tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-338251332024-03-08T05:00:41.340-05:00k is for countermystery by ignorance.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.comBlogger186125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-61071868824344131352010-10-14T02:37:00.000-04:002010-10-14T02:37:18.416-04:00Copious Incongruity<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is ridiculous. Near the end of <a href="http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/10/hitchens-brothers-debate-if.html">this video</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> Peter Hitchens makes the comparison that relative morals would be like if the magnetic north drifted. Surprise Peter! It drifts! In 2009 it was moving almost </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">40 miles per year</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">! Does this make navigation harder as Peter claims? Well, not entirely: much navigation is far enough away from the poles that the exact location isn't too terribly important, but navigation relying on the magnetic north pole near the magnetic north pole will </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">always</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> be difficult—in very close analogy with moral orientation, which, in matters with poorly understood consequences or a poor sense of empathy, can be very difficult to resolve. </span><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In this analogy, obvious moral issues (like stealing & murder) are akin to navigation far from the poles (e.g. the equator), where the exact location of the magnetic poles is less influential on the resulting guidance, while morally controversial issues (like embryonic stem cell research or the creation of artificial life) are like trying to use a compass at the magnetic pole—it is not possible. In navigation we've overcome this limit by inventing artificial tools like GPS to take the place of the magnetic compass, in morals we've repeatedly tried to overcome this limit with new moral philosophies, but the moral landscape isn't a tiny sphere like Earth, it's an endless landscape largely unexplored. Technology and communication are constantly expanding the landscape we've explored, and relaying it back to the masses, where moral cartographers try to map out what is and isn't okay. Unfortunately for homo sapiens, moral cartographers are in constant conflict with religious zealots crying that all the answers were revealed to a handful of anonymous desert goat herders 2000-5000 years ago!</span> <br />
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 19.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The real problem is that believing one has a black and white absolute resolution to every moral question interferes with </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">actual</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> progress in moral attitudes. As a shameful example, our nation, just a scant </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">150 years ago</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> thought it was morally acceptable to </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">own and treat human beings as property</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">. Just </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">try</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> to comprehend that. Many </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">southern baptists</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> believed this was so acceptable </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">they were willing to fight the bloodiest war of our history over it</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">. Luckily another group of probably mostly religious people (as most people were and continue to be) felt strongly enough about human rights to fight such a terrible war in the name of equality.</span></span></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 19.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Now I </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">assume</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> that most southern baptists today </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">do not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> condone slavery, and would vehemently fight against it. Is that due to their immutable moral sense? Or is it because morals—like the magnetic north pole—drift over time, evolving as humankind comprehends more of reality, more of the pain of fellow humans, more of the similarities that cross skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and religious indoctrination? And if you are ready to admit that morals are indeed not absolute, the next step is to start seeing how the denial of that fact and the assertion of an absolute guide to morals is further inhibiting us—just as it did with slavery in the United States in 1860.</span></span></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Battle_of_Gettysburg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Battle_of_Gettysburg.jpg" width="320" /></span></span></a></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">To a far lesser degree, we are witnessing this phenomena with respect to biological research. Religious dogmas are interfering with what should be a serious discussion about what is morally acceptable and what is not, but instead the whole discussion has been dragged into the mythical realm of books written by people who couldn't have dreamed of the slightest fraction of what the technology is capable of exploring.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Additional points that I don't want to bother describing in detail at the moment: he mentions consciousness as being a difficult challenge for atheists. I assure you, it's not. He also pretends as if his difficulty to imagine an answer were a sufficient reason for one to accept the introduction of magic into the explanation. This is silly, we're each born not understanding any phenomena, genetics, technology, physics, etc., are all intensely mysterious to the fresh human mind. It is only after many centuries of careful observation, analysis, hypothesis, and testing (i.e., science) that we have come to comprehend what powers the sun, why I look like my dad and so on. He mentions that if morality evolves, the things we strongly disapprove of now could be permitted later: yes! That is a </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">good</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> thing, that very process is the reason why </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">it is generally accepted that enslaving human beings is morally impermissible</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">. That is a </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">wonderful thing</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">. He asks if morals evolve than who evolves them? And the answer is </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">obviously</span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> that </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">we do</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">. There is no grand hand to guide us, no stone tablet describing where stem cell research actually crosses the line. We are </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">alone</span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> here, except for one another. And the sooner we all admit that, and accept it, and embrace it, the sooner we can make some </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">real</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> progress.</span></span></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Finally (though this seems like a minor point in comparison to the horrifying topic of slavery), Peter says at the end that "morality is what you do when you think nobody is looking," and "theres a lot of things I would do if I didn't believe in god." Wow! I'd like to know what those things are. I suspect upon further reflection most people who make this kind of statement (and I assure you there are many) would realize that most of the things they would do aren't really all that wrong. I doubt any of them would confess desires to murder, rape, or steal from other people, abuse children, or most of the other things that most people think of as "wrong." But what would they do? Maybe drugs? Cursing? Take the lords name in vain? Maybe they would be more sexually "deviant"? or admit it more? Maybe they'd want to have a homosexual experience. I can imagine that being fairly likely, since many religious homosexuals have forced themselves to live a lie, choosing faith in their despicable book over a happy self-controlled life.</span></span></div></div>codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-6207423138669558972010-10-02T01:54:00.000-04:002010-10-02T01:54:44.218-04:00Look at me! Wrong!I'm watching Apocalypse Now Redux. Wait, <i>we </i>created the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong">Viet Cong</a> too!? (Or their predecessor the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Minh">Viet Minh</a>.) What is wrong with us, don't we learn!?<br />
<br />
I can't get over the French woman's glances! The Onion had/has a personals site called... I forgot the name. But it had a question like, "what's your favorite movie sex scene," and now I'm thinking I might rate this highly there.<br />
<br />
Also, that purple haze looks <i>amazing</i>.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-27120731633773035062010-09-22T00:26:00.000-04:002010-09-22T00:26:37.739-04:00<div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Henry Lewis Gates Jr. this morning on NPR pointed out that racism is always highly correlated with scarcity of resources, and that when we are uncertain of our economic future, it's easiest to preserve our share by dividing society into an us v. them, and looks happen to be a very easy way to group people. So maybe the first thing to do is figure out how to topple the economic system, with technology? Is it possible for us to overcome the basic struggle and competition to survive? We ought to have eliminated starvation and health concerns at this point, though we haven't.</div><div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Is there anything a baby can do that we can't build a robot that could do it also? That is, babies move, (mostly without coordination), they feed (take in energy), they excrete waste, they monitor a variety of sensory inputs, they record vast amounts of data from said sensory inputs... anything else? Facial recognition? But do they have a sense of self? are they conscious, in the way we find so mysterious? Or does that develop over time? They certainly don't sit around and think about things like what I've just written, which is the result of me sitting around thinking about consciousness. Wait a minute, do people find consciousness mysterious, or conscience? (I don't think either are all that mysterious.)</div><div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">If you are willing to concede that animals have conscious brains, the question applies there too; and then you start to wonder, where is the line? Are our machines already conscious? (If this discussion ought to be about conscience instead, is it accepted that some animals have a conscience? that dogs can feel guilt?) (Because you can start to see that consciousness is not a defined feature, but rather a property of a broader quality that beyond some threshold deserves the label, much like beyond some size, grains of sand become a heap.)</div><div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">So the program will: read in a sequence of photos (video frames); extract a specific line of each frame; reassemble the set of lines as a new frame; save the new frame; and then increment the line for extraction. Holy crap this is working! I need to figure out how to assemble them into a video automatically, instead of inside AE.</div><div style="font: 11.0px Futura; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><blockquote><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Joseph Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: small;">He's an enemy of children who's bodies he's allowed to be raped and who's minds he's encouraged to be infected with guilt. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: small;">It's embarrassingly clear that the church is less concerned with saving child's bodies from rapists than from saving priestly souls from hell, and most concerned with saving the long term reputation of the church itself. </span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">He's an enemy of gay people, bestowing on them the bigotry that the church used to reserve for Jews before nineteen sixty two. He is an enemy of women, baring them from the priesthood as though a penis were an essential tool for pastoral duties. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">He is an enemy of truth, promoting bare-faced lies about condoms not protecting against AIDS, especially in Africa.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">He is an enemy of the poorest people on the planet, condemning them to inflated families that they cannot feed, and so keeping them in the bondage of perpetual poverty. A poverty which sits ill besides the obscene wealth of the vatican.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">He is an enemy of science, obstructing the vital stem cell research on grounds not of true morality but on pre-scientific superstition.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ratzinger is even an enemy of the Queen's own church, arrogantly dissing Anglican orders as quote, absolutely null and utterly void. While at the same time shamelessly trying to poach Anglican Vicars to shore up his own pitifully declining priesthood.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Finally, perhaps of most personal concern to me, Ratzinger is an enemy of education. Quite apart from the lifelong psychological damage caused by the guilt and fear that has made catholic education infamous throughout the world, he and his church foster the educationally pernicious doctrine that evidence is a less reliable basis for belief than faith, tradition, revelation and authority—his authority.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times; font-size: medium;"> </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: small;">—Richard Dawkins</span></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Also, dear blogger: your editor here sucks. Can't you just give me a default button that actually defaults to the format of the rest of my post? maybe some day.</span></span>codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-37997022859426692312010-09-20T23:03:00.000-04:002010-09-20T23:03:51.997-04:00Completely Unannounced<div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">9·16·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Wherein I complain to myself.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Words: perfervid, sui generis, perspicuous</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I've wondered frequently what it is that drives my humanism; why should I care about everyone so much? It'd be a lot easier to </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> care about people on the other side of the planet blowing themselves up in the name of ignorance, it's hard to really find a way to connect it to me. But I think I'm starting to get it now. I think it has to do with "the human condition." Which is a phrase I would have normally blown off as buzz-wordy or cliche, but I'm hyper aware of our position in the universe, and quite honest with myself about the prospects of their being more to life than what we choose to make of it. I guess I've noticed and shared an alarming degree of loneliness in the world. And it doesn't need to be, which is the strangest bit. People are so eager to form cliques, to belong to groups and for some odd reason, too often then expel others from those cliques. Divisive categorization seems to permeate our planet—nationalities, genders, ethnicities, religious belief, political opinions, social, personal. It's so vastly counter productive! And it is heartbreaking. And people are so susceptible to being told it's us versus them, but it </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">so</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> isn't!</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">God invented rainbows to remind himself not to exterminate all life on earth whenever he gets frustrated with their behavior. This isn't a joke, I didn't make it up, this is the story of Noah as written.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I'm beginning to view a lot of our behavior as humans in terms of pattern recognition that is trying to cope with a noisy and complex world. Superstitious behaviors abound wherever signal-to-noise ratios are high. I have a feeling the underlying mechanism that drives superstition is far more pervasive than I would have previously imagined—it doesn't always lead to clearly illogical or irrational behavior, like witch hunts or zeus, sometimes it may lead to mere confidence, or lack thereof. Which on the surface of things might never show up as superstition, if nothing ever totally shakes the confidence (or contradicts the doubt) strong enough to topple the superstition. I wonder how much of this I suffer from.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Go directly to work. Do not pass "Go". Do not collect 200 dollars.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">What effect has the entertainment industry had on our hopes and expectations and dreams? Do we suffer from a dream bubble? (An artificially inflated sense of what it means to succeed, or be happy, etc., distorted by the limitless potentials portrayed in fiction.)</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Holy fuck–to put </span></span><a href="http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/09/richard-dawkins-at-protest-pope-rally.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">the pope in perspective</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, can you think of any other group with a billion members? Most of whom donate money </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">every week</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">? </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">for hundreds of years</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">. Controlled by </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">a single monarch</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">? Not the Chinese, or Indians, whom have larger populations.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Watching the 10 commandments… is that a volcano? in the middle east? And did you know this movie is 3 hours and 38 minutes long?</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">lasciviousness</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Idolatry and vile affections</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">This sounds awesome.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I don't like how the pharaoh doubts Moses a whole bunch, passing off each demonstration of god's will as a parlor trick, but then he ultimately gets punished for being a doubter. All religions do this: the preach that faith and trust are integral. That you should question. Like that ultimate absurdity the garden of eden, where all of humankind is punished for a single couple's mistakes—if you can even figure out how to blame people who allegedly don't know right from wrong for breaking a rule. Yup, we're all sinners because a couple of people had to go ahead and express the most basic element of humanity: our curiosity. Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain. Ha ha, reminds me of Bill Hicks, "I'll show you politics in America, 'I think the puppet on the right hand shares my beliefs.' ... 'I think the puppet on the left hand is more to my liking.' Hey wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! — 'Go back to bed America, your Government is in control." Actually, I'm not nearly as cynical as he was, I still really like Obama, and Clinton, and I almost see the democrats as being a natural product of the divide between people who think and people who don't. It reminds me of how I'd expect both asexual and sexual reproduction to exist anywhere in the universe that life develops reasonably well, and single and multicellular life, and plant and animal. There must be a good science word to describe this... natural consequence of the rules or something, I'll ponder.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">It is disgusting the way the Abrahamic faiths unnecessarily manufacture guilt where none need be. As Bertrand Russell put it, "</span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So long as there is death there will be sorrow, and so long as there is sorrow it can be no part of the duty of human beings to increase its amount, in spite of the fact that a few rare spirits know how to transmute it.</span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">" Yet we promulgate most effectively beliefs built on the looming fear of a creator who concerns itself with our personal habits and desires. Such fear mongers draw upon human nature for social approval to instill guilt in peers for behavior that most animals are free to perform without hesitation. </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">9·20·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Religion: the original slippery slope. (essay)</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Topics: garden of eden, original sin, christ, made in the image of god, covenant with god</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">People talk about the purpose of their lives instilled in them by god; what is that? The command to be fruitful and multiply? To be his servant? To what end? It could be noble to be "christlike" or "godlike", as those behaviors (in the popular concepts of those things) would be good behavior, which would be more likely to please others. But to make someone who you certainly can't get to know in as personal way as you can get to know any human? Or just to have offspring? When the world runs out of resources, can we stop multiplying? cause thats kind of happening. Could we start living for ourselves, and the people we care about? How about we live for all humankind?</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The whole Quran burning situation is difficult because, on the one hand, you don't want to side with the moron who is threatening to burn it, because he's a religious nut that doesn't think Islam is wrong because of the evidence, but rather because he thinks Christianity is right; he's participating in a religious war.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">On the other hand, you don't want to support the Muslims who will undoubtedly take offense to him either. They too are participating in a religious war, though they might be escalating it quite a bit more than the idiot christian, if they proceed with death threats or actual violence. Though the idiot christian is already escalating it by burning the book, though such escalation is really much more mundane than violence.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">You don't really want to condone either of their behavior, though you do want to protect the right to burn personal property, (whether books, or symbols of other people's cherished beliefs), and disrespect other's religious beliefs (or any beliefs). While you don't want to protect anyone's right to make death threats or commit acts of violence in the name of their beliefs.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #888888;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">(Which doesn't actually exist as a right.) People need to separate themselves from their ideas more—I am critical of the Abrahamic religions, not of the people who practice them. I know that is a nuanced distinction, and it's easy to sound like I am attacking the adherents, but I'm not. I am motivated by what I view is the absolute best possible world we can make for ourselves, which first involves everyone calming the fuck down, and loosening up a little on their devoutness.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">How ironic is it that those deeply offended by the actions of certain americans, like burning the quran, respond by declaring our insolence should not be tolerated, and then by burning our flag! Another Bill Hicks reference: the flag itself is nothing, it's a flag, a piece of cloth. But what the flag represents, is all of the freedoms we have, that make our country so much better than so many others (though certainly there are other countries with comparable, arguably greater degrees of freedom), the flag is just a symbol of freedom, including the right to burn the fucking flag.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The problem I have with people claiming there must be a creator, or really even, there must not, or "this is too complex to have evolved", is analogous to the statement, "I saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear, and I don't know how it could be done, except that if Copperfield is indeed capable of magic (i.e. violating the laws of physics). Since I cannot conceive of a non-magical way, David Copperfield must be magic."</span></span></div><div style="color: #888888; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The problem is that you are assuming your observations are strong enough to rule out an enormous number of potential alternative explanations. This would be just as wrong were one to say, "if Copperfield were to have put drugs in the audience's drinks, and then use video editing to fool the home audience, then he could make the statue disappear without violating the laws of physics, but I see no other way to both satisfy the laws of physics as well as make the statue disappear, therefore Copperfield drugged the audience," is </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">just as wrong</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">.</span></span></div><div style="color: #888888; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In both instances, the conclusion is built on observations too weak to rule out alternatives. The first situation is the issue that all arguments of the form "god must exist" suffer from; it's the sure sign of a retarded imagination (and I use the "r-word" in it's technical sense). The second instance appears to be what the current cosmologists are suffering from: confidence that their observations (as well as their ability to mathematically model) are both sufficiently complete and encompassing to rule out all possible alternatives. As far as the existence of supernatural beings is concerned however, none of this even matters; from a philosophical point of view, what possibly could be considered "supernatural"? everything that happens happens within nature, whether you can explain it or not. To presume that it violates the actual physical laws of the universe is to presume that we fully understand the actual physical laws of the universe; however, we do seem to have bounded the actual physical possibilities, and there could conceivably be extraordinary evidence that could topple our known laws, but it is inconceivable that such evidence could possibly defy quantification within a new set of laws, in any fundamental way. (Of course single events can appear to violate the current laws, and simultaneously be insufficient for the formulation of new laws, but not because they are fundamentally inexplicable but rather because too little data exists to model them.)</span></span></div><div style="color: #888888; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Furthermore, the assertion that a god exists is simply one of the most extraordinary claims imaginable, and correspondingly it requires some of the most extraordinary evidence imaginable; evidence which is entirely lacking in any meaningful sense. (All of the claimed evidence is far from useful---most appears to be evidence of the human imagination, human optimism, and the operational flaws inherent in brains.)</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Is it possible that our entire universe presides within the event horizon of a black hole? in which case, what would the virtual particle background look like within the boundary? I think we can't live there actually... or wait, maybe we can... the key would be escape velocity, right? Or do destructive tidal forces always exist near and within the black hole...? Or does anyone even know yet?</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The negative potential indicates a bound state. (Physics or poetry?)</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So I'm thinking that many astronomers must draw an analogy between when Uranus was observed to have an anomalous orbit, and Neptune was predicted, to the observations of galaxy motion & rotation & the prediction of dark matter. So the question becomes, at what point is the search for dark matter sufficiently ruled out? In Neptune's case it was very straight forward: accurate observations would give a very narrow window for where to look. Dark matter however is postulated to be immune to most methods of observation, and therefore by definition much harder to observe.</span></span></div><br />
<div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I predict that the current trends of DM searches will continue to fail to find a clear signal, and that this will at some point be called a crisis of cosmology.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">But its just plain old science.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Framing it in terms of a failure of Newtonian physics is interesting too; they omit it, but one good theoretical indicator that Newtonian physics was wrong was Maxwell's discovery that his equations predicted an absolute speed of light.</span></span><span style="color: #888888;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I wonder if there are any analogous hints in theory with current cosmology... but what principle could change?</span></span></div><br />
<div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Ha ha ha, Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore lead people to think the Nobel committee has a left-wing bias? Don't they see that the left-wing has a peace-bias? Who started which wars?</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> A </span></span><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/09/the_inevitable_hiatus.php"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">list of physics blogs</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><a href="http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09-15/news/on-the-advice-of-the-fbi-cartoonist-molly-norris-disappears-from-view/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">To value a religious belief over the life of a fellow human being is to abandon all sense of humanity</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Much like Diderot spoke of the Christian god as being one who makes much of his apples, and very little of his children. Perhaps we are made in god's horrible image after all.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I'm just a measly atheist/antitheist, but didn't Muhammad forbid drawings out of respect? Not out of psychotic rage? </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">For a religion of peace, or named after peace, or whatever, islamic extremists are fucking violent. Maybe they don't know what peace means...</span></span></div><div style="color: #888888; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I remember in 3rd grade, I had a book, probably from the library, that described peacemaker missiles. It was a terrifying topic to ingest as a young child, and it horrified me that they had named the thing a peacemaker. It's where I first learned about the massiveness of the weapons, and the multiple independent reentry vehicles, that allow each missile to destroy up to 10-14 cities, by separating the warheads up near space. And it had a diagram, I no longer recall the details, except it had distances and temperatures, I think at many many miles, perhaps 100, it claimed that witnessing the blast would be equivalent to standing in front of an oven set to 400F. That was the most distant scale. As it got closer the temperatures got far hotter, though I don't remember the examples, maybe they weren't relate-able.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><b></b></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"There is a famous anecdote inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religion, which is set during Euler's second stint at the St. Petersburg academy. The French philosopher Denis Diderot was visiting Russia on Catherine the Great's invitation. However, the Empress was alarmed that the philosopher's arguments for atheism were influencing members of her court, and so Euler was asked to confront the Frenchman. Diderot was later informed that a learned mathematician had produced a proof of the existence of God: he agreed to view the proof as it was presented in court. Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced, "Sir, \frac{a+b^n}{n}=x, hence God exists—reply!". Diderot, to whom (says the story) all mathematics was gibberish, stood dumbstruck as peals of laughter erupted from the court. Embarrassed, he asked to leave Russia, a request that was graciously granted by the Empress. However amusing the anecdote may be, it is apocryphal, given that Diderot was a capable mathematician who had published mathematical treatises."</span></span><span style="color: #888888;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Obviously the only people who think that story paints Euler in good light are people who both believe in god and also do not know any mathematics. As any one with any sense of math should know, that equation means absolutely nothing with respect to the existence of a deity.</span></span></div><br />
<div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I wonder what it is in our brains that correlates to feelings of importance. I think Ketamine might block it. Whatever it is, I seem to have droves of it with respect to a lot of things, like girls, and short phrases that appeal to me.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Whoa, I understand mitochondria all of the sudden. Of course mitochondrial DNA is in the cell, not the nucleus, and apparently it ends up in the ovum, not the sperm, which is not at all surprising.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span></span></span></div><div><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div><span><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">From there you can conclude that the father has no influence on it, so all children carry their mother's mitochondrial DNA.</span></span><span style="color: #888888;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In light of this, the various levels of inheritance are fairly complex; men get all of their Y chromosome from dad, and all of the mitochondrial DNA and all of their X chromosome from mom, while women get half of their X from mom and half from dad, and all mitochondrial from mom. It's as if our mitochondria are asexual independent creatures living inside the majority of our cells. </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">It took 2.8 billion years to </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">invent sex</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Then another 650 million years to invent a brain.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">No </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/11/wildlife.conservation1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">fucking way... right</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">? Could dolphins really commit mass-suicide?</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">And max the parrot, </span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/12/news/parrot-may-have-the-answer-to-a-killing.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">witness to a murder</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> "Richard, no no no"</span></span></div><br />
<div style="font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;">(</span></span></span><a href="http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/images/amnesty.jpg"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: white;">famous photo of execution modified beautifully</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;">)</span></span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;">From</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;"> </span></span></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://mushruminate.blogspot.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: white;">http://mushruminate.blogspot.com/</span></span></span></a></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"> </div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;">I tend to think it is much simpler than that: Obama was overly optimistic; he simply thought that aiming for moderate policies would unite both parties, and that he could disappoint the extremes of both sides equally. But he underestimated the resentment that the republican party would develop following their loses in 2008, and as a consequence, the unity in opposition to him that we've seen ever since. What he should do is advocate letting all the tax cuts expire. He should say the decision is not based on politics or re-electability, but obviously on what is best for the country. It is a reverting to tax policy that is proven to be effective (under Clinton), and it was only altered when the government had a surplus (also due to Clinton). </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;">The downside is that he wouldn't get re-elected, but that isn't going to happen unless the economy turns around anyway. Unless those morons select someone like Palin in the primaries.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #d9ead3;">I think I used to be more poetic in here, something more akin to romance of sorts. Or at least less political drivel. That seems bad, I am going to fix that. "More action! Less Tears!"</span></span></span></div><br />
</span></div><div></div>codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-79677124885388452612010-09-17T21:23:00.000-04:002010-09-17T21:23:22.064-04:00"Just Listen & You'll Hear"<div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Think you're pro-life? 65 people starve to death every minute. In 2010 America will spend about 758 billion dollars on military and homeland security, or about 22,187 dollars for each of the 34 million people who will die of starvation this year. If you're pro life, take whatever time energy and resources you are willing to donate towards your movement, and redirect it to these starvation victims. It will be a much easier battle, save far more lives, and won't contribute to social conflicts.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">8·9·10 (!)</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So here are some more thoughts on the whole "end result of capitalism" problem I'm always blathering on about. First, I recently noticed a compensating effect by which new jobs are invented, usually due to new technology that enables humans to contribute to corporations in a new way, (e.g., computers allow us to make all sorts of nifty charts easily—more seriously, they allow us to perform complex analysis tasks that we couldn't have carried out by hand previously). </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Second, I recently heard an advertisement for a radio story about farming cooperation, where a bunch of volunteers pick from a list of small farms and then show up on a scheduled day to help out. At least thats what the story sounded like. It's easy to imagine some work remaining human simply because humans enjoy it, doing it in their free time, free of charge. This is one way leisure time can be filled productively.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Thirdly, this article in the </span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08consume.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">NYTimes</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> (use </span></span><a href="http://www.bugmenot.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">bugmenot</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> if you want to try to avoid registered login), this article points out a certain demographic which seems to be valuing a less consumerist oriented lifestyle. I think this indicates two things (though the article doesn't really comment on either of them), one, that we have reached (maybe surpassed) a saturating point about material possessions, and the happiness incurred by reducing those things is statistically significant! And second, ———must finish reading the article first! Four pages, not one... also I forgot the second point I wanted to make—too many distractions.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">8·10·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There is talk amongst his enemies, of Christopher Hitchens experiencing a "deathbed conversion". Upon reflection, it's humorous to imagine that a human's decline from a healthy state to the moment of death would carry with it an increase in mental facilities of some sort, mostly because the opposite is so painfully obvious. Case in point, dementia, Alzheimer's, senility, these are all brain disorders leading to decreased cognitive capacity, and also strongly correlated with age. Case example, Kurt Gödel, among the most brilliant of logicians of all time, responsible for some very important 20th century results in mathematics grew severely paranoid as he aged. In one incident, a friend found him freezing in his home in (I presume NJ) winter, with all the windows open, convinced the KGB was filling his house with poisonous gas. He didn't die of "natural" causes, he starved to death. He did not trust anyone to cook for him except his wife, so when she fell ill and could not cook for him anymore, he simply did not eat. Even if a vocal atheist were to provide a deathbed conversion example, for these reasons, (as well as he fact that arguments from personal revelations are vacuous), there can be no value to it. </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Wait a second! Can we reformulate the position momentum uncertainty principle as a position/time uncertainty principle? And then we also have an energy time one? Can we view all this as time being fuzzy? Maybe not, I need to go check. Cause "fuzzy time" seems right up the alley of event horizons and gravity... update 9·15·10: This all seems too simple and obvious to actually have any meaning and yet have gone unnoticed. I need to stop thinking about complicated matters that I am not well trained in late at night.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Tapping the earths enerkachoo."</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"The horse says 'doctorate denied'."</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Something sinister won't build itself."</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ha ha ha ha ha! </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">To all you intelligent conservatives out there, please, get a handle </span></span><a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">on this</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Conservapedia isn't just making conservatives look stupid and ignorant, it's making them look absurdly ridiculous and paranoid as well. Compare Conservapedia's </span></span><a href="http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">relativity denialism</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> with </span></span><a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">this article</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It baffles me that they would dare challenge relativity. Andy must either be crazy, or clinically paranoid. He should realize that when his young followers take an interest in the lies of relativity, they are much more likely to find the millions of supportive papers and articles and related topics, with every degree of comprehensibility, and details ranging from the broad ideas down to the most specific nuances, all of the experiments and real life applications. Compared to his paltry claim of liberal conspiracy. </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Science cannot move forward without heaps!"</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Dude, I bid you a fond cowabunga! I'm off to laugh with the reaper!"</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Hitchens speaking about deathbed conversions:</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"the idea that I would make a pact, or a wager, with the supernatural in which I don't believe, in the sort of fearful hope of better treatment… suggests that what people must think of their god is that he is either a fraud, or a monster. That he would smile on that kind of plea, and that kind of uh, loss of dignity."</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">8·27·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">To argue that we won't ever reproduce the human brain is to argue that some aspect of it is either unknowable, or un-build-able. But we know it can be built, (since the body builds it "naturally"), and it's hard to imagine that an aspect of it could possibly be unknowable, since the entirety is right there in front of us, at any stage of it's development.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">8·28·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It's interesting how many charity organizations we have dedicated to fighting currently incurable disease. Not that I oppose such organizations, it's just that there are so many other causes of suffering & death around the world that are immediately preventable, and which if we were to solve would result in huge savings. That is, instead of invading foreign nations and destroying their infrastructure, in the name of eliminating enemies, how about we flood foreign nations with aid, in the name of making friends? We've spent 743 billion dollars on Iraq. Sure Saddam was a terrible man, having committed the most serious of war crimes in the 80s, having seized power in a horrible way, and having suppressed dissident in the most despicable of ways. But most of his citizens had electricity! Oddly, it was after the first gulf war that Iraq's </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Iraq#Before_Gulf_War"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">healthcare system went down the tubes</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I've written a few times before about how many people asked me about the LHC & black holes, leading up to the starting of the particle collider. But a new explanation suddenly occurs to me. People like to imagine black holes in space as being vacuum cleaners, sucking up any celestial body that wanders too near. But space is very, very large. Most of everything is empty space, whether you look at an atom, or a handful of atoms, or the solar system, or the galaxy. It's "power on all scales".</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">How do we verify that mass is exactly additive? In fact, with relativity, it's not constant (it transforms according to the specified inertial reference frame).</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Forced to choose between your religious beliefs, and the life of someone you love dearly, which would you choose? Do the religious answer this question as easily as atheists? I would argue no, not at all. Many religious people, when faced to choose between their beliefs, and accepting a friend/child's homosexuality, choose their faith and reject their friend/child. (That's not to say there aren't plenty of religious people who accept homosexuality, nor to say there aren't atheist homophobes.)</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">9·1·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"The result is that about two and a half of the thirteen pounds of plutonium in the pit, (about 20% of the 6.2 kilograms (14 lb) ) </span></span><span style="color: #0099cc;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission">fissioned</a></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, and converted probably less than 1 gram (0.035 oz) of </span></span><span style="color: #0099cc;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2">mass into energy</a></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, releasing the energy equivalent of 21 kilotons of TNT or 88 TJ."</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Or about 722,000 gallons of gasoline. Update 9·16·10: this is why many people advocate nuclear power playing a role in the reduction of fossil fuel usage, because the energy released by fission (though far less efficient in an actual power reactor), is just insane—that 6.2 kg of Pu only takes up about 1.4 cups of space. This is also the reason why though breeder reactors greatly increase the power generated per amount of fissile material, there are great concerns of proliferation, since breeder reactors would increase the amount of bomb-ready material dramatically. (And we </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">literally</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> have to keep track of </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">every kilogram</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of the stuff.)</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The music here is </span></span><a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3804665/nut_cracking_monkeys/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">so awesomely dramatic</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><a href="http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/08/bbc-natural-world-clever-monkeys.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is a longer documentary on monkeys, with many more interesting facts and behaviors</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, but also the dramatic scenes of nut cracking. And the stuff about dropping rocks on the cats!</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910290035"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Glenn Beck is hilarious</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">9·6·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is not always true. When the doctor calls you back and says you tested negative for disease X, she's telling you the search for evidence (the test), turned up no evidence. Obviously this is usually interpreted as good evidence of absence.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; line-height: 19.0px; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">You can define marriage as between a man and a woman. And you can define voting as something white men do. And you can define non-white people as property. And in every case, you're treating one person as having more rights than others, effectively denying humans equal status. I don't get it, the progress of human rights has such obvious extensions, and yet people resist every fucking step of the way, even though in retrospect it's appalling to think that it was once acceptable to buy and sell other people. Even though that was only 150 fucking years ago! And interracial marriage was illegal only 43 years ago. For whatever reason, it takes humans a very long time to open their eyes to the obvious. Open your</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> eyes!<br />
<br />
"Freaquel Rights"<br />
<br />
Draw map of inconsistencies in religion, small chains of logic that don't really fit together.<br />
Draw map of scientific interpretation over top of all the small chains, showing they fit together fine.<br />
A support group/relief fund for priests & others affected and afflicted by/with religion.<br />
<br />
<br />
9·8·10<br />
"This is the dangedest wang I've ever doodled." —Bubblegum Tate.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">9·10·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">When someone says, "I can't imagine living in a world where god didn't exist", or something to that effect, are they saying they have too little faith in humanity to imagine we don't have a supreme ruler somewhere? Are they saying they have too little faith in themselves? Or instead of faith, confidence in their own abilities to make the world a better place? Maybe they're saying they don't want to live in a world where they have no chance of a pleasant eternity afterwards, like heaven, but is that any different than a child saying they wouldn't want to live in a world where santa didn't exist to give them gifts each year? Although I don't like my finite lifespan, I'm glad to know that there is no one so evil as to damn a fraction of my fellow humans to eternal suffering. Which I would find even more excruciating were I to find myself in the oddly rewarded heaven group. But regardless of all that, I aspire to leave this world in an even better condition than I found it, for whoever follows me. And in general, humans have done that. We've eliminated nearly every source of suffering that nature ever threw at us. Except one another. We don't fear being eaten—a fear most organisms battle daily, for their entire lives. We've manipulated our food supply to the point of common obesity, shaping both animals and plants into high-energy sources of nourishment, virtually eliminating the threat of starvation, another threat to every other organism on the planet, every day of their existence. We have mostly mitigated the dangers of weather, extending our habitat far beyond our natural hides would allow. We've even eradicated some of the most devastating and brutal diseases ever to afflict humankind. But I'm not sure we've made a lot of progress on the "don't kill each other". Unfortunately we've gotten much more efficient at that, and possibly even more frequent, though it's hard to say, with history's wild ups-and-downs of genocide. On the bright side, globally we have a policy of not condoning genocide, and slavery, and often the global community takes positive action in response to such actions, though we're not that great at it, and we do still ignore a lot of obvious human rights abuse. But it's improved!</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">People are often fond of saying "anything's possible", and "science has been wrong in the past, it could (or will!) be wrong again in the future", as if tomorrow up could be down. But most things cannot be, as they have been ruled out by observation. A trivial example is the solar system. For thousands of years, primitive humans believed Earth to be the center of the universe, and believed Jupiter orbited the Earth. Better observations ruled out such a model, and no new evidence will ever allow that model in, unless we rewrite the definition of orbit, which is obviously different than science being wrong. Isaac Asimov has an excellent essay I've probably linked before.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I don't understand people's concept of the supernatural, for logical reasons. I have trouble seeing room for something inaccessible to scientific probing and yet influential to the physical world. It seems to me that anything that happens must in fact be within the laws of nature, and any time those laws appear violated, it is merely an indicator that our model of those laws is incomplete (which as a physicist I find very exciting).</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It's not even that I demand proof of the claim of the existence of the supernatural, long before that I want a logical explanation. It's as if you told me you had an object that was both very nearly spherical, and very nearly cubical, simultaneously. Obviously these two properties contradict one another, and I wouldn't bother asking to see such an object, I'd first want to know how it is someone can think both definitions can be satisfied simultaneously, without contradiction.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Where is my list of amazing science facts?</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Including: trees are made primarily of air.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The earth is round.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There are more molecules of water in a cup than there are cups of water on the planet.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Nine out of ten cells in your body are not you.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Someone somewhere recently said that intelligence is not selected for. But that is completely incorrect! We most certainly were naturally selected, and it was clearly only our intelligence that was selected for—in the few million years we've been diverging from the other monkeys we've dramatically increased our intelligence and all but lost every other physical advantage we may ever have had. (Maybe walking upright? Maybe opposable thumbs?) And boy has the selection been driven far; we are the only species with any shot of surviving the death of our planet, or the foresight to prevent ourselves from causing our own extinction.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">9·13·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span><a href="http://amultiverse.com/2010/08/26/return-to-meatspace/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On the first date</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">? You know I'm not that kind of indescribable horror."</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span><a href="http://amultiverse.com/2010/09/01/placebin-dm-extra-strength/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">All the cool people know tha</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">t"</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ha ha ha ha, "</span></span><a href="http://amultiverse.com/2010/09/08/hot-tub-planet/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">there is no god.</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><a href="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/180744/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">SNL Cork Soakers</span></span></a></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Hmm… how about a program that takes photos or video and makes 3d models, then makes prints for paper to print & assemble the models?</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">9·15·10</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I think I might heavily suffer from the </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">false consensus effect</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. </span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">And an over-blown sense of concern for others' wellbeing makes me feel like I live inside the Abilene paradox.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Moreover, novelty triggers attraction." I got that going for me.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But don't discount the role of inaction.</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I was reading about plutonium today, and apparently the sum total of North Korea's plutonium production should be less than 70 kilograms (154 lbs). Some of this was used in the bomb they blew up, while the rest of it should still be lying around, with small amounts left in the filtering process equipment. Based on measurements of such equipment, the IAEA should be able to determine whether or not the amount they claim to have made is really what they made, and therefore whether it's all there or not. Though I have to wonder, what is to stop them from mixing it with a combination of say, tungsten and iridium, which would deceivingly increase its weight, so they could divert the rest off to a secret project? Thats how impossible it really is to track this stuff. A study advocated that the IAEA reduce its "significant quantity" (SQ) from the current 8 kg down to 1 kg (2.2 lbs), since a technologically advanced society can build a 1 kiloton yield device with only 1 kg of Pu. (A poor tech society needs 3 kg min for a bomb.) It's also worth noting that the whole 70 kg would only take up about a gallon of space. And there is about 500 tons of Pu on the planet. Oops. If the arms race and nuclear weapons stockpiling doesn't qualify as clinical insanity, what possibly could?</span></span></div><div style="font: 13.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
9·17·10<br />
I want to switch to multiple posts a day, instead of one long ridiculous post every few weeks or months. I wonder if I'll do that. My wrist hurts a lot.</div>codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-57352750490411848632010-09-15T21:02:00.001-04:002011-03-02T17:09:51.436-05:00Past Due<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Preface: I had compiled this entry back sometime around 7·11, but the formatting in the newer editor of the blogger software made the links all funky, and some of the style carried over from pasting, which I really didn't like, but fixing it seemed like a huge pain (I had gone straight back to the pure html, which was </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">way</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> more complicated than I had started with), so I just didn't post anything for the last few months. But now I've reinspected it and it isn't nearly as terrible as it once seemed. And so here is this post, with the next two months of nonsense to follow shortly afterwards.</span></span><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">5·20·10</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Hopefully I can book</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span><a href="http://outreach.web.cern.ch/outreach/visits/booking/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">CERN</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">!</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Do you think adding this in the comments field helped or hurt my odds? They recommended we book 3-4 months (instead of a few weeks) in advance:</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I wish we had thought of this 3-4 months ago. We both have undergraduate degrees in physics, does that help our case? I've also personally explained the safety margin [of the LHC and black holes] to many concerned friends and acquaintances following the media hype last year :-) Thanks for the chance!</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Update 7·11·10: CERN was great! Pictures (eventually) on facebook.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">5·26·10</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"A very special kind of monster."</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">5·27·10</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Always one foot on my mind.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Is this another dead end?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Break my fall.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Sorry, I'm busy rewiring my brain.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So you try to figure out what you want, and you try to figure out how much you want what it is you want. And maybe you even just get hung up on trying to figure out why it is you want what you want. But somehow this is all too much. And it doesn't work. And I haven't figured it out yet.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Hmm... this is interesting:</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"What this means is that in a broad sense a theistic worldview is empirically unfalsifiable…just like a naturalistic one."</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">From some loon PZ is talking about </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/another_courtier_speaks_up.php"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">here</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I find it interesting, because on some level he is right: naturalism and theism are both unfalsifiable. But for different reasons.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Theism is unfalsifiable because its claims are limited to that which cannot be measured, by definition. It's not just unfalsifiable, it's ultimately unknowable in any interpretation (else we could all agree on one true consistent theism, which is laughable).</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Naturalism on the other hand is unfalsifiable for a reason more akin to why conservation of energy has always been true: because our concept of naturalism is the claim that: that which exists and influences the world is in fact knowable. This cannot be falsified because probabilistic laws allow seemingly uncaused behavior to occur (like the vacuum fluctuations). So it's difficult to see how a deity can even fit into reality, or any sort of spiritualistic/non-naturalistic entity or event or influence… if it has a causal influence, it could be described by either probabilistic or deterministic mathematics. If it can be observed, it can be modeled. And if it can't be observed, then in what sense does it exist at all?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In other words, spiritualism, or mentalism, requires a unknowable element, whereas naturalism forbids unknowable elements (or at least unmeasurable elements).</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">These are the essential components to the definitions of these words, and they are also the most basic reasons why mentalism is completely useless.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The utility of a belief that requires at least one part to be unknowable is really zero. There are useful things in which much is unknown, for instance, black box arguments in computer science, but in those instances we don't require an element to be unknown, it just so happens that knowing every element is not required for the argument to be useful.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">That is, there is a difference between arguments in which steps are unknown, and arguments in which steps </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">cannot</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> be known.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">5·30·10</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Afterbirthday party?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Can you disrespect an idea, belief or tradition, without disrespecting people who hold/support/cherish such an idea/belief/tradition?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">If the answer is 'yes', then why is disrespecting a religion often interpreted as disrespecting people?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Otherwise, why does respecting a person mean restraining oneself from speaking earnestly and openly?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Aren't there situations when politeness deserves a back seat to well being?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">As I've aged I seem to have become increasingly intolerant of ideas I'm not interested in. It's a bit embarrassing really. This is quite obvious in certain instances, such as the rubik's cube notation. I never learned to read it, because it didn't interest me enough. I didn't even really bother to try.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I do think it was mostly my brain seeing a pattern where there wasn't one.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">New game: eat juicy fruits with no napkin (nor napkin equivalents).</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I don't respect any of the other religions either, and I wouldn't hesitate to mock any of them. I am an antitheist and I consider major organized religions to be more responsible for human suffering (both now and throughout history)</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I consider christianity to be the number one threat to global human wellbeing, and islam to be a close second (they just tend to wield less power).</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">If moderate muslims want my respect then they should come out and support satire of their religion. However, I don't see why I should respect anyone who holds a religious belief above the life of another human being. Furthermore, if we don't push this issue then we essentially condone their behavior, and we reinforce the idea that religious belief is somehow equal or greater than human rights.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">And if homosexuality carried any of the tenets of most of the major religions I wouldn't hesitate to criticism and mock them either. If the average muslim is a tolerant peaceful person, then I would like to invite them in combatting the extremists. Unfortunately I think moderate muslims are probably more enabling extremists, much like the large group of christian moderates allows for a larger group of extremist christians to persist. It isn't that moderate christians or muslims are intolerant of other people, it's that they inhibit the criticism of the extremists, making it look as if criticism is some kind of discrimination, or bigotry. But it isn't: religious extremists are one of the greatest causes of human suffering, especially given that many of the other great causes are not so nearly under human control (e.g. disease, and natural death).</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I haven't drawn mohammed yet, but as an antitheist—and more so as a proponent of free speech—I vehemently oppose the notion that any religious belief should trump freedom of speech. I would strongly agree that we not persecute anyone for their religion, but persecuting the religions themselves I am all for. Update 7·11·10: </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=aeBgdYCVKiI&feature=watch_response"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I did draw Muhammed for "Draw Muhammed Day"</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">If christians or jews were murdering cartoonists for depicting jesus or moses (or yaweh or god or anyone really) I would reply in the exact same manner without hesitation.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I think that if muslims want to be respected they need to behave like civil members of society. (Note: I already respect the many muslims who would denounce the cartoon-induced murders.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">(1 + 0.9 cos(8t)) (1 + 0.1 cos(24t)) (0.9 + 0.05 cos(200t)) (1 + sin(t)), with t from -π to π.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">6·1·10</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So why don't we put a 1000 ton granite block on the oil leak? (Assuming we could make such a block, I think we could probably manipulate it, though 5000 feet is a very long way.)</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">So I went looking for 1000 ton granite blocks on google, and found this: http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htm which mentions 1000 ton, 65+ foot long stones used in ancient Roman architecture! I guess it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek in modern day Lebanon. Maybe a 1000 ton block wouldn't work either…</span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I suppose my thinking goes like this: when I say I am a seven, I am saying that the claims humans make about the existence of a god are patently false. Assuming they could possibly have some truth to them, it would be out of shear coincidence, and not due to any sort of casual connection relating the two. But that is ridiculous speak. If I make up my own deity right now, it has no greater chance of being right or wrong than one our society has collectively evolved for tens to hundreds or even thousands of years. Which is to say that none of them have any chance of being right. It is simply absurd to believe in the easter bunny, or santa claus or the tooth fairy, if you are an intelligent creature with a reasonably experienced and matured view of the world. </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">6·6·10</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://art.depotvisuals.de/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">These people</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> are amazing. I mean, AMAZING!</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"This is a seri... I'm a seri... I'm, uh... I've tried to be a serious man."</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> maybe a 10,000 ton block? I remember reading that those battle ships with 16" guns weigh 55,000 tons, I wonder what an aircraft carrier weighs…</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">As directed by </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://cu.nniling.us/748/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">xkcd</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, I read </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Bruce Schneier on Security</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, and holy crap does he have a great point. And I'd </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">like</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> to say I avoid that often, but it certainly isn't true. And to prove it I must only admit (regrettably) that I went to read the article with the legitimate intent to find out what the worst case scenario for the oil leak actually is. (This morbid fascination with worst case scenarios is pretty persuasive, and embarrassing; this morning on NPR they mentioned a worst case being December, or even years, which seems awfully ridiculous. But then again I have no idea what a reasonable estimate would look like, though I find it hard to imagine that not enough information is known to make a reliable estimate.)</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">And now I've read </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1492"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">an actual assessment</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> as well. It's got some interesting things in it.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Later I mentioned the big rock idea to Brian Hayes, who pointed out that the fear would be that oil would continue leaking around the smushed pipe, and then we would have no chance of clamping onto the pipe to stop the flow with equipment. It makes a lot of sense, and it gave me a chill: for the first time I am thinking that it may be the case that humans simply cannot stop the leak. How terrifying.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span> </div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">7·7·10</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"></span></span></span><span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass</span></span></a></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">. And </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1988"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">here is the paper</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">.</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Anonymity is weird; on the one hand, it is an indispensable feature of progress, allowing those who know to safely reveal what they know to the public. On the other hand, the greater the degree of privacy we maintain, the more in the dark we all feel about what is and isn't allowed, or appropriate, or common or reasonable, etc. </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">A part of me wants to emigrate. Not because somewhere else would be so much better, but that we are simply so much worse. Our consumption and our wars overwhelm me. It is something I wish to stop participating in.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/botanical_wednesday_something.php">Purdy</a>!</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">7·8·10</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Okay, so under my own volition I am revising my question. If the rate of automation can be made to produce at a faster pace than the appetite for acquiring new technology, then we will inevitably have replaced ourselves, right? That is, we automate this and that task, through out our society, including the most mundane and simple tasks, as well as some of the most incomprehensibly complex and important tasks. For instance, processor design and construction are both heavily reliant on computers and robotics. There must be a threshold parameter, after which the degree of automation in society can replace all practical jobs. Starting with devices that can build themselves, thus reducing the cost to materials only. </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Georgia; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"There was that amazing light -- the rich blue skies, dotted with scudding, big-bellied clouds that shifted the sunlight, making fields and rocks </span></span><a href="http://www.wbur.org/npr/128174560"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">broody, then brilliant</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, in a flash. Monet capitulated, came to Honfleur, and he and Boudin painted side by side, outside, using portable easels and paint in tubes."</span></span></div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Georgia; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">"And suddenly, suddenly, Claude Monet just understood what his friend had been telling him about," says Aussenac. "He understood. He said afterward that it was just like a curtain that [had opened] in front of his eyes. </span></span><a href="http://www.wbur.org/npr/128174560"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">He understood what his life was about, and what painting was about</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">."</span></span></div></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I love Nedelle's song "Friends Ancestors" so much:</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">love is little - love is low</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">love will make our spirit grow</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">grow in peace - grow in light</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">love will do the thing thats right</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">...I feel like such a hippy lately.</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Which is perfectly fine by me.</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">7·9·10</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Holy cow! </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/07/protons_even_smaller_than_we_t.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The proton is even smaller than we thought</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">! Or maybe… there could be a mistake somewhere. Or new physics! Though that does seem highly improbable. I'm guessing we're overlooking something in the theory.</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Now </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/07/08/how-finely-tuned-is-the-universe/#comments"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Sean Carroll has a post on fine tuning</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">.</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I want to respond with this, but it seems too far off the focus of his work:</span></span></div></div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In Copenhagen a few weeks ago Victor Stenger gave a presentation on why the fine-tuning argument is fallacious, though I believe he omitted the cosmological constant issue, dismissing 120 orders of magnitude discrepancies as probably indicative of us making an error or overlooking an important factor. Apparently he is writing a book about the other main arguments though, involving the production of carbon and stability of hydrogen, etc.</span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I don't </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">really</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> know what you're talking about here Sean, but I feel obligated to add my two cents (which I hope are sufficiently related).</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">I consider fine tuning to have two fatal flaws: it only applies to life </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">as we know it</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, and, it </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">requires</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> that the universe could have been different—that the these empirically determined constants are in fact arbitrary, rather than the result of some yet-unknown mathematical process. I.e., it might be the that empirically measured parameters of the standard model all originate from pure mathematics, the way </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">e</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> does. In which case they would not be finely tuned, but rather inflexible.</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">It is conceivable that we could build a physical theory from pure mathematics (e.g. number theory) which would then be exempt from this argument, but in the mean time, as long as our theories have open parameters that must be measured by experiment, there will always be people claiming that those parameters were tuned just for us. What is important is to remind such people that they must also assert that there is no purely-mathematical origin for these parameters, and that therefore we can never find any such origin. I'm not sure I can accept any claim that something is in principle unknowable, unless it is a computer scientist with a proof of the claim...</span></span></div></div></blockquote><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Faith is simultaneously an assertion of strong confidence that something is true, and an acknowledgement that one is ignorant of the assertion's relationship to reality. As such I find it a supremely arrogant position, as well as ignorant. Arrogance with ignorance is intolerable; at least informed arrogance is just displeasing. </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Hope on the other hand is under the influence of desire, a marginally more acceptable justification for assertions based in ignorance. (Or often contrary to some evidence.)</span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjfeq7k0b14&playnext_from=tl&videos=zu5knkeydgg"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">AronRa is always thought provoking.</span></span></href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjfeq7k0b14&playnext_from=tl&videos=zu5knkeydgg"></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"> </span></span></div></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Heres a fun calculation to give a shot: how much does the temperature of a city rise solely due to AC units? Some assumptions: model the city as a cylinder with height… 200 feet? Furthermore assume the temperature outside is… 95F, and that most people have their AC set to 75F. And that they are cooling rooms of size… 10x20x10 ft. Actually, I'm going to do all this in metric, so just choose reasonable sounding parameters. Anything else? Nothing is coming to mind. Go ahead and use the maximum possible efficiency of a heat pump too. Oh, and maybe… 50% adoption of AC?</span></span></div></div></span></span></span></div>codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-68325969437448599622010-05-18T23:34:00.000-04:002010-05-18T23:34:33.740-04:00Does Emphasis Compound?4·25·10<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=hoiW4KO_Om4">Truth is God's master</a>. Without the concept of truth, god means nothing, yet the reverse is not true: without god, truth remains truth.<br />
<br />
I think that might be a quote from the video?<br />
<br />
A very interesting result of modernization is the decreased family size, mostly because of it's implications in the far-future. The average birthrate required for a sustainable population is oft quoted at 2.3, the 0.3 probably covers the odds of the offspring not surviving to reproduce (or perhaps simply deciding not to). After contemplating this for a moment, an interesting question comes to mind: how will our distant descendants cope with having an average of 2.3 kids? (Or whatever that number might be by then. Note that it cannot ever truly reach 2, but it could conceivably get very close to 2.)<br />
<br />
5·1·10<br />
just passing by.<br />
5·4·10<br />
"They Can't Kill Us All."<br />
5·7·10<br />
"Bon appe- Dammit!"<br />
<br />
Trick question, the glass is half full of liquid and half full of gas.<br />
"Thats a trick question, you don't have one."<div><br />
OH! New argument against a national day of prayer that I thought of: you are more than explicitly excluding dystheists (and probably misotheists too)! There are those of us who believe, if god did in fact exist as described by many (nearly all) religious persons, that we would be in a terrible situation. Praying to such an entity would be akin to praying to Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, 'satan', etc., certainly something that a dystheist or misotheist would abhor! By endorsing the common view that god is good, the government is disenfranchising my people! Help!<br />
<br />
5·8·10<br />
George Alan Rekers, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, David Viter, John Ensen. Hypocrites creating artificial inhibitions on others.<br />
<br />
5·9·10<br />
So, retrotransposons! Can any biologists I know give a logical reason why retrotransposons might be more common in plants or animals? Or why it might vary?<br />
<br />
How does it feel to me like defeat.<br />
<br />
"Know your limits" they say. Then push them. Is that what we do to one another? Know another persons limits, push them further?<br />
</div><div><br />
5·18·10<br />
I was asking myself, "am I passive aggressive?", and I decided to look up the term and check precisely.<br />
<br />
The first paragraph is interesting (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior">from here</a>):<blockquote>Passive–aggressive behavior, a personality trait, is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. It is a personality trait marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations.</blockquote>I definitely do that in my occupational situations, but I can't tell about interpersonal situations, maybe I could ask friends what they think. I don't like that I do it at work, but I tend to it constantly regardless. I should probably be more assertive when I think a point is worth making. Though that simply gets back to the problem: clearly my interpretation of "worth making" is such that most points are not worth making, so I do not make them. Instead I drag my feet and play along, which both makes me feel less productive (which is true also), and annoys my boss. I suppose this is why such behavior is in such disfavor. The second paragraph is also interesting: <blockquote>It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.</blockquote> Learned helplessness is a concept that has fascinated me for some time; it references an experiment in which dogs were trained to be clinically depressed after being placed in a situation in which they suffered and had no way to release the suffering at will. A control group experiencing the same suffering (only their lever did in fact shut off the suffering) recovered after the experiment. The first groups shocks were also linked to the latter group's levers, so both dogs received electrical shocks at random, and both had access to a lever of sorts, but only the group who's lever ended the shock recovered from the experiment.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure I have a lot of that... I suppose I have a general feeling of being trapped, or stuck, or unable to simply do what I want. But at the same time, the restrictions don't seem too terrible. Perhaps I am happy in prison? I am stubborn a lot of the time, but that's cause I'm right ;-) Though I am trying to be less stubborn. Resentment? I don't think so. Maybe of myself a tiny bit? Procrastination is a serious one, but is that really passive-aggressive? I feel like someone put that on their to trick me. Is paranoia one? No? Sullenness, I don't think that's me, at most infrequently. That last line is mostly what I was talking about before with work. Not deliberate so much though.<br />
<br />
</div><div><br />
Do we breed anxiety?<br />
</div>codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-73700686831678722172010-04-25T14:41:00.004-04:002010-04-25T15:57:07.984-04:00Whatever the Deal4·18·10<br />Another fools pleasure.<br />Let your feet do the learning.<br /><br />4·21·10<br />"But the price of quality is often the unique imprint they leave."<br />Avowed antitheist.<br />Did leer.<br /><br />4·22·10<br />"<a href="http://www.viruscomix.com/page474.html">It was no excuse to be young</a>."<br />One of us needs to figure out how to cross the event horizon.<br /><br />4·23·10<br />Never mind martyrs, the stars had to die so that we could live!<br />Anyone who tells you anything else doesn't mean a thing.<br /><br /><br />4·24·10<br />"The world is... different. It's just not what we wanted it to be."<br />"I don't live very well alone. Some people don't. We all have different ways of defending our territory."<br /><br />At the heart of the issue is this: science is any method by which we test statements to find out if they are true or not—evidence (or the lack thereof) is the only important fact. If you assert that a claim is fundamentally outside the purview of science, then you are also asserting that it is fundamentally disconnected from reality, and furthermore, you're asserting that the claim can not be proven true or false—it is by definition unknowable, incomplete. In summary, science is the sum of the collection of all that is truly knowable and the processes by which anything is truly known. <br /><br />"Know how to solve every problem that has been solved."<br />—Richard Feynman, (appears to be on his chalkboard at the time of his death)<br /><br />"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves."<br />—Richard Feynman (unsourced)<br /><br />Bee says, "A definition is never wrong, it's just more or less useful." I think that is the best description I've ever heard. Much more eloquent than my attempts to explain that whether Pluto is a planet or not is really just up to an arbitrary definition of planet, which should not be chosen so much to the inclusion or exclusion of Pluto, but rather by it's precision in categorizing astronomical objects. Seems so long winded now...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece">I disagree strongly with Stephen Hawking on this one</a>.<br />The idea that extraterrestrial life is likely to be radically different than known life I think is only partially applicable. There are a few levels to look at: first, is it possible for life to form under extremely different circumstances? Well, we don't know yet! If it is, this might be expected to produce radically different life; the canonical example might <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/PIA10008_Seas_and_Lakes_on_Titan.jpg">Titan, with it's methane analog to Earth's water system</a>. But that leads to a lot of complexities I'd like to ignore for the moment. So lets just stick with what we know, starting from observations of life here on Earth. Three main points come to mind:<br /><br />1. Certain areas of Earth appear to remain (largely) devoid of life, implying that such environments have no suitable "hydrocarbon-based solution," (i.e., life as we know it). This might be extended to methane-based life by describing the limited temperature range in which methane-centric chemical reactions could be expected to allow an organism to do useful work (separate entropy from thermodynamic free energy).<br /><br />2. Billions of years of evolution seems to indicate some quasi-equilibriums among different strategies, (e.g., sexual v. asexual reproduction allows for greater variation per generation, so much so that many species have completely lost the ability to reproduce asexually; multicellular v. single cellular, & plant v. animal are two other apparent branches we should probably expect).<br /><br />3. Selection pressures are required to increase the complexity of life, and only life with a sufficient complexity can be expected to be intelligent (at least in the way we long for). In other words, we can't really expect a bacteria colony to develop the sort of intelligence we want, we should expect it to be a multicellular animal-like creature.<br /><br />I also disagree with Hawking about a number of other issues in that article, such as the Independence Day theme of locust-like E.T.s, and the analogy to Christopher Columbus and the native North Americans. This idea that you might cross the vast interstellar distances because you've consumed all your resources at home is silly to me, it's along the lines of traveling from northern Canada to Peru to buy the last existing gallon of gasoline: if you can make it there, the rewards are relatively meaningless. Likewise, interstellar travel is no small feat; in fact, I suspect it may simply be impossible for organisms to accomplish—we may simply be too fragile, with to much space separating the stars from one another to expect an organism to ever make the journey. However, we are on the brink of being able to create autonomous explorers that could sleep the journey away, though it is unclear what it would mean for them to colonize the galaxy for us. (Though to me, this appears to be the modern reasonable version of Fermi's paradox, which I think is most reasonably resolved by adjusting the likelihood of intelligent life in a proximally reachable space to zero. That is, I figure intelligence is very rare, and spread out, and possibly unlikely to ever contact one another.) The argument against a Columbus-scenario is simply the question: is that how we would expect ourselves to treat the situation if we were the explorers? Travel hundreds of trillions of miles to exploit some new land? We are even trying to take care (unclear how well we are doing), to not infect other celestial bodies with Earth-based life (we don't want to taint Europa with Earth-based life, in case it harbors it's own home-grown life). These are also some important arguments to help people understand why, say, finding oil on Mars would not really affect us at all—what makes oil so valuable in the first place is really much more than it's energy content, it is also the accessibility and abundance of the substances as well, and Mars is most certainly not accessible. (A human trip to Mars demands a 26th month-mission, to allow for best orbital positioning to make the trip. Just a radio signal to tell a robot to stop takes 10-20 minutes to transmit one way, depending on the current positions of the two planets.)<br /><br />Understanding these ideas about space and scale also help one understand why nuclear waste is not as big a deal as one might first suspect, and why any proposal to launch it into space is really very silly.<br /><br />Some comments written in response to space-based disposal of nuclear waste:<br />I've heard a lot of people propose space-based elimination of nuclear waste, and I think under scrutiny it is a very unreasonable idea, exactly because I don't think it can be made either cost-effective or safe. We lost two shuttles out of only 129 launches, even though we put extra care into maintaining and inspecting the craft because of the human element (though in my opinion the losses could have been prevented with better management). Even the Saturn V only lifts 47,000 kg to lunar orbit, and the shuttle cost about $50,000/lb to GTO (I'm seeing as low as 11,000$/kg for other rockets), which isn't even escape! (Additionally, it seems unlikely these prices can drop too much lower, due to the enormous fuel requirement.) Given the millions of tons of waste to dispose, odds exceedingly favor that we would accidentally detonate a large quantity of radioactive waste in the atmosphere eventually. What I don’t understand is why everyone is so averse to storing it here? We already maintain, monitor and protect weapons, why not protect the waste the same way? No reason to seal up the mountain and hope the caskets don’t leak or rot; inspect it every few months! Guard it! Maintain the facility! Maybe even reprocess it if we choose.<br /><br />In fact, these hard economic times ought to be perfect to get Yucca mountain going, or really, whoever the lowest bidder is. Development and maintenance should generate a lot of permanent jobs, ranging from higher-education engineering to lower-education construction. Plus transporting the waste to the site, freeing up the space the waste currently takes up at some of the reactors. It seems like consolidating our inspection, maintenance and protection costs with radioactive waste should be a no-brainer, whether from a security, economic, or environmental perspective.<br /><br /><br />Some comments I recently wrote on a blog post about the Fermi paradox and the possible resolution that intelligent beings routinely destroy themselves with technological progress:<br /><br />Resolving the Fermi paradox with nuclear annihilation I think is an awfully big jump. Assuming we did experience a full nuclear exchange, even at the height of the cold war (when maybe 10 times as many weapons existed) it seems unlikely that it would completely annihilate humanity, and the persistence of even a small society, together with the many fragments of information and technology, would return to an advanced society quite quickly. It is unrealistic to think we could really wipe out humanity, or even put us back at the stone age (knowledge has always defied destruction, even in times of heavy persecution).<br /><br />To me, more reasonable resolutions to the Fermi paradox include: life isn't as common as we hope; intelligence is much less probably than we hope; communication over vast distances is much more difficult than we think (just imagine the 1/r^2 drop off with r=100+ ly! Let alone competing with all the astronomical sources radiating noise.) Maybe they use much more efficient means of communication, whereby stray signals that we could detect are much less likely; maybe they have some silly prime directive, or maybe they are just so evenly dispersed in the galaxy that we can't possibly ever find them. Of course, there might be many more reasons, or any combination of these. This is not to say that I am not on board with nuclear arms reduction or awareness - surely it is one of the few serious threats to humanity that we have complete control of, which makes it a wonderful target of our concern. I'm just want us to be realistic about these things, that's all.<br /><br />Glenn wrote:<br />Cody: Your resolution of the Fermi paradox seems quite quite plausible. However, concerning a nuclear conflagration, I would be somewhat less confident that we would survive as a species and quickly re-establish an advanced society.<br /><br />I responded:<br />Glenn, I'm not saying it would be pretty, but just imagine, most information would remain intact (of course, nearly all electronic storage might be lost, there are mountains of paper-stored knowledge spread across the globe). Of course, I would argue that our survival would be nearly certain even with the most aggressive exchange imaginable (as I did below), but more realistic scenarios, (like rogue states detonating a device as terrorism, or say an exchange between Pakistan and India), would be much less devastating still, leaving most of the industrialized world completely intact. Again, I still agree they are a terrible threat and we should be actively trying to decrease the number of devices, I just don't see it being as devastating as say a large asteroid impact.<br /><br /><br />Oh, I so disagree with <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/04/opportunities_and_the_becoming.html">Stuart Kauffman</a> too! His entire argument seems centered around what I consider to be a misconception: that an "ultimate theory" would both describe all the fundamental rules governing the universe, <b>and also</b> provide a complete, probabilistic, "true" prediction of the future. (Provide all the possible outcomes with probabilities of being the actual outcome.) I don't know if I think the problem is that he is misconstruing what I consider to be an acceptable concept of "theory", or if it is merely his assertion that intractability of a problem means the rules governing the problem cannot be described. For instance, if the universe is analogous to a computer program, then an ultimate theory of physics would merely be the source code for the program, in a human-comprehensible language. That does not mean we would be able to run the program, and actually determine it's output. Hell, there are simple computer programs that are provably (from a mathematics perspective) uncomputable; we simply cannot predict the outcome of applying certain very simple rules in a systematic way. An interesting class of these are the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver">Busy Beaver functions</a>, which either run for the most steps, or output the most ones, before coming to a halt. I suppose if all he is saying is, "an ultimate theory would both describe exactly how nature works, and allow us to say ahead of time, exactly what the universe is going to do next, and such a theory is impossible to construct." If that is the case, then yes, I agree. But I think it is a silly notion to state in the first place. You cannot even expect to answer the yes or no question: given 1,000 typical mp3s of varying lengths, is there a way to partition the set into two subsets with equal total playtimes? I've chosen such a high number that we wouldn't expect you to find the answer even if the entire universe were a computer that had been working on the problem for the last 13.7 billion years! If every observable particle tested a trillion possible solutions per second every second for 13.7 billion years, it still only could have examined far less than: <br />0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000-<br />000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-<br />000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-<br />000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-<br />000000000000000000000001%<br />of the total possible answers!<br />And of course, these numbers pale in comparison to even small busy beaver functions, even the six-state, two symbol machine is known to run many orders of magnitude more steps than the "playlist problem" described above! We humans routinely write multi-state, multi-symbol programs much larger than this! In many ways, the imagination really does know no bounds.<br /><br />This was pretty <a href="http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/open-architecture-democracy/">fascinating</a> too.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I can't figure it out; is the problem that our language feels inadequate to express our emotions?<br />That is, English is not enough? Words have failed me?codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-34787536425404261022010-04-10T23:32:00.006-04:002010-08-17T12:23:32.547-04:00Tomorrow, Oblivion!3·20·10<br />
"Toad-licking crazy." <br />
<br />
Does causality as a concept exist naturally? Or did we develop it as we learned about the world? Certainly some animals have a very basic notion of causality, like some birds, primates, dolphins, and cephalopods, because they can all solve problems creatively. So I suppose organisms had been adapting to causality, maybe since the origin of locomotion? In fact, we could say that the origin of locomotion was the direct result of the causal nature of reality, right? Or at least any sense of controlled, or reactive motion (completely random motion would seem unrelated to causality).<br />
<br />
Skoot skoot?<br />
Skoosh?<br />
<br />
<br />
3·21·10<br />
Don't let them ruin you.<br />
I like the phrase, "abortion on demand", as opposed to what, scheduled abortion?<br />
Paroxysm<br />
Not worth the powder to blow it up.<br />
If only I knew sooner!<br />
<br />
Exquisitely sensitive.<br />
<br />
<br />
3·24·10<br />
For intelligence: somehow, under certain conditions, the brain just accepts symbols, and perhaps a set of rules to govern the interaction of symbols (probably just more symbols). Need to know how to make "memories" as symbols, in GP.<br />
<br />
As always, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/">Sam Harris is excellent</a>.<br />
<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/03/24/the-moral-equivalent-of-the-parallel-postulate/">Sean Carroll gave his take</a> on a TED talk given by Sam Harris.<br />
<br />
I think we might be using the concept of morals in two different ways, first, to mean right and wrong, how we should behave, etc. (which it turns out is an imaginary concept, like the popular conception of time travel. It turns out that morals are not absolute, the way they were most often perceived historically). The other meaning is the specific properties of behavior that belong to a species, formed by millions of years of evolution and the way we interact with our modern environment.<br />
Yes! He's found a way out of the trap of relativism! (I think.) Furthermore, science can obviously aid us in determining how decisions about morals (as a society) play out in the real world, whether they work as expected or not, have unforeseen side effects, etc. Also, studying many individual's specific moral attitudes could help us understand where they came from, what exactly they are, and so on. Science also is our best bet at an informed understanding of what I consider to be new moral questions, which is essential to us making good decisions as technological progress marches on relentlessly. (Such as stem cells, for which our traditional sources of moral guidance, e.g., religion, have absolutely nothing to say. Which is no surprise, considering all the major religions are more than two millennia old, born at a time when humans knew nothing and archaic superstitions held by desert goat herders were the law of the land.)<br />
<br />
<br />
3·27·10<br />
Is there a difference between feeling moderately committed to some principle, and having a very strong reason to commit, and a weaker reason to not commit, such that they balance out to a moderate commitment again? I don't think I have an example, unfortunately, and I can't recall what sparked the question.<br />
<br />
Is there any way to measure the rate at which people change their minds about a particular topic? I imagine that that rate increases dramatically after some threshold. I don't see a clear way to quantify this phenomena. But it is integral to understanding how people, as individuals evolve their thinking.<br />
<br />
I don't get mad OR even. Wait, what? Maybe it's XOR? I certainly don't seem to get even. Or maybe this is all a joke.<br />
<br />
<br />
3·31·10<br />
The good is gone from the word goodbye.<br />
<br />
"<a href="http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/03/brian-cox-on-jonathan-ross-show.html">I'm comfortable with the unknown, thats the point of science</a>."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
4·2·10<br />
Do we remember words as strings of letters? Or as strings of phonemes? Or probably neither? I imagine our brains hijack the circuitry used for auditory processing, and run a simulated auditory signal, same with mental visualizations. <br />
<br />
<br />
Hmm, I can't tell if I guessed or knew that.<br />
Joint subcommittee meeting.<br />
"Evil was a word we could not do without."<br />
<br />
<br />
4·3·10<br />
Something about the way humans learn and think allows us to develop and manipulate fuzzy concepts in our head. Case in point: on <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=33825133&postID=3478753642540426102">The View</a>, one of the women said something along the lines of believing in evil and satan, but not that it's a guy. And honestly, I see this very often, especially among religious belief, where people have a strong opinion, but lack the details of the concept to provide a coherent explanation of their feelings or beliefs. This happens frequently with words; for instance, I might have a vague notion of what the word stigma means, based on the context in which I have seen it in the past, but without having an exact definition. What is interesting is that these concepts in our heads do seem to require a degree of consistency between one another, (admittedly this is much stricter in some, like scientists, than in others, like creationists), and when new concepts are introduced, they typically need to avoid contradicting the existing concepts. Also, it appears that many of the concepts we have are built out of smaller sets of concepts, though the details of these symbols and the relationships between them are still very unclear. Plus, this is all entirely speculation based on my own introspection, meaning it is scientifically worthless.<br />
<br />
Aspire to intellectual honesty.<br />
<br />
How am I ever supposed to learn if no one will teach me?<br />
I think there might be some really severe consequences to too much solitude. Though I suppose if one makes it through with cognitive abilities intact there can be some advantages to it too.<br />
<br />
Everything was going light and dark all at once.<br />
I want to get a plaid bow-tie.<br />
<br />
Mostly I'm an optimist, by any measure of the word. More accurately, I'm a cornucopian, which is usually use derogatorily against one's opponent, but I am comfortable admitting that I am in fact exactly what the phrase is intended to discredit. Essentially it means I think "everything will be just fine," which actually is a conclusion I arrive at by considering how humans don't typically "take it lying down," but rather, if something is threatening their very existence, they tend to work hard, innovate, and persist. This certainly seems true on a global scale, and so I've always figured humans will persist into the distant (tens of thousands?) future, (barring some truly insurmountable environmental disaster, such as an extinction-level-event astroid or a volcanic event like yellowstone). But recently it crossed my mind that there are other ways for us to end ourselves… most especially by our attitudes changing. One obvious difference over time is that we have fewer and fewer children, which makes perfect sense in light of technology and resources management, healthcare, etc. Though obviously it seems unlikely that we could reach a point where no more children are born. But that isn't really what I'm thinking… at the same time, from the other side, we have computers becoming increasingly competitive with humans. I'm not invoking the old "war with machines" story from so many movies and books, but I do suspect it could spell our eventual demise. More sinisterly, it might be by us convincing ourselves of our own obsolescence. Prevalence of autism continues to rise, and no one really knows why, but it has me thinking about the end of the world again. I've harbored suspicions for years that autism is heavily influenced by the way we treat our children, though no one would want to say that, since it places blame on parents and that is just a terrible weight to even suggest. When I first read, I suppose 6 years ago now, how autism is significantly more frequent among "geek" parents, (which was suggested implied a genetic cause, the implication being that geeks had historically been spread out and rarely procreated with one another, but that places like Silicon Valley or Palo Alto were Meccas of geekdom and hence lead to selection of the responsible gene; again, all theory, no one knows yet what is going on). My immediate thought was, "how do we know that geek-type parents aren't doing something to trigger it?" But again, such a suggestion is unlikely to improve the situation.<br />
<br />
This reminds me of something I read years ago on the underlying causes of schizophrenia—it occurs most frequently in the youngest children, with higher rates in boys, if I recall correctly. Because it was most often observed in the youngest child, the theory was that the mother (who at the time was still rarely thought of as anything other than a homemaker), after raising a few boys, treated the younger boys in some different way, causing this disorder. By the time I read this, they had rejected that notion and there was mounting evidence that schizophrenia is heavily influenced by the age of the father, suggesting mutated sperm may play a role. (This also explains the youngest-child aspect, since obviously they are conceived when the father is oldest, and mutant sperm are heavily correlated with a man's age.) In this case the burden was removed from the mother, though placed onto the father, but not in much of a way that can be considered correctable.<br />
<br />
I'm also reminded of another thought I've been having lately, about the claims of homophobes that homosexuality is a choice. Even if we assume it is not a genetically 'pre-destined' trait, it is still something that forms entirely without your control, and hence, not a choice. Even if it is your very young mentors, or your environment, or the TV, or whatever, it's entirely out of your control. Of course, even if it were just a flat-out choice, even if I could just decide to be gay on a whim, right now, that would <i>still</i> not be an argument against equal rights, marriage, etc.. Because who are you to tell me who I can love or not? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would ridicule societies that still have arranged marriages, and yet would "forbid" their own children from loving the person of their choosing without a hint of irony.<br />
<br />
<br />
4·4·10<br />
David Attenborough on music and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlVB5P3DS9o">Bach</a>.<br />
<br />
Tomorrow, oblivion!<br />
(He actually said, "to moral oblivion," but I like this too.)<br />
How beautiful. May I?<br />
Very good isn't good enough.<br />
<br />
If thrown early, grenades can be picked up and thrown back. Much like fish.<br />
<br />
<br />
4·11·10<br />
So that's me, finished.<br />
<br />
I watched Kinsey recently. Finally. I think I had been somewhat afraid to watch it for a long time. Apparently most people who I know, don't recall ever seeing anything about it, though I clearly remember when it came out I was very interested. It was only recently that I felt willing to confront my own discomforts on the subject and actually watch the movie. And what an excellent movie it is! Superbly done (acting, writing, directing...), but also just a beautiful subject! There is nothing more in this world I am more bothered by than our society's attitudes about sex. And more specifically, the effect such attitudes have had on me personally. A deep conflict exists between how I feel, and want to behave, and how I actually behave, and it has been the source of much torment in my life. (Possibly even more so than religion, which I hold accountable for the persecution of many scientists throughout history, something I find deeply offensive, and antithetical to the progress, and wellbeing, of humankind. Though obviously religion has played a integral role in the twisted taboos we are raised to accept.) Interestingly enough, the movie also instilled a sense of the dangers involved in more liberal attitudes of sex, (not a real concern for me, I have a very long way to go before my attitudes would run the risk of generating such conflicts, I naively believe). There are a million more things I'd like to say on this, but I'd like them to be more organized, rather than this sort of stream-of-consciousness, rambling drivel that I typically present. Drivel is an excellent word, my dictionary defines it as "silly nonsense."<br />
<br />
Is anyone against free healthcare to all children under, say... 18? Or if you'd like, make it 12, or 15, or whatever. Am I missing something? What kind of society doesn't care for it's young?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier">Jean Meslier</a> was an interesting fellow, allegedly the first person to write seriously about atheism, and the originator of the most excellent quote (more or less), approximately, "...wished that all the great men in the world and all the nobility could be hanged, and strangled with the guts of the priests." In fact, I like the quote so much, I think I'm going to figure out how to turn it into a fancy tattoo and put it somewhere as yet to be determined. Though I don't really want it to be text, because that's never appealed to me, and I might try to put it in the original French, even though I don't speak a word.<br />
<br />
This is from a few days ago, but:<br />
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/how_bad_can_a_catholic_priest.php<br />
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/its_all_their_fault.php<br />
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/theyre_crazy_over_there_in_wis.php<br />
<br />
More thoughts on the Chinese room argument against the turing test: realize that the notion of "understanding Chinese" is fuzzy, like the Sorites paradox. Intelligence suffers this exact problem as well. The resolution of the sorites paradox is that the notion of a heap is ill defined, and the belief that a clear line is implied by the original fuzzily-defined word is simply untenable. It is a notion we created to approximate reality. There is no reason to believe that there should be a word which means heap, and is defined in such a way as to resolve the paradox, because such a word is not very useful (except to very picky philosophers).<br />
<br />
Wanna mess around?<br />
<br />
I wonder what it is that leads to a phone cord getting wound up? Is there some bias process that the operator performs causing individual twists, repeatedly, in one direction, such that over time the cord is very much twisted up?<br />
<br />
"Then we'll all go to jail together."<br />
-Dave (the movie) (I forgot how many big names are in this movie.)<br />
<br />
"In the present, the categories "real person" and "fictional character" are pretty distinct. But when we look retrospectively at the first historically documented centuries in any given area, things get fuzzy. And it's even worse if we look at people who are supposed to have lived before the introduction of writing to an area, and who are mentioned in early or foreign texts. These centuries to either side of the introduction of writing is known as protohistory, and protohistorical information is strictly speaking not factual knowledge. Not because we know that it's wrong, but because it is impossible to corroborate. Protohistory is information of indeterminate value, which is extremely frustrating to many amateur historians who Want To Believe."<br />
—<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2010/03/ancient_kings_on_the_edge_of_h.php">Martin R</a>, from Aardvarchaeology... <br />
<br />
I've been using the word 'fuzzy' a lot lately. I think because it makes me feel all warm and hairy inside.<br />
<br />
<br />
"That attitude continues today, says Roy. 'What can you say? Physicists are professionally contemptuous,' she says."<br />
Hmm, I already knew I am shallow, and superficial, and arrogant, but am I contemptuous too??? And if I'm not, is it something I can learn? and do I need it to be a real physicist? Or will my nose keep growing otherwise? <br />
<br />
<br />
Suddenly it seems like the word "monopolies" is an oxymoron. At least in plural form.<br />
<br />
We all like to think of ourselves as the good guys... have you ever experienced the realization that you are not? That moment in which you realize you're not here to help. But just to get in the way and cause trouble? I'm not sure I've had that yet either...<br />
<br />
I've always assumed that over time, humans have gotten more rational, but the other day, on the rare occasion in which I shower (which is usually a great source of ideas, which ironically can't be recorded in the moment), it occurred to me that there is no reason to think that the average human is more rational now than they were 50, 100, 1000, 10e4, 10e5, etc., years ago. This is unfortunate, if true. Though I have no idea where one would go to even begin to answer that question.<br />
<br />
Anyway, enough silly nonsense for tonight.<br />
<br />
Oh, <a href="http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/04/dad-wants-textbook-banned-for.html">one last bit before I go</a>! This man is fighting against a book in his child's school that calls creationism a myth. My favorite part is when he says he's not smart enough to have found this himself, that it was the kids that brought it to his attention. How does one harbor an awareness for one's ignorance, and also a mouth so loud? I get embarrassed about misquoting the slightest detail of any point I argue. I try so very hard not to be wrong, and yet, frequently, I remain so.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-49029504606271049812010-03-20T09:17:00.003-04:002010-03-20T10:04:18.283-04:00Amazing Things3·10·10<br />"The less fortunate get all the breaks!"<br /><br />Not that any of this is true, it is mere conjecture by me, off the top of my head:<br />The selected advantage of consciousness is the ability to learn without experience. To evolve the "best choice algorithms" inherent in all organisms <i>without</i> having to wait around for something new to happen to you (the way most creatures capable of learning, learn). In order to simulate something it must be abstracted, a symbolic representation must be established. Qualia are those symbols. They range from simple (like the color red, which merely represents a specific energy photon hitting a specific kind of receptor in our eyeball), to very complicated, (like all the wonderful physical sensations accompanied by falling in love). What are those sensations we experience? Surely they are nothing more than the chemicals and electrical signals passing through our bodies, right? Sever your spinal cord and see what feelings remain. And you might say you would still be capable of <i>imagining</i> the sensation, after the injury, like a person would remember the color red, even if their eyes completely failed them. But what you'd then be experiencing is the symbolic representation of the color red.<br /><br />No one asks, "what does the moon <i>mean</i>?" or, "what does the Local Group <i>mean</i>?", right? So why do we continue asking what <i>life</i> means? Why is everyone so afraid of the obvious answer, that it means nothing!? Is it really so terrible that we have to make life mean what we want it to, to ourselves? (Instead of being handed some assignment. I know people often avoid making decisions.) Did lunch taste better when you thought you were put on earth with some grand purpose by some mysterious force? Or can't it taste just as good knowing that we find ourselves in this physical reality that appears to have very strict rules governing it's behavior? The tragedy here is that with such a large portion of society seeking solace in religious, mystical, supernatural, and other unfounded beliefs, distracts us from seeking solace in one another. People say they feel sorry for me, for not believing in some kind of god. They say they can't imagine feeling so alone. But it's not as if I can just choose to believe in a god, anymore than a normal adult could choose to believe in Santa Claus again. Or the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, or any childhood fantasy. And learning that humanity as an species, is alone, is not frightening. We have seem to have limitless potential to please one another, and ourselves. We find ourselves in a rich environment, too vast to explore even a small fraction of it in our limited lifespans. We are magnificent bodies, capable of experiencing an enormous range of physical and emotional sensations. And to find out that there is no cosmic parent showing us the ropes should only remind us how important we are to one another.<br /><br />3·12·10<br />So this is incredibly speculative, but if it's possible for an organism to be completely insusceptible to viruses, would that become a selection disadvantage? Due to lateral gene transfer, wouldn't it be at a disadvantage in the rate of evolution department? I've had similar ideas before with other aspects of life... that was how I first thought you could resolve our limited lifespans, though I think later I read a more interesting explanation, supported by both good evidence, and I believe a calculation. Very simply, an organism that lives forever would no longer evolve, so it simply can't happen. I think it was Randolph Nesse's interview with Dawkins that had that... I should maybe look it up and put it here. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NrmfwMEa1o">Six minutes in</a>. Actually, you have to watch to the end, because the important stuff comes near the end. Really the whole 5-part interview has a lot of beautiful information, but for my purposes the bit on aging was all that was relevant.<br /><br /><br />3·15·10<br />Apply GP to NN! (Do you think I'll remember what this meant? GP = genetic programming, NN = Neural Networks.)<br /><br />I just noticed something in Dr. Strangelove that reminded me of something in Grosse Pointe Blank, which makes me think there must be some reference, but I'll have to go back and check again—almost immediately I forgot what it was. Though it was during the Air Force guy's earlier scenes in the war room. It was about jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in.<br /><br />Peace on Earth<br />Purity of Essence<br />The Commie Conspiracy to steal our precious bodily fluids.<br /><br /><br />3·16·10<br />Perspicacity<br />intelligibility<br /><br /><br />3·18·10<br />Would you buy T-shirts that say, "Too stupid to breed"?<br /><br />3·19·10<br />You know, even without <a href="http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/03/german-archbishop-to-abuse-victims.html">all the child-rape and other abuse the catholic church is now being revealed for</a>, it would still be a despicable organization, deserving of absolutely no respect.<br /><br /><br />"<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWgSHX3h99E">Locality is just an approximation</a>." I want to learn more about this...<br /><br />Ha ha ha:<br />"<a href="http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/affirmative-consent-as-legal-standard/">I could make a good argument based on the statutes and case law where I live that what my spouse does to me regularly with my consent is a felony</a>." Beautiful.<br /><br />"The victim of theft by deception is still a victim of theft, whether she realizes it or not."<br /><br /><br /><br />3·20·10<br />I don't really buy the Fermi paradox as an argument against E.T., but I do find it a powerful argument against E.T. having developed A.I. and a von Neumann probe (a self-replicating machine), at least not long enough ago for us to have detected it. This is also what I consider the best argument in a finitely old universe. My opinion will change if I can be convinced that von Neumann probes (as a concept) have some real-world limitation that would prevent us from seeing them, even over very long periods of time. This could be as simple as: organisms capable of building A.I./"Universal Assemblers", may be exceedingly rare and spread out. I suppose it is even possible that we may be the only organism capable of such a feat of engineering. I suppose it could be that even we are incapable of constructing such devices, though I consider that very unlikely.<br /><br /><br />Over-and-out.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-27157084270594025532010-03-10T23:39:00.004-05:002010-03-11T00:50:00.364-05:00Creativity Algorithms2·19·10<br />Of course, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUW5J-6M5Hw&feature=channel">the whole series</a> is interesting, but that video in particular has something amazing happening.<br />Thats what artificial intelligence is missing: sex drive. Or more generally, any motivator.<br />Your words say one thing, but all of your behavior points to the opposite conclusion—and my brain wrestles to fit the two together and find a coherent explanation.<br />Had a beautiful dream [REDACTED].<br /><br />2·24·10<br />Try pleasing with stealth.<br /><br />2·27·10<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLc5x9kGq1M">Mark Ruffalo</a> describing his fake religious experience.<br /><br />Binary days:<br />01.01.10<br />01.10.10<br />01.11.10<br /><br />next:<br />10.01.10<br />10.10.10 — its a Saturday. We should have a huge celebration for some unrelated reason.<br />10.11.10<br />11.01.10<br />11.10.10<br />11.11.10<br /><br />Did I miss any?<br /><br />Ha ha ha ha:<br />"without reading your entire post i have a couple things to say.<br />First of all you make the comment that i wouldnt listen. I am listening but i think"<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120833822">Rowing to Galveston</a>"<br />I'm not going to allow the theistic to have a monopoly on publicly acceptable, expressive, "swear" words, goddammit!<br /><br /><br />3·1·10<br />It is so easy to think that position and distance are meaningful values, and to think that it is possible to know and talk about where we are. It feels so natural, with such a solid footing. But if you look very carefully, and you keep very precise track of what happens and when and where, you discover that what really matters is velocity. Standing still becomes nothing more than a "special case" of velocity, itself requiring reference to an origin elsewhere.<br /><br /><br />3·2·10<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFOk95Q5Yc0">This</a> makes me feel bad. But it's still kind of funny.<br />Well, at least I know I'm not a psychopath.<br /><br />3·3·10<br />Don't mistake the numinous, and transcendent, with supernatural.<br /><br />Maybe all those religious people who claim that morals can't exist without a overbearing creator are actually psychopathic, and only behave because of religion? Could the prevalence of psychopathy be greatly masked by religion? That would certainly motivate me to consider reducing the vocalness of my criticism of religion.<br /><br />"Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." —Steven Weinberg<br /><br />"…it's rather curious, you know, this sort of life ! "<br />-Alice<br /><br />"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." —Kant<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative">Categorical Imperative</a><br /><br />Is <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1036899">godhole</a> a swear word?<br /><br />There is an interesting reluctance for people to admit that morals are not absolute, but rather evolve in parallel to our culture and intelligence. Just 43 years ago, some of the states still had laws against interracial marriage! Not long before that, morals allowed for even more outrageous laws, obviously leading right back into slavery just 150 years ago, with Women's rights and many other civil rights battles being sprinkled in along the way. If morals are so clear and eternal, why is it so obvious to us now that all humans are created equal, when it was socially acceptable to deny that fact in our oh-so-recent past.<br /><br /><br />3·7·10<br />You know, Islam might mean peace, and there may be many muslims, of both genders, who are just very wonderful people. But the fact remains that there exists a strong correlation between religions (most harmfully in both islam and christianity), and many specific acts of violence, terrorism, persecution, etc. A handgun, by any other name...<br /><br />Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. Which, in the age of the internet, is anyone with a good story. David's sling & stone mean nothing to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand effect">Streisand effect</a>.<br /><br /><br />3·9·10<br />Holy crap!!! So the Chinese room argument claims that you + ultra-cheatsheet does not equal understanding Chinese, but I would argue that you do! But you have sacrificed speed for basic process complexity. So perhaps the overall complexity of the problem has increased, but the "instruction set" required to "speak" Chinese has significantly decreased. If we were to move the instructions from the book into your hypothetically enormous brain, would that make you feel better? So you didn't really know what you were saying, but you could take confidence that your book was sufficiently complex to convince a fluent Chinese-speaker that you too were fluent. This is the trade off we must find, and balance. Humans have repeatedly "traded up", constructing larger symbol sets out of smaller ones, increasing the capacity drastically!<br /><br />Must study this:<br />DNA->gene->protein->amino acid->…?<br />letters->words->sentences?->books?…<br />I don't think this is an unreasonable question to answer, I just need to give it some good solid time to think about it.<br /><br />Also must consider more: creativity from an algorithm!<br />Create the creative algorithm! Make it a website!<br /><br />"At this rate, by Tuesday it will be Thursday, by Wednesday it will be August, and by Thursday it will be the end of existence as we know it!"<br /><br />"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." —Richard Feynman<br /><br />Holy crap we're building a brain!!!<blockquote>One of the biggest areas for variety in multi-core architecture is the composition and balance of the cores themselves. Some architectures use one core design which is repeated consistently ("homogeneous"), while others use a mixture of different cores, each optimized for a different, "heterogeneous", role.</blockquote> (From the multi-core page on wikipedia.) I predict that we will see processors specialize in similar ways to the various parts of our brains.<br /><br />I feel like I'm playing a game where no one is allowed to help me and there is something very specific but foreign to me that needs to be completed for me to move on to the next level.<br /><br />Must read/consider/think about DSR & Bee's criticism & the uncertainty principle: is it possible that physical uncertainty is a function of your inertial frame? Seems like this should already be known with Dirac's work.<br /><br />"In 1962, U.S. President Kennedy told a gathering of Nobel laureates at the White House that it was "...probably the greatest concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.""<br /><br />What???<blockquote>So what about morally responsible free will? Here is the standard dilemma. The mind-brain is a deterministic dynamical system, a la Newton, but different "neural" equations. So you were determined by that dynamics to kill the old man in the wheel chair. Not your fault. You didn't do it. No responsible free will. <br />Alternatively, we have a little or a lot of quantum chance, in the simplest case, like the random decay of a radioactive nucleus. So you are sauntering down the street, and by random chance, kill the same old man in the wheel chair. Not your fault, just a random event.<br />Again we are stuck. We can have no responsible free will.</blockquote>Disagree completely.<br /><br />Is it unreasonable to think we could make a computer that makes decisions? Like for instance, we have built autonomous cars, right? So we give the car a destination, and the car then navigates its way there. Ideally, the car observes and obeys all traffic regulation. We might say it has the "free will" to decide how to get to the destination, and we have instilled in it, a "moral" sense, to obey traffic laws. Why is the car moral? because we made it so. Now of course the car could be so complex that a slight change in conditions causes it to change its behavior rapidly. (For instance, if it were to find itself completely "fenced in," incapable of traveling to the destination, it may behave in unexpected ways, unless the programmers behind it have already compensated for this. I'm getting way off point...)<br /><br />Holy crap:<blockquote>Why did consciouisness evolve anyway? Suppose an algorithmic robot with sensors could calculate exactly what will happen in its world. Why bother to be "aware" of its world, just buzz around and plug yourself into power sockets and pop oil into your joints. </blockquote><br /><br />I can answer this for you!<br />The answer is that you can be far more efficient if you are aware! Consciousness allows us to rewire circuitry in our brains without external influence. Consciousness is simply genetic programming.<br />The ability to evolve our algorithmic thinking, to improve the circuits that allow us to do things.<br />And as far as<blockquote>"What use, if mind is a machine, such as a connectionist machine, is there in being conscious, having awareness, or "qualia"? "</blockquote>goes, "qualia" are merely abstract symbols representing potentially-influential aspects of reality for which it is beneficial to have a symbolic representation of inside the organism.<br />Red is important in messaging one another through sight, conveying emotions silently, across space. <blockquote>"But this answer won't do. The unconscious, but able computerized robot could sense the difference between its predictions about the world and the world, reset the initial conditions and recompute. Why be conscious? There seems no answer."</blockquote><br />This is why I argue that consciousness is merely the observation of computation. Because that is the advantage. A computerized robot that sensed the difference between it's predictions and reality, recomputing, evolving it's model, and so on, WOULD IN FACT BE CONSCIOUS!!!<br />Also, I don't understand these claims that consciousness relies on quantum effects. I admit it is possible that quantum phenomena are integral to the brains' structure, much like photosynthesis appears to rely on quantum effects. But the idea that consciousness needs quantum mechanics does not seem born out by the data. It is not as if humans are particularly good at BQP problems or anything of the sort.<br />I very strongly disagree with your statement, "the unconscious, but able computerized robot could sense the difference between its predictions about the world and the world, reset the initial conditions and recompute." I would argue that if the robot is capable of sensing discrepancies between its model of the universe and reality itself, and if it is capable of revising its own programming (not just initial & boundary conditions, but the underlying model/algorithm as well), then it is in fact conscious. Notice that the definition of consciousness as "an algorithm capable of revising itself," provides a natural grading of conscious organisms: humans are good at this, dogs not as much, worms even less so; it also provides a good reason for organisms to evolve towards higher degrees of consciousness: the faster one can rewrite neural circuitry the faster they can adapt to their environment. Free will then is the (difficult) choice of how exactly the underlying algorithm should be rewritten, as well as the consequences of such changes.<br /><br />So the real issue they have here is that they don't see how to make an algorithm that we would call creative. I'm having trouble seeing why we shouldn't be able to do that, though I don't see a clear path to it yet. So I will have to try to figure that out; I suspect I can.<br /><br /><br /><br />3·11·10<br />"The purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide." —Mike Russell<br />"Hey baby, wanna come over and hydrogenate some carbon dioxide with me?" —Dr. A (no, not really)<br /><br />I should add, to describe humans as machines does not require they be perfectly deterministic, nor does the absence of brute-force algorithmic lifeforms imply that we are not algorithmic. There is a very large cost to our big brains, and they are far from perfect reality simulators. On the contrary, they are full near to the brim of shortcuts and habits, and they contain many layers of symbolism and abstraction, allowing us to model situations in highly simplified, symbolic ways. And even then we are very often wrong, because even the simplest of situations can become intractably complex in the very near future. Furthermore, we are all processing on incomplete information, we are all adjusting our plans in light of new evidence and evolving environments. And this isn't even considering chaos theory, where even the near future is essentially unpredictable because the process is so sensitive to initial conditions. And these are very simple systems that often express these properties, something as complicated as life.<br /><br />The uncertainty, is nearly too much to bear.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />It's only me!<br />(Exclamation point or period, I changed my mind many times.)codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-48372631061423698052010-02-19T11:41:00.004-05:002010-02-19T12:05:33.004-05:00Afraid to Turn the Knob"To ask the question is to answer it."<br /><br />2·8·10<br />If this doesn't happen—if I break—I'm going to war.<br /><br />2·12·10<br />A few years ago I began thinking of mathematics as a vast landscape, with uncharted territory (indeterminate statements), which on occasion needed new axioms to be mapped properly, due to Gödel. But now I'm thinking it's better to think of it as a vast archipelago, with axiomatic causeways connecting one mapped island to another. Islands separated by vast amounts of mysterious ocean, our feeble little brains slowly crawling the beaches and painstakingly mapping the details, forever condemned to remain completely uncertain of the topology of the vast ocean floor surrounding us. <br /><br />2·15·10<br />eminently corruptible<br />a willing infidel<br /><br /><br />2·16·10<br />“You can say ‘Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don’t think there’s a purpose,’ but I’m anticipating having a good lunch,” Watson told Dawkins.<br /><br />"I do kind of. I can't explain it right now." "Another dent here, another dent here."<br />"I'm sorry for your loss, your mother was a terribly attractive woman."<br />"Come on lets shag ass."<br />"Have you met someone else?" "I couldn't even begin to think about knowing how to answer that question."<br />"God dammit don't do that to yourself, I'm the one that failed them, or anyway, it's nobody's fault."<br />"Immediately after making this statement, Royal realized it was true."<br />"I can't stop thinking about you."<br /><br />If I ever happen to go someplace like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorini">this</a>, I'm going to need to buy a really nice camera.<br /><br />"Ah-ha, minor corneal damage. Page me if it spreads to the other eye."<br />"What is this, what's going on? Why are you squeezing me with your body?"<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />With respect to the "religion", I think it could do a lot of good, leveraging a currently untapped market of people who are growing increasingly disgusted by religion, but who aren't yet able to see they can live without religion. It'd be atheism for the less considerate. Setting aside for a moment that the very idea of starting a religion could, without much effort, be labeled a compromise where none-be-deserved, I think it could be done without any other compromise. We needn't include any sort of superstitious or mystical claims. Though, would we want to avoid further hijacking of religious terminology, to avoid further blurring of the words? For instance, numinous/spiritual type experiences? Certainly god would be a difficult issue to talk about. But emphasis of reason, and evidence, and rationality, and consistency would all go a long way to helping the world. As well as a positive message, which is not as difficult as many people believe.<br /><br />I think at the heart of the issue with creationists/IDers, and in general with mystical thinking, is the notion that something can lie outside the purview of science. Now I find that difficult to swallow, through the following reasoning. Currently we know that our bodies are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, interacting through three or four well understood forces. We have mathematics that explains these particles and the interactions between them extremely well. Suppose we are missing something---either a particle, a force, or some other ingredient, sub-atomic or macroscopic, it doesn't matter---what can we say about this missing ingredient? At first, you might think "nothing at all", but that isn't true... suppose this missing ingredient is in fact observable, we simply haven't yet observed it. Wait, I'm getting off topic... if it is to have any influence whatsoever on reality, it MUST be observable, else Occam must execute it. Now this is the bread-and-butter: phenomena only come in three real flavors: deterministic, (in which case the setup/input completely determines the outcome/output), probabilistic (in which case the setup describes a set of potential outcomes, and typically corresponding likelihoods for each distinct potential outcome), and completely random, in which the outputs are completely independent of the inputs. Unfortunately for god, mathematics has provided us with very good tools to detect and distinguish, and quantify, all three of these kinds of phenomena. Including some sophisticated measurements of random. Furthermore, the pace with which these tools have evolved has only increased in time, and no clear limit to their sophistication is within sight.<br /><br />I think I might agree with the global falsity stance of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_theory#Error_theory">error theory</a>, as it appears to describe the illusory conflict I had previously noted between moral relativism and moral absolutists. (I.e., absolutists claiming relativism disqualifies the system from being morals, and relativists claiming there can be no such thing as absolute morals.)<br /><br /><blockquote>Neo-conservatives are unlike old conservatives because they are utilitarians, not moralists, and because their aim is the prosperity of post-industrial society, not the recovery of a golden age.<br />-Irving Kristol</blockquote><br />The problem I have with Irving is that he says he's not after a recovery of a golden age, and yet he says, "People need religion. It's a vehicle for a moral tradition. A crucial role. Nothing can take its place. " Which is EXACTLY trying to recover a golden age, or at least preserve a perceived golden age, which is similarly irrational.<br />Or this!!!:<blockquote>If you have standards, moral standards, you have to want to make them prevail, and at the very least you have to argue in their favor. Now, show me where libertarians have argued in some comprehensive way for a set of moral standards. ... I don't think morality can be decided on the private level. I think you need public guidance and public support for a moral consensus. The average person has to know instinctively, without thinking too much about it, how he should raise his children.</blockquote><br />What the hell!! one minute they're "not moralists", and the next you're claiming you're better than the liberals because they lack moral standards and you don't??? Will someone PLEASE take the microphone away from these clowns?<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/01/24/my-sweet-neocons/">here</a>:<blockquote>Comment 18:<br />This is the thinking behind the populist nonsense that advanced education is only for the elite. All through our history as a species, those in power have voiced concerns over an educated populace, and passed these fears on to their inferiors, who regard the educated as a threat to their egos because it gives them “ideas”. To those in power, education should be confined to grinding out millions of identically-minded coolie workers with just enough know-how to stoke the fires of commerce, but not enough to think for themselves. This is what underpins the right-wing cultural engine that propagandizes intellectualism as suspect and has for decades.</blockquote>They helped me remember, it is the "noble lie". Comment 29 said the noble lie is occasionally noble---I must add, but it is ALWAYS a lie! How is it that the people who argue morals are absolute appear less moral than I do as a moral relativist?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Our identities are not controlled entirely by ourselves, they are also imposed upon us.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-73332619860571550902010-02-07T22:55:00.003-05:002010-02-07T23:15:38.446-05:00Nothing Left to Burn1·27·10<br />"Bring your hips to me"<br /><br />What a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genocides">weird idea</a>. Still seems very likely impossible though. It's hard to imagine a plant that can grow significantly faster than the fastest growing plants we have.<br /><br />1·29·10<br />"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist."<br /><br />Logicomix just enlightened me to the tragic parallels of Socrates' hemlock and Turing's chemical sentence, which is thought to have driven him to suicide. It's discouraging that in more than 2400 years, humanity still hasn't learned not to commit terrible acts against one another, especially for such innocent acts. How many Geniuses have will killed for jesus? And what price has humanity paid for it?<br /><br />Too much fantasy and not enough reality is a bad thing.<br /><br /><br />2·2·10<br />Is there a contradiction between the phrase "buy American" and "no socialism" or "capitalism only" or that whole line of thinking?<br /><br />I think possibly the real issue with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-blindness">mind-blindness</a> is that all humans communicate expecting others to understand them, it seems that is an implicit presumption when communicating. But if the words or symbols, or the pattern of ideas, is not shared between the communicators, then both the speaker and listener run the risk of thinking that the communication is successful, when in fact it isn't. If the disagreement between patterns of thought is very great, then it will be obvious that communication has broken down, but, if instead it is only slight, with words and phrases taking on slightly distorted meanings, or interpretations, then a much more sinister problem arises, with both sides believing, the listener believing they have received correctly, and the speaker believing they have sent correctly, when in fact both have failed.<br /><br /><br />2·3·10<br />Lots of weird dreaming last night. I only remember two, in the first, I was with my roommate, we were going somewhere, so we got in a helicopter, which is weird since neither of us are pilots. I think he was flying it, and we were doing fine, but then we went much higher and it just turned off. It was weird, my reaction was like, "really? the helicopter just turned off? bummer…" So we crashed. I remember a sort of calmness during the descent, even though I thought it would most likely kill us both. Instead when it crashed we both got thrown into the ground real hard. I laid for a minute, sort of amazed I didn't die, then I heard him groan, and I was even more amazed we both survived. Then, sometime after that I either woke up and realized it was a dream, or began to realize in the dream, but I don't remember anything after that.<br /><br />The other dream, I was playing a video game, taking turns with someone else, but I don't know who. I wasn't very good, and it was some weird mario-like game, in 3d. And thats about all I remember.<br /><br />2·4·10<br />I <3 Criticism. No, really, I really really really want to know what I do wrong, what I am wrong about, where I am wrong. I really want to know how to be a better person, a smarter person, a kinder person. A more emphatic person. (Thats a joke, I mean empathetic.)<br /><br />I want to have my hand on mystery again.<br />I like the term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_recovery">clock recovery</a>.<br />De novo.<br />"It's made with real bits of panther, so you know it's good."<br /><br />2·5·10<br />Perish the thought.<br /><br />2·6·10<br />Puzzles about secrets are not meant to keep secrets, but to challenge the curious. When it's desired that a secret remains so, the carrier simply never speaks of it.<br /><br />2·7·10<br />The <a href="http://www.michaelyon-online.com/the-kopp-etchells-effect/page-2.htm">Kopp-Etchells effect</a> is beautiful.<br /><br /><br />Looking through the list of requests on facebook, and seeing that a group I just joined, (looking for a million evolution supporters by june), is encouraging me to invite my list of friends, I had an epiphany: the most ingenious use of social networking sites is to pass on the activity of spamming to the users! Friends, or even acquaintances (like much of facebook), must respond much better to junk mail from people they know, instead of computers or nigerians, right?<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hug_machine">What gives</a>? Give it to me.<br /><br />It can't come and go that quick, can it? <br />I need thawing. I need time to learn, and recall, and adjust. Clarity is tremendously helpful. It is motivating and inspires confidence. I just need to keep it in my head, to avoid the doubts that do nothing constructive; to stay on track, on aim for the target.<br />I think it's important to remember that these aren't things I want to change to make you happy, they are things I want to change to make me happy. I don't want to be distant, or unexpressive. I want to be able to pick up on your feelings. <br />But it will take me time to grow out of my shell. As I learn to be more comfortable around you, I can then think more rationally, and not over-think, and maybe even just feel, eventually. I don't want to live my whole life without feeling.<br /><br />"When there's nothing left to burn you have to set yourself on fire."<br /><br /><br /><br />I'd love to turn you on.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-10248808441666426372010-01-27T01:48:00.005-05:002010-02-02T23:16:27.237-05:00mind-blindIt wasn't a decision, it was simply the truth, so far as I could discern it. And it was such a coherent and complete explanation, that the alternatives provided no contest. <br /><br />1·22·10<br />"Like all shaman, they returned to the sky."<br /><br />There is a box on which I work, with many copper pipes entering & exiting, most of which carry steam at about 250 degrees fahrenheit. I've bumped into the pipes & burnt my forearms many times, but today, while working on top of the box, I reached across to swap a tube, and in the process, was prepared to rest both my forearms, and probably much of my weight, on a copper pipe. Just a moment before I would do so, an intense feeling of doom & panic consumed me, and I aborted—somewhat awkwardly shifting my weight and arms to not land on the pipe. Of course, after another moment I remembered that this particular copper pipe carries air, and is always cool to the touch, but humans are not steam carrying copper pipes now are we?!<br /><br />1·24·10<br />Dreamt a lot last night. That we were going on a trip, with many people. But then you, and the people who you were with, would go on, when I, and the people who had come with me, would stop. So we did, but then we expected to hear from you, but no one did. So I went to a town that you worked in, and I went somewhere you worked, but no one had heard from you there either. I wanted to explain where you had gone, but I felt like since they didn't know me, you might not want me talking to them. When I left, I crossed the street and was heading home, when I passed a warehouse that appeared to have a restaurant inside, so I went in, and decided to see if you worked there too. But then I had the same problem, thinking it was invasive of me to talk about you. They told me you did work there, and they hadn't heard from you, like everyone else. I explained a little bit, that you had gone on a trip, and no one had heard, and you were probably fine. Then I realized I should order something. I was really nervous trying to find something to order right away. I bought a hamburger and fries, and instead of giving me change back, they gave me some sort of gift card, which at first I accepted. It was light gray, semi-transparent, thick in the middle with the edges chamfered slightly. A piece of paper with some text printed on it was taped to the card with scotch tape. Then I got kind of angry, asking why they gave me a gift card at a restaurant. But then I didn't care, and left. I don't recall any other details. <br /><br />1·25·10<br />Skepticism of the establishment, when taken too far, is not productive and provides no benefit—extreme skepticism walks a fine line between circumventing ill-guided navigation and outright paranoia. When skepticism grows so extreme as to reject all external references it risks crossing into paranoia, with little hope of preserving its orientation, since considering outside references is the greatest hope of avoiding psychosis. Unfortunately, the suggestion that we "heed cautions of skepticism inhibiting worthy rational thought without reason" itself is not a well reasoned assertion. Am I going mad?<br /><br />1·26·10<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-blindness">Ouch</a>. I watched a program once on the discovery channel, about climbing mt. everest, and how above 15,000 or 20 or whatever it was, the oxygen deprivation can cause severe judgement impairment. And suddenly I was really freaked out. Far more than any physical danger you can encounter while climbing a mountain, the idea that the thing you rely on to make sensible decisions, to make survival decisions, could be greatly impaired, by nothing other than the environment, is terrifying. Though having insufficient information to make a decision can have the exact same effect, in which case you don't need to be in a greatly oxygen-deprived environment, you maybe just need someone to not give you everything they know. With the additional handicap that perhaps you can never quite decide what other people are thinking, or feeling, the slightest obvious ambiguity in information can be enough to prevent any decision from being made. The terror emerges from the fact that a mind disabled in a particular way is incapable of even observing that it is disabled, incapable of detecting <i>fatal</i> flaws in very simple reasoning. You watch otherwise intelligent people do entirely insane things; damaging the reasoning machinery risks the whole organization even without a real threat. Likewise, a mind, seemingly incapable of empathizing with other minds, risks much greater consequences of mis-calculation than a empathetic mind, without having any clue whatsoever that it is taking such sharp risks. It's far more than ignorance is bliss, its a complete inability to become informed. It is an eternal condemnation of comprehension. It's as close to a curse as might be realized in a strictly physical world. And so how to recover? Can one compensate? Or must I admit defeat, and accept that verifying one's sanity will always demand external input, despite such reliance on others appearing to be the very definition of vulnerability?<br /><br />And all this without any consideration of the destruction incurred in the other direction.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-90891973823878155972010-01-23T15:33:00.005-05:002010-01-23T15:36:46.579-05:00Building a "Religion"<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/03/23/politicians-and-critics/">This post</a> seems very relevant to my roomate's response to my idea of a website that tracks politician's stances on scientific matters. I expressed an urge to expand the idea to other political ideas, but a reluctance due to those issues being opinion, rather than fact-driven.<br /><br />He liked this idea, and pointed out that politics is an opinion game, which in some instances is perfectly reasonable (truly political issues), while other times it interferes with actual facts (for instance, evolution).<br /><br />The goal of this organization would be to gather powerful political leaders' stances regarding certain scientific facts, first and foremost: evolution. We want a list of every politician, from the top down; name, location, influence, and sourced quotes describing their acceptance, rejection, or ignorance of scientific theories.<br /><br />Suddenly I wondered if the phase "jump the gun" could mean, "charge the shooter".<br /><br />Sean Carroll wrote:<br /><blockquote>When Chris and Matt talk to the PZ/Dawkins crowd, they do a really bad job of understanding and working within the presuppositions of their audience — exactly what framing is supposed to be all about. To the Framers, what’s going on is an essentially political battle; a public-relations contest, pitting pro-science vs. anti-science, where the goal is to sway more people to your side. And there is no doubt that such a contest is going on. But it’s not all that is going on, and it’s not the only motivation one might have for wading into discussions of science and religion.<br /><br />There is a more basic motivation: telling the truth.<br /><br />What Matt and Chris (seemingly) fail to understand is that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are not trying to be successful politicians, persuading the largest number of people to come over to their side. They have no interest in being politicians. They are critics, and their goal is to say correct things about the world and argue against incorrect statements. Of course, they would certainly like to see evolution rather than creationism taught in schools, and ultimately they would be very happy if all of humanity were persuaded of the correctness of their views. But their books and blogs about science and religion are not strategic documents designed to bring about some desired outcome; they are attempts to say true things about issues they care about. Telling them “Shut up! You’ll offend the sensibilities of people we are trying to persuade!” is like talking to a brick wall, or at least in an alien language. You will have to frame things much better than that.<br /><br />However, we also need critics. If everyone were a politician, it would be equally disastrous. In Bernard Shaw’s famous phrasing, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” The perfect can be the enemy of the good, but if we don’t have a loud and persistent chorus of voices reminding us of how far short we fall of perfection, we won’t work as hard as we can to get there.</blockquote><br /><br />I find the categorization of "politicians and critics" interesting, and I can't help but bring this up: scientists, in general (at least real scientists), must always be critics, in this sense. Truth must always be the #1 priority. Limited funding and competition conspire to distort that ideal, but in the limit, any veering from the truth will one day be revealed, that's just how science works.<br /><br />But now we might wonder, should one hold a default skepticism, doubting everything they are told, only accepting it when sufficient evidence is presented? Or could one tentatively accept anything that fits into the previous body of evidence & best-fit model? Obviously it is undesirable to accept non-evidenced (no data one way or the other) claims as being validated, and obviously invalidated claims should be scrutinized, but for claims in which no relevant data exists, scrutinizing the claim in terms of it's consistency with unrelated data and accepted models, and accepting the claim tentatively, ought to be acceptable, as it allows one to advance their thinking into new areas more rapidly. This may also lead to new theoretical considerations which could ultimately lead to new experiments to validate or falsify both the new claims as well as the older models.<br /><br /><br />Perhaps I should start a "religion". It's tenets would be strict physicalism and metaphysical naturalism, and a complete rejection of any notion of supernaturalism. <br />In those sense, it wouldn't be much of a religion, but why not call it one? <br />We can emphasize personal responsibility and a sense of community, equality, and truth. <br />Personal testimony could be shared between members with our experiences of the numinous, and Sam Harris's notions of mysticism, or something resembling spirituality. <br />Our reverence for nature and humanity will be our sacred tenets. <br /><br />Our principles will include requiring our worldview be consistent with empirical evidence above all else, combined with a utilitarian-like approach to moral issues, which, although relative, should be fairly solid and perhaps only laid out by a majority vote of church members. <br />Sometimes moral views will change, and some morals, if divided among two large majorities, will be given a "no comment" stance by the church, citing insufficient evidence, understanding, and/or consensus to make a decision. <br />Individuals could perhaps abstain from voting, in which case they have no influence on the outcome, or perhaps allowed to vote a "I don't know" vote, which if in a majority, may prevent an official stance by the church. (Though it seems likely that anyone involved with such an institution would tend to be informed, or if not, rapidly remedy that themselves.)<br /><br />We could call it "Saganism." We could always write "religion" and "church" in "quotes."<br /><br />If we had a political stance, I would prefer they promote a linear combination of socialistic and capitalistic models, as well as a mix of meritocracy and democracy, better voting systems (that is, multi-vote systems or the other alternatives, unrelated to computers), issue-based rather than party-based elections, (as well as issue-based metrics for feedback), and a more scientific approach to what does and doesn't work, to eliminate debate over the correctness of social and economic models. (E.g., abstinence-only doesn't work, lazza-faire economics failed, and free-markets don't necessarily evolve into creatures that will efficiently promote the best interests of the people.)<br /><br />"The favored method of those who would claim that science and religion are compatible — really, the only method available — is to twist the definition of either “science” or “religion” well out of the form in which most people would recognize it. Often both. Of course, it’s very difficult to agree on a single definition of “religion” (and not that much easier for “science”)..."<br /><br />We would use Richard Feynman's 'definition' of science, as the process of testing old information to make sure it is valid.<br />And of course, "Saganism" would be an immense distortion of the definition of "religion," at the expense of preserving the definition of "science" in all it's glory. <br />I'd be really nervous about such a distortion, and the potential damage it could cause. But on the other hand, it seems like it might attract swaths of previously elusive faitheists who just haven't quite seen the incandescence of atheism for the rainbow of benefits it really is.<br /><br />Of course, the purpose of such distortion is really to create a competitive, non-destructive alternative for religion. Something people can do on Sundays, and that instills a greater sense of purpose in them. Real science isn't for everyone, it requires a lot of time and effort, and sometimes a de-prioritizing of what many people consider "more typical" goals (i.e., a sacrifice; a cost incurred against the possibility of a more 'normal' life).<br /><br />"Religions have always made claims about the natural world, from how it was created to the importance of supernatural interventions in it. And these claims are often very important to the religions who make them; ask Galileo or Giordano Bruno if you don’t believe me." -Sean Carroll<br /><br />I should emphasize: morals can not be derived directly from science, they require a set of axioms that can only be defined by human opinions and interests. However, such opinions should not be considered "true" indefinitely, as technology has a way of spurring real-world moral dilemmas that exceed the previous societies' moral sophistication. The only seemingly sensible way I can imagine to deal with this is to bring the full brunt of human discussion down on it (I think Sam Harris advocated this approach as well), relying on the best scientific knowledge available to inform a debate in which we, as a society, develop a consensus view of where exactly to draw the line between right and wrong.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-68493120020837036662010-01-19T01:00:00.003-05:002010-01-19T01:37:16.728-05:00Finish What You Start"Truth is a very very, hard thing to find, except in, local empirical circumstances. Much much more significant than that is rationality. And the word rationality is a very interesting one. The first part of it, ratio, is about proportioning evidence to the conclusions that you derive from it. It means being guided by your very best exploration of the evidence, your very best, most responsible reasonings, and submitting things to public test and debate. Rationality is the key. To behave, to think, and to believe, rationally, on the basis of evidence, that is the surest path <i>towards</i> truth. You have to remember what Voltaire said, 'I will defend with my life the person who is seeking the truth, but I will not be so keen on the person who claims to have it.' Finally, there is one big difference between Richard Dawkins and myself on the question of the 6.5, and agnosticism. I am not one little bit agnostic about fairies, or pixies, or goblins, and so on for all the other super natural agencies that might be invoked… And for exactly the same kind of rational, I hope, reasons, I'm not agnostic about deities and gods and goddesses and the rest of it." —AC Grayling<br /><br />12·26·09<br />Moments of Grief.<br />The <a href="http://www.chromoscope.net/#">Chromoscope</a> is pretty sweet.<br />"The sky really has fallen on some civilizations."<br /><br />12·27·09<br />"Passion is the enemy of precision."<br />He liked studying the physical world, he added, but, "I have neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings."<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,817454,00.html#ixzz0av6hHWP8">Read more</a>.<br /><br /><br />12·29·09<br />New.<br />Different.<br />Unfamiliar territory.<br />Unknown.<br />Would you care to join me?<br /><br />I know most people wouldn't believe me, but I think a lot of what makes "me" me is an inability to understand other people. On (at least) two levels. Often times it's difficult for me to understand, (simply comprehend), either the words, or meaning, people are trying to convey. Also, it's difficult sometimes to pay attention to them.<br /><br />"What are you looking for?" Does that mean, "what is the object of your search", or "what is the motivation for searching for such an object"? Why look? I must be going completely insane. I gotta get out more. "Lets go out. Lets get going."<br /><br />Proper psycho.<br /><br />12·31·90<br />"I think I might miss you enough to say so. I think I already did."<br /><br />1·1·10<br />"You can't buy silence, you can only rent it."—Zero Effect<br /><br />"Everything I say is true, so theres nothing we can do, 'then what the hell', I say to you, let me have one dance with you."<br />Suddenly the movie "Million Dollar Hotel" popped into my head. <br /><br /><br />1·15·10<br />start a website: calling out powerful ignorants<br /> make a comprehensive list of politicians and leaders who:<br /> understand evolution<br /> deny evolution<br /> won't answer<br />Maybe other topics too?<br /><br /><br />1·18·10<br />As a kid, in school, I never gave too much thought to the American Civil War. I mean, I got by in history class, and I paid some attention, and learned some things. But suddenly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Victory_and_aftermath">looking at the numbers</a>, it strikes me how devastating a time that must have been for what (in my life time) is a very stable (feeling) country. The very idea of a battle on American soil seems like ancient history, and maybe it is now, with the ridiculous technology we have. But at the time, the war might have been as devastating as any modern war is now. Can you imagine such lunacy? Fully 10 percent of the southern population was a soldier, yet they were still out numbered by the north 2-to-1. And yet now, the views that caused such a drastic divide are very nearly extinct. Do you think the internet would have been enough to get people to quit? Or the nightly news, with images of American bodies, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Gettysburg.jpg">frozen in their last moments</a>? Six hundred and twenty thousand dead, more than four hundred thousand wounded. What sort of pressures can cause humans to act so irrationally?<br /><br /><br />1·19·10<br />"Is solitude indeed the cure, for loneliness? No I don't think so."<br />"All dolled up in straps, all colored in…My head plays it over and over."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Then the next goal would be to make decisions about how best to guide the evolutionary algorithm. That is, can we characterize the landscape, in terms of it's graininess? And the features of the landscape; are there sharp divisions with drastically different fitness? Or does it smoothly change? (Probably the former on large scales, the latter on smaller scales.) Does the landscape have islands of good solutions? We want to cast our net over the islands, and as the scale of the features of the landscape changes, we want to use different sized nets. (Originally we may want large mutations, but as we hone in on a solution, we may want to keep all candidate solutions fairly similar to one another.) Seems like some sort of power-law distribution should govern changes in our search method.<br /><br />Oh! Also, if we have a jar, with an infinite number of balls in it, how many events can we sample before the jar is empty? Answer: the jar is never empty! Even with an infinite number of events being withdrawn at each infinitesimal interval, we're still left with an infinity of balls in the jar! <br />Let the "balls" be analogous to a space-time event in relativity, and we encounter a new problem: the time-like interval surrounding an event grows very rapidly with time!<br /><br />There are far too many quotes in this post.<br /><br />So far, most of the essays I've read claim the internet has not changed the way the author thinks. Lisa Randall seems to have a slightly more interesting view: she points out that we don't really know how we think in the first place.<br /><br />But how about we consider this from a more general viewpoint. I'd like to argue that the internet changes the way people think in a way analogous to how the industrial revolution changed the way people owned things. The industrial revolution was an abrupt acceleration of technological progress, and ultimately it introduced certain physical luxuries to the broader population, (whereas those luxuries were previously reserved for only the very well endowed). Generally this is what technology has always done: it has enabled more people to do [blank]--either by making it easier or cheaper to produce, consume, distribute, etc. Just think of the internet as an industrial revolution for information, or communication, where information and communication have previously been commodities held by one privileged class or another. (Communication typically limited to governments, or in the 20th century, media conglomerates, and information traditionally held by either the authorities, or to a degree, the academic and broader intellectual communities.) If there is any worth in this viewpoint, it might explain why the many intellectuals who are writing these essays don't feel much of an influence on the way they think---all it has done is accelerated the rate of information aggregation. I dunno, I'm back to not knowing.<br /><br />"Thanks,<br />for leaving the light on<br />so I could find my way home.<br />Thanks<br />for meeting me half way<br />from the curb to the door-way."<br /><br /><br /><br />It's an addictive certainty, that computer science provides. Both new, and necessary.<br />"The sleep of reason produces monsters."<br />Put me on the brink of the abyss please.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-78834706871512349532009-12-25T23:38:00.003-05:002009-12-26T00:07:09.615-05:00She's a Beautiful Mystery12·13·09<br />Tragedy strategy<br /><br /><br />12·14·09<br />So everyone agrees that selective breeding works, right? So isn't it easy to realize that the selection process doesn't require a conscious selector (e.g., farmer)? Farmers carry out an <i>artificial selection</i>, when choosing mates, individuals are performing <i>sexual selection</i>, and when the cold cruel world's limited resources put a strain on the number of creatures that can survive in a given environment, it is <i>nature</i> that is doing the selecting, thus <i>natural selection</i>. We might call genetic engineering yet another form of selection, perhaps direct genetic selection(?). And maybe other methods of selection apply as well. But where is the controversy in this idea? (Keep in mind, I am not a biologist, these ideas simply aren't complicated on the face of it. A real biologist however might take offense to some of my language, and know better the appropriate terminology.)<br /><br /><br />12·16·09<br />"Can you hear me hear you now?"<br /><br />Ugh, <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/09/29/while-military-spends-millions-two-guys-make-puke-ray-gun-on-the-cheap/">puke guns</a>?<br />Here is some evidence <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/10/14/military-blob-bot-to-ooze-its-way-past-enemy-lines/">that we're all screwed</a>.<br /><br />I went surfing once, with my cousin's husband, who's pretty passionate about surfing and I think probably pretty good, he taught me what to do, but after catching two waves, and failing to pop up both times, I was too exhausted to continue. The waves were sort of big for me (they weren't huge, but bigger than the typical east coast waves I've encountered), maybe 3 or 4 feet at the most (maybe even smaller, am I exaggerating?). And yet, they really push you around. I can't imagine what it's like <a href="http://www.surfline.com/video/contests/eddie-highlights_39298">when a wave the size of a building falls on you</a>.<br /><br />My apparent discomfort with ambiguity is in direct contradiction to the great degree of ambiguity with which I tend to express myself typically.<br /><br />"Whoa, this is wrinkling my brain!" Somewhere I read about a drug that induces a sort of mild, trait-specific amnesia, and interestingly enough it was being used to treat a post-traumatic-stress sort of problem. If I remember correctly, the experiment involved the patient taking the drug, and then recalling the memory and focusing on it. I think the hypothesis was that when your brain recalled a memory, it actually cuts it out of memory and "thinks" about it. Then afterwards it re-records the information back into memory. This drug prevented your brain from re-recording the fear aspect, I think. Or at least that was idea. So now I'm thinking about deja vu again, and I'm wondering, if your brain cuts something out of memory, and holds it in consciousness, and then puts it back in memory, it must be at some point also be storing information about the context of that memory (related memories, especially memories indicating some historical context, like year or day or week or event). If this is the case, then deja vu could very easily be the mechanism that contains the context, malfunctioning. It even seems likely that a very simple mechanism (and corresponding failure) could result in these conditions. For instance, imagine a very simple archival system, where whenever a document is removed from the archive, a switch is flipped on, to indicate that the file was taken from archives. When it is replaced back into archives, the switch is flipped off again. When new files are introduced to the archive, the switch is normally off. But in deja vu, the switch is accidentally switched on (especially easy to imagine when you consider our brain, our feelings, indeed our entire conscious experience is dictated by extremely fragile electrochemical reactions—a tiny bit of one neurotransmitter or another released in the wrong place or at the wrong time, or not taken up correctly, and BAM! your switch is flipped. And what is perception besides these chemicals? As A.C. Grayling pointed out in that debate, "if you want to investigate the relationship of consciousness to matter, and in particular the brain, just take a heavy blunt instrument and bash yourself over the head and see which bits of thinking you can no longer do."<br /><br />"It sure is hard, to dance across, the room when you've got, one foot on the floor …and one foot, outside the door.<br />I want nothing more, than to dance with you. I want nothing more, than to float with you." —Laura Veirs (is awesome).<br /><br />12·17·09<br />"The unconsidered life, is not worth living."<br />"Logic is new and necessary reasoning [—Aristotle]. New because you learn what you don't know, and necessary because conclusions are inescapable!"<br />If the flower's petals could only betray his emotion.<br />"There is an old german saying: 'if you want to learn something go on a journey.' "<br />She is empty. She won't give more.<br /><br />I should aim to be a logician of sorts. Except how does my interest in the general notion of phase transitions mesh with that? I am interested in the criteria that define the kind of state a collection of elements forms. That is, under some conditions, fluids like water will flow smoothly (laminar flow), and beyond those conditions, it becomes chaotic (turbulent flow). Interestingly, the general notion of a problems seems to follow this form. If I give you 1000 songs, and each song is exactly 2, 3, 4 or 5 minutes long, then you can split the playlist into two equal length playlists. But if I just took 1000 real songs, at random, with lengths defined down to say a 100th of a second, chances are overwhelming that you could not tell me if there were a way to split them into two equal playlists or not, even if you converted the whole universe into a computer and ran it for billions of years. Because the number of ways to split 1000 songs into two sub-lists is inconceivably enormous. So ridiculously unimaginably enormous that there aren't even good ways of describing how enormous it is. If every atom in the whole universe was given an equal number of these sub-playlists, the number each atom contains would still be too large to imagine! Now isn't it interesting that water (or any fluid) will transition from this smooth to chaotic flow, and likewise the playlist problem transitions at some point (depending on how 'nice' the songs are), between easy and entirely intractable?! It is a beautiful mystery, one which could occupy my life, provided the opportunity.<br /><br /><br />12·18·09<br />I'm pretty much indifferent to whether or not they find the Higgs Boson, but recently a dark matter experiment failed to find a significant result supporting DM. It certainly doesn't qualify as falsifying DM, but it also failed to support it, and I do have a slight vested interest in the failure of DM experiments.<br /><br /><br />12·21·09<br />"I'd much rather be a rising monkey, than a fallen angel."<br />-Terry Pratchett<br /><br />Well, my internet has been disconnected. 649 GB transferred in November. Thats 109 GB more than we went over last time we got in trouble, and 399 GB more than we were allotted. Well, screw you Comcast. It seems mighty dumb of you to track your customer's usage, but not disconnect it when they exceed your limit. We can't track our usage, how do you expect us to have any clue? It seems a little bit unfair that you expect us to obey some limit but give us no tools to monitor that limit.<br /><br />"Can I call you mine? You can call me yours."<br /><br /><br />12·22·09<br />Or are you as cold as you seem?<br /><br />"Cause it's bad to do what's easy, just cause it's easy, and I want to do what pleases me, but I can't."<br /><br />12·24·09<br />"Your body still remembers things you told it to forget."<br />"Why must we return to this place?"<br /><br /><br />12·25·09<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbNymZ7vqY&feature=player_embedded">Muppets</a>.<br />"And it turned out to be Julia."<br /><br />"Before I pine away."<br /><br />If you plug the temperature of the CMB into the Hawking-radiation temperature equation for black holes, you get about one order of magnitude less than the sun. Unfortunately, this isn't clearly meaningful in any way (at least not that I can tell).codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-87457397649244579932009-12-13T10:46:00.005-05:002009-12-13T11:41:01.381-05:00XX Spukhafte Fernwirkung11·21·09<br />"Metaphysical bagage."<br /><br />The only reason to do anything ever is because it pleases you. (Or because some extended effect of it will please you.)<br />I pay the price in ill-conceived laughter.<br />Flowers it is.<br /><br />11·23·09<br />How does one go about confronting a delusion? If someone suffers from a delusion, how might someone else confront them? What if the are delusional about everything? How might one recognize self delusion?<br /><br />How does one differentiate between the sensation of deja vu, versus actually experiencing something they have experienced before? Does <a href="http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/holding_memories.html">AJ ever experience deja vu</a>? My own interpretation of deja vu is that it is a simple dating error in our brain. <br /><br />11·28·09<br />REM dreaming may be simulations. <br />Clearly dreaming (both REM and non-REM) must be evolutionary selected. (Otherwise it wouldn't persist both throughout our species and throughout many species.) <br /><br />11·30·09<br />"knowing, that you don't know, is the most, essential step, to knowing, you know?"<br /><br />La terre est bleu comme une orange Jamais une erreur, les mots ne mentent pas<br />(The Earth is blue like an orange, never a mistake words do not lie.)<br /><br /><br />12·1·09<br />Science is a tool, method, or process, or collection of these things, that distill information out of the noise. It's a system of doubting. Science is a system of doubting information, and testing it, validating it, always trying as hard as possible to invalidate information, to disprove it. In this way, it is a reliable process for distilling truth out of the nonsense of noise that pervades human thinking.<br /><br />12·2·09<br />A good amount to think about.<br />Short-circuited compassion unit.<br />Do double contractions exist? E.g., might'ven't, instead of might have not, might've not, or might haven't? Is one of these more correct than the others?<br /><br /><br />12·3·09<br />You prove it's true.<br />You prove it's not true.<br />You prove it can't be proven.<br />you prove it can't be disproven.<br />You prove it's ill-defined.<br /><br />It's sufficient to happen.<br />It's necessary to happen.<br />It's both sufficient and necessary.<br />It's neither sufficient nor necessary.<br /><br />Immediately he recognized only four possibilities: either he was mistaken, or everyone else was. Or they were liars, or, most dreadfully, it was hallucination, and he was therefore mad.<br /><br />It is necessary and not sufficient.<br />It is sufficient and not necessary.<br />A<br />B<br />A and B<br />Not A and not B<br />A and not B<br />Not A and B<br />It is either sufficient or necessary.<br />It is either sufficient or necessary, but not both.<br />It is sufficient or it is not necessary.<br />It is necessary or it is not sufficient.<br />Porch on cat a is there.<br /><br />Reason is the only path to reality.<br />Science is our only hope.<br />The only road leading to absolute certainty.<br /><br />Of course it appeals to my self nature, being an overtly cautious fellow.<br /><br />"My curiosity barely exceeded the fear of getting caught."<br />"This moment marked a terrible disappointment. …but ignited the rest of my life."<br /><br />The greatest nightmare, of madness, threatens the considerate.<br /> "Were it not for the hope of reason. …The vision of a totally logical world I had glimpsed in mathematics."<br /><br /><br />12·5·09<br />Hot, three-way oval action. Oval on oval action.<br /><br /><br />12·8·09<br />Privacy is such a strange issue to me; I tend to think I might be an intensely private person, but I believe that is largely due to me not knowing where other people's barriers lie, and fearing that overstepping barriers of personal privacy would be highly offensive to most people. This is severe hypocrisy for me, since I tend to be very difficult to offend, and would not find personal questions offensive in any way imaginable. (Does it count that if I don't want to reveal something asked of me, I would simply explain I don't want to reveal that? Or does that count as taking offense?).<br /><br />I tend to have a real fear of girls that I am very attracted to. And this isn't always the case, I'm fairly certain the fear is directly related to how interested in me they seem; if it is very obvious that a girl is interested in me, and I actually notice, (a hugely improbable qualifier), then I am much more able to interact meaningfully, or express my own feelings. If, alternatively, a girl is at all ambiguous about her feelings towards me, I tend to actively suppress all expression of feelings, not just towards her, but towards anything, probably in an attempt to not offend. (Should that be "possibly in an attempt..."?)<br /><br />I am constantly consciously cautious with respect to offending other's opinions, what a tragedy.<br /><br />There is a lot of debate among various types of atheists (and critics of atheism), about how honest we should be, or how vocal we should be, or how "offensive" we should be. I am a "new atheist", which means I think we should be as honest and vocal as possible, and I believe the charge of offensiveness is misguided—the consequence of the privileged position that religion has enjoyed for far too long. As has been said with increasing frequency lately, criticizing another person's beliefs, or questioning their reasons for those beliefs, is not considered offensive in politics, or science, or most other areas of our lives (e.g. movies, music, books). The religious however are excused to get all riled up simply if an atheist mentions god might not exist, or that one can be good without god (google "atheist bus campaign" for more info). The tragedy of this situation is that atheists (like many theists, and apologists from both sides, I imagine), are so vocal precisely because they are convinced this is the most effective strategy to improving the world. My own experience with this originated in learning some history of science, specifically about Giardano Bruno, a contemporary of Galileo. <br /> Bruno was burned alive at the stake, for merely suggested that the earth might not be the center of the solar system. They cut his tongue out as a sign of mercy. They probably would have spared his life, if he had only recanted. 22 years later they banned Galileo's book (placing it on the list of books that if read, would damn you to hell for eternity). Later they forced Galileo to recant, but he remained under house arrest in the later years of his life. His book was not taken off the "burn in hell" list for 200 years. An apology from the church only came in 1992! This institution, the catholic church, has done incalculable harm to the human race, and it is unforgivable. We can forgive the individuals, we can help them recover, we can free the masses, but the institution itself, the traditions and doctrines, should not be celebrated, but abhorred. It was this history specifically that motivated me to vocalize my criticisms of religion. Imagine, this is only the tip of the iceberg, we don't know how many geniuses were murdered over the eons by self-proclaimed authorities suffering from the same superstitions as nearly everyone else of their time. People cite all the great art and music created in the name of music over the last millennia. Though there are many good, valid arguments to describe why religion cannot take sole credit, we must ask, what might humanity have accomplished if religious authorities had not murdered the most creative, most insightful and most bold thinkers of any given era? And although this is a bit off topic, can anyone give a compelling argument why we, the new atheists, should not speak the truth? The reality of this situation is that we are not being mean, we are not going out of our way to offend, we are most definitely not violent, not on a personal, physically threading level, nor on a terrorist level (as many religious groups are). Given that we are merely asserting the truth, why should we stop again?<br /><br /><br />12·9·09<br /><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763">This is so sad</a>. And scary.<br /><a href="http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/">Seems like a good idea</a>.<br /><br />Atheist nations are <a href="http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html">more peaceful</a>.<br />Might atheists be distrusted because they are simply unknown, <a href="http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-are-atheists-so-disliked.html">as this article suggests</a>? Or is there more to it?<br />"Home is wherever I'm with you."<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsTKAtBBkfU&NR=1">Neat</a>.<br /><br /><br />12·10·09<br />"Hey Goldman Sachs, put down the crack pipe!"<br /><br />12·11·09<br />"Love of color sound and words, is it a blessing or a curse."<br /><br />What is it about humans that causes us to side on sets of issues? I can understand religious influences, for instance, as in-group behavior. And I can understand scientific consensus as a set of convergent opinions arrived at through independent lines of reasoning. But how is it that someone who isn't very religious, sides with the typical base set of religious beliefs? Case in point, Joe G, who buys both the intelligent design argument and the global-warming is a hoax conspiracy theory.<br /><br />Why is it that the uniformed feel so justified in faking their qualifications as if it will convince the informed? For instance, creationists will sometimes claim they were formerly atheists, and then were convinced. Don't they understand how frequently atheists originated from some sort of religion? That it is the non-believers who have typically considered both sides in detail, not the believers?<br /><br />"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." <br />—Victor Stenger<br /><br />"I respect you too much to respect your ridiculous ideas." <br />—Johann Hari<br /><br /><br />12·13·09<br />A.C. Grayling <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hDBOjEuRbo">is so awesome</a>. If you want to watch the whole thing, you can wander through that list on youtube, or you can <a href="http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism-is-the-new-fundamentalism">see it here as well</a>.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-66714973592606384072009-11-21T15:11:00.005-05:002009-11-21T16:52:22.984-05:00Kissed and Often10·13·09<br />Asymptomatic<br />The realization that an innate optimism frequently overpowers my rationality has triggered a re-evaluation of certain conclusions. I have often wondered how much modern disease is a result of our vastly modified life styles, could it be that bodies evolved walking on soft ground living in trees or caves and spending nearly all their time securing meals perhaps struggle in a world filled will hard surfaces, beds and supermarkets? Could depression be so common because we're breathing different air, walking on different surfaces, eating different organisms, and spending our time differently than we did 50,000 years ago? 500,000 years ago? 5,000,000? There are a lot of zeros there... But now I'm realizing, we have toppled natural selection (thank goodness!), and while that is an important accomplishment (<b>most</b> of us would not be here otherwise), it also means we may carry many detrimental traits (this is actually true of any organism). Furthermore, is there a reason to expect evolution to select for happy creatures in general? Happiness certainly is a useful trait to have, but steady and unwavering happiness? Probably not, since unhappiness becomes a motivator often times. Actually, could the issue be that we live in a world where when unhappy, there is no clear direction for improvement? That is, if I am depressed, there is no clear cause (like say losing someone important, which would naturally depress anyone), and without a clear cause, the mechanism "motivate -> do something -> achieve happiness" can't work, since there is no clear middle step "do something" to re-obtain happiness. Maybe this is why people think drugs are such a great solution; they are such an easy path home, especially if some fancy drug company or fancy doctor tell you it'll solve the problem. Or maybe I'm totally wrong again, please, no one should take my thoughts too seriously. Maybe I should put that disclaimer at the top.<br /><br />"I'm being told there's no one talking to me right now."<br /><br />Someone out there is <a href="http://pictureisunrelated.com/2009/09/16/why-would-you-immortalize-this-poor-mans-death-by-zombie-child/">awesome</a>.<br /><br />We are all <a href="http://evogeneao.com/images/Evolution_poster_lg.gif">related</a>.<br /><br />Sarah Silverman figured out how to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZSp-JEA2RU">feed the world</a>!<br /><br />What makes this feel good is that I don't know where it goes.<br /><br />"I'm not the enemy." — "Then who are you?"<br />So you're calling god a liar.<br />We've made a mess of it.<br />On the floor, listening to Beethoven.<br />per bit: ∆S ≥ k_b ln(2)<br /><br /><br />10·15·09<br />Did Mary commit adultery with god? Or was it nonconsensual? In which case, did god rape Mary? I guess adultery makes less sense than rape, since there is a commandment forbidding the former, but none pertaining to the latter. Jesus was a bastard! And god was a deadbeat dad!<br /><br />Because you stood still.<br /><br />"Don't act so innocent—I've seen you pound your fist into the earth."<br /><br />The Dose Makes the Poison.<br /><br />I was thinking about any adult who stands out as an expert, has practiced their field more than most non-experts can imagine. I was first thinking about how this applies to mathematics and science, but then it became clear that this really does apply to any area of expertise.<br /><br />It's always your friends that hate you the most.<br /><br />I've mentioned before that I don't believe egalitarianism nor meritocracy to be the ultimate solution, but that rather a mix of the two is required. I should have listed the benefits and drawbacks to the two viewpoints also. Egalitarianism satisfies one's sense of compassion for their fellow humankind (or even animal, or life-kind), but it makes one susceptible to fraud; egalitarianism on the other hand resolves the fraud issue (assuming an infallible testing procedure), but leaves the least-qualified, the most unfortunate with nothing to hope for. In fact, the very idea of inherited fortune, or more broadly, the idea that one can be born into certain advantages or disadvantages (which vary wildly: money, fame, resources, societal pressures/expectations/leniencies, cultural bias, etc.), generates much discomfort with the idea that one will be judged by merits alone—it may even be direct inspiration for many egalitarian feelings.<br /><br />dashing<br /><br /><br />10·17·09<br />Deluded in each other's favor.<br /><br />Q: can we think of a method to add up the world lines of a gluon in such a way as to explain why gluons are always bound to one another or to quarks? Then that would be very analogous to the proposal that the Higgs is interfering with it's creation. The difficulty we have is it is too easy to think about it being some future event that is "traveling backwards in time" to cause trouble. But what we should be thinking is that the creation of such a particle (a free Higgs that is), generates world lines with the property that when added up, they destructively interfere in such a way as to destroy the world lines that lead to the creation of the free Higgs. Is the idea that the phenomena spans time any more counter-intuitive than the idea that a phenomena can span space? After all, entanglement was impossibly counter-intuitive when it was first hypothesized, but it has become a well-established phenomena. The challenge we face with proposing a "temporally-non-local" mechanism is that it is by it's very nature, exceedingly difficult to verify. (Also, intuitively, it offends our sense of causality even more than entanglement did, though ultimately we can now see how entanglement does not violate causality, as it first appeared to—it may be that this temporal mechanism is resolved similarly, through deeper understanding.) <br /><br />What is the link between one-way functions and the halting problem? and entropy? and Laplace's Demon? and NP? (11·21·09 update: Seth mentioned that if P=NP you can commit wholesale macroscopic violations of the Second Law, therefore we can interpret the lack of a bacterium that does this to be further evidence of P \neq NP.)<br /><br />How could he send her away?<br />"It's... inhuman, to be so cold."<br />"Today you don't mean it."<br />She can tell.<br />There is more than one part to each of us.<br />A mind divided.<br />"We should start from the top, and look at what we've got."<br />"Some, are mothers. And some people, dance."<br />Everybody feels that way.<br /><br />I want to teach useful things, whereby we adopt the definition of useful to be something which increases total joy, rather than something which has practical application.<br /><br />Delere Auctorem Rerum Ut Universum Infinitum Noscas.<br />(Destroy the author of things in order to understand the infinite universe.)<br /><br /><br />10·20·09<br />Get doomed.<br />"Suck on my sweet tooth til I'm sore."<br />"People do things right now all the time."<br />Is it impossible to make a computer curious? <br />"Just say what you're thinking."<br /><br />10·22·09<br />"Information wants to be free"<br />Don't be the only one left without a chair when the music stops.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_As_Possible<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q<br />http://wohba.com/2005/10/giant-smoke-rings.html<br /><br />10·24·09<br />Do you think as cameras become more and more common, the difficulty in looking at the camera, rather than at the person holding the camera, will lessen? Will people who look at the camera be naturally selected? (More likely sexually selected.)<br /><br />A Moment of Stillness<br />Thought & imagination into gift giving.<br />Brace for impact.<br />"I'm pulling back the curtain. I want to meet the wizard."<br />"Discovering the object of the game, is, the object of the game."<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L7SgftLzAc">"Crystals of appetite."</a><br /><br /><br />10·26·09<br />"And it was perfect. Until the phone started ringing ringing ringing ringing ringing off."<br />I just realized suddenly, that the opposition to nuclear remains steadfast, and although I (and many others) consider it an extremely viable alternative to coal, (perhaps even the most viable), the resistance may simply be too great for it to ever come back.<br />Fight for it.<br /><br />10·27·09<br />"Because you like to remember her."<br /><br />How does layering change information content? For instance alphabet => words => sentences => paragraphs => chapters. Or DNA => amino acids => proteins (is that right? or is it DNA => genes => proteins? or am I even more wrong?)<br />a-z = 26<br />so 26 1 letter words<br />26^2 2 letter words<br />and so on.<br />Let's assume we don't often see words more than 8 letters long.<br />I looked up the average number of words per sentence, found <a href="http://www.kristisiegel.com/variety.html">this</a> interesting article, and will take the number 18 as as an average for words per sentence. Assuming a uniform distribution for the length of words (we could improve by researching the actual distribution of word lengths), how many different sentences does that give us?<br /><br />"Move beyond your need for unmoldy dishes." <br />Germ cells.<br /><br /><br />11·01·09<br />Time hates art.<br />"Something remarkable happens."<br />"It doesn't confirm your goosebumps."<br />I think I need to construct positive reinforcement in my life to alter my behavior. That would be clever.<br />"There is no pattern to find." <br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardening_(cryptanalysis)">Gardening</a>.<br />A parallax measurement of the galactic black hole puts it at about 7800 light years from here. <br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EogdalfXF4c&feature=player_embedded">We're definitely all screwed</a>.<br /><br /><br />11·3·09<br />"Shoot first, and then check to see if it's was one of your friends or a bird."<br />-Dick Cheney.<br /><br />Squeeky clean.<br /><br /><br />11·4·09<br />Look no further.<br /><br />11·5·09<br />So I was thinking: CMB = black body. Black holes -> Hawking radiation = black body. Olber's paradox = in an infinite universe, all lines of sight end on the surface of a star, thus no night sky thus universe is not infinite. But with black holes… some lines of sight could end on a black body radiator… which would look like the CMB! To go further, wouldn't gravitational effects redshift the light?<br /><br />It seems to me that somewhere between redshift, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, quantum vacuum fluctuations, black holes & Hawking radiation, the CMB, Olber's paradox, galaxy rotation curves and the large scale structure of the universe, there is a better answer than big bang. But it seems that I need to know way more physics and mathematics to convince anyone.<br /><br />11·9·09<br />"We all need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are."<br />Hubba hubba hubba.<br /><br />11·10·09<br />"The slightest lapse of judgement."<br />eleven ten nine, it's like a countdown!<br /><br />11·11·09<br />Well, which is it? Are you the typical American? Or the oppressed minority? You can't have it both ways.<br />"Science is interesting, and if you disagree you can fuck off."<br />NPR story about you have no right not to be framed?<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Electron_Aberration-corrected_Microscope">How awesome, right</a>?<br />Wait, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden">what is the moral</a>?<br /><br />Arguments that morality owes it's existence to religion are easily dismissed by simply empathizing with Abraham during that time in which he believed god had commanded him to sacrifice Isaac—if upon considering such a situation one realizes that no plan, no king, no supreme being can give a good reason to murder one's own child (indeed because no such reason exists), then one is moral; if, on the other hand, one agrees to blindly follow the voices in their head, one is certifiably insane, and would best avoid harming society or themselves by seeking external, REAL people who want to help.<br /><br />noetic<br />nous<br />Amalekites<br /><br />Wilson want's a foundation for relative morality. So I will provide it to him. I will describe it in the narrative of how I resolved it for myself. You already understand that the view holds that there is no supreme power in the universe that "cares" about humans (or any other creature). I asked myself at some point, several years ago, what does morals mean to the moon? (The question was sort of a natural extension to environmentalist statements about what was good and bad for the earth.) The question can further be extended to even less important objects, as the moon does play a role in life as we know it (though it may be that life was and is possible without it.) What if Andromeda didn't exist? It would likely have no influence on humans (at least not for a few billion more years.) Okay, off track, sorry. So, I began thinking that a more correct statement would be to talk about what is good and bad for the earth (or moon, or andromeda) in terms of Me, or Us, or My Family, or My Neighbors, or My Country, or My Species, or the Animal Kingdom, or Life in general. Of course, depending on which one of these we choose we get different answers, radically different answers in some cases. Especially in the case of countries, where the impression of limited resources generates a kind of anxiety that frequently interferes with clear thinking. Now we might ask, why should I choose one basis of concern rather than another? Why choose to care about anyone other than me, or maybe family or country? (Sadly, many people, religious or not, seem to extend it no further than country.) Let's first establish natural reasons why you might choose to care about your extended society (that is, everyone to which you directly depend on; allow for an protectionism view of society for the time being.) It's related to your question: "why would an atheist care" about the genocide of the Amalekites? Because humans are one of many species that have developed social structures, and have evolved to become entirely reliant upon them. Individuals that lack the traits required to maintain a stable social structure would either destroy the society, or be ejected from it (the latter occurring if the society has developed the tools to find and expel those individuals.) So we need our society to exist, and even more to prosper. Obviously this can be extended through global trade to include all of the developed world—can we extend it to include the countries without goods or resources we want? Yes. First note that our prosperity is not a zero-sum game. No one need lose for others to win—you can build me a house while I grow your food, we don't need one of us to end up on the streets. Second, note that teamwork has a beneficial effect, as do technological advancement and education. The more highly educated we are, the more productive and prosperous we can be. The more people you can get to help with your work, the more you can get done. There is also the argument that compassion, a natural product of the aforementioned societal dependencies, can be extended beyond it's natural origins. This leads into the explanation of how we can expand our moral concerns beyond that of all humans, to include all animals or even all life. I'm not arguing that humans and animals have the same rights (I don't agree with that, but some people do), but I would argue that there are two obvious paths to concerning ourselves with animal well-being. The first is utility, we have the foresight to understand that taking care of our environment is of utmost importance to our long-term survival as a species, (this foresight is a uniquely human trait.) Second is again compassion—we have a strong sense of empathy, one that has probably outgrown it's natural causes. It is these principles that allow us to make moral decisions, and acknowledging that is of paramount importance to resolve new moral questions for which we have no precedent, that we now face due to the increases in our population and technology. Stem cells, global warming, genetic engineering and screening, gene therapy are some of the most recent moral questions we have been faced with, some of which may have no clear resolution yet. But what we DON'T need are allegorical stories and superstition from the desert goat herders of millennia past, who knew nothing of the world or all of it's boundless beauty. We need rational, thought-out discourse and debate. A well informed and educated public (if we want to preserve democracy), not bound to the morals of ancient ancestors but free to understand morality through their hearts and minds. And will everyone agree on what base to use? No. Of course not. There are the PETA activists who seem to think that animals deserve perfectly equal (sometimes even more) rights than humans, there are the patriots (read: nationalists) who seem to think this or that country needs to do what is in it's own best interest, and there are sociopaths who lack the notion of societal concerns all together. But with Religious claims masking all those natural feelings and developed thoughts on morality, you end up with a lot of people claiming (and believing themselves) to be morally right, correct, perfect, generating a false confidence (an arrogance) in their actions, and that has lead to untold suffering throughout history (see: catholic sexual abuse settlements, inquisition, and ongoing african AIDS epidemic.) Weinberg said it best, "with or without religion, you'd have good people doing good things and bad people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."<br /><br />And fine tuning is a terrible argument, because our understanding of the universe is so enormously incomplete, and the result of an arbitrary universe so entirely intractable, we simply can't claim that this universe is …wait, I'm getting off track. <br />For two reasons.<br />First we don't know what the underlying rules that make this universe the way it is. Much like the properties of numbers, the universe may simply be necessarily this way (this I believe is what Einstein meant when he asked "if god had a choice in making the world"). <br />Second, if we assume that this universe could have been different, we don't know what effect that has on the likelihood that intelligent life (such as ourselves) would emerge. That is, we have no clue how changing the rules would affect the resulting universe. This is in part due to the unclarity of the rules (that is, we don't know if we've got the right rules yet, or how right the ones we have are, or even if there is a real set of rules. Worse still, we'll never really be sure if we've got the right rules or not.) But also because given a set of rules, computing the outcome is practically impossible (at least as far as human computing power is concerned.)<br />Because we can't know the rules of the universe with certainty, nor can we ever really know the likelihood or unlikelihood of them occurring in the way they did, we really can't make statements about how probable or improbable the tuning of the universe is. All we can really say is that if these rules we believe are valid, were changed, that these basic consequences would result (such as stars would not work the way we know them to.) This does not exclude them giving rise to life in a way alternative to the way we know.<br /><br />My personal hunch is that we will find laws of the universe that will be very similar to the the laws of numbers—that indeed the universe did not have a choice in it's properties.<br /><br /><br />11·17·09<br />Oh no, don't tell me what comes next.<br />Oh no, let me make up the rest.<br /><br />While in the shower, moments ago, intending to expand upon my hypothesis of consciousness, I stumbled across something else: a hypothesis of imagination. I had been thinking that the concept of consciousness should include some ability to simulate (basically hijack our audio/visual/etc. "feelings" without those senses actually being triggered), thus you can imagine what this might sound like if read by me, or someone with a british accent, or something else. (Or maybe you can't, it's unclear why/how we develop the ability to do such things, or whether or not we all develop all these abilities). You might be able to imagine what a pink elephant would look like, (maybe you can't even help thinking about it when it's mentioned here). But half way through this reasoning it started to seem as if simulation was more the domain of imagination than consciousness. Now, I don't know where the popular concepts of imagination and consciousness might overlap (or not), I'm slightly inclined to label imagination as a subset of consciousness, but it really doesn't matter. All I want to assert is that consciousness consists of the ability to observe computation as it occurs, and imagination consists of the ability to simulate something representative of reality. I suppose the interesting part of this idea might be that imagination doesn't require consciousness to exist, but the two are intimately linked—if a creature developed the neural circuitry required to simulate it's environment (which would be very useful for survival, to help predict which actions to take, based on the simulation, to produce the most favorable outcome in reality, based on which simulation produced the most favorable outcome.) <br /><br /><br />11·19·09<br />"Yes doctor, I'll get the tools from the shed."<br />"Scallops musta got 'em."<br />"Commencing intestinal flash flood."<br /><br />After learning more about closed time like curves today, a new question comes to light: how would one differentiate between time travel and not?<br /><br />"You should be kissed and often. And by someone who knows how."codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-66788876140809631862009-10-12T21:25:00.007-04:002009-10-13T11:45:20.788-04:00Thus Contemptible9·13·09<br /><a href="http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2009/september/negative-space">Noma Bar</a> has awesome <a href="http://www.pixelelement.com/brilliant-negative-space-illustrations-by-noma-bar/">negative space</a> artwork.<br />Land-ho<br />"Now he's left to pine on an island, wracked with grief"<br />I'd like to know more about how we calculate the decay time for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium">positronium</a>.<br />Normal <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_sounds#Normal_heart_sounds">heart sounds</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auscultation">Auscultation</a>.<br />"You have corrupted your purpose... and so yourself. And you did hide away what should always have been mine."<br />I don't like how easily I find significance in simple words phrases and sentences. It makes me feel cheap.<br /><br /><br />9·16·09<br />So I guess on the one hand I have an abnormally weak sense of dedication to friends and family, but an abnormally strong dedication to humankind in general. In which case it becomes unclear why I care about who. And how does one express affection, or appreciation or concern or support or caring, for friends and family, or romance for specific individuals, when they cannot differentiate between why they concern themselves with friends and family verses with humans in general? I'm all for saving animals, for avoiding inhuman treatment, maybe even, when I really think about it, for vegetarianism, I'm not entirely sure. But at least for a minimizing of animal suffering. However, I cannot imagine placing animal suffering on an equal plane as human suffering. And plenty of humans are. Beyond starvation and unsanitary issues, beyond preventable disease (which motivated Bill Gates to spend more than 30 billion dollars fighting diseases in Africa that have essentially been eradicated in the industrialized world), we just simply don't get along! And I see this as hugely influential in the rest of the problems. If we all took this attitude, we could eradicate virtually all human suffering in just a few years. The resources are unbelievably abundant. But instead we concern ourselves with cable TV and riding lawn mowers, or private jets or vacation homes or all sorts of other unbelievably lavish luxuries. There is another way to get there though. If we can push ourselves far enough forward, it seems inevitable that the result will be a vast entitlement to the whole world. I've said this before, I see nothing to prevent us from replacing all human work with robotics, and in fact I see nothing to prevent this from happening naturally, as capitalism forces increased automation. Which implies forced unemployment. Which isn't a problem if everything is automated. But the transition would require some consideration. So why do we each pick different paths in attempting to improve the world? Because we each have different interpretations of what is best, what is achievable, what is realistic... <br />An update (10·12): this is bound to happen as computers become ever more ubiquitous; modern computers are mostly machine made as is, since most of the parts are too small to be seen (modern processors actually have billions of transistors which are too small to be seen with light! So you need an electron microscope or atomic force microscope, or one of many other types of non-optical microscopes.) Indeed, humans <i>cannot</i> get involved in building computers, we simply cannot be skilled enough (of course, for at least a while longer we'll be designing them and assembling the bigger parts maybe, but those jobs too will benefit from automation eventually.)<br /><br />The question is, after you've allowed your imagination to run amok, is anyone very interesting? Skeletons in a closet, could they beat out the realities in the papers? Like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case">Fritzl case</a>? Or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard">kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard</a>? Or how about voluntary cannibal victims? Like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes">Armin Meiwes's victim</a>? Or how about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa">Issei Sagawa</a>? No, truth is probably stranger than fiction. Dammit, now I'm freaked out by how weird this world is.<br /><br /><br /><br />9·17·09<br />"Send out a battalion, to find her."<br /><a href="http://vi.sualize.us/view/cd844fed2f4d41c8b509a7573640158d/">Beauty abounds</a>.<br />The process of fragmenting one's mind is no fools errand.<br />Do people respect me so much because I respect them so much? Can they really see that in me? I'm not saying I don't, I just wouldn't have thought it would be any more observable than the rest of my feelings.<br />Stupid wiring! Stupid brain!<br />Negotiations and arguments and secrets, and compromises.<br /><b>I don't want to cross such a flimsy concept as "meaning" with something so permanent</b>.<br /><br />The idea that aliens might immigrate from their own planet to our solar system, in search of resources, such as is portrayed in the movie <i>Independence Day</i>, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Considering the amount of resources required to move anyone from one planet to another, let alone one star to another, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would make such a journey in search of new resources. It's sort of like getting in your car and driving around the planet a few thousand times, in hopes of reaching a gas station. I could do the numbers... figure the closest star, Proxima Centuri, is about 4.2 light years away, which is in the ball park of 24-25 trillion miles (a trillion being a thousand million). It's a bit disappointing that no comparisons really help us to comprehend that distance; driving around the earth about a billion times doesn't mean anything to us. How about this... if you got in a plane, and flew at 500 miles per hour (maybe a little slow for an airline? I dunno...), it'd take... about 5.5 million years. Or how about this, if you had kids at aged 35 (admittedly, a little bit older than average), and they had kids at the same exact age, and so on, it'd take about 157 thousand generations to get there. Granted, 500 mph is very slow for space travel. So lets assume 1,000,000 mph, (~278 miles per second, still pretty slow compared to c), then it would only take ~78 generations! (At 35 again for reproduction.) The vastness of space is very difficult to relate to. Probably downright impossible, for all of us. Because we just didn't evolve to deal with such huge ranges in scale. But back to the point. Can you imagine setting off on a voyage with the goal of "invading" a foreign enemy, trillions of miles away, so you could get... what, oil? gold? It'd be cheaper to make it in a nuclear reactor (it'd be cheaper still to dig it out of the ground.) What, to get energy? Until our star dies, that doesn't matter (~5 billion years, estimated?). And if you have the means of surviving a 24 trillion mile trip, you must have some damn good methods of storing and transporting energy, in which case the destination star can't be that important. I'll bet you can find enough of any given resource in interstellar space to make a trip to another star completely useless. Why is it so easy for people to make such miscalculations of scale? Or do I overestimate people's ability to do so?<br /><br />"What'd you make of that?"<br /><br />It's funny how I deal with mathematics. It's not that I change from not understanding to understanding, it's more like I change from unable to remember to remembering/accepting. As if progress were mostly attributable to my ability to remember definitions rather than something more commonly interpreted as comprehension.<br /><br />Wait a second, why don't they just put a second laser on the mouse? One for the normal mouse movements, and one for the 'wheel/ball'. If apple mice get dirty and need cleaning out (EXACTLY like older ball-based mice had problems with), then isn't it logical to switch to a "laser" system? (That never needs cleaning.)<br /><br />People sometimes reject my efforts to combat creationism, asserting that such people will not be swayed. But watching this video with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, in which Kirk suggests you help by getting a bunch of copies of their mutated version of On the Origin of Species for your church, I realized, while we mostly pan to our own audience, and they mostly pan to their own audience, we are both fighting over the small middle ground, and I believe we have much better odds of swaying them than the opponents, since we have actual evidence and reason and logic on our sides, and all they really have is an old book that essentially knows nothing of the reality we live in.<br /><br />I can identify with the outrage people are expressing over this, but only a little bit. It's too silly for me to be seriously concerned with. Maybe I'm just smug, but it seems that they cannot win this battle. Beyond reason and evidence (and faulty reasoning and a lack of evidence on their side), we have a whole heap of useful results. It's simply untenable. Even if an anti-evolution movement could succeed in displacing evolution in america, all it means is that another country would outpace progress that depends on evolutionary theory (maybe not, considering the shear size of the american education system, even if there were strong sentiment against evolution there would remain limited strong support, which would result in intelligent and successful researchers). But what I mean is "the cat is out of the bag", and our global society is one big capitalist free market, and if we don't accept the most useful and accurate hypothesis, someone else will, and it'll pay off. And why should I care if it is us or them that improve my life? Certainly it would be easier to relate to an Iraqi or Iranian or Palestinian or North Korean evolutionary biologist than it would be to identify with an American creationist (ID "theorist", ha!). <br />Martians are from Mars, Venusians are from Venus.<br /><br />"What I was trying to do is not smile and not scowl... I was sort of trying to look like an empty suit." -Bill Clinton<br /><br />9·20·09<br />I will take your fury.<br />"I wouldn't pick me."<br />People seem to fear the idea of having no memory, as portrayed by <a href="http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2007/holding_memories.html">EP in this article</a>. I'm not sure I relate entirely. When you consider things people are typically saddened/frightened/anxious about (or any other rough interpretation of negatively disturbed), they seem more often to rely on memory than not. People seem to remember past mistakes, and previous traumatic experiences, and grudges and regrets. Fears seem more situational, and limited. I suppose if you have an overwhelming fear of something in ever day life, then the loss of your long-term memory may generate much anxiety, but more typical fears seem limited to situations and seem less persistent.<br />"Would you love me, if I was anything but what I am?"<br />So I thought <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_and_freshwater_economics">this</a> was kind of interesting, and I wonder: if it turns out that turbulence is only really well-modeled (i.e., completely/accurately/under a wide range of conditions) when based at the particle level, and if we could further prove that any model which does not attempt to simulate the particle level must sacrifice accuracy for the sake of tractability, would that imply that economic systems suffer from the same tradeoff? <br />Do a good job of bringing me back from incredulous, and I'll be happy.<br /><br />9·21·09<br />Thus contemptible.<br /><br />9·22·09<br />The Laws of Physics are such that they simply cannot be violated—any verified violation would simply result in a reformulation of the Laws. There are no requirements beyond absolute agreement with evidence. This is the basic reason why Physics supersedes god: it abandons all traditions and dogmas, favors no opinions, no beliefs, and no books. This is really true of all science, physics just happens to be the science of finding the base laws of the universe, and as such, provides the foundation for what is and is not possible. This is also the basic reason why religion encounters so much trouble, by declaring truths prematurely (or really, at all). To be fair, we are all guilty of this from time to time (especially the cosmologists! You're going to make us all look stupid! I say it with love.)<br /><br />In what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png">interpretation</a> is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png">this</a> seen as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservative">fiscally conservative</a>? If you consider yourself fiscally conservative, then who the hell voted for W.?<br /><br />Press button, wait for signal.<br /><br />There can be such supremely pleasant emotion invoked by music; I wish I could write it down here to express it and record it. (I think both rapture and ecstasy are better descriptions, but both words seem to have more common meanings that have grown distant from my intent.)<br /><br />9·24·09<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malosmadulu_Atolls,_Maldives.jpg">Beautiful</a>.<br />Learn you. I'd be ruined.<br /><br />9·25·09<br />Wandering in a room pitch black, without knowing where the obstacles lie, and a constant keen anxiousness that at any moment you might meet an object that refuses to give way to you—table, chair, wall—invoking that seemingly absurd sensation of abruptly halting when you have scarcely moved! <br /><b>This is the most familiar meaning of social relationships to me</b>. <br />Of course, after all these years I remember that people typically keep the center of their rooms clear of obstruction, and if I can get to and remain in the center, physical conflict will cease. <br />But if I spend enough time with someone, my eyes do adjust a little bit, and I can begin to make out the dim silhouettes of their furnishings, and I can begin to navigate and avoid the violent impacts with their lives. <br />Unless we discuss science of course, which is a well lit room that I've spent most of my life in.<br />Interestingly enough, conflict avoidance is probably not the optimal solution. Just as <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24162/">overconfidence</a> has unexpected benefits.<br /><br />Hold in your breath.<br /><br />9·26·09<br />Ha ha, I just found the website for a college radio station I've been listening to (91.5 WUML Lowell), and at the bottom of their webpage it says this:"Unfortunately and ironically, the opinions expressed by WUML<br />do not necessarily reflect the opinions held by UMass Lowell."<br /><br />I just found this in an email I wrote to myself on 8·14·06, but never sent:<br />I am beginning to realize that creationists distrust the empirical methods of scientific investigation. And I am wondering, just what sort of alternatives are there to empirical evidence?<br />Immediately I think of the human mind, and intuition. I suppose inner thought, intuition, divine inspiration, are all somewhat lumpable together, since they all occur within the observers mind and are by definition excluded from any other observer's view.<br />I am aware that I may be overlooking alternate sources of knowledge, so if you think of any, let me know.<br />For now, I'll focus on these inner thought methods.<br />If inner thought is a reliable source of knowledge/information about the material world, how is it that we should differentiate between true and false conclusions? After all, inner thought has lead to a great many miscalculations, both personal and public, among every single human being in all of history.<br />How is it that the non-agreeing inner thought of two individuals can be reconciled? Obviously 'god' reveals different messages to both christians and satanists, or christians and judaists, or protestants and catholics, or virtually any two religious denominations.<br />How is it that we may personally trust our inner thought?<br />How is it that other people cannot see how absurd this whole idea is?<br />How does one differentiate between premature enlightenment, and the real thing? Simple, <b>one does not</b>. <b>One assumes that what one knows is as much as one can know until one knows more</b>. <b>There is no use fretting over knowledge unknown</b>.<br /><br />This is fun:<blockquote>Every invalid syllogism breaks at least one rule.<br />This syllogism breaks at least one rule.<br />Therefore, this syllogism is invalid.</blockquote>Someone posted that in a jokes forum, and pointed out that both the premises and conclusion are true. Hence the joke.<br /><br />State of calamity.<br /><br />9·28·09<br />I'm not all for egalitarianism, nor am I all for meritocracy, but rather somewhere in between. I'm egalitarian about a basic set of human needs (food, shelter, clothing, education, health), and merit based for most else. Does that make me a socialist? I don't think so, but if it does, then so be it. How can so many people have said/heard/believed that actions speak louder than words, and yet so many people be hung up on words so easily?<br /><br />9·30·09<br />"Love is little, love is low,<br />Love will make our spirits grow:<br />Grow in peace, grow in light.<br />Love will do the thing that's right."<br /><br />10·1·09<br />Simple solution: stop worrying about it!<br />So this is kind of crazy:<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcBDQr2FAww">permanent infant</a>. So if you barter your soul to the devil in exchange for immortality or extreme longevity or eternal youth, be sure to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Greenberg">specify what age you mean by youth</a>.<br />"We never seem to get a break, do we."<br /><br />10·3·09<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGs_fa9dG0M">This is enjoyable</a>.<br />Am I an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_Socialists">early socialist</a>?<br /><br />People have far less compassion for one another than I previously believed. Even now, this fact remains so counter-intuitive to me that I have to remind myself of it and force my own processing of it to remember, and to see how that fact affects my own view of the world. It is a real wake up call. It has even now revealed that my optimism often overpowers my rationality, which, as a scientist, is a little bit worrisome. Though at least now I can be more aware of my biases.<br /><br />10·4·09<br />"It seemed like a good idea at the time."<br />If only; sans religion would internet in the 1600s have been possible?<br /><br />10·6·09<br />Whoa, clearly <a href="http://pencil-jp.net/weblog/data/051028/fish01.html">I have much to learn</a>.<br />I believe I spend more time calibrating my judgement than I do judging things.<br />I don't exactly think that nothing is sacred, I merely reserve the right to reject other individual's claims to something being sacred.<br /><br />10·8·09<br />"...hence, like one who is afraid, he spoke as loudly as he could."<br />"All religions bear traces of the fact that they owe their origin to an early im-mature intellectuality of men—they all make very light of the obligation to speak the truth: they know nothing of a duty to God to be truthful and clear in his communications to mankind."<br />-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Dawn of Day, p81<br /><br />Dry run you might say.<br />Oh, it's so obvious in retrospect (isn't it always?), if we are to define scientific statements as falsifiable, then we immediately know where religion can survive: in the un-falsifiable. (Perhaps we should define retrospect as the process in which a problem transforms from difficult to trivial.)<br /><br />10·9·09<br />"In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."<br />-Stephen J. Gould<br /><br />Very well said Stephen! (Another Dead Hero)<br /><br />Whoever wrote the the bible stories about genesis and Noah's ark didn't know anything about inbreeding did they?<br />Oh wait, I guess whoever wrote the story of Noah the second time did know better, since they said seven, not two, of every thing.<br /><br />Meet me half way, because I'll never cross this gap alone.<br />Please let me be blown away.<br /><br />10·11·09<br />What I want is nothing.<br /><br />10·12·09<br />I need this as much as you do.<br />So when did I become the serious and solemn one?<br /><br />Bernard just sent me <a href="http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/bpes_new/bpes_new_uk/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/secondary_resources/pt_preview_080409.jpg">this</a>. On the one hand, it's too bad I didn't have a large poster of that when I was little, because if I did, I'd probably know the periodic table very well now. On the other hand, I'd probably be a chemist, so it's better that I didn't!<br /><br />Oh, and a while back he sent me <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/8974/title/Math_Trek__A_Prayer_for_Archimedes">this</a>, an interesting news article about some recovered work by Archimedes, from 2,200 years ago. (It appears he was much closer to discovering & understanding calculus than we previously imagined, something europeans repeated in the 1700s). Why did it go unnoticed so long? Because some religious asshole at some point recovered the paper for some religious nonsense. The harm that religion has inflicted upon humankind is without equal. Small pox may have killed 300-500 million people between 1900 and 1979, but it was (and continues to be) religion that interferes with the scientific and technological progress that frees mankind from such scourge. Calculus before christianity? Why is the latter so widespread, when the former is so incredibly powerful? One provides a kind of internal comfort, the other unravels the mysteries of nature, brings the horribly complex phenomena surrounding us into focus, translates the universe into a language that actually fits into our tiny little heads. <br /><br /><br /><br />WE NEED TO MAKE CALCULUS A RELIGION SUBSTITUTE.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-74674574913388082912009-09-13T13:11:00.003-04:002009-09-13T19:06:29.478-04:00She's Uncomputable8·28·09<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvJTbsaepk8">Holly Walsh vs The Smoking Ban</a>.<br />Ah, thats right, I've been emailing myself links like mad.<br /><br />Don't you take the blame.<br /><br />The better angels of our nature.<br /><br />When a swindler swindles the swindled, who should we blame? Obviously in many circumstances, "blaming the victim" is a cold, compassionless stance, certainly rejected by a large majority of civilization. (Very few people would blame the burgled (not a word) over the burglar.) But simultaneously there are clear instances in which sympathy is very difficult to sustain, because the victim has displayed such supreme ignorance, such negligence that "blame the victim" might seem acceptable. This is the sentiment captured in the saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me 8 or more times, shame on me." <br /><br />I have no need for that hypothesis.<br /><br /><br />8·30·09<br />What exactly happens when an element (or molecule) reflects a photon? How does that work? And how is it that we can make a surface smooth enough to reflect light in a nice clear way? After all, every mirror is made up of a bunch of little atoms, which at some level would be bumpy. Why is it that photons can end up so uniformly reflected that we can see a clear image?<br /><br />ERASE THE LINES.<br />We draw all these lines, pushing us around, us and them. We put everyone and ourselves in little boxes that are easy to categorize and then it is easy to know what we think and mean and want and dislike. And there is some use to this all, it does help to be able to generalize; without generalization problems can rapidly become <br /><br />So if <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html">Lisi is right</a>, the only remaining question may be... why is the universe built on E8? Maybe he, or someone else, already has an answer for that, but I don't know it yet. And if he were proven correct, that'd be my first question. Also, it's exciting that his model appears to be making predictions, it appears falsifiable, which is a nice change of pace from string theory, which seems maybe too flexible to be invalidated. Or would the specific values still be open questions? (I.e. masses, constants, etc.)<br /><br />NEVER stand still.<br /><br /><br />9·1·09<br />Matt sent me <a hre="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeKE1l4gi0s&NR=1">this video of Jack Conte</a> at something called Wonderfest. It's very enjoyable.<br /><br />Bunt, hunt, runt, punt, dunt, aunt! (I only found dunt because I was looking.)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wright_on_optimism.html">Robert Wright talking about optimism at TED</a>. <br /><br /><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486">Robert Wright interviewing Daniel Dennett</a>. Dennett is so wonderfully well thought out.<br />"Well it seemed like a good idea at the time."<br />"After all the reason we die is that our parts break."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI">OK Go on treadmills</a>. How'd I miss this before?<br /><br />I never got it working, some day I'll get back to it. It's pretty awesome:<a href="http://www.vimeo.com/1654232">Droste effect video 1</a>. <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/1689442">Droste effect video 2</a>. Some <a href="http://www.likecool.com/Droste_Effect--Pic--Gear.html">Droste-effect photos</a>.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://failblog.org/2009/08/24/wedding-photo-fail-2/">My kind of wedding</a>.<br /><a href="http://failblog.org/2009/08/24/frustrated-skateboarder-fail/"> and skateboarder fail</a>. I kept this because it is an excellent example of an elastic collision, probably in part due to his body reflexively recoiling from the collison.<br /><br />Movies like The Mist and Knowing have far darker endings than I ever would have imagined (certainly The Mist blows Knowing out of the water in this sense), especially given that they are major studio films (and major genres). Makes me wonder if we can expect our society to take a darker turn in entertainment, at least as a genre, and as far as acceptability is concerned.<br /><br />This question made me laugh audibly (I think because the last option fits me so well):<br />"Your 3-year old son is extremely timid, and has been hypersensitive about- and a bit fearful of- new places and people virtually since he was born. What do you do?<br />-Accept that he has a shy temperament and think of ways to shelter him from situations that would upset him<br />-Take him to a child psychologist for help<br />-Purposely expose him to lots of new people and places so he can get over his fear<br />-Engineer an ongoing series of challenging but manageable experiences that will teach him that he can handle new people and places<br /><br />Bill Hicks on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkZQ2Fx1j9E&feature=related">war and freedom</a><br />Bernard sent me this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qsWFFuYZYI">8-bit trip</a>. It's pretty awesome.<br /><br />We can't help but tell ourselves the truth.<br /><br /><br />9·4·09<br />Heads will roll.<br /><br />Bernard sent me <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_shot_in_court_1">this hilarious story</a>.<br /><br />Integrate and fire.<br /><br /><br />9·5·09<br />Enchanted.<br /><br />I know it's a lot more complicated than this, but for a moment it seemed as though conservatives were people who had a cynical outlook about the future, and liberals were people with an optimistic outlook. But I know there is a lot more going on.<br /><br />So I was just watching some match moving software do it's thing (holy crap!) and I was thinking about how easily our brains do what appears to take the computer a lot of effort. And probably this is largely due to the algorithm we use, as well as the fact that our brain has evolved around this sort of purpose, whereas computers have not. Which got me thinking, there might be some insight to be gained by understanding how the brain performs this task, which might be possible by imaging the brain as it performs this sort of task. The same would be true of Go. But maybe brain imaging, such as MRIs are difficult in such circumstances, I don't know.<br /><br />Haven't watched <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/conanchemistry/">this but it sounds fun</a>.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBwIRq_hmjg&feature=fvw">This is sort of bizarre to see</a>...<br /><br /><br />9·6·09<br />I love Weinberg's quote, "with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion" but I think it overlooks a few things... for instance, religion seems to distort our sense of right and wrong not just to allow good people to do evil, but also to label good work as evil; that is, religion causes people to perceive good things as evil things (pretty much anything related to sex being the archetypical example, the condom being a particularly brutal example of the catholic church's criminal offense).<br /><br />How awesome does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_(TV_series)">this sound</a>?<br /><br /><br />9·7·09<br />Stein's movie claims that the Nazi's work was based on Darwin's ideas. Which, even if true, is no more indicting than saying nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles are based on Newton's work regarding gravity.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rift_(astronomy)">The Great Rift</a>.<br />Practice random kindness.<br />Demand more joy.<br />Cut to ribbons.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words">Thems fightin' words</a>!<br /><br />An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician find themselves in an anecdote,<br />indeed an anecdote quite similar to many that you have no doubt already<br />heard. After some observations and rough calculations the engineer realizes<br />the situation and starts laughing. A few minutes later the physicist understands<br />too and chuckles to himself happily, as he now has enough experimental evidence<br />to publish a paper. This leaves the mathematician somewhat perplexed, as he had observed right away that he was the subject of an anecdote and deduced quite rapidly the presence of humor from similar anecdotes, but considers this anecdote to be too trivial a corollary to be significant, let alone funny.<br /><br />So "one-way functions exist" implies P ≠ NP, but I would guess that "one-way functions do not exist" does not imply that P=NP, right? <br /><br />I should finish watching <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070190910133172739#">this lecture on the physics of computation</a> at some point, but probably won't.<br /><br /><br />9·8·09<br />If I ever found myself on the run, and needed to communicate with informed colleagues, I'm confident I could write in some pretty obscure math and to prevent law enforcement from intercepting my communications. Though I suppose they'd just search around for someone capable of translating it.<br />It'd probably be very interesting, and exciting, to try to evade law enforcement on a national scale. Granted, the likelihood of finding yourself in a situation both where national law enforcement is pursuing you, and it is in your best interest to not cooperate, but to evade them, is vanishingly small. <br /><br />Slay the dreamer.<br />"What I cannot create, I do not understand"<br />written on Richard Feynman's chalkboard at the time of his death.<br />I only learn in light of feedback indicating where I went wrong.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_live_poll_allows_pundits_to">This was superb</a>.<br /><br /><br />9·9·09 Oooh, 9-9-9! It's the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmg">devils number</a> upside down! As if the arbitrary symbols and timing we assigned actually meant something!<br /><br />It always amazes me when famous people turn out to be <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0-FYyuvrRk">surprisingly talented</a>, though it shouldn't really be surprising—they are, after all, successful, famous, people.<br /><br />"You can be as mad as a mad dog at the way things went. You can swear, curse the fates. But when it comes to the end you have to let go."<br /><br /><br />9·10·09<br />"A vile promise I have absolutely no intention of keeping."<br />"Dig, once you get used to it, insanity can be the most normal thing in the world, you know?"<br /><br />Brilliant idea: introduce periodic cataclysm to genetic programming. Just like in the history of the world, where periodic mass extinctions have opened the door to new classes of animals dominating the environment. Better idea: <br /><br />Based on a discussion with Matt: could depression be the result of a more fundamental behavioral tendency to sacrifice oneself for group benefit?<br /><br />People are fond of saying, "I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads." I would like to encourage some introspection about that statement; if the evidence leads to a definitive answer that god does not exist, are you willing to follow? If the evidence were to lead to something truly sinister, like a complete lack of purpose in our existence, can you accept that? I am. And I'd argue that you should too, though I doubt most people are for the most part. Those defenses people provide, "you can't be moral without god", "a purposeless existence would mean rape and murder aren't wrong", etc., and also stances such as belief in belief, all boil down to a fear of the unknown, (in my opinion). Most people haven't considered what a world without purpose, or a world without belief, or a world without a creator, really truly implies. All that it implies, is that the properties of the world we live in are entirely dependent on US. That there is no grand authority, there are no rules, and whether we live a happy life, or a miserable one, whether we live a guilt free or burdened existence, whether we treat each other with respect, or take advantage of one another, is entirely dependent on us. <br /><br /><br />9·13·09<br />If we visualize the solution landscape as being populated by our solutions, and that breeding solutions connects distant solutions to one another, creating offspring at some midpoint, (maybe not the real midpoint), plus an offset due to mutation. Then is it useful to ask the program what extrapolating between two solutions is as well, rather than just interpolating? In other words, look at offspring both between two healthy solutions, and offspring that lies adjacent to the healthy solutions. Also, what about perturbing the solutions and using the difference between very near solutions to specify the direction of mutation?<br />The subtitles mentioned how too much mutation and too little mutation both lead to sub-optimal results, and how natural selection tunes mutation for maximum competitiveness, right? How great is that idea?!<br /><br /><br />emails:<br />Ha, maybe the uncertainty principle, and probabilistic nature of the universe, is equivalent to the sort of decimal to binary to decimal conversion errors we have with computers!<br /><br />So I'll want to make some assumption about the distribution of energies the vacuum is able to produce, and based on that give some prediction about the distribution of H, He, Li, D that would be created over long periods of time. <br /><br />Wait, could the attraction of gravity be interpreted as the borrowed energy? So the vacuum has some energy fluctuation, producing a positive energy and a negative energy in some limited vicinity; the positive energy becomes a massive particle, and the negative energy becomes the attractive quality of gravity? Am I just going completely insane? I need a mathematical framework to describe this and make predictions. I must learn more about spin, and what a spin 2 particle really means...<br /><br />It has always bothered me when people say we don't understand gravity yet, or that Newton explained how gravity behaved, but not what it was. It bothers me because at a fundamental level, you are not familiar with anything. Why does gravity mystify people anymore than the electromagnetic force? Or so called "mechanical" forces in general? Do you know why your arm moves? Because your muscles contract, and how does that happen? Because there are molecules making up the muscle cells that can actually change shape in response to stimuli (e.g. a signal from your brain, hopefully), and how are those molecules working? They're all the electromagnetic force! For some reason people think that they understand, say, scissors, or a seesaw, or a wheelbarrow or hammer or pulley system or ramp, simply because these simple machines are all mechanistic. But the atoms never touch one another! When I shove you, the atoms in my hands are getting so close to the atoms in your body that the electromagnetic force is transferring force! So all of mechanics (as well as chemistry that makes all those molecules; remember, atoms keep their hands to themselves), is really the result of the electromagnetic force! And the electromagnetic force is awfully similar to the force of gravity (at least on the macroscopic scale; the main difference being that EM has positive and negative charge, leading to both attractive and repulsive forces, whereas gravity is always attractive ;-) So why is it that everyone is always complaining about gravity but not EM? Okay, enough complaining for one day.<br /><br />As Russell is quoted, "[electricity] is not a thing, like St. Paul's Cathedral; it is a way in which things behave. When we have told how things behave when there are electrified and under what circumstances they are electrified we have told all there is to tell... Electricity is not like red paint, a substance that can be put on to the electron and taken off again; it is merely a convenient name for certain physical laws". <br />[http://books.google.com/books?id=ntgdash5FKQC&lpg=PA206&ots=QT0L3_xUqW&dq=%22electricity%20is%20not%20a%20thing%22%20like%20a%20cathedral&pg=PA206#v=onepage&q=%22electricity%20is%20not%20a%20thing%22%20like%20a%20cathedral&f=false]<br /><br />Is there an explanation for the fundamental quantities of H, He, Li and Deuterium, (and the nature of the spectrum), based on the idea that the CMB is random noise? (My cosmology!) Also, why are we more comfortable postulating these strange distributions of matter and energy most of which cannot be seen, instead of postulating that conservation of energy doesn't quite hold on cosmic scales?<br /><br />Amorous (like in polyamory), and don't forget reification!<br /><br />Oh crap, you screwed up the differentiation of the Lagrangian. When you take (d/dt) make sure to correctly differentiate! (I.e., xdot*thetadot becomes xdotdot*thetadot + xdot*thetadotdot.)<br /><br /><br />Okay, and a ton of links:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole<br />http://blaghag.blogspot.com/<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laser_types<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_diode<br />http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/mod3.html#c1<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_diagram<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_spectroscopy<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#Typical_method<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Principles<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HCl_rotiational_spectrum.jpg<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasic<br />http://www.reasonproject.org/about/<br />http://twitpic.com/photos/jennifurret<br />http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/pubs/algorithm.html<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_Manifesto<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_programming<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_uncertainty_analysis<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem#Significance AMAZING!<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogosort<br />http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/top-five-lists/<br />http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html<br />http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/a-modest-proposal/ reminds me: should we make a "religion" of science? It's only dogma could be anti-dogmatism!<br />http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/page/51/<br />http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-fall2006/#f06week02a<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time<br />http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification<br />http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reify This this the problem I have with our concept of self?<br />http://www.genetic-programming.com/BBB2028flowchartleft.gif<br />http://www.cove.org/ape/demo1.htm<br />http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/more-is-different/<br />http://www.11points.com/Personal/11_Famous_People_Who_Were_in_the_Completely_Wrong_Career_at_Age_30<br />http://www.tau.ac.il/~kineret/amit/scipy_tutorial/<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin (innovative electronics in our nervous system)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_giant_neuron<br />http://numberwarrior.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/wolfram-alpha-and-babylonian/<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoradic<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_radix<br />http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/logistic.htm<br />http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/230<br />http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/heredity-environment-justice/<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Particle_overview.svg<br />http://www.atheistmedia.com/search?updated-max=2009-07-28T01%3A36%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=12<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_state<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinon<br />http://hundredpushups.com/week5.html<br />http://www.yourmorals.org/explore.php<br />http://anacapasociety.org/<br />http://anacapasociety.org/user/register<br />http://anacapasociety.org/node/66<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature<br />http://www.cracked.com/article_16532_p2.html<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_equation#Fluid_dynamics<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer<br />http://copycats.tumblr.com/<br />http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node123.html<br />http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/<br /> (dimensionality, august 2nd)<br />http://access-scat.org/<br />http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Tutorials/Physics/BSoD/Fluid<br />http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/11/infinity-really-is-different.html<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_GRE#Major_content_topics<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLdgb3kZpM<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage_(mathematics_software)<br /><br />Of course there are another 50 in my browser right now. I think maybe the part of my brain that recognizes whether something is valuable or not, is completely broken.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-46062034194019901312009-08-27T23:31:00.005-04:002009-08-29T20:04:37.776-04:00Complimentarily Dysfunctional8·11·09<br />It seems that we have emotions with no good use. Jealousy seems to be the most obvious; what could possibly be the benefit of being envious? Or resentful? Why must our brains (bodies?) adhere to such useless, counterproductive, unhappy rules?<br /><br />It is taboo to notice this.<br />Invitations to hesitate too.<br /><br />8·12·09<br />I just realized, much better than a box fan trying to exchange air in your home/apartment, would be to convert your entire home into a pump, which would be relatively easy. First, put "one-way-valves" on both the place you want an inlet and outlet (e.g. a window in the room you want to cool and a window in the attic, respectively). These one way valves could be very simple, just a big flap that hinges to allow air in but not out, or out but not in. Then, somewhere else in the home, we place a large bladder, that "breathes". Really a big balloon would work well, anything that can displace a large volume of air repeatedly. When the balloon/bladder inflates, the (attic) valve allows the air to be forced out, while (say bedroom) valve prevents air from escaping, when the balloon deflates, the volume of air in the home decreases, sucking the attic valve shut and the bedroom valve open. This is only real useful when it is cooler outside than inside, but I'll bet it'd be far more effective & efficient than box fans. I suspect that box fans experience a great deal of something akin to cavitation.<br /><br />Reasons are contagious.<br />Transcend your content.<br />Our paths crossed. Thats about it.<br /><br />8·13·09<br />As far as information collection and retention is concerned, sometimes I feel morbidly obese.<br /><br />Panting appetite.<br />"Now if you'll excuse me South Carolina, I've got to go see a man about a horse... that he's been fucking."<br />"Keep it stupid, simple"<br /><br />8·17·09<br />http://photosynth.net/<br /><br />8·18·09<br />How can one fear that government run healthcare would be <br />too competitive for the private sector, and yet simultaneously believe that free markets are optimal solutions? (Obviously we can just constrain the government plan to require that it pays for itself, to prevent the unfair advantage of operating on a deficit.)<br /><br />Everything happens. Thats sort of a good way to view QM.<br /><br />8·19·09<br />Heres a calculation I ought to do, for my own curiosity. Take the most powerful laser we have. Or better yet, the total amount of power available to humankind, and convert it all into a brief laser pulse. How much would it disperse by the time it reached the nearest star? Can we aim it accurately enough to expect to hit the nearest star? How intense would it be a that distance? (I would imagine "not very".)<br /><br />8·22·09<br />"Everything about you is a menace."<br />"Remember when it was new."<br /><br /><br />8·24·09<br /><a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08/gospel-of-hate-arizona-pastor-steve.html">This page</a> has an audio clip of an Arizona pastor giving a wholly vile, despicable sermon, about both president Obama and the homosexual community, and I think the hypothesis that "gays are recruiting" is actually really funny, because it sort of says something about this mans understanding of his own sexuality. Does he think that he could be convinced (through whatever evil he imagines) to like men? I would estimate that I have been smitten with women for about 20 years now, I'm pretty sure no force in the universe could possibly change that (though I suppose chemicals could probably do a lot more than I'd care to know). Certainly no <i>human</i> is going to convince me. <br />This is exactly why Isaac Asimov said, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."<br />How is it that he both hates Obama and yet wouldn't salt a slug because "he loves all gods creatures?" Why is it that the most righteous humans are always the most damnable, hateful, evil humans. How is it that this book remains so potent after so long? Why aren't we praying to Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or James Clerk Maxwell's A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, or Albert Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, or Euclid's Elements, or Euler's complete works, or Gauss's work, or Riemann's paper On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude, or Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, or Archimedes legacy, or Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species, or any of the uncountable other humans that helped us all so much. I've only include mathematicians and physicists (for the most part), when you include all the other scientists, all the other discoveries, all the other work that has pulled us up out of the mud, afforded us the comforts of modern life, removed the toil of disease and weather and the host of other struggles that we've all forgotten so quickly. Did you know that more than twice as many people died of smallpox in the 20th century than in all of the wars of the 20th century combined? And what was it that ultimately eliminated that suffering? A bible verse? The torah or qur'an or new testament? Was it the pope or a preacher or mother Teresa? No. NO! It was science. And why is it that I, as an atheist, seem to have more compassion than this all mighty, all wonderful god that the majority of the developed world (apparently) believe in? I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy. Or on anyone. Prison I suppose, but not torture. What is wrong with everyone!<br /><br /><br />8·27·09<br />If You Repeat it, I Will Deny.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog#Gog_and_Magog_and_President_George_W._Bush">Unbelievable</a>.<br /><br />The NonStampCollector has some <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqfGu6vTxFY&feature=related">good questions</a>. And some <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkgmU9vG_o">good points</a>. And some <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgDDglSq2s">funny analogies</a>.<br /><br />"...there's something very special about the scientific mindset which is that it is prepared to live with open-endedness."<br />-A.C. Grayling (<a href="http://whyscience.co.uk/">Why is Science Important</a>?)<br /><br /><a href="http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2009/08/why_2.html">Joe Scarborough is an idiot</a>.<br /><br />Constant forms.<br /><br />Wow, Robert Wright mentions in <a href="http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/08/bill-moyers-journal-robert-wright.html">this video</a> that the thoughts that someone is judging him still hangs over his conscious. "I have not lost, I never lost the sense, that I'm being judged, by, a being."<br /><br />Could we artificially generate rings for a planet (probably a bad idea for our own planet, or any planet we want to land on), that could increase the visibility of the planet outside the solar system? (That is, for other ET civilizations to detect us more easily.) I suppose it probably wouldn't increase the visibility any more than Earth's intrinsic visibility (and life signature based on the atmospheric composition).<br /><br />I just want the most clever, intelligent, irrational girl I can find.<br /><br />I really want to put the effort into memorizing this poem:<br />"<a href="http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/loopsnoop.html"><i>P</i> is right when it's wrong and is false when it's true!</a>"<br /><br />I feel like there are a lot more notes to put here, but I don't know where they would be if they exist.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-16934707391666552922009-08-11T00:14:00.004-04:002009-08-11T00:52:03.345-04:00Nothing = EverythingWow, I went a whole month with no post. Though, in my defense (who am I arguing with?), I didn't have internet access this last week or two or so. Anyway, on with the pasting!<br /><br />Wait, that isn't true. Okay, sort of. Why does the last post say "6·27·09", but include notes from July? I suppose I must have started it in June?<br /><br />No matter:<br /><br /><br /><br />7·13·09<br />I'm happy to be the root of the problem, but it would be awfully nice to be the flower of the problem too.<br />"How's your wife?" — "Compared to what?"<br />My computer, it's not learning from it's mistakes. ...yet.<br />Scoundrel, I like the sound of that too.<br /><br /><br />7·22·09<br />one more such victory would utterly undo him<br /><br />Denis Diderot said "the god of the christians is a father who makes much of his apples, and very little of his children", in 1746, and I would like to modernize it with some recent events. Like, the pope of the catholics is a psychotic delusional who makes much of his <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/4247756/Vatican-reveals-secrets-of-worst-sins.html">crackers</a> and very little of his <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids">fellow humankind</a>. <br /><br />On the <i>Unscientific America</i> matter, I'd like to make two points. First, is the large degree of intolerance in our society, much of which can be attributed to religious dogma (intolerance for gays in america, intolerance for science in america, intolerance for any violation of orthodox belief in israel, as we've heard lately, intolerance for anything non-orthdox in many more orthodox islamic societies), and the immense pain and suffering this intolerance has caused throughout time, and continues to cause. Now, you might be thinking, "but the New Atheists are just intolerant of the religiously devout!" And that is true, but as the philosopher of science Karl Popper pointed out, an open society must reserve the right to be intolerant of the intolerant. In his words, from volume 1 of <i>The Open Society and Its Enemies</i>: <blockquote>The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.<br />Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.</blockquote> [<a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies_.281945.29">Notes to the Chapters: Ch.7, Note 4</a>]<br /><br />"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."<br /><br />7·24·09<br />"Also, I'm given to understand your mother is overweight."<br /><br />Ha ha ha ha ha:<br /><blockquote>Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 1:24 PM<br />Brilliant Stu.<br />Do you reckon M & K have to buy cucumbers pre-sliced ? Only if they saw a whole they might be reminded of male genitalia and go all faint and giddy. And if they both did it, who would be around to loosen their corsets ?</blockquote><br /><br />Secret secretion.<br /><br />7·25·09<br />Something less personal.<br />"Your uncle Floyd died." "What happened?!" "His heart stopped beating."<br />"Your unwillingness to accept empirical evidence suggests an attempt at flattery." <br /><br />Caught between a rock and a crazy place.<br /><br />When I, as a New Atheist, describe religions as viruses, I am not referring so much to the parasitic nature of a virus but more the pattern of propagation throughout a population, and the detrimental effects it has on the infected, and the aftereffects. Like many viruses that run their course without killing the inflicted, those who recover from religious infection often bear scars of the struggle, scars which they will typically carry for the rest of their lives.<br /><br />7·26·09<br />Deftly daft.<br /><br />Is this my weakness? I need someone there?<br /><br />"Come on baby, don't say maybe. I gotta know if you're sweet love is gonna save me."<br />(Should I have attempted to replicate the duration?)<br /><br /><br />7·27·09<br />Honestly, just getting "christians" discussing their beliefs with one another would go a long way to dismantling the institution(s).<br /><br />Who the hell hit the chicken switch?<br />Between the click of the light, and the start of the dream.<br /><br />Wait a minute, is the water mark of Benjamin Franklin on a one hundred dollar bill supposed to be grinning? Is it normally showing teeth?<br /><br /><br />Objective: to understand the relationship between the physical world & computability, with emphasis on the physical world.<br /><br /><br />7·28·09<br />"I wanna give you the world if you stay with me tonight.<br />I wanna give you the world if you just hold me tight."<br /><br />You know, if I were god, I'd make the world a lot less shitty for a lot of people. And maybe slightly more shitty for a few people too.<br /><br />Why is it that some people find strength in hardship, while others find only despair? And how dependent on the type of hardship is the type of emotion invoked?<br /><br />"I like you so much better when you're naked. I like me so much better when you're naked."<br />"And my career came down to operating this impossible device, while people were judging me."<br /><br />Living in infamy.<br /><br /><br />7·30·09<br />On my drive home from work on Wednesday, I got very tired, and so I pulled over and took a nap, shortly before reaching route 2. This is fairly normal for me, I've stopped many times over the last few weeks, both on my way to and from work (in fact, one day this week on the way to work I was woken up and told by a young woman that I could not take a nap in that parking space, I think she worked at a cafe or something nearby). A few weeks ago while napping on the way home with my windows completely down, I got bitten a lot by mosquitos, so on Wednesday, I was sure to not leave my windows very far down (it was also drizzling kind of, and a very wooded area). So since it was very humid outside, it was even more humid in the parked car, and sleeping was fairly uncomfortable, I probably got 20 or 30 minutes of rest, (oddly, twice I started to snore and woke myself, as it was uncomfortable). Oh, another note, someone called me while I was falling asleep, but I answered too late, calling back I got a busy signal (later that night I called back again and it turned out to be Movie Scene in Derry! Which I do not have an account with! So apparently it was just a random misdial? Because they looked my number up and didn't find anything (I was a little worried that for whatever reason there was an account for my number, and expecting fees to dispute!) Also, I think the day before I locked myself out of my car I got stung by a bee on the way home, and just a few seconds after pulling over an unmarked state trooper was pulled over behind me, which is weird cause I speed a lot on route 2, and so do the cops, but I didn't see him at all, so I'm not sure if he was catching up to me or just behind me or what. Anyway, after telling him I'd been stung he asked if I wanted an ambulance or if I were allergic, and I said no, I'd be fine, "it'll just suck", and he said okay and left.<br /><br />I do not understand people's fears of enemy nations getting nuclear weapons. Notice, for instance, that America is not... I should finish this, but instead, do your own damn research! America isn't on the list of countries with a no first strike policy, apparently because we openly reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for certain offensives against us (and maybe even our allies?). Which is pretty ridiculous, when you consider that China has specified that they will not use them unless as an equal response.<br /><br />Dammit! John Bolton, while on The Daily Show, said, "there's not that much difference between me and the people who want a world where no government has nuclear weapons. There's not much difference, I only want one government to have nuclear weapons." ...WHAT?!?! Does he not understand there is an ENORMOUS difference between someone who wants the governments of the world to interact as a global democracy, and someone who wants the governments of the world to interact as a global monarchy? He is endorsing a holier-than-thou position for the United States? Who the fuck are we? Seeing as how we are the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy (and we did it twice), on what authority do we claim to deserve such a unique position of responsibility? And on what evidence do we justify denying everyone else such a responsibility? And if you want to defend our actions, I need an acceptable answer to why we couldn't have demonstrated the weapon to the Japanese in a non-populated area, such as the ocean, instead of killing more than 220,000 people (mostly citizens, including 3,200 Japanese American citizens). Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. Bill Kristol was on two nights before, and Stewart got him in quite a bind, when Kristol affirmed that the government provides the best healthcare money can buy to our troops, and yet (along normal conservative lines) remain steadfast in his opinion that government should not be involved in health care because it cannot be efficient. Granted, I am not certain that the military healthcare plan is really what Kristol seems to think it is, and more generally, I think healthcare is far too complicated to... eh, I never finish these thoughts. Maybe if I thought anyone were reading, or more cared, or if these things seemed important in the least bit, I would, but otherwise no.<br />(as if reiterating his support for Sarah Palin wasn't enough)<br /><br />What?<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Let%27s_Put_the_Future_Behind_Us.jpg<br /><br />Not even a little.<br /><br />You cannot stop what you did not start.<br /><br />You'd have to be completely out of your mind to give either america or russia any excuse to use nuclear weapons. You'd have to be far more crazy than a typical suicidal person, or even a suicide bomber; such little regard for your citizens' well being would run opposed to most public service motivations for political power, and suicidal tendencies would run opposite to those seeking power (since it would rapidly quench any power, by killing large numbers of citizens and government officials).<br /><br /><br />8·3·09<br />Antitheism, anti-dogmatism, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism">post-theism</a>, <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maltheism">maltheism</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism">misotheism</a>; wait, is Richard Dawkins intolerant of religious people? Am I? Is the fact that I am willing to criticize other's belief vocally, is that intolerance? <br /><br /><br />8·4·09<br />If you're suggesting that the type of pencil I practice doing the work with has no influence whatsoever on my ability to use the prescribed pencil during the actual test, you're absolutely right. But are you also suggesting I risk it? <br /><br />"If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, your tiny little heart, would you consider a scientific collaboration?"<br /><br /><br />8·5·09<br />With the invention of the equals sign it was realized that everything was equal to nothing.<br /><br /><br />8·6·09<br />"If there's one thing Nixon is known for, it's class. Let's cut this turd loose!" —President Richard Nixon<br /><br />8·7·09<br />I just watched an episode of 30 days, in which Morgan Spurlock (host) lives on a Navajo reservation for a month, and I can't help but think that their extreme poverty is in part due to their strong respect for tradition. In fact, they even mention in the show that Americans in general do not have much in the way of traditions, and I can't help but wonder if America's success is in part due to our more progressive nature, which was the direct result of being a country almost entirely of immigrants, which certainly destroyed much of the tradition that would exist in a culture that remains in one place over a very long period of time. I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't have a strong sense of culture or preserve tradition, but it might just be that you cannot simultaneously preserve your traditions and succeed in an ever more rapidly evolving world of technology and information.<br /><br />"If someone figures out what you're up to they can sacrifice, and hold onto a heart." — "And then you lose."<br /><br />Wow, in India, night shifts at call centers are considered better than day shifts, since night shifts correspond to American daytime, and they've begun taking christmas break, since their demographic (Americans)<br /><br /><br />8·8·09<br />You can read my mind if you'd like. (It isn't that hard really.)<br /><br />Besides, isn't it more exciting when you don't have permission?<br /><br /><br />8·9·09<br />"Genocidal stupidity", is how Sam Harris described the effect of the vatican AIDS riddled villages in sub-Saharan African. When the atheist-agnostic community, such as the National Academy of Science, takes an apologist point of view and says something equivalent to "science and religion study different things", they are viewing religion in a much more reasonable way than many people do, or, they are assuming that most people will eventually buy the spirituality view of religion and trash the ridiculous, inane ancient dogmas. <br /><br />Sam Harris says it is possible for someone to be so well educated that they can build a nuclear bomb, and yet still believe they will get the 72 virgins in paradise, which I have in the past assumed to be not possible. In fact, for many years I've thought specifically that those intelligent enough to create a nuclear weapon are not crazy enough to do so in a rogue manner, and those crazy enough to do so are not intelligent enough to do it. It is a somewhat scary thought that he may be correct.<br /><br />So needlessly horrible.<br /><br />Harris mentioned that scientists tend to say "I don't know", and can be hard pressed to give an answer on something they are not expert about. I can identify with that to a degree, and I know many people will say, "but cody, you tend to act like a know-it-all", and I can agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but on the other hand, those who know me well will recall I am very fond of saying, "I don't know", "I'm not sure", and most recognizably, "it's mixed", all of which are simple methods of avoiding actual answers, on my part. Though I wonder if my language is too subtle for most people to realize I am simply dodging their questions.<br /><br />All so sweet.<br />Also sweet.<br />I need to find a new problem.<br />http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0310/0310317.pdf<br /><br />There are a group of people who hypothesize that the human brain has a functional foundation in quantum processes, and it seems to me that the only reason for claiming so is the mysteriousness generally attributed to consciousness, and a corresponding mysteriousness (as well as a very specific increase in computational power) of quantum mechanics. This appears very unnecessary to me, in part because I do not find consciousness to be very mysterious, and in part because the brain is an incomprehensibly complex structure, our largest super computers only recently rivaling the vast complexity of the structure that every developed human carries atop their head. There also seem to be many objections regarding free will and determinism, suggesting that the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics could resolve the dilemma between a strictly mechanistic (classical computer) model of our brain and the seemingly "free" will we all (or most) would like to believe we have. But an obvious resolution to the problem requires nothing more than noting that reality is a very large, complex set of data, and that the human brain, no matter how mechanistic, has extremely limited access to that data set. Furthermore, the software (and likely much of the hardware) is in constant development; none of it was created out of infallible theory (or intelligence), it was all developed through approximation techniques, heuristics, and "good enough" solutions can certainly be more valuable than global optimums if they can be calculated in shorter time. For a concrete example, a brain capable of calculating the most efficient path through rough and uneven terrain while fleeing a predator (or pursuing prey), is useless if it takes a few hundredths of a second longer to do so than a brain that accepts an approximate solution and begins fleeing a few hundredths of a second later. I've ranted often enough about consciousness that I probably needn't bother doing so again now. I should probably split this into separate criticisms of the quantum mechanics-abled brains and determinism/free will arguments.<br /><br /><br />8·10·09<br />Dammit, I took a few hundred photos of the sky tonight, each 5 seconds long, with ~7 seconds between them, and yet only two or three even have lightning lighting up the clouds, not a single one has an actual bolt in it. Such a disappointment. I ought to move west where I can see summer lightning for months. Though I suppose I could just visit instead probably...<br /><br />Ha ha ha, I just saw a cab crash into the newspaper stands. It wasn't all out, like you'd seen in a movie, just a slight brushing, but still entertaining for 12·41 am.<br /><br />Ooo, and now the moon is peaking out between the clouds. Maybe I should download all these wasted photos so I can capture that, though it doesn't look like it will last.<br /><br /><br />When patience ferments (stagnates? no, that'd be incorrect), the virtue sours into complacency.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-16170428817076281662009-06-27T13:57:00.005-04:002009-07-13T03:07:54.082-04:00Casually Causal6·21·09<br />Because you said so.<br />Make a face.<br />There's always tomorrow.<br />With a heart much more lovely.<br /><br />``This is why it is <a href="http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf">so heartbreaking</a> to see what is being done to mathematics in school.''<br /><br />I'm wrong! About the one thing I really thought I was good at, and maybe I once was, but I can see I have not been for quite some time (at least since tutoring physics in college). Teaching is much more about presenting mysteries in a captivating and comprehensible way, at the appropriate difficulty to challenge the student. I need to learn that if I hope to be a good teacher one day.<br /><br />Stars of the Lid and their Refinement of the Decline<br /><br />Perform the reduction!<br />Mike Huckabee repeatedly implies that the main reasons for abortions are that the mother is concerned that the child will be an economic burden. What if they are afraid the child will not be loved? Or not provided for? What if they fear that cannot take care of or support a child, or give the child the life that the mother thinks every child deserves? What if the mother can see her own fate, and knows that will most likely result in absolute isolation? What if the mother fears any number of these? How many people were scared by their own upbringing, and may fear (for whatever reason), unavoidable scarring of their offspring in the same manner? (I've heard people raised in foster homes wouldn't wish it on anyone, though I imagine some people were fine with it.) If you could know with absolute certainty that if you conceived, your child would eventually take their own life, would you hesitate? Would you feel guilty if you were aware of such an outcome, and yet conceived the child anyway? This sounds far-fetched, but what it's not far fetched to imagine two people with detectable but recessive genetic disorders that result in a high likelihood of their offspring having severe chronic illness, or even having a high likelihood of childhood death. Given an adult couple aware of this, is the "miracle" of an accidental pregnancy worth the risk?<br /><br />Death by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_units">excessive sunshine</a>.<br />Ha ha ha ha, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection">this is one of the most disturbing phrases</a> I've ever heard.<br /><br />Whatever's clever.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA&feature=rec-HM-r2">How about a good drug story for once</a>?<br /><br />P.I.C.<br /><br /><br />6·22·09<br />You know, I hear a lot of people complain about movies having generic plots, or being formulaic, or all that jazz. And I just watched Role Models, and it definitely succumbs to that. But I enjoyed it a lot, and I don't really care if it is loosely fit onto a cookie-cutter plot. There are definitely things in the world I find much more problematic than Hollywood's unwillingness to take a risk, or whatever other way you'd like to phrase similar criticism.<br />I believe we are witnessing the death throes of religion.<br />These are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WJT2005-RZ-Dino-vor-Plakat.jpg">creative folk</a> you are dealing with. <br />It's a good thing there isn't a god, because there is no way it would ever forgive us for this.<br /><br /><br />6·23·09<br />Look, it's just an all around shitty situation. You know what would have been an acceptable method of interrogation? Lie detectors, solid evidence, decent, humane treatment, some basic concepts of respect even. These methods would also have the benefit of not increasing the resentment, and potentially creating terrorists out of mistaken identities, and misunderstandings.<br /><br />I've always been very trusting of people, and therefore gullible. Fortunately, I've also always had a very hard time understanding people, both in what people say, and what they mean, so I've tended to just interpret what I think they say, and what I think they mean, on my own. This works very well in science, where you have context from causal relationships from which you may infer meaning, but not so well with humans, where human nature (rather than reason), tends to be the dominant force for meaning.<br /><br />Oooo, PZ Myers posted some advice for new commenters (my spellcheck says that isn't a real word), including this: <blockquote>As this is a science blog, a greater proportion of the readers and commenters here well- educated, and, if not scientists, are reasonably well-versed in logic, observation, empiricism, debate, and rationality. As such, their responses will likely be pointed, eloquent, articulate, and highly opinionated.</blockquote><br />I find this interesting due to the last two words. I am highly opinionated, it is where my severe arrogance originates. <br /><br />Get on the anchored ship. Get on the shore-bound boat. Bring on a blade to cut the rope.<br /><br />Iron aged tribalism.<br /><br />No homosexual should accept any form of christianity, islam or judaism. No woman should accept these religions. The god of the old testament, which is included in all three abrahamic religions, is a homophobic misogynist, and this is on top of the whole thing being completely ridiculous. In Richard Dawkin's words, "the god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." And if you don't agree, go read the bible, read the old testament, and PAY ATTENTION. If you find yourself pausing to explain stories in terms of your own understanding of god, tally it up. When you're done, count your tally marks, and ask yourself if maybe your understanding of right and wrong is more advanced than the people who wrote those stories 2500+ years ago.<br /><br />How is it that people can think that ancient tribes, who knew almost nothing about reality, were speaking to god, rather than just under superstitious delusions? Why can we all agree the Salem witch trials were fabrication, but most of us can believe that god spoke to moses as a burning bush? I'm very sorry how offensive I come across to my christian friends, assuming any of them read these things, or ever hear me rant about it in person, but please, trust me that I truly believe organized religion to be the single most harmful set of institutions in the world, and that I am only so vocal as to do as much as I can to lessen that harm. If there were an accessible way for me to lessen the production of AK-47s, or feed hungry children the world over, or teach war-torn poverty stricken parts of Africa about effective STD prevention, or teach most of the 3rd world peoples about basic sanitation, or a host of other things, I would. But I don't know how to do that. And I do know that if I can just convince you to be a little less devout, to question a little, to pass it on to the next generation in a weaker form than you received it, then we will all be much better off. Religion really does poison everything. If you've ever second guessed your religious authorities, have you ever continued it on, and asked what made them religious authorities in the first place? What sort of problems did they have to resolve, and what where the methods used to resolve them? And whether those methods were even supposed to be accessible or inaccessible to you? Did years of seminary really teach them how to solve a sort of problem that you cannot solve? I can say that years of physics classes did that for me, and that probably a decent chemist, biologist, geologist, engineer (of all sorts), or many other professions, can say the same. Is it odd that I spend as much time researching and discussing and writing about anti-religion as many dedicated religious folk spend in pro-religious thinking? Am I any less motivated? I would expect that I would be less concerned about people's future, given that I don't fear they will be punished in some hell after life. But then what motivates me? Is it just that I care for people? Do I just care for some people, and strongly believe that the rest of the people can have negative effects on the smaller fraction of people I care about? Maybe. I probably should reserve self-judgement. You can decide. And do you really think I've overlooked the grand truths that other people have allegedly received? Is it possible I have not fully considered my opponents views? No. You can claim that on a number of advanced physics topics, but not on religion. It is obvious. It is clear as the day. <br /><br />Casually causal?<br /><br />Kate Capshaw had to be taught how to scream. <br /><br />"Wear your jewels to bed, princess?" "Yeah. And nothing else. Shocking?" "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." "So as a scientist you do a lot of research?" "Always." "And what sort of research would you do on me?"<br />"Nocturnal activities." "You mean like what sort of cream I put on my face at night. What position I like to sleep in." "Mating customs." "Love rituals?" "Primitive sexual practices" "So you're an authority in that area?" "Years of field work." "I don't blame you for being sore at me. I can be hard to handle." "I've had worse." "But you'll never have better." "I don't know. As a scientist I don't want to prejudice my experiment I'll let you know in the morning."<br />Win for the scientists! (I'll selectively omit the rest of the dialogue.)<br /><br />It's a little unpleasant to say, but science is really about separating your human biases from the evidence about how the world is, and although I've been pretty high up on the science rankings among my peers, for my entire life, it still seems that any time I get comfortable in my position I experience great suffering due to my biases creeping in and clouding my objectivity. <br /><br />I don't understand conservatism. If any archetypical conservatives come across this statement, could you, to the best of your abilities, answer this question: why can't you trust the government with industries like health care, banking, or basic manufacturing (car industry), but you can trust the government with nuclear stockpiles and munitions up the wazoo? Typically I'd rather hand anyone in society (pariah, asylum inmate, nobel-prize winning physicist, doctor, banker, NRA president, world-class marksmen, etc.) my money, my vehicle (for repair) or my hospital care, before I'd hand them a firearm. Especially if I demanded that they use the firearm in my best interest while simultaneously insisting that I pay them as little as possible for their efforts. (Seriously! Conservatives, how does this work?! Though I suppose republicans typically have no problem with large military spending, which I would consider a significant deviation from conservative values.) And if I were a pure capitalist (maybe I am?), I'd further wonder why we can't just think of government as a competing company among other car manufactures, banks and healthcare plans. Why not just consider the government to be a company that our society allows to operate at a loss in industries we deem non-profitable (i.e., unable to turn a net profit). Obviously there are other good reasons to invoke a government run industry—it could be that the industry involves large rewards for unfair behavior (or maybe just an industry in which getting away with cheating is easy), in which case we would tend to prefer a regulatory group, independent of profit (and ideally independent of motive beyond our interests), to monitor, discourage, investigate, prevent and punish companies treading in the unfair area of behavior that are detrimental to our society. I would typically put insurance, and healthcare, near the top of the list, along with education and other well-being related industries. There are two reasons, first, like stated above, that these are industries without much profit, with great benefits from cheating, and for which the main focus is not mutual improvement of the provider and the customer, but rather solely improvement of the customer (yes, we'd all like better doctors and better teachers and better insurers, but we don't tend to think that these industries should exist for profit, so much as they should exist for human benefit). Second, because the products of these industries are all beneficial to the entire society—we all benefit when the average child is better educated, we all benefit when less of us suffer disease less often and/or less severely (insurance follows directly from that). How about this for government-run health care: consider that health insurance is basically a bet between two parties, the insurance company, betting you will be fine, and you, betting you will not. Now just like any other betting scheme, there are three possible distributions of the odds: either the bet is in your favor, the bet is perfectly equal, or the bet is not in your favor. In the case of insurance companies, if it was anything other than "not in your favor", they wouldn't be profitable! That doesn't necessarily mean the true odds of the basic concept of health (or life) insurance aren't in your favor, it just means that the overall odds of the company's strategy, providing insurance to you and many other people, is in their favor. It's exactly like a casino: if the odds weren't in their favor they wouldn't be a business. Stake limits and rules are all designed to ensure that the casino remains profitable, and insurance companies must be the exact same way. The only alternative reminds me of an SNL sketch for "<a href="http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/first-citywide-change-bank/229045/">the change bank</a>", where you can exchange coins and cash and any combination of the two. And when asked how they make money the man replies confidently: <i>volume</i>. Back to seriousness, the insurance companies are obviously making money (any NPO insurance companies out there?), which means the bet is obviously balanced in their favor, which means that the industry is no longer centered on our well-being! Help me! Show me the way! Please! (And I'm serious, I really must know how these conclusions are arrived at.)<br /><br />100 questions, 170 minutes. And these are hard physics questions, so 1.7 minutes might be only 0.7 minutes after you have comprehended the question. (The <a=href"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRE_Physics_Test#Major_content_topics">topics list is very intimidating</a>!) Though if I can answer ~45-50 of them correctly, and not answer many incorrectly, then I will have done very well. So I should really give myself more like 3, or maybe 4 minutes per question. Maybe I should train myself to "feel" 3 minutes pass. On an episode of The Office I watched with Corey the other day, Jim trained Dwight to want altoids whenever his (Jim's) computer rebooted (like Pavlov's dogs). It made me wonder if I've trained myself to react to me alarm (on my phone) in a specific way in the morning (hit snooze a bunch). Though I suppose thats very typical and maybe I was just feeling like that was an important idea because I was half-asleep this morning while doing that and thinking all this (a good time to be wrong about the profoundness, or even the basic coherence of an idea).<br /><br /> What sort of original grammatical errors do you think persist in the bible? Seriously, how many books that long do you think could have not a single grammatical error? Especially considering the retranslations and more than a millenia of hand written and word of mouth passing along. Assuming any of that stuff was real in the first place (which I have no reason to think anyway), it seems extremely unlikely that whatever survived 2000-3500 (or maybe only 2500) years of the game telephone by people who couldn't figure out Maxwell's law of induction, Newton's universal law of gravitation, Darwin's theory of the Origin of the Species, Copernicus's theory of the Heliocentric Solar system, condoms reduce risk of HIV, and so on. Honestly, we're better off just outright betting against the statements of religious authority, based on simple probability.<br /><br />This is maybe an interesting thought. Regarding relationships, I think I have been right about when a girl likes me, and wrong about when a girl likes me, as well as right about when a girl does not like me. But I don't think I'm ever really wrong about when a girl does not like me. That is, I don't think I've ever assumed a girl didn't like me that actually did. Or at least not since 7th grade. Though obviously I have no real clue. And worse, I think I might be wrong myself.<br /><br /><br />6·25·09<br />"Unlike humans, chromosomes can't betray, deceive, or willfully lie. The truth is all they state."<br />Though, knowing just a little bit too much about biology completely ruins this moment. What if he was a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimerism">chimera</a>? Then both the test could be correct and yet the conclusion could be wrong. Is it unlikely? Sure. Is it impossible? Far from it. Impossible, like infinity, is very, very far away. But the doctor, if he had known, should have stated this possibility, however unlikely it may be. Of course there are other physically realizable situations as well. I find it interesting that many of the bible's statements about jesus aren't really physically impossible. Immaculate conception, though highly unlikely, is not entirely impossible in humans (though I suppose to produce none-genetically identical offspring may be even more unlikely; that is, typically asexual reproduction would result in a clone, which would be female.) Though can we conceive of a physically possible situation which could result in this? Sure! We could just invoke chimerism again, in combination with asexual reproduction, we could chalk it up to the miscommunications, it could be a variety of additional genetic disorders that resulted in the mother carrying a Y chromosome as well, or in the offspring expressing male phenotypes, and probably a large number of things we don't yet know!<br /><br />I can't pick fights with strangers. I need someone who I think actually deserves getting beat up. I'm comfortable with the idea that I deserve getting beat up, but not whoever it is that will mostly beat me up.<br />"Where did you come from, angel? How did you know, I'd be the one?"<br /><br />Today on my way home from work, I wondered, why do humans have emotions? I've always assumed emotions are a natural mechanism to instill responsibility to care for young, or for various other reproductive reasons (as is ultimately true about everything). But suddenly it really strikes me hard—is there a good reason that humans couldn't have evolved from our less intelligent ancestors completely devoid of emotion? My first thought was: isn't it reasonable to imagine an intelligent species caring for it's young and making parenting bonds (and whatever else is required for successful reproduction and rearing of young), where they care for their young out of purely logical reasons? And I thought that was reasonable, but maybe I was very tired (after all, I did take an hour long nap on my way home). Now that I reconsider it, that is not very reasonable; it requires logic, it requires a lot of insight into the future, it involves cognitive processes far beyond the capabilities of even our more human ancestors (let alone the apes we came from). Many of the emotional artifacts we possess are implemented in much less sophisticated life forms as well. If I recall correctly, voles even have complex relationships, with monogamy and cheating and all sorts of the complex relationship issues humans typically experience as well. <br /><br />"find your own hole to crawl into. Mine's full."<br /><br />The process: god will punish you if you break his rules —> god loves you and will forgive you for you mistakes/guilts/deviations —> god might not intervene/interfere with our lives, but he created us and loves us and is good/just/right —> god must exist because without him we wouldn't know right from wrong —> god is obviously inherent in everything, from the beauty of our bodies to the unbelievable intricacy we observe in all living things —> god might not be a person but it must have created the universe (cause what else could?), and he must have tuned it just right so that we would come into existence —> god = the mysterious and fundamental rules of the universe (deism & pantheism, rather than some human-like entity) —> god might not exist at all, and maybe isn't needed to be moral or good, but at least the belief in god has led to good stuff (fear of punishment leading to good behavior, comfort of a grand forgiver resting your nerves over other's guilt, etc. for each subsequent step) —> god does not exist, it is not needed for acceptable moral structure, and he has not done good. To the contrary, at every step of our intellectual evolution it has stood in the way of progress. Unnecessary guilt, escape from responsibility, inadequate answers to exciting, important and productive questions, unnecessary conflict, certainty where there should be none, destruction on nearly every scale ever experienced; it is time we inoculate our species from this grand disease.<br /><br />Where does the word god come from? Does it predate english? (Because english isn't that old.) Oh, thank you wiktionary:<br />Etymology<br />From Middle English, from Old English god (“supreme being, deity”), Old High German got (a rank of deity) originally neuter, then changed to masculine to reflect the change in religion to Christianity, both from the Proto-Germanic *ǥuđa-, *ǥuđan, from the Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰuto- (“that which is invoked”), from Proto-Indo-European *ǵhau- (“to call, to invoke”) or * *ǵheu- (“to pour”). Not related to the word good.<br /><br />Ha ha, not too surprising that the word god is not related to the word good—after all, how could it be, with all the horrible shit that god was associated with until recently? (And in my opinion, as much now as ever.) <br /><br />But how did YHWH of the ancient Israelites (allegedly) come to be god? I once objected to our money using the word god, when many religions don't call it that, and since I'm an atheist, I find it somewhat excluding of me... the response I got was that `god' is referring to the same thing for all those people; regardless of what they call it, it's the same thing. (Of course, this still excludes atheists, who outright deny, or highly doubt the existence of such a thing, though I still maintain even overlooking us non-believers, it is a highly biased statement, and should be removed, LET ALONE my own perspective on the matter.)<br /><br />Let alone.<br /><br />It appears I have been experiencing <a href="http://wordie.org/words/hypographia">hypographia</a> lately. At least to a minor degree.<br /><br />``Wrecking ball outside the door.''<br />``You'll have to shout even louder.''<br />``Send my cinders home to mother.''<br /><br />We train ourselves. I've trained myself to watch movies while eating. Or put on a movie while going to sleep. In both cases I am well aware that the movie does nothing of value. They don't help me.<br />I want <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roger_Fenton%27s_waggon.jpg">Roger Fenton's waggon</a><br />Dan sent me <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipy58SaIRhs">this</a>. It's pretty funny.<br /><br />6·27·09<br />I say, let it.<br /><br />6·28·09<br />You know who you are, even if nobody else does.<br /><br />6·29·09<br />The only argument I've heard against allowing openly homosexual people in the military is that it may drive out hundreds or even thousands of excellent service men and women (presumably for reasons ranging from an acceptable discomfort they may experience to flat out homophobia), but I would contend that anyone who would leave the military based on the military's policies, is not a good service person anyway. The military is entirely dependent on the command structure and the strict obedience of the person at the bottom. This is precisely the mechanism required for military personal to carry out enormously destructive acts, such as participating in a nuclear exchange. <br /><br />At what point in our culture's history did marriage proposals become surprises? Didn't ancient cultures all have prearranged marriages? Isn't that the opposite of a surprise? Or maybe it originates from even before prearranged marriages, when we were more animalistic and men just overpowered women? (Did that ever even happen?) <br /><br /><br />6·30·09<br />Well, first of all, there clearly are no such thing as universal morals. Pick anything you think everyone believes to be wrong, and you are guaranteed to find a person somewhere who has completely disobeyed it without the slightest internal conflict or guilt. From eating people to molesting children to molesting old people to sex with dead people and I'm sure far more things that I've GLADLY never even heard of. <br /><br />According to Oliver Sacks on The Daily Show, "you never lose rhythm, rhythm is deep deep in the brain... and thats a purely human thing, chimpanzees can't dance."<br />NOVA's Musical Minds, I'll have to make sure I watch that at some point.<br /><br />And it's still unknown. Just how much distance means we're on our own? And can we be happy alone?<br /><br /><br />7·1·09<br />Your skin's so fair it's not fair. You remind me.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDORjur-WpI&feature=fvw">Vortex rings in microgravity</a>.<br /><a href="http://www.travelet.com/2009/07/one-pair-bought-and-converted-church-into-home-in-kyloe-northumberland/">Neat house</a>.<br />I need to find some <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Cober/_/Words">cober</a>, cause <a href="http://www.cober.org/bio.shtml">she seems real cool</a>.<br /><a href="http://spinitron.com/public/index.php?station=wzbc&month=May&year=2009&playlist=14384">And others</a>.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox">Faint young sun paradox</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox">CBO budget outlook</a> <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0308/Is_it_really_the_largest_tax_increase_in_American_history.html">...and not the largest tax increase in history. LIARS.</a><br /><br /><br />7·7·09<br />"Permit me to be infantile by myself."<br />"If I said no could you ever be sure?"<br /><br />7·11·09<br />"I'm different than other women Ted. And by different, I mean better."<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-cgn3cEGA<br /><br />It's probably a problem. Problemably.<br />I guess I don't have so much a problem with praise, it's just undeserved praised.<br /><br />Friend: it's funny, you instilled this sense in me that if an action were detrimental to my hard drive, it shouldn't be allowed to do it, and that makes a lot of sense. Except that as things get more complicated (which computers and drives certainly are), it becomes increasingly difficult to determine what is and is not safe. I really don't know if this is true or not, but it is not inconceivable that the system is so complex that it is intractable to determine what actions are safe and what actions are not. If this is the case, then there could in fact be things you can do which are terrible for a drive.<br /><br />Shouldn't a news organization that gets <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/hey_netherlands_fox_news_doesn.php">so much wrong so quickly</a> lose it's right to be journalism? Can't we take them to court or something? <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8y5yz/fox_news_trashes_the_netherlands_for_being/">Fuck you, Fox</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.langorigami.com/art/challenge/2006/2006_challenge.php4">Completely ridiculous</a>.<br />"<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html">Sports is to war as pornography is to sex</a>"<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Myocardial infarction.<br /><br />You're giving me the spins.<br />Even at the risk of chaos.<br /><br />Now hiring partners in crime.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33825133.post-41084562818981827592009-06-21T00:25:00.003-04:002009-06-21T00:41:46.275-04:00Deprived of Depravity6·14·09 (again)<br />When I said I don't think AI is that far off, it does not imply that we would be able to perfectly reproduce a specific human individual, which I doubt will ever be possible, or even desirable. What I am saying though is that I don't think it will be too long before machines can do everything humans can do, in general, and that if that is true, it won't be long before they can do more than we can, and better. There are a few things I would omit, mostly sex, but probably some other physical and emotional tasks as well. Thinking, however, seems likely to become primarily their domain, and I struggle to see how we can compete (or if).<br /><br />You've heard me complain a lot about religion, and get very excited about science. Why do I feel like those two things are me entirely? What else do humans typically have? Hobbies and favorite entertainment types/instances? I have those too I suppose, though I am not real picky with them I don't believe. <br /><br />"You would just, spread your arms as wide as they go and say 'this much Penny.' "<br /><br /><br />6·15·09<br />The best argument against torture, one which I haven't provided, which no one has really mentioned in the debate, is this: when we allowed the CIA to perform "tough guy" questioning on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi">Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi</a>, he lied to us, and we invaded Iraq, based on his lies. Before all this, they didn't have a real good reason to hate us, it was mostly religious and ideological differences, and they were being very irrational about how to deal with it. But now? Can any of us still say they have no good reason to hate us? And if you don't think what we did (or do?) is torture, where do you draw that line? I don't know where I draw the line, but you can be damn sure it isn't anywhere near here.<br />Also <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html">not what I was looking for</a>.<br />And <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5183158/">what the FUCK</a>? Where the fuck is the media? Why haven't I heard of these things? Have you?<br />Obama is being criticized currently for government spending as relates to the economic situation. Why has no one criticized the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War">massive cost of the Iraq war</a>, which we were led into with false pretenses, with forged documents?<br />If you were wrongly detained, imprisoned, tortured, and then released, without ever being charged or tried for anything, what attitude would you have towards the country responsible? <br />No man's (but maybe a woman's? no...) stature is so great that I am willing to compromise my own morals. Torture is Wrong. And god itself could descend from heaven, grab me by the balls and promise me an eternity of damnation and torture, and the only acceptable reply (assuming I wasn't completely totally immobilized/destroyed by the ball-grab) would remain: "FUCK YOU". Because my morals cannot be altered by god. My sense of right and wrong are for me and me alone to judge; no ancient text, no authority figure, no sum of money, no religious figure can help me sleep at night once I cross the line of what I consider wrong. <br />And how the fuck can people say Bush kept our country safe, when the worst attack in our history occurred during his watch?<br />I really hope that the rapture happens, and all the asshole christians and/or jews get whisked away. Life here on the terrestrial plane would be greatly improved if the holy land were just desert, and there were no chosen people, and there were no prophets or saviors (whether moses, jesus, muhammad, nostradamus, l. ron hubbard, or anyone else). <br /><br />Ha ha ha ha ha: <blockquote>George Carlin: Another thing I'm getting tired of is when after six policemen stick a floorlamp up some black guy's ass, the police department announces they're going to have "sensitivity training". If you need special training to be told not to jam a large, cumbersome object up someone else's asshole, maybe you're too fucked up to be on the police force in the first place.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />6·16·09<br />"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels. He lives vicariously, through himself. He is, the most interesting man in the world."<br /><br />Superstition is the dodo bird of conceptual evolution.<br />Intelligence is the human peacock feather.<br /><br />Giardano bruno was burned at the stake to save him from eternal hellfire, when have atheists done such a thing? (killed to save?) Killing dissenters always has been and always will be a method used by people who have no better method to deal with their problems. Science doesn't do that, science prefers dissent, as it is the only path forward.<br />Science is the purest form of free market competition: if an idea works, NOTHING matters, other than how much it works, in practice. In many cases that means directly in the real world, while in other cases it applies to theory so abstract that the only measures of 'fitting' are entirely within other abstractions. Mathematics of course is the purest form of the latter type.<br /><br />If I ever have a kid, I should name him or her "Rad", like the kid in Weeds.<br /> <br />I was thinking, last night, while in the shower, that people, despite how much the claim to disdain drama, they don't. People love drama. It's why there are so many emo kids. It's why Shakespeare still matters. It's why shows like Law & Order and it's many derivatives are so popular. It's why people make so many strange decisions throughout their lives. It's why we'd rather be in limbo than in happy. It's why if you have a close friend who hates drama will still listen to you whine about it all day long and still give you good honest advice, instead of telling you to shut the hell up. I'm talking about friends giving me advice, by the way, so don't take offense. And thanks for the help.<br /><br />"From one fucking mistake to another."<br />"There's no wall in the sky."<br /><br /><br />6·18·09<br />Maybe sometimes I must think that if I could only understand myself a little better, a little more completely, I could fully disarm my flaws; correct my mistakes, compensate for my shortcomings; but I never change. I am the same person I have always been, or very nearly so. I'll make the same mistakes this year as I've been making since 5th grade. No matter what I learn about my own behavior and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it, I always succumb to the same situations. Always the same mistakes, hesitating over the same decisions, delaying the same actions, and producing the same results. It doesn't matter how clear it was, in retrospect, the correct path last time—I always lose the same game.<br /><br />Do we feel worse when we realize there is no one to forgive us? Or better when we realize there is nothing to forgive?<br />It's kind of funny that describing oneself as being in "a mood" is typically supremely negative while describing oneself as being in "the mood" is typically supremely positive.<br />While I find President Obama's fly-swatting skills impressive (not that fly swatting skills can even get that impressive), I think that the media attention in garnered says something negative about our society: swatting a fly in an interview provoked more news than the interview itself.<br /><br /><br />6·19·09<br />My life is full of petty regrets.<br />It is faintly tragic that virtually all humans want the same exact things, but many of us are relatively uncomfortable, timid, or afraid of vocalizing it. The Culture of Silence is cataclysmic. I don't like that our culture emphasizes breast size as directly related to sex appeal. Though my motives might be distasteful, as it is more due to my preference for girls with smaller chests rather than the more conventional objection that beauty and sex appeal should not be pigeonholed, or that women should not be objectified. While I agree to a degree with such sentiments, I think it is probably important not to shy away from my own human nature, and more importantly, to be open and honest about the fact that all of us are human. Though I have never really understood humans, and maybe I have misjudged the species in assuming it could be beneficial to be more open about such matters. (One alternative avenue would be that humans value privacy over an openness regarding their nature, though I'm sure we come in all varieties of flavors.)<br /><br />Well I know where <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse,_Pennsylvania">I am going</a> for vacation! I can't figure out why anyone would ever <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ball,_Lancaster_County,_Pennsylvania">go here</a> though...<br /><br />We are not sweet mistakes.<br />An unwelcome obsession.<br /><br />"And your whispering eye."<br /><br />6·20·09<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU&feature=channel">Peter Singer</a> interviewed by Richard Dawkins.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates">Is there any way to amend this</a>?<br /><blockquote>An Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths due to the Iraq War (range of 733,158 to 1,446,063.) Out of a national sample of 1,499 Iraqi adults, 22% had one or more members of their household killed due to the Iraq War (poll accuracy +/-2.4%.)[283] ORB reported that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from car bombs, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance. It is the highest estimate given so far of civilian deaths in Iraq and is consistent with the Lancet study.[59][284] On January 28, 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[32]</blockquote><br /><br />"stirrings of revolution are percolating in the coffee shops."<br /><br />What did I say...? (No, seriously I have no idea what words were just created by my mouth.)<br /><br />"I guess sometimes when fate knocks on your door, it has a search warrant."<br />"Oh yeah! This is something called, 'boat cleaner'... I think it's used to clean boats with." --"Give me the boat cleaner, in a needle."<br /><br />I was thinking today about how LIGO can measure something like half a proton's width (supposedly), and how to explain that to people. And I think I can explain it like this: first, build a device that can measure a meter wave, like reasonably large ocean waves (for the east coast at least). Then make it measure waves one millionth that size. Then make it measure one millionth <i>that</i> size.<br /><br />Oh, wait, I was way off... I thought it was about 10^-15, but it is 10^-18, and LIGO is supposed to be sensitive to one part in 10^21! So I need to add in another million and then another thousand... I should learn more about it so I can present it accurately.<br /><br /><br />I think I am in love with St. Vincent. And the Portland Cello Project. And Brazilian Girls. And so much more.codyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.com0