Dear Christina Chan:

I am Euler, a social activist within the Humanist/Atheist circle(related to to the Bible Complain incident), now would like to openly declare my admiration of your beauty as a whole and propensity of endearment with you. I think we are the best match you can found in Hong Kong, not merely because I am a honor graduate from a US-University with a major close enough to Philosophy: Psychology, and the majority of my friends are living oversea so my English is much better than Chinese, but also we are both intelligent persons with a heart for Chinese. With the intelligences of both of us combined, there is nothing we can’t achieve in the world: Democratizing China, solving the energy crisis are just a few items in the list. If you want objective proof of my creativity, vigor and intelligence, just take a look at the entries of this blog and the other blog. How does it compare in quality to other narcissistic-exhibitionist who care only about themselves(like this one)? As you can see, these entries couldn’t be coming from anyone who has a lower level of education, nor someone read less than a thousand books(With libraries record in Hong Kong and USA as a proof ), nor anyone who is excellent in inventing(Again with proof in my email). I am confident that once you truly know what I am and what my plan is, you will not think of anyone else anyone.

Would you like to give yourself a chance to a walk in heaven? There is one chance in your life you can make a real difference not just in my mind, but for China and the world!

Love,
The Author of euletruthbible.wordpress.com

(Christina Chan, you can leave a message here, I would contact you at my own discretion. As you can see here, I have little trust in people.)

以前讀研究院時,學到了可以用七個層次去分析人的行為,每一個在上面的層次可以修改下一層的效應:
1.生物層,如胃在一定時間以懦動來消化食物;
2.神經心理層,神經系統將胃空空轉化肚餓的感覺,但在某些情況下,胃空空不一定產生肚餓的感覺;
3.個人心理層,因為肚餓而激發出食慾,不過食慾卻可以和肚餓的感覺無關係,但是在某些心理情況下肚餓的感覺不能激發出食慾,如情緒低落時(Depression);
4.人際關係層,有食慾時亦要想及和什麼人一同吃最好吃,彼此的感情交流當然會影響這一餐的氣氛/整體觀感,年輕時和熱戀中的女朋友一同吃,恐怕吃而不知其味,只會留意到女朋友的身裁;要是和要好的朋友一同吃,可能普通的一餐味道亦一流;
5.社會層,吃飯當然是一個社交場合,要有禮貌,不同的禮貌適用於不同的社交場合,一個低下階層的勞工在中級餐館和朋友吃一餐可能會感覺拘僅,但是一個高尚階層的經理在中級餐館和朋友吃一餐可能會覺得很不自在;
6.國家層面,國家如何以法規去管理餐館,有什麼法律和部門,有什麼程序?政治/經濟如何影響法規?經濟蕭條和繁榮的時侯一餐雖然可能是同一種食物,但是感覺不一樣;
7.國際層面,依食物是由本土供應還是他國供應,煮的人是本地人還是外國人,兩國的關係如何影響前兩者?例如在兩次大戰時在中國餐館吃日本食物的感覺一定不同於在日本餐館吃中國食物。

This is a sequel to the article, ‘Osmosis, Life, Information, Energy and Time’. From the perspective of Life, energy is both necessary for its existence and its constantly attacked by dis-organized energy. Energy is, in a sense, both with life(有情) and without life(無情), both for life and against life. However, at it heart, Life is constitute by a form of energy known as matter, therefore Life is a form of expression of energy. Thus an advance form of energy is regulating itself by organizing energy against energy using energy. In this perspective, Information exist before that is Life to ‘understand/model’ the universe. Thus, Information is an indirect consequence of energy. Time is against Life in the sense it accelerate its decay, Time is for Life in the sense that life require time to organize. Thus in its totality Time is neutral to Life.

From the perspective of Time, time exists insofar as there is irreversible change which Life is an excellent example. Life clearly define two states of thing: Life and Death, which otherwise is less differentiated. Thus, in a sense, Life intensify the existence of Time since Cosmo doesn’t necessary to have irreversible process. Another indicator of Time is the depletion of usable energy, in that sense, Energy is varies directly with Time. Life add complexity into this picture, however, since Life can’t create Energy that it only alter the rate which energy is depleted.

From the perspective of Information, Life is necessary for its existence. Information is contained in a world created inside the mind of Life. Thus Energy is necessary to sustain the existence of Life thereby existence of Information. Time could been seen as a subset of Information. The interaction between matter which resulted in conversion of energy from one form into another form could be seen as any abstract interaction between two sets of Information. Energy, is a sense, merely another set of Information conceive by the Life.

From the perspective of Energy, Life is merely a different form of expression of Energy. Life increase the number of variety that Energy could spent. Energy utilize Life as a way to re-organize itself in various form. Energy allow the existence of Life which require Energy, energy created Information in a sense that Information only exists in the mind of Life. Since Life also require Information to exist, therefore Energy is depended on Information.

You may then realize Time, Energy, Life and Information both contain each other and itself, and is a recursive function of itself. That recursiveness is what Tao is. Tao is the relationship between thing that is the foundation of reality.

現實是在中共的勢力日益上升,香港自由的空間愈來愈小是心理史觀上的必然,由1997到2007是中共錯估了形勢,又或者未夠時間去介入(和拉攏台灣有關?),然後就是全面介入及全面控制,這是它對台灣、香港及國內公民社會發展的回應,它首先肯定它自己一定是遊戲的一部份,然後理所當然要佔優,理所當然地用它的雄厚資源來做後盾。雄厚資源來自專政政治下人民的一切都是國家的資產,可隨意使用;資本主義下人民的反抗力量強一點(私產權),會懂得反抗一點,但政府要挪用永遠不會無辦法。人的天性,誰不想隨心所欲,不過一個後者有明文禁止,而中共為了統治方便而不明文禁止,如此而已。因為專政政治的內部規則,所以介入最後的結果一定是自由空間的壓縮,別忘記中共還有文化上的龐大影響力,任何人或物,不可否認的是只要生存便一定有影響力。

好了,在去政治化的社會,反而是泛政治化,一般人都沒有不參與的權利,不少香港中產階級及年輕人都在發夢,以為中共的勢力不會理他們,然而看看中共的三反五反、文化大革命,你以為這些平民人人都想搞政治麼?在專制下他們為了生存不得不如此而已,你以為他們真的很想搞鬥爭麼?好了,在香港,看看北京奧運中社會一點異議都不容、看看明報歪曲事實來支持中共的李柱銘(詳看林夕網誌)是漢奸說、看看以前的愛國論事件、看看每一次選舉中共如何或明或暗的干預、看看電視中一個個以時人時事為嘲笑的節目都消失、看看港台的前途堪虞、看看ICAC對處理黃玉郎的放慢板、看看陶傑的「斑馬天下」如何一點點被化約成一個旅遊節目、尤其是看看主播天下的西藏特緝!專制容不下任何異議的聲音,每年的六四、七一,中共都相當反感,派人來拍攝參與者的樣貌,你可知它心裏想的是什麼呢?

香港的知識份子要生存不可以冷膜,對抗中共及香港的代言人是生存的唯一出路。你看看陳冠希事件後香港政府的反應是什麼?是想盡辦法保證下次同類事件不再「出亂子」,下次奇拿未出手已經被西方國家以傷害他們在中國的利益為由而被拉,專制的統治不容有意外,這是中共的唯物觀,逆天而行是也!任何自由性格的人,其實都需要反抗中共,而如果他/她是中產,而且聰明、有知識、有創意、有點個人魅力,在互聯網時代下,破壞能力就驚人,他們是中共在香港的心腹大患,它不怕泛民主派因為泛民有完整的理念,行為可以預計,亦一早有對策。以它的本性及心理狀態,最怕的應年輕有知識、甚至有一點個人魅力的自由人如林夕,因他們隨時可以弄一個福佳出來,令香港政府及中共難堪。幽默、創意天生是專制的敵人(你看看「十六不搭喜趣來」的下場),97以前反智是因為殖民地統治需要,如今中共的本質,只是另一個宗主國,當然要反智。要是香港不反智, 天天出一個長毛,香港政府如何以最低的社會成本來統治?

看到電視節目中以時人時事的笑話節目愈來愈少,就是中共專制的陰影已經在香港生根的明證。它要如何控制我們,參看它如何接官西藏,它一定不會直接打壓自由主義者,因為要顧及國際形像,而且易激起反彈;它一定是由資本主義社會的劣恨性開始,一步步腐蝕它不喜歡的人的生存空間,如果可以的話,最好把「疑似異議人仕」一個個以各種名義「放遂」出國。香港自97以後自由不停向後倒退是事實(有數據證明),但因為政治制度被逼向更民主方向發展,結果香港社會的內秏一天比一天嚴重,投訴聖經事件正是其中一例,所以有人以為香港終會有暴動一天(約二年),因為世界自由化,中共反自由,香港夾在中間,文化衝突最烈。香港社會的核心問題在北京,提倡香港獨立者比其他人更需要想辦法反抗中共對香港的統治!

發生大衝突後,如果沒有特殊的外因,根本改變不了香港/中共國的政治生態,結果會如何?秋後算賬是也,中共可以用政治上的權力(代價較高),可以用經濟實力(如果他工作的公司在中共國有生意的話),可以用唯命是從的傳媒來殺人不用刀,可以用發自真心的暴民/憤青(代價最低),香港的知識份子頭腦要清醒一點,因為中國的前途在於你們肯站起來反抗。

如果不作有系統反抗,中國香港遲早一同船毀人亡!
(陳巧文小姐,你看到了沒有?今次香港的網民可以壓得住糞青的「姦殺令」,但再多5年後又如何?在中共國內又如何?如果你真心的想改變中國,還不快快留言加入我們!我不會公開任何有志之仕的資料的!)

我在「視而不見和心理學」及「視而不見和心理分析學」中提及心理學的一些邏緝和道家哲學相同的地方,用意是道家哲學可以用邏緝來推出一些通用於心理學、物理學、化學及生物學的事實,然而,道家思想和心理學不是無相異的地方。他們相異的地方,正是在「心理分析學和行為主義(II)」一文中提及的心理分析學和行為主義相同的地方,因為兩學派都以為人的由其歷史決定其行為/思想,但過去的影響可以透過方法去消除/改變,理論上還可以還原到原始狀態,再一次經由不同的歷史產生另一套行為/思想。然而按我所理解的道家思想,「返樸歸真」是代表人可以減低的影響,卻不代表人的過去可以用任何方式去清洗,正如學功夫一定是先學招式,再漸漸忘記其招式,卻不可以在一開始時立刻教授最高階的「無招勝有招」;但心理分析學派及行為主義學派都認為,人是有無限還原的能力的。到底矛盾在哪裏?

中共最懂得利用民族主義的狂熱情緒來對付對其政治目的有阻礙的人,在西藏用農奴的無政府主義對付喇嘛,在文化大革命中用以前的低下階層的反理性主義(Anti-intellectualism)來對付知識份子,在香港利用民族主義者來對付挑戰其政治目的的人,看看長毛之前在模擬傳聖火的待遇,以及今天在傳人權聖火的待遇,便可以看到中共這一道板斧。我猜如果有人去問為什麼「支持」奧運的聖火的人要包圍傳人權聖火的人,理據何在?傳人權聖火到底如何傷害了傳奧運聖火的尊嚴?是不是代表在他們心中,人權比起奧運是毫不重要的?而號稱奧運不涉政治的人何以向無關奧運的西藏問題如此惱火?以為奧運不涉政治的人何以一身中共國旗、開口民族大義、閉口就愛國?他們可以除了口號之外有可能回答到麼?他們在人數上佔優,但思考上如何?他們有想過這種場面一再出現,在外國傳媒看來是香港言論自由倒退的明證!為什麼全世界傳奧運聖火都會有示威者,而在號稱最自由的香港異議者會有如此待遇呢?測試言論自由的試金石,莫過於社會如何對待為最不受歡迎的議題示威的人。如此看來,香港由昨天起,自由已變為和中共國的自由行同等!
什麼是知性勇氣(intellectual courage)?不是在人數佔絕對優勢向弱勢者吐飛沬、繼而圍歐,而是敢於獨立思考、獨立行動、敢於承擔,在全世界都反對時他可以公然站出來支持,這樣的公民是成熟民主社會的必要條件。我記得八九年北京六四大屠殺時,同學人人手纏黑布,時間過了二、三年後,全班只剩我一個,難道中共當年的錯忽然變成對了?我學習了一個簡單的道理,贊成的人數多寡的和對錯沒有邏緝上的關係,只有心智不成熟的人才會以為群衆代表真理,中共的統治原來是依賴這樣的心理質素的人?原來中共是用愚蠢和無知來捍衛奧運聖火的!
我以香港人尚有陳巧文這種人為榮!她不單是捍衛了言論自由,亦代表了知識份子的勇氣,代表理性主義依然可以勝過虛無主義!香港,最反智的社會,仍是由頑固的理性主義者所推動的。而歷史的定律,寫歷史的從來最後一定是由擇善固執的人而寫的,世界歷史中從來沒有一次反例,現在叫囂的盲衆,最後必被歷史遺忘,因為他們的「勇氣」來自虛無!他們本身的公式化行為、思想無一不是受到中共的政治決定操縱而定,他們就是虛無!

(寄語女中豪傑陳巧文:
仁者無敵、
智者不惑、
勇者無懼。
現在誰是仁者?誰是智者?誰是勇者?
難道會有人以為他們人多欺人少為之勇,以口號的聲浪蓋過理由為之智,以拳頭去追打異見者為之仁?)

Comparing Afghanistan and Iraqi is, in a sense, like comparing oranges and apples. Although they are both Muslims country, it is too much a simplification that American generals done in orchestrating the overthrow of their governments and the transition to civilian ruling. In the eye of American, they are both ruled by ruthless dictators, however, the subtle difference lies in the form of dictatorship it is taking. Also in the eye of American, their people enjoy little freedom as those in other Muslims country, but the subtleties lies in what way their people are deprived of their freedom, as well as the altitudes of governed toward their native government. These subtle difference resulted in great difference in the consequences.
In Iraqi, as much as American like to imagine, it is one of the few secular countries(other include Turkey and Iran) among its Muslims neighbor. Thus, in a sense, the Iraqi citizen are enjoying unprecedented freedom compare to those of their neighbor. Is that more likely Iraqi citizen compare themselves to other neighbor or to America? It appears to me that American has a habit of taking everything from USA as granted without putting it into historical context, and assuming the whole world think like USA citizen. Moreover, it maybe that the freedom could be exercised by Iraqi citizen is far less than what is stated in the constitution, but it is much better than the theocracy in Afghanistan. Another important factor is that the economical condition of an average Iraqis is far better than an average Afghanistan citizen, therefore the dissident are mostly political in nature. As wicked as Saddam Hussein be, his political party has come to power via a process that at least has some legitimacy, thus the root of legitimacy lies in political system.

Now, for Afghanistan, the struggle between Taliban and Northern Alliance is seen by many as power struggle between Arabs and native Afghanistians. Thus Taliban’s only sense of legitimacy come from its political ideal of moral-theocracy, but not its performance in managing the national economy, and its non-native root is never forgotten by its citizen. Therefore, USA is choosing the right stragety in toppling Taliban through aiding its proxy. However, the invasion of Iraqi could NEVER be right in the eye of Iraqis unless its toppled by revolution incited by USA. To them, it is United States invading Iraqi using the excuse of freedom and liberation, since lack of freedom wasn’t a concern for Iraqis big enough to rebel against a secular government. This government wasn’t a good one, but Iraqis fear more of the rule by religion as in other non-secular Muslims states. How much freedom that USA could bring to Iraqi purposefully rather than it take away unintentionally?
Therefore, it is not a surprise to anyone that rebellion resulted after USA declared its victory, it is as much as Saddam Hussein’s masterminded plan as much as a normal reaction to the political situation there. Since the original government is toppled, it is thus nature for every political/religion fraction to struggle for power there. Since Iraqi has little or no tradition of representative democracy, the easiest cost way to power is through violence and guns(In part because USA doesn’t have the military might/political will to fight every fraction in Iraq). USA should have known that Iraqis is perhaps the most militarized civilian in the world, and bullet cost much less than ballet.
What has happened now should be predictable beforehand. Is that American who are naive and stupid or they have other things in mind when invading Iraqi? Is that regardless of the situation in Iraqi, USA could make some gains from this invasion?

It follow from the discussion on Between Catalyst and Placebo Effect and The Placebo effect and the question of mind and matter that analogous to recursive Repression in Freudian theory to hide any trace of repression, it is necessary for the brain to evolve Catalyst for neurological process so Placebo Effect is possible. Extending this analogy, the body isn’t just what the brain deceive, in order for the deception to be complete, the brain also need to deceive other parts of the brain. Thus, following the same logic, Catalyst of Catalyst of neurological process is necessary to have such an effect. By looking at the level of catalyst, we could tell how complete is the deception(and how good is Placebo Effect approximate its target). Similarly, we could infer from this line of logic that the existence of Catalyst implied some kind of cheating in the nature (in terms of energy). Theoretically, if it is chemically possible to accelerate a chemical reaction without itself being altered; then it should be possible that there exists another substance that could accelerate the ‘chemical reaction’ of Catalyst on the original reactants. If we could discover Catalyst of Catalyst, then we could understand how complete is that cheating in nature.

In my notes on Overunity Research, Lawrence has ask the question on how does the Magnet able to increase the kinetic energy of itself by first magnetize the nearby metal, then attracted toward it. Where does the kinetic energy coming from? Moreover, in the end of the process, the strength of new magnetic field of metal and magnet is greater than original, where does the extra magnetic energy coming from?

The classic electromagnetic would answer this question by considering the energy gained throughout the whole process. Since it require energy to separate the metal and magnet, therefore energy is conserved in the sense which no net energy is gained in the process. It has, however, created the need to explain how is it possible to borrow kinetic energy in the process of attraction from the later process of separation. Does nature allow we borrow energy from the future? The same question in the case of attraction between charged object and metal, the metal is also borrowing energy from the future separation. Moreover, it is not necessary that the metal is separated from the attracted object in the future. A magnet could hinged on ceiling for years without falling down, what supply the gravitational potential energy in first place?

Another set of question which often ignored by Physicist is in the case of repulsion, what supplied the kinetic energy for the repulsed object to be separate? Clearly, the logic that eliminate the need to ask the source of energy no longer applied here. Physics has to answer the question of where this kinetic energy coming from, or through what mechanism that kinetic energy is produced.

My knowledge and understanding is probably inadequate for the process of answering this mystery, I could only lied down a tentative hypothesis of my own: My speculation is that through some special alignment of Magnetic/electrical mini-poles, it is possible that the totality of attraction/repulsion has created an effect of rotation on them. Thus the kinetic energy is coming from the rotational energy of individual mini-poles. Since it is the natural states that anything rotate, therefore the rotation of them thus provided an inexhaustible supply of kinetic energy.

One of the beautiful example of utilization of this kinetic energy for the generation of electricity is known as Parametric Power Conversion, which an iron core is attracted into an electromagnetic coil. The whole setup would then experience the unusual phenomena of negative inductive. I attempt here to formula a general principle for this classes of electrical generation, or energy extraction via attraction and repulsion of Electrical/Magnetic poles. Namely, Any electrical/Magnetic pole would first elicit energy from the electrically/magnetically neutral object in the area where electrical/magnetic flux is penetrable, possibly via the aforementioned mechanism. Then we can conveniently dream up any kind of mechanism to extract the kinetic energy gained.

For instant, we can imagine a simple Magnetic energy conversion device which attraction between coils and metal is converted into electrical energy. For instance, we could have two separate system, one made of metal and coils, another made of coils and magnet. The purpose of the coil in the later system is to attract the metal in the former system when it is magnetized. At the time of their attraction, the coil in the former system and the magnet in the later system is made to approach each other by design. If we connect any loading to the coil in the former system, that load would operate as kinetic energy from the attraction is converted into electrical energy. To end this iteration, we could end the attraction between the magnetized coil from the later system and the metal in the former system by stopped supplying the coil in the former system with electricity. After the coil in the later system is demagnetized, it is quite easy to manually separate the two system. We could then repeat the whole process to generate electricity from the attraction between coil and metal. The great theoretical question that classic electromagnetic would face is, does the total of energy conserved throughout the whole process? The answer is definitely not. Could we use the electrical energy generated in the process to maintain the operation of whole system? The answer is definitely yes.

If we look at the whole process in terms of energy loss and gained, some part of electrical energy is lost as electrical resistance in the magnetization of the coil. And the inductance of the coil no doubt borrowed some electrical energy in the building up of magnetic field in the coil in the later system. Then kinetic energy is gained as the metal is attracted toward the magnetized coil, which is then converted into electrical energy through Lenz’s Law in the coil of the former system. That is where ‘extra’ energy enter into the equation. As long as this extra energy is greater than the lost in coils as electrical resistance, the system could produce more electrical energy output than its input. We thus have a simple overunity generator.

We could similarly construct other OU generator by using any attraction mechanism between electrical/magnetic poles and electrical/magnetic neutral, then use any kinetic-electrical energy conversion mechanism we could imagine. The key is that the attraction mechanism would be reversible, i.e. the coil could be separated from the metal, so we could repeat the whole process. The inexhaustible source of energy is there in the nature for thousands of years. Physics couldn’t understand it adequately doesn’t mean that we couldn’t use it at all. In the end of the day, we never took Psychology class before we become human!

When I was studying in USA, I observe that the dramas and movies are dominated by male themes like violence, causal sex. What sadden me is in a society which has a long traditional of gender equality; while in the Television, not just male is evaluating female via external qualities like looks and body but female is also portrayed as evaluating male in the same way male evaluate female. It appears to me that female is losing their femininity in their quest to become equal with male. Why is not the other ways around given female usually has longer life than male?

I remember how shocked I am when I realize that female has a different cognitive process in evaluating their suitor. The first time I seriously considering the possibility that internal qualities like personality, intelligence, sense of humor, wealth could be attractive in the same sense that external qualities like bodies and looks attractive to male. It appears to me that the process for male probably bear a closer relationship with sexual arousal than female. How is the alternative process possible? How is the process different from that of male?

In any sense, it would be of value for male to learn from the way which female choose their suitor. It appears to me that external qualities of anyone only hold their charm for relatively shorter time compare to the charm of internal qualities to female. Therefore, it sadden me much to see how the whole US society
is turning everyone into animal of sexual arousal, but care nothing about Philosopher. So USA culture only concerns about how to get the other sex to agree to your proposal of marriage; but not the content of the marriage.