No Gods or Kings or Capitalists

A Purpose in Function

2010-07-26T09:26:00.000-07:00

A meaning to life, who really needs one?

I don't think I've ever heard of a baby who has been thought that life must have a meaning. We're simply poured into the mold that implies life must have one, and we accept it. Life's meaning. No man knows it, so no man is good enough to dictate it. So, perhaps God must exist.

But if you think about it, the meaning was never there. A flower never questions its existence, because it doesn't have the capacity to, nor the want. Neither does a goat, nor a dog, nor a cactus. It simply lives out its purpose (most probably to exist, produce offspring, then return to non-existence).

Except for the want and the capacity to, (Well, maybe not so much the want) we are very much tied to this birth, reproduction, death cycle. We may not want to know it, nor do we want anything to do with it, but we are tied to it in a way that makes us feel like we are more than it.

I have a theory that evolution ensures we're always trying to improve, trying to advance the race to a more sustainable state of existence. Even if it means plotting a revolution that may involve the murder of fellow human beings.

But that all sounds a little rash. Let's analyze.

A plot to overthrow an unfair state always comes across as a little rash, but looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, it may make sense.

An unfair state represents the alpha male tendency that is the failure of the animal species. It must be eradicated by means of revolt by the powerful many in order to maintain survival and expansion of the species.

From a larger scope the world makes more sense. We look at the West as a distant oppressor(especially Malaysians who are indirectly suppressed by the Western idea that the Asian is inferior(supported also indirectly by Anglo-American empire), but upon further inspection, what the west is doing is almost right for our species. They are the unjust ones, but they are also the ones who are forcing us out of our shells. We need the best of humanity to survive, not the laid back. They need us to compete and strive to be the best that we can be. And the poor Asian politicians think it's a game of suck-up. It isn't. It's probably bigger than we can imagine.

It may even mean that the survival of the species relies on the brightest minds this world has to offer, Asian or not.

2010-04-13T14:50:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the comment Sean! Here's a post-reply.

I was hoping to try and explain the open mind bit in the next post(that's why I numbered it), so you may have to wait a while for me to put it into words and publish it.

Until very recently I thought it was a person's choice whether or not they believed in God. I even felt that atheist pride for choosing not to believe.

And yes, there IS an apparent conscious decision made by the individual. That I do not deny. But take into consideration some of the things we know.

Think about your childhood. Think of a memory from when you were a kid. Something that's vivid and almost touchable. It is apparent that you are that kid, because those are your memories. But scientifically speaking, not trace of matter from 5 year old Sean is part of 19 year old Sean. If you've got a science background, you'll know that cells die and are replaced.

I don't know what that implies to choice DIRECTLY, but indirectly, it shows that that which is true, may not necessarily be that which is apparent.

Gabriel Gan told me that my method of reasoning would mean destroying the meaning of the word 'choice' itself. Maybe that's why it's so hard to get into. *shrugs*

So back to your question. Is it a choice, when we choose to break free from religion?

Our subconscious self does not make decisions. It is more of a determinant of choice, for the same reason punching in '2 + 2 =' on a calculator produces '4'. What we take to be choices, are just natural reactions due to the ways in which we were wired.

I know that doesn't answer your question, but I hate playing preacher. I prefer just expressing my formulas and getting people to try it out themselves. =)

And I think you probably made more sense than me!

Determinism 1

2010-04-07T09:18:00.000-07:00

The objective of this post is to describe, in detail, why 'choice' is not a word that carries any relevance to the real world. I COULD be wrong, and nearly everyone I who has heard this theory from me thinks I'm delusional. I've also lost my ability to piece words together nicely, so this may get a little rough. Here goes.

Let's deal with the easy bit first; choices made by nature FOR us. No one chooses their genetic make-up, the culture into which they are soaked in, the way they're raised, the list goes on really. That much, we can infer to be true. Truth being a fact that's been tested enough times to be generally accepted as a fair reflection of the nature of things. My idea is this(it's not mine, but hey, NO ONE can truly own anything, though they can legally);

An extrapolation of the influence of external and internal forces(conscious and subconscious evaluations) on free will shows that choice is an illusion.

It's not that choice is outright FALSE. Choice is like superstition. It makes the world we live in easier to accept.

Ok, now to explain that idea.

Let's narrow the field down to behavioral choices, the typical gray area between free will and determinism. An individual's behavior is said to be determined by past experience, genetic make up, and free will. However, the perspective of the individual does not typically take this into account when behaving. When engaged in a conversation, the individual feels like he or she is choosing his or her words. But isn't it all part of a bigger mechanism? A conversation isn't something that occurs between two people.

A conversation cannot go many ways, but just one. Here's why.

When involved in a conversation, participants must know their boundaries, that is, how well they know the other person, what sort of topics would be relevant to a conversation with the other person, how the other person responds to rudeness or how the other person responds to dominating the conversation. These aren't always wild guesses. The accuracy of a person's boundary-judgment depends on how they interpret their past experience of conversations. This too, is determined by how much they think about their interactions with people, which in turn is determined by how socially inclined they are, which in turn is determined by many other factors. I don't think I have to list the factors that determine what makes an individual good at socializing out or maybe I just don't think I want to.

In a conversation involving two perfectly sane people, everything is pre-determined. Whether it starts with a "good morning" depends on the time of the day. No choice there. Whether or not they chose to meet in the morning depended on when they were mutually free to meet. Our schedules are rarely something we choose. Whether or not there is any hostility or humor depends on the moods of the two people, also determined by pre-conversation factors.

Atheism as well as religion aren't our own choices as well. A Christian who is born and raised Christian had no say in the matter. A person who continues practicing his religion does so because he or she is molded that way. When a person breaks free of his or her religion, it has to be an external force that sparks the change. Whatever the outside cause, the inside change is equally important. If the mind is open(an open mind is a trait that no one chooses, and open mindedness is rare. Most of us are open minded to certain ideas, but block off the rest. Again, it all depends on someone else's action), then the external force has a multiplied effect on the individual.

These 'invisible forces of determinism' can, and probably are easily mistaken as God. However, there is no degree of omniscience or self reflection in these invisible forces. They simply are. In fact, I think 'forces' is the wrong word. It's more of a series of events that influence each other. Unlike the ripple effect, these do not flow in a perfectly smooth pattern. If we were to use to ripple effect as an analogy for determinism, then the uneven lake floor and wind direction, that also effect the shape of the ripple must also be considered as part of the picture. In a sense, it's sort of a multiple ripple effect. Where each individual is its own ripple, unable to chose for itself its shape, but having no choice but to change itself as a natural reaction to other ripples or obstacles it encounters. That about sums it up.

Capitalism is spreading bullshit across the globe, much like jam across toast

2010-02-18T06:46:00.000-08:00

Of the 5 unpublished posts that have been half written, I chose to complete this, as it means the most to me.

Please remember that capitalism isn't merely about private ownership, in capitalist countries, many goods are public(traffic lights, street lights, roads, schools) and in Communist countries many things are privately owned(cars, furniture, clothes).

Well, obviously capitalism is easy. Easy, at least for people to relate to. But the world is counter intuitive. So much of what we know to be true was not ascertained by merely observing what happens in everyday life. In most cases, some form of investigation was required.

Capitalism, especially the sort that is exported by the West, is easy to get into because it's basis is in human nature.
but Ernesto Guevara had this to say,

It is very easy to claim that in capitalism, the individual has the option
to satisfy or to express true human nature. A child has one toy, and wants two. That child gets two toys and wants four. This is human nature, isn't it?
But when a whole society behaves in the same way
or when it becomes a monopoly, oppressing the less fortunate is that human nature?

This system blinds people also to invisible forces. People are lost in the idea of the self made man. I won't deny that for most of my life I thought that a man was measured this way as well. But no one realizes that there are forces that give them more opportunities to succeed than others. Capitalism uses freedom as a front to expand it's borders, but freedom is at an untold cost.

Instead of putting the rest of my content into paragraphs, I'll have to do a Nietzsche, that is, to continue in point form.

What I don't like about capitalism:

1) It seems to have skipped ahead of itself, saying, "look, at the rate we're progressing, we'll be on Pluto in no time!" without realizing 'we' means 'us privileged few'. If all the world cash spent on military funding OR fast food OR bail-outs were diverted to providing farmlands for the poor, we'd be able to advance as a human race instead of forgetting those who sew our clothes in sweatshops.

2) When I look at the endless rows of tissue papers, coffee beans, potato chips, etc, I'm not amazed by the capitalists capacity to produce, I'm thinking, "don't we need just one or two brands, making, supplying and researching specialized products?" Instead, we're packed with a billion different labels. Even Proton and Perodua are wasteful. Why would we need TWO Malaysian car companies that don't know how to make cars? This IS NOT an insult to their efforts, all I'm saying is that they are simply re-badge-ing old Japanese cars without having the right skills for the job. I'm aware of the dangers posed by monopolies, but I do not withdraw my previous statement. I am confident that consumers have no idea what their dollar votes do and that the capitalist system is to blame(more on this later)

3)Marketing. You see, the one thing about capitalism that does it some degree of justice is the demand-supply graph. In many socialist countries, severe famine has occurred because they lack privately owned farms, so farmers don't get to price food according to the the aforementioned graph(which usually makes things easier). Essentially, what the demand-supply graph does is it sets (y) price when (x) quantity is provided. Without going into detail, it's an efficient way to make sure resources are efficiently allocated. So, when a product isn't favored, it drops out of the market and is replaced. When there's marketing, it all goes topsy turvy. With marketing, firms MAKE you WANT things by exploiting your emotions. McDonalds puts up a poster of a juicy looking burger, all of a sudden demand SPIKES, even though you KNOW that the actual burger is going to look tiny and pathetic and will probably taste like salted cardboard. I fail to see how marketing makes people aware of quality goods. What happens if McDonalds spends 80% of its cash on advertising and 20% on the burger, while Carl Jr Burgers spends 20% of its cash on advertising and 80% on the burger? You still pay the full 100%(maybe even more), but you're more likely to cast your dollar votes in the inferior product.

4)The power of the few. Bill Moyers once talked about mythology. After reading his book on myth I no longer saw the need to nit-pick every aspect of religion. I thought it was at LEAST semi-justified. When he talked about systems, he explained that most systems were to aid the individual but at a collective level. Societies usually understand common wants, then create a system that benefits the many. But what makes people miserable? Layoffs, quitting, going to work from Monday - Friday, and not having money, to name a few(that relate to capitalism). This system no longer benefits the individual. Ever since the rise of corporation, only a handful of owners enjoy the benefits of capitalism compared to the millions of employees. A million people will work to fatten the wallets of their slave driver, called the CEO in the modern world.

5)Consumption. Humans never NEEDED to buy this much before. The fact is, when combined with the wretched powers of marketing, capitalism is willing and able to feed a single person with a weeks worth of food. Money talks. In the modern capitalist world it screams. Landfills are one of the many by-products of capitalism. A firm is not obligated to deal with the product it sells once it leaves the shelf, unless of coarse, there's a warranty. Even then, who deals with all the packaging? Who's to blame for the tons of unused plastic? Who pays for the ads and excessive amount of boxing and wrapping that comes with something as tiny as a pen?

6)Opportunity cost. Firms are reminded by economists of the dangers of sharing, helping, caring or even spending money on research, as every dollar spent is a lost income opportunity. Why spend money finding a safer, more intelligent product if the rival product is going to do that next week? We can just copy his designs! What about the Haitians? There is real money to be made in the country North of it where we can supply our food and make real money out of it(unless they advertise their efforts, then it becomes a soulless act of kindness).

7)Transfer of blame. A corporation like McDonalds is NOT a human. It cannot feel, speak or decide. When a CEO is blamed, he shrugs and excuses himself by saying he's acting in the interest of the share holders. When the share holders are blamed, they shrugged and say they were not involved in the decision making process. A modern day public firm is an organization that is completely unblamable. The laws that protect it are the laws of capitalism, the law of the land. Externalities are absolutely disgusting. It is what happens when someone (like a person living in a 3rd world country) is directly effected by a transaction made between some other person and a firm. Basically, if Toyota sells ME a car, and I pollute YOUR air, it's YOUR problem, not mine or Toyota's.

7)It is legal to be unfair. That is what capitalism stands for. And that is what's worst about it.

Why I stopped writing here

2009-12-30T00:25:00.000-08:00

When I first started, I was more interested in expressing my opinion rather than looking at facts.

After a while I realized that most things had already been established, and that I only needed to look for what I needed to know, instead of starting topics off from scratch.

Even though I became an atheist unintentionally, the undeniable logic behind atheism made it very... circular. As in, everytime there was a thought in my head, it would always be filtered through Godless logic.

Apart from losing my ability to express my thoughts using clear explanations and small words, I have also begun to bend facts to support my theories, where it should be fixed facts that change theories.

I hope 2010 sparks something in my head.

On myth

2009-11-19T07:36:00.000-08:00

In a book I'm reading called the Power of Myth (a conversation between Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers), I finally got the real and nearly complete answer to the purpose of religion and God. I always talk about God being useful but not true, and I stick to that answer. BUT I also stick to Friedrich Nietzsche's story of the Ubermensch(literally translated, the super, or over man). First off, I will explain what myth is to me.

Myth, so far as I can tell, is a sort of fable, with a sort of collective teachings of a society. Each and every civilization has had its own myths. Myths help people go through their lives. It's sort of like a collective knowledge, consisting of subconscious knowledge and experience, reflections of a society as a whole and is passed on from one generation to another in a sort of symbolic fashion. Let's remember, myths are supposed to be interpreted by everyone in a society. For that reason, they are written in poetic, symbolic, and vague verses.

There was one example of subconscious symbolism that shocked me, that is the recurring theme of the eagle(a symbol of spiritual freedom, soaring) and the snake(the symbol of bondage to the earth) suddenly and almost universally throughout all cultures amalgamated to form the dragon. A serpent with wings. Without thinking about it, societies related these two animals that symbolized the human desire to have a free spirit and the constriction of man to form the dragon.

Another thing about myths that I mentioned above is how they are parallel. All myths share the same teachings but in different context. If you don't believe me, read this next part.

Part of the conversation between Campbell and Moyers. They are discussing the parallels between the myth in Genesis and myths in other societies:

"
MOYERS : Genesis 1; "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

CAMPBELL : This is from "The Song of the World," a legend of the Pima Indians of Arizona; "In the beginning there was only darkness everywhere- darkness and water. And the darkness gathered thick in places, crowding together and then seperating, crowding and seperating . . . . "

MOYERS : Genesis 1;"And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."

CAMPBELL : And this is from the Hindu Upanishads, from about the eight century B.C.: "In the beginning, there was only the great self reflected in the form of a person. Reflecting, it found nothing but itself. Then its first word was, 'This am I.' "

MOYERS : Genesis 1:"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.' "

CAMPBELL : Now, this is from a legend of the Bassari people of West Africa: "Unumbotte made a human being. Its name was Man. Unumbotte next made an antelope, named Antelope. Unumbotte made a snake, named Snake...... And Unumbotte said to them, 'The earth has not yet been pounded. You must pound the ground smooth where you are sitting.' Unumbotte gave them seeds of all kinds, and said: 'Go plant these'. "

MOYERS : Genesis 2: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done..."

CAMPBELL : And now again from the Pima Indians: "I make the world and lo, the world is finished. Thus I make the world, and lo! The world is finished."

-

MOYERS : But Genesis continues: " 'Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat? The man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.' Then the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this that you have done?' The woman said, 'The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.' "

CAMPBELL : The Bassari legend continues in the same way. "One day Snake said, We too should eat these fruits. Why must we go hungry? Antelope said, 'But we don't know anything about this fruit.' Then Man and his wife took some of the fruit and ate is. Unumbotte came down from the sky and asked, 'Who ate the fruit?' They answered, 'We did.' Unumbotte asked, 'Who told you that you could eat that fruit?' They replied, 'Snake did.' " ' It is very much the same story.

"

I implore you all to read at least the last part of the conversation. Read it and reread it.

If you cannot see the similarities between myths by now, you are truly lost. I'm not implying that every culture tells the same exact story. What I mean is that the problems of mankind are the same everywhere on Earth. From that myth is born, and is told in context to the society. I have reason to believe that myth helps in the survivability of mankind, or at least has up until globalization.

But I am no expert on myth. It is just a topic that has my interest sparked at the moment.

The most important aspect that I think should never be ignored is the fictitious nature of myths. Very easily, people take myths literally. The same way you don't ask your parents why you're not allowed to do dangerous things, you don't question the truth behind the myths they've thought you.

Myths do have purpose, and atheists (I admit) often disregard their power to teach in the same way theists take them a in a literal sense. There was obviously no snake, woman, man, God and fruit gathered in the Garden of Eden(or even a Garden of Eden). The messages in every religion are symbolic.

But here's where I take off my blanket of niceness. We're in the 21st century. Science makes planes fly. Religion makes planes fly into buildings. Science discovers nuclear power, the power of the sun,. Politics levels cities with nukes. Science discovers a way to satisfy the basic need of every man, woman and child on earth. Capitalist economies insist on feeding the already full.

These three major retardants of the progress of man, religion, politics and economics, have found ways to appeal to our animal like tendencies. Religion with the promise to never die(live forever with God), politics with the promise of equality and fairness, and capitalism with the promise of fair trade. All facades for the animal need for an alpha male(a God, the King) and greed.

Prophecies

2009-11-15T13:00:00.000-08:00

First(Sorry, you asked for it), an explanation on fulfilled prophecies with the help of David Hume and Nostradamus.

My part of the explanation goes like this. If a thousand people wrote a thousand different stories, each with a vague writing style, and these stories were compiled in a book; after a thousand years, would it be easy to fit any of these stories to an occurrence in history? History, of coarse, is written by the victors, so history can be vague and one sided as well.

That explanation may not have made sense, but consider this;
I once believed the world was going to end in 2012, because of the predictions that Nostradamus made that actually came true(Hitler's rise to power among many others).

Before I allowed myself to fall into the trap of belief without evidence, I read through all opinions on Nostradamus' work. I even read the translated prophecies. It surprised me that about 50% of his prophecies could be related to something that had happened. And they were were VERY vague. One had scrutinize every symbol to get some sort of meaning behind the images and words. What this meant was that prophecies were sort of like horoscopes. They're always vague, but people tend to believe them by fitting them into a situation even if there isn't any concrete evidence.

That was not the reason I stopped believing the world would end in 2012. It was months later when I read Neil Gaiman's Sandman. There was a comic involving the same bar being visited every century from the middle ages till the year 2000. In the first strip(the year 1500), there's a few people saying that it seems as if the world is coming to end the way things are going. Then in the last strip(the year 2000), there are people having the same exact conversation. That comic strip was enough to change my mind entirely.

It showed me that men are subconsciously aware and afraid of their inescapable doom. It is true the world will end; but just for them. Once you die, your world ends. People are generally afraid of losing. Death, being the worst way of losing, brings out the 'bad loser' attitude in people. "If I'm going to die, then so is the rest of the world."

Whether or not the world ends in 2012, it is stupid and wasteful to cling on to prophecies like that.

David Hume's explanation on miracles(which are related to prophecies, since most consider the fulfillment of prophecies to be miracles):

People often lie, and they have good reasons to lie about miracles occurring either because they believe they are doing so for the benefit of their religion or because of the fame that results.
People by nature enjoy relating miracles they have heard without caring for their veracity and thus miracles are easily transmitted even where false.
Hume notes that miracles seem to occur mostly in "ignorant" and "barbarous" nations and times, and the reason they don't occur in the "civilized" societies is such societies aren't awed by what they know to be natural events.
The miracles of each religion argue against all other religions and their miracles, and so even if a proportion of all reported miracles across the world fit Hume's requirement for belief, the miracles of each religion make the other less likely.

Let's keep in mind that religions aren't as constant as they seem. Islam for instance was not represented by the crescent moon and star until the year 1453(hundreds of years after the founding of Islam) when the Turks conquered Constantinople. The crescent moon and star were, in fact, ancient Sumerian symbols of night, so prophecies and histories may be altered and kept sacred so that they seem like fact. Think about it, you're not allowed to question so many aspects of religion. What have they got to hide? And if you bring this up, religious people get angry.

That is all I have to say about prophecies.

Part 2; Atheism cont'd and the Unjust God

2009-11-01T04:45:00.000-08:00

Cont'd

2. Where religion would rely on belief before justification, atheists practice the opposite. With religion, there is a requirement to believe first. This is common in all religions. The creed is, belief first, then if someone asks you why, then justify. With atheists, we have a total opposite system, if you will, of beliefs. It's not an actual system, it's unorganized, it's decentralized, there are no preachers, there is no system of faith, it's completely up to the individual to keep learning and keep changing the way he or she understand how the universe works. That's why I keep writing.

Anyone who has followed this blog will know by now that I started off very agnostic. I was actually religious before that, and only stopped believing in God somewhere in October last year. Just over a year ago. But back to the subject at hand.

3. There are more contradictions within and between religions than there are within and between fields of science (philosophy not being counted as purely empirical science). Considering there are 3 major monotheistic religions, 1 major polytheistic religion, and possibly hundreds of off-shoots from these 4 religions as well as the hundreds of other belief systems(Scientology included) would imply the chances of one point of view being right would be 1 in a thousand(presuming there are that many different views). I would like to remind everyone that each and every religion presumes itself to be the one true religion. So on the off chance that the Mormons were correct, about 99.5% of the world's population will end up in hell. Think about that.

God is also said to be all-loving. This is almost universal across all religions. Assuming Christianity was the true religion, and God had the sympathy to allow every one from every offshoot of Christianity(collectively, the worlds most wide spread disease/religion) into heaven, that would still mean 2/3rds of the entire planet ending up in hell for simply not being born in the right place at the right time. That's 4,000,000,000 souls in hell. God's will? Maybe he's more of a sadist than a lover of all things.

Now if we change the rules a little bit, while maintaining the all-loving nature of God by saying God will allow any body with good intentions to enter heaven, granted that at the gates of heaven, he or she accepts God(or that version of God). If that were the case, then the most logical approach would be to reject God in our daily existence, and simply maintain benignity.

4. Theories and facts.

A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong

With the above text in mind, we can dissect any apparent observation. I will now dissect 4 observations using the power of the internet and some facts that I already know of. The observations are gravity, evolution, emotion, and God. These observations, as you can tell, are increasingly difficult to explain, that is, gravity is explain quite simply, which is not the case for the explanation for God.

Gravity is and was a theory because there was a tendency for objects to fall. The first explanations for gravity by Greek philosophers are now considered obsolete. For a long time Newton's theories were considered as close a match to actual fact as you could get. Then Einstein came along with his theory, and up to this day, it is considered to be the closest you can get to to explain the FACT of gravity(sorry, I published it as "theory", I really meant fact).

We can observe that changes occur when an organism produces offspring. We observe that a child bares resemblance to both sides of the family, hence, the same organism is not simply being copied and pasted, but recombined with traits from other organisms. The theory here is said to be evolution, that is, the constant test of survivability of genetic traits through the process of natural selection. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin both had very different theories of evolution. Both of them had produced very close-to-fact explanations that seemed to fit the theory of evolution, but they were both incompatible with each other UNTIL the discovery of DNA. Since then evolution has been rewritten(by combining Darwinian evolution with Mendel's genetic model), tested and confirmed to be a fact; or at least to close to fact to be denied by any one with an ounce of biological knowledge or a Richard Dawkins book. To say that evolution is just a theory is to say that gravity is just a theory. Thus, we can conclude that although we cannot prove evolution, just as we cannot prove gravity, but the ever increasing evidence for both gravity and evolution must compel any sane person to believe they are both true, or at least as close to truth as we can get at the moment.

Emotion is next. We can observe that every living creature,on nearly every degree of sentience, has some degree of emotion or emotional response. The basic one being panic and aggression. We can observe insects to have both of these emotional responses at any rate, which is why I say they are the most basic. Let us also take into account the normal state of being, that is free of emotion, like when asleep(without a dream), or when idle. Since I already rejected philosophy as empirical science, I have to explain the phenomenon of emotion without the will to power theory. This might get messy. To test a basic emotional response such as fear, scientists have used artificially hatched chicks. By disallowing any 'teaching' from a mother hen, these chicks were hatched in a lab. A while later, a silhouette of a eagle(or hawk, I can't remember what they used) was shown to the chicks. As in, a figure of an eagle was made to seem as if approaching the chicks from above. The chicks responded exactly how you'd expect them to; by scattering and chirping madly. For more, read The Making of Memory. What we can conclude is that emotions are genetically imprinted to ensure the survivability of an organism. The moment an organism panics, all it's senses are elevated, it has the will to move with more agility, and therefore have a greater chance of escaping. It is not God's will, it's the organisms. If the genetics that are inherited by the chick(in this case) aren't best at what they do, then they will not survive to be passed down. We can now see that this testable hypothesis on emotion almost fits perfectly, but there is still much room for improvement, there probably already is, but I haven't read it up yet.
I will not go into the more complex emotions such as anger, love, curiosity and etc as I am not intrigued by any of them.

Sorry if I'm going off topic, but a possible theory for the existence of consciousness would be perhaps to master emotion, hence exponentially increasing the survivability of the organism as it should (but in our case only the Buddhists seem to get it) ensure the constant manipulation(control of emotion being a form of manipulation) of emotions to suite the situation.

Ok, last theory. God. We can observe that there are miracles, prophecies that seem to fit perfectly, signs of upper intelligence, a voice in the back of our heads that guides, a void that people need to fill, etc. So, God can be used as a theory. However, with all the theories above(I worked from the ground up, skipping chemistry, first with physics(gravity), then biology(evolution), psychology(emotion)), it can be seen that there doesn't necessarily need to be a higher power that works for the more complex systems of the universe by creating less complex systems.

The argument I'm trying to present here is that there is an assumption that God created us for the universe, which would mean God's objective would be our existence, and for that to happen, God would need to create all the other basics. This is a major flaw in the theory of God, considering the more basic theories already hint that the universe was made ground up, not the other way around.

Blanketing the God theory by saying God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, thereby proving that God could have created the universe for us seeing that for us to survive, a universe would need to be created is absolutely flawed.

The whole theory of God is in fact, absolutely flawed. It is a theory of infinite regress(who created the creator? If God one day said, let's start, what day was it and why that day? What was God doing before that? Did God ever wonder who created him? Why does God seem all too human in our minds?). It is also a theory that can always rely on being untestable. Whenever a testable trait is brought up, religious apologists are quick to argue and bring up revised versions of God's prophecies and methods. In science, revising a theory is ok because, as I've said, our knowledge on the universe is always expanding. Modern science in barely 200 years old, yet it's achieved more in the field of genuine truth finding than religion ever has.

What I'm trying to imply here is that there is something very wrong with religion. It isn't a good thing. I can compare it to a fallback plan for the stupid, cowardly and ignorant. I can relate it to a virus, always looking to spread itself(just think the three religions trying to get into space to convert the first(if any) intelligent alien life form). I can see that it fits the evolutionary failure of believing in those you believe in, where it's original purpose was to make sure people put faith in their parents or trusted friends, they would learn something that would help them survive, religion however has festered and continues to be passed down in the same way.

"[Religion has made] a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction."

Ultimatum - Will to Power and Atheism

2009-10-20T04:37:00.000-07:00

Before I start I would like to make clear a few things.

I am an atheist, you should know that by know.

I KNOW that I'm an atheist not because I chose to be one, but because I had no other choice, which makes me my case as hard to argue as a religious person's one.

I have limited scientific knowledge, and I'm very bad at math on paper. But I always look for scientific and mathematical analogies that help me better understand the nature of the universe.

I am not a completely closed-minded atheist. If God one day popped up and said, "here I am", I would question first, then, if satisfied, embrace God. In this sense, I am very VERY SLIGHTLY agnostic (there is almost certainly no God).

This is only because atheists have a tendency to put ego before truth, just as theists do, and so a lot of truth gets lost in between. This does not make atheists are as bad as theists(as some would put it). It simply means we are as human as theists.(something I wish to talk about later in this post).

This also means that as far as I'm concerned, no man can convince me of the existence of a God.

I have a passion for expressing explanations by writing them down, and on rare occasion, actually talking them out. However, every thing I write on this blog, I question. Some of my posts, I admit have very major flaws. The only reason I keep them on is to remind me that I make mistakes. And just like evolution, my blog has no ultimate goal. It is simply the progress of how I interpret everything. It can get better or worse. That which is better, I keep, that which is worse, I discard. For what purpose, I can only speculate.

If any christians aren't happy with what I have to say, then forgive me. (doesn't your religion deal forgiveness in spades?). As for offended Muslims and Jews, i urge you to remember who your true enemies are.

Now, let's start this post off. (I am aware this post contains a billion references to "will to power", which cannot be tested objectively. Will to power, being more of an analogy than a theory does not require objective explanation, because it is not truth)

Will to power is very easily understood. It is, to me, a leading candidate in the reason of existence. Nietzsche describes will to power very well. He states :

My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on.

We can infer that no individual form of matter or energy can master the universe by itself, but must try by all means to do so. Do not mistake will to power for human ego, will to power is more like a rule that applies to things that exist, for if it does not exist, it has insufficient will to exist, ergo, no will to power. Though I admit the will to power hypothesis tends to bring up more questions than it answers(like, "why exist?, whose game are we playing"), it does explain on a less than objective level many aspects of chemical, biological and social behavior.

Trust me, there probably is a more mathematical or physical explanation for will to power or an alternative that is more objective but probably less understandable. Therefore, will to power must be used as the platform for the arguments below.

I have already disproved logically the Abrahamian God in past posts, now for the attributes that are common to other Gods. (some of these are derived from Richard Dawkin's, The God Delusion, which in my opinion completely destroys any potential theory of the existence of God but fails to show a proper solution to the God problem, it also disregards the purpose of God to less fortunate people)

Anyway, most of the time, God is said to be the ultimate being. Meaning a being more powerful than God cannot be imagined. But this is what Douglas Gasking says(from The God Delusion):

"
1 The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4 The most formidable handicap for the creator would be non-existence

5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being- namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

Ergo:

7 God does not exist. "

I will not dwell on the existence of God further(unless required later).

Emotions can be described using will to power. If each individual has a will to power, then obviously, there must be tools to manipulate this power. This perhaps is the reason of consciousness and emotion. I am a firm believer that emotions are tools.

We do not all ways smile when we are happy. Sometimes, a smile can invoke happiness.
Think about it. If you're in a group of friends, and you don't understand the punchline of a joke, you are still likely to laugh. If a stranger smiles at you, you are likely to smile back. If a person is screaming in pain, you're likely to 'feel' that pain too. If a person is crying, you also feel sadness. This all depends on a few things.
1)in all of the situations above, there must be a balanced will to power; that is, in the case of the stranger smiling, both you and the stranger must be of equal social status, emotional condition, etc.
2)both parties must be sane, that is, the empathic level of both parties must be high enough to qualify a person as sane.

We can derive from the explanation above that emotion is a tool of an individual to manipulate his will to power, his (or her, sorry for the use of "his") will to exist. A slave or lesser being will allow himself to be bullied because his will to power is low. However, it is not non-existent. Therefore, the slave or lesser being will willingly allow himself to be discriminated or abused in order to survive a little longer(presumably to increase his will to power later on).

There are obvious methods of ensuring the exponential growth of will to power of an individual. I have explained this using the short term and long term greed theory. To summarize; an individual(or collective depending on the case) needs to understand the consequence of his actions in the long run even if the short term feedback seems to indicate he is in power. Shouting at workers, for instance, may increase productivity in the short run, but in the long run, the workers will have too little will to power to conform and will realize that unless they challenge authority, they will have no chance of working on their own terms. If the workers revolt too early, they will have no way to justify or reason with their employer.

On the open mindedness of Atheism

It is said that there is no "open mindedness", only opposing views, and that we either choose a side and then close our minds.

This section is dedicated to justifying atheism. The primary attribute of a religion is in it being a collective thought. Religion is then more akin to a social tool than a truth finding tool.
As I have mentioned, personal truths are not learned, they are experienced and thought to be true by the individual. This same subjectivity can be used to understand why religion is said to be a form of truth. It is easy to believe in a group, because humans, being social, tend to find emotional comfort in groups.

Groups of people have obviously, a higher degree of will to power than individuals. This is partly because they are a collective of common interest. Perhaps this may seem imply the whole Atheism vs Theism a battle for power, but I think that there is a lot more to this(I will elaborate more on the battle for power between the two views in a later post).

Will to power represents every common want of the human race. Every one, or at least almost everyone wants justice, a sense of identity, recognition, respect, to be wanted. Justice is a way of returning a balance or power between two parties.That is why a trial is said to be unfair(unbalanced) when a criminal is set free or an innocent man is executed. Without going on and on with examples of the application of will to power, I will just say this: Religion offers to people more power than any individual belief.

This means that indeed, religious groups have more power than individual believers. That is why there are laws in place that allow freedom of speech, and if not, we have the internet. Like I said before, these laws return the balance of power, so that atheists, and individuals with opposing views are allowed to speak up.

So is there a reason for a person to leave the power that he finds in religion? Well, yes. People do it every day. Some convert, some drop out, some have their faith renewed. All of them do what they do, because the alternative either grants them more power.

For example, if you leave Hinduism for Christianity, there is an immediate sense of dominance over polytheists, who are constantly put down by monotheistic religions. If you follow the way of the Buddhist and give up on nihilistic atheism, you are simply living with principles that make you feel enlightened. Nothing is wrong with any decision, it just gives people more power, or at least the illusion of superiority over other people. Whether this is acknowledged by the individual or not, does not matter.

This brings up the question :
If all belief is simply a tool of will to power, then those belief itself have anything to do with truth?

I acknowledge that atheism too gives me the illusion of superiority. That much I can say is the downside of atheism. Agnosticism however is simply saying : "Nothing is true, so everything is permitted, so no one should influence or change my belief that nothing is true."

What agnostic people fail to understand is that, if the above statements are to be taken into account, then agnosticism is just as much a way of manipulating will to power as atheism or any other belief.

I would argue that on some levels I am agnostic. It feels as if it's a battle that I don't want to lose(otherwise I lose my power), so being agnostic gives me that safety of not being able to lose.

However, upon further examination, I have found that agnosticism is appalling. It is the most cowardly approach to dealing with curiosity.

"I am too afraid to lose, so I'll not take part."

Sure, I agree the whole Atheism Vs Theism debate has gotten barbaric and stupid at times(for both sides). But of the most agnostics I know are more atheistic than theistic. They are simply atheists who don't want to lose.

Their argument really does sound fair when you look at the atheists we have. They're all so aggressive in dealing with the issue of God that it almost sounds as preachy and stupid as religion.

This is where I can start to justify Atheism as a more open minded way of looking at things.

1)Atheism itself, even though it sounds like believing, but without God (as opposed to theism's Belief in God) is actually just a belief that life and the universe is real(we believe it is, even though we cannot say that every living thing experiences life the same way objectively) and that we don't use God to explain every damned thing.

If an atheist believes in that fairiest invented the universe, then he's a fairyist(or something). If he believes that chance created the universe, then he's a chancist(ok, maybe not, but you are getting the idea already). To clarify, Atheism is NOT a belief system of unquestionable facts of life. Most, almost all atheists rely on scientific proof to justify their arguments. It is not a criteria that we have to meet to be atheists, because I have known of Buddhists who are atheists and Hindus who are atheists.

However the term 'atheist' has already put people into a group of their own, making it seem as if there are facts that we never question, etc. But this is too much of a sweeping statement. In reality, atheists often are as divided in their points of view as Hindus and Buddhists are. The main point of atheism being the general rejection of God for explanation of everything. It's not like a rule we made that we do not believe in god because Darwin was right, or because chance could work, or because real men don't believe in Gods. (For example, my reasons for being an atheists conflict with Richard Dawkins' because I rely more on the philosophical, chemical physical, mathematical aspect rather than the scientific biological aspect, that is natural selection. Not to say I don't believe in Natural Selection, but I would much prefer to work from the top down, not the other way around)

It's not like that AT ALL. Atheists generally believe that God is not real for very individual, personal reasons. There is no recruitment center, there is no center at all. We only seem to group or organize ourselves because it gives us more power to oppose religious views that, you have to agree, have a frightening amount of power.

That, was just my first point.

Be sure to read up next month's part 2, which will include all other reasons for the justification of atheism as a more objective truth finding system, how faith exists in all levels and must be ultimately broken down, and balance in the economic system of man to ensure controlled and balanced progress.

The truth about truth

2009-09-27T08:43:00.000-07:00

According to my father, the human mind learns things by recognizing a pattern. Instead of explaining something that I don't understand clearly, I'm going to use (or misuse) some of what he told me about to explain where God comes from, or more accurately, where the need for God comes from.

Superstition exists on nearly every level. Even de facto atheists commit some mild form of superstitious practice every now and then. Think about it. The average person has had at least one lucky charm. A lucky pencil, or pair of underpants, for example.

We recognize or want to recognize a pattern where when a certain outcome is obtained whenever a seemingly useless item is being wielded (in this case, lucky pencil may have to do with the lucky pencil being more physically suited for a task than a regular one, so it is disqualified). I think it's the way our brain learns. By learning patterns through repetition.

This means that the human brain doesn't actually learn the true nature of things when learning through 'experience patterns'. Which changes the entire meaning of truth. Is there a metaphysical world? A layer so beyond imagination that most people either fail to even acknowledge the possibility of its existence or use a God with physical-bound characteristics to imagine it.

To me, it's all psychological. The whole idea of a meta physical world was conceptualized by a human mind. The metaphysical world was not something shown by empirical or objective studies. The metaphysical world, like God, is a human idea that has made itself immune to empirical/objective study.

It's just as unfair to propose that there is a tiny particle, so tiny that it cannot be physically detected, that floats around and dictates every action and reaction through supernatural means.

Let's put aside the small problem of language and communication in science and math and try out a thought experiment in which the variables are the existence of humans, the metaphysical world, and the physical world.

If there weren't any humans, we can safely presume the physical world would still exist. But the metaphysical world, without humans to explain and discuss it would probably just die, just as all ideas, just as God dies when humans die.

From this one-sided argument, I can conclude that truth IS a little overrated. People don't look for truth - for truth must mean the actual nature of things- they look for personal truths, which aren't actually true. Even my personal truth is not the truth. Sigh, this brings me back to that annoying, overused saying, "nothing is true, everything is permitted."

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop though. Only totally agnostic people (people who believe true truth can NEVER be obtained) give up, I hope I never fall into that group of people.

God's funeral

2009-09-17T12:17:00.000-07:00

God doesn't matter. Simple as that. Nietzsche said it decades ago for white people, the superior people, that God is dead. God is dead for everyone strong enough to realize that spirituality should be a supplement for the physical world, and NOT the other way around.

What use is there for worship? If God existed in the perfect form it's described in, then God is not some child who loves being worshiped and praised and highly regarded. Do you actually think God created a GIGANTIC universe, made just a speck of a planet with potential worshipers, then threw in natural disasters, other religions, and greed to confuse them, so that he could see if they still liked him after leaving them in the mess he made?

It's illogical for God to want worshipers for any reason. But then again, EMOTION is contagious, logic isn't. It's EMOTIONALLY comfortable to believe in God(and God can only be believed in when it's emotionally comfortable), but throw a little logic in, and the whole equation tumbles down.

This isn't about scientists being right all the time. They aren't. Religious people love nitpicking on every little mistake scientists have made. It's almost as if religious people are bad losers. Science isn't about killing God. It's about finding something close to truth, and the truth we're talking about isn't a personal truth, or an emotional truth. It's an objective or at least empirical one. Sure, language and numbers tend to dim down the 'truth' value of things, we're talking about a physical world in which animals(us humans) are actually trying to understand the world.

Speaking of animals, let's get this post over with.

Today I realized that man is an animal dying to emulate perfection. No sane person hasn't a perfect world in their minds( imaginary worlds where personal truths are universal truths). In mine, German tanks from the second world war are Kings and Queens, silly, I know. The problem comes when man attempts to separate himself from responsibility.

It's like this;
If you're going to do something, you'd better be ready to accept both the positive and negative outcomes.

For example,
If Shell Petrol decides to sanction the massacre of Nigerian tribe leaders, they'd better be ready to face the music as well as control the oilfields of the Niger Delta.

I'm not just talking business ethics and things like that.

In my experience, nice people are everywhere, but so few of them know why it's nice to be nice and why they do what they do. Bad people are everywhere, but so few of them know why it's bad to be bad and why doing what they do is regarded as bad.

It's because the basic need of an animal is short term gain. Long term gain is left to genes, the non-conscious entities, that decide through trial and error, NOT opinion, what's good and what's bad.

Back to a point I was trying to make. Man is an animal trying to be Godlike. To be all knowing, always happy, and always in power. But without separating the man from the animal, no long term gain can be had.

From this argument, I can prematurely conclude that man needs God as a sort of model of perfection. It just so happens that man also needs a reason to exist, and for the universe to exist BECAUSE of the evolutionary mistake of allowing our short term gain system to have control over our long term gain systems(it was a mistake because we won't allow evolution to take away this control). God fulfills the need of man for an ideal role model, a creator(and therefore giver of purpose), an emotional pillar of strength.

Why God is dead to the ubermen(or at least people who strive to be uber) is because they recognize emotion as a social tool, realize the unimportance of being important. In short, the uselessness of God to them.

I wonder if Christ said BRB before he died

2009-09-07T06:45:00.000-07:00

I've been trying all month to post something non-God related, but it's been really hard. My last attempt left me hanging with two paragraphs(which I still think have a point) of the theory of the illusion of choosing and deserving. I'll publish that when I'm not too busy.

Today, I stumbled upon something new while surfing the godless internet:

“If God (however you want to believe in God, I don’t care what it is, you make the definition of what that word means), if God told you (and you make any sort of way that is, whether that’s in revelation or however way you know or by scripture), if whatever your God is communicated to you that you were to kill your child, would you do it?
And if your answer is “No,” then in my mind you’re an atheist.

If the answer is “Yes,” you’re dangerous and I stay away from you."

Even though there are so many flaws when it comes to the meaning of words in that quote, the fundamental idea makes a little sense. People rely on God for so many reasons. Reasons and excuses are made-up half the time. For example, someone may ask me, "why did you become an atheist?"

I could answer:
"A near fatal car crash turned my world upside down, literally, the car somersaulted and was upside down at one point."

OR

"I was intrigued by the possibilities of the random and apparent mindless nature of particles"

OR

"One day I looked up at the sky(it was a Friday, I remember) and realized it CAN'T be that simple"

I could probably come up with another reason if I thought long and hard, but just off the top off my head, those three reasons seem to make the most sense. Yet none of them are a true answer to the question. I may believe that one or all three of those answers are true because they make sense. The same way a person who believes in God or doesn't believe in God may try to explain why he or she does or doesn't believe in God. They'd probably give very logical answers.

The same goes, I think for anything to do with criticizing art. There may be a dozen reviews that praise a movie or an album, but only a handful can capture the true spirit of it.

Where was I going with this...

Oh yeah, a person who 'believes in God' actively believes that God is the creator of all things...(that's how all Godefinitions start off, but they trail off soon after) must believe that God knows everything and whatever God does,(He usually puts the task to some 'chosen' one, to avoid full responsibility I presume) He's doing it for the greater good.

So if you don't kill your baby when God tells you to, you don't believe in God, making you apathetic, atheistic, or agnostic because in your fear, you've drop all emotional comfortableness in the belief in God and embraced logic. Logic is not contagious, but emotion is.

Haha, got you now you God-loving son's(and daughters) o' guns! Well Gabs, discussion time, this post was written completely alcohol free, so there's bound to be a lot more holes than usual.

What matters(everything except energy!)

2009-08-02T07:21:00.000-07:00

Allow me to first point out one of Immanuel Kant's mistakes.

Kant makes the same mistake everyone before and after him made. His assumption of moral values being universal. Morals and virtues and ethics should always be regarded as very subjective matters when explaining them objectively. That is, if life began not at the instant of the creation of the universe, but much later on, then anything that mattered once life began to form cannot be relevant to the laws of the universe.

Now, the next and more important problem of Kant's metaphysical world. Nietzsche, my most favored dead thinker, is always best at helping me explain things in the physical, touchable world. But I think I'll go ahead and try to describe something more original(which probably sounds like something I've said before.):

If we can establish a rule, let's say, the rule of the physical world being the ONLY world that has any influence on a person(in whichever way), then would anything metaphysical matter? A reminder, metaphysical actually translates to beyond/after physical. Which means it cannot be matter or energy, meaning it cannot have any influence on the physical world. From what I can tell(which is a pure guessing game in my mind), Kant focuses on God being beyond explanation because we can only objectively explain that which is physical, or present in the physical world. But think about metaphysics for a second, and objective explanations. If a human being cannot be objective in explaining something, meaning something is beyond explanation, then that something MUST be beyond influence. And the moment something is beyond influence(that is, something beyond being influence by OR influencing) of the physical world (that is, the physical world which can always be objectively explained), then it is useless.

How useless?

It is like explaining light to a man who has been blind his whole life, and trying to let him know the importance of light. Therefore,(imagine the entire human race here is that blind man) even IF light does exist, and has an effect as important as described, light cannot matter to the blind man if he cannot be influenced or influence light.

In that same way, if God cannot be explained, it cannot matter.

However, like I've said before, some people like to bend the laws of physics to meet their explanations. To them the 'big bang' was just God flicking the on switch. Which cannot be possible, BUT, because this explanation works for them, God MUST matter.

Now, an atheist is, by definition, a person who does not believe in the existence of God. And since, to most atheists(me, specifically), the physical realm is the only possible realm that can exist(which can be proven by objective study, not subjective imagination), God cannot exist. Since existence in the physical realm requires God to be composed of matter and energy, God is bound by the rules of physics and therefore miracles cannot happen.

2 other explanations of God just came up this week.

1) the reintroduction of intelligent design.
2) the universe being a sort of 'matrix' for the mind.

Intelligent design is very flawed. One of the main ideas behind it is : If something can be THIS complex, then surely it must have a creator. But that would mean the creator would be the most complex thing ever. What created the creator if something complex NEEDED to be created?

The matrix illusion, where the universe is sort of a playing field for us humans is very hard to get around, but basically it's just like metaphysics. Saying that there has to be something beyond the physical world doesn't make it true until it can be proven. I'm not waiting. Objective study has shown no such outer world exists. Don't believe Deepak Chopra.

I know, I probably have half my facts wrong. But this is good progress.

The end of the end. For now.

2009-05-11T12:55:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer:
The first argument is rubbish, I know. That was from a bleak moment of my blogging life. But because there was a little something in there that had to be published sooner or later I just decided to add it to this really really long finale post.

Talking about God makes me sick. It never gets anywhere and in the end, no point gets across, instead, after the argument, people who believe in the existence of God believe even stronger, not because their faith is renewed, but because the opposition presented their case so barbarically. The atheists in the argument feel a lot smarter for the same reason.

Instead, I think I'll talk about a question I just can't seem to present well. I've tried at least three time to post something about this question, usually it just branches off into some other topic or gets left as a draft.

The question is, why do we strive for perfection.

You know how that little bit of dirt you just can't seem to get off your new pair of shoes just gets to you? Even though it's tiny and you're the only one who seems to notice it. Even if you make no effort to try and clean it up, WHY does it affect your mind?

That's just one case. In any the bureaucratic systems that we struggle to maintain and keep flawless always fall apart. The thing is, these systems should work perfectly(like law), but the problem is, we aren't perfect. If there was a civilization of robots and machines, then it would all work exactly as planned, but these systems that require perfection simply break down when we use it.

I think a little branching out is required here.

It is in our nature to think that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, because that only makes sense and has been proven. But what has also been proven is that no matter what the action OR reaction is, there is no right and wrong. If I push a ball across a surface, it'll move, but there is no good way to push a ball, just as there is no evil way to push one. What there IS, is efficient ways. Ways that have different outcomes, with the most beneficial outcomes usually regarded as 'good' and the least as 'evil'.

When we expand this into a more social setting, for instance, when selling something, there are many ways to sell. Overcharging for something is considered cheating, an evil. But you may argue that I have proved that the most efficient way of doing business should be the 'good' way. And charging a customer more than the actual price is a faster way of making money, and therefore more efficient. But that is not true, the flaw lies in the long term. The customer, obviously will not return if you cheat him. therefore, the most efficient way of doing things is by balancing between too much and too little.

As you can see, I really cannot discuss my initial question without revisiting old ground. So I'll have to skip thay and stop right here. Writer's block.

***********************************1 month later***********************************
I realized the previous argument was a bit boring, so I gave up on it entirely. New argument time!

Often, too often, in fact, we judge by what we see on the surface. If a song is not pleasing to hear, it is immediately said to be a lousy song; the opposite applies.

But what if the 'lousy song' actually took a different sort of approach. One that only a musician could tell was a leap. Does the song switch from being 'lousy'to being 'good'? When the general public listen to that piece of music, they don't catch that smooth phrasing, familiar vocal melody, or safe lyric that they would normally expect. When a musician listens to that same piece of music, they see the true ingenuity that ought to shine through. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't pleasing to listen to.

Now, what if we bring down that argument to a different place.

If a man murders his friend, to the general public, the man deserves a hanging. But to the detective, the man had an almost valid reason to commit the crime. But that doesn't change the fact that a murder has been commited.

So, should the unspecialized public keep it's nose in it's own business, or should we continue on this road of conflicting views? Should the quality of art be determined by the critic or the commoner? Is there ever going to be a way of either making everyone see through the eyes of the specialist(depending on what is being judged) or making opinion not matter?

Certainly, the first option seems to be the fair one. And that's where the final part of this post begins.

************************1 mug of coffee later******************************

The world most definately isn't fair. The fact that there is no choice makes it that way. The system we live in now gives the illusion of being fair. Even at its best, it is a mere illusion.

This system's purpose is to glorify the lucky. And this part of the post is aimed at proving that purpose.

The most important factors that make a person:

name, gender, beauty, wealth, family, character, belief. To name a few.

How many of you picked out your own name?
How many chose how they looked, how rich their parents were, how patient their family members were, how fast they got angry, which way they prayed when they prayed to God.

Not to say none. Plastic surgery, meditation, conversion. Three of the very few options that allow a man to chose.

It's still EVERYTHING to do with luck. Luck is now the new problem. And I'm not talking about superstitios luck. I'm talking about what happens when random events line up so perfectly with little or no conscious direction from any man.

So, a law abiding man isn't law abiding because he's good, but because he's lucky.
And an unlawful man isn't unlawful because he's evil, but because he's unlucky.

Our system rewards and glorifies people who have simply been born and bred exactly right without them choosing most of their choices, and punishes those who weren't given that privalege.

But what of the few 'good' people who had no reason to commit an act of evil?
And what of the few 'evil' people who strived for perfection even though the odds were stacked against them?

Even in those cases, the presense of luck makes it impossible to determine if reward or punishment should be more extreme.

The cure to this whole problem is simple. The elimination of luck. It has begun. But if God comes in the way of us meddling with genetics, then there is little hope of progress. It is time for the system to change and for the powerful and weak to share equal oppurtunity, and be judged fairly. Luck should not be the deciding factor when it comes to determining who is on top of the human food chain.

P.S. This is sort of a final post. There is nothing left to say or write about that's worth anyone's time. However, if there's an awesome comment to help me find a flaw in my argument, then I may just end up continuing anyway.

What is 'I'?

2009-04-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

I wonder what it'll be like to die. It's so weird to think I'll end up in heaven or hell. Even being born again as something or someone else seems a little off to me. I cannot imagine me anywhere else than in my brain, controlling these limbs, writing these words, living with these people. All these memories should be mine. Stored in the brain that I occupy. I can't tell you what people believe the soul is, because the soul doesn't fit into my version of the universe. It's too vague. There's always a little vagary when it comes to words, but the word soul is in a realm of it's own. No pun intended.

Let me try explain my version of what most people would call the soul. In my world, the soul isn't constant, and isn't written. Chance has more influence over the development of the soul than God's grace (yes, there is a God in my universe, but he does not share power, because he is imaginary).

When I say the soul isn't constant, I mean there isn't a soul that can be stripped of it's roots in the mind. And since the mind is always taking in information and rethinking old events, it's always changing. And so is the soul.

The makings of a soul in my universe involves, firstly, the behavioral traits that it inherits from it's parents. This is totally random. There is little control in the natural world when it comes to the right set of genes. So the soul begins it's life out of a random collision. Much like how the universe began, right?

WRONG.

I actually don't know. Moving on.

Other than the random genes involved, there's also the random sequence of events that turn into memories. I don't have to explain how memories help shape people do I? I do. Ok. No matter how calm you're born, people change. The event's are always left to chance. What I mean can be explained this way:

No one chooses how they look, what sort of family they're born into, etc. Contrary to what most optimists think, 90 percent of the time, there is often no choice at all.

Choosing what you want to eat for lunch, for example, may seem like a choice. But that all depends on how much money you have, which depends on your upbringing, etc. It's not as simple as it sounds, but it's not very complicated either.

Consider this; if you clone a person, the clone never ends up being exactly the same as the person. Saying that you can't clone a soul is ridiculous though. The clone may still grow and develop a personality of its own.

There is little choice for us to make. And the 'soul' grows, just as it influences our choices.
We all make choices, but in the end, our choices make us. See? We make judgments based on past experience, etc, but after the choice is in itself a new experience.

I'm scared. I don't like using the word 'soul'. In the next post I think I'll talk more about my 'earning it' rule.

Rapture

2009-04-21T23:46:00.000-07:00

You probably know I don't believe that all men are born equal. I believe some people are better at some things than other people. But all men are entitled to the same rights. Imagine every man was entitled to the sweat of his brow. There was this game, called Bioshock. It thought me a little bit about the whole system. Somewhere in the beginning, you hear these lines:

Is a man entitled the sweat on his brow?

No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor.

No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God.

No, says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.

But seriously though. Maybe people should earn a living. Later in the game Bioshock you end up in an underwater city called Rapture. The people in rapture believed in the concept of earning privileges. But it all got out of hand, because there's always someone who wants to play God or be the king.

In this city called Rapture, the worlds best artists, scientists and surgeons lived together. Thriving and no longer bound by rules of the surface. One surgeon in Rapture said that with genetic modification, there's no longer an excuse for people to not look beautiful. That about sums up what was going on in Rapture. People were playing God. Choosing what race they were, how they looked, etc.

But then that same surgeon later told the story of Picasso in one of his audio journals. He said Picasso was so sick of painting perfection that one day he decided to put the nose where the eyes were supposed to be, and mix things up a little. And so, the surgeon himself began experimenting with his patients.

So you see? Removing God from society is a bad idea. It's a bit of a dilemma that only Buddhism's call for balance can solve. Keeping God as a reminder that some things should remain out of our control but not using God as an excuse should be God's use.

Maybe there is a way of solving the problem of earning a living. Instead of creating a thriving, Godless underwater city like Rapture, I think that people should migrate to other countries after awhile. Immigrants are the ones who earn a living from scratch. Sons and daughters of immigrants have to earn a living off what little is provided for them. But the next generation ends up a little too comfortable.

I'm not sure. This may end up being a terrible idea. Imagine masses of people moving to other countries. It would be bad. Very bad.

And don't worry, I'll be back with a post that's worth a comment soon enough.

Poorly Explained

2009-04-01T11:36:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting experiment conducted. People usually ask professional tennis players how they get the ball to spin so well, and the tennis players would always explain that once the ball makes contact with the racket, the 'dip' it inwards. That seems like a completely logical idea, doesn't it? It makes sense, the ball should spin more if that sort of swing is used. The interesting part is this:

A game was recorded using high tech cameras to detect the relationship between the style of hitting and the spin of the tennis ball. It turns out that not one of those professional tennis players used the technique they said they did. Now I don't find this very shocking. When I heard about this experiment, it felt like a prime example of how language gets in the way of everything.

I watched a documentary about the history of comedy and listened as countless comedians tried to explain the techniques they used. Some said timing was everything, some said the best jokes were ones that reflected the anxiety of real life situations(I think Sigmund Freud said that), and some said being able to make people laugh was a gift. But just like the case of the 'top spin' on the tennis balls, these comedians were trying to explain something that they didnt have the capacity to explain. Sure, comedy and hitting tennis balls isn't rocket science, but maybe that's where our answers lie!

You see, the way you'd explain rocket science, or at least make rocket science appear more explainable, is by using math. And something like rocket science pairs up objective terms with math, making it nearly the truth. And I say nearly the truth, because you can actually spell out 5. It's easy, f - i - v - e.

Now, surely maths is universal, or at least more universal than morality and ethics(but more on that some other time). The small flaw that mathematics has is that it incorporates symbolism and needs language to be explained. To put it plainly, imagine if I was right about mathematics being universal, and there was a sentient race of aliens that used mathematics the way we did. One, wouldn't be one to the aliens. And perhaps 10, 11, 12, etc were symbols on their own instead of a repeatition of the numbers 1-9 in more than one digit place. Like, if the number after 9 wasnt 10(think of that as ONE-ZERO), instead it was #(just an example, my keyboard doesn't have much else to use). Sure we could think of numbers in base 10, etc. But the symbolism involved in mathematics is what keeps it from being absolutely true. Or at least absolutely truer than words.

Conflicting truths

2009-03-26T08:03:00.000-07:00

Now imagine a set of ideals. Now stop imagining, we'll get back to that later.

I've mentioned my theory of ideas before, in which I stated that anything that isn't matter or energy is simply an idea. And since we can't explain God, religion, the soul, consciousness, etc in terms of matter and energy, then they simply exist as ideas.

But then I just stumbled onto something even more(or maybe less) radical. Either way, it's a new idea and I'm still working on a workable answer.

If I've stated that nothing is true and everything is permitted. Just look at how contradictory the whole thing is!

Nothing is true?

Is that absolutely true?

See?

And if Buddhism teaches balance, then why are people so FULLY committed to it, if balance means half and not full.

And if monotheistic religions teach absolute truth, why isn't there just one religion with one God, and not 3 religions that have one God each. That's a math equation I'm sure God has problems with. Ideas? Sounds like bad ideas to me.

And if Karma is real, then to plants get what they deserve? Don't they have lives too? Or souls are the essence of animals? Yeah that makes perfect sense(sarcasm).

But there's always something that catches my eye. In Buddhism, I can pinpoint the exact moment. I was watching a video with my dad a year ago with the French Buddhist Matthieu Ricard. He redefined happiness for me when he separated pleasure from true happiness. Then he went on to say something like this:

When in life, we imagine happiness, we imagine perfection. We think in our minds that if we could have everything to be right, that we could obtain happiness. But this is the utter destruction of happiness. To HAVE EVERYTHING. That means if something is missing we begin to patch that up and soon everything crumbles. Happiness becomes frustration and anger.

Enough about Buddhism, I barely scratch the surface of any religion or science. I don't think I can use any power of rhetoric to make anyone believe i know more than I don about any of that. (what?)

Christianity and Islam are the two super-religions right now. This sounds like a game, but it's not. Not my place to say who's more true, my guess is as good as yours. I've discussed them so many times and got so many comments (ok, just 2 or 3) when I did. It's sometimes so tempting to bring up the subject of God just to get some decent feedback. But not today. Today I'll just say having one God sounds like a good idea, except when you use animalistic terms to describe God. And by animalistic, I mean converting what humans need to progress, socially, into something God needs to simply be God.(there was more on this earlier, but repeating myself would be... repeating myself).

Science has proven to be quite useful. It's objectivity is so appealing. But science alone cannot exist without language. And the fact that more people are more interested in the problems of science than the problems with language is scary. I don't see why language can't be a science.

And so, the problem with truth isn't that it isn't true, it's just that we can't find the right words to say it.

Language, the problem.

2009-03-16T02:02:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned before, everything immaterial is an idea. A subjective, personal idea. Just like how the perception of time, God, good, evil, the soul, the mind, thought, karma, etc are never explainable objectively. Understanding objectivity in explanation is simple, just think of the format of a lab report, and sometimes the format of this blog. Objectivity is about clear concise reasoning based on a universal truth(or reflection of the true nature using language). This cannot be done with the immaterial, for the immaterial cannot be perceived by our 5 senses. We can only experience ideas and make sense of them personally, any attempt to move out of the mind makes immaterial ideas subjective.

The problem is always language, every and any language for that matter. Language allows for misinterpretation. Though some are extremely good at putting into word what they experience in their minds, the problem lies in the reader, or learner who is not as established in language and interpretation.

Writing something down and expecting it to be understood the way the writer understands it is a grave mistake. The writer has put into language his experience, the reader will convert word into 'virtual experience' (basically putting yourself in an alternate reality in your mind), based on his idea of the universe. Virtual experience is where things go wrong. When something is read, virtual experience is always needed. It puts the reader an emulation of the story, if it a piece of fiction. And in this emulation, there is a virtual universe based on the ideas of the reader so far.

The reason why a child cannot enjoy a good piece of fiction and a grown man can is because these virtual experiences require actual experiences.

For example, to imagine something, like a random shape, you must first have already experienced(as in seen) lines and curves. After knowing what lines and curves are(which are the first and only 2D things we see, other than dots, but dots cannot be used to form a closed shape), can we begin to imagine every combination of lines and curves to create the random shape. And this random shape cannot be formed by anything OTHER than lines and curves, because we haven't experienced anything other than lines and curves. You see?

In essence, the more we experience, the more options we have when stepping inside a virtual experience, but to experience text the same way the writer imagined it would be impossible, unless the reader's actual experience is similar to the writer's, which is, sadly also impossible.

In an alternate universe, where language is substituted for something less vague, thought, perhaps, there might be a universal understanding of things.

And that is why language is the problem, now we can proceed with something more interesting.

The idea of an idea

2009-03-02T01:46:00.000-08:00

I stumbled onto something new recently. And this was after talking to myself. I needed some time to put it all into words, so here it goes.

What if everything immaterial(not an object or physical thing) were just ideas? Things like Law(scientific and legal), God, thinking, reasoning, religion, relations and theories. All of that. I mean, it is beyond obvious that there are more complex ways of looking at the universe than just through out 5 senses.

Perhaps Nietzsche was right in saying this is the only way our minds can experience the universe without breaking down. Perhaps people have seen the universe in its true form and been driven insane(thus, this way of experiencing the universe being discarded).

But back to ideas. I think everyone has an idea of the way he/she experiences the universe. And these ideas depend on personal experience and how conflicting and similar ideas have influenced it. That's why humans cannot conform to one general idea of the universe. Or at least part of why. Because personal experience can only manifest in the form of a personal idea of the world, which at best can greatly influence another human, but not set another's mind to it 100% without resulting in epic failure.

And if we presume religion and the idea of God as an idea, then it must have been a very comforting idea. To not be in charge of things. Sure, we aren't in charge of much. But we must not forget to not allow another persons idea influence us or anger us too much. Moderation is key. Extremes are always harmful.

What I mean is, if another person's idea seems to make sense, do not take it in fully, instead, allow it to influence the way you perceive the world, but do not live through someone else's idea of the world.

And if another person's idea contradicts your idea of the world, do not hate it, but instead find a reason why your idea makes more sense to you than the other persons.

We must remember that ideas are simply ideas. They are words that seem to make sense when put together in a general idea of the universe. The law is an interesting idea. A very useful one. But because it is treated as an absolute, in a more of humans, it isn't as effective as it should be. I think there is a better idea out there. A system of law that is strict and bound to robot-like rules will appear to restrict freedom. And a system of law that isn't strict enough will be too permissive and the criminally inclined will not have second thoughts. As I've mentioned, extremes never work.

But maybe the entire system of law needs a relook. Right now we're so caught up with it that it has trancended the realm of ideas into something more divine and less maleable. The first step would be to demonstrate how imaginary the law really is before thinking up a new system. But without responsible humans, that would be crazy.

This post contains ideas. Remember what I've mentioned.

Talking to myself - Chapter 3

2009-02-20T08:45:00.000-08:00

Sub2. Are morals to be thought of the same way as ethics then?

Sub1. Yes and no. I will explain. First of coarse, we must remember that the human race is trying, and has been trying to survive as a whole. We must remember how often humans group together. No one person can cater to his needs and wants if he lives alone. Instead, when grouped, each human plays a part in a whole system, with some specialising in administration, some in farming, and etc.

Sub2. And where do we find these sort of people?

Sub1. Everywhere, idiot! Any place on earth with humans. There is almost no such thing as men making a living away from other groups of people. For the men who do live alone die alone, and therefore are disqualified from the game of survival that is life.

Sub2. So what does morals have to do with all of this grouping?

Sub1. Everything, idiot! We must presume the ideal society of humans to be flourishing and prosperous. And for this to happen, the people must be not greedy, but selfish in the long term. As in, even when exploiting, they must be careful to not take too much.

Sub2. Because the powerful must still be responsible over the week, because both need each other in order to survive?

Sub1. Precisely.

Sub2. Then why is it that even if ethics and morals are so important to humans, being the most powerful creatures on earth, there are so many who do not follow these codes of conduct?

Sub1. You presume that humans are the same wherever you go. This is an entirely wrong way of thinking, friend, for friend I consider you to be. We must presume that genetics is a workable theory and a workable idea. Meaning, genetics may make sense the way mathematics makes sense, but isn't as universaly acceptable as mathematics.

Sub2. And why is it that mathematics is so much more acceptable than the logic behind most of the sciences?

Sub1. As I've mentioned, the problem is language. But that is a topic for another time. Genetics shows us that perfection isn't possible without human intervention. For nature, as we discussed, has no consciousness, and is therefore random and often unfair. Especially since humans hold perfection so highly.

Sub2. You have strayed off topic.

Sub1. Yes, yes I have. But I blame you. Anyway. We must presume that long term selfishness is what seperates the strong from the weak. And the weak are presumably the less evolved. With this theory, we now see that because of the randmoness and inconsistency when it comes to genetics, oppurtunity, and so many other factors, some humans are not as evolved as others.

Sub2. You mean to say they are physically lacking?

Sub1. No, I mean to say their genetic memory is lacking. People presume evolution to always be about 'sprouting new limbs'. The mind has every right to evolve too, you know.

Sub2. And by mind, you mean our way of thinking?

Sub1. More or less that.

Sub2. So, now that we've established the use of morals, what does the law have to do with all this?

Sub1. Next post, my dear.

Talking to myself - Chapter 2

2009-02-18T08:26:00.000-08:00

Sub1. Why.

Sub2. Why? Why what?

Sub1. Why, you've forgotten haven't you? You asked me why we should think so hard instead of being barbaric and making sure only the fittest survive. And why ethics and morals exist.

Sub2. Yes, I remember now. Please, explain.

Sub1. Could we first presume that nature isn't God, as in, isn't the personal God that some people hold.

Sub2. You mean to say nature has no consciousness?

Sub1. Exactly! No ethics, no morals. Nature itself is not a being. There is no 'mother' nature. Instead, we must presume that life is a game of survival, with earth and perhaps the universe as the arena, every living organism the contestants. There are rules and goals.

Sub2. And what might these rules and goals be? And does every living thing have to follow these rules, or are they permitted to bend or break them to achieve their ends?

Sub1. You ask to many questions, boy. The goal would have to be, as we've discussed, survival of the fittest. And the rules are the same rules that we find in our sciences. As in rules of gravity apply to every creature, and so on. And I'm sorry, but we cannot allow God to be the overseer of this whole game. That would be giving nature a consciousness and every living being would have to play fair.

Sub2. But isn't that fair? As in, wouldn't it be fair if the creatures that break or bend these rules be punished or disqualified?

Sub1. And from your questions, we have inferred that life isn't fair.

Sub2. I do not understand.

Sub1. That's because you're slow. You see, in order for one species to flourish, sometimes another must perish, or at least degenerate. Say in the case of predator-prey relations.

Sub2. But surely the predator must strike a balance, or risk having overeaten and not left anything for its long term survival.

Sub1. Quite true, but we've not taken into consideration the fullness of my statement.

Sub2. Explain.

Sub1. If the predator can exploit the prey, and give the prey the illusion of luxury, as in having a rich supply of food, etc, then a balance is struck. Here we see that the predator has not been greedy by eating all its prey, instead farming it. You see where I am going?

Sub2. Almost, I still don't see how the prey is degenerated if it's survival is ensured in such a paradoxical way. As in, for the survival of the prey as a species, it must be killed for the predator.

Sub1. You see, although the prey has the advantage of surviving, so long as the predator survives, that is, it cannot develop and is therefore born to die and not born to live. Pardon the ambiguity of my words.

Sub2. So...

Sub1. My dear, the predator here is clearly the superior species. And here on earth we represent the predator. The superior species that holds the fate of every other animal.

Sub2. Oh. That would mean, we'd have to be extra careful. In fact, I should think our brains will set rules and lines to not cross so that we do not abuse this power. For our own good. As you say, if we get greedy and not think of the long term, we might swallow the prey whole.

Sub1. Precisely my point. Ethics. There isn't anything divine about not wanting to destroy every other species on the planet. Even if we could do without some. It has developed in our minds, and can sometimes be used as proof of evolution of the mind.

Sub2. How so?

Sub1. How differently cultured people treat animals. It shows the genetic instruction of 'don't be stupid, don't kill everything, your grandchildren might need this' from one generation to another. This sort of inconsistency between cultures is the reason why there is no hard and fast rule in ethics. The reason why not everyone feels the same about eating killing an animal. You see?

Sub2. And morals, how would you...

Sub1. Enough. Good night.

Talking to myself - Chapter 1

2009-02-17T09:59:00.000-08:00

Subhash 1. Before diving into any other topics, can we first establish the most basic rule, and not simply ignore it?

Subhash 2. And what rule is that?

Subhash 1. That humans are animals.

Sub 2. But how do we prove this?

Sub 1. The only obvious way is by observation and comparison.

Sub 2. Why not any other way?

Sub 1. My dear Subhash, you are beginning to dive into an unrelated topic. However, I will answer. It's simply because by observation and comparison we eliminate the need for any extravagant theories.

Sub 2. Although I do not yet see your point, I beg you, continue.

Sub 1. I will. Firstly. An animal breaths, eats, drinks, sleeps, defecates and reproduces. Am I right in saying this?

Sub 2. Quite, but you have used the word 'animal' and not anything more specific. However, you are right in saying that.

Sub 1. And humans do the same things as an animal?

Sub 2. Almost, but not quite.

Sub 1. How so?

Sub 2. Animals have brains, but not minds.

Sub 1. That is to be inferred. However, humans do breath, eat, sleep, defecate and reproduce. Am I right?

Sub 2. Yes. And sometimes we see a lot more similarities. This, however, does not change the fact that we are almost completely different from animals in the way we think.

Sub 1. I would like to clarify something then. Animals, as in most animals move. Am I right?

Sub 2. If you mean moving from one spot to another, then yes, you are right.

Sub 1. And birds and certain insects have very unique ways of moving. Birds hardly use their legs to move. In fact, birds move so differently from most animals, you'd not be terribly stupid to think it was more than an animal. In fact, some cultures don't clasify birds as animals. That is until further examination, birds were found to function, in most ways, like most animals.

Sub 2. I see where you are going with this. But please continue.

Sub 1. So I conclude that even though some animals might do things differently, sometimes so different, it would appear to be beyond most other animals, upon further investigation you will find that there isn't anything that would make them more than just animals. Now I must bring up another question. Most animals think.

Sub 2. If you mean think, as in make decisions, then I cannot agree with you until you have proof.

Sub 1. Have you not noticed hesitation in animals? The second before an animal strikes, or runs away from danger? Surely this whole process cannot be automatic. Decisions in animals might be basic, but they are decisions.

Sub 2. I see. Animals think. That is to be inferred.

Sub 1. And humans think very differently from most animals.

Sub 2. I see your point now. You have no need to end that statement.

Sub 1. But I want to. I conclude that, just because humans think in a totally different way, it doesn't mean we are anything beyond animal.

Sub 2. That must be inferred. Now please, tell me why SHOULD we think this way? As in, shouldn't there be a reason for all this thinking, when we could happily spend it being barbaric and unreasonable. That is, after all, the natural way of things.

Sub 1. Are you implying that we should be natures hand in it's scheme of 'survival of the fittest?'

Sub 2. Not exactly, but you are catching my drift. I am implying that there should be a reason for ethics and morals and advancement in technology.

Sub 1. That is a topic for another night Subhash. This is only chapter 1, and we have many nights ahead of us.

Sub 2. Goodnight then. And thank you for your company.

Sub 1. Goodnight. I hope I can go to sleep after eating all those peanuts.

random rant

2009-02-15T21:28:00.000-08:00

From what I can deduct, the reason why a God would want followers is because a God would want Its followers to be 'nudged' in the right direction. Most of us live with the illusion that God has allowed us freedom to choose. As in, we're given a choice between good and evil. With this illusion, the worthy are seen as the ones who choose good. Good, generally being harder to do, but with long term rewards and evil generally being the easy way out, with immediate rewards.

Breaking down greed is easy. Greed is natural selfishness with immediate rewards in mind. Hence,a larger profit margin is seen as greed, because the rewards are immediate, and unlike the not greedy(but not unselfish) smaller profit margin, does not yield the long term rewards like customer commitment.

However, long term or immediate, selfishness is present. Therefore selfishness cannot be ruled as an evil trait. Greed however can.

Back to the subject of God and his followers.

Before diving into the matters of a God, we must first be sure to NOT associate any human emotion, reaction, want, or instinct.

A God would want It's followers to be good. But I see no reason why it would want to be worshipped.

In my opinion, to worship is to limit human potential by conforming to the illusion that there is a conscious, and more powerful force out there. Obviously, there are many factors and oppurtunities out there beyond the control of one human and often beyond the control of all 6 billion of us.

In an alternate universe, where Gods, religions, and superstitions are cast aside, the human race would strive and likely be more in control of these currently beyond control forces.

If you still do not my drift, I will simply create another alternate universe where every human is commited to religion. And by this, I mean pure submission. Not questioning even the basics that most religions get wrong. This would be utter chaos. Natural disasters would be so beyond control that rescue efforts would be uncoordinated.

Now why would I say something like that if every human would be out to do good? And if everyone did good, then more people from this 2nd alternate universe would extend a helping hand than from my 1st alternate universe.

This is because in this 2nd alternate universe, there isn't any technology!
Just as Evil can exist so long as good men do nothing.
The limitlessness of technology can be left unexplored so long as smart men do nothing.

So I beg you all please. Most of you who read this have even more potential than me. Potential in mathematics and science and law. Don't leave oppurtunities behind. Every effort made makes us humans more in control of this universe.

We could barely predict weather a few centuries ago. Now we're always 2 steps ahead. People used to sacrifice goats and pray to the winds for rain. Now we have more control over the weather than ever before. Think about that.

Life is a game of survival. Instead of being the species that died off because we were too busy praying, we can be the species that conquers.

thank you

2009-02-07T22:47:00.000-08:00

I'm recovering from a lot now, so forgive to shortness and uncoolness of this post.

We've already established that 'thank you' and 'you're welcome' are ways of showing superiority, and the reasons behind them are never sincere. Though anyone can mean a 'thank you' and anyone can fake a 'thank you', it is almost always a way of getting even.

If you receive a gift that you really don't like or already have, and have no intention of using, you'd still be inclined to saying 'thank you'.

When you get something you truly want, 'thank you' is said but is thought to be meant sincerely.
This is of coarse a lie.

For, if YOU give a really good gift to someone, the least you want in return is a thank you. It is sort of a way of getting a person to show you they owe you something, but take this 'thank you' until I can repay in full.

Now, what I'm trying to show here is not that 'thank you' isn't right. I'm trying to show that there really isn't much divinity or sincerity in a 'thank you'. That shouldn't make you not want to say 'thank you', now at least we all know why and what use a 'thank you' has. It is an 'I owe you' card.

Intermission, to get things straight

2009-01-21T08:28:00.000-08:00

Okay, I need to reset my mind. The past week has been rough, so now I need to just do a simple post.

I think, no matter how you go about it, God should not resemble anything human at all. Why? Because humans are animals (like it or not, we ARE). I want to make it very clear. We eat, we sleep, we poop. The main difference is that we THINK. Sometimes very hard. That should not be enough to make us be THAT different from animals. Just because a bird can fly well, a fish can swim well, and a bear can smell well, doesn't make them not animal. Just as they all have their special niche, we have ours.

The general idea that everyone is equal is quite flawed, the idea that every human deserves equal RIGHTS is more acceptable(but still only just an idea). No one chooses their traits.

Culture is also not always a choice. Other than the occasional heretic(me!) or convert, no one actually chooses what they want to believe in. It's very hard to let go of something if it's been shoved into your mind ever since you were born. You cannot rightly say you have chosen to believe in (insert religion here) even after you've given it some thought. However, I don't want to mingle in this topic for too long. It get's people upset, and if I present my points badly, religious people get a little more faithful, simply because I gave atheism a bad name.

Could it be, that the only person who deserves an ego is God himself, the creator?
Then again, he's not a person.

The thing is, we can't tell who or what created the universe (but let's all agree that everything after the creation of the universe is quite explainable without the presents of a God, more on random chance some other time), but we can tell, or accurately guess when and where it began, and sometimes poke fun at how it was created.

Nietzsche once wrote about common sense. It's not the normal common sense that I'm talking about. I'm actually talking about the way nearly all humans put two and two together using our 5 senses, our brains and (allow me, just this once) the soul. What Nietzsche said is that common sense is, basically, what keeps us from going insane.

He also mentioned, that perhaps someone,(or some primitive being, earth bound, no less) HAS actually seen beyond common sense, and thus seen(more accurately, experienced) the universe in 4D, or even 11D(according to the string theory). But this ability to see beyond 3D most likely complicated early evolution of brain, and so was discarded, in favor of a much easier to use just sound, sight, touch, smell and taste(and all those other sub-sensations).

I find that because we cannot 'feel' or 'experience' the true universe, then surely we can imagine it. Here, mathematics comes into play. But because I do math like a 5 year old, all I can say is that maybe the only way is to calculate and imagine(using calculations) how the universe really is, in all its dimensional splendor.

Some say that THIS universe is just a fraction of another much more complex one. If that were true, I myself can safely chuck God out of the window. Why? Simple.

Right now, I cannot safely say the universe has no age, because, quite frankly it does. God however(or most ideas of the creator) is ageless, therefore, making sure no one can ask who created God.

If this universe is part of a much much much more complicated, and ageless multiverse, then I can put my mind to rest, because my questions will most likely find their answers in random chance. If we can find out how the universe fits into a much bigger picture, an ageless picture, then perhaps we can rule out God as the creator.

The thing is, most of us cannot escape the idea of us being animals. How social interactions have been so mixed up with all other complications of having a brain to eventually make us feel like we have a soul. Truth be told, the soul is VERY explainable. It is what happens when animals get complex. Watch Richard Dawkin's The Genius of Darwin. It's all on youtube.

After this post, I will no longer try to find truth, instead, I will find use. As in, not if reliogious beliefs are true, but if they are beneficial.

What it is to be human_part 5

2009-01-15T22:55:00.000-08:00

Using Nietzsche's will to power theory and part of the selfish theory, it can be said that there is nothing divine(as in magically unselfish) in any human interaction. We give respect to great people who have contributed NOT because respect is more admirable than material wealth, but because we are trying to show that we can give back too. As in, as I have pointed out before, when a rich man gives money to a beggar(here the rich man is showing his power, showing that he is superior to the beggar), and then receives thanks from the beggar(here the beggar is showing that he is superior by giving something back. Also, when a person demands pity, there isn't any divinity in his sadness (as in sadness is not exactly as unexplainable magical as it seems to be), instead, the aforementioned person is showing his superiority by pulling people down to his level, because at least he can still do that in his state.

Respect is equally explainable. We don't respect people who haven't done anything for us. Even if we don't know someone like Einstein, we still can respect him because he has shown that he is superior to us, our natural instinct is to show that we can respect. Either we respect, or we get jealous(which is the more animal-like reaction, and therefore less human reaction).

When we do something great(or just something admirable, depending on the degree of greatness), and not expect something material in return, subconsciously, we expect respect or at least for another human to be in debt to you (again, please remember to ditch any metaphysical ideas when reading this blog) . This is a feature only present in animals, or more accurately, complex animals. And has a lot to do with ego, but more on ego later(next post, I think).

The thing is, ego is only present in animals.

The idea of a creator always states that God is beyond human, meaning beyond animal. This is quite clear, as animals clearly are quite a new thing compared to things like the universe and the fundamental idea of God.

So why would a God need to have an ego? Would a God beyond human emotion and thought be in need of things like respect, worship and human submission? That would be bringing down God to a very human level.

So to worship a God is to insult one with something a human would want.

I can't tell you how to treat a God. If it gives you comfort to think that you are not in control of your destiny, then by all means, worship.

But being human, being able to conquer nature and do things our own way, we must be responsible for our destiny. Think of life as a scrabble game(stupid analogy, I know);

rules - represents things like law and social rules, MUST be learnt to survive

vocabulary - represents things like skills, wisdom, knowledge, up to individuals to learn up

7 letters - represents random chance, beyond human control, could be good, could be bad. Also has much to do with genetics (including genetic memory)

You can see clearly see that one must not simply submit to random chance. The most admirable people are those who have overcome random chance and achieved greatness. The least admirable people are those who have failed in life despite having the advantage of good luck.

With all that out of the way, I don't think there is a real need to worship a God, unless you have bad luck. In that sense, Nietzsche was wrong in saying God is dead. People will always find a need for God, because random chance is sometimes very random.

I'll be back with a more solid post when I get back home. I'm not in my perfect mind when away.

What it is to be human_part 4

2009-01-14T04:27:00.000-08:00

Let us first establish some rules : It is an animalistic feature to be impulsive. And if impulsive behaviour is the true nature of an animal, then certainly, the initial reaction of a thinking being is its true nature, and not a lie.

With that rule established, we can now begin to see the tie that bonds lying with being human.

Maybe the word lying is a little too vague. The word reasoning is more accurate. But if the initial rule applies, then surely, to act out of reason is to lie.

In most cases, as in most human interactions, if it is a good conversation, as in a conversation in which both parties are pleased, there is much rationalization. The bad conversations are those with little in the way of compensation and rationalization. But, again, if the first rule applies, then the bad conversation is one with less lying involved.

Remember, that the lie I am trying to establish is the lie beyond good and evil. It has nothing to do with doing the right thing, for if rational thinking was indeed lying, then obviously, rational thinking is the right thing, the human thing. But when a lie is done to decieve another human, it is a lie done out of the basic animalistic selfishness, and is surely makes one less human and more animal.

If to rationalize is to lie and if to decieve is to lie. Then we all need to choose our lie, and live with the choice.

Continued in part 5

What it is to be human_part 3

2009-01-08T11:04:00.000-08:00

Let's begin with a very uninteresting, but easy-on-the-mind debate. Which of the two make art better, curves or straight edges? I will talk about curves first. There is a car designer, a Russian man, who's name I do not know, who believes that the human eye was not meant to see straight edges. In nature, curves are a common sight. There are barely enough biological life forms with straight edged design. Plants sometimes give the appearance of having straight edges but when you think about it, plants don't move much. If nature keeps progressing forward with time, then animals are simply, more advanced. But the need for plants is beyond obvious, and so, nature will have to keep them around until animals find a way of filling the roles of plants. So instead of asking why exactly does nature tend to prefer curves over straight edges, I will simply establish the rule : in nature, curves are the preferred form of design.

Straight edges have a very unnatural look about them. The swordfish (and few other species of fish and shark) have straight edges, making them look unnatural. Remember that fish are quite primitive creatures and sometimes show more straight edges than most land based animals. Humans are, in our own way of seeing things, the most advanced species. Maybe it's simply because no other species has the ability of wiping out any other species with such efficiency. But then, again, there are so many other reasons for us to think we're the more evolved species. As a matter of fact, the ability to think we're more evolved makes us a little more evolved. Or maybe we are in fact very primitive, and all explanations are false, we're just pawns in a much bigger picture; in which case, writing things on this blog isn't useless, but completely useful, because it would mean our purpose is whatever we want it to be. I'm sorry, that does not make complete sense.

Back to topic.

When you stop and think of it, everything straight edged gives a very 'man-made' effect. And if part of being human is to create art, and art should be everything 'man-made', and not anything natural, for if is something is naturally occurring, it cannot be art. Only that which is 'man-made' may be rightfully labeled art. Please don't argue semantics or anything. The reason why I sometimes hate language is because of how 'art' means different things to different people. The art I am talking about is the true, well thought out definition of art.

Back to topic.

With my above statement in mind, can it be said, that the perfect art, as in designed, not written or sung, art would have to be completely straight edged? Why not?

Human beauty, or the beauty of the superior human is all about straight edges. The superior human is well toned, free of excess fat, which would make it more and more curvier. High cheek bones, and straight edged lines should be the core structure of the face of the superior human. That would be the definition of human beauty if strategically broken down. It is the reason why so many humans look for the straight edged look in a human. So many, but not all. But in human beauty, there are so many factors involved, which are beyond my 'not-completely-out-of-the-box' ways of thinking.

Now for the next segment.

Look at anything man-made. A remote control, a laptop, a telephone. Damned near anything. Human ingenuity. The fact that man relish in our ability to make thought reality must mean a great deal, and should be taken into serious consideration when asking the question : what is it to be human? Let us NOT ask how we imagine and what is imagination (just yet), but instead refer to imagination frequently, and without explanation of it's functional definition. The fact that human beings have been working for as long as we can remember to get OUT of the jungles/forests and shape nature(and eventually the universe) in our own image should give us a clear link to what we know we are, but cannot properly say in words.

Continued in part 4

What it is to be human_part 2

2009-01-07T09:44:00.000-08:00

We look for divinity, perfection and clarity when we try to make sense of existence, don't we? Before part 2 begins, I'd like to make the above statement absolutely clear to whoever reads this.
The universe may actually not be as perfect as it seems to be, as in, the relationships we see between natural forces, the fact that natural forces can be classified, can be understood, can be manipulated, does not, in fact mean that they are what they seem to be. It may seem that everything in the universe is in order, but that may only seem that way because of how we perceive everything.

Plato had an interesting thing to say. A thought experiment, if you allow. And the rest of this paragraph is dedicated to an explanation. Human beings are limited by their senses. The way we perceive everything through our 5 senses can be related to facing the inside of a cave and seeing the shadows being cast by the light coming from the mouth of the cave. And us humans, being humans, take the shadows cast to be the true nature of the universe.

Nietzsche too has an interesting way of putting things. And I've mentioned it very recently. It's all about language. The fact that most people already KNOW what I'm talking about, but not know how to express it in words is validation of his theory. Well, parts of his theory anyway. Language, and English is not an exception, is flawed. Very flawed. As I've mentioned. The words laptop, chimera, ghost, God, hate immediately make us think of an image in out thoughts, or images and more words. This means that language gives us all a different view on life, because of how vague it gets. And all this while people have relied on that fact for forms of art, and especially written art. What slipped my mind before is opinion. I once thought opinion mattered. And am still open minded on how important opinion might be. But it seems that language has allowed people room for misinterpretation. And that may be why it's impossible to find just ONE truth.

My own theory, thanks to both Plato and Nietzsche, is that the new language should or might be a language of pure thought. Because it is truly difficult to write down what we think, sometimes. This new language will not be written, not be spoken and not be read. I'm slowly giving up any chance of me being the one to invent this new language(maybe not invent, but facilitate it's development, for thought has been around a long time).

Either way, I have no, or little love for fiction. Fiction relies on all the bad parts of language. All the room for misinterpretation. And so does written art. That is why I prefer to write with a combination of Nietzsche-an logic and Plato/Socrates style discussion. I realize the flaw in the way Nietzsche wrote. He used very artsy sort of explanation, which led to misinterpretation, which led to World War 2. Oops.

Plato/Socrates wrote without style. Republic is THE most boring book I've ever attempted to read. But quite simply, it is the most easiest to understand. Because you understand it EXACTLY the way anyone else understands it. It's the way it was written. Much like how I write nowadays I guess. But the content is sometimes rubbish. Especially when it comes to Good and Evil. Both Plato and Socrates never allow themselves to look beyond Good and Evil.

I have a great many theories on how and why we should evolve. The easiest to understand but also the least easiest to accept is the butterfly dream theory. We never really remember dreams. But sometimes in our mind of minds we see our dreams, and they last an infinite length of time, right? A long dream and a short dream can take place in both 1 REAL hour or 1 REAL second, because of how our minds work. In our dreams, sometimes we lose ourselves and don't stop to think 'This does NOT make sense". But the moment we wake up, we begin to get back to reality and slowly regain ourselves. Now imagine that this entire life has been a dream. A complex dream(but then again, maybe our dreams are just as complex, but we forget their complexity once we wake up), and we wake up to be a butterfly, who had a dream of being a human in a weird human universe. We sometimes have dreams of great wealth, or great fear, or great adventure, and though it takes awhile for us to accept it as a dream, we do. The moment we awake and find ourselves to be a butterfly, we would accept that we were just a butterfly, right? Think about this paragraph for a second. (Why butterflies? Don't ask, and forgive language errors, I'm drunk)

The next, and perhaps more acceptable theory is the God theory. Probably the easiest way to make sense of this complex world is to simply believe in God. Because the divine can poof things in and out of existence. And if this world had a divine backing(and divine here means unexplainable in human scientific terms) then, well, it would be awfully sickening, but easier. This paragraph needs no further explanation. It sickens me, and the fact that we CAN understand the once ununderstandable is enough of a reason to continue asking and continue seeking. NOT a reason for people to get lazy. (Read Atlas Shrugged for further nonsense)
And, in an off note, there ARE, without doubt, people better than me at everything I do, and people who understand everything I haven't begun trying to understand. But, if I waste my passion, then that would be a waste of good passion, would it not? Much appreciated though.

I am NOT done with this post. I've allowed more questions than answered I'm afraid.

But I'm absolutely NOT in the perfect mind. I will return, if not tomorrow, then in a few weeks time, with proper explanations. Till then.

What it is to be human_part 1

2009-01-06T08:59:00.000-08:00

This post, shall be my magnum opus, and it shall not be one single post, but a series of posts. I'll not do this alone, like I have before, but instead surround myself with opinion.

My own personal theory of what it is to be human is pretty straight forward. I've yet to see any divinity in it. And I don't think I can explain how it all came about, but maybe, just maybe, if even for a moment, I'd like to take you on a journey through a new way of life.

Whether we know it or not, we humans might have just lived to be a little different than nature. More accurately, and in layman's terms: To question every thing natural, to know how everything natural works, and to live life by doing things our own way.

It's a very simple way of putting it. Long I pondered if there was a Socratic way of putting it, but I guess the simple things make the most sense.

Everything that gives a deep feeling of satisfaction is seen as a more human thing to do, or so I see. To further simplify, I shall say : the human thing to do it the right thing to do.

Though not all humans do the right thing, it is easy enough to see how my theory might just work.

There ARE superior human beings, and there ARE human beings that are more animal than man.

We do feel a little better when we do something that is not natural for any other being to be doing.

Being faithful to just one other human being is seen as the right thing to do, and gives a deep sense of satisfaction to every advanced thinking human involved in such a situation.

A less developed human would resort to impulsive behavior.

So why would a human be less human, if every human gets a deep sense of satisfaction with every right thing done?

Simply because humans aren't born equal. Some humans are a little more evolved than others and some are born less evolved but come to a sort of self realization of their faults, only to overcome it.

More in part 2.

Like music to my ears

2009-01-03T20:51:00.000-08:00

I had a chat with my dad recently. We were both in the car, with pop music playing on the radio. Then someone in the car asks, "Who sang this?".

Instead of replaying the conversation, I'm just going to do it my own way. In

Music is not music once you put a price on it. Because when you put a price on music and actively market it, you take the art out of it, instead replacing it with industrial blandness. For an artist must make art, not for the benefit of his well being(namely being rich and famous).

Then my dad thought of a way to respond, finally saying that these weren't artists, but craftsmen. A craftsman creates something inspired by greater forms of art and makes it marketable for the general public. Ever since the music industry made itself an industry, seeing the potential of selling music not as an art, but as a craft, it has made the mistake of glorifying the craftsmen by labeling them artists.

Nietzsche was right... once again. This language and all other human languages are based on old views and therefore cannot rightly be used to find actual meaning, because human languages are old, very old, and have given allowance for words to have more than one meaning. Which makes poetic art and written art much more beautiful and personable, but makes truth also harder to define. And therefore, a new, modern language must be made, where in saying the word 'God', the image of an old wizened man or anything like that. Words like 'mind' and 'soul' in this language give most people a very fixed image.

And therefore, it is imperative for a new language to be created solely for truth finding. Otherwise, a current language would need to be twisted into mystical stories which could just as easily as the meanings of the words themselves, be misinterpreted.

The final post. of 2008.

2008-12-30T19:34:00.000-08:00

Mankind has always needed some sort of guidance. Religion serves this purpose really well, even though it's really flawed and doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I guess that's what faith is. Blind faith? All forms of faith are about being blind. After watching and reading documentaries and stories of wisemen trying to teach people how religion is false and they should open their eyes, I've realized a few things.

1)Like Nietzsche says, sometimes you defend your point of view only because the opposition really gets on your nerves. Religious people have their faith strengthened with every argument they have with atheists, and atheists feel more strongly that religious people are blind after every argument. It's human nature to defend your point of view, even though 90% of the time it isn't YOUR point of view, just a collective point of view that seems to make more sense to you because of what you've been taught your whole life. Evolution wasn't MY way of explaining things, it was Darwin's idea, I rely on smart people to get me answers. And so does the rest of the less than smart population of the Earth.

2)The thing is, as much as I'd like to believe the human mind is the most powerful organ ever, just looking at the bell curve shows you that only a lucky few can open their minds and accept the truth. Most people will try to have the best of both worlds. You know, a lot of people try to explain religious stories, traditional values with science, without realizing it's one or the other. I know people who can sit down and explain every physics theory but still pray at the end of the day.

3)I realized that as much of a lie religion way be at times, it is a great tool. We've all seen first hand how it can be bent to change a persons mind, but let's not forget the number of people who live an actively "good" lifestyle because of their beliefs.

4)Freedom is an illusion. I've illustrated this point previously, but I think I might as well do it again. If I told you an apple was actually an orange using scientific mambo jumbo explanations(this is just a thought experiment, play along), in your mind, it would still be an apple, not because it IS an apple(for apples are called so many different names in so many different languages), but because you've been told(from a young age) that it is an apple. Same thing goes for nearly every other thing. If you were taught religious values when a child, then chances are you are going to cling to them for the rest of your life unless you've opened your mind.

So IF religion isn't as true as it claims to be, HOW would you know if your living a good life, a proper life? Simple. Here I need to explain something mathematical.

-Time is infinite
there is no beginning, no ending, no middle of time. It's not one long line, it never ages, it never slow and never speeds up. OK? So it goes on and on and on and on forever.

-Matter is finite
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Just converted

-Movement is random
That just means NOTHING is scripted. everything moves without consciously knowing why it is moving or where it is moving.

Okay? Now for the thought experiment.
If I gave a typewriter to an immortal chimp and all it could do was randomly hit keys on the typewriter for EVER, even though most of what the chimp types out will look like:

oadgaodbigabipgbo[iaogbdab gddba igasidigai

EVENTUALLY, he would have written every Harry Potter book and every other book in existence. Why? It is all about probability. Even though the probability of all those logical words coming together is very very low, given the infinite length of time and the ageless chimp, eventually, it will come together. It may take days, hours, years, or much much longer, but EVENTUALLY, it would happen.

Now, let's assume those three things I've pointed out are true
-Time is infinite
-Matter is finite
-Movement is random

Then eventually, this life, this universe, this age of man will repeat itself, right? Given a few trillion years, this might just happen again. Me, sitting here and typing. Hell maybe it has happened many times before, and this could be the 4th or 5th time this version of the universe has existed. It sounds crazy. But hey, this is a thought experiment, not an actual truth.

The very fact that you can imagine the possibility is enough for the next section of the thought experiment. So, make sure you understand the first section.

Now, imagine every action, every joy, every sadness, every aspect of your life being repeated over and over and over again and infinite number of times. Would you feel despair or joy if the choices you make now are repeated over and over again? Remember, in THIS version of the universe, I might choose to shout at precisely 1pm, but in a remake I'd choose NOT to. In another remake I'd choose to clap my hands at 1pm. The possibilities are ENDLESS. And all those possibilities are repeated over and over and over again.

So now, if you've understood what I just wrote, take some quiet time to imagine this life being repeated over and over and over again(remember, it doesn't matter if it really happens, time could be finite according to some physics people, and it doesn't matter if you would remember this life the next time it occurs, the mere fact that you can imagine it recurring over and over and over again will show you if the choices you made are right or wrong). imagine it, and ask your self, are you happy with the version of life you are living? If you suddenly feel you don't want to be in this version of your life, then it is truly time for a change.

Sincerity

2008-12-26T08:17:00.000-08:00

Nietzsche and me share so many ideas, but on certain important ideas, we go our separate ways. That makes only one of us right, or both of us utterly wrong.

Nietzsche believes that there isn't such a thing as sincerity. And for a time, he got me believing that too. Until I broke loose of that sick idea and found a different way to see things.

Nietzsche claimed that every living thing has a will to power. Like a domination over another being.It is in everything. The man who wants to be pitied is only showing his will to power by bringing down everyone else to his level.

Thing about it, every time you thought you failed, your first reaction is to look for someone who failed WORSE. To Nietzsche, this meant that there wasn't a sincere action. In donating money, the rich man shoes that he has the power to give money and is superior to the man who is begging. The beggar replies 'Thank you' not sincerely. By saying 'Thank you' he has switched roles with the rich man. Here, the poor man is giving and the rich man is receiving.

Now you see why that idea scared me. It fits in with Natural Selection and Darwinism and every other logical idea.

But then I got thinking.

And I realized there might be a way around this.

What if man was aware(subconsciously) of the absence of empathy in most of nature, and so was struggling to become less of an animal, and establish itself OUTSIDE the boundaries of nature. To have mankind placed in a different category than other animals.

Think about it. It is natural for us to shun immoral acts. But immoral acts tend to be the natural thing to do right? Every time you act out of impulse, it reflects something an animal would do, like fight, or challenge another. But conversely, when you behave your self and act more 'human', you are acting unlike any other natural creature, am I right?

And this 'human' way of acting; morals, decency, discipline and everything you'd normally NOT see in any other animals list of things to do, is always encouraged, and looked highly upon.

Our arts, our sciences, our modern cultures, our ethics, our morals, all go against the natural way of the animal. Like it or not, sincerity is a lie, whichever way you look at it.

Unless of coarse you still cling to traditional values.

In which case.

I pity you.

And that soul you think you have.

Human (back to usual rantings)

2008-12-23T09:49:00.000-08:00

Natural selection is a cruel process. Survival of the fittest. As peaceful as nature may seem on the outside, in reality, everything either dies or lives to die another day. Well everything living that is. Natural selection isn't a choice, or a way to look at things, it just IS. God wouldn't seem as kind if you just took the time to think of how he shaped thoughtless creatures to devour each other to protect its own interest would He? No!

Just dig deep into some parts of the world and you'll discover not one or two, but thousands upon thousands of species that were eliminated through natural selection.Now, let's look at natural selection for a moment. It isn't a process were nature consciously makes decisions like, 'Okay, I like the snake more than this sorta old lizard, so i'll kill the old lizard off'. No, we use the term natural selection only because before man came about, we had no influence on how any animal or plant would live. So, this process of selection happens naturally.

The 'selection' isn't the sort of selection that goes on when you shop, for instance. Every organism needs to do one thing; survive. And because of that, organisms have to keep changing, keep taking in and throwing out certain things.

Anyway, all this natural selection is beyond me. I cannot truly understand it until I have studied it. In any case, we have evolved to have the ability to think and reason, just as a bird has the ability to fly, and the horse has the ability to sprint.

And with this ability to reason, whether subconsciously or not, every action, every piece of art created, every music piece written, every book written, every mathematical equation equated has been to escape natures way of doing things. Had we had stuck to natures plan, things like ethnic genocide and eugenics would be carried out by the best of us. Instead, the best of humans, or at least the kind of people who are made models of what a man should be, carry out acts of kindness.

The system we live with, where the man who donates money to the poor instead of leaving the poor to die, works completely and utterly against natures way of natural selection.

I think mankind is subconsciously aware that nature is cruel and our mission is to escape natures way of selection.

Or perhaps, consider this interesting theory;
nature itself realized the need for natural selection to end. (A God perhaps, realized this) And so man was created, and man himself was tasked with shaping the earth in his image(which is an image which, unlike anything else on earth can see beauty, is kind to the weak, and has the sort of values no other animal can ever have). And isn't that what we have been doing all this while? Shaping the world? Killing nature. Weird. I know. It's the kind of theory that sounds better in my head than on my blog.

forgive the messiness in this post. I wrote the last paragraph first and the first last.

Happiness/ Well being and Mind Training.

2008-12-18T10:28:00.000-08:00

First off, if you want to know why we all strive for happiness/well being, all I can say is, it is purely genetic. And I'm not a geneticist, I am a man with a lot of questions. I just had rotten luck to have enough time on my hands to think each one through.

So back to the topic at hand. I'll just call it well being. Happiness is a vague way of saying well being, people often mistake happiness for something less important and more temperature, like pleasure or titillation. Here, I'll show you what pleasure is.

I'll give you the example of pleasure first :
Say you've ordered a nice, rich chocolate cake. Your first serving, it's delicious. Your mouth is watering, and by the time your done with that particular serving of cake, you are pleasured. Then, the second serving of nice, rich chocolate cake arrives. By this time, you are less hungry and have lost your appetite due to the richness of the first serving of cake. But you press on, and eat the cake. Now you feel bloated, but the third serving of cake is about to arrive. Now, you are no longer pleasured, you are disgusted.

Happiness on the other hand has a more lasting effect, and this is best illustrated with a comparison between pleasure and well being:

If you had a ten dollar bill, and was fully conscious of the ramifications of giving that ten dollar bill to the next homeless person you saw, would you still waste it on something purely material as a piece of cake?

Well being is a deep state of fulfillment. You can be sad, but still be in a state of well being. They are both separate layers of emotion.

Pleasure is very different. Some people can rejoice in others' suffering. It is a fleeting emotion.

It is a Buddhist view that everything that has the ability to bring pleasure has the ability to bring great pain. And I agree completely, for the same things (say this computer as an example) that made me feel on top of the world the first time I got it, now sometimes makes me feel frustrated(when I realize how old it's gotten and it starts lagging, etc; i'm human too you know).

And I feel very Buddhist writing a post as shallow as this. I am fully aware that happiness and well being are all in the mind, all social things hard wired into our genetics. But since we cannot escape these states, we might as well learn to understand them. Maybe even to someday completely overcome them.

Okay, anyway, since we've established the differences between the fleeting emotions brought about by pleasure, we must now ask why we'd rather be happy than in pleasure.

Pleasure is, well, a more, not to say diluted, but generic form of happiness. That is why it is so often mistaken for happiness. It takes form of happiness. Like a bellowing storm cloud. From the outside, pleasure looks solid. But move closer, you will see that the emotion is permeable.

Happiness on the other hand is solid. So often we spend hours with hobbies, with trying to look more like people on tv, with exercise. But if it is a fact that the one thing we aim to achieve is a state of happiness, why then do we not focus on what would get us there?

Mind training is a solution. Monks and such meditate to train their mind. But one doesn't need to be a monk to mind train. The simple realization that every emotional impulse is result of complex genetic instruction and hormonal interference is enough to make you wonder how useless it is to be angry/frustrated/envious of someone or something. An open mind helps too.

With that in mind, learning to understand, let go of, and choose emotions becomes an altogether easier thing to do.

The reality of emotions is utterly unmagical, and bland.

That is all for now. This post is not a very good one I think. I don't have enough Buddhists in my life to be sure of what I have just discussed above. But it is EXACTLY what I believe.

Rethinking the 'why'

2008-12-16T11:01:00.000-08:00

What is the point of doing good? Often we find that doing good brings much less benefit than doing evil.

I'll use the example of a lawful and unlawful man.

Clearly the man who over charges when selling his goods has the upper hand over the man who sells at a lower profit margin. One cheats his customers into spending more, and the other allows himself to suffer a little more (or longer) in order for his customers to spend less. The unlawful one here has the upper hand. So why is the lawful man doing good?

My initial theory was that all men are selfish. But not selfish in greedy sort of way, but selfish in a sense that every choice made by him is to grant him benefit. In the scenario above, both men believe they have the upper hand. Although Socrates might argue differently(his discussion ends with the conclusion that the unlawful man has the advantage), the 'selfish theory' was not considered by him.

On a brief side note, I thought of this theory that all men make choices that benefit themselves in July 2008. But I realized, when my father introduced me to Friedrich Nietzsche in October, that he already thought of all this hundreds of years before me!

Anyway.

Socrates failed to answer, let alone present the question : why does the lawful man remain lawful, conscious of his disadvantage?

Or maybe the question should be : What does the lawful man get in return for being just that?

The answer, I found, was using the theory of selfishness.

The lawful man was thinking of nearly every factor that turned to his advantage over the unlawful man other than money(and related material factors).

The lawful man might consciously or even subconsciously know of the ramifications of his kindness and lawfulness. His customers will have a higher probability of returning(but this isn't the main reason he remains lawful).

The lawful man does not hold material wealth as his main desire.

[I look forward to doing the happiness post, in which i will talk about how having money does not lead to happiness, but is auxiliary to our well being]

The lawful man seeks the deeper satisfaction that is often felt when good or kindness is done to another human being.

I call it pride. So, I conclude that, the lawful man is just as selfish as the unlawful man; but what they both seek are completely different.

Plus, the lawful man doesn't put other people in disadvantage(instead, quite the opposite) when being naturally selfish.

Sure, there are a billion and one other reasons to remain lawful, but at 3 in the morning, I'd rather summarize.

So the question now is;
What do you seek to gain out of every choice you make?
A slave does his masters bidding to avoid further injury upon himself.
In fact, you can find that little piece of 'selfishness' in every action every sane human has ever made.
Or so I hypothesize.

life, pre life, principles of life.

2008-12-13T07:35:00.000-08:00

Existentialist. I didn't know that there was such a simple word to describe a person like me. What's really surprising is that, once again, when I came across this word, and then wiki-ed it, it turns out Friedrich Nietzsche was one too! Incredible; I only found out about him 2 or 3 months back, and it turns out he'd been asking the same questions I ask, and living on the same twisted principles of nihilism as I am. It is as though he visited me in my sleep to teach me everything I believe in.

So let's talk about that for a moment. Principles, the meaning of life, what values should be admired, and which should be discarded.

Here, we bring in Socrates(not again!), because he brings reference to the soul more often than Nietzsche.

Socrates reasons that the honest man, bereft of the ability to exploit anything to his advantage(or more accurately, to another persons disadvantage) is the better man; as he has based his life on the purest and most respectable principles.

Nietzsche on the other hand, emphasizes on how these values (being humble, chiefly) aren't really values at all. You see (and I'm sorry to have caused offense), modern religions (post Judaism) began spreading at the lowest class of people; slaves and common men.

These were classes of people that didn't have that much to brag about really. So, it became custom for such values as being humble (for a slave must have this value), to be a basic principle in life. So, in truth, the humble man, if humble but without much to be humble about, is NOT a better man. Conversely, the pompous man, with much to his name*, is the better man.

*remember, the example of the pompous man must be a man who is ascended to a throne, not born to one.

I think, Nietzsche relies more on his ability to reason, without having to honour tradition or religion. Socrates on the other hand often attended traditional ceremonies and started off The Republic with the persona attending a ceremony.

Of coarse, before starting to ditch old ways of living, you need to understand why it is you are leaving it behind. Then ask yourself, were you ever free to choose? Freedom of choice is an illusion for most people. If you were born and raised to believe one way of living, then the choice has already been made for you has it not?

Breaking away from the illusion is the hard part. Understanding why freedom is never free is important too. The gay man is taunted and looked down upon. So is the Godless man. But why? Breaking traditional beliefs grants these people freedom most can never dream to have. Is that the reason for all that taunting? Jealousy? I never thought it would be that simple.

The man who believes he is doing Gods work here might just be a man who is subconsciously envious of the man who has given himself freedom of choice. I cannot find reason why the man on Gods side should do his work; for the almighty should be mighty enough to handle it on His own.

Since I've already moved on to another topic, I might as well start poking fun here.

Firstly, I strongly disagree with the statement
God is not the author of all things, but good only.

Socrates wasn't looking far back enough, and his concepts of God were much different.

The existence came before the essence. Think about that. I will elaborate when the time comes.

But now, think about this;

let's start with physics, since Neils Bohr thinks that all science is physics.

1)In a perfectly Godless world, will everything physical be possible?

As in, without a divine hand, would a planet have its own mass?
Yes it would, there's nothing divine about having mass, and so it can move too, without the help of a God.

With that settled,
2)In a perfectly Godless world, would everything chemical be possible?
As in, without a divine hand, would a iron rust, or carbon combine to form diamond?
Yes it would, it's all logic and quantum physics(which is still beyond just about everyone).

With THAT settled,
3)In a perfectly Godless world , would everything biological be possible?
Hah, here is where the shallow and the deep go their own ways!
No one can explain how the *poof it became coco crunch* theory happened with life on earth.
I'd like to believe in the iron-sulfide theory. Because it makes (almost) perfect sense.
I mean, it just does. It makes so much more sense than whatever it is I used to think.

Now, an off topic way to close this post,

There is nothing supernatural about the supernatural. The fact that there are still so many things out there left unexplained is proof that science, and great men of science are not done with their work.

Where do I take this pain of mine

2008-12-10T08:35:00.000-08:00

Pain. It's the one thing we all loath, but the one of the many things we can't live without. The purpose of pain, according to most studies, is to warn you that your of potential damage. Stepping on a nail is definitely a good way to damage your feet, so you body needs to teach you the hard way to watch where you step. Pain itself, contrary to what you may think doesn't harm. Although harm or potential harm will cause pain; It isn't pain itself that deteriorates your body; instead, just your mind.

That's how you learn. You know that pain wears you out, and so your mind establishes pain as a negative feeling, a sensation to be avoided. This means you'll not harm yourself.

So then, what in the world is emotional pain. I'm quite (damn near 100%) sure that the heart has nothing to do with anything other than pumping blood. The whole reference to the heart; the phrase "listen to your heart" is purely metaphorical. The rate at which your heart beats is influenced by hormones, stimulated by parts of your brain.

I think it's a social thing to feel loss over something or someone. That's why pain is so relative and subjective.

I (HEART) science

2008-11-18T04:45:00.001-08:00

You know, there's always been one thing that really bothers me. Why can't people accept evolution and natural selection? From the very beginning, the thinking world has been split between Darwinism and The Unexplainable-popping-out-of-the-Earth Theory.

I've began taking sides in my arguments not long ago, because, out of the 30-odd posts I have here and the 50-odd posts in my non online blog(a.k.a. diary), I've come to terms with the fact that fact is factual, as a matter of fact. Science has proven itself time and time again to be the superior tool of learning.

But then all of a sudden, I was faced with a man who I consider to be my spiritual adviser(since I have no knowledge and absolutely detest that field) handing me facts in the form of layman terms. So what I was seeing is, the same principles of physics and chemistry but spoken without using a single scientific term!

It hit me in that instant that science isn't an absolute truth. It is a WAY of explaining the universe using TERMS that humans can relate too. It's good in a way. This way people get a uniform understanding of the universe, without confusing a metre for a foot, and such other problems.

^{A metre is the S.I. unit for length. But what it really is is the distance traveled by light in
an absolute vacuum in
precisely 1}⁄_299,792,458 of a second.

Without humans, there isn't much need for a metre is there? I don't think zebras and leprechauns are going to be measuring that much. But because we're all a little curious and sometimes actually need something measured, we just pull things out of the air and coin terms like 'metre' or 'second'.

Non scientific explanations of the universe on the other hand are vague and often contain hidden messages. Take for instance the creation of the Earth(or was it the universe?) in seven days. When I ask believers of this statement, they say it wasn't meant to the same lenght of time as a day is today. So technically not the '24' day, but the length of time a day used to be before we came along and labelled it '24' hours long. I get it.

But this just makes non-scientific methods of learning vague, and thus all the misinterpretations. To me, that just reaffirms my belief that science is a better tool of learning. You get the facts delivered to you the best, and most standardized way possible. Its a little more difficult than reading a book that explains things in laymans terms, but there won't be much room for misinterpretation.

A lot of people tell me (in an indirect way) that trying to explain the beginnings of the universe and disprove religious beliefs is very bad thing to do. And I might end up in hell if I do. Here is my reply, most parts quoted off Lyell:

Never has there been a dogma so calculated to foster indolence and blunt the sharp edge of curiosity!

Forget it, I'm still booked for Hell ain't I?
After all, God is Great. He'll give you life and joy and all that. All he asks in return is that you follow all his little rules. Otherwise, He'll send you to a place where you'll burn forever. And when the skin is burnt off your bones, a new layer will replace it to be burnt again and again.

But remember, He loves you!
(Special thanks to Gurdave for that bit of knowledge)

Found.

2008-10-19T09:11:00.000-07:00

We've been lied to, no hoax.
Maybe for a good reason. But, either way, we've been lied to.

After discussing Illiad and its contents, Socrates and his pals begin questioning the truth behind Homers story.
They came to the conclusion that God is perfectly simple and true both in word and deed, he changes not; he deceives not' either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision.

Homer said something contradictory. Here is a paragraph that Socrates believes contains a false message:

Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials..
...was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose days were to be long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus, being divine and full of prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the stain, he who was present at the banquet, and who said this-he it is who has slain my son.

Also, they disagree that Zeus would send a lying dream to Agememnon.

They later agreed that verses that contradict what was established as an inconvenient truth should be abolished. This is especially true in the case of hiding the truth of death from man to improve his worth on the battle field.

Although the aim of Socrates was to make sure the next generation of Greeks come out a little closer to perfection, he intended to make everyone believe that the old truth is a lie. (isn't that what I'm trying to do?)

Here are some verses intended by Socrates to be ignored by future Greeks to remove their fear of death:

I would rather be serf on the land of a poor and portionless man than to rule over all the dead who have come to naught.
-Odyssey

Lest the mansions grim and squalid which the Gods abhor should be seen both of mortals and immortals
-Illiad

O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all!
-Illiad

These verses used to make people believe the after life was bad, thus, people lived in dread.

After the verses were removed, hypothesized Socrates, people would no longer fear death, instead embrace it.

I am a great admirer of Socrates. This piece of text just showed me a little bit more of the social structure man has kept going all these long years.

Now, was Socrates in the wrong for what he intended to do?

If he sat back and do nothing with the knowledge that he had the power to make a generation of Greeks have no fear of death, that would make him a useless git.

If he removed these texts, he'd change Homers original message(s) of the after life and blind an entire generation of Greeks.

Dilemma of dilemmas.

Losing it.

2008-10-13T09:08:00.000-07:00

I am a firm believer of secular ethics. I cannot ever say for sure if secular ethics is less fictitious than religion based ethics, but I find it much easier to believe.

It's forgivable that in the old days amazing unbelievable tales were spun with moral values to guide the people. In those days, people didn't know why the sun rose in the East and set in the West. They didn't know the sky was just gas and vapor.

NOW that we do know what these things are, I think it's time to stop believing in fairy tales and face the truth. I'm going to refer to a Star Trek story once again (before, from another blog of mine).

This story is about a space probe, which had only one task : collect information.

After it wore out, humans discarded it into deep space.

Aliens found the probe and decided to repair and reshape it.

This resurrected the probe, this time with a sentient mind.

But it was still a space probe, with the main objective of gathering data.

So, when it stumbled upon the humans traveling through deep space, it began analyzing them.

After a while, the humans realized it was sentient and began talking to it.

When they realized it was an old space probe, they told it that humans created it.

The space probe went mad.

So you see, I think the reason why we'll never find absolute truth is because we're searching for something we think we understand. And maybe we've already found our creator but cannot rationalize because that's not the image of God we have in our minds.

Like if I told you the Hydrogen atom is God. You would never believe me.

But every chemical can trace it's origins back to Hydrogen.

That makes every single thing around you, essentially Hydrogen in different forms.

Or what if I told you energy is God, since it cannot be created or destroyed?

Maybe the number 0 is God, because 0 divided, multiplied, added, subtracted with any number is equal to itself.

If I told you the Universe was God because it is naturally intelligent, like how all animals have adapted naturally.

None of these things may seem like God, because most people picture a great MAN in his place.
Because most say God shaped man in his image.

You have to remember, a man who has never seen God wrote that.

All in all. I think I'm comfortable just trying to understand all versions of everything without being biased.

Everyone thinks I'm a man of science just because I believe in science.

I believe in nothing.

Except secular ethics.

Science is just the best way to explain things.

Because a Hydrogen atom, if humans didn't name it would have no name.

Everything in the Universe, if left unnamed by humans, would have no name.

Carbon, wood, bear.

Everything, nameless before we came about.

Could it be, that we are shaping the Universe in our image?

Are we important? My little social experiment

2008-09-24T02:57:00.001-07:00

Now this is an issue to address.
There's two general ways to look at it.

If we were created, we should be significant. Otherwise, our lives would be meaningless and unimportant.

Or

If we are Godless, then we were NOT created, and therefore have no important role in the universe.

Perhaps, out of necessity, we invented, or searched for self importance by inventing Gods. Pardon the un-holiness in this question :

Did we create God, to make it seem like He created us?

We all think there should be a beginning of time, and an end of time.
But when I went about telling people the world is going to end in 2012 as part of my social experiment, everyone thought I was crazy. When I questioned further, most said there was DEFINITELY and an end to all things, but it just isn't gonna be anytime soon.

That's just natural. The ONE thing that all living things share is the need to survive. In nature, there are no martyrs. In movies, in stories, sometimes even from misplaced feelings of self righteousness, there are martyrs. But not in nature. If it wasn't for civilization, martyrs would be non existant.

Back to the main topic.

Humans need to feel significant. Our minds are too complex. We keep trying to understand, to complicate, to bring significance to everything. So when we asked ourselves who we were, we got scared. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? No one knows. I don't know. I wasn't there.

So we wrote books, made stories, dictated laws. Some called these 'holy scriptures' and made them above every other law.
The true essence of these are good. You see, people may or may not have souls. But we undeniably have conscientiousness. Whether the conscientiousness of man came from evolution of the mind, or from the soul is unclear. But, in any case, the conscience is like a canvas that cannot be tainted. No matter what the person encounters or does, the conscience will not be changed. It will always know what the right thing to do is. The pure thing to do.

So, these religious texts were written based on the pure conscience laws. To help people remember a good from a bad decision. I have no love for things like these. Because humans also misinterpret(like me) things. So I'll just sit back.

In any case, we also needed to know why, of all things in nature, WE were chosen to bear the gift(or curse) of knowledge. Why we were the only things that knew how to differentiate 'good' from 'bad'. And so, we just MAY have had invented God, to help ourselves feel important. Which I feel is very selfish. I'd rather be unimportant and honest than important and selfish.

Justice, and the rest

2008-09-06T09:52:00.000-07:00

"...then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partner than the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harp-player is certainly a better partner than the just man?

In a money partnership

Yes, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counselor in the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?

Certainly.

And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better?

True

Then what is the joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?

When you want a deposit to be kept safely.

You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?

Precisely.

That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless.

That, is the inference."

That conversation was from The Republic I, between Socrates and his friends.

I guess it would have been cool to be Greek. They aren't distracted from trying to define things.
Except when it comes to their Gods and stuff.

Socrates was a genius. In every sense of the word. A lot of the Greeks were smart, but this guy was just, WOW.

Back to the topic of Justice.

From what I understand, justice can be said to be useful when money is useless.
But that's just one point of view.
Since nothing is true, and everything is permitted, I shall try to understand a few other definitions.

If you were told that life is fair, you would most definitely look to the law and justice.
Because, logically speaking, you break the rules, you pay the price.

Let's break down the logic, just as Socrates and his friends did.
Two people, in a setting
person A and person B

Person A is a man of peace. Living his life without harming others. Presumably, person A is pious, and fully believes that life is fair, as in, do good, and good will be done unto you. As they With What Measure Ye Mete, It Shall Be Measured To You.
One day, Person B kills Person A's loved one(presumably unintended murder, Person B just wanted the cash).

Person B needs to be punish on the basis that murder is both a sin, and more importantly, against the law?

True

Person A lost a loved one, even though it was not his fault.

Presumably true. (not considering the butterfly effect,karma relating to past life, etc)

Person A is left without a loved one, and without compensation.

True

Without compensation, especially true, if the law was non-existent.

Also true.

So, in a way, the law serves as a form of compensation to Person A. Because without the law, or JUSTICE, Person A would have no compensation, since it is presumed that Person A would not harm Person B.

True.

1st conclusion, justice is a form of compensation to the powerless law abiding citizens.

That is inferred.

*************************************************************

Previously, I stated that the law was not born of a greater knowledge of what's right and what's wrong, but out of necessity.

That necessity is what we call 'the system'.

Saying the system works, or doesn't work is way too much.

It works because I get to use the internet on a PC(which works in ways I cannot yet understand).

Yet, I can also claim the system doesn't work because parts of Africa can't get a stable government.

The system, in itself is completely necessary, or has made itself so, through the ages of man.

From what I can understand, the system is a complex organization of individuals, groups, and companies that are unaware of how what they do or say effect the nature of man.

In other words, because there are 6 billion humans on the planet, and we're all part of one big society(unlike animals,that are unaware of the presence of their own species on the other side of the earth.), we don't really understand the importance of understanding.

I'm sick of analogies and misinterpreted definitions.

This post was long, and I hope it'll be enough to last whoever reads this crap to last you till my next.

Good bye.

An open mind or a fixed one

2008-08-10T07:18:00.000-07:00

"...a human being is most dangerous when he is certain what he knows is the truth"

I don't know if that was the exact words he used, and I don't know why I never thought of those words myself.

Look at it.

Don't we all get a bit hostile when someone questions our beliefs?
We become more...dangerous.
Because of how sure we are that WE are right, and everything else is bullshit.
Meaning, technically, that people fixed in they're beliefs are more hostile.
(I can already feel the hate and and hostility of some of the people reading this)

So, what now?

Have an open mind?
Be unadamant in what you believe in?

"an open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded"

It just makes you more corruptable.

And that is why I always say...
"nothing is true and everything is permitted"

Because instead of fixing yourself to an absolute truth or absorbing and accepting everything I read/experience/watch, I learn.

And I learn many takes on life.

I learn why the scientist says God is a myth.
And why the priest says evolution is a myth.
And why the spiritual leader says "peace in all things"

and everything in between yes and no.

I have no belief other than that saying.

But believing in that saying is self contradictory.

Like telling a genie that you wish he would not grant you this wish.

The genie must obey and grant you your wish, but that would mean not granting the wish.

Confusing, I know.

But I am willing to sacrifice any peace of mind.
Willing to believe in nothing.
As long as I keep learning.

None of my posts should influence anyone.
I wish for everyone to just remain fixed in their beliefs.
And they will be.
I am sure of it.

Over-generalising people

2008-08-06T19:33:00.000-07:00

We are aren't we?
It's not entirely our fault.

There are 6 billion different minds on this earth.
And because we CAN categorize, we DO categorize.

It's so much easier, isn't it.
To have yes-people and no-people.

Rather than reading through countless opinions,
Some similar to others, but never quite the same.

Stereotyping people is bad.
But necessary.

I mean, I wouldn't want to be in the same category as a grave robber.
But because we both don't believe in eternal damnation, I guess you bundle us up.

I've got to conclude this argument fast because I can't be seen on this PC in 5 minutes.

People shouldn't be over simplified.
Look at yourself, look at how complicated you are, now imagine 6 BILLION other people and their complicated selves, if that doesn't help, count 1 to 1 billion and times that by 6.

Remember, there is no absolute truth.
Not even the truth on this website.
The only truth to be had, is personal truth.
Which we can absorb from Holy scriptures, works of literature, scientific studies, etc.
But that doesn't make it true does it?
Just because evidence from one source can disprove evidence from another.

Is ignorance bliss?

2008-07-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

Let's set this scene up right and proper.

The incoming board of directors, another guy who just misplaced his dad's phone, and me are all in the men's dressing room. I just got in. I need to change because the event is half an hour away and I'm wearing street clothes.

Technically, I should have just yelled my head off and got everyone ready, because if people weren't doing their part, I'd be taking all the steam from the president, seniors and teacher advisers....

Let's assume the victim is essential to the event.
the crowd can be represented by one or a whole bunch of accused people.
I am half dressed, and have never made an effort to look decent. And I'm
the highest ranking board member in the room.

The victim : ....Please lah, whoever stole my phone, give it back. I'll give you my laptop, just give it back....my dad will kill me...

The crowd : ...we're you're friends, why are you accusing us? (all pissed off)

Me : guys..guys... stop a moment. I need one of you to explain something to me.....tie or no tie?

The crowd : tie la... borrow Marcus' one.

Me : Where is Marcus?

The crowd : He went home, he'll be back soon.

Me : Ok, but if his tie goes missing, I didn't steal it(wink at the victim)

The victim : I don't care la. I'm just gonna go home.... You guys not even helping me find my phone oso... Jeez... my dad's gonna kill me...

The crowd : Walao, you keep blaming us, how we gonna help (smashes something on the floor)

The victim : Ok, I'm going home already. I can't take you people....

The crowd : Fine la, go home... stupid fella, we're trying to help oso you wanna....

Me : Hey, hey, hey..... side parting, messed up, or.....

The crowd : nah, what you got looks ok..

Me : alright....lemme just touch up...

The crowd : OMG! the phone's in the toilet.. call the fella....(all cheering)

END OF SCENE

****************************************************************************

When you understand human nature, you also need to understand that people are adamant in what they believe.
Fortunately, I was the only one there who did understand human nature. But for all my "understanding", I have one stupid flaw.... which is supported by all my other flaws.

I love a good show..

I sometimes love seeing anarchy unfold before me.

Because I know compassion, just as well as hatred can be suppressed.

I could have resolved the whole thing, by giving a lecture about priority.

But I knew in my heart that in these sort of situations, men would rather die/kill for themselves then understand each other

****************************************************************************

Now let's just say what I just tried to explain is true,
we have on all sides of the spectrum ignorant people.

The victim, ignorant, quick to place blame, not caring of responsibility.

The crowd, ignorant, instead of understanding, chose to defend it's innocence.

And me, ignorant, not taking control of my boys, instead just sitting back and watching.

All ignorant.
Only one blissful.

So MAYBE that whole 'ignorance is bliss' proverb has to be rewrote.
"ignorance is bliss, only when you understand when and how to be ignorant"

But that's not as catchy.

Wait a minute...
Happiness itself has never really been defined right?

Buddhist monks give up all possessions and passions because they conclude that everything that brings happiness, will eventually lead to sorrow and pain.

A rich person would often cling to his possessions and passions because everything else brings sorrow and pain.

And then there's the 6 billion other definitions in between.

Nothing is true and everything is permitted.
Understand that statement, and you'll understand that none of definitions are absolute.
Not even mine.
Wow that's confusing...

Let's just leave it at this:

Everyone (all 6 billion of us) will find something to be happy/sad about.
Nobody will find something that all 6 billion of us will be 100% happy/sad about.
BECAUSE
nothing is True
Nothing is 100% absolute

and everything is permitted
Based on how each one of the 6 billion of us see something.

Freedom's never Free

2008-07-24T08:36:00.000-07:00

I heared and read much about freedom.
Assassin's Creed influenced how I thought free will worked.
A lot.
If I were to summarize it, this would be it:

A group of very influential people plot to unite the Crusading Christians and the Defendin Muslims of the world under one banner. Halting all the crusades and ending the hatred and war. Your task is to stop them, because even though they're quest is noble, the means in which they wish to achieve it is unfair. They would enslave a population under one banner and supress FREE WILL. In theory, when you supress free will, more people conform and will be at peace.
YOUR society doesn't believe in that. In his dying words , one of your targets explains to you why their cause is just.

"YOU : ... people must be free to choose what to believe in.
Target: Have they ever been free? Except for the occasional convert or heritic, no one chooses
what they believe in. They're all taughted what to believe...."

My whole life I stuck to the free will being the most important thing to have.
And in that moment, I had to restructure everything.

A Spartan would die defending his country in 300BC not because he was given a choice to believe in Sparta, but because his whole life was based in Sparta. He was taught the Spartan ways, the Spartan life and it's rituals and beliefs.

Same as an American soldier, born and bred to be given NO CHOICE but the one he has been taught to believe. There is NO CHOICE. Unless you yourself experience each belief/practice/creed, you have only the choice of sticking to what you've been taught. Unless of coarse your willing to open your mind a little and let everything pour in.

We, or at least I, never realized how un-free we really are. What we believe in isn't automatically justified to be the absolute truth. Otherwise everyone would believe in just one thing.

This really isn't making much sense right now. So I'll have to try again someday in a part 2

Ethics & Morals

2008-07-19T09:05:00.000-07:00

Who has the highest say when it comes to ethics and morals.
The law, most probably. But the law was not created based on an ancient wisdom, but out of necessity to control those who would rather not be controlled.
Religion? Probably. That's the main topic today.

In my opinion, a God would be something without life. Something without human thought, constrictions or form. It would be a force of intelligence. An all-knowing force the we could use to explain how the universe is so intelligent by design. How an atom of 'blah blah blah' knows when to combine with this other atom to form a protein. How does it know? Is it mere chance that it collided? Possible, but that would mean the universe is trillions of years old. Which is incomprehensible isn't it? Still, it's possible none the less.

But back to the topic of God. If this God thing is not a being, that would mean ethics and morals are purely human creation. Animals do not see ethics. Dogs are loyal only because they have a memory of a certain human treating them well. It is only human to be considerate and rational. No other being has that power. Apes and chimps are on the verge, but that just shows that we are related to them genetically.

Why should a creator that is NOT a being, have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?

So, if ethics and morals were created by humans, where do we draw the line? Must one way of thinking constrain science from being more powerful from religion? Yes, and no. Opinions matter, but when you have got a whole bunch of people with a contradictory belief who will shun you and sanction you, you'd better play nice.

Trying to reach the point of being a physical embodiment of goodness is near impossible and downright odd(in my opinion). We were graced by evolution with the most powerful tool in the universe; the mind. Yet there are those who would rather refrain from reaching deep into the mind by holding religion as a shield. I do not blame them. I believe people should be free to choose, to learn and to live. But at the same time, education is important. The ethical dilemma is whether people should be thought the best way to live or be given free reign to live their lives. The best solution often doesn't yield the 'perfect society' as one would imagine. But balance is probably the most decent way to settle this. As has most problems been eventually resolved.

Nothing is true, Everything is permitted

2008-07-15T08:57:00.000-07:00

What a load of bogus, I said, the first I heard it.
The 2nd time I heard it, it fell right in place. Brilliant.
And by the 3rd time, I was in shock.
Could it really be that simple?
Then I realized, it is true, and untrue at the same time.
What does that make it?

The word true is defined as 'being in accordance with the actual state or conditions',

So technically, nothing is in accordance with the actual state, and everything is allowed.

I tried again to make sense of it.

Then it did make sense.

Anything written can be falsified, bent, changed, etc.
A word out of place and a statement is untrue.

This blog, the dictionary, science text books, journals, holy books are all scribed by humans.
And as I mentioned earlier, no two humans can think exactly alike in every way.

Example of what I mean:
The world we are thought to see is an untrue illusion.
That may seem lame, or over the top, but is the Earth our home?
Is it a piece of rock that coincidentally went through the right procedures to sustain life?
Is it God's work, that the universe was made in 7 days?
Or perhaps the Big Bang theory?

If I were to ask an environmentalist, the Earth would be our home.
If I asked a staunch atheist (what an oxymoron), the Earth would be a 1 in a million coincidence.
If I were to ask the pope, the Earth would be God's creation.
If I were to ask Steven Hawkins, he would tell me it's a formation from the big bang or something.

Each point of view is backed by countless pieces of evidence, or a strong unfaltering faith in that line of truth.

But that still leaves me puzzled. What is the Earth? It simply cannot be defined.

OK, something else this time. The TV this time.

Its an idiot box, a poison Godmachine, it's a weapon of the media, its an entertainment platform.
You can't say all of the above with strong conviction. Each definition of TV has contradictory evidence to the other.

Therefore,

NOTHING IS TRUE.

Since human beings so righteously grant ourselves freedom of speech, of thought and opinion, we are allowed to stretch the limits when defining something. Any definition or saying can be twisted to have meaning.

Therefore,

EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.

Now do you see?
Do not absorb things so easily.
Even what I say in this blog is totally written by me.
Meaning this is my version of the truth.
My definition for each blog post title.
It's not true, just as the other definitions are not true.
But it is our right to define it in every way possible.

Good and Evil pt.2

2008-07-14T07:59:00.000-07:00

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem with religious and non religious people. It helps bring balance of opinion, but not world peace. Also, remember that nothing is true, and everything is permitted. But I'll explain more on that topic in the next post.

But at one point, I was very critical of religion. I don't take back what I said. In fact, I am more sure what I said made sense. But it was a certain 'enlightenment' that got me thinking.

I do not despise the goals of religion (peace, ethics, etc), in fact, I share them. But I take issue with the means and ways that these goals are being 'accomplished'. Religion would FORCE it. And have robbed many of their free will in the process. By force, I don't mean force in a strong "believe in this or burn in hell" manner. What I mean is that people should be free to learn. Constrains placed by religion often make many things (ideas, ways of life, or anything else) seem evil and wrong. Right now in fact, most hardcore religious people are already thinking I'm a heretic, or that I've joined the 'dark side'(haha lame). But in fact, all I've done is pierced the veil that I was bound by my whole life.

I am NOT trying to slowly force people into any thing. Not even asking you to forsake religion, as religion is far too important. What I am saying is, it is human nature to question. And a question, no matter how insignificant or ginormous, should have ABSOLUTELY no boundaries. We've all been thought a creed. And we've all at one point (or still are) labeling acts and people as GOOD and EVIL. Once you begin questioning and finding REASON, the line that separates the two will disintegrate. And the true nature of people will become clearer. The illusion that there is a definitive Good and a definitive Evil will vanish, and so will the illusion of people who are good and people who are evil.

I would not say that I have reached a higher level of thought than anyone else, like I said nothing is true and everything is permitted. And the taste of liberation is not always sweet. The first few weeks after I broke away from the "good and evil" train of thought, I felt disgusted, like everything I was trained to accept (e.g. spiritual enlightenment, life after death, heaven and hell, what we become after we die mostly) suddenly became untrue. The same feeling you get when a best friend stabs you in the back. The sudden disbelief, anger, sorrow, and then acceptance. Acceptance that in the end nothing is true, and everything is permitted. Now that's got you thinking. Don't worry, the next post will explain that saying in full.

Opinion

2008-07-12T08:10:00.000-07:00

We often oversee opinion, and other people's point of view. The pointless struggles between religions spark from this lack of understanding. Each and every human being sees and interprets the world, the universe, God, religion, and anything under the sun (including the sun) differently.
A clone of a person, a twin, even a "best-friend-forever" will never see eye to eye on anything. Well, at least not 100% eye to eye.

Why do we get angry? We are simply dissatisfied with something/someone. Dissatisfied. That literally means 'not happy'. We are angry when we are not happy. But, as usual, we only see one side of the story. It's human nature. The whole "I want what I want, and I want it now". There are those with more patients and understanding than others. But it's really not some divine gift from above. Instead of being grateful for the ability to withstand the cruelty of the world, you should try and understand WHY you are understanding.

You may have had a good childhood, or a good and understanding family/friend(s). Even good genetics play a part. It's all subjective to each person. That brings back the topic of opinion. We all see a different childhood. There's no doubt that 2 people can't go through the exact same process of life. Similar, well duh, but the same, hell no.

The idea of a perfect world is impossible, unless humans are willing to accept tyranny, suppression of thought, and domination. There will always be opinion. And we should be thankful that there is opinion in this world. Be thankful that there are people who believe in God, and people who believe in nothing. It brings BALANCE. It brings freedom of thought. It breaks boundaries that a single train of thought would constrain. But the people, in my opinion, should not burn the heretic, but instead embrace him. But this is again, nearly impossible, as the heretic has no love for the believer, and both suspect each other of ill intention. This is seen in the modern world. A radical blows himself up in the street in the name of what he believes in, because, in his opinion, the free world is destroying the balance that once was, and should be. The free world sees the radical as the tyrant, at threat to the 'free' way of life, and in exchange, bombs the tyrants city back to the stone age. And steals the tyrants petroleum at the same time.

Ahhh.. I truly am nuts. All I can say is, if you can't understand an opinion, learn to accept it. Because you have not experienced another view on life. And because opinion is too important to be cast aside.

Time part 2 - The Creater and Intelligent Design theory

2008-07-01T08:46:00.000-07:00

What would you define science as? I would probably split science into 2 main branches. Invention and Discovery. One branch cannot survive without the other. For example, the DISCOVERY of microorganisms would be impossible without the INVENTION of the microscope. Which in turn required the DISCOVERY of how light travels through glass. It goes on and on and on. So back to the definition. Or more accurately the purpose. Science is here to understand the universe and to make it easier for the general public to live. DISCOVERY requires a theory or hypothesis to be proven. This means it has to also make sense and lead to a conclusion.

Now let us (or me) talk about the intelligent design theory. It was formed in a theists vision of the creation of the universe. Ever since the creation theory was rendered false by the Charles Darwin's evolution theory, the concept of intelligent design has been shoved in our faces. We never notice it, but thats what a lot of educational systems are teaching. The intelligent design theory states that everything in the universe has been intelligently designed by God or sometimes referred to as the "intelligent designer" or sometimes called "grand master sexayyy"(jkjk). Michael Behe wrote that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution because all organisms are made out of systems that require every component to be in place to work, meaning evolution could not have added all the components at the same time. But people who believe in evolution state a more logical theory; components in our systems were not added, but altered from a less effective, to a more effective system. And yet Intelligent Design theories are still being taught in schools. What we've been thought in biology classes is that all creatures were made to survive in their environment and have been there since the beginning of time, and shall be there till it's end. But that doesn't seem very scientific does it? Feels like theres a gaping hole between the start of the universe and the origins of the organism itself. Remember that the role of science is NOT to eliminate God. It's just here to find some answers. The one thing that the Intelligent Design theory leaves out is the beginning of these organisms. How did they pop out. I refuse to believe that the universe was created in 7 days just because it's written in a book. And I refuse to believe that the world we live in now is just there. I know the street I walk on were once marsh lands. And I want to know what it was before that. And before that. And before that. Until we can find some provable theory on the beginnings of the universe.

There is another 2 theories on the beginning of life on earth. The first, of ribonucliec acid being present in the earth makes doesn't really go back to chemical means/explanations. The one about an iron-sulphur world beginning has some sense to it. German scientists managed to prove that organic matter formed when iron, sulphur and a few other elements and compounds fused. Things like amino acids, which are essential to even the most basic organisms cound be formed.

And now to the main topic, time. I just realised, everything that has a beginning has an end. That is true and proven. Mankind most definitely had a beginning, thus it has an end. But I would say one of the 2 main things that just might not have a beginning is the universe, and time. Steven Hawkings discovered the sound that the universe made when it was created (pure genious). But it still doesn't say much. And what about time? A dog doesn't think about how long it's day has been. It doesn't think on a long term basis, or even wonder when it'll die. But time itself was INVENTED by man to explain or relate things. Earlier, I argued on how time could be non existent. This remains to be seen (or not). Right now, I want to talk about how time, since it was invented by man, may or may not have a beginning.

It's not impossible. A lot of us refer to time using a timeline.

eg.

1939 - WW2 begins , 1942 - Japan captures Kuala Lumpur.

and other similar time lines.

Basically, it's not uncommon for us to say time travels in one straight, probably never ending line.

But it's not entirely true.

(p.s. arif, time doesn't travel in circles!)

Einstein's theory of relativity has a section that truly makes me wonder.
Actually, it's the only section of the theory that I can understand and explain.

here is the easiest way to explain it:

If you have an identical twin, and you strap yourself to a super rocket, fly around the world FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, when you return, your twin has aged, and you have basically just travelled through time.

Why? Not because you transported yourself from one period of time to another.
But because you have travelled FASTER than time itself. It's like when you see that camera effect in movies where the camera focuses on one person and the whole world goes by real fast.
Yeah something like that I guess. Can't be too sure.

Until my next period of boredom...

Genetic Memory Part 2 - evolution of the mind

2008-06-30T08:08:00.000-07:00

A lot of people argue that evolution is a myth. Not a majority, but a lot. Just because the creation theory cannot be justified, 'intelligent design' was used as a excuse. Why can't they accept that evolution has, is and will always occur? Intelligent design focuses on conventional biological theories mixed with religious theories on the creation of the universe. It states that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Maybe it's true. That's the bad part about theories like this. You can neither prove it nor disprove it.

But back to the main topic. Let's take a look at a prime example. Most people say we evolved from monkeys. In truth it's apes, not monkeys. And what is the key similarity other than the obvious mind power of chimps and the facial structure? It's our opposable thumbs! Which other animal has opposable thumbs? No other animal can open a door knob as efficiently as humans/apes/monkeys can? Sloths? Bears? Not really. The biggest evolutionary jump from ape to man, in my opinion, is not the mind, but the feet. Yes, the feet. Take a good look at them. They have similarities to that of an apes, but ours is reconstructed to be able to support us on our hind legs. And since man have stopped climbing trees and mountains, the shape of our feet have change dramatically. Slowly, we will witness our 'pinky' toes shrinking, or getting smaller. Why? Because we no longer use it. Apes and monkeys use it to grip branches. We don't even use it for balance anymore.

Then we have people who say evolution has never been observed. But how would you explain this: If you somehow went back in time some 500 years ago and explained that the world is round, gravity is real, earth revolves around the sun, etc, people would not have accepted it. In fact you would have been executed for blasphemy or something like that. But slowly, the human mind has evolved. Carrying genetic messages, making the process of learning easier. That's why technology that seemed like a breakthrough 20 years ago (eg: computers) is now taken for granted and so easily accepted. It is our minds evolving. One generation's genetics learning about the world and passing it on to the next.

Another way to observe human evolution (though this is harder to accept) is race. As in colour of skin, etc. Why are people in Japan mostly small, and why are people in Africa black? Japan is a tiny country, and thus the people have to naturally adapt to the size. The dark skin pigmentation of Africans are actually a natural sunblock, making darker people less prone to skin cancer.

I'd just like to say a few words of nonsense.1) just because man only live to see 70 - 90 years of life, doesn't mean the countless millennia that have past are non existent. 2)The universe can survive without humans, but humans cannot survive without the universe. 3)Next time you are happy about something that happened to you or something you received that made you happy, thank those responsible (even if it's yourself) and not the heavens. Do not find someone or something to blame, blame is the expression of dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction is the expression of anger. And anger sucks.

Time

2008-06-20T08:16:00.001-07:00

Firstly, I'm going to be direct. I didn't like what I said in my last post. That's why it took me so long to post something new. Even though I said what I meant, and I meant what I said, I don't think I have enough experience or knowledge of politics to be giving extreme criticism to the critics. But that's all I'll say, no apologies; remorse is for the dead.

"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." St. Augestine.

Honestly. Who can define time?
Newton says time is a container, just like space, and is REAL as the objects and events it contains.

But is time real?

Maybe it's as real as we want it to be.

It is. Not because the clocks spin, and not because the sun rises and falls, but because, I think, that we can define and relate time to an event or something. But that would make time relative to each and every person, just like how I discussed that good and evil is relative to each person.

Thus consider this;
What may be a long and boring day for me, could be a fun adventure for someone else. I doubt there's a day that time passes a little too quick (or slow) for every single person on the planet.

I can also conclude that most other animals have only a basic idea of time. Or perhaps, they know what time really is and are not surprised, making US the fools! But I doubt it. If an animal knew about time, it would know that its time is limited, that it had to do whatever it had to do and die. But that's not the case for most animals. Animals like cows have no feeling of urgency or care for the short lifespan it has, but this could be because of its genetic memory not allowing it to care.
Otherwise there would be "prison break" cows, escaping their farms to find their own way before their time is up.

So back to the original question; what is time?

This is quite hard to break down.
We all just look at time as a long path, with the past behind us, the future before us and the present right under our feet. But this is just in the minds eye. It is the definition of time as our minds see it, or have been thought to see it.

But I doubt time is just a line. And it would be beyond my imagination to conclude that every action done by ANYthing in the ENTIRE universe would spawn a new path, or a new time line. In some cases a parallel universe, where in one universe a boy buys ice cream, and in the other, he saves his cash. Both universes came from the same event, but had different outcomes, which lead to more possibilities of the future. That's just plain scary. And if that is the case, I think we should wait for evolution to take its course and evolve our minds to better understand that whole concept. It is beyond out minds right now. Or at least my mind.

Another thing, which I have already poked around with in one of my previous posts is that humans live only to see 100+ years of the universe at the most. That's only if they're real careful not to die. But, we cannot understand, comprehend, yet alone define how a billion years of life is. That is why we cannot imagine exactly how it would feel to be 50, But then what about a billion?! You'd be amazed, but the universe has seen much much much more than a billion years. We humans only arrived 10000+ years ago. Every action that was made by the infinite particles in the universe since it's beginning has lead, through the course of TIME, to the creation of human beings. In short, unlike religion and language (and many more) , time, science, knowledge, space, and numbers have been here long before men arrived, and they'll all be here long after were all gone.

Time creeps me out.

The Politics in Ecstasy

2008-06-14T11:16:00.000-07:00

You know what really entertains me when I read the newspaper.
Not the comics, or the headlines(if there is a difference between the two nowadays).
Its the criticism on the government.
The local paper that I read has, like most of the local papers, a daily opinion section dedicated to the public.

I read it as often as I can.

They say how racist our government is.
They say how corrupted our government is.
They say how they would have done a better job running this country.
On and on.

Its really amusing.
I'm not an "anti - anti - government" sort of person,
and opinions are opinions, but what did they expect.

Its the same all over the world really.
If you have a society, you'll need a government.

The ideal government would be:

Non racist, fair to all people, open to suggestions, fair on taxation, uncorrupted, financially stable.
Would you expect ANY form of rule (democracy, liberalism, communism, socialism, dictatorship, monarchy, etc.) to bring the perfect balance? Or even be the perfect government?

Is there a country in the world with the perfect government?
Is there a country in the world with all its people satisfied with what the government is doing?

They're many people in the world suffering because of their government.
The people of Myanmar can't get foreign aid, but thats another story.
African political parties cause conflicts to gain the upper hand.
Malaysians racism and too much housing development projects.
(which is least of our worries)
Americans dissatisfied with the Bush administration.
The German upper class not being happy that their tax money is used to help jobless citizens.
The list goes on...

Actually, I think it's understandable that we're getting unfair treatment here in Malaysia, whether your poor, different colored, or even under appreciated, you can somehow blame it on the government, right? Just go on and say how unsatisfied with how things are run.
But like I said, what did you expect?
That those "powerful" words of would sway the titan corporation called the government?

I've done some digging,
And the most simple thing popped up.
Powerless people, like the Tienanmen Man, can have heavy influence on the image of the government and eventually lead to change, much like how Martin Luther changed many things.

Tienanmen Man
Just look at that picture. It's the most moving picture I've ever seen in my life.
There's many more, like monks setting themselves on fire, and stuff like that.
But to stand in front of colossal Russian made Chinese Tanks.
To deny 4 tanks passage, knowing the world is watching you, and to remain unnamed.
Communism is just as retarded as democracy, liberalism, republicanism, tyranny, and all the other -isms and -nys that this world is run by.
But

"The world will not accept dictatorship or domination."

-Mikhail Gorbachev

That whole Tienanmen Man fiasco turned out to be very moving,
Communism, which was going a bit too far, is slowly withdrawing its grasp on the Chinese's necks
(They've moved on to beat up poor Tibet and threaten Taiwan now.....)
It's not a more stupid concept than any other form of politics.
They all have their drawbacks,

But if you truly want it,
what that man did is as close as you can get to the best way to change things.
Selflessness.
Don't think about how you want things run,
Think of how things should be run.

Matricide, mankind, and its biggest mistakes

2008-06-14T00:36:00.000-07:00

Matricide.

The act of killing your mother.

We're all doing it.

Directly or indirectly.

Mother Nature is dying.

It can't be stopped; would you stop using your car?
It can be reduced, but not by much.
We weren't polluting as much as we were 3 years ago, and we'll be polluting more than what we're polluting in 3 years to come.
The graph of pollution and destruction of nature will always go up.

The only solution : 2012.
The end.

Not the end of people,

not the end of the world,

not the end of all things,

the end of the way we've run things around here.
Mankind's biggest mistake was stating the rule that the universe revolves around everything we do.

We all think that we were put here by God for a reason.
We search for the meaning of life, why we should live to die another day.

Is there a reason?

Were we actually placed here by God?
Or were we, just like everything else that lives and breaths, evolved out of the tiniest particles.

Just because each generation of man only see less than a hundred years of human evolution,
doesn't mean the countless millenniums of evolution didn't take place.

We live each day, thinking the universe was made for us,
when in reality, we were made for the universe.
We evolved to adapt to the nature of the universe.
And now, we are making the universe adapt to what we have become.

In a whole different context, the universe could just be what we think to be God..
It was the universe that made us begin, the rules were written by the universe.
Everything lives in the universe.
It scares me.
That we are killing the universe.

Matricide.

God vs Science

2008-06-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

Today, I encountered the most extreme verbal argument between the atheists and monotheists in my class. Yeah, it was exciting, but with everything in considerations, I think the atheists view of life is, although more pointless, it is generally more open to wisdom. The monotheists views, even though more closed to new concepts, is more "secure" and blissful. Having the support of an entire community and some sort of reliance in talking to the sky made them feel like they were always in the right even though the facts that were presented contradicted them.

One of the theories that was presented by the monotheist was that God was like the wind, you can't see it, but its there. And he tried explaining that God wasn't something you could see, but you could feel. The atheist argued that science was like colored smoke or gas, when you spray it onto the wind, it revealed everything true.

In the second argument, a monotheist said that science was false. He said that we all are controlled by God, because it is impossible for cells to work together so flawlessly and for the mind to bare thought. In other words, that we all had a soul. I didn't want to argue as I didn't think it was my place to disprove what they had believed, or thought to believe all their lives. But the argument of the soul is very unbalanced. Take this example. When someone says we all have a soul, they say it without proof, just theories and do not make room for arguing semantics. But when science wants to know if there is a soul, and finds evidence that there isn't such a thing, the believer says science is false, it has no right to question the work of God, and ignores evidence completely. Well referring to the whole process of cells working together flawlessly and thought forming in the mind is not easy to explain. But
1) our cells don't work together flawlessly, just 1 mistake can lead to cancer and stuff
2) our minds are more complex than any other living organ in our body or in any being known to us.
3)gray matter is proven to be real, we're all still waiting on proof of the soul.

3rd argument was, if science can make a human perfect and just about explain everything, how come there are still babies born retarded, homosexuals and other flaws in humans? Why can't science with all its "might" cure our ails? They argued that if something happened, it was Gods will, and humans shouldn't fight it or question it. Just accept it. This got me a bit angry really. But I still didn't say much. Most of what I said was in defense not offense. Because it ain't nice to be saying bad things about what other people believe in. Whether its a football team, or a religion or a way of life like being vegetarian, its just how they want to live. But I really need to give an example of why science can't explain everything.

1)Science isn't a Holy book that you cannot question. In that way, even though the complete truth is still hidden, every now and then modifications are made when new evidence is found.

2)Science depends on the one thing left in humans that is undergoing evolution in every new generation of thinkers : our brain.
Just like if I give a villager a computer, first he would probably use it and stuff, get around the controls and stuff. If that pc still survives, his young would probably try dismantling it, and slowly through generations of villagers who know nothing of computers, they will ultimately devise tools to study the property in which computers are made of like plastics and stuff.

That would represent science. The villagers represent the unknowing human race at first, then slowly going through evolution of the mind. And the computer would probably be life, or the universe we live in. slowly we get to know more of it. Slowly it seems less Godlike and more...explainable.

3)Science can't make sure 6 billion people on earth are satisfied with their offspring. In fact most of the world is to afraid to implement science in reproduction. I am too. But its all a matter of time. Its happening as we speak, the "perfect" humans are being created to be sports athletes in China, which is getting criticism from religious groups.

So there you have it. I cannot take sides in any argument on this blog. All I seek is opinions on matters that have no proof. Like in this post. But I have to say, its all in a matter of time before science finds the ultimate truth, or multiple truths whichever it may be, and eventually lead to end of the world. Because with everything science creates, it has the seeds of destruction deep inside it.....like in plastic....

And I meant no offense to anyone in this post....

Genetic Memory

2008-06-10T07:56:00.000-07:00

Genetic memory is real. More real than I once thought. I witnessed it in games, novels and documentaries but never took it seriously. Do you remember why asexual reproduction produces less superior offspring than that of sexual reproduction? Because genes from 2 organisms are better than from 1. But why? The reason; better evolutionary changes. Because when chromosomes from 2 organisms combine, you get more varied genetic memory. Unlike personal memory, genetic memory is not something you can actually remember as it did not happen to you personally.

Genetic memory is that which makes the offspring of the parent organism immune to the same disease that was fought by the parent in some cases. Another use of genetic memory is for survival.

There was an experiment done that involved a new born chicken(I've mentioned this in my previous post) was shown a silhouette of a hawk. Without any contact with its "mama" hen, the chick seemed to recognize the silhouette and run away in the opposite direction. Also in some animals like bears, it is genetic memory that tells the bear, "it is no longer winter, you may stop hibernating now".

Genetic memory is what is often misconceived as the soul or spirit in an organism. It is actually the subconscious part of the brain that stores and uses genetic memory. That is why sometimes when you pass by a place you have never seen before, you may get a sudden chill up your spine or feel like you've been there before. It isn't your soul talking to you about its afterlife but you genetic memory. It is possible that an ancestor or parent of yours found that a wooden "kampung" house to be comforting and home-like. That triggers your genetic memory to suddenly make you feel safe for no reason at all. Other times, the sight of an unending jungle might trigger the genetic memory to warn you that an ancestor of yours might have been stuck in a jungle for a long time like say, during WW2 when the Japanese arrived.

How else would a bird know how to construct a nest, or fly south for the winter? Genetic memory of their predecessors that had to go through trial and error for many thousands of years to perfect the survival of their species kicks in and lets them know how to survive.

However, it is nearly impossible for most animals, especially mammals to survive without "parental guidance" as genetic memory is not something that teaching directly, but more of an adviser that makes logical suggestions without using words, which would explain why humans, with a fixed language, find it sometimes hard to interpret, and how animals with NO language find it much easier.

I was also told a great many things of how genetic memory is what influences many decisions that we make in everyday life. Like when your "heart" tells you that you should, it is more likely your subconscious genetic memory "advising" you. The indecision and surprise that something IN you is telling you what to do, leads to the increase of blood flow, and your heart starts beating a lot faster(or sink), thus leading to most humans believing that your heart is telling you something.

In the I can conclude that I am either getting somewhere or going completely nuts and babbling stuff that I know nothing about. But I did do my research!

The Soul

2008-06-08T06:52:00.000-07:00

Some say our soul is our essence. They say that when we are born, our soul is pure, and as we grow, our soul is either tainted or purified, thus reflecting the nature of the physical being that the soul occupies. And once the physical being wears out, or dies, the soul is sent to cycle of life and death/heaven/hell/paradise/any other planes of the afterlife based on how it has lived in its physical being. In fact that has been the concept that I have been following most of life until very recently.

Another view, is that the soul is the life force of a being, not necessarily something religiously bound, but more of a natural thing. A personality, or something that gives instinct/consciousness to a being. People like Deepak Chopra support this theory. I almost did, but then I got to questioning(again).

What if there is no soul. That its all a myth. A myth that was reinforced because of the lack of knowledge on the subject. The questions I asked myself were: What happens to the soul, when a person becomes "brain-dead"? If the soul is something that is from God, or from the cycle of LIFE, then why does a clone have similar characteristics as a natural being? And if a soul occupies every living thing, what of plants and single cell organisms, do they have simpler souls?

It dawned on me, that it just might be possible that the soul is non existent. Ethics, morals, consciousness, rationality, all of that might not be from the soul, but from our own minds. Could it be that simple? That because our brains are more powerful than anything else on this planet, that our brains are our souls? A human judges better than a chimp, a chimp judges better than a dog, and a dog judges better than an ant. That is the truth. That would mean that instead of having an equal "soul" in every living being, we have more advanced minds in different organisms, just like it has been proven. Therefore, we humans, having the most advanced minds, also have the most ethical, moralistic, self conscious minds.

When humans become extinct (it's possible)(2012), will other organisms be judging and "feeling" the same way humans did? Well, no. They'll most likely just be animals, uncaring about what happens around them. Nearly every animal on Earth doesn't even know what the Earth is. Not because its ignorant, or it doesn't have a soul, or is doesn't care, but because it CANNOT know. It's mind is less developed than ours, and is more focused on the here and the now. Instinct has already been proven to be false. What we believe to be animal instinct (a.k.a birds flying south for the winter) is actually genetic memory. A long line of trial and error by their ancestors, that is passed down in their offspring's DNA. That is how a new born chick know that its in danger when it sees the silhouette of a hawk. Not because its soul knows the danger, and the parent hasn't even taught it yet. It is because in the past, a "granpa" chicken was nearly killed by a hawk. Its basic mind imprints this onto the DNA and passes it down as a warning.

And why all these warnings? Is it the soul that needs to survive, or the species? Obviously, the species needs to survive because it is aware of mortality. In fact, mortality may be the only thing nearly all complex organisms are aware of.

In conclusion, I believe what we've been taught to be called the "soul" in reality is just our minds, our judging, blaming, caring, loving, endearing, hating, loathing minds. NOT our "souls". The reason why an elephant doesn't worry if it's going to heaven or hell, is because its mind is not developed to think that way. Its all in the mind, not in the soul.

Good and Evil

2008-06-07T07:39:00.000-07:00

We've all been thought the concept of good and evil. We look at a murderer, thief or drug dealer and we instantly label them as evil. It is not necessarily a completely natural reaction, but it does happen spontaneously without consideration of the one we label. But its just the way we are thought. But considering that GOOD AND EVIL ARE COMPLETELY RELATIVE TO EACH PERSON....

a person who is raised in a certain way and been thought to worship a certain religion would view an action as either good or evil. But there are more than 6 billion people on earth. Meaning more than 6 billion views on good and evil because no 2 people think EXACTLY the same. Does this mean that religion determines what is good and evil? Who sets the boundaries then, for modern practices like stem cell research? Men? Its not stated in religion that stem cell research is evil or good. Even if there is something that connects a religious judgment to stem cell research, not all religions say the same thing. Which one do we follow? How do we know which religion is more true than the next if we can never come to a compromise and discuss religion openly? All that later because I'm discussing(with myself) good and evil first.

Is there a possibility that good and evil don't exist at all. according to Brendan Vive 4 years ago, good and evil are from the words God and Devil. How sure are we that both those characters exist. I don't mean to be harsh but its a valid question. My retarded but all too human curiosity wishes to KNOW not to BELIEVE without fact. Stupid me. There goes my soul. But that doesn't matter, what matters is, IS THERE GOOD AND EVIL.

To answer that question, the first step would be to know that EVERYTHING happens for a REASON. The reason why we can hear is because of that whole complex ear system and the vibration of particles and stuff, the reason why the heart beats is because of the passive nervous system that gives out electrical charges and stuff.. I don't know the exact details, I am not a specialist.

The REASON why a heinous act is committed. We do not always think of that when it happens to us. But we immediately place blame and get angry or scarred and such. There IS a reason. ALWAYS a reason, no matter how small, confusing, irrational, unbelievable it might be. We must look for that reason, because it IS human nature to accuse, to judge and to blame when we are not in control or not satisfied. Look for the reason.

Is good something socially acceptable? Something emotionally, or rationally acceptable or praised? Or is it something that brings feelings of gratitude and such? All of the above perhaps? But there is always 2 sides to every story isn't there. World war 2 wasn't about the Allies struggling over waves of evil Germans bent on world domination. That is not the definition of WW2. Both sides had their story. Many civilians were murdered, raped and robbed in this conflict due to the action of the Germans. But saying Nazism is evil is very single and closed minded. The Germans were a very proud race, with a great past. Their defeat and humiliation was too much to handle and with accumulation of problems and shame, with certain events and people, Nazism was formed. It had its reasons and purpose, but it was not EVIL. It was just proud, ignorant, selfish(which was also present in the forces of the Allies as with the Axis powers).
Of course the Allies were triumphant and I am very proud that they overcame such a blind and retarded tyrant rule of Nazi Germany. Still what is good? To me, it is completely relative to EACH and EVERY religion, person and teaching has a different opinion to both good and evil.
As I said before, There is always a reason. Nobody gets up in the morning, and says, "i don't know why, but I'm going to go kill someone now". And if somebody does, the reason is simple, he might be crazy.

The Music Industry

2008-06-04T13:50:00.000-07:00

I figured out how hard some of the real talented musicians have to struggle to keep their music alive. I'm quite sure there's a million other genres and sub genres that suffer, but look at people like Jeff Loomis, Mike Portnoy, Chris Adler, Rustey Cooley, and people like that. They are genuinely happy with the type of fans they have and don't ask for anything else. Mike Portnoy even sells bootlegs and pirated copies of his own band and side projects even though he's been hailed as the greatest progressive metal drummer. I mean, he's got like 20 awards for drumming and he's still so down to earth(in a way, he still makes fun of other drummers). Chris Adler didn't have enough money during production of his latest album with Lamb of God. He couldn't afford to repair his car or buy a new one, so he quit smoking and started using his bike to get to the studio. Now that's dedication. Jeff Loomis and Rustey Cooley are just guitarist that I think have a lot of skill but aren't getting what they deserve. I don't blame anyone (i just blame MTV). I don't really like guitarists that much, but I know these guys deserve a lot more than just hardcore fans and a few million dollars.

While all this is happening, people like ... well lets not point fingers, but a lot of 'artists' nowadays just play very recycled stuff. I don't mind simple music, or music that you don't need to think to listen to. But a lot of them get other people to write music, lyrics and produce their albums. They end up singing about unimportant and insignificant things. Most of the time its ok, because we need balance in the world between shallow and deep music. But MTV is force feeding often really freaking lousy music that soon becomes a hit because everyone is playing it. All in all, MTV is a poison Godmachine. Why? Lets break that down. (remember I'm not crazy, just extremely bored).

Ok, Poison, MTV, obviously poisons. They aren't evil(good and evil is relative to individuals), they just want to exploit music for money. Who can blame them? We all need money. And people do weird things to get money. But what I mean by poison, is that it falsifies what music should and can be. Music shouldn't be limited to verse, chorus, break. It can be anything. Jazz has its own style of writing, but how many Jazz bands do you see on MTV? Off course MTV would say, "Thats not what people want to hear". But it is MTV themselves who is choosing the most marketable, profitable music to be made mainstream, packaged and sold.

2nd Keyword, God. God meaning they have absolute power. In many peoples eyes MTV never goes wrong. Whatever music is on, thats whats 'cool'. The moment MTV releases a single or something, every radio station and other music television station plays it. How god like is that??

3rd keyword, Machine. MTV, isn't a one man band. It is kept in motion by an industry. An industry that started off as an artistic one, but now has been made into a commercial one. Never before in the history of mankind have 'artists' been this famous or rich. There is very little drive for real music anymore. Many artists release, or are asked to release music for nothing but money. That is why there is a constant stream of new artists, new music, new videos. To keep the gears of the industry in constant motion.

I do not think anyone should stop watching MTV though. I still watch it because I think that the evolution of the clown is complete. They are called rappers now. And thats my source of entertainment.

Utopia

2008-06-02T20:22:00.000-07:00

Ever since civilization began some thousands of years ago, mankind has tried over and over to achieve 'perfection', but has failed each and every time. This is because we will never find the perfect source to base our perfection. To base perfection on nature is almost absurd. Most modern civilizations live on the silent code that they are always a step above nature. When I say that, I mean natural societies such as schools of fishes, flocks of birds and stuff like that. So technically, we can only copy and 'improve' on these natural societies as humans are well, different.

So what else can we base our Utopia upon? Religion? They've tried, in fact some still trying but will eventually fail when something like the renaissance era occurs. Religion traps people in a thought cage. When one is bound by religion, every thought is judged by god and every action has a significant a equal consequence in the afterlife, or on your karma. So that would lead people to be 'good' right? Of course! When you are threatened by something you cannot control like religion or god, you must conform. But this will lead to the holocaust of thought. Just like what happened in Europe in the dark ages. And thought suppression is hard for people to deal with. Well some people at least. In conclusion, religion cannot be what we base the perfect society upon because we need people who can work outside the box, people who can question the orthodox and move against the flow without fear. Otherwise, we will never advance.

Could we base our perfect society on science? Hell no! Science and the advancement of technology are the most destructive forces when put in human hands. Almost every thing that science produces/discovers/invents is only morally neutral before placed in the responsibility of humans. Yes, science does cure many things, but ultimately, it leads to destruction. Cars, weapons, technological breakthroughs, synthetics, and such have lead to the degradation of the Earth. And these were all products of science. The MAIN reason why science can never be used as a basis for a perfect society is because science is based on not having ethics. For example, a dedicated scientist who is not constrained by the rules of religion, law, and ETHICS would most likely do experiments against peoples will and such. So science is definitely out.

A perfect blend of all the elements? Guess what? Thats whats happening right now! So an equal blend where one element looks after the other would sound like a win win situation. Maybe it all depends on how you look at it. After all, nature is still being destroyed, science isn't satisfied with the boundaries that have been placed, and religion isn't very happy with the way people are now. But all of them are getting their slice of the pie. In the end, Utopia will always be unique to each person. One might argue that we should go back to our roots, but thats impossible, not with the thousands of years of evolution of civilization that it took for us to reach this point. And when any of these elements try to outdo another, we have disaster.

When nature wants its voice to be heard, we have cyclones, disease outbreaks, earthquakes and such. When religion wants to dominate, holy wars, crusades, holocausts, jihads, and stuff like that break out. And when science unleashes its terror, we have atomic bombs, nuclear winter, biological weapons, etc. These 'element' disasters are uncontrollable and will definitely occur once in a while to bring balance. If we still want anything close to a perfect world, there must be compromise. A perfect balance (which is somehow still going to bring the apocalypse in 2012), where 'good' and 'evil' acts coexist, where destruction and creation are in harmony. Impossible....

The Mayans

2008-06-02T04:56:00.000-07:00

The Mayans were awesome bunch of people. And they we're extremely smart too. They had technology and culture more advanced than anything else when they first began. But their history still remains, largely, a mystery. From what archaeologists could gather, the Mayan ideograms depicted the Mayan gods teaching them many skills such as irrigation, farming and astrology. Based on the fact that before civilizations like the Mayans, such as Babylonian and Sumerian civilizations, mankind was scattered, but much like apes and chimps, humans had small social groups. So how did civilization just pop out in a matter of years. Humankind went from discovering fire to building pyramids in a few hundred years.
This has led many skeptics to believe that we were visited by aliens many thousands of years ago. These aliens thought were thought to be the gods that were depicted in the Mayan ideograms. Think about that. Could it be that the Gods of the ancient civilizations were actually aliens that came to our planet, sowed the seeds and now wait to harvest them. Could it be that the reason the Mayan calender ends on 21st December 2012 is because they were told by their 'gods' that that would be when their time would come. Where their 'gods' would come to claim their prise.
Personally I do not believe in aliens, or more accurately said, I do not believe in the aliens that have been 'invented' by man. Maybe aliens do not have physical form. They could be a sentient force that sweeps across the universe. Or maybe even a non sentient organism such as a microorganism or virus that travels through space. Think about that too. Viruses are almost literally 'dead' in their crystalline form, but once in an organism, they become alive. They cannot reproduce but they can occupy a cell and multiply using that cells DNA code. Or something like that. Which is very weird an unnatural. It could very much be called 'alien' as no other organism displays similar characteristics.
Go back to the question at hand. What did the Mayans mean when their calender only went on to 2012. Most archaeologists agree that the Mayans believed that their Sun God, Quetzalcoatl, would return and engulf the world. Maybe thats not exactly what will happen. Let us explore the astronomic point of view. We can concur that the Mayans were either taught or talented in the field of astronomy. Back then, their high priests could predict eclipses of the sun and moon without any technology. And there is a myth that certain people, most notably Nostradamus, can gaze into the future by staring deeply into the stars (will discuss Nostradamus' later). So could the Mayans have predicted an asteroid or meteor or even a comet colliding with earth. If it did, that could spell the end of the human age, just as the dinosaur age had ended. A lot of freaky shit happens with our sun. And it could be something likened to a massive solar flare might wipe out every living thing in the Milky Way with intense radiation. Who knows. Until my next vision/revelation.