There is no justice in the world. Whatever justice may actually be.

• You do not have any rights, and that nobody else does either. Anyone, including yourself, may be punished or rewarded for anything you have done, regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong".
• You do not have to show anyone respect, and others do not have to respect you.
• You may do anything you like. So may others.
• There is nothing "wrong" about torturing or being tortured, killing or being killed, such that others must intervene. However, they may intervene if they so desire.

Basically, you can do anything if you want but be prepared for the consequences. Whatever it may be. =P

I remember my English teacher making some remarks about an article that mentioned virgin conception, and hence cloning. He felt that the word "create" as in "man can now create another being" was used inappropritately. He felt that the word create refers to making something out of nothing, but man merely took something and modified/copied it, hence it cannot be said that man created a life. So I thought: can man create anything? Then it occured to me that the only thing that man can create is thoughts.

Imagination is a creation in itself. One creates something out of nothing. Yet some would say, isn't what we imagine merely a response to our surroundings? I think this is true. A person in different environments would imagine different things in response to his surroundings. So perhaps imagination itself is not even a creation of mankind.

What would a person who is unable to observe anything think? What were we thinking when we were in the womb, not sensing anything? Were we even thinking? If imagination and thought are merely processes in response to sensory inputs, then it does not seem wrong to say that a person who cannot feel, see, hear, taste or smell cannot think.

If a person cannot think in the modes of sensory inputs that he has never encountered, can he imagine them? Can a blind person(since birth) imagine colour? Can a deaf person(since birth) imagine sound? Sometimes I wonder if a person who is blind and deaf since birth dream in Braille(if he has learnt it).

And now it has occured to me that if I say that I am an idiot right here and I tell people to read my blog, they would probably only notice it if they read carefully. And I do wonder why did I start out this paragraph in the first place? Well, perhaps the reason why I even wanted to write this whole thing in the first place is probably to attract attention. If I did not want to, why did I not write it in a diary? It seems to me that all of each person's actions are based purely for the sake of happiness. And I am rather happy I wrote this paragraph and from here onwards I will try as much as possible to stay on track. But I shall end this paragraph in such a way that this paragraph becomes very long and nobody even wants to read it judging from the last sentence in the paragraph. So you see, despite all our understanding of the world and our beliefs in the ability to understand much of the things happening in the universe, it appears that man would somehow be unable to create anything on his own. He himself is controlled by the laws of nature, and the law of nature defines how he think. The input and process are both not entities that are noble or exclusive to humans. We feel that humans are better or a higher being compared to other animals because we can think. But since the ability to think is nothing exclusive, therefore there is no reason to believe in the sacracy of the lives of man.

What is the meaning of life? I think that this is a rather interesting question. We must first start off with "meaning". Are we thinking about definitions or objectives? It seems that people are more concerned with the second one(unless we are discussing about euthanasia or abortion, but I am not). To approach a problem about objectives, it seems difficult. According to the theory of evolution, life was formed, not made or modified for a purpose, so one cannot say why(In fact if you read my previous entries I have reasoned that there isn't a real reason for anything that people do). However, if we think about the problem as to why it is still here, then there is something we can deal with. One cannot say why an iron ore was here in the first place. But one can ask why an iron ore is here: something moved it here, or it was here all along.

So why is life still here? It is probably because a coincidence created a self propagating and reproductive mechanism. Therefore it is still here. And those mechanisms that propagate better are found in more places and exist in greater numbers. From such, it seems to me that there is nothing noble or sacred about this mechanism. Indeed, death is not easily reversible, but there is nothing that states that it is not possible. It is the technical details that are hard. Life is just like any mechanism. A mechanism does not need a purpose. One does not need a purpose for life to live. One with a life just lives, just like a toaster toasts, like a drill drills. Once this is sorted out, the meaning of life can be anything. However, by coincidence we are beings that are equipped to survive. Some of the equipments are the instinct to avoid wrongdoing to another person as far as possible, the instinct to eat, drink and breathe, the instinct to avoid danger, and the instinct to stay within a group.

So in a sense we have these instincts because if we did not, we would not be here. Simple as that. There is no reason why we are here other than coincidence.

However all I have stated above are mere theories. The theory of evolution is currently under attack (but I still do not see any fatal inductive arguments against it). Whether life was created or not we still do not know. However, the principle of evolution remains clear: it is possible. Many computer simulations have showed so. The walking mechanism in "Shrek" the movie is said to be made using the principle of evolution. Of course creation is possible, but scientists don't like it because it is useless. Creationism has not helped mankind one bit, but the principle and theory of evolution has been a great help to the progress of man. And if there is no evidence against it they don't really care as long as it is useful. (In most areas of physics they don't care if F=ma is true, it is very useful, so they use it)

So let us for once assume that creationism is the way. But does that prove anything? God created mankind. Period. Now from here I do not see any premise-conclusion link between faith and creation. I can try to stick in a premise here though,

Premise: God created Man.
Hidden premise: Man/A being must have faith in whoever created it/him.
Conclusion: Man must have faith in God.

The hidden premise fails the criteria for premise in a premise-conclusion argument, which states that each premise must be true. So, even if God created man, it does not mean that we must have faith. If He created us so that we have faith in Him, why is it not an instinct?

Clearly not. So actually, there are many problems in our lives that do not need to be solved. You can give any answer, as long as it is logical nobody can say it is wrong (just like 0/0 can have any value and you cannot show that it is wrong). No wonder nobody really cares about the meaning of life. There is no real meaning of life that can be proven to be true and unquestioned. Well unless you put it this way,

Premise one: Your purpose of life is to ph34r m3.
Premise two: Premise one is true.
Conclusion: Your purpose of life is to ph43r m3.

Then again there is nothing to show that premise two is true.

Sometimes the trouble lies in the fact that some of the premises are not to be questioned,

Premise one: Premise two is false.
Premise two: Premise one is false.

Conclusion: paradox.

So, since your instinct is to be happy, and it is within our ability to plan for eventual happiness, try to be happy! You don't need a reason to do anything.

neopets teaches me chinese in a fun and innovative way! i learnt a new idiom today! (kidding of course i knew it alrd but u get my point)

i am still feeling pissed. but now it is not too bad because i know that there is no reason why i feel pissed, so i need not feel too bad about it. That is an optimistic view. of course, if my Marvin side kicks in as well i could say i'm hopelessly pissed. But oh well, what is the point of making oneself sad if we gain no eventual happiness out of it? i'll try to cheer up.

and by the way i wish to make this point to someone. 'witty' comments do not make the truth. get some evidence in an argument.

angsty side building up... sigh... rant alert

i feel that arguing on the net is stupid. many do not understand that witty comments do not make the truth, and the person with the last comment need not necessarily be right. and it so happens that in many forums that people with authority on the subject do not need the time to argue with the n00bs. life is not exactly fair, it seems that n00bs have a great deal of time to spend on the forums flaming and spamming and resorting to rhetoric to answer very very logical questions. and majority of the people believe n00bs. the people with stuff tend to lose out as they do not have enough time. since n00bs have more to say people tend to be convinced by them. eventually the guy with authority feels like he is wasting his time and he leaves the forum for good. the n00bs takes this opportunity to 'infer' that the pro guy is intimidated or dumbfounded or convinced and uses this newly gained authority to mislead the rest.

i suggest that people not try to find accurate information on forums. 80% of it is pure junk and another 15% does not look like junk but is. a good way is to ask the teachers to recommend a book. usually they would find one they think is suitable for your level and interest. it is one of the best ways to study extra stuff.

and of course, find an appropriate source to back up your argument. for example books and encyclopaedia and DICTIONARIES are pretty reliable sources.

ja. rant over.

i am an angst man. for no reason. i am not as noble as gordon or other ppl who are pissed all the time because of all the trouble that is bothering the world, or how unfair life had been to them. Gah. i know life had been great to me, has endowed me with what i can use to achieve what i like to have. i can think, and i like to think, i am truly grateful for that. i like to read, and i have many books and great seniors and teachers who like to share what they know with us. i am also grateful for that. however, i am still not happy. i know that i am supposed to be happy, but i can't feel happy. i suppose for this period of time my serotonin and endorphine level is too low. oh by the way i'm grateful to be a guy :-P

sometimes i wonder if there really is a reason to feel emotions. Consider a simple case, "My wallet got stolen, therefore i'm sad." is that so? or is it "I have less to exchange for the things i want, therefore i am sad." But why do you want the things you want? because if you acquire them you'll be happy? so it boils down to "I cannot be happy anymore, therefore i am sad." Sounds like a stupid comment, but i think that emotions indeed cannot be logically reasoned out, after plenty of reasoning you'll just end up with useless things like "i'm happy because i think i will be happy". hmm?

i have reasoned that emotion is a hardwired logical shortcut. somewhat like the L1 cache with BIOS. in some times one cannot decide what to do, and one turns to emotion. i know if i buy this i'll be happy, but i'm worried for my wallet, so what many would do is to follow their heart and take a logical shortcut. This logical shortcut is based on the emotions entangled into the consequences of past actions, if a choice more often leads to a happy ending than bad, then one would tend to feel like making another choice like that again. Hence i say that emotion is a logical shortcut.

But if there any reason why we ought to have emotions? indeed, an emotional outburst tends to be the best logical decision one can make in a very short amount of time. think about it, emotion links the present experience with the past experiences, compares the situation, compares the consequences, and finally deduce what was the decision made that made you happier. All these in a split second. amazing processing power that any numbskull can easily use to 0wn a NASA supercomputer. it probably can't even assess the situation given that amount of time.

But what causes emotions? we must not confuse consequence with cause. primary school teachers often like to say "you are given one mouth and two ears so you should listen more and talk less." WRONG. poor reasoning. "we are given one mouth and two ears therefore we cannot talk as much as we would like, and we are have to listen more than we would like." That is more logical. this fallacy arises because we can derive consequence from cause, but we CANNOT derive cause from consequence.

ok back to the topic. what causes emotions? is reasoning ability a prerequisite to emotion? is euphoria that arose from winning a competition the same as that from drugs? it is likely. there is no direct link from logic to emotion, it seems like another processing unit altogether. Emotions make us do things that are not sensible. Some say, "follow your emotions", for what? so that you can be happy? but isn't happiness an emotion itself? there is nothing wrong in doing things that make us feel good, but is life about anything other than feeling good? i'm afraid not. i hate to admit that life is all about proquring what makes us happy, but that seems to be the case. The book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley is a great book that tells us what could happen if the world becomes overly engrossed with materialistic happiness. it is scary because there is no chance for people to experience the joy of achieving something that is hard to achieve. Apparently, if there were no differences between the happiness felt either by drugs or by achievement, there is no scienctific proof to say that this happiness is more noble or better than the other, since nobility is very much subjective. however, it feels wrong. i can't tell what is wong, but it just seems wrong. and that arises from emotion.

If not for emotions and hardwired conscience, man would not survived and prospered till today. The capitalist society depends on people's materialistic pursuits, rational thinking, and selfish behaviour to work. without conscience or emotion, man is a thinking machine.

Let me ask a question, what would you get if you ask a laptop computer to think? It would shut down after a while to save power, because that is what it was hardwired to do. What would you get if you ask a desktop computer to think? It would set the screensaver on, turn off the moniter, and eventually turn off the harddisks, because it was also hardwired to save power. What would you get if you ask a supercomputer to think? Nothing would happen, it was designed not to crash, to think for long hours, and thinking whatever a programmer comes along and tells it what to try to achieve.

So what would you get if you asked a person to think? A merchant would think of how to earn money, a scientist would think of how to solve his latest problem encountered, a lover would think of how to pursue his othe half. All in all, a processor left alone to think would be thinking of whatever it was designed to achieve. And humans are designed to be happy, to survive, and very importantly, not to break any of the moral codes of conduct. These codes of conduct are hardwired within us. sure, they hinder our goals, but if we ignore them we'll eventually be unhappy, so there is no point in achieve all the other goals. On the other hand, what is the point of sticking firming to moral codes of conduct if you could be happier had you not followed it?

Emotions are curious things that defy logic, they serve a purpose, they guide our lives, yet they are just so happen to be there. So are moral codes of conduct. If not for emotions and conscience, we would have no sense of direction. Cartoons and drama always have these two cute characters in the mind during a tough decision, the angel and the devil. In my opinion, emotion is the devil and concience in the angel. But let us not be mislead into thinking that the angel is in any way more noble than the devil, or that following the angel would certainly lead you to the correct path. In my opinion one should always think carefully, weigh all the possible outcomes, argue for and against boths sides and see who wins the tug of war. One did not "think" out a "logical" answer, the answer to any question always lies in the emotion and conscience, and ultimately, eventual happiness.

'Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions'. ~ David Hume.

My ci2 yu3 shou3 ce4 is better than yours.

GGY has answered all five questions correctly, precisely, and spontaneously! whee!

Answers:

1: 500kg
2: Thermal expansion of water, and to a lesser extent, melting of polar ice caps
3: The oxygen attached to the carbon within the -COOH group, being highly electronegative, draws electrons away from the OH bond, weakening it and allowing the proton to be lost more easily. After the loss, the excess electron is shared by the two highly electronegative oxygen atoms, rendering the ionised state stable, making it less likely for the proton to return to the carboxilate ion.
4. Theory of relativity (GGY gave "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy Content?". Frankly speaking I had never heard of it before he gave it as the answer. I checked and found that this was the very paper which Einstein published his e=mc² thing. Considered that answer correct.)
5. Cervical Vertibrae

GGY r0XX0rz.

he wud pWnzz j00 in th30ry and pr4kt1c4l.

ph34r t3h GGY.

(but of course amyas pwnz him in theory, just like he pwnz everyone else who is 8/7 times his age)