Sorry, just keeping the harbringers of silence and doom away. Anyways, where was I?
Ah right, the supposed mention of maybe, just maybe writing. Yeah, I might have misled you on that score. Everytime I get the inspiration to write, it goes into my little various compositions I've got saved. A few different works in progess. So instead, it seems like the things I keep wrestling with in my mind are what gets posted. Stories either resolve themselves and get written privately or they don't and in that case I'm stuck with nothing to write, thereby defeating the purpose of a post.
But, I ramble.
Reality. Theism. Human interactions. These are the three that are claiming chunks out of time I might have spent otherwise. Won't say productively, but they would have been spent somehow.
What, for you, defines reality? I don't mean necessarily this reality, or whatever you choose to say is your reality. I mean, what does it take for you to say that this life or plane of existance or anything, something, is real? Does it have to be tangible? Does it need to exist independant of yourself? What if it is intangible, or exists only because you pay it heed? We rather commonly accept that there is a physical reality. If only because, to date and to our knowledge, nobody has successfully convinced the oncoming semi truck that it doesn't exist while instead that person does.
So, what does it take for something to be called a reality?
The gods. Ah, what a hornet's nest. God, gods, goddess, divine, dieties or even simply the existance of the universe. Living in north america, one can probably safely assume what religion I'm typically exposed to. I don't know what I can say of the beast lurking in the murky depths of my mentalscape. It's there, nibbling at my thoughts when they stray to religion or faith or divinity. Whenever I can draw it farther out and examine what it intends, I suppose I'll make a post. For now, let's say it's a matter of faith?
As for human interactions. Humans are queer folk, I'm sure you knew that. It's come up in your mind once or twice when you observe lunatic behavior, and again separately when you read about decisions made in the news or heard about the latest out breaks of violence. It's there again when you see good comedy and occasionally at those moments when you just step outside of your established mental routine and just go "wow."
So why do we do what we do? Is it something beyond our control? Our choices merely a chemical reaction? Or are we programmed by our childhoods and education, shaped and honed by desires and experience into the entity we are today? Given that, how in the world do we really interact with others? Some choose to be hermits, others choose to be with more people than you know, let alone are familiar with. We are (generally) alone in our minds, unable to do more perhaps than empathize with others. Yet I can see how it's hard for some people to relate to other people. After all, you don't know what drives them to the choices that they make. So why are we driven to be communal, and yet also driven to be individuals?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Heisenberg's uncertainty posting
The act of observing changes the subject of observation. And so it appears that I've been linked to! Which means, I'll react to that. Also having a little more fun altering the appearence of the blog to suit my own desires, yet by making those alterations it was also kept in mind who else might be affected by those changes. At least, whether it would suit their own aesthetics. After all, the moral is that one shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but precious few follow it. I'm not throwing stones, I'm guilty of it as well even though I'd rather not be.
Personal wishes don't trump ingrained habit or the "easy" route. If it did, people would make massive quantities of money. It's far easier to wish for something, than to actually expend the effort required to get it. This is often times because the expense involved outweighs what we think of as the reward. Most often we prefer immediate gratification with a following long term debt. That way the debt disperses reasonably against the future while the pleasure is present now. These sorts of payments, though, are the ones that are most detrimental.
Which is the subject of Game Theory. What choices do individuals make for a perceived reward/cost, when they are interacting with other individuals who may be pursuing their own agenda? It's easy to say that we'd choose the route that would bring us the best reward. But there's an example of the Prisoners Dilemma where the best choice would be to work together, but it rarely actually works.
Here's the gist of it: The two players have been arrested and must make a choice of whether to remain silent about their crimes, or confess and implicate the other player. Both players must make their choice independant of the other player and in ignorance of what that other player is choosing. If they both were to remain silent, they'd be released after a minimum period in jail. However, if one remains silent and the other one talks.. the talker is released after a small period of time and the silent one is locked up for a long long time. If they both talk, they serve a moderate period of time in jail.
So, the best option would be for both to remain silent. But if they don't know whether the other player is going to talk or remain silent, the safest (read easiest) option is for that individual player to talk. That makes it so that the best choice for either player is to talk, because the other one may not want to risk remaining silent.
Game Theory is quite an interesting thing to read through. It isn't about video games or board games (though the information involved can probably be put to good use in or about those). Instead, it is about how people come to their decisions about gains vs costs. Wikipedia, to which I've linked, has a few articles on it. It is probably still better to actually find a book on it to read if it really catches your interest, as it will provide a better education than the various postings.
Meanwhile, this brings us full circle. Our independant observer recommended that I read up on it after the last post. He then put up a post of it on his log and linked this site to it. So I figured I'd do the same. And it inspired the reflections that started this post and come together at the end. If you enjoy just following the full cycle of things, you can go ahead and read from the top anew... or follow the links and find more information for yourself. Whatever choice you do, good luck and have fun.
Personal wishes don't trump ingrained habit or the "easy" route. If it did, people would make massive quantities of money. It's far easier to wish for something, than to actually expend the effort required to get it. This is often times because the expense involved outweighs what we think of as the reward. Most often we prefer immediate gratification with a following long term debt. That way the debt disperses reasonably against the future while the pleasure is present now. These sorts of payments, though, are the ones that are most detrimental.
Which is the subject of Game Theory. What choices do individuals make for a perceived reward/cost, when they are interacting with other individuals who may be pursuing their own agenda? It's easy to say that we'd choose the route that would bring us the best reward. But there's an example of the Prisoners Dilemma where the best choice would be to work together, but it rarely actually works.
Here's the gist of it: The two players have been arrested and must make a choice of whether to remain silent about their crimes, or confess and implicate the other player. Both players must make their choice independant of the other player and in ignorance of what that other player is choosing. If they both were to remain silent, they'd be released after a minimum period in jail. However, if one remains silent and the other one talks.. the talker is released after a small period of time and the silent one is locked up for a long long time. If they both talk, they serve a moderate period of time in jail.
So, the best option would be for both to remain silent. But if they don't know whether the other player is going to talk or remain silent, the safest (read easiest) option is for that individual player to talk. That makes it so that the best choice for either player is to talk, because the other one may not want to risk remaining silent.
Game Theory is quite an interesting thing to read through. It isn't about video games or board games (though the information involved can probably be put to good use in or about those). Instead, it is about how people come to their decisions about gains vs costs. Wikipedia, to which I've linked, has a few articles on it. It is probably still better to actually find a book on it to read if it really catches your interest, as it will provide a better education than the various postings.
Meanwhile, this brings us full circle. Our independant observer recommended that I read up on it after the last post. He then put up a post of it on his log and linked this site to it. So I figured I'd do the same. And it inspired the reflections that started this post and come together at the end. If you enjoy just following the full cycle of things, you can go ahead and read from the top anew... or follow the links and find more information for yourself. Whatever choice you do, good luck and have fun.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
On that matter of time and creativity..
The concept of Time and Precogs is one that continues to fascinate me. If you had a full view of the future, all futures, you could learn so much from it. You could examine your potential lives and gleam from them great answers, without actually having spent your life. Knowledge without cost, as it were.
An example: You could examine a potential life where you pursued an indepth study of medicine, and secured funding and a laboratory to experiment in. In this lab, you could seek the cure for cancer. As you would already be able to conduct thought experiments in pursuit of an answer, you would be able to continually refocus your efforts towards the cure. Each experiment that you might conduct, is instead supplanted by the new experiment using the results of the old that was never actually done. *sigh* I realize I'm explaining this badly.
In your first year of your lab conduct experiment Alpha, and learn that you can curb cancer's expansion with drug #1. The rest of your career is spent pursuing Drug #1 and how the world reacts to it.
Then... you reset back to the first year in your lab complete with the knowledge from Alpha and the world's subsequent research gains. You use those boosts to set up experiment Beta and discover a better drug. You spend your career pursuing that better drug and the world also posts its own research and development.
You reset again... still with the knowledge of Alpha and now Beta and perform... You get the idea?
So a full precog should have an expanse of knowledge that's perhaps approaches omniscience. It's still based on knowing the consequences of each of their potential actions. But because they can examine that before committing to a course of action their actual potential wealth far exceeds any. This is why, I suppose, most precogs are given either prophetic powers (Predict certain aspects of the future, but not the whole form) or can only peer a little ways into the veil.
So, what does all this have to do with being creative? I'm trying to write a story in a world of precogs. Most of the population is "normal", some of the population can peer into the future by about the space of a week before the possibilities blind them. Others can see all potential choices, but become trapped by that vision and live life little more than automatons, follow the course they've selected but forever in the future instead of the now. Two precogs are fighting over the protagonist, a simple (for the purposes of this post) normal person who one is trying to turn into a hero and the other is trying to claim for herself.
When wrestling over someone who can't see the future, against someone who can, what happens? What limits are required for precogs in order to allow the story to go? What happens when there aren't limits?
So, enough rambling. Maybe next time I will actually post writing (or free write). Or, and this is probably more likely given my trends, next time I'll post some more "hmm" questions. I don't know, can't see the future that clearly myself!
An example: You could examine a potential life where you pursued an indepth study of medicine, and secured funding and a laboratory to experiment in. In this lab, you could seek the cure for cancer. As you would already be able to conduct thought experiments in pursuit of an answer, you would be able to continually refocus your efforts towards the cure. Each experiment that you might conduct, is instead supplanted by the new experiment using the results of the old that was never actually done. *sigh* I realize I'm explaining this badly.
In your first year of your lab conduct experiment Alpha, and learn that you can curb cancer's expansion with drug #1. The rest of your career is spent pursuing Drug #1 and how the world reacts to it.
Then... you reset back to the first year in your lab complete with the knowledge from Alpha and the world's subsequent research gains. You use those boosts to set up experiment Beta and discover a better drug. You spend your career pursuing that better drug and the world also posts its own research and development.
You reset again... still with the knowledge of Alpha and now Beta and perform... You get the idea?
So a full precog should have an expanse of knowledge that's perhaps approaches omniscience. It's still based on knowing the consequences of each of their potential actions. But because they can examine that before committing to a course of action their actual potential wealth far exceeds any. This is why, I suppose, most precogs are given either prophetic powers (Predict certain aspects of the future, but not the whole form) or can only peer a little ways into the veil.
So, what does all this have to do with being creative? I'm trying to write a story in a world of precogs. Most of the population is "normal", some of the population can peer into the future by about the space of a week before the possibilities blind them. Others can see all potential choices, but become trapped by that vision and live life little more than automatons, follow the course they've selected but forever in the future instead of the now. Two precogs are fighting over the protagonist, a simple (for the purposes of this post) normal person who one is trying to turn into a hero and the other is trying to claim for herself.
When wrestling over someone who can't see the future, against someone who can, what happens? What limits are required for precogs in order to allow the story to go? What happens when there aren't limits?
So, enough rambling. Maybe next time I will actually post writing (or free write). Or, and this is probably more likely given my trends, next time I'll post some more "hmm" questions. I don't know, can't see the future that clearly myself!
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The last time we left
Was a discussion about Free will, Fate and responsibility. With a reminder to perhaps contemplate rock-paper-scissors. My reasons for this are as follows...
I've been interested in Free Will in sort of a round-about perspective. As a kid, I read Frank Herbert's Dune and loved the contemplations it invoked. The idea that those who can see the future can see the choices that others would make, and their own. Yet, they weren't trapped by their own choices. The protagonist could shape his future by exploring the different outcomes his choices would have. He could see how everyone else would decide things, and whether or not their decisions would be affected by his altered choices. (It never directly says if he knows their decisions directly, or if it was based off of his own observations of the consequences of those decisions, not important to my point though.)
Now, why was this interesting? The game rock-paper-scissors is played with an opponent and the two of you selecting one of the three objects. Rock beats scissors which beats paper which beats rock. You have a 1/3 chance of tying, 1/3 chance of winning and of course, 1/3 chance of losing.
For the purposes of our thought experiment, we'll take the world of Dune, or rather, the temporal physics of it.
Normal person plays against normal person: Conclusion- random. Neither can see what the other will throw, so they can only choose based on their own personal experience and preference. Neither person will necessarily dominate.
Foreseer vs Normal: Conclusion - Foreseer's choice. They can observe what the other person is going to throw, and as that is independant of what the Foreseer will do, the individual throw will remain a constant. At this point, the Foreseer can choose which outcome of the game she would like. The Normal person literally doesn't have a chance.
Foreseer vs Foreseer: Conclusion- Random. Why? In Dune, there was a sort of vortex that blocked one Foreseer from "seeing" another. They could observe the passage of the other (passage in time) but not directly observe the consequences of their actions. This was because the two of them were reacting to things that hadn't happened yet. In this game, we'll call the two Alpha and Beta. Alpha throws a rock, so Beta throws paper. Alpha sees that change and responds with scissors, Beta adapts to rock, Alpha to paper, Beta to scissors, Alpha to... You get the picture?
Dune pointed out that because they'd endlessly respond to one another's actions before those actions could occur, it rather blurred any action that one foreseer would take as far as another foreseer could observe. The consequences of decisions already made could be measured, but predicting the future or immediate effects were impossible.
So how does it resolve? For a Foreseer to win against another Foreseer, presuming a Free Will universe, it would remain sheer chaos until one of them actually threw and cemented their choice. Then the other could react.
In a Fated universe, I suppose it would be possible for them to observe their choices and realize who would win and who would lose, but be obligated to obey those choices. (This is an area I contemplate on the side. After all, in a Fated universe a Foreseer would be cursed with the knowledge of what's coming and yet not even be able to be more than a spectator even when directly involved.)
In a Dualist universe, it would appear to be a Free Will universe. Neither could see what the other one would do until one of them actually throws. I keep pursuing this to find an answer, and of course never can.
Maybe next time, I'll post some free writes. After all, this was supposed to help express creativity, not merely be a pretentious ramble by a bird.
I've been interested in Free Will in sort of a round-about perspective. As a kid, I read Frank Herbert's Dune and loved the contemplations it invoked. The idea that those who can see the future can see the choices that others would make, and their own. Yet, they weren't trapped by their own choices. The protagonist could shape his future by exploring the different outcomes his choices would have. He could see how everyone else would decide things, and whether or not their decisions would be affected by his altered choices. (It never directly says if he knows their decisions directly, or if it was based off of his own observations of the consequences of those decisions, not important to my point though.)
Now, why was this interesting? The game rock-paper-scissors is played with an opponent and the two of you selecting one of the three objects. Rock beats scissors which beats paper which beats rock. You have a 1/3 chance of tying, 1/3 chance of winning and of course, 1/3 chance of losing.
For the purposes of our thought experiment, we'll take the world of Dune, or rather, the temporal physics of it.
Normal person plays against normal person: Conclusion- random. Neither can see what the other will throw, so they can only choose based on their own personal experience and preference. Neither person will necessarily dominate.
Foreseer vs Normal: Conclusion - Foreseer's choice. They can observe what the other person is going to throw, and as that is independant of what the Foreseer will do, the individual throw will remain a constant. At this point, the Foreseer can choose which outcome of the game she would like. The Normal person literally doesn't have a chance.
Foreseer vs Foreseer: Conclusion- Random. Why? In Dune, there was a sort of vortex that blocked one Foreseer from "seeing" another. They could observe the passage of the other (passage in time) but not directly observe the consequences of their actions. This was because the two of them were reacting to things that hadn't happened yet. In this game, we'll call the two Alpha and Beta. Alpha throws a rock, so Beta throws paper. Alpha sees that change and responds with scissors, Beta adapts to rock, Alpha to paper, Beta to scissors, Alpha to... You get the picture?
Dune pointed out that because they'd endlessly respond to one another's actions before those actions could occur, it rather blurred any action that one foreseer would take as far as another foreseer could observe. The consequences of decisions already made could be measured, but predicting the future or immediate effects were impossible.
So how does it resolve? For a Foreseer to win against another Foreseer, presuming a Free Will universe, it would remain sheer chaos until one of them actually threw and cemented their choice. Then the other could react.
In a Fated universe, I suppose it would be possible for them to observe their choices and realize who would win and who would lose, but be obligated to obey those choices. (This is an area I contemplate on the side. After all, in a Fated universe a Foreseer would be cursed with the knowledge of what's coming and yet not even be able to be more than a spectator even when directly involved.)
In a Dualist universe, it would appear to be a Free Will universe. Neither could see what the other one would do until one of them actually throws. I keep pursuing this to find an answer, and of course never can.
Maybe next time, I'll post some free writes. After all, this was supposed to help express creativity, not merely be a pretentious ramble by a bird.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
So about free will...
The ability to choose is usually held up as the most important part of being human. That we are self-aware and can decide not just for the immediate future but plan for the yet unknown future as well. Religions often involve not just faith, but that the person choose to worship. That you exercise your own mind and beliefs to walk the line between good and evil (if such is present in your faith). It also implies a responsibility.
For myself, I have to admit I'm a dualist. Forget the pistols, dualist not duelist. I do think that free will can co-exist with fate. "What's that?!" Well, to put it simply, we are responsible for our own decisions, even if those decisions were predetermined. To put it into an example, let's look at how most people view these things.
Free Will alone usually means that you can choose your own life or way at any point in whatever suits your mood. So, if you want to go out wearing a pair of mismatched socks, you can and will.
Fate usually means that you're bound to a preset condition, regardless of how you might personally feel. So you want to go out wearing matching socks, but nothing in your drawers or closet will provide such a set.
Dualists believe that Fate and Free Will coexist. That if you want to go out wearing matching socks, you will. That if you want to go out with mismatched socks... well, you will. BUT, the decision that you intend to make has (to all purposes) already been made. It is merely that you choose to follow that path.
So, I've probably lost a few and made others out-right disagree. Let's see about providing another example. You're on a freeway, you're driving south on one of the two lanes heading in that direction. Free states that you can choose to change lanes at any point, switching back and forth at whim. Fate states that you'll change lanes 10 miles into your drive, and again another 40 miles later. Regardless of personal preference, those are the only two times you'll change lanes. Now, Dualists state that you'll change lanes X amount of times, where X is the number of times you choose to change lanes. BUT, you're only going to choose to change lanes so many times. So X is a static number, unchanging. Furthermore, Dualists state that your lane changing will come at set points. You'll want to change lanes 15 miles in because there is a slow truck in front of you. And you'll change again 20 miles in because there's a police car with sirens behind you that wants to go past. You're making those choices at those points, and responsible for their consequences, but they are also predictable and predetermined.
I'll come back to this another time. For those who wish to contemplate in the interlude, think of Rock-Paper-Scissors. It'll be relevant in the next post, probably.
For myself, I have to admit I'm a dualist. Forget the pistols, dualist not duelist. I do think that free will can co-exist with fate. "What's that?!" Well, to put it simply, we are responsible for our own decisions, even if those decisions were predetermined. To put it into an example, let's look at how most people view these things.
Free Will alone usually means that you can choose your own life or way at any point in whatever suits your mood. So, if you want to go out wearing a pair of mismatched socks, you can and will.
Fate usually means that you're bound to a preset condition, regardless of how you might personally feel. So you want to go out wearing matching socks, but nothing in your drawers or closet will provide such a set.
Dualists believe that Fate and Free Will coexist. That if you want to go out wearing matching socks, you will. That if you want to go out with mismatched socks... well, you will. BUT, the decision that you intend to make has (to all purposes) already been made. It is merely that you choose to follow that path.
So, I've probably lost a few and made others out-right disagree. Let's see about providing another example. You're on a freeway, you're driving south on one of the two lanes heading in that direction. Free states that you can choose to change lanes at any point, switching back and forth at whim. Fate states that you'll change lanes 10 miles into your drive, and again another 40 miles later. Regardless of personal preference, those are the only two times you'll change lanes. Now, Dualists state that you'll change lanes X amount of times, where X is the number of times you choose to change lanes. BUT, you're only going to choose to change lanes so many times. So X is a static number, unchanging. Furthermore, Dualists state that your lane changing will come at set points. You'll want to change lanes 15 miles in because there is a slow truck in front of you. And you'll change again 20 miles in because there's a police car with sirens behind you that wants to go past. You're making those choices at those points, and responsible for their consequences, but they are also predictable and predetermined.
I'll come back to this another time. For those who wish to contemplate in the interlude, think of Rock-Paper-Scissors. It'll be relevant in the next post, probably.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The warning after
So I suppose I should have added a disclaimer, that I might not be posting daily. I'll post as often as A) I can, B) There's something to post. Posting simply for the sake of saying "yo" seems, well, a bit useless.
After all, at the moment there's only one person other person I know of that's reading this. True, it's "That I know of." But, given that I'm only two posts in and it's only been up for a few days, no point in worrying about those who are anxiously awaiting word that I don't know of.
I've got some thoughts floating around, and I'll drop them off here when they decide to condense into an actual idea instead of the fog-like state that they are right now. Points of considersation: What does Free Will mean to you? And for you?
After all, at the moment there's only one person other person I know of that's reading this. True, it's "That I know of." But, given that I'm only two posts in and it's only been up for a few days, no point in worrying about those who are anxiously awaiting word that I don't know of.
I've got some thoughts floating around, and I'll drop them off here when they decide to condense into an actual idea instead of the fog-like state that they are right now. Points of considersation: What does Free Will mean to you? And for you?
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The start
And hopefully not the finish.
So what is this going to be? A sort of a "write by the seat of your pants" thing or a planned post that helps to sort out thoughts and create an intelligent composition? Probably a mish-mash of both of those.
Ever get the feeling that sometimes you have a bit too many ideas and never enough time/ability/mental focus to actually get them all out? That whole sheer distraction of the other ideas keeps you from getting out that one (or many) that you could have.
So I figured I may as well make this. I might be able to trap a few of my ideas, log 'em here and come back when I can work on them. In the meantime, they might serve to inspire others. You poor poor souls that are trying to read this. There was also the thought that maybe, just maybe, this would serve to help me to improve my writing abilities.
Well, we'll see what comes of this, shall we?
So what is this going to be? A sort of a "write by the seat of your pants" thing or a planned post that helps to sort out thoughts and create an intelligent composition? Probably a mish-mash of both of those.
Ever get the feeling that sometimes you have a bit too many ideas and never enough time/ability/mental focus to actually get them all out? That whole sheer distraction of the other ideas keeps you from getting out that one (or many) that you could have.
So I figured I may as well make this. I might be able to trap a few of my ideas, log 'em here and come back when I can work on them. In the meantime, they might serve to inspire others. You poor poor souls that are trying to read this. There was also the thought that maybe, just maybe, this would serve to help me to improve my writing abilities.
Well, we'll see what comes of this, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)