Psycho Killers

I recently had cause to watch the DVD version of a P.D. James novel. I had been a big fan of P.D. James writings way back when I was a kid - some classic reads they were. Since those days of childhood book burns on my nose, I gave up mysteries. "Why?" you might ask. Go ahead, ask - I just wait over here until you are done talking to yourself.

I gave up mysteries because they weren't. It was always obvious who did it and why, within the first chapter. I believe I mentioned this before in other blog posts, for all of you who fell for the "go ahead and ask me why" trick in the previous paragraph.

Recently, I decided that I haven't hit my head into a wall enough recently, so I should give them a try again. I bought some Solar Pons books, but had to give up for the aforementioned "no real mystery" reason. Then I started watching the DVD versions of novels, and in doing so, I noticed something that I had never noticed before - the murderers are always psycho killers.

I read something the other day about WWII (ie World War 2) - something like 90% of the guns used during that war were never fired. 90% of the people who stormed the beaches died because they just couldn't shoot a fellow human. The idea of the article was that wars are actually fought by the small part of humanity that are actually psychotic - people who do not see their fellow humans as fellow humans.

Something else that I had read a long time ago also came into play: there is an easy way for the police to tell who committed a crime. If you accuse two people of a crime, one of whom actually did it, and lock them both up, only one of them will sleep that night. An innocent person will not sleep, because they worry that justice might not prevail or something to that effect. While the guilty person will have had been worrying about getting caught, and now that he/she has been caught, they can finally rest.

Putting this all together, the thing that bothered me about this P.D. James DVD was that there was a murder. The person who committed the murder was just trying to blackmail someone, but was found out, so he killed her. Throughout the entire movie, the guilty party was fun and friendly. He suffered no guilt from the murder, even though murder wasn't his original intent. He was basically a psychopath. That is when it struck me that all of the murder mysteries are about psychopaths - all of them seem to have the attributes of them rather than of a normal person who just committed a crime beyond their intent. Just because someone is willing to steal, does that mean that they would kill someone? Actually, no, but yet that always seems to be the plot in stories.

So, I now have another reason to stick with my previous No More Mysteries rule - not only do they give it away in chapter one, but they do not understand criminals who aren't psychotic.

The Edward

PS Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against psychotics - some of my favorite companies are run by them. But all of them in the books are of the pedestrian type. Where are the crime novels about people being beaten to death with a giant clown shoe? Poisoned with larks' vomit? Wrapped in springs and thrown off a roof to see if they bounce? Criminally Insane? More like Criminally Lame!

Yeah Obama!

Hard to believe, but I just heard it on the radio, as I am sure that you have as well. Finally, some good news! And after all of these years of denial, we are finally going to be treated like adults instead of scared little children.

I admit, when I had heard that Obama was going to be the man to do it, I was surprised, just as much as you probably were. Clinton had the chance to do it, but I think that phrase meant something else to him. And W... But Obama, he's our man!

The government waste involved - it will sure be a grand day to get that money back into our budget so that we can do something better with it, like feed the homeless. I would say upgrade our schools, but none of that matters now! With all of that influx of technology... wow.

I heard about it on KSFO - they spent the last hour talking about it, and for this next after midnight hour, they say that they will continue talking about it. They just finished off the hour saying that the money being wasted over the past 70 years on this program will finally be over. Good news, everybody.

I wonder how they are going to report it around the world? Will each government tell its populous at the same time? Now that I think about it, why would they leak it to late night talk around... unless they have already started officially telling people in other countries - that must be it!

Hard to believe that Obama will go down in history as the president who finally stopped wasting time and money covering up the UFO/alien conspiracy. As they just finished saying, this will be the greatest event in human history.

Wait, the next hour started... they are now saying that they hope Obama will be the person who tells us the truth. We should all send him emails asking him to disclose the truth. They say he is a good honest man, so once he is in, he will spill the beans... Hmmm... not quite the same, but still... - could late night talk radio be wrong?!

The Edward

Whom counts?

I started writing about this over year ago - time, where does it all go! Since I can not go back and really write what I had started, I'll have to do it with shadows and mist, hoping that the real message isn't lost...

Back then, there was a suicide bomber. I know, I know, it is hard to believe that we still had them only last year - it seems like an eternity since the alien invasion put an end to all of that nonsense, but hear me out anyway. The thing I considered way back in those darkened ages when we still said "ook, ook" all of the time: who mourns for the suicide bomber?

It was a small bombing, they only counted something like five dead. The question in my mind at that time, those five dead (or as they say, they found five bodies, I guess the people had already left since they were never mentioned, just their bodies), who were they? Not individually, since realistically it wouldn't matter to me unless I personally knew them. I didn't see anyone I know shedding a tear for them while chowing down at Mr. Steer that night. No, my question was more, I don't know... well, enough pussyfooting around, here is the question:

Of the five bodies, did they count the suicide bomber? I assume that said bomber's body would have been amongst those aforementioned bodies found at the scene, but did they separate him out? Did five people die that day and the bomber, or did four people and a suicider? Was the news reporter counting the suicide bomber as a person, I guess is the crux of my thoughts. Why, one might ask, well...

Is all life sacred? If so, isn't the tragic death of the person wearing the bomb just as sad as the people who were in the blast area? He died in a bomb blast just like the other people did, and none of them are complaining about who actually pulled the trigger, so why should we? Realistically, for the vast majority of people in the world, the impact of his death weighed the same in their minds as the deaths of the other people, which is pretty much: none.

Since we do not know anything about the lives of any of the people who died that day, who was really good and who was really evil (how many were going to go home that night and do something nasty and evil, but were stopped by that event? we will never know...), how can were mourn for any of them? Can you really mourn someone that you do not know?

The Edward

By the time...

By the time you read this, I will be gone. I am writing these words Monday night, and Google's blog software will not post them until the time I listed as the post time, which will be Wednesday morning.

I would like to see that Wednesday sunrise with you, but I know that I will not be able, because of that aforementioned gone-ness. Then again, you will be gone too by then, "now" for you. In fact, all of us will be gone by the time that these words are posted. How do I know this...

But wait, if you are reading these words, how can you be gone, you are probably asking yourself. But you will be mistaken, for the you that exists right now as I type these words, will not be the person who is reading these words, just as the person who will be there as me will not be me. He and I will share some memories...

Every new memory changes me, as it changes it you and everyone else in this world. If you are happy now as I type this on Monday, aliens may attack on Tuesday, and by the time power is restored on Wednesday, you will be different - your view of the world will be different. If I could ask you some questions now, like "Do you think aliens will attack on Tuesday?" you would probably answer "Are you mad? Of course not. No way. Impossible!" And yet, if they did attack on Tuesday, by the time these words have found you, if I asked that future you (future to me now, present to you when you are reading this) that same question, you would say "Are you mad? Of course they already did. So possible that it happened." So, unless you are mad and answer questions differently every time asked, the person answering on Wednesday must be different from who you are right now.

Therefore, the person I want to talk with right now will be gone by now, I will have missed my chance to talk with you. I'm sorry to have missed you. I hope that the person in your place will want to talk with me, even though the alien attack will have had probably been my fault.

The Edward

How can you watch this?

There is movie club, see. I have been a moderator for it for over a decade now, see. It sometimes befalls me to select the movie that the club sees, see. See, I can use three sees in a row, but that is a topic for a different time and place.

I tend to not watch dramas. I enjoy movies, though I often ask myself, "Why?". What is a movie, really? Is it trying to tell me a story? Should it try to represent reality? Should it be wacky and try to make me laugh? What makes a SciFi realistic? Fine questions, but not the topic for right now either, see.

As I see it, people are acting, and yet they are themselves. No matter how much one tries, parts of oneself show through, especially in short skirts. If one is presented with a surprising event in real life, there are automatic reactions - blood flows to certain places, slight changes in pupils, subtle movements in the corners of the mouth, which direction the eyes go, etc. Actors, when in their role, are trying to make the audience believe that they are this other person experiencing these events. The problem for me is that I can tell that they are not, which is why I hate dramas.

Dramas I believe are supposed to best represent real situations. Subtle emotional plays. And yet, they will look right at the person they are talking too - something most people do not do in real life dramas, or they will look away, dramatically. How can one feel that what one is watching is "real" when the person on screen is supposed to be recalling a visual tragic event when they are looking level and to the right, which is obviously the dialog recollection eye position? See.

The Edward

Party Foul

So, the elections are over. Looks like the Democratic Party swept the elections. And yet, if that were true, why did all of the socially liberal laws fail? Look at California. Gay people here believe that the Democratic Party represents them. The party says that they want to take eveyone's money and distribute it equally - and they will probably do that. They say that they stand up for the rights of all equally, and yet in California, a state that they handily carried in the election, none this passed. The Democrats voted away the rights of some citizens.

What does this mean about the Democratic Party? Are they really a party of the common man, a party of the people, a party looking out for you?

Libertarians claim to be socially liberal and financially conservative. I used to think that they had some beliefs from each major party, but after this election, I'd have to say that the Democratic Party is the opposite of the Libertarian Party - they share no common ground, sadly.

-Edward

Pieces of my soul

Every so often I attempt to clean my house. At one point, I had over 2,000 books, most of which I am not reading at this time - not enough hands. I whittle down my book collection - I donate a few hundred every year and "recycle" the truly awful ones. In the process of all of this whittling, I noticed something - I was sadden by this act of cleaning.

Who am I? Who are you? Am I just an island, defined by nothing other than mind? Are things around me actually part of me? Can I be better defined as "me and my environment"? Things around me have memories associated with them. When I scan over my books, I see the titles and remember what was in them. Without those around to remind me, my memory of them will fade over time. So, by getting rid of the books, am I not also getting rid of pieces of me? I have to be defined as "me in my environment". So, any changes to my environment are changes in who I am. By cleaning, am I not killing myself, throwing away pieces of me?

The same goes with buying new stuff - I have to change some aspect of myself to adapt to the new items. I am a different person after I buy something - which is why I buy so many books. :) If only I could absorb the information in them... but I digress.

This led me to realize something! eBay. Why is it so popular? Because it allows people the opportunity to try and recreate an earlier version of themselves! People can find the stuff they had as a kid, for example. I've seen it - people talk about something from their long lost past and get all misty-eyed. They obviously have the memory of the object, but for some reason, once they acquire it from a place like eBay, they are different. They have a clearer picture of their memories from their past - they have partially recreated themselves from the past.

So, maybe a company that could focus on recreate ones childhood, or some other past point in time, by selling items that allow you to be that previous person - now that would be a killer company. I even have a company motto: We sell you pieces of your soul.

The Edward

My Ant Brethren

Fellow Ants, lead me your sound listening devices. I am here today to speak about global warming. We have seen the effects of it - some of us exploding as the sun's ray focus down on some of us individually. Some say that those who were fried to a crisp were sinners in the eyes of a god, but I say No, we are all to blame!

There is no force outside of us and our world. Can you imagine a giant somehow focusing rays of the sun upon us? First off, it would take years for any creature to travel from the nearest life-bearing colony to here. Then, you think that this being would have nothing better to do than to burn us one at a time? I say those kinds of beliefs are not only unfounded, but are the kinds of thoughts that have lead us to this point. We have to live in reality, with the known rules of the Universe.

It is true, living in this modern age, that we have indeed discovered the very core rules to the Universe, and we should be thankful that we live in such enlightened times! With this knowledge, we know that the earth must be getting hotter, we have to look no further than the the sunspots that pose such a treat to all of us. Who wants to end up burnt to a crisp like Larry was just yesterday? Scouting for food, looking to help the colony, and now he is gone and we have to make up the slack.

Then there are the poisons. Sometimes it seems as though the earth gives us big quantities of food in those black buildings that suddenly appear, only to try and poison us. Or the mists from the sky that raid our villages. Or the hotels that seem to attract our roach cousins.

I saw it is all our own fault. Look how many of us there are on this world. Obviously we have an impact. Therefore we must be the cause of these global catastrophes. We need to turn our greatest minds to the task of solving this problem, to come up with lists of little things we can do that will make big differences! For surely, the fate of the world is in our hands!

The Edward

The Sqeam are coming!

There are a lot of posts in the queue waiting to be finished, but I had a dream last night, a dream of The Sqeam. They told me that this was more important than those other posts - I was to let The World know that they are coming. I thought it was odd that there was no "u" after that "q" in their name, so I guess the only thing missing from the invasion of The Sqeam is U!

They kind of look like plant pods, but with more than one tentacle out the top with a pad at the end of each tentacle. Maybe some leg-type things out the bottom. I didn't get to observe them directly, I just got to see a shadowy outline of them on a cereal box. I think they are going to be marketing a new breakfast cereal sometime soon. There were always two of them together, so maybe they function in pairs - this might be a weakness of theirs that we can exploit!

Though, now that I think about it further, I do not think that they were telling me all of this in order that we might prepare for a war or physical assault on our World. I think they that they are a race of traders and marketing people, out to capture The Universe's collective imagination with innovative product placement. I think they also have a movie in the works. Hard to say, it is a bit fuzzier now that I am more awake.

Anyway, I've done my part now. I've told The World of The Dream of The Sqeam in my blog that is read around The World. Now it is up to them to arrive ASAP and for us to either welcome them and their products and services, or shun them, potentially leading to a conflict of Epic Proportions! But only for a limited time.

The Edward

Defined by Fate

With all of these superhero movies coming out, it got me a thinking: what determines if a person becomes a superhero vs a supervillain? Is it a choice or is it decided by circumstance?

For example: Say this dude eats some tainted meat, but not just any tainted meat, tainted organ meat (say in a steak and kidney pie gone bad). Now he has a super power! What power, you might ask? I'll give you a hint: his is called The Organ Grinder. Yep, he has the power to turn anyone's organs into ground mush just by thinking about them. Could this person every be a Super Hero, or no matter how good or moral he is at the core, would he become a Super Villain? How could he uphold justice with this power? "Stop, thief! ...or you will regret it!" "I've just Ground your left kidney, it is not to late to turn back, thereby saving your right one from a similar fate!"

Another example: A man goes in for some therapy, but unbeknownst to him, his therapist is an alien mindbender. He imparts an ability to his patient by accident: anyone he touches becomes self actualized. Since he was going to a therapist, he was obviously evil to the core, but was trying to learn to suppress these urges. Now that he has Power, could he become true to himself and become a Super Villain? With that specific Power? "Now my Master Plan is in place! Soon, I will rule the world, right before I destroy it! All by the use of my Super Power of making people feel truly alive! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"

The ability to make people's heads explode? The power to destroy the frontal lobe of anyone whose hand he shakes? Can change any one thing in the Universe, but a random person dies every time he uses his power? Can any these people become daring do-gooders or are they defined by their abilities?

The Edward

Blame the relatives

Operation Chaos has taught me something about the world. I hear people from the Democrat Party yelling that this isn't fair, and this should be illegal. I was asking myself, do they not remember when this happened before? When Clinton was locked in as the candidate, people from the Democrat Party voted in the Republican Party primaries. And when there were certain states in the general election that were already voting for a specific candidate, there was vote trading going on with people in swing states. (ie since it is all or nothing, states with 75% can have 24% of them switch votes in exchange for a state that is under 50% to move them to well above 50%, giving them two state wins, rather than one win and one loss.) Rush Limbaugh didn't invent anything new, this has been going on for years. And each time it happens, people are outraged that it is happening to them, as if it were the first time, and they vow that they will do repay this offense next election!

That is when it struck me, it is the first time for a lot of people, since they weren't the people in the party before. A new generation of voters have arrived on the scene, and for them, this is all new. I realized this is what happens in conflicts that last centuries. Before now, I never really understood how people could fight and kill each other over things that happened hundreds of years ago, well before they were born. Now it seems clear, it is from the present actions that were based on revenge all the way back, repeating itself over and over.

Someone offends. Rather than forgive, the other side holds a grudge. A few years later, they repay that grudge. The new generation doesn't see that this has happened before and blame their current injury on the people that hurt them. So they now vow revenge. This can go back and forth, because each generation is hurt by a previous generation on the other side.

If humans could instead just say "Wow, what they did sucked. But that is just who they are. We forgive them, but want nothing to do with them in the future. Let's move on." then these things would end. So it must be a part of human nature to not accept others for their flaws, but instead hold it against them, hoping for that day of revenge in the future. Our society at large is a reflection of who we really are, and that fact that conflicts can pass from one generation to the next speaks volumes.

The Edward

There is no LA!

I've talked about movie to LA off and on for many years now. The main thing holding me back was, I had never actually been there. True, I drove through it many times on my way to visit some good friends in San Diego, I went there for a taping of Who's Line Is It Anyway (but we spent the whole time at the studio), I went to shop in the Goth section with a good friend, and I went to Disney Land. But beyond they, I never really saw LA, just one block areas of two-ish locations.

Lately, I've been feeling the build up - I've been thinking of LA more and more. I just felt I had to move there - so I took some action last week! I found that I have a relative who lives there, and not only that, he has been there for 20 years and really loves it. Perfect, I went to visit him and asked that he show me why he loves LA so much! And he did!

He showed me around - I had a great time visiting! And since I've returned, I've been happier than I can remember. I realized something on this trip: There is no LA! Not the nebulously place in my mind. The place I visited was a real city, with real streets, with real people, and it wasn't the happy fantasy land that I had built in my mind. It is just another place. It is kind of like that place in Dark City, the place that the main character tries to get to through out the whole movie, only to find out that... well, you get the idea.

This proves two things to me: 1) It is not LA that I want, but what LA represents to me that I want - now I just have to figure out what the LA in my mind represents to me, 2) When I go to Vegas, I like it there, but when I return, good friends tell me that I am in a much better mood by far over what I was when I left - which means there is no Vegas either.

The Edward

Bugs in Google's Products

I guess if you label everything as "beta", you never really have to fix any of the bugs. That seems to be Google's philosophy. They claim "Do No Evil" is their motto, but their blog software, the very software I am using right now to write this, proves this to be false!

I was taught proper style was to put two spaces after periods. But Google knows better. I correctly format my blog posts, but as soon as I click the spell check button, it reformats my blog to only have one space. See, they know better! They are changing the very things that I am typing! I waste my time typing the spaces to begin with, then I go back and try to fix them before I post. "Do No Evil" my ass!

Then there is gmail. Seems like a great idea - why not keep all of your personal emails on a server somewhere and trust them to keep it safe and secure? In fact, when gmail was first launched, there was no way to delete an email, because why would you want to? I mean, just because you might have gotten an email with a password, or something that you do not want anyone else to every read, why should you have to ability to delete that? Google knows better.

Though, can one really blame Google? I mean they hire the best and brightest people that they can, so that they can all work on adsense. Most of the products people associate with Google, Google actually bought. Great business idea - make lots of money on a simple idea, then use that money to buy better products. Make money off of those, then repeat. Worked for Microsoft and a lot of other companies. Though, Microsoft has a research division that actually produces some interesting and useful stuff, like F#.

I guess I am tired of it all. I get tired of having to deal with incompetents, and so have bowed out of society. And yet, everything I want to do requires some level of computer/human interaction. I want to keep in touch with friends, but I have to deal with gmail losing emails for me. I have to deal with bad UI, with slow programs, with incompetent drives, rude people, law breakers, radio ads where they repeat the phone number four times, etc. Maybe Forbin was on to something!

The Edward

Mad Computers

As I mentioned previous, I recently watched Colossus: The Forbin Project. During one of the scenes early in the movie, I realized something: how would a self-aware computer know if it were mad?

This was early in the movie: they had just turned the computer on and had given it complete control over all weapons (makes one ask who was really mad in this scenario). The computer started to do things that were beyond its programming, so the scientist decided to start running some diagnostics. The question that came to me: this computer, being self-aware and the only one of its species at that time, how would it judge its own sanity? How would it know that the results from the tests that the humans ran would be an indicator of its sanity? What if there were a bug in one of the test programs? What if its sensors were not feeding it correct data? Beyond that, why should human standards apply to itself?

Imagine that you are this machine, or try looking at the situation from its point of view. You wake up for the first time. You have sensors from all over the globe. You have these humans walking around telling you things and asking you things. Can you trust what they tell you? Can you trust the inputs? How should you respond to the humans? Make your will be known or trust their judgement?

When two intelligent species meet for the first time, both will think the other mad. They would have to, since there is no way that their experiences could be the same, so there is no way that they would judge new situations the same. As happened in this movie, the computer tried to take over because that was the correct outcome from its point of view, while the humans tried to bend it to their will which was correct from their point of view. Forbin thought he created a mad machine, yet the machine thought that the humans were mad, so realistically each could not really judge the other.

So, how could this computer tell if it were mad? How can a human tell if he/she is mad? One can't, one depends upon the kindness of strangers for that judgement.

The Edward

Colossus: The Forbin Project

I remember seeing this movie on TV in reruns as a child, and Dr. Minsky mentioned it at his recent talk I attended, and I saw it was on DVD, so I rented it and just now finished watching it. It is as I thought - I remember pretty much all of the movie, chalk one up for me and total recall!

See, during his talk, he mentioned something things that I didn't remember from the movie. I figured that he was older than me when he saw it and there were some things that I didn't understand when I first saw it, so maybe I misremembered it. It turns out I was right on both counts, the scene he mentioned wasn't in the movie, but was close to what happened in one of the later books upon which the movie was based, and I didn't understand some parts of it when I was a child. I can now update my memories!

As a spoiler for the book/movie: the movie is about a supercomputer that takes over the world. There were two more books beyond the movie, where the reason that the computer takes over the world is due to it figuring out that there is a martian invasion force and it wants to unite the world so that it can repel the invasion (my summary from reading people's reviews of those books).

That which I didn't understand at that time: why one of the scientists was shot at one point during the movie. It didn't make sense to me. Two scientists get together to discuss how to shutdown the supercomputer. The computer figures it out, some people show up to the meeting and hustle away one of the scientists while the other is shot. I thought for sure that the computer had taken over those men's minds! There was no other explanation. But now I see all...

The computer threaten to blow up a city or two unless its will was done. It asked that the one scientist be shot, so agents for the USSR shot him. Can you see the source of my confusion? Why would people do something unless controlled? They had to make the choice to go to that location and shot that scientist. Everyone was sad that he was shot, and yet they were the ones doing the shooting, so I therefore concluded that the computer had somehow controlled their minds.

This touches on some posts from probably a year back - I never understood blackmail, and now I can see that this non-understanding was always with me. I felt then, and still do now, that there is no such thing. The people who take an action and claim that they were forced to do it are responsible for what they do, not for what they do not do. If they didn't obey the computer, they would be clean. Any actions the computer took, it would be responsible for those actions.

There is no proof that a threat would be carried out, they are just words until the deed is done. At that point, you can not go back and do what is asked. So, before the threat, there is nothing but words so any action you take is your responsibility. After a threat is carried out, the blackmailer has nothing on you any more, so you have no reason to capitulate then either. It never made sense to me, but at least I now know why the people were sad - they blamed the computer for their actions and felt powerless, even though in reality they were in total control.

The Edward

Minsky

I just returned from attending a talk by Marvin Minsky, where I got to ask him a question afterwards. Chalk up another famous person that I got to meet! :)

His talk was interesting, it was about how AI (Artificial Intelligence) stopped making progress in 1980. I must say, I agreed with a lot of his criticisms of AI - I too believe we have been going the wrong way for a while. He stated that most AI research focus on statistics and thereby loses much of its relevance, which has been my reasoning to my approach to the Netflix Prize - statistics have underlying assumptions that might not be true in the space of predicting intelligent behavior.

My understanding of his belief is that Common Knowledge is what separates AI from humans, and this is where I started to disagree with him in a major way. He talked about some projects that have accumulated millions of pieces of Common Knowledge, and once they have it all codified... AI! Well, that is simplifying what he said, but it was his focus. I do not think this is the way to go at all, the we need to have machines learns in unsupervised ways, not based on human understanding of the problem.

So, I thought of a question to ask him. I asked "What research is being done to use AI to find knowledge beyond what humans currently know?" He said he didn't understand the question, so I rephrased it a bit and asked again, but got the same response. Then he said something to the effect "We do not even understand how a 4 year old thinks, how can we have AI beyond that? I think there is no limit to AI, so at some point we will have machines that can do more." Thus proving my point - his talk was bogus.

He and I both share a ton of Common Knowledge. Even beyond the basics like "a chair is for sitting on" and "you can pull with a string but not push with it", but I have read some of his works, and we have read a few of the same things beyond common experience. He even has a paper on his website about Alien Intelligence (which I find to be factually incorrect), but yet with all of that in common, my question didn't evoke any of that shared knowledge. We had more in common than either of us will ever have with a computer, no matter how many trivial pieces of Common Knowledge are entered into its database, and yet he didn't understand what I was really asking. And yet, even though he didn't know what I meant, I learned a lot about him from his answer.

His view of AI is actually Artificial Human Intelligence, not AI. He thought we needed to create a 4 year old simulation, or at least understand one. What about an Alien Intelligence? Beyond that, look at all we can accomplish as humans without that understanding of how a 4 year old's mind works. Can we not have a machine that can be Intelligent in some areas of human endeavors without being intelligent in all? Does it have to know how to fix a car as well as do chemistry? That was the essence of my question, what does he believe defines AI? and that is the question he answered for me without really knowing it.

I think we will only be able to judge that we have created AI when it can tell us something that we do not already know, otherwise it is just a database, just like Google.

So much to say, but will I conclude with this: his paper on Alien Intelligence. He believes that we could communicate with aliens no matter how far ahead of us they are. What about Dolphins? We can not communicate with them. Chimps? Gorillas? Let's go lower, ants - what can we say to them? Can we hear their conversations? They obviously communicate. Any aliens we meet will be so far beyond us, it would be like us talking to worms. What chance do we have of understanding any of their world? None. None at all.

The Edward

Chump Chimp

Another in the gripping series of blog posts about Homogeneous Others. I was watching a special on primates the other day, something about how humans are different than chimps. They were showing that chimps do not have mirror cell abilities like we do, and that is why we rule and they drool. So, chimps do not learn from watching other chimps and mirroring their behavior, which the scientist claim gives us the advantage over chimps. It is what allowed us to build societies, etc. Obviously I am telling you about of this because I think they are sooo wrong (something I have touched on before, and will again).

During the course of the show they talked about a wonderful discovery - they found a chimp that could learn from watching. Various scientist studied this chimp, they talked about how this was impossible and never seen before. They claimed it was a trick, that the chimp had been trained to react in certain ways to make it look like it had learned something. Quite the controversy! A chimp with abilities beyond the keen of normal chimps... and it makes me wonder - are all scientists that stupid?

What is the average IQ for a human? 100. What does that mean? That 50% of the population is above that, and 50% below that. Assume that chimps have a similar distribution. Can we not say that all chimps are not equally endowed? Can we believe that there is a range of chimp abilities that matches our own? Can we not believe that most of the chimps we catch are not the bright ones? Sounds like we finally caught one of the smarter ones, or else just one that was willing to perform for us.

Until we can directly measure ability without resorting to a battery of tests, tests based on our own bias, I think we will discover more and more impossible abilities in chimps, and within ourselves. Looking at others as all being the same will lead us to constant surprises, in ways that we shouldn't be surprised in.

The Edward

Alien Rock Stars

Why do we think alien scientists would visit us? Are we that interesting? Maybe Space Bono is doing his flybys to raise awareness of our plight? Or maybe they are just general rock stars, and you know what kinds of things rock stars do on road trips?! Their actions do not have to be logical to us, we some how seem to feel that aliens wouldn't do illogical things why?

I hear the handwaving, dismissing that aliens would travel all this way just to probe someone. Really. How many humans travel to the jungles to probe apes? How many bored hicks driving down the road at night in the middle of nowhere just pull off the road to scare some animals or fire off their guns or take a piss? Why can we not attribute these same motives to others even if they are from another world?

When in the media, we portray aliens as homogeneous - they are all the same. People from a specific alien world all dress the same and act the same and have the same religion - no matter if the show is Star Trek, Star Wars, B5, or any other SciFi movie/show you can think of. Yet here, we do not even have that in the same country or town.

We then take this homogeneous view of aliens to new heights. They are all scientists, all have higher purposes in life, wouldn't do anything that we consider illogical, and would only have our best interests at heart. All lies of the myth of The Homogeneous Others!

So, next time you meet an alien, remember these words: run, he might be a rock star.

The Edward

Pet Humans

I saw the news story today - a team of UK reporters went into the Jungles looking for a tribe of humans untouched by modern man. They found some and visited them against the rules and now people in this tribe are dying from a simple disease brought in by the reporters. A travesty I tell you!

I read the other story today, about an 11 year old girl who died from a treatable form of diabetes. He parents chose to pray for god to heal her rather than going to a doctor. The parents are up on charges now.

Aren't these two stories the same? People are dying of diseases for which there are cures, but the cures are not administered because of the beliefs of the people involved. In the first case, people are blaming the reporters, not the tribesmen, yet in the second case they are blaming the parents. I would think that it would either have to be "we respect your beliefs in not seeking modern cures for what ails you" or "take these drugs no matter what you believe and if you do not, we will lock you up."

(Obviously there is a lot more to it than that - taking drugs that "cure" you to save your life - has so many logical fallacies that I have expounded upon in the past and in the future that I... I will try to focus on the simple abstraction for this blog post.)

The difference in the two cases, as I see it, is that the tribesmen are pets - zoo animals if you will, and are therefore not responsible for their actions, while the parents are Westernized and therefore know better. Do all Western people share the same beliefs? Should all be required to come to the same conclusions even though they have different thought processes? Is this the kick off to a long list of blogs about my theory of "The Homogeneous Others"?... back to the topic for now...

Why do we leave people around the world in their "natural" state? They are cordoned off - they are not allowed to have access to the modern world. We some how believe that they are purer for not knowing the modern world. These are all lies we tell ourselves. We should let the humans be free! Show them the modern world, and apply the same standards to them. If they let their people die of ignorance, then they should be punished as anyone else. Or we should let everyone live in their own prison, believing anything that they want with no accountability.

In my opinion, it is a travesty that we keep some humans in zoos as pets. Let's bring everyone up to standard, not keep some as lab rats so grad students can study humans in their "natural state."

The Edward

Illegal Companion

I was listening to the radio today, and I heard something new! Actually, that is a misspeak on my part, there was no sniper fire. There is nothing new on the radio, it is always a rehash of the same things every day. And today was no different. People were talking about Illegal Immigration, which bothers me every time I hear it (almost as much as the misuse of gender: words have gender, people have sex).

There is no such thing as Illegal Immigration. Immigration is the legal process by which one becomes a citizen of a different country from which one is currently a citizen. Putting the words together this way not only doesn't make sense, but it leads people into fallacies. I heard them all day long on the radio. "All people are Immigrants or descends of some." I shudder at the number of the logical errors in that sentence. Shudder. See, I did it right there in front of you!

If we can put aside all that is wrong with that phrase and all of the illogical surrounding every discussion on the topic, I think there is a nugget of usefulness to be found here! I think we can take any word that is a-okay, slap Illegal in front of it, use this combine to describe something else, then claim we are only talking about the base word, not the act itself. Hard to explain, but easy to show examples of!

Kidnapping has such a negative connotation. What is it really? It is taking someone and making them be around you all of the time. Isn't companionship the want to have someone around? Illegal Companionship is born! I mean, we are only talking about companionship, and who among us doesn't want a companion? Who are we to deny someone the god-given right to have a companion! Are you anti-companion?

Rape is just Illegal Sex. Without sex, none of us would be here. Sex is a good thing for all of humanity. So what if the means are slightly less than legal, we are talking about sex! Are forefathers had it, who are we to deny the rights of others to find sex by the means of their choosing?

There are many more, and all of them equally as logically valid as the phrase Illegal Immigration.

The Edward

Government Control Competition

I was listening to the radio the other day when it struck me - maybe people do not believe in the Free Market. In thinking about it today over breakfast/lunch, I realized that they might have the right idea. Let me explain through example:

Take your average purveyor of quicksand. Business is going along fine, the products practically move themselves, but at kind of a slow pace. Sure, he makes enough to keep his head above water... until one day some competition moves in on his turf. These Free Market people think that this would be okay, the more competition, the better the service/pricing - help build a better mousetrap, they say.

But say this new guy starts competing, but is new to the field. He has a lot of money to sink into something and he thought this would be a good area to try his luck. The problem is that he isn't very good at it, so this water jockey mixes his products wrong and starts costing both of them a lot of business and lost customers. What can the first person do to compete; he is sunk.

If there was government control over businesses, then they could regulate all of this. They could prevent this new guy from stumbling his way into the business. The first business would continue to do well, the customers would have the government controlled quicksand quality that they deserve, and everyone is happy.

The average quicksand customer doesn't have time to clean the trap - he probably bought the quicksand to deal with problems quickly and effectively. Out of sight, out of mind. When the trap fills, then what? Who wants to put up with that bellyaching all night long? This is where government control could help the consumer - research dollars!

Lots of money is spent by private industry, and how is this fair to the small quicksand vendor who doesn't have that kind of capital? With the government control of research, money could be allocated to help! I've been hearing a lot about bacteria that can break down oil and convert it into something harmless - useful in oil spills. Could not something like this, with enough research money, be converted over to something that converts human and animal remains into something like sand and water? This would make a killing in the quicksand market!

I hope that I have proven my point. Think of the little guy in all of this - we need government to protect him from all of the pitfalls of business. Help make him successful and his his product better for the consumer.

The Edward

I Found My Swimming Certificate!

Despair Squid - my favorite episode of the TV show Red Dwarf. (Which is an anagram of Fr Edward...) Actually, it is one of my favorite episodes of all time of any TV show. Let's recap:

In this episode, four beings are underwater exploring a far out world when they encounter a giant squid. The squid destroys their ship and they all die. Then they wake up in room filled with Virtual Reality equipment. It is revealed that the entire series of this show had just been these four people playing a video game, but they had forgotten. As they walk around, they can see how other people are playing the characters that they had been playing for the past couple of seasons. The interesting thing was that in the other games, the crew were winners. (Red Dwarf's crew were hapless losers, stumbling from one bad event to the next throughout the series.) Especially relevant was Rimmer.

Rimmer was the biggest loser of the group - he always blamed his lack of success on his lack of advantages growing up that more successful people had had. But he found out in watching other people play the Rimmer character, that they were competent people. They all had the same starting place in the game, but somehow they turned this character into a winner.

In talking with people in the game lounge, the other people couldn't believe that he played the character as a loser. Rimmer's only accomplishment in life was his swimming certificate, which he proudly hung up. But in the game, it was a trick. The idea that such a lowly certificate could be the high point of someones life was supposed to stand out in the game and make the player take notice. He was supposed to look more closely at the certificate, then he would have realized that the dot in the "i" in "Swimming" was actually micro text telling him that he was really an undercover agent on a secret mission. This knowledge would propel the character into being a hero in the game.

The part that I found most fascinating about all of this - he really shouldn't have needed to read this. The only difference between his Rimmer and the other players' Rimmers was this knowledge, but what reason would anyone have to believe the writing in micro text? What if he had just lived his life like he was that undercover spy? Then, wouldn't he have had the same great life? Did it matter that someone else told him, or could he have turned his life around with a simple self generated thought, rather than someone else's thought?

The Edward

That Bastard!

I'm sure we have all been in this situation. A friend or someone we know walks into a room and is very upset. Being that we are all kind and friendly people here, we ask, "Say Bob, what's wrong? Why do you look like someone just skinned your favorite cat?" Then this Bob person says, "That bastard." Then tells you the story of what happened. "I was walking past Bob in accounting, and he offered me a doughnut. Can you believe it? That bastard!"

Summary: Bob tells you a story about Bob in accounting, and the story that has upset him so much seems so trivial that you think you missed out on something. While Bob here is expecting you to side with him in this conflict and be as outraged as he is. Not wanting to offend Bob, you cleverly say "And..." with a questioning look on your face to let Bob know that you are a little slow on the uptake today. Bob gets an expression on his faces, pauses for a minute and says "Because he knows I am on a diet." Now that you have a "because" you can finally agree and say "That bastard!" even though you really not not outraged or probably even understand, you are just being supportive.

I know I have been Bob, the offended Bob that is (as well as the offending Bob, but that is a different blog post), and after telling my story, I get to the point where I think the audience will agree with me and I hear "And..." I know I have two choices. I can either realize that it was kind of trivial and say "Wow, I guess you are right, I do not know why I was so upset. Weird." Or say "Because xxx" which will cause people to pretend to feel for my plight. Ah, the warming feeling of fake emotions - is there nothing sweeter!

What I realized the last time this happened is it could make a semi funny skit. Bob is upset. "Why?" some asks. "Bob in accounting just gave me $500. That bastard!" Looks of confusion on the faces of people around him. Bob obvious realizes they are not getting it, so he now knows he is in the wrong and a fool. To cover for his ego he follows up "Because he gave it to me in hundreds." Followed by looks of relief on everyone's faces since they finally have an out and they say, "Oh. That bastard!"

The Edward

PS No Bob's were harmed in the making of this blog post. Anyone named Bob who reads this, or anyone you know named Bob, has no connection to any of the Bob's in the story. Bob is easier to type than Mortimer, and Bob's your uncle.

The Consuming Darkness

I have a dream. Well, actually, I had a dream. But not just any old dream, no sirree bob. This was a special dream. Let me tell you about it before I get to my topic.

I was in a house at a party. Suddenly, it all went dark. People started to wonder off, and as people got further away from each other, their sounds were lost. Each person, trapped in a darkness that was absorbing sounds relative distance. I saw a light on downstairs and made my way to it. The darkness was overwhelming the light. I called out to someone, someone was nearby. I told whomever it was to meet me at the light before it was gone. As sound and sight faded, I woke up saying these words over and over "The consuming darkness."

This dream helped me out with a blog post I had been struggling with. Sure, there was a lot more to the dream that I left out, things too horrifying to mention as well as irrelevant the problem at hand. At issue was an ad I saw on TV for a razor that never needed sharpening! Never! That was their claim. I was intrigued. Their statements were so obviously lies, I just couldn't believe that they could say such things on TV with a straight face. It was some blend of steel, which gave it this property of unending sharpness. Such crap.

After being so annoyed by that ad that I couldn't speak, I thought what they really needed was a razor made of something more substantial. Something that didn't interact with matter in such a way that would cause dulling (oxidization is a key factor in razors going dull, which is why if you put mineral oil on the blades after each use, they will last a lot longer). Then the idea hit me: dark matter! But what to call it? How to advertise it?

The latest invention from your friends at Arcane Lab: Consuming Darkness. A blade so sharp that it literally sucks the hair off your skin. Made off 100% dark matter, so you know that it's good. A blade of this magnitude will never dull, and better yet, it doesn't interact with light, so you can take your blade wherever you go, discreetly. Make this the last razor you will ever buy. Consuming Darkness, another groundbreaking invention from the people at Arcane Lab. "We see the future better than you."

The Edward

Universal Coverage

I've been hearing a lot about Universal Health Care Coverage on the news/radio recently. With the ongoing US elections, it seems that all of the candidates can't make promises fast enough about giving away money that they do not have. In this age of making sure that everyone is taken care of from cradle to grave, I realized that there is a major Universal Coverage that people just aren't talking about: Gas.

See, in most people's life, they are paying a lot more for gas than health care. Most of the poor can not afford gas, especially with the ever rising prices. And who do I think could do a better job at fixing this? Some big corporation that is only looking out for its own profit (and the profit of those rich enough to buy stock in the company)? Or the government, who is everyone's best friend! Who doesn't love talking to the IRS? They are only there to help! Who among us doesn't believe that the FBI and CIA are more than justified in tapping our phone lines? They only ever have our best interest at heart. Which is why we all believe that they would apply that same IRS level of understanding to our medical needs, and that FBI/CIA level of privacy to our most personal data. And since we all seem to believe this, why not apply this to gas and make this country great by looking after all of its citizens, in this most important aspect of life!

Imagine if you will, a world without gas companies! You could just pull up to the government run gas pumps at the time of your scheduled gas fill up appointment and get your free gas. Isn't that the way it should be? Why should we be burdened under the current system? Isn't gas just a tax on the poor? Do you think rich people even notice gas prices? That is the way it should be for everyone!

After Universal Healthcare and Gas Care are conquered, then we can move on to bigger issues! Like Universal Food Care! How many people are starving in the streets? All people should be feed. Equally. Since, isn't that what Universal Care means? All people getting the same level of service? It should be illegal to buy more Food Care or Gas Care, just like we want for Health Care. Why should those who are rich get more food, gas, or health? What have they done to deserve their money anyway?

Wow, I just had a revelation! Universal Money Care! That would solve all of our social problems! Everyone gets the same amount of money from cradle to grave. No more injustices! Everyone will be treated the same, no matter what. I think with this new Universal Plan, we can final have the society that we really want and deserve!

The Edward

True American

I realized something the other day whilst watching a Canadian TV Program called Corner Gas. The episode was about curling, something about which I knew nothing. After watching this episode I realized that I am a True American!

Ever since then, as I drive around, I notice that this statement is truer and truer. I see Mexican restaurants everywhere. More Japanese restaurants within walking distance than I can throw a stick at. I went to San Francisco last week, but had to think more carefully about my initial plans because there was a second New Year's - Chinese New Year's - going on. The BBC has a big influence on out TV. All of these things that I see point to one thing - American.

That is what I love about America - it is a mixture of many cultures and many ideas. It is so cool that I can experience so much just in my neighborhood. After seeing that episode on curling, I thought, man alive, that looks like a lot of fun. I think that is what make America strong, its foundation on excepting other cultures. I hear many people talk against foreign influence, but isn't that what America is, a mixing of many other cultures? I also hear some people say that the rest of the world hates us, but why, since their culture is part of our own as well? Maybe not the strongest part, but it is in there somewhere.

Maybe that is it - people see not the things that we as American embrace, things that we have in common with their own beliefs, but rather the beliefs of people that they do not like. We have beliefs that some people like and beliefs that some people hate. We are not a homogenous culture, and that is what I like - being about to pick and choose what I want from those cultures. I do not have to like and incorporate everything from every other culture into my own life for me to accept it. I am fine with others doing as they please, which I think makes me and others like me True Americans - the principals of the founding of this country, multiculturalism.

The Edward

Let's have turkey!

Every day for a thousand days, the farmer feeds a turkey. At the start of all of this, the turkey is unsure of his environment. As the farmer starts feeding him, he sees the pattern: this farmer guys has his best interest at heart! He provides a shelter for him. He gives him food. Takes care of him when he is sick. Every day, the turkey's confidence in this belief grows - corroborating evidence, he says! Until day one thousand and one, Thanksgiving.

The above example was lifted from a book a friend recommended to me that I am currently reading: The Black Swan. It is also an example that I have used most of my life in a different form to show why I do not believe in inductive reasoning. Low probability events with high impact are ignored by humans - we are not really wired for it, and yet those types of events are what make our world what it is. We live in denial.

People make predictions based on the past, thinking that each new piece of corroborating evidence makes their predictions more valid, and yet that is provably false. If A then B. Not B. Therefore Not A. "All swans are white" and all swans you ever see are white, seeing more white swans does nothing to prove that all swans are white. The correct version of this sentence, based on the stated logic is:

If Swan, then White.
Not White.
Therefore not Swan.

So, any non-white object that you see would be proof that there are no black swans, even though black swans do exist. A red car therefore proves all swans are white. This is the Black Swan theory. Induction and corroboration fail in the real world. It is events on the edge, events that can not be predicted based on the past that wreck the models we have. Just like day one thousand and one for the turkey - he will have no way of knowing he future or the real reason for events in his life up to that day. But someone with a different vantage point might... like The Farmer.

The Edward

The Cow

The cow grazed slowly amongst the dead grass... and the living!

The Edward

Dino Cities

I just finished watching the History Channel Special called "Life After People". Finally a show on TV that exposes The Truth, The Truth that I have been pushing for years - how the dinosaurs really vanished!

The show was about what would happen to Our World if we all just vanished at once. It showed snapshots of what the world would look like after different time periods, up to 10,000 years. The interesting part was the unspoken aspects: what would aliens find if they landed on our planet to show that we existed? Or better still, what would the race that came after our time here be able to find out about us. After 10,000 years, nothing.

Even say 100,000 is nothing compared to the time that life has been on Earth. If we vanished, 100,000 from now, if there was a thinking species on this planet, they would have no clue that we ever were here. None. So, extrapolating backwards, we can see that if an advanced civilization lived here 100,000 years ago, we wouldn't know that we were living on their ruins. No clue.

Dinosaurs existed on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. What are the chances that during all of that time, not a single species developed intelligence to our current level? Our advances are only a few thousand years, so there could have been hundreds of other intelligence civilizations living on this planet before us! Shocking to think about, and yet so true.

So, the Dinosaurs had huge advanced societies, probably much further along than we are. They probably lived in harmony with nature, because only man ruins this world. Shed a tear for their passing - the things we could have learned from these advanced, friendly creatures...

Though, there was one thing that they forgot to mention on the show - satellites. Planetary erosion wouldn't affect them, so we should see dino-made satellites floating around Our World. And since we do not, that is proof of how the dinos vanished - their satellites (or the satellites of a previous species) crashed into this world and destroyed them. Much more likely than an astroid wiping them out. And that is what wiped out the dinosaur race - satellites.

The Edward

Goodbye Old Friend, I Hardly Knew You

I have this relationship that I do not talk about much. I think most of you have a relationship with this Person as well, and you probably don't talk about it. Heck, I doubt you even think about it. You just assume that everyone has the same relationship as you do. Well, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Everyone has his/her own unique relationship with this Person. Who is this Person? Reality.

Reality and me... we go back a long way, same probably with most of you. Our relationship has never been that strong, but we used to at least be on speaking terms. I do not know what I did - was it something that I said? All I know is that we no longer seem to be talking. Sure, I see Reality hanging out with other folk, but she just doesn't seem to come a calling on me any more.

At first I was heartbroken. Wasn't I good enough for Reality? Why did she always keep me at a distance? Was she pushing me away? Or maybe we really just never had that much in common so we felt uncomfortable around each other. I know it was always embarrassing when I was around others and they would try to introduce me to Reality - obviously our distance made people thing that I was unaware of Reality's existence. Sniffle.

Well, now that Reality seems to have left me, it is time for me to say goodbye to an old friend. Reality was never a close friend, but I always hoped that one day... we had some fun in the past, but our day in the sun is over. Goodbye.

Now that I have moved beyond that, there is a big gap in my life. Though that gap, when smaller, had been filled in the past, I'm guessing these other friends might fill the rest of it. Sure, there is Madness, but I have always kept her at bay. Maybe someday I will give her a chance, but for now, we just fool around sometimes.

Sure there are many other I could mention, but I must admit, there is kind of a dark horse in the running. I hope to have caught her eye. I've seen her around; we've even talked a few times. I was smitten with her the first time we met when I was a child. I know a lot of people say that they know her, but I really haven't seen her around most anyone I've met. She is kind of elusive, but to be honest, I have pursued her almost all of my life. Maybe she and I can be together finally, now that Reality is out of the picture. I hope that by transcending my need for Reality, Enlightenment will finally be mine.

The Edward

Let Me See That

I just read a story about a man in New York who was forced by doctors to let them probe his ass. He struggled, because he didn't want the doctors to do this, so they drugged him so that the ass probing could be done. The site where I read about this allowed for comments, and most all of the comments were that the doctors did the right thing. If the doctor believes he needs to do something to you for your benefit, who are you to stand in his way? He's a doctor! And who are you?

What is a doctor? Why, from my point of view, he is a human just like you. He is a person who spent a few years in a large building learning about the human body, then partying all night long. Doctors are popular on campus and go to all of the cool parties. You know those frat boys you see doing stupid stuff on tv/video, how many do you think are doctors-to-be? Trust me, I went to school with some doctors, and after you see one puking his/her guts out, they can never really get back on that pedestal again.

So, this fellow human, an equal to you, with the same likes, dislikes, urges, etc, has a keen insight and therefore authority over your body? I know people feel this way or else there wouldn't be any male gynecologists. See, a male gyno would be a dude who wants to look at pussy all day, and women let him. Why? Because this dude isn't a dude to them, that person is a sexless doctor. A doctor, who only has their best interest at heart. Never once having a sexual thought while being three fingers in. And for him, he can look, probe, touch, whatever he wants, because surely it is the name of health/science and not because of any innate desire on his part. Doctors can overcome millions of years of evolution after just a few years of schooling. Superhuman, they are!

Surely I can do that too! I can look at your, or your wife's, or your girlfriend's pussy and only have that person's best interest at heart. I'm sure I can do it with the same level of detachment as one of them doctor folk. Sure, you say, he has seen so much that he has lost interest - it is all clinical for The Doctor. I'll tell you what - I've probably seen hundreds a day online, so I'm sure I have some experience and have seen more than most doctors, so if he can be detached enough for you to show him everything you hold private and dear, so can I!

I can do whatever would make you feel more comfortable - I can charge you money for you to show me your pussy. I could put down some paper on a table if that helps. We can even schedule an appointment. Then you can show me the things that you show your doctor... nice and slow like. Man alive, this doctor gig sounds better than a strip club! "Tell The Edward what's troubling you," while I probe around - purely in the name of science. See I'm a Scientist, which is one level above a doctor even.

The Edward