stoned. And as Jesus hung on the cross, he did not call down justice upon his persecutors, but forgiveness (Luke 23: 34).

Justice would have us say, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But Jesus said, “Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” (Matthew 5: 39) Justice would have us do to others as they have done to us. But Jesus said, “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12) He also said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven: for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5: 44-45) Justice must have its roots in judgment. But Jesus said, “Do not Judge.” (Matthew 7: 1) All this indicates to me a God of love and mercy; not justice. (source)

PS: Inspired by this article [recommended-read]
PS: For biblical references, download the New Testament (PDF)

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The Nature Of Resonance

In conclusion of my paper on resonance, I find that resonance is the natural effect of the natural delay time of any system. Every system responds to the frequencies that are close enough (rather than equal) to its natural frequency. The question that arises, how close is "enough"?!

Really?! How close is "enough"?! The answer to this question depends on the sensitivity of the system, and its natural delay time. This issue is discussed in more details in my paper.

As a simple practical example, suppose that the electricity was disconnected at your house for one tenth of a second (0.1 sec). Two electrical components were running at that time. The first component is the computer. The second component is a small motor, like the refrigerator. We can observe that the computer will respond to the disconnection and restart. The motor will not respond to the disconnection and will continue its operation uninterrupted. We can say that, the computer is more “sensitive” with a short natural delay time.

PS: Download the paper: PDF DOC
PS: Download supportive Matlab code here
PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted

Friday, January 12, 2007

Values In The Continuous Spectrum

It is understood in the field of mathematics that values in the continuous spectrum CANNOT be proved to be equal. In other words, five is NOT NECESSARILY equal to five!

Some people might ask: If no two values can be proved to be equal, how does mathematics handle values?! It's a good question... And the answer is simple: Thats why calculus was formed!! Mathematics is based on limit theorems. We can say that five sometimes equals five, yet five never equals six!! I say that five sometimes equals five, because this might not be true all the time!!

I have provided a FORMAL MATHEMATICAL PROOF of these claims. I have published the proof in PDF format (140 KB) and MS WORD format (56 KB).

I urge you to print the proof, and double check the validity of every statement and transformation. I have taken like three hours of my time to write this proof, in order to check and re-check every statement I put... Yet it is important to have peer reviews!!

I also urge you to look at the proof to learn the good way to prove a point... Always start with 1- definition of notations, then 2- definition of terms, followed by 3- axioms and assumptions. The three mentioned parts are crucial to a good proof! Finally, always follow logical inferencing, and then all should be good.

Now, apart from formalities, allow me to explain the claims informally:
First consider the value of ZERO/ZERO. It is well-known that the answer is ANY VALUE!! Some people think that the answer is "no value", but thats mathematically wrong statement!

Now, ZERO/ZERO is any value. Is One a value?! Yes, it is. Is Two a value?! Yes, it is. But we all know that any two equal values when divided the result is One... Right?! Well, in one case ZERO/ZERO in fact gave the value of One. But also, in a second case ZERO/ZERO had the value 2... Obviously this means that ZERO is not equal to ZERO in that case. Combine the above two phenomenas, we find that ZERO is sometimes equal to ZERO, and sometimes not so!!

Since we showed that ZERO is NOT NECESSARILY equal to ZERO, we can generalize this result to all values by adding assumed equal values to both sides of [0!=0]...

Another argument goes like this: ZERO*INFINITY is any value (just like ZERO/ZERO). We can think of multiplication as a magnification operator. Even the ZERO when magnified "enough" can be shown to deviate from ZERO!!! This also demonstrates the above claims about the continuous spectrum.

PS: For additional insight, read the "physical justification" in my comment here
PS: Download the formal mathematical proof: PDF DOC

Einstein And God

God does not play dice.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.

Albert Einstein (source)

Amen to all of that!

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

A Mathematical Challenge: Integrating A Sinusoidal Signal

For the past two days my head has been processing at maximum load!! Thanks goes to an anonymous poster. Mr. Anonymous has brought my attention to an older post, titled "Inconsistent Circuits Formula". His comments triggered my thoughts, and as some do notice, our thoughts aren't clear all the time. At the time I posted my old entry, I had a limited vision - Today, I come with new understanding: An understanding of the nature of the phenomena of resonance.

I will not post my newly-reached understanding in this post. I have a clear vision of the phenomena of resonance, but I want to support it with some mathematical justification, and more importantly, numerical analysis data. The results should be ready within two weeks depending on my free time - No promises though! You can read the results here.

Mr. Anonymous has argued about my bold statement "We cannot prove two physical (even mathematical) quantities to be equal". This post should indirectly justify my position. I am still considering to post a more direct argument can be found here. Just keep in mind, my position is strictly regarding inclusion of equalities for continuous quantity spectrum.

Finally, this mathematical challenge question was tailored by me in order to clarify a point I want to make, so try to solve it, and tell me your results.

The Mathematical Challenge:

The Final Answer:
ZERO (assuming that no noise exists in the signal)
ANY VALUE is the general solution

[+] Show\Hide

Explained Answer:
The interval [0, 2*PI/a] represents one period of the sinusoidal signal cos(ax). When integrating a sinusoidal signal over one period the answer is ZERO. In short, the answer is ZERO regardless of the value of a.

A source of confusion might arise due to the use of the value ZERO for 'a'. The easiest approach is to devise an answer which is independent of 'a', as has been explained above. Note that the sinusoidal signal has a constant value of ONE over the finite region. The interval of the integration extends to ( 2*PI/a ), which also extends to the infinity. For this reason, the transformation of cos(ax) to ONE is NOT valid, because the sinusoidal signal is equal to 1 ONLY in the finite region, but the integration extends to the infinite region which implies that this transformation leads to incorrect results.

This solution applies only if we consider that there is NO NOISE in the sinusoidal signal. If we consider the possibility of existence of noise, then the integration will take the value of the integral of noise over the whole interval.

[+] Show\Hide

Update 1: The answer to the challenge has been posted.
Update 2: The paper about resonance has been posted here.