Wired Thoughts

The Fear that once was

2009-04-07T21:14:00.012-07:00

As I started typing this very post, I couldn't help but notice a tiny twinge of fear, in the very back of my head, in some dark alley that I rarely visit. That fear has grown old and weak, very unlike what it was in the first 2 decades of my life ... It has taken almost a decade of critical thought, intelligent conversation, and hours upon hours of introspective soul-searching to finally beat that monster into a harmless twinge.

What is fear exactly? When it comes down to it, fear is the mind's way of anticipating potentially harmful events in the future and warning itself about them. The classical physical and mental response to fear is the well-known fight-or-flight scenario: The brain prepares itself and the body to either face the potential threat head-on, or to flee the situation as quickly as possible. This is obviously useful for survival, as you wouldn't want to encounter a lion in your cave and start analyzing the situation calming and logically. You want to be able to run away as fast as possible, or perhaps face the lion with your spear or boulder or M16. Evolution works really well when it comes to imminent life-or-death predicaments.

What we tend to forget in contemporary society is that evolution is a pretty good solution for the problem of survival and gene propagation, yet it can be far less than optimal in other scenarios; i.e. evolution has side effects.

What is meant to keep us alive and safe, can also make us miserable for no reason. Consider all the fears that infest the contemporary human mind: claustrophobia, agoraphobia, all sorts of social phobias, fear of spiders/insects/moths/, fear of failure, fear of being alone, fear of the after-life, and one of the most interesting fears of all: the meta-fear: fear of being afraid, or fear of fear itself! (Thanks, Roosevelt).

It seems obvious, yet this harsh survival mechanism can go unnoticed in many of us. Many people experience fear and it's nasty physical manifestations without actually stopping to think about this it or analyzing whether it's appropriate given the current context. What's even worse, is that a lot of fear is learned, not biologically intrinsic.

Parents have the ability to instill a lot of fear in their children, often without either party noticing. I myself have definitely been the victim of such an insidious crime. The fears and paranoias are often formed and bred while life ticks away at it's usual pace; there needn't be any trauma or major catastrophic events for this to happen.

So take 20 minutes, sit down, and think about what fears invade your mind on a regular basis. Are they rational fears? Are they warranted? Most of the time, the answer will be "no" to those questions. Fortunately, most of the time you can get rid of those fears as well. It's not easy, but it's definitely possible. More on that in later posts.

Until next time,

--Shafik

The Religion of Peace

2009-04-06T20:59:00.011-07:00

Hello again, fellow thinkers.

Let's make this post direct and to the point: Islam is not a religion of peace like many people claim it is. To the contrary, Islam promotes a certain type of racism and elitism, albeit in a somewhat subtle way.

Whoever claims that Islam is a "religion of peace", is usually trying to appeal to whatever non-Islamic environment surrounds him or her, such as a Muslim living in the United States, or a lecturer in an academic environment. Whoever and whatever they are, they are either ignorant, or lying.

Islam makes it very clear that non-Muslims are simply not as good of people as Muslims are. The Koran seems to clump humanity into 4 general categories:

Muslims: Allah's favorite people.
Christians: Believers in Isa (Jesus) and in God, which is the same as Allah.
Jews: Believers in God as well (with guidance from the Old Testament and especially the Torat).
Unbelievers / Polytheists: Generic non-believers in Allah.

Though there is mention in the Koran of other lesser-known denominations, such as the Sabaeans, not nearly as much attention was given to those groups of people.

Let's take a look at each of the following categories: Christians, Jews, and Unbelievers.

Christians

Christians seem to occupy a gray area on the hatred scale. The most negative Aya in the Koran against the Christians is this one:

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Jews

Jews, on the other hand, are clearly hated:

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

[62.6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.

Unbelievers

What about these guys? Well ... it very clearly sucks for them:

[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

[3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

[2.24] But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

[4.144] O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

These Aya's are straight out of the Koran. I wanted to elaborate more on each one, but I decided it is more effective to have you think about them yourself ... there isn't any ambiguity in any of them, and they are quite clear.

Until next time ... keep that critical-thinking hat on.
--Shafik

Science: It's all about the questions, not the answers.

2009-03-11T12:52:00.005-07:00

This is a direct quote from my friend Craig Brandenburg (check out his blog here):

"That theism is built upon faith is something that continues to puzzle
many non-believers. That science is built upon questions (rather than
answers) is something that continues to puzzle the unscientific.

Science is primarily concerned with the methodologies employed to
explore questions regarding the observable universe. Seemingly
paradoxically, science is carried out by scientists who individually
are usually more concerned with the answers. Let's conflate science
with the scientists no more than we shall conflate theism with
sinners.

The important point about this -- science focusing on methodology
rather than answers -- is that, by definition, science can never
accept the supernatural. The supernatural is exactly that which cannot
be explained or proved and that bars further probing and testing. To
answer a question with "God" is to say: "Ask no further questions."
Science cannot do this. "God" may very well be the correct answer, but
science, if you'll pardon my anthropomorphism, doesn't care; it will
relentlessly attempt to qualify what can be qualified and to quantify
what can be quantified.

This is why in areas in which little is known, science serves up some
rather crackpot-seeming theories. They're the best ones available.
Eventually better theories will come around and enhance or replace the
weaker, less-substantiated ones. History is full of examples of the
progression from theory to better theory. Two of the biggest and
best-known cases are evolution supplanting spontaneous generation
(among other ideas) and relativity improving upon Newtonian physics.
Newtonian physics was even considered unbreakable law, not just
theory. Nope, it turned out to be wrong in special cases. (And
relativity is itself an inadequate explanation in other special
cases.) Science isn't concerned with having been "wrong" once before
and being "wrong" once again; it merely offers the best-fit
explanation at the time and continues onward. The theists then go off
and ponder frantically about the nature of Truth and of validity and
what it means for a theory to be a fact.

Who cares. It's all about the questions, not the answers."

The Return of Wired Thoughts ...

2009-03-03T13:32:00.003-07:00

It seems like this blog went through the same thing that a lot of blogs go through ... a lull characterized by lack of activity, for a long time. This usually comes after a "honey-moon" phase of initial blogging.

I've realized, though, that this blog had some hidden merits for it's author. I noticed that my typing speed improved when I was blogging, I spent less time surfing reddit and other such time-guzzling sites, my vocabulary improved, and most importantly, I felt a better sense of "thinking" throughout the day.

In a way, this blog was my way of meditating. I'm going to start meditating again.

Out of curiosity, how many of you loyal readers check for new posts often? Google Reader says that I have 12 subscribers. If you have read this post, can you post a quick, anonymous comment so I can see if I have any "ghost" stalkers?

As such, I recommend you start blogging if you haven't already done so, and do it regularly. The benefits, though hidden, are well worth the effort.

Cheers,
--Shafik

Christians: An Islamic Perspective.

2008-10-14T23:49:00.008-07:00

One of the interesting things about Islam is that it is a religion that has "protected" itself from criticism by explicitly stating that the mere act of challenging the Koran (i.e. word of God) is a great sin in of itself. You are not supposed to "try to find loopholes" or "errors" in the Koran, since those kinds of things cannot exist, and that if you think for any reason that you have found a discrepancy, then it is simply Satan convincing you as such.

Having been raised as a devout Muslim for the first 17 years of my life, I of course, never questioned any Islamic teachings that I received. Every thing that was taught to me was the Truth, and if I didn't believe it, I would go to hell. Nice and simple.

Well, I guess it's time to sin. I have recently been analyzing the Koran more and more and finding some interesting things. Let's jump right into a simple question:

Assuming Islam is correct, will Christians go to Heaven or Hell when they die?

A simple word search on the text of the Koran for the word "Christians" brings up occurrences in 12 different aya(s) or verses:

(Search Results)

The weird part is that those 12 ayas are quite contradictory semantically. Take a look at aya 30 from chapter 9:

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

That is clearly a negative statement about Christians. It doesn't get much shittier than "may Allah destroy them".

Here are a few more Christian-damning ayas:

[2.135] And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be on the right course. Say: Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrahim, the Hanif, and he was not one of the polytheists.

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Now on the other hand, consider the following two ayas:

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

Both ayas are very similar to each other and, more importantly, they both claim that it's ok to be Christian.

Then you have some ayas that are just confusing like this one:

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

What in Allah's name is going on here? Is this just some kind of Arabic-English translation error? A close look at the Arabic script for those ayas reveals that no, there isn't a translation error, and that the original Arabic Koranic text for those ayas does indeed have the same exact semantics as the English translations shown above.

What is even more scientifically frustrating is the fact that discussing such an obvious contradiction with Muslim friends or family results in an immediate panic over how angry Allah must be right now since we are challenging his words.

Hasn't this been seen by many people before me? Why hasn't anyone mentioned anything about this to me when I was growing up? Well, I am sure that people did come across this contradiction (amongst others), but decided that they only think it's a contradiction because Satan is playing with their heads, or because they are not worthy of understanding what Allah truly means.

Give me a break.

Until next time,
--Shafik

What is the square-root of -1?

2008-10-08T20:07:00.017-07:00

Have you ever wondered why complex numbers exist? Have you ever wondered why the hell j == square-root of -1? Were you ever dissatisfied by the explanation your math or engineering profs gave you in college? If you are mathematically inclined (you need to have studied a significant amount of college-level mathematics) and are curious about the way the world works, keep reading.

In math we have the concept of the real number line ... a bunch of numbers that lie in a straight line that stretches from negative infinity to positive infinity. These are 1-D numbers:

. . . . . - 3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . . . .

We can easily wrap our heads around this concept. Now, what if we consider 2-D numbers? Numbers that are simply a pair of "x-y" coordinates? Well, this was a little harder to grasp in highschool, but we still understood it relatively easily:


              .
              .
              3
              2
              1
... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ...
             -1
             -2
             -3
              .
              .

Perhaps we can call 2-D numbers the special word 2D vectors. Where a vector is simply two numbers: (x, y), where x denotes the horizontal portion of the vector, and y denotes the vertical portion.

Ok, so far so good. Hold on to your hats, we are about to get way more technical.

Consider what a "2D rotation" operation in computer graphics is: it is a linear transformation and hence can be represented as a matrix multiplication operation. It is well known that rotation by an angle theta in the 2D field is left-multiplication by this 2x2 matrix:

[ cos(theta) -sin(theta) ]
[ sin(theta) cos(theta) ]

What if we set theta == pi/2 ? (90 degrees counter-clockwise) then that matrix, call it A, becomes:


[ 0      -1]
[ 1       0]

Viola. Now we can rotate any point, (x, y), by left-multiplying it with this matrix A:


[ 0     -1]   [x]         ==  [w]
[ 1      0]   [y]             [z]

where (w, z) is the resultant vector after rotation.

Now, let's do something very common for square matrices: let's compute the eigen values for this matrix A:

Remember, the eigen values of a matrix, are scalar values such that multiplying a vector by those scalar values is the same as multiplying that the matrix with that same vector.

In other words, the eigen values, are all values such that:

Ax = ex

Where A is the matrix whose eigenvalues we are trying to find, and e is the scalar eigen-value we are trying to solve for. x is any non-null (non-zero) vector.

So, from that equation we have:

(A-eI)x = 0

Where "I" is the 2x2 identity matrix.

Ok, since x is not a zero vector, we have:

det(A - eI) = 0, or the determinant of


[ -e         -1]
[1           -e]      == 0

Now we have to simply find the roots of the characteristic polynomial of this matrix, to find the value of e:

e^2 + 1 == 0, or e = sqrt(-1)

We have arrived at the most beautiful conclusion ever: without ever mentioning anything about complex numbers, abstract algebra, Abelian groups, Euler's formulae, etc, we find ourselves in need of defining the quantity sqrt(-1).

Again, remember what an eigen value really means in this situation: this is saying, to rotate a vector by 90 degrees in 2D-space we can either multiply by this well known matrix, A, or we can multiply by a mysterious quantity, sqrt(-1).

Of course, it makes sense that the eigen value for a rotation matrix wouldn't be a simple real scalar, since a real number multiplied with a vector would simply scale that vector's magnitude, not rotate it in any way. Cool eh?

We can see from this that the fact that j (or i) == sqrt(-1) is not merely a convention that some mathematician came up with ... it is a fundamental part of dealing with numbers. Much like how negative numbers were "discovered" at a point in time where they might have been seen as "useless".

So. How we find a mystery number, m, that when multiplied by itself twice gives us the sqrt(-1)? Easy. We think in two dimensions.

We are basically looking for 1 x m x m = -1

The number 1 represented in 2 dimensions is the vector (0, 1). We know that the vector (0, -1) is the same as the vector (0, 1) but rotated 180 degrees. So, we rotate (0, 1) by 90 degrees twice to get to (0, -1). How do we "rotate by 90 degrees" again? Easy ... we just showed, it's by multiplying by "sqrt(-1)". Hence we have m = j. Or more clearly, the number that represents a 90 degree counter-clockwise rotation is simply this new construct "j".

One last question to take care of: Why can we use j in normal algebraic equations and treat it just like any other ordinary number? Magic? No. The reason is subtle: We arrived at the need for a "real number that is equal to the sqrt(-1)" when we were figuring out the eigen value of that rotation Matrix A. Of course, no such number exists, but if it did exist, then it just be yet another number! We can multiply/divide/add/subtract it just like we can multiply/divide/add/subtract the number 7. The only caveat is that is a rotation and hence lives on a different (and orthogonal) axis to the real-number axis. No problem, we just have to start thinking in 2D when we need the concept of sqrt(-1). There is a very real connection though between j and the real numbers, and that connection is precisely that, when we square j (i.e. j^2), we get -1, a negative number that we are very familiar with.

That's it!

If you understood this post then congratualtions: you have just linked the two seemingly unrelated fields in mathematics: Linear Algebra, and Complex Algebra.

Until next time,
--Shafik

Remember Everything

2008-09-25T22:18:00.022-07:00

Ah yes, the past ... what a wonderfully vague concept made available by our human brain.

If you're like most other people on this planet, you have long-term memory. This gives you the ability to recall events, stories, plots, and the like, since you were around 4 or 5 years old till the present day. This is useful, since it let's you learn from prior experiences, and hence was selected for evolutionarily.

Don't be fooled, however, into thinking that your long-term memory acts like a tape drive with the record button pushed, recording the input from your five senses continuously since you started to remember things. That's way too demanding on your little gray-goop-matter computer. Let's see how much space I would need to store my long-term memory's information if that were indeed the case:

Given that the DivX file format is approximately 10MB/sec for lossy-compressed-yet-good-quality video, let's double that and say that we can encode human vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste at decent quality for about 20MB/sec. That gives us:

20 x 1048576 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 23 = 253,520,510,976,000 bytes, or roughly 250 TB of data over the last 23 years of my life. Nope. My brain is not that awesome.

So what's happening then?

That is a question that probably won't be answered in our lifetimes. In fact we have such a weak understanding of how memory is actually encoded in our brains that it's really not worth hypothesizing about.

You probably have heard, however, that emotions affect the quality of the memory of a certain event. You probably have witnessed this effect yourself. Do you remember the first time you had sex? Of course you do ... you were excited, nervous, happy, scared and all sorts of other emotions. You will probably never lose that memory for a long, long time.

It turns out emotions and long-term memory seem to be processed by the same region in the brain: the Limbic System. This is no coincidence. It's evolutionarily valuable to be able to remember occasions and events that occurred during high levels of emotional arousal, such as while being "angry" or "sad" or "happy". Generally speaking, the stronger the emotion at the time of the event, the stronger that event will be "remembered" or encoded in the brain's long-term storage. Events that don't carry much emotion are generally considered as "unimportant" by the Limbic System, and hence are not remembered as well. This process allows for "efficient" storage of memories.

It is generally accepted that most animal species have a limbic system, yet few have a powerful Neo-cortex like us humans, supporting the fact that emotionally-linked-long-term memory is more essential to survival than complex problem-solving or linguistic skills.

Now the juicy part.

You and I can recognize these facts about the human brain, and exploit them. This is a very small view-port into the massive world of NLP:

If you want to remember an event better, generate a lot of emotion during the event.

I realize that sentence is easier said than done, though it is quite doable, and you should try it. Next time you need to remember a phone number, recall a very emotional event during the act of memorizing the phone number. Associate that emotional event with the number as best as you can. If you can't recall any specific emotional event, just make one up. Strange? Very, yet still practical.

Let's consider a simple example.

Suppose I tell you to remember this 7 digit number: 134-9910. Now think of something that was emotionally charged for you in the past, and work that number somehow into your memory's "plot". It can be something totally crazy, like you can imagine these digits as being the serial number to the coffin your grandmother laid in that day you went to her funeral. Go back to that day, and really feel what you felt at the time. The sadness, the uncertainty, the etc. See what you saw at the time, and try to recall the smells and other aspects of that past environment.

If none of your emotionally charged past events come to mind, make up a plot. Close your eyes and imagine you are sitting next to the TV with a lottery ticket, when you realize, that your number is being built up ... first comes the 1, then the 3 ... then the 4 ... then the 9 ... oh my fucking god, can this really be it?? Another 9 shows up on the screen ... hooolllyyy shit. A 1 follows that nine, and by now you freaking out ... then bam! the number 0 is the final digit. What an emotional roller-coaster.

Generally speaking, the memory "storage" will be stronger the stronger the emotions were while remembering/imagining the intense event.

It's important to note that these kinds of NLP techniques have been met with various amounts of criticism, and many times rightfully so. It's more important, however, to realize that stepping outside the box and using strange techniques for solving life's problems might be quite beneficial to you and me, so this is at least worth a try before being rejected.

Until next time,
--Shafik

Richard Dawkins: A Wired Thinker

2008-09-21T21:04:00.005-07:00

Richard Dawkins is a person that no matter how hard I try disagreeing with, I always fail. Here's a short 20-minute lecture given by him on his thoughts about the universe and existence:

http://ovablastic.blogspot.com/2008/09/richard-dawkins-jaw-dropping-talk-on.html

Give it a look when you have some free time. Sometimes I wish I could bring all great thinkers like this guy into one room and see what ensues.

Till next time,
--Shafik

To do What?!

2008-09-14T23:45:00.007-07:00

Somewhere in the ACA office where I work, a co-worker of mine, named Craig, and I were discussing the aging process in the human lifespan. Byron is a 56 year old coworker who happened to eavesdrop on our conversation and contribute his two cents ...

Me: After about age 35, your body begins to slow down, and it's pretty much downhill from there.
Craig: Aright, so I have got about 7 more years ...
Byron: To do What?!
Me: Hahahaha ...
My internal voice: Wait a minute, this is actually quite profound.

Those 3 simple words from Byron have had the most profound influence on my general outlook in life in the past 2 years. Think about it for a second:

Do you have any idea what you're doing with your life? What purpose are you serving on this planet? Why are you alive? More importantly, why do you want to stay alive? Why do the vast majority of people that can't answer that question still strive to stay alive? Curious ...

Since I am an avid reductionist, I am going to put you in one of two categories:

There are basically two scenarios:

You believe in an after-life, and you believe you can work towards a pleasant one by behaving or living a certain way in your current life.
You don't believe in an after-life. You believe that this current life is the one and only life you will ever experience.

Most religious people are in category #1, and most atheists are in category #2, though this does not always have to be the case.

Now let's say you are in category #1. You believe that this current life is merely a transition, and not the end goal. The stronger your belief in an after-life, the more you "discount" the current life as being all that important, and the more content you are with just "getting through" the current life so that you can reap the benefits of a wonderful after-life.

On the other hand, let's say you are in category #2. You believe that after you die, *nothing* is going to happen, in the sense that you will no longer exist, and anything else that happens to the universe at that point will not be "known" to you. This is indeed quite an unsettling fact, and many-a folk would rather not think about it, especially if they are of a young age.

The interesting thing is that in both cases, you realize that life is more or less "useless". Personally I think category #2 is harder to be in ... since you will die someday, and there's absolute nothing-ness after that. Why would you deal with life's hardships? Why would you bother having kids? Why would you bother making sure these kids are financially secure *after* you die? Why not just get shoot heroin and feel artificially euphoric all the way up to the moment you die? Why be a "good" person?

I believe humans in category #2 go through a lot of cognitive dissonance when their life gets really tough: in one hand, life is useless anyway, so why go through this nonsense? On the other hand, their Selfish Genes keep them from committing suicide. This is why "motivational speaker" is an actual profession, and quite a lucrative one I might add. A better title would be "Existential Cognitive-Dissonance Resolver".

If you are in category #1, things might be a little easier. If life gets tough, you might say to yourself "nono, I must not give up ... this is just testing me". This keeps cognitive dissonance levels low. It keeps your hopes and happiness levels up. It keeps you from lashing or acting out, which is good for society as a whole. This is probably one of the reasons why religion is so widespread.

This can get really dangerous, however, when there is a way for suicide to become "legal" in one's religion or beliefs. Take the case of Muslim suicide bombers ... they believe that by being a martyr and dying for their country/religion, they will enter an ever-lasting life of pleasure in paradise. If their current life is filled with poverty, illness, problems, and major unhappiness, the decision to suicide becomes quite appealing. It's that simple.

What should one do then? This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't type situation. Well I believe that the best study of life is how it is, not how we want it to be. If you realize that life is just a temporary existence, one way or another, you might begin to take it easy on yourself, you might realize that you don't have to work yourself to death in order to leave a huge amount of wealth for your offspring. You might be able to stop yourself and enjoy the "little things" in life, as horribly cliche' as that is. However you will have to work harder at convicing yourself that having morals, being good to other people, being honest, etc are good things to be. I suggest a healthy dose of Epicureanism.

It seems, then, that the only way to fully enjoy life is to realize, one way or another, that life is completely meaningless ...

Until next time,
--Shafik

Awesome Post!

2008-09-11T00:56:00.005-07:00

Now comes with 30% less grammar mistakes. 100% proper English, all natural.

Yeah right. Just because my post claims that in big letters at the beginning, it doesn't mean that this is a good post, or that it's worth reading.

Same goes for stuff you buy in the grocery store ... if you see something that reads like "this is healthy!!", don't just trust the marketing department of that brand. This has become increasingly sneaky with food products. Make sure your perceived value of the product is not being manipulated in any way.

Here is a list of common phrases on food packages and their actual translations:

"Fat free!" ---> "Loaded with sugar or salt!!"
"Only 100 calories per serving!" ---> "The serving size is small as shit, and this food is not good for you!"
"Tastes great!" ---> "Does not taste great!"
"All natural" ---> "Does not contain known carcinogens, but might still be bad for you"
"Light" ---> "Same product, just less dense ... maybe mixed with water or something". Check this out for an example.

You get the idea.

Don't let some marketing department persuade you. A food package in the store should be judged by nothing but these 4 things:

Nutrition label
Ingredient list
Price
What other people that you trust say about it.

#1 and #2 are regulated by the FDA, aka the law, and even though producers try to stretch the limits of truth to their advantage as much as possible, they more or less have to be honest.

Now you might be thinking "ah, I'm smart, this marketing stuff doesn't affect me", think again. It could be more sneaky than you'd expect, especially if you're hungry. You might pass by a deli-cheese pack that has a drawing of a perfect hamburger and subconsciously think "Yum ... a hamburger sounds really good right now ... lemme check it out", and you end up with a pack of cheese in your fridge.

If you would like to see the delicious hamburger drawing, come on over and look in my fridge.

It begins with Meta

2008-09-10T22:26:00.004-07:00

What does every single person do when they first start a blog? They talk about what that blog is going to be about, of course. Usually something along the lines of "This is me, and this is what I do, and this blog will be about this or that".

Well, I'm going to do no different, though one can argue that at this point this is not just a meta-post, it's a meta-meta-post, since it's a post talking about the meta-post ...

This blog will be about interesting yet seemingly random thoughts about life in general. Mostly things that are not usually discussed. The kind of thoughts that might pop into your head during that "drift-off" phase of sleep, right before you lose consciousness.

The subjects of the post will come from a wide variety of categories, including but not limited to:

1. Psychology
2. Religion
3. Relationships
4. Philosophy
5. Biology
6. Technology
7. Too-complex-and-weird-to-have-its-own-category

This blog is not for the close-minded or the faint of heart.