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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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!!

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! :)

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...

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..

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

Gay Snickers Ad

Funny ad?! You judge...

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

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?!

Purity

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...

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

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!

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

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 dictionary.com: 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

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.

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.

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.

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

Pretending

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...

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)

Seeing Is Believing?!

So seeing is believing?! You judge for yourself....

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

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!

A Mathematical Challenge: Integrating A Sinusoidal Signal

Introduction:
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.

Life In The Eyes Of Douglas Adams

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." (source)

"Man [has] always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reason." (source)

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea." (source)

Douglas Adams

That guy really has a point!!

What Constitutes Prostitution?

Most people would roughly define prostitution as "selling the body". It is generally viewed as objectionable to make a sex-for-money kind of deal. The question that arises, why can't that deal be view as any other deal. The thing is: If we consider "selling our body" to be ethically wrong, then ALL work is ethically wrong.

As some might notice, we lend our bodies everyday in way that are viewed as "acceptable". Working in general implies that we use our body functions to produce a service or a product in exchange for money or an equivalent service or product. Consider a construction worker, he is using his physical strength and muscles to serve a building. A receptionist is using their physical existence to serve customers. A dentist uses his hands to fix teeth, and an engineer uses his mind and hands to come up with designs. So whats different when a person uses his physical form and genitalia to please?! It is not intrinsically different than commodifying any other part that an employer might make use of.

If we consider a more basic view, (considering Hedonism) we find that "pleasure" is the only service of real value. At the end of the day, every product sold or service offered is finally converted into a comfort commodity. Money is of no value at all if it cannot be converted into pleasurable items. So we can say, prostitution provides a service of usable value, something that will not undergo further transformations. A property that doesn't apply to many services offered on the market!

If we look at things from a more abstract level, we can see that many sex-for-a-service instances occur without being deemed objectionable. What about sex-for-love? Why is sex-for-love generally viewed as less problematic? Why is it that two "love-birds" making out viewed less objectionable than making out for the money?!

Don't you think "monogamy" is a kind of prostitution?! Isn't preserving the genitalia for "one true love" a type of accommodating one's body?! Some people suggest that prostitution makes people see others as commodities, doesn't monogamy imply that consequence?!

What about a wife that refuses to have sex with her husband because, say, he has been neglecting her. Isn't that a kind of prostitution? Doesn't that kind of behavior imply a sex-for-attention kind of deal?!

At the end of the day, prostitution is one of the oldest professions known to mankind; If we consider respect for the elders, then prostitution deserves just that!!

PS: Partly inspired by this entry
PS: Check this funny cartoon loosely related to the topic [Thanks No Angel]

A New Year - Just Like The One Before It

(source)

Its now 2007, wishing all a happy 2007! A year hopefully better than expectation!

Language Acquisition - Part 2: The Influence Of Physiological Formation

How closely related are the physiological and biological formation of a being with the language being used? Does instinct directly or indirectly influence the language that being formulates? This is a question worth investigation, but my personal conviction is YES, physiology and instinct do influence the language. I will try to investigate my position in this part as well as part 3.

Assume that you raise some pet at home. Say, a cat. Isn't it curious that a home-raised cat meows?! How does a cat grown at home know that it is supposed to meow?! What is even more interesting is that a home grown cat can make mating calls that other cats can respond to. To explain this phenomenon, I guess that the physiology of the cat's throat is adapted to the simplest forms of "cat language". I am not sure if cats can develop more advanced forms of "cat language", but even at that simple level it is interesting.

An interesting hypothesis that I have once read about is the "Critical Period Hypothesis" (read more). This hypothesis suggests the existence of biological constraints on the language acquisition in humans. The hypothesis states that language acquisition would be at its best before the age of 12. It is suggested that language acquisition is a function of the left-hemisphere of the brain whose functions decline after the age of 12.

In the study of the critical period hypothesis, feral babies (babies raised in the wild) are taken as examples. Unlike what Hollywood would like us to believe in films like Tarzan, it is believed that feral babies have NOT developed any kind of "animal language" [anyone who has knowledge of a contradicting story, please inform us]. This is an interesting finding, as it gives a direct hint that humans are NOT adapt to develop non-human lingual abilities, even when they have lived among animals a large period of their life.

As an additional note, the feral babies that have been found before the age of 12 have been able to develop human language, while those found beyond the age of 12 had failed to properly acquire human language (which is in accordance to the critical period hypothesis).

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

Anonymous Posting

I think turning off the anonymous comments option should not be a choice taken lightly. The position I am trying to support is that: The information contained in a post or comment is what matters, WHO made that comment should NOT be prioritized consideration.

As a blogger, I surely would prefer to know who made a certain comment, YET I wouldn't mind if all the commenting readers decided to post anonymously as I think "what is said" is more important than "who said that".

Some might raise the point that anonymous posters cannot be held accountable for their own comments and therefore are likely to make malicious posts. As much as that might seem reasonable, it has to be noted that -at times- there are legitimate concerns for privacy that a blog owner has to keep in mind.

Finally, from a practical perspective, if someone who does not own a blogger profile (or whatever service being used) has landed on a blog, the blog might miss a valuable comment due to the overhead required to post that comment. In this view, it becomes clear why blog owners should try to make it as easy as possible to post comments.

It has be noted that, whatever has been said above doesnt necessarily apply to all bloggers or types of blogs.

Individualism In Its True Light

Individualism is the position that holds that individuals (rather than society) responsible for their own good. The basic claim is that Reason is an individualistic property. No person can think for another; thought is an attribute of the individual. Since cognitive rationality implies that every cognitive unit seeks its own good, and since the individual is a cognitive unit, then the individuals seek their own good.

The opposite view of individualism is collectivism. Collectivism views the society as a responsible unit for its own good. Collectivism does not hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. Failing to save for retirement, having children one can't afford, making bad investments, becoming addicted to drugs or smoking --- These actions are called "social problems" that "society" has to deal with. On the other hand, individualism holds the individual responsible for their actions, and hence entitled for the consequences of those choices; The individual has the right to enjoy good outcomes, and the responsibility to suffer bad outcomes.

In this view, it is evident why individualists are not so keen to implement compulsory "safety-net", where individuals are required to provide help to those who made bad choices in their lives. Nonetheless, opt-in safety-nets might still be viable.

One of the common misconceptions about individualism is the concept of a loner. Social isolation is by no means synonymous with individualism. Individualism is a philosophy of how one person perceives their relations with other peers, and their role in their social group. An individual perceives each person based on their own merit rather than the collective value of the social group, and sees their relationship with their society as give-and-take compromise, rather than an altruistic duty.

Finally, it is important to note the high resemblance between Capitalism as an economic philosophy and Individualism, as Capitalism views the person responsible for their financial and social status.

PS: Based on this article [recommended-read]

Language Acquisition - Part 1: General Discussion

Language, what is language?! Language can be roughly defined as a set of conventional signals that are used to suggest or convey information (or just data). Those signals can be in any form: Phonetic signals as in spoken language; Hand motion as in sign language; Electrical pulses as in computer communications; Numerous other forms exist. But the keyword in the definition of language is "conventional". Without conventions there are no languages. Consider how internet protocols are created: Certain dedicated committee of professionals meet in order to come up with a "standard", these standards are then published in either electronic or printed forms; From that point on, developers are expected to follow the conventional standard.

But what about human spoken language? Two highly interrelated questions arise: The first one is, how was first human language made? The second one is, if a person (say, a baby) has no knowledge whatsoever of the conventions used in a certain language, how would he develop an understanding of it? As an answer to this second question we can say that the combination of our pattern recognition abilities and continuous observation enables us to acquire language. Still the question is worth further analysis.

One of the main influences of creation of language and consequently understanding of language are the environment and experiences. In one discussion about language acquisition (here), I argued about the inherent difficulty for humans to analyze extraterrestrial languages. My position can be summarized that: Language experts have long been in the analysis of prehistoric languages (say, ancient Egyptian languages), their job is relatively easy because they are analyzing human languages - made by humans just like us. The real challenge would be to analyze and understand languages of beings that share neither our environment nor experiences.

Many philosophers have recognized this limitation, one such recognition is Wittgenstein's quote:

"If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." (source)

Other instances -say, the title "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."- seem to suggest that even humans may be incapable of understanding eachother due to different physiological and psychological needs. All those instances seem to suggest that understanding of language is highly dependent on our familiarity of the concept being suggested.

A consequence to the "pattern recognition" method for acquiring language is ambiguity. Take two example nouns: "Knife" and "Love". The word "knife" can be easily recognized through observation, the concept is mainly unambiguous and not open for interpretations. On the other hand, the term "love" is highly ambiguous -each person has their own interpretations- since diverse patterns are attributed the same word "love".

An extreme view of the above two paragraphs, considering individualism and since every person has different experiences in life, then the meaning of words each individual perceives is different! We might say that no human really understands another, and we are merely deluded to think otherwise.

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

The Figure Of Satan Before Torah

Satan is a symbolic figure that existed even before Torah was made. At that time, Satan was a figure for curiosity and thirst for knowledge. It was a very positive figure connotated with people of science, including among others: Mathematicians and Physicists.

In the Jewish (and later on Christian) mythology, when The Lord of Moses (God) created The Garden of Eden (Heaven), he created many trees. One of those trees was the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Some clergies refer to the tree as an "apple tree", which strips it from its symbolic meaning).

The Lord of Moses has forbidden Man to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Satan (which represents thirst for knowledge) has raised curiosity of Man to know what that tree tastes like, and thus Man has defied the will of The Lord and eaten from the tree.

Thus according to Torah and the Christian mythology, Man's curiosity for knowledge caused him to be expelled from The Garden of Eden, and thats why Satan according to Torah is a negative figure. And Man is now being punished for his curiosity.

Satanism (and Satanists in general) carry the old tradition of thirst for knowledge, and Satan still represents that thirst for knowledge, and the Satanists admire the knowledge being gained.

Some people might wonder why The Lord of Moses has forbidden Man to eat from that tree. It is simple, knowledge (in general - as well as that of good and evil) is considered a Godly attribute (Don't all Abrahamic religions state that God is all-knowing?). The Lord of Moses (and almost all Gods known to mankind) didnt want Man to attain such Godly attribute.

Biblical References:
Old Testament: (PDF)
Genesis 2:16-17 [God forbids Adam to eat from the tree]
Genesis 3:1-5 [Satan convinces Eve to eat from the tree]
Genesis 3:7-11 [What happened when Man has eaten from the tree]

Public Openness And Personal Honesty - Part 3: Public Nudity

As I explained in Part 1, people are usually more honest about issues relating to physical attributes rather than emotional attributes. Exposing one's physical or emotional attributes makes them feel vulnerable. This feeling is completely understandable and justifiable. Nonetheless, we need to understand that dealing with our fears and points of vulnerability makes us more mature and stronger in general personality. As humans, we need to learn to accept ourselves whether in terms of physical form, or emotional build.

The more important issue, that we should recognize such acceptance and exposure as a point of strength, and something for the good of the individuals and the society as a whole. It might not be the choice of everyone, but it should still be recognized. Since it is tough for people to open up emotionally, many societies recognized their capacity to open up and accept their physical attributes. Such step can be recognized as an intermediate step to open up both physically and emotionally. What I am talking about here is the nude societies.

Public nudity is deemed unacceptable in many societies, and down right offensive in others. It is pathetic that such societies find themselves helpless next to the idea of exposing their physical attributes. What is even more dangerous, that such societies impose on others to follow their policy of denial. It can be understood that some people might feel uncomfortable exposing their physical attributes and feeling vulnerable at the possibility of that happening. But they cannot setback those who feel strong enough to accept their physical forms. It is no wonder why such societies are so emotionally locked up, as they are unable to unleash whats even more basic form of honesty.

I believe this deep rooted dishonesty, which is even enforced and strengthened by the social norms, is part of the reason we fail in building up straight and honest relationships. Please don't confuse the reason with the effect. People are dishonest by their nature, and that's why social norms are the way they are now. People created the social norms for their own convenience (and the inconvenience of others).

In this series:
Public Openness And Personal Honesty - Part 1: The Premises
Public Openness And Personal Honesty - Part 2: Elaboration
Public Openness And Personal Honesty - Part 3: Public Nudity

University And Education

"A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education." (source)

George Bernard Shaw

Could that get any more forward?!!

Time-Space Energy-Mass Equivalence

Nowadays, it is a generally known that mass is a form of energy. Einstein has pioneered this view with his time-space modeling. Within Einstein's view time and space are equivalent quantities, and time is only a fourth dimension where existence resides.

Following with that view came the inevitable conclusion: If time and space are equivalent then energy and mass are equivalent.** Below is the reasoning for that:

E = Energy equivalent to the mass (J)
m = mass (kg)
c = speed of light in vacuum (m/s)

E = m . c²
E / m = c²

If energy and mass are equivalent then the value of [ E / m ] is a unitless constant. This concludes that c² is a unitless constant as well.

Now, say
K = positive unitless constant

Since energy and mass are equivalent, then a Joule equals a kilogram within a constant.

J = K.kg
N.m = K.kg
kg.m/s².m = K.kg [divide both sides by kg]
=> m²/s²=K =>m²=K*s² =>m=K.s

** A more descriptive claim would be: Time and space are equivalent if and only if energy and mass are equivalent

Fix: Removed references to unitless constants

PS: The scientific validity of claims is NOT asserted

Perception Of TV-Shows

People's reception and perception of TV-shows varies greatly. In this entry I will be focusing about my own view of some TV-shows as well as opposing views of two of my friends.

Lets first consider the comedies: My personal favorite comedies are Becker and Seinfeld. One of my friends argues about Seinfeld: "Seinfeld is merely a series of unfortunate events, thats not comedy, thats annoyance." Apparently, my favorite kind of humor is defined as a series of unfortunate events!! I love Seinfeld because it has a strong connection with reality. The show is about the life of Jerry Seinfeld and his friends. Each one of his friends has a unique and interesting character. The show doesnt introduce unnecessary spice, everything is plain. I also love Becker because Becker's character is a realist with negative attitude. So just like Seinfeld, Becker has a strong connection with reality. Its negative attitude only adds to the irony and sarcastic perspective of the show.

Other comedies that I love include Ally McBeal. This show includes way too much irony that appeases my taste. Numerous references to the LGBT culture, and the unisex bathroom adds spice to the show, and shows that the makers of the film are more open-minded than the average.

Another controversial comedy show is the standup comedy of Russel Peters. If anything, that show is practically one racist remark after the other. Its too fucking hilarious!!

Now lets consider horror movies: I think horror movies are a disappointment. I think that a horror movie should instill horror in the hearts of those watching it. It fails to deliver that feeling to me, and thus it is generally a disappointing experience. A friend of mine disagrees. He argues: "Think of the director as your mentor. Horror movies are supposed to entice your imagination, to help you create your own little scary world. With the help of visual aids, and ideas that the directors suggests to you through the produced movie, that would become an easier task." I really miss that here. I think of the director as my enemy, a person who is trying to instill fear in me. I think of the movie itself as a challenge not a hint. My friend elaborates: "Don't just watch. Learn. Don't just watch. Use your imagination. I once watched a film where in one scene, there was a little baby about to cry. Once he cried a Meow sound came out of him. If you were just watching, that event would be meaningless. The point is, people are afraid of what they dont understand, what they are unfamiliar with. We are used to babies crying with human sounds, not those of a cat. From this point use your imagination to instill fear in yourself. Its not the director's responsibility to instill fear in you. Its your responsibility. The director is only giving you hints how to do it."

Finally, lets consider teenage romantic comedy movies: Arguably my favorite genre of movies. It deviates from the boring classical genre of romance, although has its own set of cliches. It includes many comical references. My favorite ones also include references to use of drugs, alcohol, sex, and vice in general. All of these factors add together to make a whole movie. Examples include: 40 days 40 nights, Euro trip, Dorm Daze, Not another teen movie.

Other TV-shows that I like are teenage cartoons like: Futurama, South Park, Drawn Together. South Park for example introduces ideologies in a sarcastic manner, and conveys those ideologies through elementary school kids. The concept is similar to stories that use animals (or otherwise) as tools to convey ideas. This kind of use makes it easier for the viewer to digest those ideas since animals\kids are usually denoted of as neutral agents.

The Funniest Geeky Tale

Sometime ago, one of my university colleagues come to me for advice about his slow going computer acting funny at discrete times, so I suggested to him that his PC might be infected with a virus and suggested that I would send him a really good antivirus - Mcafee Enterprise 8.0i - over msn and advised him to install it.

Now keep in mind that this guy is a third year computer engineering student, who supposedly should have minimum computer skills. The thing is, few days later he came to my friend Ghaith telling him that Zaid (ie. me) is such a jerk! Although I am a self-proclaimed jerk, yet Ghaith found the declaration quite shocking, so he asked him about the reason he made that assertion. The guy tells Ghaith that I sent him a virus over msn. Ghaith knowing that I'm not really a virus kiddie was suspicious of the accuracy of the claim and asked him to elaborate. So he explains that after I sent him Mcafee over msn, he installed it and the computer gave him a message saying "Virus Found".... What an unfortunate event!!! I really must have been such a jerk!