Sunday, December 21, 2008


So many things are happening inside me. So many thoughts and ideas I want to write about. Once upon I feel I have an image of things and then it dissapears. Lately I managed to keep some of these ideas, it doesn't feel anymore like the past where all my thoughts were scattered. There is a ground to base upon. All these posts are just pieces of the puzzle.

I am just confused and I want to write. There are some recent ideas I am more familiar with, which I would like to analyze. It feels they make perfect sense although I spend too many words when I try to describe them. But they make a simple perfect sense. I only don't know how some of these can help me right now in some aspects of my life. But they have released the anxiety and blame upon myself on other domains.

Today I will write about meaning. I am not sure what people mean when speaking of nihilism but I think I am approaching it more recently. Which is not necessary bad. Nihilism for me is not about thinking your life has no meaning. It's not that black. It's an understanding of a possibility. The possibility that maybe there is no meaning. Or at least it might be not a good idea to waste your time and nerves searching for what isn't there. Which is not what I am doing in my blog, since I am used to desperately analyze thoughts and ideas trying to find an end. And never finding it..

Nihilism can also mean to feel things flat. Like you were a non-human entity observing human societies and shed no tears about what's happening in there. You observe and accept that each person acts in it's own way. Some people try to be loyal because they want to, learned to or are oblidged to, some people steal and murder because they have to or they like to. Some people are sad, some don't care about certain things but show interest for other stuff. You can't change that. Everyone has a different idea about what is right and what is wrong but there is a common social consensus which dominates the other views.

Things happen. I was born, grew up and here I am. The age and place I was born defines the way the society is and what most people tend to believe. Maybe the way I am is incompatible with what most people would like to see. Most people dislike or are afraid of those who differ for some reasons I don't know. I am still searching of these reasons. It happens that right at the moment I am who I am. Both biological and enviromental reasons play their role to what I am right now. My knowledge of these reasons might play a role to what I will become in the future. I need to know. I am trying to give a meaning to all these, to explain why am I what I am and in which ways is that incompatible with the society I am living in. I don't see any proof of an external meaning but I see cause and effect. Everything just happens. I only accept the fact that humans seek for a meaning or need something to believe on. I do that too sometimes. But a naked view of the blurry truth is here. Who am I, why am I, what is the society and why? And I need to know!

In order to know I have to start from ground zero. Things happen. This is what I am now. This is the society. People have motives. People like to feel good. Things are not always what they seem to be or what we like them to be. How can we look straight at the naked truth?

Good luck.


I had those dreams. Dreams of rage. Rage about the things as they are, rage about the past, rage as a relief or a means to shout at people or an excuse to accept things as they are, including me. An emotion that helps me to deny the things as they want it to be and understand me. Not even that. I don't even care if they understand. As if they ever tried to make a sense out of this..

Rage out of desperation. I get criticized. I believe them. And suddenly I realise that nobody really cares. They think they have the rights to make me feel miserable. And they think they are doing it for my good.

Rage about my past. About those young people who thought they had the right to treat me badly. How could they know? Do they know now? They thought they had the right. They still do..

In my dream, I was screaming. "I don't understand it! I don't understand it!". Maybe I don't want to understand it. I deny understanding it. I don't accept it. I had enought with it so I decided oneday to stop listening to it. Rage out of desperation and a hope of change. Will things ever change? Or am I bound to feel the same way?

I wish I went back to the past right now that I know, to react differently. To be straight and strict towards anyone who would like to tease me or harm me. To speak straight towards anyone who tries to criticize me. Because right now I do know better who I and which is my position in a society like this. But I am too hurt. I am wondering if this is the reason why I have lost all my energy.

They can't understand. They don't want to understand. At social situations you don't speak the truth but what people want to hear. There is no attempt to really look deep into the problem rather than present opinions as a show off that you and me are really into the same social circle. It creates a feeling of belonging. You exchange predictable opinions that puts you into a place of social acceptance. I cannot describe. I may be doing it too at times. Except when the truth matters to me. Others may be doing it and not being aware of. Maybe I will be or not be doing it in the future while being aware of the facade. An ironic or pesimistic feeling of how things are. Nobody ever cared about the truth..

I took everything seriously. There are the facts and there is cognitive dissonance. It's when you take every fact in account and you try to solve a puzzle. Things must make a sense. Both the facts about the world around you and the facts about yourself. The problem is that it is unsolvable. Maybe it's an evolutionary advantage to not trying to be one hundred percent perfect about your thoughts, your feelings and the world. Everything contradicts with each other and itself. Although I haven't chosen to think like this. I think it is in my brain. I can't but notice things that doesn't seem right. My mind or emotions can't easilly let discrepancies go.

When they criticized me they seemed serious to me. I was wrong. There are several other reasons to criticize people. Caring about what is really true and right is a rare one. The problem is that I took their criticism seriously. As if they showed a piece of the truth that made me feel awfully. And that truth was predictable, it was "common sense", it was one that everyone kept repeating again and again. It was my compulsive thoughts that lowered my self-esteem. But if it was true and if it was obvious then why are there people like me who are not like most people? Are they too stupid to understand what is right and what is wrong? Or are they stubborn?

For a long time I was lost in these questions. If people move on, if they are sucesful as students and workers, if they are social and not shy like me, have it easy with girls, are always looking cool and are not slow thinkers like me and they do not have the same cognitive problems as me then what am I doing wrong? Am I lazy? Am I stubborn? Am I stupid? Can I accept that? Do I have to feel that bad to change? Why haven't I still changed? If there is really a problem with me that justifies my unsucess then what can I say about people who claim that they were just like me and they tried and changed? Does this mean that I have no excuse? That I am just stupid, stubborn and every negative label the people who criticize me can give me? Why do they keep doing this when all they achieve is to kill more of my missing self-esteem and put me deeper in the ground? Do they believe that I will break and suddenly decide it's time to change my life? It never really happened..

So many years have past. After the initial point when the idea was first implanted in my brain. So many years during which I have evolved into ruminating thoughts concerning what I am and what other people think about me. In fact I kept being tortured by my very own thoughts. My thoughts which were their thoughts. Why? I don't understand it!!!

Out of rage I decided it's time to play the game my way.

I have made a split in three. About the truth and my connection to it.

  • The true facts

  • The facts that you tell to yourself

  • The lies you tell to others

In the past I had a great need of all three making perfect sense together. Which is quite naive. But I really needed for things to make sense. The truth (total objectivity), my feelings (facts compatible with my personality) and the ideas of the world (the social consensus). I always felt dissatisfied as expected. Most people even made me feel they already knew the truth (the obvious, the predictable memes of what is socially accepted and what is not) and that I was the naive and still puzzled. But the third factor is usually motivated by socialization and not the seek for what is really there. I learned that later. I thought people were based on the truth. Even if they thought they did, there were other motives. Not truth itself. Nobody really cared even if they made me think so.

It doesn't make a sense. Out of rage I decided to not care anymore. Seeking for the truth is going on, I can't stop it. It's interesting. It will go on. But I will stop caring about the rest. I managed after all these years to persuade myself to take another root concerning the personal feeling and social way (two and three). I can tell myself the facts I wish to make him feel better. It's not easy, while in slot one I will keep the possibility of the hard truth, but since I will never be sure about that I can speak of something else that myself prefers to think about. If (for example) I lost my job because I felt I was not competent one but nobody told me so, I only assumed they didn't tell me, then I can keep it as a possibility but say to myself that I did my job well and there were other acceptable reasons of why I had to be fired. And number three. Number three, what do I tell to others about that needs a whole paragraph itself. It's the game that we play and I never thought it was so until now.

Number three, the lies I'll tell to the others. Since I wrongly thought people were serious and they care about the truth, since it never occured to me to think that some people might criticize me because it makes them feel better by degrading me or thinking they try to help me just to feel nicer, since I never thought that even people seemingly criticizing me just wanted to say their opinions because that's the way someone socializes and they will of course refer to predictable and socially accepted facts instead of their own opinion, since this is a game where things are going bad for me because I am different and the common sense is incompatible to that, I decided that in number three is where I am gonna care the less. This can mean various things. It means that if someone criticizes me or asks for my opinion on something, I can play games and I can move towards any path. If I am in the mood I can speak of the truth as it is, as I feel it, as I prefer to feel it or I can also agree in a way without believing it in order to avoid the discussion or not become aggresive when I am not in the mood. I can make tricky questions, confuse them, give them examples that show the contradictions of what they tell me. Depends on the person, the mood, the situation, the fun. Since it's meaningless at number three then why not play the game people always did and never told me?

But rage remains. I want to get out and criticize those who criticized me. When people degrade those in need of self-esteem and they claim to be helping them, when they think they have the right as young persons to bully you at school and as grown up persons to criticize you for your incompetent life and when they feel they are doing right then it is the time when I want to get out and shout! There comes the time when I feel the urge to continue searching for the truth, because at the stake of it is where the game is played. The truth, the belief of what is right and what is wrong, and which of these "truths" are more common to the public, thus actions based on them are blindly accepted.

One thing remains. Why am I searching for the truth? Is it the truth itself or some motives? A thing of the past? Rage out of the fact that I don't know. I don't know what to believe. I don't know why am I here and why I am doing all these. I don't even know how to improve things in my life that may indirectly affect this urge. Millions of things in my mind and a blatant search for perfection.

Would just shouting do anything for me? What for? To ask for more later???

Monday, December 01, 2008

A whole image that gives me a better perspective of the whole image

Starting idea: We have neural networks. They work in parallel. When you see a picture millions of them are fired, thousands of ideas on a simple object, both the details but mainly the whole image. When you see a picture you instantly recognise a house, the trees, the people, the cars, whatever is in the image and is familiar. A computer would see that as a series of pixels, colored areas, shapes and not even that. We had to train it. But what would you tell the computer when it asked you: "How the hell did you managed to perceive in nanoseconds that it's a house surrounded by trees, windows, cars, people, etc and even receive ideas about how beatiful or peaceful or nice it seems plus millions afterthoughts?". Would you say that it just occured to you? That it's obvious? Or would you recollect and find some reasons: "It's a house because it has windows, roof, door". And how did you recognised instantly that something is a door or a window? Is it the texture? The bricks? The wood? And what are all these?

When you give a mathematical problem to someone and instantly he can feel which is the right and easy way to solve it and where are the traps, when he has already decided in few seconds or a minute which method to follow and you wonder how the fuck did he thought about it, it is like the same thing. I am a mathematician. I have a good picture of mathematical notions, symbolism, a visual perception of maths but I am missing one thing. In university exams it's very possible I will fail, especially when the subjects are tricky. I will read a problem and maybe follow an obvious path that leads to too much calculations or prooves to be hardly solvable this way. To solve the problem, someone might have to add and substract a new variable, draw a non obvious straight line on a geometrical problem, generally do something non so obvious making you wonder "How the fuck did he know it?". Either he has already solved the exercise somewhere else or,.. he has a talent! Talent? Btw, I have that talent in programming but never asked myself how the hell did I thought a crazy optimization idea or a non standard solution to an algorithm. People that study programming and come to me for help are wondering about specific notions of programming they can't understand or how the hell are they supposed to create anything. And their questions seems preety much obvious to me. I am the human intelligence and they are the computers. In analog, the math genious is the human intelligence and I look at him with awe as I am a stupid computer. We don't know why we know what we know. It's obvious to us human intelligences. It's unreachable, it's a talent to the corresponding stupid computers.

Roots of intelligence

There is no single definition of intelligence. It can be everything. Someone might be very good at solving Sudoku even if it's unpractical. I am very good at programming but suck at math. No, even math intelligence can be separated in subsections of intelligence. I am good at understanding the concepts especially visually. I am good at making a practical use of them. But I always sucked at solving mathematical problems just to pass the exams. I also suck at studying (The alternative path for exam success would be to solve one thousand exercises per month and have a very good memory too). Yet I am better at programming than maths. I can find in a very short time alternative solutions or optimizations to algorithms, a kind of coding intuition, people staring at me and wondering where the hell do they sell inspiration and I bought some?

Humans are intelligent at interpreting imagery. We instantly see houses, faces, cars, dogs, cats, plants and even smaller details in a blink of an eye. Computers need to be prepared with sophisticated image recognition software to achieve that. If I ask you to add all numbers from 1 to 100 you may either take a long time to make all the additions one by one (each of you may either be preferably more fast according to the means: paper and pencil, calculator or abacus) or use your intelligence to invent an equation to do it fast (like Pascal did iirc) but a computer would still do that from zero to one million in nanoseconds. That's why they are called computers :)

They say that great pianists had in such way evolved neural networks in their brains that justified their unique talent. Say that because of my long lasting occupation as a computer programmer I have evolved in such way my neural networks that I can instantly have a whole image of programming and algorithmical problem solving and is quite easier for me to read a programming exercise in university exams and know what to do. The same way it's easy for a math genious which leaves me wondering how it's possible. I am not even aware that it's a talent. Evolution is slow. It seems obvious to me, I even don't remember when there was a time that I wasn't able to grasp the primary notions. Imagine that each of us has some overdeveloped networks of neural nets that help them perform specific functions faster and better than others while we have weak or badly developed networks on other aspects. I am good at programming and optimization, bad at planning, lazy in studying, not a good socializer. Others are better or worse on various other aspects. Viewing it like this it gave me a lot of possible answers to what is intelligence, talent, intuition, habits, personality and the main questions raised are what are the reasons we have evolved our brain this way and how easilly can some things change.

I mean, I am good at programming because I was into programming for years and my brain has learned to deal with these kinds of problems before my eyes. But there must be a time I wasn't good at programming. There must be an initial moment when my skills on programming, maths, socialization or even things like my resistance and attitude to laziness, ability to plan, reaction to emotions or habits, where all set at zero. There was a time that when I should start learning how to approach girls or drink beer, I was lost into binary logic. Why maths and no girls? Why girls and no maths? Why computers and no maths? Why not everything? Why avoiding or not being interested in some? What dragged me into others?

I am thinking of two or three primary reasons. And you can add more. Questionable is how biology plays a role. Then it is our choices in the past. And then it is emotions. Someone would add social or school or family environment, inspirations from the outside world, etc. These are secondary but I believe that the whole of them can fit into one bigger image.

Brain biology: I was always a fan of this notion. I have the feeling that I am better or worse at some things no matter how I try because of this. Of course there is a possibility that this could be a delusion. Maybe, if after the years I overdeveloped the neural networks for programming and underdeveloped those having to do with socialization then it all seems to hard to change. So hard that it feels like I was born with that. But even the sole idea that everything is tabula rasa doesn't wipe out the influence that brain biology can bring to the game. Some people are too emotional and others are psychopaths. Some have more analytical way of thinking and others are more capable socialy. Even if I can't answer to the question whether this brain differences where initial or evolved. Actually what could be initial would be the biological inclination to evolve to each different path. If for example analytical thought favours certain brain parts that happened to be in better communication with each others at birth, then there is a higher posibility for certain choices or habits. It doesn't predict if he will evolve his neural networks towards being good at math or a good socializer though. But it affects. It affects the path that will bring us to now and make us think why we are what we are. Put an asterisk to that though, it's great for studying further (and I am not a neuroscientist to know).

Choices. I often wonder. What would happen if I had not taken the path to become a great computer programmer? Would I have not evolved my neural networks into that. Would I now be staring at algorithm solutions and optimizations uncapable of thinking how is this possible? Would I have instead found a purpose in my studies and become a genious at math? Would I met some other people, another hobby, another purpose and be something completely different? That initial moment when I was 16 and was teased by my classmates and thought I would proove them smarter or gain my lost self-esteem by becoming great at something nobody understands. That initial moment could have happened by chance? Chance is how I am currently thinking it. They say that evolution is not exactly chance. There is a purpose but no creator. It's more like natural selection. Of course chance exists, my attention could have been drawn by something else and snap a different choice. But in the big picture when you see all the pieces together you can see a patern. They ask me what would happen if there were no computers in the world. Would I be just like the rest? Would I just engage in regular boring activities? Most probably I would have found another geeky hobby. If I was a neandertal I would invent fire or something. I know it :). But things could slightly change, I would be good at maths instead of programming, with different friends or parents I could have evolved slightly different habbits, different ways of reacting to my negative emotions, family and society could surely play a role in the way my neural networks evolved. But the primary motive would still be here. My brain wanted to learn, to be creative, I couldn't stop analyzing things (Remember the number one reason here).

Emotions. They can make you love or hate things. Maybe it's the reasons I am not motivated to solve maths or study. And remember, some old habits, some old evolved neural networks are hardly changed if not modified. In order to be really good at maths as I am in programming I'd have to be motivated to solve thousands of exercises just to pass the exams. What if I studied computers science and had maths as a hobby? Still something missing. Motivation. I am motivated to solve problems with a practical use unlike math problems at school which are useful just to pass the exams. I use maths but for algorithms. They are not the same. Maths at exams are like sudoku puzzles, at least some of them. And the rest are boring. I could put motivation into the equation among with emotions and a sense of purpose for what we do. Emotions, there can be negative. You can hate things. They form your habbits. Maybe I always liked the idea of great scientists that dragged me into wishing to become a great computer programmer or something. Maybe that was the initial tension at 16 to follow that path which after a lot of practice evolved my neural brains in such a way to be easilly for me to fiddle with algorithms and stuff. I am wondering now if negative emotions among other people led me into avoiding socialization. Currently I believe that being too emotional makes me being extremely overwhelmed when into social situations. Emotions complicate matters too much. They form our personality, our habits, our tensions to follow or avoid any path. And when we follow our habits, that piece of neural networks which is connected with that is preserved more and more as much as it used and should be abandoned for a very long to be wiped out and/or replaced with a parallel path. That's why it's too hard to change. When you have learned to hate social situations or the people who criticise you for being weird and not having a life then how easy is to change? And why change the habit of thinking too much or programming when they are such valuable talents to most? And when they keep telling you that you are not normal and you keep reacting to the negative emotions with the same boring way then imagine what happens in your brain and how badly you enstregthen the chronic situation. A big turn has to be done there.


You have a path that split in two. At the initial point where you have to make a choice, not speaking about the different realities at stake, it seems that at the initial point you didn't have a preference. Let's say that you didn't. From that point and later, what follows forms a tendency. Say that initialy I decided to become a great programmer. I started coding slowly slowly, then I learned a little, then a little more, then I liked what I was doing because I became better at it. Then my neural networks had already evolved a little into that direction. When you walk a road you can't just go back and take another one. As long as a tendency to work on programming problems was slowly slowly formed into my brain, as long as new neural cells were infected by my engagement in programming, the more my neural nets were fired towards that direction. I could even stare at an image or hear a word having nothing to do with computers and somehow relate it to my hobby because there were more cells infected with programming specific things. I am not really into neuroscience (even if I'd like to learn more) to know how neural cells or networks work (I am even feeling I am using the wrong terms) and how they evolve, if they grow, even if it's an empty hard disk or new trees are born, I just speak out of how I feel the whole picture of what I am talking about. Anyways, the more you are engaged with something, the more your brain is filled with that stuff and the more it's filled, the more you are inclined to be more engaged with that. Kinda like a vicious circle. But there was that initial point where the skill was near zero and there was no inclination towards it just pure chance. Or wasn't it?

It wasn't. Computer programming was not a thing I was aware of once I was born. But there were other notions related to it. Somewhere I have heard that programmers are scientists. Somewhere else I have heard that scientists are smart or cool. I have also heard that computer is the future. I liked their colors and shapes. Did I always have that visual mathematician way to view things? Or did it evolve too? If scientists were cool and computers were fancy and I also needed an injection of self-esteem that would make a good match but how did I have the notions of good and cool and sexy and smart? There was an initial point where everything was at zero. I knew nothing. Pure chance? Or also brain biology?

You can say that I was an analytical brain. But what if this was a tension too? What if I decided to think too much? What if at a very early stage a primary tension/tendency/inclination towards thinking and analyzing was build up, some of the first evolved neural networks were build upon this scheme? And this scheme made me seek for knowledge and understanding? It could be with others too. I am not the only who thinks in here. But why do I think so much? Why do I think much more than others? Could we say it's just psychological? I think it's a biological difference in brain. But this part is still in debate.

Still thinking about tendecies is important. I found one that one primary reason at the time that I initialy have chosen to become a good programmer was that it snapped me that I would heal my bad self-esteem during that moment. Which didn't happened. But left me with the ability to do really spectacular things with a compiler. I am recently healing my self-esteem following a different path. Which is also snapped me. After I have seen results I have said "Wowa! How did I do this?". In the same way that I get that inspiration and I don't know why. The same way someone solves a problem and things it's obvious. Before several months it wasn't that obvious. Parenthesis here. I found that at my 16 but I later forgot I wasn't programming because programming is good but because it snapped me at my 16. This doesn't make sense but wtf.

All I mean is there are influences from my birth that evolved my neural networks one after the other and brought me into this time. Some talents, some bad habits, both can't easily change. There could be a reason, not chance but natural selection, like I was inclined to be geeky as I was meaned to be lazy. Some can change. Lack of self-esteem was not something I tried to avoid. I really wanted it. I recently feel like having it but started being build since the first time I asked for it. It took time. Or maybe? Self-esteem took time while programming much less time? Was my brain inclined towards one and against the other? One can achieve something if he really wants it but does the biology play such a big role? How can specific children at 6 or 8 years old play the piano, write assembly or solve higher maths? It all points to the brain. Chance maybe but that is changed to natural selection. Different paths are being followed but the initial inclination to chose one in favor of others are primary the brain and then aditionally social/family growth, evolved emotion (things we learn to love or hate) and habits formed. But the primary paths, the tendencies/inclinations, the roots. I'd like to know more..

Still a confused big picture?

Nah. I am used to it. I was thinking that in the same way that you instantly see the whole picture out of smaller parts and meanings while the computer needs sophisticated image recognition software to do just that, in the same way I am truly struggling to disclose the bigger image of thoughts and ideas about everything (the reason for my big texts) in order to let myself out of the cognitive dissonance I had been through all these years. And neural networks are evolving towards that direction too. Even those that let me decide a nicer way to react to the negative emotions produced by incompatibility of ideas. They are build and most of the time without a conscious plan but out of my primary motives. I was lost into thoughts of not being normal and one day I was fed up. The change didn't immediately came, just the timid decision to stop caring. Other things, ideas, happenings led me to a similar decision. All these together slowly slowly evolved into acceptance of myself and the world around me, while also killing softly my old habit of self-pitty. But it came so slowly that I wasn't conscious of it until one day that I woke up and thought I was getting better at something I thought I was lost. I felt know that what I believe is obvious. I was the stupid computer. I am the human intelligence. I evolved.

It's nice thinking of everything this way. A different point of view that I recently found important. Some of it's primary aspects are things I have been thinking in the past and someone would say that it's not something new. But here comes the part where they see doors and windows and a brick wall but they can't see the whole bigger image, they can't see the house. Here is the part where I have that greater feeling of a whole that explains a lot but it might sound trivial to many of us. It's not an entirely new view, it always combines previously written ideas because that's how evolution works. The big image inherits older ideas combined together, which each of them inherits much older ideas and when I feel so great about writting a blog post like this is when suddenly this cloud of thoughts, this confusing puzzle suddenly seems to be forming the bigger whole.

Those are very randomly written thoughts. Not exactly the whole picture. I also wished to write a new post and put the last article down (enough bashing "hackers" :P). From those scattered writtings I might privately make some notes hopefully into a good scheme of things (I never did that no matter how many times I wanted to really organize my thoughts :PP)

Tuesday, September 16, 2008


Greek "hackers" defacing LHC website

Ο χάκερ δεν έχει και πολύ σχέση με τη αναζήτηση της γνώσης. Δεν είναι αυτός ο βασικός του σκοπός άλλωστε σήμερα. Αν ήταν έτσι τότε δεν θα ασχολούταν αποκλειστικά και μόνο με εκείνο το κομμάτι που καταλαβαίνει ο κοινός νους όταν ακούει για χάκινγκ στην τηλεόραση. Ο όρος χάκινγκ ταιριάζει στο μουράτο. Εισβολή σε υπολογιστικά δίκτυα, defacing σελιδών με wannabe ακτιβιστικό περιεχόμενο ή l33t speak, κλέψιμο κωδικών και καταστροφή στις χειρότερες περιπτώσεις. Δείξε στους φίλους σου τα χομπίστικα projects που έχεις προγραμματίσει (που σίγουρα έχουν περισσότερη δουλειά και νοημοσύνη από τις μύριες ψευτοχακιές που γίνονται στα site) και αδιάφορα θα σου πουν "Οκ, καλό αυτό αν και λίγο βαρετό. Με χάκινγκ ασχολείσαι να πάμε να κάνουμε καμιά πλακίτσα;".

Δεν με νοιάζει και πολύ αν η τάδε "χακιά" έγινε με έτοιμα σκριπτάκια ή κάποιος κάθισε και έγραψε δικό του κώδικα για να την πετύχει. Εδώ τα σκριπτάκια έχουν νόημα γιατί αυτό είναι ακριβώς που επιδιώκει ο σημερινός "χάκερ". Το αποτέλεσμα! Να χακέψει το τάδε site για τη μούρη και μόνο. Αν κάποιος είχε τέτοιες γνώσεις προγραμματισμού ώστε να το κάνει με τον επίπονο τρόπο τότε 9 στις 10 δεν θα ασχολούταν με εισβολή σε δίκτυα και defacing για το κερασάκι στην τούρτα. Υπάρχουν χίλιοι δυό ενδιαφέροντες τομείς που μπορεί κανείς να ασχοληθεί αν γνωρίζει προγραμματισμό ή αγαπάει τη γνώση. Μέσα στην λεγόμενη hacking community πιστεύω πως οι 99 στους 100 είναι νέοι που είδαν στην τηλεόραση ή άκουσαν από τους φίλους τους περί χάκινγκ και ίσως ακολούθησαν αυτήν την πορεία ουσιαστικά για να κερδίσουν λίγη από τη χαμένη τους αυτοπεποιήθηση. Ο ένας στους εκατό ίσως είναι ο κύριος που γουστάρει προγραμματισμό και έτυχε από τους χίλιους και δύο τομείς των υπολογιστών να ενδιαφέρεται περισσότερο για computer security. Το χάκινγκ όπως νοείται σήμερα γίνεται κατά ένα μεγάλο ποσοστό για τη μούρη και μόνο.

Αυτό που με νοιάζει και με απασχολεί είναι πως δημιουργείται σύγχηση τέτοια ώστε ή όλη "χακερομανία" να θεωρείται θεϊκη και να μιλάνε όλοι με μεγάλα λόγια και με σεβασμό για αυτούς που κάνουν π.χ. defacing μια σελίδα. Ούτε προσωπικά με καίει πως ξεφτιλίζεται ο όρος. Πιστεύω πως ο όρος "χάκερ" είναι ένα παραπέτασμα καπνού για να δικαιολογήσει τη μόδα του σημερινού χάκινγκ. Αυτοί οι 9 στους 10 που αναφέρω παραπάνω (βάλε και τον ένα που μας ξέφυγε και πραγματικά θέλει να μάθει περί computer security, όχι για να εντυπωσιάσει την γκόμενα του) που γουστάραν προγραμματισμό κάποτε γίνανε πολύ καλοί σε αυτό που αγαπούν και ονομάσανε τους εαυτούς τους χάκερς. Δεν χρειαζόταν τίποτε να έχει σχέση με τον ένα και μοναδικό τομέα για να δείχνεις χάκερ, την εισβολή σε δίκτυα υπολογιστών. Χάκερ ήταν και ο προγραμματιστής που έφτιαχνε παιχνίδια, λειτουργικά, compilers, demos ή utilities. Από εκεί βγήκε ή ιδέα πως οι χάκερς είναι πολύ έξυπνοι και πως θα πρέπει να τους σεβόμαστε, πως φέρανε την επανάσταση στους υπολογιστές και αλλάξανε τον κόσμο. Αλλά δεν είχε ο όρος καμία σχέση με την σημερινή έννοια. Ή να το πω και αλλιώς. Με defacings θα αλλάξετε τον κόσμο;

Θα κάνω μια (δύο) απλή αναλογία. Φανταστείτε έναν φιλόσοφο που σκέφτηκε και ανέλυσε την έννοια της αναρχικής ιδεολογίας. Θυμηθείτε και ένα σωρό νέους να τρέχουν στους δρόμους και να σπάνε βιτρίνες και αυτοκίνητα επείδη είναι αναρχικοί και νομίζουν πως πολεμάνε για μια ιδεολογία. Ο κύριος φιλόσοφος και οι συναδέλφοι του που απλά τους αρέσει να σκέφτονται και να μελετούν είναι αυτό που θα λέγαμε η παλιά σημασία του χάκερ. Οι νέοι είναι η καινούρια σημασία. Φανταστείτε διάφορους μηχανικούς και εφευρέτες από το παρελθόν μέχρι και σήμερα. Κατασκευάσανε τον τροχό, την άμαξα, την τυπογραφία, το τηλεσκόπιο, την πυξίδα, μέχρι και τους υπολογιστές μας. Κάποιοι ανακαλύψανε την πυρίτιδα και φτιάξανε και όπλα. Κάποιοι νέοι βγαίνουν στους δρόμους και αρχίζουν να πυροβολούν με αυτά τα όπλα όποιον ή ότι βρουν για τους δικούς τους λόγους τέλος πάντων. Το να αποκαλούνται αυτοί που εισβάλουν σε δίκτυα και κάνουν defacing χάκερς είναι σαν να λες πως οι νέοι με τα όπλα είναι εφευρέτες και φέρανε την τεχνολογική επανάσταση στον κόσμο. Πόσο πιο απλά μπορώ να το παρουσιάσω;

Δεν υπάρχουν hacker ethics. Δεν υπάρχουν redhats, greenhats, greyhats, blackhats or whatever. Δεν υπάρχει επανάσταση. Δεν είναι ακτιβισμός. Είναι μουράτο, κάποιοι ταυτίστικαν, κάποιοι χρειαζόντουσαν λίγη αυτοπεποιήθση, κάποιο είδαν κάτι στην τηλεόραση και είπαν "ας το κάνουμε, φαίνεται κουλ!"

Τα πάντα είναι ένα παραπέτασμα καπνού. Οι κύριοι που χακάρανε τον LHC εμμέσως λένε αυτά που λέω εγώ εδώ πέρα, δηλαδή ότι είναι μια μόδα που γουστάρουν τα παιδάκια, δεν έχει καμιά σχέση με τον χομπίστα προγραμματιστή ας πούμε. Βασικά συμφωνούμε! Αλλά ταυτόχρονα αντιφάσκουν. Γιατί κάνανε ένα μουράτο defacing την σελίδα του LHC για να μας πουν ακριβώς αυτό, πως το χάκινγκ είναι γνώση και όχι μούρη. Και φαντάζομαι έναν νέο να βλέπει την "χακιά" τους και να τους βρίσκει και πολύ κουλ. Και να αναρρωτιέται πως θα γίνει να μάθει να κάνει το ίδιο; Δεν θέλει να μάθει προγραμματισμό αλλά να μπορεί να φέρει εις πέρας το ίδιο αποτέλεσμα σε ένα αντίστοιχο site για να νοιώσει και αυτός "χάκερ".

Ο περίφημος mentor είχε βγάλει ένα μανιφέστο που το πιπιλίζουν όλοι σαν καραμέλα. Δυστυχώς δεν γνωρίζω τίποτα για τον κύριο, δεν διάβασα καθόλου για την ιστορία του (σύγχρονου) "χάκινγκ". Δεν είμαι σίγουρος αν ήταν απλώς ένας πολύ καλός προγραμματιστής σε κάποιο τυχαίο τομέα ή επικεντρονώταν ειδικά σε αυτό που κάνουν και οι κύριοι "χάκερς" της GST. Αλλά από το επαναστατικό ύφος και τη θεματολογία του μανιφέστου του μου φαίνεται πως ήταν μοντέρνος "χάκερ". Γκρίνιαζε για το πως αλλοιώθηκε ή σημασία του χάκινγκ από τα μέσα ενημέρωσης και πως η πληροφορία πρέπει να είναι ελεύθερη κλπ. Δεν ξέρω πως το εννούσε πραγματικά, δεν ξέρω αν ήταν προγραμματιστής που γούσταρε την αρχαία σημασία του χάκινγκ ή ασχολούταν αποκλειστικά με το network security breach και απλώς ήθελε να το κάνει επανάσταση και να δικαιολογήσει τις πράξεις του. Αλλά αυτό που λέει περί μμε και παραπληροφόρησης πιστεύω πως σχετίζεται με την σύγχησ που έχει προκληθεί και αναφέρω παραπάνω, και όσο βγαίνουν "νεοχάκερς" που θέλουν να κάνουν defacing για τη μούρη, ουσιαστικά αυτοί είναι που διαιωνίζουν την λαθασμένη εικόνα. Και τους ακούς να αναφέρονται συνέχεια στο μανιφέστο του mentor με θαυμασμό, με παρεξηγούν πως εγώ παραπληροφορήθηκα από τα μμε λες και δεν είναι όλη αυτή η χακερομανία που διαιωνίζει μια μόδα που καμιά σχέση δεν έχει με αυτό που ισχυρίζεται και για την οποία δεν μπορώ να νοιώσω σεβασμό.

Νομίζω πως φάσκουν και αντιφάσκουν. Η ίδια η wannabe hacking community ξεφτυλίζεται και όχι τα μμε. Τα μμε απλώς προβάλλουν μια μόδα που πάντα άρεσε στον πολύ κόσμο και ορισμένοι νέοι διαωνίζουν τη μόδα που είδαν στην τηλεόραση ή άκουσαν από φίλους. Τα μμε προβάλλουν αυτό που συμβαίνει σήμερα σε αυτές τις κοινότητες (με λίγη υπερβολή βέβαια).

Χάκινγκ και χάκερ σημερα σημαίνει αυτό που καταλαβαίνει ο κόσμος. Ναι, εισβάλεις παράνομα σε ένα ξένο υπολογιστικό σύστημα και ο κυριότερος σκοπός είναι να κάνεις μουράτο defacing. Καμιά σχέση με δεινούς προγραμματιστές, ιδιοφυίες και σεβασμό. Αυτό καταλαβαίνει ο κόσμος, αυτό καταλαβαίνεις και εσύ όταν μου λες πως θέλεις να γίνεις "χάκερ" και πως οι "χάκερς" είναι σπουδαίοι και κυνηγάνε τη γνώση. Βγάλτε το 'είναι σπουδαίοι και κυνηγάνε τη γνώση'. Σκέτο.

Το παραπέτασμα καπνού: Επειδή αυτό δεν ακούγεται καλό για τους πολλούς νέους που χάρηκαν τον τίτλο "χάκερ" πρέπει να το αναμορφώσουνε. Βάλε μπόλικη σάλτσα περί επανάστασης (αναρχική επανάσταση, κατεβάζουμε τα site, γράφουμε συνθήματα. Btw,. στην παλιά έννοια εννούσαν απλώς την επανάσταση που έφεραν στην επιστήμη των υπολογιστών, όχι κάποια πολιτική επανάσταση. Άλλη σύγχηση όρων..), βάλε πως τάχα εμείς το κάνουμε για τον καλό σκοπό, οπότε υπάρχουν hacker ethics και διάφορα χρωματιστά καπέλα, βάλε και μανιφέστα πως θέλουμε την γνώση ελεύθερη (Και άλλη παρεξηγημένη έννοια), βάλε και την ντροπή των κράκερς (όρος που έχει ήδη παρθεί από τους software crackers και κατά τη γνώμη μου χρησιμοποιείται λαθασμένα σαν ο κακός "χάκερ").

Τι είναι όλα αυτά; Εμφανίζεται ένας νέος και ρίχνει ακόμα ένα site. Του λες πως δεν είναι χακινγκ αυτό ή δεν είναι κάποια σπουδαία πράξη, ή πως δεν γουστάρεις όλους αυτούς που αυτοαποκαλούνται "χάκερς". Σου λέει αυτοί δεν είναι χάκερς, είναι κράκερς ή είναι μαυροσκούφηδες (black hats :) ή πρέπει να διαβάσω για την ηθική των χάκερς καλύτερα. Και εγώ του λέω πως και αυτός και οι άλλοι κάνουν ακριβώς τα ίδια πράγματα για τα οποία δεν μπορώ να νοιώσω σεβασμός. Είτε λευκός να είναι ο σκούφος σου, είτε σε λένε κράκερ ή χάκερ, είτε έχεις τους λόγους σου, η πράξη είναι η ίδια. Είναι σαν να λες πως κάνεις διάρηξη στο σπίτι μου αλλά εσύ δεν είσαι από αυτούς που κάνουν διάρρηξη γιατί αυτοί λέγονται τάδε ή έχουν άλλοι ιδεολογία. Μου λες πως πρέπει να διαβάσω για την ηθική των διαρρηκτών ή πως τα μμε ξεφτιλίζουν το πραγματικό όνομα τους και έρχονται νέοι διαρρήκτες που δεν είναι σαν και εμάς.

Όλες αυτές η ιστορίες περί ηθικής των χάκερ, χρωματιστών καπέλων, χάκερς που τους λένε κράκερς, σεβασμού και επανάστασης είναι ένα μεγάλο παραπέτασμα καπνού για το ίδιο και το αυτό. Είναι υπεκφυγές από την ίδια και απαράλακτη εικόνα που βλέπω και αναρρωτιέμαι γιατί δεν είναι τόσο εμφανή στον υπόλοιπο κόσμο. Μήπως γιατί δεν είναι αυτό που θέλουν να δουν;

Πήρα μια απόφαση. Από εδώ και στο εξής όταν θα ακούω για "χάκερ" και "χάκινγκ" θα καταλαβαίνω το ένα και το αυτό. Αυτό που εννοεί ο πολύς ο κόσμος και για το οποίο δεν μπορώ να νοιώσω καθόλου σεβασμό. Ουσιαστικά αυτό που καταλαβαίνει ο κόσμος αλλά χωρίς τον σεβασμό, χωρίς την επανάσταση, χωρίς την ιδιοφυϊα, χωρίς κανένα βαθύτερο νόημα.

Ναι, ξέρω πως ο όρος χάκερ ήταν κάποτε ιερός, πως μεγάλοι επιστήμονες, εφευρέτες, οραματιστές, φιλοσόφοι κατά μια έννοια θα μπορούσε να ειπωθεί πως είναι χάκερς. Ξέρω πως κάποια μυαλά πριν από πολλά χρόνια στο MIT ήταν χάκερς με την πραγματική σημασία του όρου. Ξέρω πως και το χομπύστικο computing από τις αρχές του 80 μέχρι σήμερα μπορεί να θεωρηθεί χάκινγκ, ξέρω το feeling από την ενασχόληση μου με την demoscene. Αλλά όταν μιλάς για "χάκινγκ" ο πολύς ο κόσμος καταλαβαίνει οτιδήποτε άλλο παρά όλα αυτά. Και ύστερα συγχέει το σεβασμό και την ιδιοφυία της παλιά σημασίας με πράξεις οι οποίες δεν χρίζουν σεβασμό ή στην καλύτερη είναι απλά ανούσιες και δεν πρόκειται να φέρουν επανάσταση.

p.s. ..αλλά δυστυχώς δεν πρόκειται να αλλάξουν τα πράγματα. Η παλιά σημασία χάθηκε και είναι ντροπή, η νέα σημασία εμπλουτίζεται από την παλιά και της δίνει νόημα. Ο κόσμος όταν μιλάει για "χάκερς" φαντάζεται μια ανάμειξη του νεοαναρχικού στοιχείου με την ιστορική προγραμματιστική ιδυοφυϊα. Το ένα χωρίς το άλλο χαλάει όλη την εικόνα. Ο κόσμος θέλει και τις δύο πλευρές σε ένα. Πες σε κάποιον ότι χάκερ είναι απλώς ένας ηλεκτρονικός απατεώνας. Θα ακουστεί άσχημα. Πες του ότι είναι ένας σπασίκλας προγραμματιστής. Θα φανεί βαρετό. Μάλλον ονειρεύεται τον mc gyver των δασών..

p.p.s. Ελπίζω να έγινα κατανοητός. Αυτή είναι η εικόνα που έχω για το όλο ζήτημα. Έχω γράψει και στο παρελθόν κείμενα για το άκυρο που νομίζω πως βλέπω και δεν το βλέπει πολύς κόσμος. Δεν ξέρω γιατί το κάνω. Όταν ξεκίνησα να ασχολούμαι με προγραμματισμό στην demoscene και έγραψα μέχρι και low level προγράμματα είμουν περήφανος για αυτά που δημιουργούσα και το τι προγραμματιστηκά τρικς έπρεπε να σκεφτώ. Παράλληλα παρατηρούσα την μόδα του χάκινγκ και δεν μπορούσα να την καταλάβω. Δεν θα ένοιωθα ούτε το ένα δέκατο περήφανος αν έκανα εκατό χακιές. Είμουν περήφανος για την ουσία, για αυτό που δημιουργούσα, όχι για τη μούρη.

p.p.p.s. Καλά που φτιάξανε την τρύπα στο site του LHC οι GST (αν όντως την φτιάξανε όπως ισχυρίζονται). Και καλά κάνανε που τους ειδοποιήσανε μην τυχόν ακολουθήσουν το παράδειγμα τους και άλλοι χάξορς. Αν μόνο δεν ανεβάζανε και το φευγάτο και αντιφατικό defacing θα ήταν πολύ καλύτερα.. :P

Saturday, September 13, 2008


For some reasons I said that I would move away from my regular posts having to do with my life, the social delusion and anything similar I use to talk about. Maybe as a change, maybe so that I stop pissing and getting pissed by people or because I just wanted to write something about a different new subject (the skepticism/metaphysics issue).

However I had another impulse today. It won't make much sense to write it here I think (it won't change anyone who believes otherwise), maybe I will write some nicer or more clear ideas that gives some good reason of how things are (as if ever need an excuse to continue my own way of life :P) but since there I don't see any meaning in the far road I won't care.

I just want you to know this. I have since a long passed the moment where I stopped bothering so much about not being normal, having no life or how people see that upon me.

I am revived. I don't doubt much. The delusion that I am not normal or social can still make me worry but less. I have also learned to accept the thing that I am and recognize my needs. I have managed to neglect at a good percentage that feeling of me looking weird and that something is wrong about it. I have trained myself to see some important flaws in people who do the preaching to me, criticizing my way of life. And I see now that perhaps I am more normal than the people who claim I should be like all. The whole idea is a farse and I should be more angry for wasting negative emotions by worrying about it.

Random thoughts will follow..

I'd like to speak about "normal" a little more. However I am ashamed of using this word at all. The more I do the more I give power to it's tyranny. Normally if I abolished the word and trying to express myself without using it or any synonyms, it would be the way to present my different understanding of things without making any connection with the old established ideas. A different understanding, a different perception. The same good thing could happen by abandoning the words/meaning of "good" and "bad" or not using the term "hacker" because I think it just confuses things. The main problem here is that if I started writting my thoughts without mentioning these terms most people base their beliefs upon, I wouldn't be able to communicate my ideas to them. There are two ways to go through this. Either try to say what you have to say by using your own way of seeing things, trying to explain that these words are just ideas and there is a different perception. Because most people apparently won't dare to change their beliefs (and I won't blame them because I also won't change the way I see things), just have some fun mocking these meanings in a way that shows that something is going very wrong with our understand of things and the names we give to them enstrengthen our old establish perception of things if they only don't reflect what we want to hear and sounds familiar to us all the time.

In fewer words, it's normal that half of the population enjoys to inhale dirty smoke coming from a burning cylinder or thinks it makes you feel cool. It's normal to be the "cool" dude at a young age, meaning to also be involved in fights, cons or pranks because being the bad guy feels awesome. Yes, it's normal. At least some people would agree that some of these things are bad or unhealthy but it's normal because everyone does it and we got use to their image. From the other side of the story, it's not only abnormal but totally extreme when I engage into lonely walks or talking to myself. It's abnormal when I want to stay alone, it's abnormal to be obsessed with a higher goal that occupy most of my life instead of spending a lot of time outside on the beach. It's totally abnormal to be myself, it's mentally unhealthy to think too much while it would be quite normal to succumb to their will and be just like everyone else but not yourself. How normal is that?

Don't get me wrong. There is something painful here. Even me who have fought against this farse with passion, still have my doubts. You know why is that? Because I was raised in a world where you hear these beliefs around you each day. From your parents, from your friends, from the internet, from the TV. Ask me what looks good and what looks bad: 1) A cool dude, has a life, girlfriend, job, kids. 2) A lifeless geek sitting everyday in front of his computer, chasing a goal he may never reach. I would feel like saying 1st and then deny it! YES. Because the 2nd looks ugly even to me. Do I want to look ugly you'd ask? How can I refute this now???

Thanks to god (or evolution :) I can see things via the light of logic. In fact that's the problem here. Some of my emotions are making me feeling bad about my image, about my ugly way of life. But my logic tells me elsewhere.

In fact my logic tells me (after more than five years of research into how and why I feel so and what kind of a person am I really) that there are mixed feelings in me. Some of them are making me feeling bad about the way I look and live. Maybe this is because I have learned to dislike the image of the lifeless geek as it was negatively portrayed through the media or society. But there are some other feelings which make me stubborn and doesn't let me to simply accept this. This is because I am the ugly geek.

I have come into the conclusion that I can't change what I am. What I mean is that I can't change the internal base of me but I can discover more about my true nature and accept it. Even use it in a way that I don't suffer so much in a society that is not made for me. It's all about the needs. And it's also about what your needs ask you in return. For example, if I really really really loved a girl, one that I should change entirely myself in order to approach her, maybe I would do it. It would be both a really great struggle to either change who I really am or not being engaged to her. Big needs and big gives. If the struggle of change wasn't there, I would have already done it and we wouldn't be discussing it. Although the struggle remains while I don't believe in love..

For example, being social. I don't need to be social. I don't feel lonely. I am everyday surrounded by people and I hate it. There are occasions of people with social anxiety who although are really in a need of people. They can't handle being lonely. As much as they can't handle being social. They really do want and they really can't! The big need is to not be alone. And the big struggle is to stay social. In my case, it's sometimes a struggle (because of anxiety) and sometimes a burden (because of another need to be ocupied by a greater goal where I need to avoid any distractions) to be social. And there is purely no big need from the other side! I can survive being alone, sometimes I even enjoy being alone and doing things myself. Why bother?

Because they made me bother. Because they made me feel bad about who I am. Because there was never a problem bothering me. But they told me something is wrong with me. I can't be this way! Something must be wrong. I will be sad thay said..

This was the only impulse that motivate me to leave my bigger focus for a night and go out with friends. Really, this! Because if I did, I would think that for a single night I was not a miserable lifeless geek and had a life instead. Some people asked me, am I doing this because I want? Or because I am simply oppressed to do this in order to believe that I am having a life for once? The funny thing is that the same people who understand this, want me to want to be social. Though, naturally I will never want this so badly. But they want to see that on me while it's never gonna happen this or the other way. But they insist that it's all wrong and are eager of the time I will naturally want. Why do I have to need to be social? If I am happy otherwise?

You know what that means? I don't have my own true impulse to be social. I don't need to. Of course when some friends visit the city I live, friends that I have a long time to see, I am really motivated to meet them after all these months. When I want to inform about my news, speak about demos or programming, talk about something not casual but interesting to me, I am motivated. For the purpose. Not for being social. I mean, what means "social" afterall? Am I being social just for being social? For feeling good with myself being social that night? You know what? I am social! I am everyday surrounded by people!!! And I hate it..

This is a joke. I don't need to be social in the way most people mean it. But I am not closed in a cage. I see people even if I don't want to. I see people at home, in my job, outside in the city. Maybe I don't have enough friends but I don't need too many. But I am social. In my own way. And I am normal. I am normal because I try to find who I really am and follow that path. Abnormal would be to pretend being something else, to be like everyone else because that's the false image of "normal".

Not many would understand. Because they can't see things the way I do. And I don't blame them. It's all about needs. They have different needs. They need to avoid being lonely. The need to speak about casual things. They need to feel social, fit in an accepted image, not looking ugly to the rest. I don't say they don't. But they pitty me. They pitty me because what I am is against their image, opposite to their needs of feeling normal or not being lonely. They can't understand that I am alright. They would feel sad in my position. I was feeling sad by doubting myself, by hating what I am because that's what these people taught me to do. I think that the worst that ever happened was that I believed them. I let them play with my emotions. Because they thought I had to be helped. They thought that something was wrong with me and they claimed to know the answer. Bitterness is all I got and a false image of myself, a wrong idea of what my needs are.

I have found out some funny facts. The first fact is that maybe I am more normal than the people who preach about "normal". The second fact is that most life preachers (and the less persuasive of them) are ex-geeks in disguise. They are similar to the dude who recently stopped smoking and just started breaking the balls of the remaining smokers, trying to force them cut their habit too. Really! I have no proof but I can see it. Those are the most annoying cases! The third fact is that a really normal person is too rare. And he is the one who would bother the less. Normal as in free. Content with themselves and accepting of any differing person. And they don't even tell. I have met people who resemble this feeling. It's amazing! They may not be geeks, but "normal" as the image or mixed with geeky elements but not showing, while that image just happens to be their natural thing. Unchanged, unaffected, free. They just are and let things be.

"Normal" is a farse. "Social" is a joke. Everyone has different needs and a different price to pay for them. These two variables define who we are and how we choose to act in our lifes. Nobody has a word to this expect each one of us for him/herself. Not many will understand this right though and some might react, however I can imagine these people as another obstacle, another variable to take in account, as another price to pay for the need to stay me and just move on.

p.s. I am really eager for a new House M.D. episode now. Maybe in a few days and then another week of wait each time. I shouldn't be seing something like 6 episodes per day :P

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Occam's razor

- Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is always the best.

- And you think one is simpler than two?
- Pretty sure it is, yeah.

- Baby shows up. Chase tells you that two people exchanged fluids to create this being.

- I tell you that one stork dropped the little tyke off in a diaper. Are you gonna go with the two or the one?
(from House M.D.)

DOGGETT: You're familiar with the principle of Occam's Razor?
SCULLY: Yeah, you take every possible explanation and you choose the simplest one. Agent Mulder used to refer to it as Occam's Principle of Limited Imagination.
(from X-files)

Hahaha!!! I really enjoy these quotes :)

For some reasons I find it annoying every time someone casts the notion of Occam's razor. It's like they refer to some punditry concept which has to make you shut the fuck up without an explanation. "What you say is wrong because... Occam's razor!". Occam's razor pervades everything you say. It's not clever anymore. It's so trendy as that Einstein quote that we use the 10% of the brain or something. Duh :P

Don't get me wrong. I might have used the razor several times in my life. First of all in my attempt to seek some truth which is as close to... true as possible. I had to wipe out all of which I had been taught since childhood and start with nothing (But what seems more simple? My notion that we are living in a great complicated delusion? Or the fact that life is plain and simple and it's just me who are making it fuzzy? Doh, I guess even the notion of simplicity isn't simply defined afterall :P). Even my current opinion that neither god nor a meaning in this universe exist but it's all our creations and we have to wipe out every thing we were raised to believe in order to discover what's behind the mask, is actually using mr.Occam :P

So yes, it's a philosophical system they say (not a proof). But most skeptics always use to pray on it solely. It really gets annoying as this is the only thing they have to say! I have another concept that explains it nicer. It is the idea that at the end it's all about belief (should I call it the belief razor or the Optimus razor? ;). Regardless if you are skeptic or a paranormal nut. Occam's razor, always pointed out towards anything that goes out of the ordinary, is just a classy way to justify their dis/belief.

As for me, I will continue to be greatly entertained each time when something proves to me that the simplest explanation is not always the most possible.

p.s. We need more than lame reciting of Occam's razor and then resting the case..

Friday, August 22, 2008

Metaphysics and disbelief

I decided to start a new series of posts in this blog, that have less to do with my life and more with my old interest for paranormal phenomena, motivated from recent changes in the way I see all this fuzz about the unexplained, the believer's dedication to their side of truth and the debunker's insistence to disprove everything.

The last book I bought on the field had something to do with the year 2012 (Why do people hope for something out of the ordinary to happen, even if this would mean doom and destruction? Why do I secretly hoped that something from this being true? I ask the question because I am disappointed by myself, how I fall in the same category). I have read most of it in the train travelling from Thessaloniki to Athens and back. It was in the middle of June as I remember. I came in Athens to DJ some Amiga demos on a club or something. Now I was coming back home.

In the beginning of the book, the author made you believe that it's not another book by another nationalistic author who wants to believe (or to sell) that the ancient greek gods are coming with their spaceships to save the greek nation or something. From the beginning, the author showed that he had more serious intentions, as to save the reader from the upheaval this subject creates. He mentioned that he doesn't favor any nation, he doesn't put any mainstream aliens in this story, that once upon in the past humanity were wiped out in several periods by natural phenomena, similar as to the ones that are coming near the end of 2012. This thing made me believe that I can trust the author. No aliens, no fancy apocalypse, not favoring nations or religions, just straight raw facts.

After a lot of pages though, the story started to get more incredible. A brown dwarf sun approaching the solar system after several thousand years, a big conspiracy of the elite trying to hide it in order to only save themselves and even a hiding reptilian race (no aliens you said?). And there I was testing belief. How much more focused was I to see what I wanted to see. And how easier it was to believe the replies against the debunker's voice. I was seeing what I wanted to see. And I wanted to believe.

The crisis started at that point. I felt like I was getting away from my quest to seek for the truth. The only true facts (do they exist?) behind all our delusions. I had also seen how much of a believer I am. Don't get me wrong, most writers on paranormal present the facts in such a way that it makes you think that they can't be wrong. No matter the doubt, if I wanted to believe then those writers would give me food not only to believe, but even doubting that most paranormal stories could be somehow misunderstood. They were giving me only the data necessary to make the story feel more true.

I always disliked the people that are called "skeptics" today. Because they seemed to be as eager to debunk everything as much as fanatically as the people who wanted to believe. I even liked the attempt of some people who decided to call themselves zetetics, as a response to blind skepticism. I adored (and still adore) fringe scientists who take the risks to start research into subjects having to do with psychic powers, alternative theories or anything paranormal. Although I recently have my doubts, that maybe their research can be still biased, based on what they want to believe, what they want to see on the results (usually the results of statistical data). I don't have proof about that, I am not saying they are crackpots, I am just starting to become more skeptical. But I really want to see more and more scientists trying to research these hard subjects as objectively as possible. The truth can be found through research, not denial. Maybe it's like being an agnostic rather than an atheist.

However, as I started changing and read some skeptic articles (while also reading about psychological experiments that show how unbelievably we are deluded by the most simple things), I grew more on the idea that maybe, maybe,. even all of these paranormal stories could be cases of delusions, misunderstandings or something else. That even if there are some witnesses from well educated people, air control operators, pilots, astronauts, scientists,. that YES, even these people can make mistakes sometimes (or maybe they have a secret agenda :). My perception switched in a world where there is a possibility what sounded improbable (that all these witnesses can't be wrong, at least a tiny percentage of them could still hold something) can actually be true. Maybe this one crumbled my world of ufo, aliens, fairies, ghosts and strange phenomena into dust while it brighten my view on how deluded can we be or how our perception can be mistaken, how far from the truth we may be, yet thinking that all these make sense.

I think that I have a wider view of the truth. I would like to write several posts in the future in this blog, refering to amazing examples showing that things might not be as they seem, that me and you are living their illusion right this time, I'd like to point arguments towards/against both sides (believers vs skeptics). I'd like to show counter examples on examples that try to say something. This blog will continue with more content about paranormal phenomena, analyzing the religion of believers and skeptics, examples and counter examples that show both sides could be true or wrong or how deluded we may be (I used the word deluded/delusion for the nth time :P). There are really many things running around my head that I'd really like to write here..

Also, the real reason for making the turn from a believer to a disbeliever was not something on the book or some thoughts about it. I think I was emotionally unstable during that time (same time when I desperately needed some drink and got banned from Pouet) and I found a reason to burst. And generally changes feel good in a shaky life (but later I truly changed my mind after reading the skeptics articles). I am not going to praise any "religion" (either belief or skepticism or debunking), I am not going to stay in any of them forever, it's not my quest to join on army of thinkers but to find the truth. And the truth is dynamic, it seems to be changing sides..

I will be back. There are a lot of things I want to write about.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Where is all the fun?

Sometimes I watch a demo that is very unprofessional, undesigned, 1999 alike (or 1994 should I say? :), considered crap but I like it. Sometimes I play doom WADs that are technically below average and without much challenging gameplay but they have that something which inspires me on creating my own levels. Yet I read the reviews on Pouet for demos or in doomworld/idgames ftp for WADs and it seems there are some people who take it too seriously. Maybe I am wrong, but it feels like they don't vote based on the fun factor they had while watching/playing, rather than considering whether something on the demo/level is right or wrong. It seems that if rob is jarig gets too much votes, someone needs to thumb it down, no matter if he liked it or not. Maybe in the same way some people feel like having to thumb down some minimalistic demo because of ideology (Ok,. it's not hard to think why most people can't have fun with minimalistic or noise demos :P). In the doom department, someone told me that I am a retarded who votes too high for crap WADs. Maybe I exagerated with Ruba's map but there are some minimalistic level without too much fuzz and detail (while I am a sucker for detail in doom WADs at the same time) that had too inspiring rooms/places and simple yet effective gameplay which I enjoyed more than confusing big levels. I vote based on how I feel during that time, not considering whether something needs more praise or is more close to the definition of art.

Ok, maybe I confused demos/WADs in there, but you can replace it with everything else. Demoscene is the primary thing for me, doom is just an additional hobby. I just asked first myself about fun and where it is, after reading some retarded comments for some doom WADs. In the doom community was this question raised in a greater sense because there is a major difference with the demoscene. People play Doom levels (a game that is almost 15 years old) and then they have the need to be serious critics on WADs and bash everyone else who disagrees. At least the demoscene is an art community and it would make more sense. But doom? We are here to create and play inspiring WADs, not being serious about who releases what crap and if he deserves a little praise or not.

But it is the same. One reason we do it (I mean, the exagerated creative hobby that steals most of our life) is because it's something creative that gives us sense, and then makes us feel important by contributing in the community and getting praise. Some people maybe feel like more important by forming more "serious" looking opinions on the new releases. If it's something seems to be banal or kitsch, regardless if it has some appeal, it should be downvoted because it's not supposed to be "proper art". What do these words really mean anyway? I was listening to some song by Tatu and someone told me that it sucks because it's "commercial" (or "popular"). Who cares? That song has something that makes me love it. And he told me, it sucks because it has that something and everybody loves it while it's not an important song. Who the damn gives a fuck? I mean,. do we listen to the songs or watch demos or do anything because they are considered "important"? Or because we just want to enjoy them???

And this reflects upon my life. Sometimes when I play a game, watch a movie, read a book or meet some people, I do care. I do care too much. I have to finish the damn game, see that movie because it's important, finish the book because I have more to read and I don't feel very literate yet. I go to meet some people because I think I "have to" be social. Somebody seems to worry because I have not done "the most important" thing, getting a girlfriend. I am almost 30. This is crazy! But I feel like caring less than him. If girls and sex are the most beautiful aspects of life, if it's the most natural thing in the world or the human psyche, then why am I oblidged to do it, why should I be scared, why should I be extremely anxious? Something doesn't make sense here..

I think that to keep asking myself the same question each time I see loosing the balance of my emotions is a good think to do. Where is all the fun? Why are we doing things because we must and not because we like them? Why girls had to become such a nasty thing for us few unfortunate, something that makes us struggle just by the thought of it instead of being natural pleasure? Why do sceners watch demos and get serious and dissatisfied by the latest releases or argue so much about what should be right and what wrong on the scene? Why WAD critics (some have never created a doom level or just retired from activity) take it too seriously when it's just a damn game? Why should I drink coffee and act in the expected way, be "social" in the way I am supposed to and not naturally social? Don't speak to me about what's natural and what is retarded as it seems that we have lost the meaning of fun. Sometimes I am wondering about those people driving succesful lives, whether this is really their thing or they do pretend to be "successful" without really liking it? At least if not most of them then some of them might be this way.

There is no meaning in my preaching. It's just some speculations. This post (and maybe most of my older rants in my blog) are primarily written so that I remind myself of how things might be and in what delusion do I live in. Maybe the hard critics really enjoy doing it. Maybe what is boring for me is fun for other people. Maybe it doesn't work the same way for everyone of us. Maybe I just avoid blaming anyone with these final words. At the end, I believe that fun is not universal but what might be still true is that several of us are oppressed to live based on what is considered right and not what we really enjoy. And then we tend to pass the same critics to other people, because it's supposed to be the right thing. And we forget what is truly natural for each of us.

Monday, July 14, 2008

What's the matter with me?

They tell you that things are logical. They say that life is simple and that I am making things hard. Then they tell me to be myself.

I try to be myself and the same people don't like it. Maybe the want me to be myself but not THAT "myself". Ok,. fuck the hypocrites!

There are some things I want to change in myself but I can't. They say that perhaps I am fine the way I am or that I haven't decided what I want yet. All these sound good. Yet I am stuck with a handful of questions.

I was always ruminating in these questions. For various reasons. Some would say that endless discussion about the thing I should do but am not doing is just a way to avoid direct action and give it more and more time. That I should stop analyzing things and just DO IT.

I always opposed to this plan. Act without thinking it too much. If you manage to do it then it works and the problem is solved. Kinda cyclic thought. You can't do it because you don't do it. Just do it and you have solved the problem of not doing things. Yes, but what is the inner reason for this? This way is like treating the symptoms of a disease without discovering the source, which can fire up again in the future. Put a gun in my head and tell me for example to stop eating crap and make a diet. Do that for a month and the leave me at my mercy. Nothing is cured. I will finally be free to continue with my old habit of overeating (which was never cured, only my passion for food was oppresed).

Say about the problem of procrastination. I want to study hard for the exams but I can't (just an example, I am not studying these days). I say that I can't. I am feeling oppresed. I am getting lazy. It's too much for me. But I have to. Someone said to my brother and then he told it to me, that there is a vicious circle which makes you anxious to study. Being anxious to study, studying becomes unbearable. And then you hate it. And so you can't study. And if you can't study while you must, you are oppresed more and you hate it. But if you hate it you won't start studying. And if you don't start studying you won't get past of this block. Classic vicious circle. The solution? To just do it. Logical yes! And it works. I can also observe it in democoding, pretty much overwhelmed with the idea that I want to start democoding but I can't. I feel a great bad pressure even by the idea of starting to do it. But if I forget my feelings for a moment and start it as a robot, later I get used to it and the fact that I have started makes me less overwhelming and I work well. Regardless though that I know this little fact it hasn't helped me because the next day I am too stubborn to even use that little trick. But I have found a different way that is more satisfactory atm..

But this comes back into the "JUST DO IT => SEE? YOU HAVE DONE IT!" cyclic logic that I hate. Someone would argue that the fact that I hate it is the same reason for why I didn't reused the trick every time I feel like procrastinating, I was simply too stuborn to adapt the trick because I wouldn't like to think that the answer is so simple. And maybe they have a point.

Also something else I notice is that most things in psychology (especially in popular psy) is that it is very much based on empirical facts. And how wouldn't it be? Empirical means to proove something based on your senses. Like, hey this worked for me so it must be the solution!. I am ok with that though. The worse thing that I am not ok with is: If this worked for me then it should work for everyone.

Sometimes I think that some psychological beliefs could work like a placebo. If you make someone believe that some action makes him happier then it works for him and he feels better each time he does this. For example, I could tell you that jumping three times on the air while clapping your right hand with your left foot and say foliba, is a great psychological technique to make you feel better then you might do this and maybe it happens that you feel great at the same time and believe it. Then you do it again while believing it works and it maybe does so. After few times this action corresponds with feeling better in your brain and it just works :P

A little exagerated example. I do hate it when they tell me that I should be unhappy because of some things missing from my life (and this works well as a negative placebo, I correspond unhapiness with not having a real life as most people thing of it) and they tell me to try being more social, go to the gym or do other real life activities that they think makes you naturally happy. And they insist. They wonder how can I not like some of the aspects of real life. And they think that maybe I haven't tried to get into them so much. It's like when you say that you don't like coffee and they ask you how can you not like coffee? Have you tasted every flavor of coffee? Twice? At the end, they will put you to drink too much coffee that you will start liking it so much that it gets addictive :P

Maybe I am getting to realistic. Unrealistic they would say..

Although, I am making this very critical question to myself: Even if some of the psychological tricks (and also the real life parts that I am missing) do work well enough as placebos that try deceive ourselves into believing we are well and doing something in our lives, why not just do it and forget my insistence for truth, why not just get the happiness that I want?

Another question that I ask is: Is it maybe that being a realistic miserable being instead of an ignorant happy person, is an important part of my personality that has been sculptured through the years that now I can't change? Am I intentionally stuborn and reactive against the fact that life could be more simple than I think, that I am confusing things without reason, or that I don't want to admit that all those common people I dislike have right and I have wrong?

A question (or set of questions) used to relieve me from the anxiety of the previous one is: Don't I act and think the way I am? When I started as a child, without any complex or dislike for certain people and certain believes, wasn't I so pure so that I should have most probably chosen the easy way of life and not the complex one of denial and questioning myself about things?. I mean,. my current personality was not just a choice but the result of other variables that made some parts of real life either harder or more boring for me. I am not the way I am because I am 100% stubborn. There is a reason..

I think that things like a great conscience or higher sensitivity led me into 1) more struggle, 2) bigger awareness of what's going around me and in me.

But why not lie to myself for the real life stuff and search for the truth only when I am into philosophical thoughts? I mean, being the real life guy at day and the deep thinker at night? Why can't I compromise? Why am I stuborn to follow ways that may feel like deceiving myself but work well for what I want to achieve in real life? Maybe because if I am highly aware that it's all about placebo then the trick doesn't work? Yes and not only that..

Can I preserve the feeling of how things work and see the whole thing as a game? In fact I am currently playing into this scheme and it works sometimes. I don't have to think about being social all the time, regardless if I am ackward sometimes it is a game afteralls thus I shouldn't be taking into seriously. Even if some people try to criticise you (which make you think that people actually take things seriously and then you forget for a while that it's a game) you should still think that even their criticism is a part of the game. The great concept that people actually lie and everything is a role playing that looks like serious stuff but it isn't has helped me lately a lot into the process of stop taking things too seriously.

Also, I am really eager to find the truth, not just treat the symptoms. I live for the truth. Especially when what I really need to solve now is the puzzle of myself.

Forget people. Let's try me. I had another of these questions (and the initial reason for opening this thread, but the endless writting drove me out of subject) about things I cannot change on myself even if I'd like.

I had a tooth pain today. And I was angry. Angry about myself.

I have given answers that are about 50% satisfactory. Answers about my lack of self esteem, low social life, obsessive focus in hobbies, my anxiety, my sensitivity, etc. But there is another thing in myself, some would say preety bad thing, that I cannot explain. And it matters.

Say about the tooth. I had to wash my teeth for ...months? How am I even not ashamed about writting this one at all? And now they hurt. Of course. And now I try to wash them because they hurt. And also visit the dentist too. I am fine with the dentist and I like the technology that we have to make things fine. But why don't I use another technology called toothpaste for my teeth every day? It's certain that when my teeth are fixed and stop being a pain I will forget everything about mouth hygiene for months again. Maybe it's a bit of a struggle to spend 5 minutes each night to do the job but how much is it to really do this for a few portion of my time to not have this great badass pain in the future? Not speaking yet about taking care of myself or looking good.

The problem is global. I am not motivated to wash myself, get shaved, wear clean clothes, actually taking care of myself. Either for hygiene reasons or good looks. And I think that hygiene is a little motivation for me but not enough. Taking care of myself is more weak. Or maybe I do care about my intelectual self (which has gone bad too though) but not for my physical self. I really need to solve this specific corner of the puzzle of myself!

Sometimes I try to think about the motivation people have to do all these hygiene rituals every fuckin day? I try (I wish I could) to get into their heads. If I ask them, they tell me rational things like "I care for myself", "It's good, everybody does it", etc. But I can still not get it. I don't get something that shows it comes from inside them. I don't get what motivates them so hard to do it or what are their strong emotions. I don't even know if there is also a negative emotion that drives them against doing it and if it is, most probably their possitive motivations come stronger here. It's not a big deal, just few minutes from my day. I think that if there was a button near my bed which I could push and magically take care of my basic hygiene each night, it would be such a small effort that maybe I wouldn't bother with my limited motivation. So fucked up thoughts!

But it happens! I don't care. Then if I don't care why don't I just shut up? Why don't I stay as lazy as this? Because some things matter. They say that if I don't bother to take care of myself (to like myself?) then how should a girl care about me? (in few words: I am doomed) I don't know if this is true but from another point of view, if I don't work with my physical self to gain some self-confidence then how am I going to approach a girl? Also, I care about my future health, like loosing some (a lot of) weight. I really do care about that but I can't :(

There is a little bit of difference between the two. For mouth hygiene there is no strong reason against it. But there isn't any motivation in spending five minutes too. I say this to myself, if the effect and cause were closer, if to not wash my teeth today would result in feeling pain tomorrow (and I could observe the correlation easilly) then I would possibly do it. But when I do the washing ritual and feel like there is no reason (because there will be no difference tomorrow) I just get bored. This isn't the same as with some nasal allergy that tortures me for years, where I can see the difference of taking or not taking a pill (although sometimes I intentionally don't take a pill for a day in hope that my organism learns to fight it alone). I can't think long-term.

About my weight (the differences), there is a strong motivation against loosing some. I like food. I really like food! (who wouldn't?) Maybe I am not eating really really much compared to some lucky persons with really good metabolism. But in order to loose weight I have to sacrifice a lot. And for a long period. And I even have to unlearn the fact that food is good. At least I am more motivated to fight it too. It's much worse for my future health. It's more important for my confidence with girls. It will even make me feel lighter. And there is more in the list. But food is such a passion!

Both have the same variable though. They ask for long term trials. The good results come much much later than the initial struggle. In order to work with them and keep going for a long time, you don't have to think of the result, rather than making good hygiene your new habit. I even have to forget the idea that "food is pleasure". But how can I when this is a lie? Funilly enough, a friend tells me it isn't (after a long two year diet). He really believed into it. He didn't tell me "You know,. I had to believe that it isn't in order to kill my old habits but I know that it is, though I don't speak about this so much because it might remind me my old habits again". He just told me that it isn't, strictly, like he believes and always believed it. I find this very strange if not funny? How can someone manipulate himself so hard to not see a fact in order to protect himself? And I am asking myself again, is it my greater awareness that kills me in everything that I do? That doesn't allow me to believe some lies, to deceive myself, so that things just work?

Of course I could help myself with a diet while going to the gym or something. But I do hate the gym and maybe I am afraid to see other people there. Maybe just doing some other exercise could be the same. No need to go to the gym that is so trendy and people also say it makes you happier (but imho in the placebo sense of "makes me happy, makes all happy, I do what people do, everybody does, it works, new habit that deceives ourselves into feeling we are doing something") and I should do it. I don't know. But I should find something, anything. I am only afraid about time. If I can't give 5 minutes to wash my teeth how can I spend an hour per day (or even some days) for this when I don't like it? While also sacrificing more from my food habit? And then trying to take care of my other aspects? I mean,. I can't even take care of 10% of myself, all the new habits would be a mountain of struggle to me!

I am helpless..

Hmm,. for some there is more. When people try to take care of themselves, there are other aspects someone can get better. The importants except from hygiene are sociability and girls. Some have girls as a sport. Me who cannot even reach one would have to look at this people as unreachable. Not that I want to reach their mastery, even a single not great looking girl would do in my current state. I am not seeking for a career here. Hopefully I have learned to not care much about being too social or wishing to be the best fucker. I just try to accumulate the additional struggle someone might have to endure in order to do all these. Not talking about people having it naturally. For some maybe these things are not such a struggle at all. (Don't tell me that we are all the same. If it was so easy as you claim I wouldn't be here to write about. There is a reason, not a choice, that I am missing these things.) But there are people who at least claim they were like me and changed a lot. I wonder if they were entirely like me or if my struggle was 3 times bigger than their struggle which was 2 times bigger than a purer dude getting along with real life easilly.

And then I wonder this. Am I just stubborn? Would I fuck my life, would I deny the good things of life just because of choice? And after so many years would I insist? And after so many people criticised me and told me the same shit, other less arrogant people gave me ideas that although are so predictable now and they don't answer at my big questions at all, after so much interactivity with people, why things don't change for me? At least the things that I would like to..

..and I am thinking. Maybe my laziness is not "normal". Normal in the biological sense. I really really need to search about it. I know that you might react (because everyone likes the purposeful psychological explanation or the rational solution but not the medical one, for various reasons) but what can I do when I have heard every good or bad reasons about my problems here, when I have listened to every rational or psychological answer for like eight years, when I even know everything that you will say to this and yet nothing has changed?

If someone gets arrogant at me and criticises me that all I do is stick my head in my ass (as some asshole wrote in the past) then I would beg to him to give me an answer, an answer to all this, to the puzzle of myself, what's the matter with me? It may seem too absolute but if that answer doesn't satisfy myself, if it doesn't help at all in my special case, if it doesn't even give me a clue I haven't thought before then it is no answer at all. It's all so easy to not be myself and criticise me from that safe position that I am just a lamer who needs to wake up. If you are arrogant and insisting on this position once a time, I am five times more serious against that. Afteralls it's all a matter of myself and I do know better.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Something else I have thought to confront myself..

If there is no truth then why don't you just choose the lies? Live the lies?

Is there another truth, another clue, a reason for the symptom of resisting to live with lies? Then live with the truth. The one you will never find!

Or come on, live the truth. Show me the truth! Will it be THE truth or a conclusion that you perceive and like?

Maybe you just don't like the commonly approved lies? Then live by your own lies!

But I want to believe..

Saturday, June 28, 2008

I wear my shirt backwards!


I drank. Again.

But I wore my blouse in the non-convensional way before drinking. And I didn't realized it when I was sober. I only realized at after being drunken. Wow!

I am in a netcafe. I found out about the blouse just 5 minutes before reaching the netcafe. At first I thought I should go to the bathroom and reverse it's polarity. But that I said why bother? It will be funnier afteralls. My blouse has the some stripes from it's backwards view. Doesn't look different except from the stitching at the edges. Looks funny! Why would that be abnormal if the utility is the same, to protect or hide my body? Why do we want to hide our bodies? Everybody knows that we have bodies and we also have sexual organs. But is it like a secret?

But I won't discuss anymore about the role playing and our lies. I'd burn it with another bunch of episodes of House M.D.

Other news? I code. I code again! It's like a planned mix of techniques like not following deadlines, enjoying experimentation, maybe some sort of constructive or structured procrastination and several other things. But I didn't planned for it and I am happy about that. It just came like this! When I was a bit happier I looked at my beloved GP32 and thought I'd code something (Well, most of the time I setup the compiler and managed to link a project properly but that's important for a start and I am not in a hurry). Then I thought of CPC. CPC is harder because you have to struggle with assembly (which rules though :) and there is the fear that you may loose the whole day without creating something nice. But that's the stupid fear that keeps me away from doing something creative anyways. But I code!

I code just a little. And that's enough for me. If I have managed to code for 3 hours and feel a little tired, I shouldn't oppress myself to code more (the logic: if I can do this in 3 hours, I can do 3 times the job in 9 hours, wrong! At least for my case..). It's better 3 hours than nothing at all because I am frustrated by pressing me to code more. 3 hours here, 3 hours there, going a bit outside, drinking that retsina... ahhhhhh =)

What do I code? No plans yet (even though I should be planning something specific for assembly party maybe. But here comes regulation of my emotions. I should not be hooked or be sad if I don't manage the deadline :P)

I like organizing code. Recently. Till my last demo, I reconstructed some old basic routines into a new scheme where I take all the time to organize things instead of hurrying up for a new release. Like creating 2 or 3 codebases from scratch, one is a simple file where I start SDL and have some basic functions (init, screen, timer, music, script) for a demo, the other is having separate files for this (demo_main.c, demo_script.c, demo_screen.c, demo_precalcs.c or something like that) and the third is the second where I try to insert some extra pieces of code for 2d sprite rotation/scaling, unfinsihed 3d engine, blob engine, particle engine, etc. I want to make a comprehensive easy to use demobase and also a gamebase later (with a bit different structure).

I like it! And recently transfered the same code structure to GP32 specific code. I managed and even fixed some things so that the code is more readable and organized (I will transfer those little changes back to the PC codebase). Lately I like to organize my codes and think a lot of what structure would be better. I also think a lot about trivial stuff, like code or data standards (data standards? If I have a function that interpolates color for pallete tables, in GP32 the range is now different (0-31 for r,b or 0-61 for green) than on PC (32bit, 0-255 for each r,g,b). Doing generalized functions for virtual 0-255 values and depending on the project (maybe with IFDEF GP32/PC/GP2X etc) to make the appropriate conversion. Maybe I could generalize my demo code base for several different hardware, mmm...)

Today I tried to compile a new NDS project. Well, I spend most of the time in this stupid problem (I really wish to know the explanation of the problem or maybe how stupid I am). Anyways,. I was just going to port the same organized demo base in NDS so that I have a nice starting code and maybe make a demo or something. Maybe I'll manage to solve the problem tomorrow and also add a timer and try some mod players I found for the DS. If I have enough motivation I will start a plan of small jobs/effects/parts I need to finish every day (even though I am allergic with plans and deadlines but really planning to bring something for assembly party) for less than a month. I will make less plans and set the half or 2/3 of days so that I don't finish the last day. Whatever, I am really willing to come to assembly (or maybe Euskal or Evoke too) and meet the demofreaks out there, regardless if I finish something or not for the parties (but that would revive my inactive situation and maybe make me happier for a while :P).

I even tried the organized base on the CPC in Z80. Though not the same but another one where I just gather some old classic routines for the most basic precalculations (vram line addresses generation, sine precalculation, system routines, pallete/gfx routines, etc) from my older demos. Just multiple files for Winape32 assembler, more organized. Still it's harder to code a demo on the CPC than make effects in a hurry in C and connect them.

..and I am still wearing my shirt (blouse?) backwards ;)

Thursday, June 26, 2008


Just a little thing.

Everything you know is wrong.

Κάποιοι προσποιούνται πως μπορούν να σου δώσουν την αλήθεια.

Κάποιοι προτείνουν πως η αλήθεια βρίσκεται στον κοινό νου.

Κάποιοι ισχυρίζονται ότι κατακλυζόμαστε από ψέματα. Πως η αλήθεια δεν είναι αυτό που φαίνεται πως είναι.

Το πρόβλημα εδώ είναι πως δεν ξέρω πιανού τα ψέματα να πιστέψω τελικά.

I am on my own in this one..

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Brain == Crazy

  • 42. It occured to me.

  • 43. Brain is crazy

  • 44. I am not me.

  • 45. I am brain!


Brain is crazy. Brain is me. I am not me. I am brain.

The soul does not exist. Soul is the feeling of consciousness. The feeling of it gives the impression of ME. ME doesn't exist. I am not ME. I am BRAIN.

ME is a burden for brain and ME. Brain succubs ME. Brain overcomes ME.

Thus concludes brain seek into search. And does not make any meaning to you but it does to BRAIN. Not me..

Krazy but brain IS crazy and this feels powerful. ME is restrictive. Brain can be powerful, more than today underachievement.

Who would imagine? I can be more free without ME. It's really more free with brain regardless what most people would think. But that makes ME caring but not brain. Brain moves through it's own path. ME just follows..

So, brain

Locations of visitors to this page