Points Of View: Relativism And Objectivism

Consider the sketch below, assuming all cars are on a straight line, and that all velocities indicated are in the +ve x-axis direction taken with respect to the parking car which is also the speed indicated in the speedometer in each car respectively... Lets further assume that each moving car contains the driver and a passenger next to him.



Now, we can see that the speed of CarB relative to CarA is 30 KM/H, yet the speedometer indicates 50 KM/H. Can we say that the speedometer's reading is wrong?! Not really, because the speedometer measures the speed relative to the ground not CarA!! The two values indicate the speed of CarB, but each one has a different reference, which means that speed is in fact a relative value.

So what exactly is the speed of CarB?! This question is unanswerable! You cannot ask about the speed without defining a reference object... The speed and the reference are inseparable. Is there any objective value of the speed of CarB?! YES!! We can objectively say that the speed of CarB is 30 KM/H with respect to CarA... As we can see, although speed has a relativistic property we can objectively state the speed. It is meaningless to say: "The speed of CarB is 30 KM/H", without qualifying the claim with its reference. Yet, once the reference is defined nothing is ambiguous!

Within this context we can define at least 4 points of view [POV as a shorthand]; one for each car. Each car has a different POV. From the POV of CarA, CarC has speed 80 KM/H. From the POV of CarB, CarC has speed 50 KM/H. It is evidently obvious that with respect to each POV CarC has a different speed value! One car with different speeds values from every POV!! Does this mean that one POV is correct and the other is wrong?! Not really. We cannot assign a truth value to a POV. We cannot say that the speed calculated from CarA's POV is correct and that of CarB is wrong. Somepeople may intuitively claim that the parking car's POV is more correct. As intuitive as it may seem, the last claim is flawed!

So does this mean that anyone claiming to know the speed of CarC is necessarily correct? Absolutely not. Consider the the driver and the passenger in CarA each make a different claim; The driver says: "From my POV, CarB is moving at 30 KM/H", while the passenger says: "From my POV, CarB is moving at 40 KM/H"... Both claims are initiated with the magic words "From my POV", yet the driver has made a truthful claim, while the passenger has made a false claim. The speed of CarB is 30 KM/H from the POV of the driver, and is 30 KM/H from the POV of the passenger as well since both are in CarA and moving with equal velocities.

A POV is different from an opinion. As in the previous example, the driver and the passenger in CarA each had the same POV, but with different opinions. Unlike a POV, an opinion can be assigned a truth value as being either true or false. A person may be wrong even from their own POV. We cannot say that the driver and the passenger had different opinions and both opinions are true. It is possible that two different opinions are both true - there is no contradiction, but nonetheless we cannot say that all opinions are necessarily true.

As a final twist, the driver in CarA may use this inference: "From my POV, CarB is moving at 30 KM/H. From my POV, CarC is moving at 80 KM/H. Thus, the speed of CarC with respect to CarB is (80-30) KM/H = 50 KM/H." - In this simple example, we see that the state from a certain POV can be calculated from other POVs, as the driver figured the POV of CarB from his own car.

Conclusions:

• Some quantities are relative. eg. velocity
  
• Relative quantities are inseparable from the reference.
  
• Relative quantities coupled with their respective reference are objective facts.
  
• POVs are defined on references.
  
• POVs cannot be assigned truth values.
  
• Opinions are statements.
  
• Opinions evaluate to truth values.
  
• POVs can be evaluated from other POVs.
  
• Relativism and Objectivism DO NOT contradict.
  
• Relativism DOES NOT imply all opinions are true.

The Bag Tag - That Says Your Name

Since I have been kindly tagged by Tala with the BAG TAG^TM, the tag that reveals your TRUE IDENTITY^TM, I decided to face my demons and share with my readers the tag that I have been afraid to share!!

1. Calculator: Mainly for my exams, and sometimes to help me make simple calculations.
   
2. Pen: Obviously for writing my notes during classes.
   
3. Papers: Numerous handouts given by teachers, including syllabuses, exam papers, homeworks, ..etc.
   
4. Notebook: Also for writing down my notes during classes.
   
5. Probability Textbook: Nah, I don't carry books with me, its just that I just bought this book yesterday at the university!
   Now to the most shocking item, the item which only the BAG TAG^TM has ever been able to reveal, the item that speaks of my most inner demons, the item that reveals my TRUE IDENTITY^TM and says my name!
   
6. Lovely Green Dildo: Sometimes I feel kinda gay [as in right now!] and need to shove something up my butt!! It might also be used to give a chick an extra hand whenever -if at all- that comes handy...

Now, I pass on this tag to other gay fellows to help them come out of the closet with this incredibly gay tag, the BAG TAG^TM! Now that you know my little dirty secret, I hope Tala can now understand my initial hesitation to answer her tag in the comments here!

Smart Funerals And The Not-So-Smart Ones

Why do people care what happens to their bodies after their death?! For example, Pharaohs in ancient Egypt created the Pyramids and stuffed them with jewelery and luxurious food... But, ancient Egyptians had some kind of excuse as -according to their beliefs- the bodies of the dead are revived in the after life and thus need food and luxury! What about our current societies?! Are we carrying on the tradition of ancient Egypt?! Most current religious systems admit that we don't live in the after life -if at all existed- in our earthly bodies....

Why do some people pay thousands of dollars on a quality coffin?! Why do we bury the dead in expensive suits?! Are people still confused as to where dead bodies are going?!

Personally, I think a perfect funerals goes like this: Put the corpse in a big black plastic bag, and throw the bag in the nearest dump - and maybe you will want to burn that corpse for hygienic purposes! And after some thought, I might strictly forbid anything more than that in my Will... But hey, a Will is a stupid concept as well, so lets forget about that too! Side-note: If any of my friends is listening: Don't expect a more sophisticated funeral if for some mysterious reason you die and It happens that I am the one taking care of the body!! [Big smile to all my friends]

Finally, on a side-topic, whats the fuss about people being wary of donating their body organs after death?! Why would anyone hold on to his liver\heart\kidneys\..etc when in few months his whole body would be dust and mud?! (actually, its decayed by fungus and other bacteria to be specific)... This is another issue worth considering on the whole fuss people make over the dead bodies of dead people!! I mean, if you are Michel Jackson and want your body frozen for the experiments of the future, one can understand... But if your body is going to the grave not the refrigerator, I really see no use of disallowing organ donations!!

Schools Of Hedonism - Part 3: What Kind Of Pleasure?

One of the most disputed aspects of Hedonism is whether the human's goal is pleasure or happiness... Pleasure is usually attributed to intense physical sensations like sex, gluttony, or euphoria. Happiness is usually attributed to the feel good state of the mind like tranquility, content, satisfaction, or the company of friends.

Some people argue that simple beings like pigs have easier access to simple pleasures as they are ignorant to higher forms of life dilemmas, and thus can indulge in their pleasures without spoiling that pleasure by other worries. Similar lines of thought recognize simple (rural?) life as being more fulfilling.

One of the Greek old-school Hedonists, Epicurus, (among others) claimed that the highest pleasure consists of a simple, moderate life spent with friends and in philosophical discussions. I might add that: This blog recognizes this form of pleasure, and it is one of its goal to create a favorable space for that. [An alternative pimp house if you may call it!] - Hope it has been able to deliver that...

Some schools of thought advocate that it is unwise to indulge deeply into some pleasures as it might induce counter-intuitive side-effect. In particular, they advocate that a person should not indulge in pleasures that belittle other pleasures; For example, extreme sexual fetches might cause a person to lose interest in the milder forms of sexual pleasures and lead to dissatisfaction in the general sense of human experiences. I might add that I generally oppose the view that indulging in one pleasure diminishes the enjoyment of later pleasures.

On a final note, some schools challenge the view that pain as an opposite of pleasure. Generally, masochistic fetishes provide the biggest challenge to the "minimize pain" part of the definition. It is obvious that pleasure-through-pain proves that pain is not the opposite of pleasure. For this reason, I prefer to amend the second part of the definition to: "maximize pleasant experiences and minimize unpleasant ones"; where pleasant experiences include all types of pleasure, including: happiness, sensual pleasure, and even pain when applicable.

In this series:
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 1: Introduction
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 2: Methods Of Evaluation
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 3: What Kind Of Pleasure?
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 4: Egoism VS Utilitarianism

Schools Of Hedonism - Part 2: Methods Of Evaluation

There are numerous schools with subtle and not-so-subtle differences in the way choices can be evaluated; the most argued variable is whether the calculation has to be quantitative or qualitative. The quantitative approach suggests that pleasure is calculated by its intensity multiplied by its duration, so the best case scenario is feeling intense pleasure for a long period of time. The quantitative approach usually relies solely on the duration regardless of the intensity.

Other differences are whether pleasure and pain add up as scalars, or are taken as a ratio... Lets say one person had 10 points of pleasure and 5 points of pain; Another had 4 points of pleasure and 1 of pain. The scalar summation says that the first guy had 5 more points of pleasure so he has favorable life experience, while the ratio based schools says that the second guy had four times pleasure as pain so he has favorable life experience.

Yet there are those who radically change the methods of calculation, and instead some schools of thought argues that one has to maximize pleasure regardless of pain. Others argue that one has to minimize pain regardless of pleasure. Those two schools are more common in Utilitarianism; Consider a hypothetical situation where unjustifiably killing a few people would help a large civilization. Some would argue that the common good is more important than a few lives, while others would argue that regardless of the benefits of sacrificing a few, unjustifiably killing someone is not acceptable. The first position is usually called positive utilitarianism, while the second is usually called negative utilitarianism.

It seems interesting that some people actually tried to formulate hedonistic calculations through what is called hedonistic calculus! It has been argued that the happiness of different people is incommensurable, and thus hedonistic calculus is impossible - not only in practice, but even in principle...

In this series:
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 1: Introduction
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 2: Methods Of Evaluation
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 3: What Kind Of Pleasure?
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 4: Egoism VS Utilitarianism

How Much Are They Paying You?

In the film Lost and Delirious , when Mary felt other people looking down on her because she hangs out with her lesbian friend, she turned for advise from her wise friend the school gardener:

Mary: How much does it matter what other people think?
Gardener: Well, it depends on how much they are paying you, I guess... How much are they paying you? (source)

If you find yourself wasting so much time thinking about what other people think, maybe you should think again!

Religious Perspectives: An Insight Into Modern Satanism

The following excerpts are taken from "Religious Perspectives" - an interview with Oz Tech, a Satanic priestess from the temple of Set.

Basic Beliefs:
Q: Do Setians then worship the personification of evil?
A: We believe that the prince of darkness is responsible for consciousness, the psyche, what divides human being from animals, one aspect of aspects of that is an understanding of the idea of good and evil. We don’t worship a god of evil. We admire a being who takes the idea of good and evil, works with it and makes enlightened choices.

Q: Who or what does the Setians believe or worship?
A: The Setians believes in him or herself; worships his or her capacity to think, to choose, to evaluate, and to create. The Setian strives to become his or her own god.

Q: So what’s next on your agenda? World conquest?
A: What we are after is an individual awakening. We are looking for people who want to walk their own path in the world, who want to improve themselves. We are looking for people who are interested in pursuing the challenges like Prometheus; the people who are going to steal the privileges of the Gods and hand them over to humankind. Those are the people who are Satanists.

Q: What is the eventual goal of the Setian?
A: The eventual goal of the Setian is to become his or her own God. To create the universe in which he or she lives. To experience. To learn. To attain wisdom. To reach undreamed of capabilities through the exercise of will and intelligence.

Ancient Myths And Symbology:
Q: Then how do you perceive the prince of darkness?
A: The prince of darkness was originally a compliment to the Lords of light in the ancient Egypt. This has to be seen in view of an earlier philosophy, a philosophy which sees in the dark, a philosophy which is not afraid the dark, a philosophy that draws a line between the people who cower around a camp fire in the darkness and talk about the monsters out in the dark while they are waiting, and the people who pick up a torch, the light bearers, who then go out into that darkness, who go out and explore the unknown.

Q: This is what I cannot understand: if Lucifer is the so called the bearer of light, then why do you call him the prince of darkness?
A: Set was originally the lord of darkness; he is a stellar deity in the Egyptian mythos. I might point out that while the darkness is the symbol of ignorance to people who are themselves ignorant, most of our knowledge about true the position of man in the cosmos comes from the astronomers, the people who found knowledge in darkness. It’s no accident that Galileo was prosecuted by the church to his death. There is wisdom in darkness; there is wisdom to be found going the solitary way, against the doctrines of the church, the doctrines of society. There is a refining of the individual intellect that comes with the path of the rebel, and the path of innovator. There is Prometheus who gave the gift of fire to mankind. The gods punished him for this.

Q: And I suppose your medallion that you are wearing gives you some sort of a special power to accomplish that goal, right? [The medallion is an upside-down pentagram]
A: This medallion is the insignia of the temple of Set. It shows the pentagram; a very old symbol. In the time of ancient Greece, it was the secret of the Pythagoreans, a fraternal band of mathematicians and philosophers who wanted to inquire into the secret things of nature. Today this symbol still represents the desire to inquire into the structure of the cosmos and to know its secrets. There is no more magic in this medallion than the magic of understanding that is found in the enlightened human mind.

Deformed Perception Of Satanism:
Q: Ok. What about Richard Remer and those other satanic slaves?
A: Psychotic killers are failures. Drug cultists who are using voodoo to keep people in line are failures. Our philosophy is not a philosophy of failure, violence, and mayhem. [It is baseless] To say that the prince of darkness or the philosophy of Satanism is responsible for the combination of ignorance and psychosis that one sees in these crimes which have nothing to do with Satan or Satanism.

Q: What about books like "Michelle Remembers" written by ex-cultists who describe blood rituals, sexual perversion, and brain washing?
A: Stephen King makes a lot of money writing such things as fiction, others make a lot of money writing such things as fact. There is no evidence that any of these things have actually happened. Where are the convictions? Where are the trials? You get these people on talk shows. They never talk to police departments. They talk on television. Talk in books. Give me a break!

The Fall Of Biblical Churches:
Q: But that was one small period when the church fell from the grace of god.
A: This was the time when Christian faith had its strongest hold on the mind of men. You judge for yourself what the product was. Today that grip is weakening, technology is moving ahead, progress is being made, people are living longer, they have more freedom and more enjoyment in life. You tell me what Christianity has brought to humanity. At its hype, people were being burnt at the stake, hanged for heresy, people were dying in their 20'es and 30'es, filth and disease, and people said it was god's will. I’d rather be my own god if that’s the god that Christians have to offer.

PS: Download a text version of the interview here
PS: View the full interview here

Schools Of Hedonism - Part 1: Introduction

Let's first start by stating what Hedonism is: Hedonism declares pleasure as the highest good, and that the humans' ultimate goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Variations from this straight forward definition do exist and that's what will be discussed in this series.

Hedonism assumes that humans seek pleasure (others claim that happiness is what humans seek not pleasure - for now pick what you think fits). Since the rightness of an action is measured by the degree it fulfills its purpose (by definition), thus pleasure is the highest good - as Hedonism suggests.

Several attempts have been tried to discredit Hedonism, the most notorious of which is the paradox of Hedonism which goes like this: A person cannot seek happiness and obtain it - but, when one pursues some other purpose (eg. a challenging career, a project important to humanity, a code of ethics, a religious commitment), one achieves happiness. A philosopher once said: "Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so."

It is important to notice that the paradox of Hedonism isn't really paradoxical; Hedonism states that humans seek happiness, but if a person - for psychological reasons - fails to achieve happiness by pursuing happiness then if it works for them they can pursue another goal which diverts their attention from focusing on that happiness - which consequently helps them achieve happiness which is the stated purpose as Hedonism suggests.

Another thing worth notice is that seeking pleasure doesn't necessarily undermine pleasure - as the paradox of Hedonism suggests. Proclaiming Hedonism and pursuing pleasure can work flawlessly - it can have counter-intuitive side effects on some, but that's their problem!

In this series:
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 1: Introduction
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 2: Methods Of Evaluation
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 3: What Kind Of Pleasure?
Schools Of Hedonism - Part 4: Egoism VS Utilitarianism

Slow Coming Blogging Material

For the last couple of weeks, there has been scarce new material on this blog and I think I know why! Its the vacation! Yes, on vacations I'd be onto every lazy past time and no juices are flowing in my head.... Considering the way things are going, most of my material comes to me on my way to university: I live in amman and my university is near Irbid, a 1-hour distance, and when I am on the bus for one hour with nothing else to do but enjoying thoughts flowing through my head I get ideas... On vacations, lazy past times are more indulging...

Friends And Romantic Companions

Girl: I think the worse mistake a guy might commit is to suggest love to a female friend of his!
Me: Why?!
Girl: Many people confuse getting used to someone with loving them. Its normal that if you spend a long period of time with someone you start feeling close to them: This closeness is not love...
Me: So you are suggesting that if a guy and girl are casual friends they should never become romantic companions?!
Girl: Pretty much! Those who do so usually confuse closeness with love!
Me: I disagree... As opposed to what you suggest I guess relationships advance and morph through time! I think its almost impossible for a healthy relationship to jump right away to the love phase before a relaxed friendship phase...
Girl: That's a mess you will never want to go throught!! Friendship and romance are better not be mixed up!

As has been suggested before I am pro open relationships! Not many people understand the true meaning of being an open relationist... Generally, open relationists have a blur line between different types of relationships: That's to say open relationists don't make formal differentiation between: A friend, a romantic companion, a one-nighter, a fuck buddy, a soul-mate, a spouse, or whatever of the numerous categorizations other people make; Rather they view all those as interpersonal relationships and being such its really hard to draw any lines (not all open relationists submit to this description - but personally, I do agree to some extent)!!
Having such blur lines and with my unconventional view of relationships, I have been at times challenged with similar views as above that thrive on the distinctions between friendship and romantic companionship....

Redefining A Planet

Some of you might have heard the news, our solar system has been formally diminished by one planet!! Its no longer a 9-planet system, but an 8-planet one... Pluto was omitted from the planets' definition! This incidence reminds us of the utmost importance of definitions as the slightest change in the wording of a definition might include or exclude stuff from the set of things that a word describes!! It can be easily noted that imprecise definition cause most of the disagreements and misunderstandings...

I always like to provide the "prime numbers" definition example: Is 1 a prime number? Short answer: NO! But why? The answer to this question comes from the definition of a prime number: A prime number is a positive integer that is divisible (integer division without remainder) by exactly two different positive integers: 1 and itself only!! Considering one, one is divisible by one and also divisible by itself... The problem is one and itself are not "different"!!

Numerous other examples can be given so let's remember: Definitions make the difference between hell and heaven!! Definitions are the ultimate references for any concrete argument... Enough said!!

Back to the planets issue: Apparently scientists made few discoveries about bodies that goes around the sun; Bodies which are comparable to Pluto in terms of size and orbit, led to a situation where either the minor bodies would be added the list of officially recognized planets, or older ones would need to be removed, in order to ensure consistency of definition. The definition for planet is now officially "a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." Pluto fails to satisfy condition (c) and therefore here we are now: One less planet we have!

Sources: wikipedia, neowin.net

Blogger Infrastructural Changes

Google's Blogger service is in a transition state: A new beta blog manager is being rolled out incrementally to users of blogger into the beta program that uses Google Accounts!! To read more about the beta check here!

It is important to note that, currently Blogger and its beta are being managed as separate services which means that a beta user cannot comment on a non-beta blog as a registered account and vice versa (but obviously they still can comment anonymously)...

I have already moved into the beta program, and so the blog is in a transition state (in terms of design)... Obvious side effects include: Non-beta Blogger users need to temporarily use the commenting option for non-registered users. Another obvious side effect is the ugly template... The template used will be in flux until i can fix it back to the way it was - or better!! For technical issues, due to the fact that I am using a beta some parts may not function well: Google is promising that most technical issues will be amended in less than a couple of weeks; If Google keeps its promises then everything should be fixed in less than a couple of weeks!!

In addition, one of the best new features included with this beta are the "Labels" (or some people call them "tags")... Old posts didnt have labels and I am in a continuous process of assigning Labels to those older posts: It might take a month or two to fully assign all posts to their respective Labels!

Edit: Stroke out inaccurate information

Staind's Best Three

Staind in "Outside":

But I'm on the outside
I'm looking in
I can see through you
See your true colors
'Cause inside you're ugly
You're ugly like me
I can see through you
See to the real you (Full lyrics)

Staind in "Fray":

You wouldn't listen even if i told you
Who the fuck am i to say?
You're too busy with the lies they sold you
Another cure to fix your day
Open wide for all the shit they feed you
While the TV defecates
And blindly walk wherever they will lead you
While the edges slowly fray (Full lyrics)

Staind in "Right Here":

But you always find a way to
keep me right here waiting
You always find the words to say to
keep me right here waiting
And if you chose to walk away
I'd still be right here waiting
Searching for the things to say to
keep you right here waiting (Full lyrics)

Lebanese Civilians: The Greatest Loss Of All

Me: What's the fuss about Hizbolla having won over Israel? Is there any substantial grounds for such claims? Am I missing something here?
Dad: See Zaid, You are an A-student... What happens when you get a B? You feel underachieving... But what happens when an F-student gets a D? They celebrate their overachievement, because achievement is directly related to the expected result... Most Arabs view themselves as totally helpless, below zero you may say... So no matter how much they lose, they only see it as an overachievement!!
Me: So one can say that those who see victory are the ones who believe that they are incapable?
Dad: Well.... I guess you can! See: Hizbolla captured two Israeli soldiers and Israel has failed to retrieve them... Hizbolla takes that as a victory although the cost was thousands of Lebanese civilians: This only shows that to them those two soldiers are way more valuable than thousands of Lebanese civilians... That's the real plague!!

Uh... Finally cease fire! And the cost? Thousands of Lebanese lives.... Has Hizbolla won? Maybe, only time can tell!! Has Israel won? Considering that the 'claimed' goal of the attack was to retrieve the two soldiers, I guess they failed in that respect... I cannot tell about other goals of the attack, whether any of which was satisfied or not!!

But don't you see? We are talking Hizbolla VS Israel? But where is Lebanon? Lebanon was the battle ground... The battle ground for Hizbolla and Israel to get even!! This war has brought nothing but destruction and loss to Lebanon! Can a legitimate political party use a country as a battle ground for its operations? The way I see it, Hizbolla has put their own political agenda prior to any considerations for the country that is hosting them... Could a legitimate political party lead a country to a war without the accordance of its government and more importantly its people? Could a legitimate political party lead a country to a war that it couldn't shield against?! Hizbolla has lead Lebanon to a war that neither Lebanon nor Hizbolla have been able to shield against!!

Hizbolla might have satisfied one goal, but the best interest of Lebanon evidently has no place on Hizbolla's agenda... Hizbolla - as a political party - might have achieved something, but Lebanon had lost the most thing that matters: The lives of its own people!!

Logical Demonstration: Tautology

What is the logical value of the following statement:

If [1+1=3] Then ["m" is the first alphabetic letter]

This little mind teaser should be no challenge to anyone in the computer industry or mathmaticians, or generally anyone who has minimal knowledge in logic...

The statement is a Tautology (ie. always true). A formal proof goes like this:

Say, p: 1+1=3 , q: "m" is the first alphabetic letter
p => q
= ~p + q ; since p is a contradiction, so always ~p
= TRUE ; since always ~p

For the ones not familiar with logic operators, here is a friendly demonstration (as simple as I can put it):

Since, ( If X Then Y ) is equivalent to ( Y OR NOT X ) [see below]*
If [1+1=3] Then ["m" is the first alphabetic letter]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR NOT [1+1 is Equal to 3]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR [1+1 is Not Equal to 3]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR TRUE
= TRUE [see below]**

* Consider this statement: If [You Study] Then [You Pass]... This statement holds in three conditions: 1- You Study AND Pass, OR 2- You dont Study AND Fail, OR 3- You dont Study AND Pass.... So from {1,3} the statement holds when you Pass (whether you study or not), OR from {2,3} it holds when you dont study (wether you pass or not)! So the statement is equivalent to: [You Pass] OR [You don't Study]! So ( If X Then Y ) is equivalent to ( Y OR NOT X ) as required!!

** Consider this statement: [Your Pen's Color is Blue] OR [Sunday follows Saturday]... The second part of the statement (ie. Sunday follows Saturday) is always true, so the statement is always true regardless wether the Pen's Color is Blue or not... So, ( [Any Statement] OR [True Statement] ) is necessarily True!!

So, any conclusion based on an always false condition is necessarily true!! So when someone tells you: "If now I had a million dollars, I will unrelectantly give them all to you!!" dare not call him a liar, cuz no matter how cynical this statement might seem - This person is no liar, he is speaking an undeniable truth!!

Could Error Be The Rightest Option?

Merovingian: I have told you before, there's no escaping the nature of the universe. It is that nature that has again brought you to me. Where some see coincidence, I see consequence. Where others see chance, I see cost. (source)

I simply dont believe in chance: I believe in premeditation! Even the most -seemingly- random events are caused by a reason, and the reason for a new cause!! Similarly, I dont believe in error either (ie. error yielding correct results)...

Could we justifiably call a premeditated error an error? Is the question even consistent? Does this question even make sense?... You might be wondering why I am talking of such absurdities, here is the thing: I had quite a disagreement with my Electronics teacher, functionally speaking (and actually on every account I took into consideration): I was right... I had the correct answer and nobody can even argue about that!! Nonetheless the teacher decided (mystically) to give a zero mark for that part of the question... The issue was that during an intermediate step, i commited a small inconsistency... An error if you want to call it - The only problem was: It has been a premeditated error... I actually committed two errors, but magically (magically from the teacher's point of view, NOT mine) the two errors cancelled out to give the correct result...

The thing is, I knew where i committed the error, and I planned my correction scheme, and this was PROVED by the correct final answer!

If you were a teacher, do you think such (unconventional) method of solution should get Full credit? Partial credit? Or a Zero?! What do you think?!

The Right To Marriage

How would you feel if you had to ask 260 million people for the right to marry? - Check this small video....

PS: Alternative link here

Hint: The video addresses same-sex marriages

The Dream Example: Domain-Specific Knowledge

Skepticism for long has been accused to suggest that knowledge is unattainable; While this might seem like a reasonable conclusion, it isn't particularly so.... Denying knowledge is equivalent to denying all rationality, which isnt particularly the purpose Skepticism is aiming at.... On the other hand, Skepticism thrives to enlighten our rational choices by admitting the limits of our knowledge and perception of the world: Which is what is about to be presented.

To help better understand the arguments, lets consider the dream example: PersonX dreams of having been to Italy. Now, If they say: "Yesterday, In my dream, I was in Italy", they are justified! But if they say: "Yesterday, I went to Italy", then they are not justified!! This simple scenario illustrates how the domain affects the accuracy of claims.

Now, lets say that PersonX claims that: "Yesterday, In my dream, I went to France", this is a false claim just as much as "Yesterday, I went to Italy" is... So although dreams are merely non-actual worlds truth values still holds at least within that domain... Somehow, things that never actually happened are like facts in the realm of fantasy!

Within scenarios like the Matrix it becomes necessary to make a distinction between the realm of our consciousness (the "Common World") and the "Actual World"... This means, while we may have absolutely no knowledge at all about the Actual World, we still have functionally useful knowledge about the Common World - the world that our senses percieve!!....

The relation of the Dream World to our Common World is similar to the relation of the Common World to the Actual World!! Practically, the Actual World may have no real significance as opposed to the Common World; The argument here, assuming your current consciousness leads you to believe that you are pursuing GoalX, then you will want to fulfill this goal regardless of wether your consciousness is within the Dream World, Common World, or the Actual World... In all cases you fulfill the goal according to the "physics" of the world your consciousness lives within!!

PS: Inspired by this entry [recommended-read]

Transsexuals And Gender Stereotypes

What drives a person to change their gender? This could be a mysterious question to ponder, and to search one's inner thoughts and feelings towards sex and genders.... Many people at one point or another fantasize about being part of the other sex, but what makes such fantasy so strong that one has to undergo a sex reassignment operation?

A classical scenario would go like: "I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body?" - Many people reason that they dont look on the outside that way they feel on the inside.... How far could this argument go? Could we really say that there is a direct relation between how one looks and what they are on the inside? Could one actually modify themselves to look superficially the same way they feel inside their own heads?

The way i see it, such claims emphasize stereotyped correlations that societies form through ruthless and unsubstantiated prejudice... Lets look at the claim again: "I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body?" - How exactly does a man feel? What a woman is not supposed to feel? How do you know that you are not from one gender but the other? Such claims assumes a clear line between whats masculine and whats feminine.... Could such segregation be unprejudiced and not stereotyped? My point is, while some think that transsexualism eliminates grounds for gender stereotypes I think in one way or another it's serving making the distinction more profound....

Gender transformation could be justified and motivated diversely among many people, but I wandered around one of the largely used arguments in that field and showed my discontent for the kind of reasoning behind it... This is not to claim that all of the justifications are necessarily flawed - and obviously the transformation remains a personal judgment call!!

PS: Partly inspired by South Park S9-Ep01

Is Science Justified?

Following the tracks of radical Skepticism one has to wonder if science or anyother empirical line of thought can be justifiable within that philosophical stance... Many (including philosophers) have accused Skepticism to be in contradiction with Rationalism, the greatest concern was that Skepticism suggests that knowledge is unattainable - which is a false accusation (as demonstrated in this post)!!

The argument goes like this: Skepticism implies that perception is an unreliable source for information, that all information collected through perception is deteriorated and misleading to the truth of things... Skepticism holds that one cannot be certain of anything, and that empirical observation doesn't lead to factualness... Skepticism also holds the position that all scientific observations might have systematic errors and that all science is prone to error, no matter how solid it might seem (consider how Einstein redefined Newtonian physics)....

Most of these arguments are more or less true, BUT NOT the conclusion: Some have concluded that if Skepticism was true then all science has to be abandoned, and no-one would ever be justified to seek knowledge... I object to anyone who claims that Skepticism advocates abandoning science or rationality!

I think the Newtonian physics example is a good one: We all know that ( Force = Mass * Acceleration ), this formula was constructed by Newton, and proved to be wrong by Einstein! This is an example of scientific fallibilism which demonstrates that even scientific propositions cannot be held as certain... But lets consider the functional view: This formula has been a great assist in numerous sciences and inventions including but not limited to sky rockets, cars, projectiles,...etc. So at the functional level, although this formula has NOT been absolutely true it has made our life easier and got us to technological advances that would have been otherwise unattainable!!

So while Skepticism questions the factualness of science and empirical observation, it does NOT imply that they are not justified based on functional and practical grounds... Therefore it is justified and need not be abandoned - because its serving its purpose!

Literally SHIT: Challenge Your Stomach

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Organic Life-Forms: A Closer Look

Consciousness: what is the definition of consciousness? Living being: what is the definition of a living being? what is the definition of a being? The actual answers to these questions are merely CONVENTIONS! What might be living by your judgement can be dead by others. The question of consciousness has came by a long time for people in the computer industry, specifically artificial intelligence. Lets take a closer look there: scientists are aiming at building up robots with intelligent reactions - robots with consciousness! Consciousness is defined as simply having the ability to respond to changing factors in the surrounding environment. Robots achieve that through sensors and intelligent algorithms. Humans have been able to do that with their senses (seeing, hearing, touching). So here is my challenge question: if computers (robots) where developed with the ability to move around, think, respond, and have consciousness - even more advanced algorithms that enable it to feel, judge, invent, and perform other human-like actions... In what ways are they less alive than us? ..... "Well, for GOD's sake, they're just metal and electricity!", someone might scream... My question now to that guy is: why do u consider an intelligent action from a being made up of organic material like C,S,N,...etc, more living than another being that can come up with other intelligent actions but with a small difference of being made up of iron and silicon??

A similar pitfall arises: humans have long been searching for life on other planets. But do they have a clue for what they are searching for? Should we expect extraterrestrial life-forms to be made up of organic material like carbon? Does organic material as defined by our chemistry stand for the only substance of life? Or better say, why is carbon considered more living than say iron? In our world we say that we are made of organic material, and us together with creatures having same characteristics being classified as living (eg. animals, plants, bacteria ... etc.), yet things made up of iron are not living (eg. robots). [This view is rejected by Alternative biochemistry where the classical carbon-based biochemistry is called "Carbon chauvinism"]

Looking at the picture from a lower level we can see that humans are no more living than a robot.... Ohh heck, we are no more living than the keyboard i am typing on! Our consciousness is nothing more than electrical signals going through our heads, combined with our analytical and creativity capabilities have been doing stuff. The concept is simple yet tricky for those who never thought that way. This explains why i disregard biology: it gives existance to things of null reality.

The Servitude Of Truth

Truth is a mean, rather than a goal: A mean to make rational decisions and well-informed choices to enhance our experiences and favor those pleasant ones... Lets consider the basic definition of Satanism: It aims at understanding the mechanics of life so we can get through it, so we can make best use of things in our hands.

Knowledge is power: This is the main claim... But we dont sacrifice the end for a mean, do we? Its stupid if we do, but sometimes one gets too carried away with the mean that they forget the end!!!

Functional Analysis Of The Matrix

Trinity: The Matrix isnt real!
Cypher: I disagree Trinity: I think the Matrix could be more real than this world... (source)

Lets first define what "functional" means: Any system can be described in terms of inputs, outputs, and internal states only! Thats the full definition... But what does that mean? This means that we strip intermediate states and processes and focus only on what some call a "black-box" that defines the system as the output relating to input! Within this view we can define a human in terms of senses (inputs) and feelings, emotions, actions, moods, and other mental states (outputs)...

Our nervous system transmits neurological signal to the brain which induces our consciousness, and after analyzing incoming signal produces an intelligent reaction that may consitutes emotional states... These neurologcal signals are actually electrical signals, but once our initial senses have been converted into electrical signals the real source of this signal cannot be verified nor reproduced... If we imagine our brains as a system where both inputs and outputs are electrical signals then we can understand that if identical inputs are provided within equivalent internal states then it is only logical to guess that identical output will follow!!

The Matrix does exactly what the above system aims at... The Matrix consitutes of internal states that are translated into electrical pulses identical to those if the internally described state was actual, then it feeds this input to the brain, which in turns modifies its own internal state as well as providing output that is used to update the internal state of the Matrix!!

Based on this view we can see that as long as the brain is concerned the input regardless of its actual source is what it constitutes as "reality"... Additionally humans are concerned with emotions, and whether you are actually fucking a gorgeous guy\girl or just stimulated to believe so doesnt matter as long as you are feeling ecstatic!!

What Is The Matrix

Morpheus: Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

Neo: We are now inside a computer program!
Neo: This..... This isnt real!
Morpheus: What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, smell, taste, and see then 'real' is simply electrical signal interpreted by your brain!

Morpheus: What is the Matrix? Control.
Morpheus: The Matrix is a computer-generated dreamworld built to keep us under control to change a human being into this\(a battery)...
Neo: No! I dont believe it! Its impossible!

(A boy bends a spoon without even touching it)
(The boy hands the spoon to Neo)
Boy: Dont try to bend the spoon, thats impossible! Instead only try to realize the truth!
Neo: What truth?!
Boy: There is no spoon!

Trinity: The Matrix isnt real!
Cypher: I disagree Trinity: I think the Matrix could be more real than this world... (source)

The Matrix presents a version of an old philosophical fable: the brains in a vat (with some spice to make a cool film). Since its not easy to explain all aspects here, read more in the given link!

Debating Theistic Views {Stub}

The comments that follow pose debates about the validity of theistic views... This post is a place holder for those debates!

Skepticism Is True - by Abraham Meidan

Skepticism is true, is the name of a book and a position argumented for by Abraham Meidan... The introduction of this book has been provided to enlight readers of the different aspects to skepticism as a philosophical hypothesis! Its a light read if you get acquainted by few terms used in that section... I'd say its a must read!

I am a supporter of skepticism, and soon there will be quite a few posts in this regard dealing with the topic from various points of view....

The main theses of the book are:
1. All statements are neither certain nor plausible. In other words: skepticism is true.
2. Skepticism, as formulated above, does not imply any absurd conclusions (in contrast to the view commonly held by philosophers).
3. People do not choose their beliefs. What we believe is determined by psychological processes.
4. People believe in statements that minimize the extent of the unexpected events of which they are aware. (source)

Click here to read the introduction (PDF)

Defining Right And Wrong

The right\wrong value of an action is defined as when consequences of an action coincides the purpose of that action, or more simply said: when an action serves its purpose....

Within this definition we find that the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences as well as its purpose... Consider a simple cheating example: PersonX wants a higher mark in a certain multiple-choice exam, he may choose to cheat. One possible scenario is that he copies the correct answer from his neighbor and thus obtain an extra mark. Another scenario is that he is caught and is given a ZERO mark! The two scenarios when considered in isolation connotates that cheating in the first scenario is right, while in the second it is wrong...

This subjective view of what is wrong should not be confused with my previous -objective- allegation that nothing can go wrong which defines rightness as factualness! To elaborate, everything that actually happens serves its natural purpose - whatever that is!

PS: This post does NOT necessarily represent a worldwide view

The Steady State

Every unstable state experiences spontaneous change to a more stable state usually called its natural state... Once an isolated system reaches its natural state it stops changing, although usually a system never reaches its natural state but only approaches it as time goes to infinity (usually exponentially)!

Several real life theories employ this model: The universe as a whole system aproaches a natural state of an all-free energy evenly distrubuted over the universe, this effect is described through the Chaos theory where every change frees some energy and helps distrubute the energy within the universe evenly...

According to Marxism - within my very limited (and probably flawed) understanding of it (which I would appreciate a more knowledgeable person to enlighten), a socio-economic natural state is obtained when all power is fairly distributed where class struggle would be eliminated (this state called communism)!

Philosophy, et cetera

Take a look into an intellectual, philosophical, and interesting dimension: Check this blog

The Sex-Maid Of The Lord

Disclaimer: Blasphemous Content

The story according to the Christian Bible:

{1: 26} And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, {1: 27} To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary. {1: 28} And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women. {1: 30} And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. {1: 31} And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. {1: 34} Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? {1: 38} And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

source: The Christian Bible - The New Testament / Luke 26-38 (PDF)

The way it really was:

{1: 26} And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, {1: 27} To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary. {1: 28} And the angel came in unto her, and said: "Hello Virgin, the Lord has been pleased by your extreme naivety: You have a hymen, and therefore the Lord has chosen you. {1: 30} And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: The Lord has a small penis, it won't hurt at all. Besides his penis is so small, it can't possibly break your hymen! {1: 31} And, behold, the Lord has not touched a woman in ages, and is very horney. His dick is loaded with semen that he hopes would be fertile enough to make you pregnant. This son will be called JESUS because he will save the Lord's reputation from being called infertile. {1: 34} Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? {1: 35} And the angel said: "See Mary, this is the point; You have not seen a man and so you are in desperate need for the Lord's small penis" {1: 38} And Mary said, Behold the sex-maid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary, every girl envies you: Fucked by God.. What an honor!

PS: Stories in this entry are fictional

World Cup Rants

Many people enjoy football matches, others only watch world cup because of its big-event status that only occurs once every four years... Thats all ok, and doesnt piss me off: But what really piss me off are those (girls) who cheer for a team (usually Italy) because it includes "hot players"... My suggestion is: If watching hot guys is the primary goal i suggest renting a porn film -preferably gay porn- and you'll be assured not be let down!

Untold Weakness

Stone Sour in "Orchids":

Don't - try to be the one - person
Who has stayed - just to say
They never left me!
Aggravated, complicated, someone say it
God, I never learn

I have nothing left for you
You left me with nothing (Full lyrics)

Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories is a collective term coined for a wide range of skeptical claims that gained momentum throughout history, although may have not been supported by positive evidence... Conspiracy theories are abundant in politics, by regular people skeptic of the governments accusing them of conspiracies. One such conspiracy theories are the anti-semetic theories regarding Jews taking over the world, other conspiracy theories have been coined up about the assassination of John Kennedy or the inter-governmental collaboration to eradicate evidence of underground existance of aliens!!

Apart from political conspiracy theories there are various philosophy-oriented theories usually called "Philosophical skepticism" in order to distinguish them from the more dominant political conspiracy theories; The most popular philosophical skepticism is the dream skepticism: The eternal question if our lives were nothing but a dream that felt like reality!

Finally, conspiracy theories have an important role in science-fiction... Numerous writters have established ground basis for skeptic science-fiction; The film (triology of) "The Matrix" (my all-time favorite science-fiction) has pioneered that category!

It is important to note that "conspiracy theories" are actually ONLY hypotheses (rather than theories) because they dont have well-grounded falsifiability...

Decieving Your Own Mind

Is ignorance a bliss? This is the second time this question is posed on this blog... The answer is not straightforward, and involves deep philosophical investigation! This entry features the same question, but from a totally different perspective...

Some people say: "What you dont know cannot harm you!"; I think this statement is false and misleading... Most of the time, what you dont know WILL hurt you, because it will lead you to uninformed decisions... But what this entry is about to address is when what you dont know ACTUALLY cannot harm you. For that condition to be satisfied, what you dont know must be completely irrelevant to your current decisions, that is to say that the difference it makes is not detectable!

Lets consider a cheating partner example: One person cheats on his partner, this partner is ignorant of that, could this ignorance hurt him? To answer such question we must consider the consequences: Roughly speaking this ignorance can hurt this partner in quite a few ways: If the partner discovers the incidence later on he might be emotionally hurt; It might lead him to optimistic decisions about the relationship, while he should have put expectations to minimum; In short the difference between reality and percieved knowledge can cause confusion!

But what if that cheating partner was so professional in his work that no emotional disconnection or contradiction of evidence entailed to such act, does this scenario seem equally unfavorable? The question is: What makes you afraid of being cheated? Is it the simple fact of being cheated? Or the knowledge of being cheated? Or the unfavorable consequences? Rationally, its the latter! Whats so bad about knowing that you were cheated if no negative experiences followed? And more importantly, what so bad about being cheated if you never knew on the condition that such lack of knowledge didnt harm you?

To elaborate more on the matter consider this case-study scenario: PersonX pays for PersonY to be their partner (assuming PersonY is a perfect pretender) and then has memory modifying operation to forget that such deal took place (ie. become ignorant of the deal)... Is PersonX a reasonable person?

The more important and fundamental question is: Is this scenario intrinsically better than the cheating partner scenario? Does it matter who made the decision to create an enjoyable fantasy? These are few radical and interesting questions to ponder!

Property Is Unnatural

For the most part I am generally a supporter of capitalism as it seems to fit well with my other beliefs. Capitalism strives on competition, which is synonymous to darwinistic evolution; the "free market" is economical freedom; Capitalism works for greater benefit of humanity in general, and the individuals... The most notorious ideology opposing capitalism is socialism: The thing is, I dont disagree with socialism (marxism in particular) because I am starting to see that they dont really contradict - but thats beyond this entry! What i am about to say is NOT pro-socialism although it might be a good anti-capitalism argument...

The problem of capitalism is that it relies on the basic assumption of the right to property; Your right to have your own resources that no-one make take from you.... But if we take a closer look at the basic assumption capitalism exhibits we find that it is flawed: Property is unnatural! That is, i agree that no-one may take whats yours, but when was that resource assigned to you? Who gave it to you?

As far as i know, at the beginning of time the land was common, and the resources was common: No-one actually owned a land, no-one actually owned anything! The truth is, no-one owns anything, but they might control it... This control is seized by the fitter! Consider the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma: The land is not owned by anyone, but both parties are fighting to take control of the land using political influences... Another example is Microsoft, their money (or stock points) is worthless without an economical construct (capitalism that is) that gives them influence by the money they have...

PS: Inspired by this entry
PS: i am not affiliated with any political parties

Marriage Abolishes Friendly Relationships

I believe good relationship last because of positive bonding that occurs between the parties in that relationship... In case of romantic relationships this bond is usually called "love"; For the sake of simplicity lets call it that: Love... If I ever picture a successful relationship, it would be such that each day the question is posed: "Do I love my partner?" and each time the answer comes as positive! Maybe some days were down, but somehow the answer still seemed crystal clear... Similarly, I know that my partner has been asking themselves the same question every day, and accordingly chosen to stay... That's how I'd picture it!

Holding this as basic assumption, we see that (Christian?) marriage eliminates the possibility of realizing that scenario... The reason is simple: Marriage vows. Lets take how typical Christian vows go for an example: "I __ , take thee __ , to be my (wife/husband) to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, and I promise my love to you - till death do us part"; If a partner asks themselves whether or not they love their partner this implies that they might not do so, which contradicts the vows... Alternatively, a partner may not ask their partner whether they love them or not, because that simple question is an accusation of treason... As we can see, a wife who asks her husband: "Do you love me?", is acknowledging the possibility that her husband may not be loving her, consequently accusing him of breaking their promises!

Another problem with marriage is that it assumes that feelings are flat highway, which may not hold true for all conditions: So acknowledging that, none of the partners knows what the other is feeling because denying love is not an option! Surely, divorce happens but that's beyond the scope of this entry because true promises are not annullable...

Part of the truth is, people don't marry to keep their love for each other, they marry to keep a family intact, which kinda makes sense; So, I think marriage is not a bond between two people, rather a family-preserving contract; A contract not to protect the rights of the couple (consenting members), but the rights of their children (the non-consenting members)...

PS: Inspired by this entry

HoboWars: Nice Web-based Game

For two weeks now, i've been taking some part of my day to enhance my "hobo" character... HoboWars is a game where you create a virtual person, train him, teach him, and let him go through few everyday life... The game is not action, its more like strategy but a slow advancing strategy, that is advancing takes time: Days actually!

Not sure if others will like this game... But its been two weeks for now, and I did like it: Try it yourself*!

PS: *The link refers to me, click here for non-refering link

Arabic: The Fucked Up Language - The Closure

As stated before this semister I was taking Arabic classes. Everything during this semister was fine, fine until 11:15 when my Arabic class starts: An hour of constant boredom, mixed with the retrospect of a teacher who finds it necessary that girls and guys each sit on seperate sides of the class... Oh, the greatness! Thats all minor stuff compared to the final result: 68/100!!

Pretty much, this is higher than what i expected in my initial post; But still it did sabotage my semi-annual average... My semi-annual average is 88.5, but Arabic is the only subject below 90... My other grades were: 98 in computer organization, 95 in circuits, and 91 in both digital logic design lab and UML...

So now, because of that fucked up class all my other good grades go to hell... FUCK ARABIC!

Rehabilitating Through Blogging

It occurs to me that blogging is a great tool for interacting with people and putting one's thoughts and reasoning on the line... It gives the person diverse feedback on thier ideas, whether that feedback was approving or disapproving... Within that line of thought, I think it would help rehabilitating some offenders and help them resocialize and form positive bonding with the world around them...

The thing is, if a person was held for a long period of time with criminals and other offenders, its only reasonable to conclude that this limited interaction with an artificially selected members will intensify criminal line of thought, while on the other hand when those offenders are given a real oportunity to express their thoughts and communicate it with a more elaborate network of people, that will bring them out of their limited circle of social network, and thoughts...

Obviously, this interaction with the outside world should not compromise security, therefore some serious offenders -like terrorists, for example- would not get such benefits...

Inconsistent Circuits Formula

Last week, while studying for my circuits exams i stumbled upon one of the least well-defined physics formula that I had to study... The formula goes like this:

The effective value of a current which is composed of any number of sinusoidal currents of different frequencies can be expressed as:
I_eff = SQR(I_1eff² + I_2eff² + ... + I_Neff²)

source: Engineering Circuit Analysis (6^th Edition), by William H. Hayt / AC Circuit Power Analysis - Page 369

This formula has caused me a lot of headaches because of the (illogical?) word: "different".... Lets consider two sinusoidal currents: I₁=10sqr(2)cos(wt), I₂=10sqr(2)cos(5t); So, I_1eff=10, I_2eff=10...

Now according to the way it is calculated:
I_eff = 10sqr(2), for all |w| != 5
I_eff = 20, for all |w| == 5
In other words:
I_eff(w=5⁺) = I_eff(w=5^-) = 10sqr(2)
while, I_eff(w=5) = 20

The discontinuity in the function of I_eff is very obvious! The existance of this discontinuity is very questionable, especially in the current context.. Thats unnatural! You cannot prove two physical (even mathmatical) quantities to be equal! Since we cannot prove that two quantities are equal, it makes sense that an equation that works for different values of some variables, work also for equal ones....
In short, I think that the given equation is missing: Maybe, the details were skipped for simplicity, or maybe that author himself doesnt know what the fuck he's talking... If so, this might be an interesting area to investigate!

Update: (Jan 10, 2007) This problem has been resolved. Read more here.

PS: sqr(x) is square root of x
PS: The scientific validity of claims is NOT asserted

Are They New Religions?

When a puppy reaches maturity it becomes a dog; when ice melts it is called water; when twelve months have been used up, we get a new calendar with the proper chronological name; when "magic" becomes scientific fact we refer to it as medicine, astronomy, etc. When one name is no longer appropriate for a given thing it is only logical to change it to a new one which better fits the subject. Why, then, do we not follow suit in the area of religion? Why continue to call a religion the same name when the tenets of that religion no longer fit the original one? Or, if religion does preach the same things that it always has, but its followers practice nearly none of its teachings, why do they continue to call themselves by the name given to followers of that religion?

source: The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey / Some Evidence Of New Satanic Age (PDF)

Liberal Thought And Religion Are Compatible

Some people have misconceptions that liberal thought promotes one idea over another, like secularism over religion, or darwinism over creationism... Stricktly speaking, liberal thought and religion arent oposites; Liberal thought is NOT about what a person thinks, but rather what they allow others to think... So if a person is an athiest but believes in other people's right to think otherwise, then he is a supporter of liberal thought... Similarly, a religious person who conforms to the norms promoted by his religion, yet doesnt impose those norms on others, is equally a supporter of liberal thought!! The conflict between liberals and religions arises from that many practitioners of religions support totalitarian implementation of religion... As has been suggested, liberal thought promotes variation of thought, so as to allow the natural course of evolution of truth...

Life Sucks

Some say: Life is a sexually tranmitted disease that is invariably fatal!

Papa Roach agrees in "Be Free":

I hit the bottom and I don't even care
Some say I'm going to hell but I'm already there
Sick and tired of being sick and tired (Full lyrics)

Sickening and true....

Broken

Smile Empty Soul in "For You":

So kill me with the love that you won't give to me
And pack the wound with salt i want to feel it bleed
You wanted me to crawl so now i'm on my knees (Full lyrics)

Smile Empty Soul in "With This Knife":

I let myself fall into a lie
I let my walls come down
I let myself smile and feel alive
I let my walls come down
No matter how i try i don't know why
You push so far away
You wrapped your hands tight around my heart
And squeezed it full of pain

[Chorus:]
With this knife i'll cut out the part of me
The part that cares for you
With this knife i'll cut out the heart of me
The heart that cares for you (Full lyrics)

Computer Hardware Upgrade - Round 2

Following my last 1GB-RAM, and 200GB-HD upgrade, yesterday i bought a new DVD-Writer... I couldnt believe how cheap those are now! For only 50JDs i got myself an LG DVD-Writer, although there were other models for 45JDs! Additionally, i bought 25 4.7GB-DVD-R discs for 9JDs which is almost equal to 120GBs... So all in all, I had to pay 59JDs for a fully-equipped DVD-Writer; My take is that anyone who doesnt have a DVD-Writer needs to go ahead and buy one: Its fucking cheap and worth every inch of it!

This extra boost has helped me a lot with the ever increasing disk space demand that can only be achieved by literally abusing my adsl connection; At least now my hard-disk can breath some air...

Systems Of Belief - Round 2

Although less accurate and less interesting than the previous quiz, this quiz nonetheless is interesting... It features different philosophies and questions relating to those philosophies... What really caught my attention is the cool quotes that are featured relating to each philosophy...

An inconsistency that i found is the inclusion of apathy and nihilism; Logically, every nihilist is apathetic, although not every apathetic is nessarily nihilist, so logically the apathy score should be greater or equal to the nihilism score!

Also, not all questions were precise leading to significant differences in some scores when taking the test at two seperate times...

Check the quiz at: What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)

1st Go: You scored as Nihilism. Your life is marked by strong Nihilism: You feel that nothing in the world, even your life, has much or any meaning.

"For out of fear and need each religion is born, creeping into existence on the byways of reason."
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
"Every belief, every considering something-true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world"
--Friedrich Nietzsche


2nd Go: You scored as Strong Egoism. Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
--Ayn Rand

System	Average Score	1st Go	2nd Go
Strong Egoism		75%	85%
Nihilism		75%	80%
Hedonism		75%	75%
Apathy		60%	50%
Justice (Fairness)		55%	55%
Existentialism		40%	40%
Kantianism		25%	50%
Utilitarianism		15%	45%
Divine Command		5%	20%

Rejected (dot)XXX Domains Proposal

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Satanic Commandment: Never Repent

Slipknot in "I Am Hated":

We will not repent - this is our religion (Full lyrics)

Repenting is an irrational, degrading, and self-abusing thought!

To better understand the implication of regret, and the philosophical reasoning behind that commandment, read this article.
snippet: Perhaps your counterpart would have had a better life than you, in which case the past event was impartially bad. It lead to a life less good than some alternative life would have been. But it wouldn't have been your life. So the alternative would not have benefitted you. It would have made someone else exist in your place.

Indulging Temptation

"I never resist temptation, because I have found that things that are bad for me do not tempt me." (source)

-George Bernard Shaw

True! True! True!

Sharing Thoughts With Readers

Like any writter not every idea I get on my mind can be easily expressed in written words; For quiet a while, i have been trying to introduce interpersonal relationships insight into some of my entries... But none of those drafts have actually made it out yet!

Reasons vary: To start with, relationships are complex... And since you are dealing with other humans the scope of variation greatly explodes more than any other topic I tried to feature ever before....
The slightest assumptions can become big flaws; Besides the inheretly complex nature of relationships, I find it hard to express observations in unambigious and clear way...
Additionally, my interpersonal relationships theories relies largely on my own personality, and are not "mainstream" relationships model, therefore its hard to reinterpret my person insight using the already established terms people use to describe relationships!

Another concern is how does discussing relationships affect current and future relationships... For example, if i show support to one system or introduce ideas that are questionable, current relationships might be adversely affected; And future ones might even more severely be affected because it would introduce assumptions about the other person's character early on in the development of the relationships which might affect the communication due to those convictions!

So, i want to ask few questions; Something that might give me insight to write new stuff in that topic; The questions are: What do you know about open relationships? How do you perceive open relationships? How do you contrast open relationships model with the closed relationships model?

Pessimistic Incompatibilism

Do humans have a free will? Quick answer: No!

I am one of the proponents of determinism (read more)... And asserting determinism can lead to one conclusion: We don't have true free will! Our actions are the effect of past incidents, that's all! Our thoughts are the natural consequence to the experiences of our past; Nothing is original we are only living the consequences of the past...

We don't have a free will, we have a naturally-dictated predetermined will...

But what this entry is about to add is that even if determinism was false, and indeterminism was actually true, this doesn't mean that we'd have a free will, it simply changes from a predetermined will, to random will... But never free will!

This view is called pessimistic incompatibilism! Pessimistic incompatibilists generally view that the term "will" itself is nonsense...

Falsifiability: Theory VS Tautology

A hypothesis has conclusions... If those "conclusions" when applied in practical terms to explain "observations" and "phenomenons" then this hypothesis becomes a "scientific theory"; this is the "scientific method"!

A scientific theory is falsifiable, that is to call your hypothesis a scientific theory you should be able to answer this question: Give me an example when the theory is wrong?
So lets take ( F=ma ); If you ask Newton to give you an example when he is wrong, this would be the answer: "If you can find a 1-kg mass, moving under net force of 1-N, with acceleration 2-ms^-2 then my theory is wrong"; so ( F=ma ) is a candidate to be a scientific thoery!

Similarly if you ask an atheist to give you an example when he is wrong he'd answer: "If the christian god existed then i would be wrong"

But an agnostic cant answer that question!! Saying "God exists or God doesnt exist" cant possibly be wrong! This is a "tautology"; A statement that cant possibly be wrong is called a tautology and does not say anything about the world! Thats why some people call a tautology a redundancy!

Funny Video: The Satanic Cult

Check this to see how funny satanism is perceived! :D

Ontological Question: Atheist Or Agnostic?

In discussions after dinner Darwin asked his guests, "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" saying that he preferred the word "Agnostic." Aveling replied that "Agnostic was but Atheist writ respectable, and Atheist was only Agnostic writ aggressive." (source)

However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states: That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can. (source)

However, later in the essay, Russell says: I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence. (source)

So it depends on who is asking, and what they mean by their question; If it was an average person asking, i say im an atheist! If it was a philosophical question asked by a well-informed person, i say im an agnostic! From an ontological point of view, i am agnostic!

Ontology is the study of what exists... Materialism states that matter is the only thing that exists; I agree with the definition, with a slight twist to clear some confusion that might arise: Materialism states that everything that exists is matter!
So it exists if and only if it is matter...

What does that mean? It simply means that if there is such a thing as creator of this universe AKA God, then this "creator" is part of the universe rather than out of it! If a "super-natural being" created this universe, then this being is a "natural being" in its own dimension!

From an ontological POV i am an agnostic; From a semantic POV i am an atheist; Atheism states that there is no GOD... But the God that atheism rejects isnt a question of what exists; But rather rejects the definition of GOD; An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, conscious definition of GOD...

The problem of evil shows that omnibenevolence is nothing but a dream! "Can God make a rock so big, that even he can't lift it?" This simple question shows that nothing is omnipotent! Assuming the existance of Injustice, Justice is an unattainable goal even for a GOD! One demonstration of the unattainability of Justice is the problem of hell...

Assholes Invasion

A friend once put it in a cool way: "We are all assholes, but its up to each one of us to decide to what extent we are willing to show that to the world." Then he added (talking to me): "And you my friend is willing to spill it all."

Argument By Lack Of Imagination

Flaws in arguments vary in type, but they are all eventually flaws... Its is important to have knowledge in various types of flaws and fallacies used in arguments! The most notorious of those fallacies is the over-generaliztion.

One of the less commonly known fallacies, which usually passes unquestioned, is the "argument by lack of imagination" or alternatively called "argument by ignorance";

To give an example of such argument:
Imagine that at year 1000 BC, two people had this little chat,

PersonX: I wish I can reach the moon.
PersonY: You are unrealistic person. It is impossible to reach the moon.

Obviously, PersonY lacks the basic element of imagination, therefore had made a false assumption based on his ignorance of the possibility to land on the moon.

One of the notable usuages of this kind of argument is in oposition to atheism; It is said that in the old times, this conversation happened between a religious person and an atheist:

Religious: Yesterday i saw a ship; It had no crew, it had no captain, it was sailing in the middle in the sea without anyone onboard!
Atheist: Sorry Sir, I think this is a made up lie!
Religious: So you are telling me that it makes sense that our whole world, with all galaxies... The accurate system in which a simple flaw can be drastic... This big big universe can exist without a captain managing it, yet find it questionable to find a ship without a captain?

Obviously, that religious person lacks the basic element of imagination! I leave the proof to the smartasses out there!! ;)
One of my school teachers used to say: "Imagination is more imprtant than knowledge"; I have to agree, because you can gain knowledge by imagination, while without the element of imagination you cannot make use of the knowledge you have!

Censorship In Its Ugliest Forms - Round 2

Besides the notoriety of the Chinese government to censor many political movements as has been suggested in the previous post showing the ugly face of censorship, Egyptian government is similarly notorious for such activity...

In recent news, numerous Egpytian activists -6 of which are bloggers- were detained in by Egyptian authorities for participating in peaceful demonstrations in support of greater judicial independence. The incidence has echoed largely amoung Egypian and Arab blogs protesting to free all the detained activists... (read more)

PS: i am not affiliated with any political parties

Why Some Men Look For Virgins

There is an old joke that i think says it all:
There was a man who wanted to marry a real virgin; On the first night with his first bride he took off his pants, pointed at his dick and asked her: "What is that?", so she answered: "DAH! A penis!"; So he divorced her because she knew pretty much to be a virgin... He went on and on, marrying women and divorcing them untill one day, on the first night with a new bride, he took off his pants as usual and asked: "What is that?", and the girl replied: "I seriously have no clue at all!"; The man felt immensely happy that he found his lost treasure... Later on that night, after they fucked all night, he looked at her and said: "See honey, that is called a penis", the girl was shocked and replied: "Ohhh! Really??! I thought all penises were twice as big!!"

There is only one explanation: if a man is looking for a virgin then he has a small penis... The only reason i can think for a man to look for a virgin is to ensure the girl's ignorance to how 'short' he is to be a real man!

Religions Under The Critical Eye

Here are a few religion-oriented essays written eloquently:

Essay 1: My God is Better than Your God
A great article from an agnostic POV; A functional and objective analysis to the state of religions... A "religion-friendly" aproach that holds the premise that GOD wants whats good for humanity...
snippets: In fact, about the only thing they have in common is benevolence. They all want their people to prosper and be happy... Wow. What a bombshell! God wants you and I to be happy... So once again, I tried looking at it from a different perspective: if I can't figure out what will make everyone happy, what can I show that will make anyone unhappy? Then it occurred to me: violence, in the most general sense of the word, makes people unhappy... And where do we get most of our violence? Religion.


Full Essay:

As one of the newest contributors to my world, I feel I should try to distinguish myself from the other members of my illustrious team. After careful consideration, I’ve decided on my niche: I am going to try to bring you all kinds of news that will prove that My God is Better than Your God.

That’s right, I said it out loud. I’ll say it again: My God is Better than Your God. I don’t care if you’re a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Branch Davidian. My God is Better than All Your Gods. Hands down. Now I suppose at this point you’re either ranting, raving, or building something to kill me with (or you just don’t give a damn, which means you’re probably not even reading anymore) but hear me out. Once I explain why My God is Better than Your God, you’ll most likely agree with what I have to say.

The only thing that makes my God Better than Your God is this: I’m not even sure my God exists. But that’s OK, because in the end it doesn’t make a licking difference in my life anyways. The way I see it, all through history mankind has been having this debate over whose God is the Best. And when I say debate, I mean debate in the religious sense: war, rape, atrocities, torture, maiming and baby killing. The fun kind of debate that religion has been up to for thousands of years. My God has tried to get away from that debate. He’s lead me to search deep within myself for the true answers. So I did. I thought about him and Jesus and Mohamed and all those other crazy party animals.

I thought about all the things that make them different for awhile, but that was just crazy; there’s too many differences to even try to document them all. Then I thought about what makes them all the same, and you know what? There’s very little that make them all the same. In fact, about the only thing they have in common is benevolence. They all want their people to prosper and be happy. Wow. What a bombshell! God wants you and I to be happy. That is a true saying no matter what religion you are talking about (except for the crazy ones, and who wants to follow a god that doesn’t want what is best for you? Such as @@). So how do we all achieve real happiness? It’s not by praying. Maybe praying makes you happy, but it doesn’t do much for me, and other people find it downright offensive. Maybe it’s by taking whatever we can as quickly as possible. No, it’s not that either. Material goods bring happiness when you buy them, but they quickly loose their attraction, and you end up just wanting the new one that just came out after you bought yours. That’s not true happiness, and even if it was, it’s not a way to make all people happy, because we do live on a planet of finite resources. And if we’re not all happy, someone unhappy will find a way to make others that are happy pay.

I went on and on like this trying to figure it out, but after a while I was at the same point I was at when I was trying to map out the differences between the religions. There were just too many things to consider. So once again, I tried looking at it from a different perspective: if I can’t figure out what will make everyone happy, what can I show that will make anyone unhappy? Then it occurred to me: violence, in the most general sense of the word, makes people unhappy. So even though I’m not sure what will make everyone happy, I can make sure we get closer to this mythical state of happiness by trying to get rid of some violence in the world. And where do we get most of our violence? Religion. That’s right. Religion causes the most violence in the world, and it’s been that way since we invented the word religion.

So the goal for me is to convince as many people as possible to give up on religion. It’s not the way to find peace, or to find God. If God loves you and me, and wants the best for you and me, isn’t it just logical to give each other enough space to pursue happiness? As I said before, I don’t even know if my God exists. I’ve gotten no definitive answers to the question of God’s existence. If he does exist (and he is a benevolent God) then I will make him happy by being good to myself and others, the whole time trying to make myself and the world around me better. If he doesn’t exist, then I’m still going to try to make myself as happy as possible, and I’m going to do that by feeling proud of myself and my accomplishments. In other words, I’m going to try to improve myself and the world around me as much as possible. So either way, I’m going to try to make myself happy by constant improvement in my character.

That’s what my God taught me, and that is why My God is Better than Yours.

[+] Show\Hide


Essay 2: Let's see if I can get some death threats out of this one
A harshly worded essay criticizing organized religions! Partly addressing the danish cartoons that echoed violently in the muslim world!
snippet: I know, I know, it's all about respecting other peoples' religions. But I say "fuck that." I don't respect anyone else's religion (clearly). And you know what? Many of them don't truly respect mine, or my lack thereof. I do, however, respect their right to whatever beliefs they want to have. You're allowed to have your ignorant views, I'm allowed to have mine.

Essay 3: Satanism: The way of Life
A satanic POV showing satanism in its true colors, rather than the misguided interpretations provided by religiously biased light that many authorities promote...
snippet: So be it known to you that Satanism is the way of life or better still call it philosophy of natural life and being such it has nothing to do with child molesters, perverts, psychic vampires, rapists etc. Satanism is a peaceful religion advocating freedom of religion and thought.

Update: I included the full text of Essay#1 because the link became dead