The Mind on Fire

12.2.09

Lame little post: useful keyboard shortcuts

Filed under: uncategorized — Michael Glawson @ 2.42 pm

I know, this is not even a little insightful, and you probably already knew, but here’s a list of shortcuts for useful characters on your keyboard. Especially helpful if you need to write any symbolic logic. To use them, just hold the option key while typing the letter. The usual key is to the left, the special character on the right.

b – ∫
c – ç
d – ∂
e – ´
f – ƒ
i – ˆ
j – ∆
l – ¬
m – µ
o – ø
p – π
s – ß
t – †
v – √
w – ∑
x – ≈
y – ¥
z – Ω
3 – £
5 – ∞
6 – §
8 – •
= – ≠
‘ – æ
, – ≤
. – ≥

11.30.09

Free brain-food

Filed under: education, media/links — Michael Glawson @ 11.56 pm

I’m all about some free book learnin’. Here’s some of that for you.

TED.com – Lots and lots of free, audio or video versions of (almost all) really good talks on tons of subjects; taken from the annual TED conference. Speakers range from Richard Dawkins to Billy Graham, and everywhere in between. You can download or stream.

Libri

vox.org – There must be ten thousand free ebooks on this site, most of which you can also download as audiobooks to read. An hour a night for a few months will probably get you through War and Peace.

Scribd.com – It’s like a library that lets you just download it’s books as PDFs. I’m not sure it’s all legal though, so use your conscience.

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History (podcast) – It can be a little cheesy at times, but I now know a lot more about WWII thanks to his podcast on Hitler. Way better than the history lectures you’ve heard, probably.

Stuff You Missed In History Class (podcast by HowStuffWorks.com) – Little, 3-8 minute talks on some interesting bit of history. Did you know that 1 out of every 200 people alive today is a direct descendent of Ghengis Kahn? Yeah, well now you do. Don’t thank me. Thank them.

Nova Science Now (podcast by PBS) – Another podcast of short explanations/musings on some interesting facet of science. Niel DeGrasse Tyson is one of the frequent speakers, and he’s a lot of fun to listen to, and he’s probably the only large, black astrophysicist on the planet.

And of course, if you’ve not already subscribed to This American Life’s podcast, well…you suck. All there is to it.

11.19.09

How to read this blog

Filed under: uncategorized — Michael Glawson @ 11.54 pm

I really love to write, and I love even more the idea of masses of beautiful people panting over my writing. But, I’m a busy man. Lots of funny videos of cats out there to watch, you know. So, I’ll be trying, more than in these past few months, to write here. But I don’t want you to have to come here every day, hoping to feed your hungry mind with a banquet of my thoughts, only to find that I haven’t written anything for the past five days. The constant fear of disappointment would surely cause you to eventually quit visiting altogether. And I don’t want that. So, here’s the solution:

First get an iGoogle page set up. If you don’t already have one, you’re missing out. It’s a home page that you customize so that it has your emails right there waiting for you, along with the weather, iTunes free song of the day, stocks, news, whatever you want, all arranged neatly any way you want it on one page. It’s free, and it takes about five minutes to set up. Just Google iGoogle, and you’ll have it right there.

Second, just search for any of the iGoogle apps that are “readers” or “rss readers”. Just put that on your front page (which only involves clicking and dragging a little picture), and type in the address to this blog in it, along with whatever other blogs or whatever you like. Every time there’s a new post, the title will automatically show up there, and you can read it over and over until you feel like you’re one with me. And there’s no risk of feeling constantly deprived when you check here when I haven’t updated. And I won’t feel guilty for going a few days without writing, which, psychology tells us, will actually make me write more.

Peace.

It’s been a minute – First Encounters

Filed under: uncategorized — Michael Glawson @ 11.42 pm

So, it’s been a while since I’ve said anything here, which is probably evidence of my growing suspicion that I don’t have much to say, or maybe my fear that the world is so heavy and immovable that saying anything won’t matter anyway. But that’s dramatic and depressing, so I’ll shut it.

I should be researching and writing right now, but I found that that’s always true, and so I must regularly neglect that urge in order to get anything else done. So here’s a little nugget of thought….on aliens.

“Otherness”, I’m learning, is one of these terms that people insecure of their own identity as intellectuals throw around to signal you to think of them as profound and intelligent. That’s not why I’m going to talk about it, because I know I’m profound and intelligent. If you doubt it, just say so and I will quote Heidegger to you and name the sorts of wine I pretend to like.

I thought I’d mention the concept of “otherness” still, because it ties in with something I’ve been thinking some about lately: aliens. Now, I’ve never met one (knowingly) or seen a UFO or anything, but it seems fairly reasonable to think that there are some out there, somewhere in the billions of galaxies that are drifting around out there and crashing into each other all the time. And I have to wonder, what would they be like? I mean, there seem to be lots of possibilities, and there’s probably lots of existing examples of each in the universe. If not, they at least exist in sci-fi movies.

Think – there could be relatively unintelligent, exoskeletal creatures, like in Starship Troopers – gigantic, screaming roaches the size of large cows, that have pincers like crabs. There could be completely unintelligent, fungus-like creatures, like what lives in our sewers. (But maybe they’re huge on other planets – the size of lakes or continents?!) There could be beings about as intelligent as humans, that only really differ from us in that they have ridges on their foreheads, or greenish-blue skin, like in…well, almost every single sci-fi movie ever (Star Trek’s “Warf” character, and tons of characters on Star Wars). But we could imagine other sorts that would be more expensive for make-up artists to create, and so don’t make it onto our tv screens. They could be three-legged, or no-legged, or centepede-like, but extremely intelligent. Or they could be intelligent, but plant-like; like the super-intelligent, grass-like aliens in Clifford Simak’s All Flesh Is Grass. We normally connect intelligence and the ability to move around freely, but there’s obviously no reason they have to go together, right?

So, there could be all sorts of beings that took different biological forms. But that’s not what’s so interesting to me – the question of what they’d look like. I’m more interested in the question of what they’d be like as beings, as thinking selves. And I’m not interested in that question because they’d be aliens. I’m interested because asking the question of how extra-terrestrials would be is just asking the question of how beings in general could be. How you or I could be (given some serious changes). How God could be. And this is where otherness comes in.

A dude named Richard Kearney has a cool discussion of how we think of other beings (the term excludes non-selves – so a rock, even though it exists, is not a being because it is not a self). We class Others, he says, in one of three categories: Strangers, Monsters, or Gods. From the tiny bit of thought I’ve put into it, it seems like a good breakdown to me. (Maybe there are also “friends”, but friends are always strangers too, on some level). These categories are philosopher’s categories though, and they’re not the terms most people use, but the categories are still there for us. We don’t think using the term “other” as a philosophical category. We just think of people. And people are either equals or unequals. The equals are just people like us – strangers on some level. The unequals are either “over” us, or “under” us. The “overs” can be lovers we worship, who could destroy us with an unkind word, or parents (when we’re children) whom we depend on for life. They’re our Gods, in Kearney’s categories. The “unders” are the despised homeless, prostitutes, criminals, social failures. They could even be the lovers we abuse, or the children we despise. They’re our Monsters that we must either hide from (the murderers), or rid ourselves of (the homeless, the criminals). So, the categories are there, even in our own minds.

When we think of extra-terrestrials though it’s a scary sort of thing. They’re like the ultimate Strangers – selves from we-know-not-where that came for we-kn0w-not-what, that think in ways we know nothing about, and live in ways we haven’t apprehended. All we know is that they’d be beings. That’s it. And so we ask, on the most fundamental level, what sort of other they’d be, once they were no longer strangers. Would they be Monsters or Gods, or our equals, destined always to be Strangers to some degree, but ones with whom we could coexist as equals?

I think that, even after that first encounter, it would be hard to tell, because I’m not so sure that substantial communication would even be possible really. We don’t have too much communication difficulty in every-day life. We can get our meanings across fairly well it seems (unless we’re dating each other). Even when there’s a language barrier, once we’ve learned the basics of the language and gotten a good vocabulary, things go well enough, though it takes some time. That’s not the problem here though. If we were to encounter a being totally different from us, learning the language would only be a first step. Then we’d have to get all of our concepts in line, so that we could transfer meaning to each other. This wasn’t too much of a problem when two cultures met for the first time here. The Native Americans and the Europeans both had a similar bank of concepts – trees, water, food, women, men, money, etc. But would this be true with a non-human culture that may be far more advanced than us?

Imagine going back five hundred years and telling someone about our trips to the moon, or nuclear weapons. You wouldn’t sound like an amazing scientist. If you told people that you come from a place where people can fly off the earth, and someone can push a button and evaporate an entire city, they wouldn’t think you come from a very scientifically advanced place; they’d think you came from a land of wizards. That’d be quite a conceptual gap to cross. But imagine now going back to when your great-grandparents were your age and trying to explain the Internet to them. They wouldn’t understand at all. They wouldn’t even be able to understand because they don’t have the necessary concepts. What’s a computer? How do they network? You wouldn’t sound like a wizard, or a scientist. You’d sound like you were babbling nonsense. If you wanted them to understand anything you were saying, you’d have to try to rework everything to fit into their categories. To explain the internet, the best you could do might to be to tell them that you have a way to say anything and anyone you want can instantly see or hear it using this object you can carry around with you. And then again, you sound like a wizard.

I think that this is normally what we do with aliens. They look like wizards to us, but since we all come from the same universe we know in the back of our heads that they’ve just figured out some stuff that we haven’t, and we could be wizards too if we knew what they knew. I think talking to an advanced alien wouldn’t be like this though. I think that what makes us seem like wizards to our great-great-great grandparents is the fact that our existences are fundamentally the same, but we have a few isolated abilities that are really cool that they don’t have. We still live the same sorts of day-t0-day lives for the most part that they do, but we can fly around and blow cities up if need be. The wizard is just a person like you who can do some neat stuff. But technology is more and more transforming and characterizing our day to day lives. In a hundred years, I guarantee it, if we don’t kill ourselves off,  human lives will be so radically altered by technology that there will be almost no common ground left between us and our future selves. We won’t be able to understand impressive, isolated abilities, because the whole of human existence will be transformed into something unrecognizable. It won’t be like trying to explain a nuclear explosion to a Puritan. It will be like trying to explain the Internet to a Roman. Except everything may be that way. All facets of life.

This is what I think an advanced alien would probably be. So many degrees removed from us that clear, literal communication isn’t possible, because the relevant concepts aren’t there. So, they might just seem to be talking gibberish. Or, more likely, they’d force their explanations into our narrower conceptual framework. In which case, they wouldn’t sound like wizards or scientists, but like poets. Or like God.

 

8.31.09

For a little fun

Filed under: uncategorized — Michael Glawson @ 9.06 pm

I’ve always thought that those “pick the one that doesn’t belong” tests they give kindergartners are more tests of mental conformity than tests for intelligence or understanding. So, to procrastinate from reading about Aristotle’s view of perception, I made one of my own. Just pick the object that doesn’t belong. (Assume that we’re only dealing with primary colors [so, no differentiating between light and dark shades - there's just the color red, or whatever]).

6.26.09

Feel naked without your cell phone? Well…

Filed under: culture, media/links, philosophy — Michael Glawson @ 1.49 am

The pain you’re about to watch this kid go through is different only in degree; not in kind. The setup is this: kid’s mother takes away his gaming privileges, kid’s brother quickly plants video camera in brother’s room, and we get to watch him flip over no longer being able to play World of Warcraft. Watch before reading on.

So, what I want to point out here is this: once we get past the hilarity of someone absolutely losing it over a video game and take a real look at what’s going on, we’ll see that this kid is experiencing a loss so deep and intense that it’s maddening. The way he behaves is hilarious at first because of how inappropriately extreme it is, but when you consider that very fact, you have to see that the dude has really built a lot on this game, a lot of himself. So, when he loses it, he reacts with the sort of insane grief people experience when they lose a child. Parents react this way to the death of children because their children are the most important thing to them, and this is how we react when our most important thing is snatched suddenly. This kid is going through that and at first it’s hilarious, but it’s hilarity is telling. Not only does it tell us how extreme we think it is (and that extremity turns out to be disturbing), but it tells us that we understand it, that it sort of makes sense to us. Otherwise it couldn’t be hilarious; it could only be confusing. So, this kids extreme-yet-comprehendible behavior is evidence of the shift we’re making: a transplanting of values as we step into a new world.

Note: The video Josh posted below, as should probably be expected, contains some naughty words. So turn your speakers down if you need to.

5.15.09

Defining Love

Filed under: uncategorized — Michael Glawson @ 2.04 pm

Someone facebooked me the other day and asked why I haven’t talked much about love here, and wondered if it was because love is hard to define. I thought it was a cool question – the definition of love – so I thought I’d write a little sumn sumn just about the task of defining love, and then maybe later filling that out.

Love definitely is hard to define – for me at least. That’s because love, as a term, gets a lot of mileage, and that makes it sort of fuzzy. Now, terms can become fuzzy in a few different ways. For one, they can be fuzzy by being vague. A term is vague when it’s not quite clear what its boundaries are; that is, when it’s not clear just when the term applies. Think of the term ‘beard’. It’s a little fuzzy (har har) because it’s vague. There aren’t hard and clear boundaries that separate a beard from a non-beard. For instance, today I used a one guard on my neck. I’m pretty stubbly at this point, but is that a beard? If it is, how much less length would I need to no longer have a beard? (Or is it not length, but the number of hairs that makes a beard? Again, fuzzy.). But, for all it’s fuzziness, beard is still a perfectly useful and meaningful term. It just comes with some gray area. Love is fuzzy, but is it fuzzy because it’s vague? I don’t think so. It seems to me that, even if it’s a tough task, it’s possible to outline clear boundaries to say exactly when a person is being loving or not, and I don’t think that these boundaries would just be randomly selected (unlike if we were to say a beard is x number of hairs at a certain length – that would just be silly and dogmatic).

So love is fuzzy, but it’s not vague. It’s fuzzy for another reason: it’s ambiguous. That is, the term love can be used to mean a wide variety of different things. Notice though that beard, another fuzzy term, doesn’t have this problem. A beard refers to one thing – the bit of hair on your face. Love, on the other hand, is used much more widely. We talk about loving chocolate, and loving our partners, but those don’t mean anywhere near the same thing. “I love chocolate” means something like “chocolate is very useful to me for getting pleasure”, but that’s probably not a very good meaning for love when someone says, “I love my boyfriend”. No one makes a big deal about treating chocolate like a mere object to be used for pleasure, but we don’t tend to think it’s okay to think about people that way. Love, still, is used in both ways all the time, and in a million others.

I’m not going to be a preacher about this, and complain about people claiming to love their dogs, and televisions, and spouses, and chocolate. I only want to point out that the wider a range of meanings a term has, the less meaningful it becomes. Love is in that awkward position.

5.3.09

The world: watching you watch it watching you….

Filed under: media/links — Michael Glawson @ 11.27 am
Tags:

So, I read about this when I was in high school (<–that should be a compound word), and was just floored. I remember riding in the car somewhere with my grandmother, explaining it to her only to receive a feigned “neat“. The insincerity could only be matched by Stewie Griffin. This, then, is my attempt at redeeming that memory of the thwarted hope of sharing my amazement with others. Hope you enjoy. The end is where the truly bizarre thing happens:

5.2.09

An interesting thought: We shouldn’t always prefer the best?

Filed under: philosophy — Michael Glawson @ 3.03 pm
Tags: ,

This just flittered into my head on the way back from lunch with my landlord. We normally assume (or I would think most of us normally assume) that if there’s a real best out of a group of options, that’s the one we should prefer. For instance, if we’re faced with choices of meals, and one of them is the healtiest, best priced, most readily available, most delicious, etc., it would be pretty stupid to prefer one of the others. We might not be morally wrong to choose another one, but we’re being stupid. We’re not making sense, because we’re not choosing the (objectively) best option. This holds all the more obviously in moral situations. I’m faced with a choice to save a drowining person, watch the person drown and do nothing, or help drown them. The best option is obvious. If I don’t choose that one, I’m just plain wrong.

But here is what seems like a situation where I have a strong preference for something, but I don’t believe it to be the best of the available options, and yet I don’t think I’m wrong to prefer what I prefer: government. I honestly think I’d prefer a socialist or communist government. That’s actually a pretty strong preference for me, but, I don’t think that either of those is the best form of government. I tend to think that something pretty close to what America has now is the best form, because it allows for the most personal liberty – a value I hold pretty highly. So why would I prefer communism or socialism over this capitalist, constitutional republic, even though I think the latter is overall a better form? Well, like I said, I think our government makes the most room for personal liberty (while also safeguarding its citizens), and I think that’s the general role of  government. But, it affords a lot of liberties that I don’t care anything for (like the liberty to dominate competitors in the marketplace, hoard material posessions, etc.), and those liberties come with costs that, since I don’t want them anyway, I don’t care to pay. Communism generally doesn’t carry these costs, so I’d really prefer that system. And all that is justified; there’s no reason I should prefer our government over communism or socialism (personally). I’m totally within my rights to wish (personally) to live in such a society. So, my preference is unscathed. But, considering the role of government, I have to say that our current style is the objective winner, since it does what government ought to do better than competitors (generally). The result? – an odd situation where I rationally, justifiably prefer one option, and yet hold that it’s, in the end, an inferrior one. Weird.

4.20.09

A strange offering: sheep and wolves

Filed under: morality — Michael Glawson @ 6.51 pm
Tags: , ,

I’m back, so blogging will now resume and, since the norm for me has been that, whenever I return from a period of absence, I come back with something off-center like a poem or whatever, I figured I’d keep the trend alive now with a story. You’ll notice it is a variation on a children’s tale, but I think the tweaks hit closer to the truth of it all. Hope you enjoy.

Once there was a wolf. He was not very uncommon for a wolf. He was no taller than most other wolves. Nor was he shorter than most others. His fur was no longer, nor coarser, nor greyer. His feet were no faster, nor slower. His tail wagged no more or less, and his teeth were just as long and sharp as any wolf his age (which was not very old, nor very young). And like any wolf, it was in his nature from time to time, when he was hungry, to eat whatever other, smaller animal he happened across in the woods. This, though it was a quite normal fact about wolves, often pained him a bit for, though he had to eat, he did not like the hurt it caused for those other creatures. This pain was always a short one though, since it’s sting would quickly be drowned out by the delicious taste of fresh meat. Thus was the life of our quite ordinary wolf.

On one particularly cold day, during one particularly harsh winter, our wolf found himself having gone from one sunrise to the next and well into that day without having had a single bite to eat. He was quite hungry, and had even considered trying to eat some of the berries or roots that the other animals fed on, but he didn’t have the faintest idea where to look for them and didn’t imagine they’d be very tasty anyway. As it happened though, just as he had become most faint from hunger, he wandered into a clearing in the forest to find a lone sheep sleeping and shivering under a pile of fallen brush. Excited at the sight of a warm, nourishing meal he pounced upon the sheep and devoured  it, feeling only the faintest bit of remorse, which had been numbed by the cold and hunger pains.

After quite a long time of eating (for the sheep had been a particularly large one of his kind, and the wolf, in his hunger, had devoured all but the skin of the poor creature), the wolf lay back in the snow full and happy, but after a moment he began to shiver from the cold, just as the sheep had. Too tired to head back to the den where his warm bed of fur and leaves was, he began to look around for a place to nestle up for the night. Realizing that he had left only the skin of the sheep, he decided to crawl up, where the sheep had lay, and cover himself with the warm fur. As he lay there, swaddled in the skin of the sheep, he again began to feel that bit of sorrow at having killed, and that pain was especially strong on this occasion, for not only had he taken the sheep for food, but he had also taken its warm coat and, as he driffted off into cozy sleep, this was his last thought.

When the sun had risen enough to shine on the eyelids of our wolf, he woke to find that spring had come on the dawn. He had slept all through the night and well into the morning, and throughout his rest he had shivered and nestled himself just so in the sheeps skin that it covered him just right: head to head, back to back, tail to tail. Emerging from the bed of fallen brush, with the sheep’s clothing clinging to him well, he wondered where he was, and how he’d gotten there, for the combination of fatigue and   cold and the large meal had made him sleep very deeply. After walking lazily through the spring-warmed woods he came to a small, clear pool of water left by the melted ice. Thirsty, he walked over and began to lap and suck it up. As he drank through, something strange gripped at the back of his mind. The face staring at him from the surface of that clear pool was not a wolf’s face, but a sheeps!

Startled and confused, he stumbled back, wondering what to make of it all. Finally it came to him, and he siezed upon a great hope – it had all been a dream! All the hunting, the carnage, the lowing of sheep and howling of foxes as he tore at their flesh – it had all been a nightmare! Though he was not quite (just not quite) sure he believed it, he let this thought wash over him like a cleansing wave, and as he sat by that pool, the wolf in sheep’s clothing wept deeply for joy that it had all been a dream.

Years passed, and our sheep never again saw, or even thought of the den, or the hunts, or his life before that spring. He spent his days roaming about the hills and fields where other sheep fed and lived their sheep lives. And, though the light of every sunrise revealed a new stain in the grass, and another devoured creature, he always met them with horror, saying, ”this is the work of the wolves”.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.