Expendables 2: What's the point in that?

I just finished watching Expendables 2.  Great movie.  Better than the first, I'd say.  Although to really appreciate it I think you would have to have watched every notable action movie from the 80s.

I know people who think movies like this are cliche and stupid.  Maybe.  ...maybe... but Stallone had one line in Expendables 2 that I think really brought home why the 80s action movies were so great, and why action movies since haven't really captured the same feeling, and, in fact, why apparently it takes action movie stars from the 80s to bring it back again:

Why is it the one of us who wants to live the most, who deserves to live the most, dies, and the ones that don't deserve to live keep on living?  What's the message in that?

I don't know if this was an intentional dig at modern action movies or not, but that's largely how I took it.  In particular, it's why I loved the old action movies and why I really haven't enjoyed anything by Tarantino or movies like No Country for Old Men.

I believe the argument for those movies would be that real life isn't pretty, good guys don't always win and nobody likes cliche bullshit from the 80s.  They want it to be real and gritty with stories that have a deeper tale and

Hey, you know what, fuck you.

I get real and gritty every time I turn on the news.  Bad guys win all the damn time.  Bringing them to justice is a long and arduous task with no clear winners.

People may think that the 80s movies were just about violent killing with shallow storylines and that people like Tarantino just improved on the genre by giving them a fancier spin.  After all, his movies have plenty of blood and gore and that's what it was always about, right?

No.  That wasn't what it was about.

Violent 80s movies were about the good guys winning and the bad guys getting what was coming to them.  I'll grant that they are cheesy and cliche.  But it's a good cliche.  It's a cliche where a guy goes out, maybe rapes, maybe robs, maybe murders and then, later, gets shot in the face with a large gun.  Karma.  Usually delivered by Stallone, Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis, to name a few.  In real life, someone commits a terrible crime and maybe next year there will be closure on it.  Maybe there will never be closure.  In an 80s action film, closure comes in the last 15 minutes of the film, guaranteed.  Maybe it's not right, per se, that the bad who who murdered all those people ends up getting a chain around the neck and a knife in the chest.  Maybe he should have been brought before justice and put on trial and sent to serve his time in a prison until he could perhaps qualify for probation after years of good behavior, but what he gets is closure.

Again with the Pratchett paraphrasing -- people have to engage in the act of make-believe.  We believe in fantasies like justice and mercy and duty and "that sort of thing".  Oh, you don't think those are fantasy, just the same as elves and dwarves and Stallone always winning?  Then show me a single particle of justice.  What is the molecular makeup of mercy?  When will the Large Hadron Collider detect duty?  These are fantasy concepts.

We invented them because we believe in them.  The universe didn't provide them to us so we had to make them up ourselves.

80s action movies were never about violence, per se.  They were about karma.  They were about good guys winning and bad guys losing.  That may not be reality, but it's something I would prefer to believe in, even if it's not true, and I like watching movies where the good guys always win and the bad guys always lose.  Call me a dreamer.

Of lies, Lies, truth and Truth

This is something I picked up by reading too much Terry Pratchett: capitalizing things once they pass some certain threshold of significance. You might tell a bum that you have no change on you and that would be a lie. You might somehow end up convincing the bum and the nearest 20 people to give you $20 each and that would be a Lie. Once you step it up to a grand level, you can capitalize it.

I have known some Liars in my time. Actually, I used to be one, back in my maladjusted teenage years. I was quite proud of my ability to generate entirely plausible statements on the fly, particularly to get me out of something. I wouldn't say I was a liar -- that just implies some petty level of ability. I was a Liar. I was good at it.

And then, one day, someone did something terribly nice for me and I wanted to tell them with all available sincerity what a nice person they were. But shallow compliments are the bread and butter of the liar (and the Liar). So I got to thinking: how does one create a statement which comes across as definitely not a lie? How can truth ever beat lies?

I concluded that the problem with Lies is that they cannot be Explained.

If you want to have a Truth, you just have to take a basic truth and explain it.

Let's take a very simple example:
"I like your hair."

This could be a lie or a truth. We can't tell. Maybe it's the opening line of the common Beer Bellied Douchebag or maybe it was a simple statement of fact.

If you want it to be more of a Truth, then you'll want to Explain it:
"I like your hair. It's very chic style I understand is popular in Europe; and you've got the right color and thickness to pull it off. It's also actually a classic American style, in the manner of Bettie Page and I've always thought it stood out as a good, natural style. You stand out with it and it looks great on you."

That is more of a Truth. Lies, even capitalized ones, have a hard time standing up to scrutiny because there is no ready explanation to back them up. Lying and saying I like your hair is easy but I might be in a pinch if you ask me what, in particular, I like about it. Now I'm going to have to stumble for some reasoning and it is a good Liar indeed who can do that on the fly.

So Truth can beat Lies with the aid of sufficient Explanation.

Ponder that if you ever want to tell someone something and be certain that they know you mean it. Don't just say it. Explain it. You may well learn something about yourself as well. It's always good to find the roots of our own truths -- the Liar can never really know himself because he must necessarily shift and change to suit the latest batch of Lies, but an honest person can always dig for a bit more explanation. Truths from the heart have deep reasons with long histories. (If I really wanted to tell you the full reason for why I like your hair, I would have to start with something like, "I was born in North Carolina..." It would be a very long explanation. Lies are short lived things but Truth has its roots in beginning of the universe.)

Questionable Content: I am Martin.

Regarding Communication

Methods of communication in reverse order of how much I like them, with ratings:

Desktop Computer Text Chat (1/10)
If I made a complete list, this would actually fall somewhere lower than "smoke signals", "yelling really loudly" and "hiring a courier". Desktop computer text chat is the worst of all worlds. It's intrusive. You generally are expected to reply back quickly. There is no voice or body language. While you are typing, I am sitting there looking at a screen, trapped, doing nothing. While I have had some lovely text chats in the past, I really abhor it as a general method of communication.

Note that I classify "desktop computer text chat" as completely separate from "phone texts". The significant difference between phone texting and desktop computer text chat is that I don't think there's ever a feeling that you need to reply right away to a phone text -- it's non-intrusive and fitting for short exchanges (see more, below). Also, with the phone text you can't see that I'm "online" so there's no feeling of intrusion (or avoidance... as I go offline sometimes purely to avoid having anyone text me...) Plus, it's a phone, in my pocket. I can keep doing other stuff and just check later to see if you replied back.

Voice mail (2/10)
This is like phone calls without the personal element. Also, it is a considerable comfort to me that there is no record of spontaneous dumb things I have said in the past and voicemail threatens this aspect of my happiness. Plus, talking to a machine that is going to record my awkward half-assed "why am I talking to a machine" verbiage just to play it back later just feels weird. (If I've ever called you, got no answer, didn't leave a message and then sent you a text, now you know why.)

Phone calls (3/10)
The phone can be convenient but generally I frown on it because it's so intrusive. It's like knocking on your door for 15 seconds straight until you either answer, I give up or voicemail kicks in. I would rather do an email exchange. Unless my house is on fire or something has exploded or you otherwise need an answer RIGHT NOW, I consider a phone call to be fairly low on the list. If I call you rather than text you it's probably because you have expressed a dislike of text messages in the past and I am trying to honor your wishes.

There is an argument to be made for phone calls and loved ones -- you want to hear their voice. And some might say that "phone calls are more personal" but I would disagree with that one. How is a phone call more personal than a letter (or text message) addressed to you, written for you?

Facebook/email/blogs/forums (9/10)
Anything I can sit down and type up is pretty ideal. In ye olden times, hand-written letters would have been a common way for us to communicate if we didn't live next to each other and these new methods are the same thing without the messy handwriting(*). Like text messages, it's non-intrusive and lets me think of exactly what to say and you can take all the time you want in responding.

(* - handwritten letters aren't entirely dead, though. They're far more personal. There are some things I will still do a handwritten letter for. In general though, email is lovely.)

Phone text messages (9/10)
This might seem odd given how much I hate text chat but it's my second favorite method of communicating. It's brief, it's non-intrusive, you can answer at your convenience and I have all the time in the word to think of what to say. Obviously it's not suited to lengthy conversation but it's ideal for short, remote exchanges. Also, if I'm driving or in the middle of a movie or halfway through killing that dragon, a phone text message is something I can see when I'm done and ready to answer you.

Face to face (10/10)
This is the time honored classic and is the preferred way to talk to anyone. You get voice! You get visual! You get body language and facial expression! The fact that we are both in the same place anyway means I am probably not interrupting anything and if I am, I can probably guess it from the body language. This is the ultimate 3-D communication experience and I highly recommend it. If you really want to chat and don't live 500 miles away, text me what bar you want to meet at and we'll chat in person!



P.S.
I have yet to do video chat but I suspect it would fall in at around 5/10 as an improvement on the phone call. Maybe even 8/10 if it was arranged ahead of time. Perhaps by text message. Rather than meeting you at the bar, I'd just be meeting you on Skype. Presumably we would bring our own beers.

This is great! ...where are we going?

[ramble]

My first computer was a TI-99/4A. I think my dad bought it because he was interested in the electronics -- the hardware. I never did gain much interest in that aspect. I loved the software. Here was a device that could do....anything. Its chief limits are your imagination, your skill, your patience, your ability to focus, your problem solving and logic and its speed. It can't fly you to the moon but it can simulate it. (It can fly you to the moon, too, but you'll have to invest in some extra hardware.)

In a way, it must be daunting to get into computer programming now. The TI-99/4A came with BASIC and an instructional book. These days you'll need to go out and buy your own book, and possibly buy an expensive development environment to go with it, and while the languages are far more powerful, they are far more complex. I wonder if the ratio of programmers-to-non has changed much in the last 20 years. Are there more, because the technology is so pervasive, or are there less, because the bar is so high now?

In the 7th grade, I could sit down and write a text adventure game that was just as good as the text adventure games sold in stores. These days nobody would want such a game, and the games they do want are much harder for one person to make. You can easily spend more time on the creation of the graphical elements than on the programming to drive them. I suppose the lesson is that these days, you can't be a solitary geek in your basement. You at least need several geeks, preferably one that's a pro at computer artwork and one that's a pro at sound effects and music, in addition to the whizbang coder.

And then, of course, we are in a global network now. Whatever application you can think of, someone has already written it. In fact, there will be a hundred of them. I can practically feel my motivation for creation draining away in the face of the complexity of the task, the art and sound which takes a lifetime of talent in fields I've not pursued, and the the thought that at the end, I just have one more needle in the pile of needles.

I wonder where the youth of today will find their motivation.

But every great inventor needs to start somewhere. At some point you just have to do things for yourself. The needle may get lost in the stack of needles, but it's your needle. You invented it. You understand how it was made and from that you learn how to make your next needle. Which will also get lost in another stack.

Modern networking may help us collaborate and make even greater things, but a collaboration of unskilled idiots isn't going to produce anything. You at least need a collaboration of competent novices, and the road to competent novice, perhaps in a bit of irony, requires you to be able to shut out the network and learn things for your self. How else will you develop enough competence to collaborate with?

[/ramble]

Music, professor.

Music.

I like primarily two broad categories:
a) Music with lyrics that speak to me in some personal way
b) Deeply layered music


a) Lyrics:
I love defiance in my lyrics. Defiant lyrics got me through high school, college and pretty much most of my life. When there's sadness or anxiety, I can either find music that fits and tends to amplify my mood, which I do sometimes, or I can find something good and defiant to basically brute force my mood back on track.

For example, there is Front 242's "Animal". It's techno (I guess). More on that in section b. A snippet of lyrics:

It's always the same
It's not easy to keep myself contained
Sit back and relax
How can I when I'm going down in flames?
'Cause all you do is break me
And put me
You put me in a cage
When I look in the mirror
All I can see
A zoo animal that wants to be free
Just get away, get away from me
'Cause I'll never be who you want me to be

Nothing says, "I'm not going to buckle to the shallow whims of society" like a song that involves shouting "I'll never be who you want me to be".

Really, the whole message of the lyrics doesn't have to speak to me, or even entirely make sense (I've decided it's a lot to hope for to have an entire song that makes sense). I just need a little something that perks my ears up and speaks to me in some way. You'd think that this would be a loose enough requirement that I'd like just about anything but really, most songs just don't speak to me at all.

In a similar vein, for a sample of melancholy mood enhancing, I shall direct your attention to Tegan and Sara's "Call It Off": YouTube

Maybe I would'a been something you'd be good at
Maybe you would'a been something I'd be good at
But now we'll never know

Kinda gets ya right there, doesn't it? Well it gets me right there, anyway.

"Lyrically significant" songs like these come and go off my playlist as my mood varies (or, more likely, as I play them to death) but they're always somewhere handy. They say something to me. Musical style is almost irrelevant to me when the lyrics are good and well delivered. I will listen to heavy metal, country music or garage bands if the lyrics hit me just right. (Incidentally, I really like Dethklok. Basically a heavy metal parody band. Listen to "The Lost Vikings" sometime, but pull up the lyrics first because you can barely understand what he's saying. The summary is that it's a metal song about a group of vikings who ride forth to battle, get lost and refuse to ask for directions. Like I said, I'll like just about anything if the lyrics catch me somehow. Humor works.)


b) Layered music
I don't know proper musical terms so I'll just introduce you to my own.

What I'm calling a "layer" is basically an instrument. If you have 2 guitars and a snare drum, you have 3 layers. I tend to love orchestras because the music is deeply layered. The closer you listen, the more you hear. You can focus on just the strings or just the brass or just the violins in the string section, etc. Layers and layers of music -- you can hear the same song 10 times and get a little something new out of it each time, depending on where you decide to focus, or not focus.

Good techno is like that. I say "techno" because I am from the 90s but I suppose broadly speaking I really just mean electronic music, which tends to allow the composer to create as many layers as he feels he needs. The good artists are into deep layering, so the more I listen, the more I can hear.

Back in the day, it was Front 242 that was my favorite. Old Front 242. Anything from the "05:22:09:12 Off" and previous releases. (Later Front 242 is, frankly, crap.)

Front 242 is to the ear as beer is the palette. I admit it's probably an acquired taste. Just like beer can hit the tongue in interesting ways -- an offset to the doldrums of sweet drinks -- so too can Front 242 hit the ear in interesting ways -- an offset to standard musical instruments and formats. I like it a great deal.


I'm not opposed to pure instrumentals if the music is interesting enough. I like a simple song played on a guitar with good lyrics, too. But my absolute favorites always combined lyrics and layered music.

I'm going to put it on the line and suggest that my all time favorite song is actually Front 242's "Crapage" from their "06:21:03:11 Up Evil" album. There are some who may openly scoff at this choice, and to them I say, "Hey, fuck you, you fucking son of a bitch, I'll kill you."

It is layered, full of interesting sounds that tweak the ear, and the lyrics speak volumes to me. Sadly, I cannot recommend a YouTube link for this because it's all crappy versions. The live version of this song is awful. I weep for the massacre of this fantastic song in the live version. You'll just have to get it from Amazon or something. Lyrical high points:

Always ready for another go
Always going for another round
Volunteering for a better try
And preparing for a clever slide

You -- you are kinder than the kind.
You are milder than the mild.

Still, I believe you're gonna hold them tight
I can see you're trying to crush them now
I can feel you're gonna win

Always ready for another start
Always going for another round
You -- you are perfect all the time.
You must please the public line
You -- you are kinder than the kind.
You are milder than the mild.
You are clean in every way.

Still, I believe you're gonna hold them tight
I can see you're trying to crush them now
I can feel you're gonna win

What is there to run for?
What is there to shout for?
What is there to combat?
What is there to push back?

I've always seen this song as being damn close to my view of myself. I am the Nice Guy. When people start sentences with "he's a nice guy, but", they are talking about me. "Perfect all the time" -- not so much a declaration of fact as a statement of eternally unreachable goal and a source of endless torment.

But I feel it should probably be known that I am a nice guy because I choose to be. There are other options. It's not a fear of the law or God or public embarrassment that makes me be the the Nice Guy. I don't expect anything out of it and in fact have a long history of getting nothing out of it. I don't need a sense of power or righteousness. I am the Nice Guy because that's how it's supposed to be. In the ideal universe, this is simply how humanity works. I could alter the orbit of planets easier than I could uproot this idea.

But niceness isn't the same thing as meekness. I choose to be nice because it's how I think things should be, and while I can't change the universe, I can change the bit of it that consists of me. People like me can tend to be ground down in the long run. Ground down by failures, mishaps, mistakes, rudeness, outright human douchebaggery and other pitfalls. Still, I'm going to hold my view of the universe tight. I'm going to crush the forces that work against me. I can feel I'm going to win. There are things to run for. There are things to shout for. There are things to combat. There are things to push back. And I'm always ready for another go.

If It Bleeds, We Can Kill It

I need to log this in my Registry of Life Philosophies: "if it bleeds, we can kill it!"

Technically this was said by Schwarzenegger's character in Predator in response to an unseen monster that was killing everyone, but had been apparently injured: it bled, ergo, it can be killed.

I decided this is actually a great metaphor for all of life's problems.

Which is to say, given a problem, no matter how insurmountable it may seem, all I need is the tiniest bit of progress on it to make me think that I can eventually get through the whole thing. If it bleeds, I can kill it.

See also:

Mini-heroes

Superheroes...

They leap tall buildings in a single bound, deflect bullets with their eyeballs, etc, etc. They make great action movies.

The problem with superheroes is that they are expected to be heroic. When you can deflect bullets with your skin and shoot lasers from your eyeballs, it's fairly expected that you can maybe stop a murder in progress. When your character is a karate champion, it's expected that you will kick the ass of all the bad guys. Kicking the ass of bad guys is to a superhero as eating a cheese sandwich is to normal people. It's just something you do sometimes. It's an event that's hard to applaud.

So I've always preferred what I tend to think of as the "mini-hero". Sub-hero? Small hero? These are usually the background characters who tend to die for the sake of showing that the main character might be in some sort of danger. They don't have superpowers. They aren't especially good shots. They don't have laser eyeballs or armored skin or the power of teleportation. They woke up, maybe took a shower, put their pants on one leg at a time and went out and did the best they could.

I love mini-heroes. Probably to an odd extent.

One of my favorite scenes from the new Star Wars movies was where Padme fell from some troop transport. It took a hit or something and listed to the side and dumped Padme and some anonymous clone trooper. Typically, in this sort of situation, the main character is fine and the background character manages to break his neck or get eaten by a sandworm or something. In this case, though, the clone trooper actually got up and helped. I nearly stood and applauded the cinematic genius of this but I supposed that would be rude. I love it when background characters, who are ostensibly supposed to be competent, actually get to be competent. I realize the focus of the movie is the main character and all that but I really like it when a background character can do well.

It's almost to the point where I get disappointed to read a new book and discover that the main character has a secret power of summoning dragons or throwing fireballs or shooting people in the eye while diving sideways from 50 meters. Ah well, yes, latent superpower and all that. I suppose he'll be kicking ass then. Probably got a ring that makes him invisible, yes? Turns out he's a wizard and so forth, am-i-right? Got a magic horn and sword and shield and so forth, perhaps?

Bah.

Who's the biggest hero of Lord of the Rings?

Boromir.

Why?

Cause Boromir ain't got shit.

The hobbits all have a natural resistance to the ring, which is why Bilbo got to hang onto it for so long. Gandalf is a fucking wizard who kills Balrogs. Aragorn is a closet king with a super special sword and lives for like 200 years or something because he has in him the blood of the High Men. Legolas apparently rides shields down steps like they are surfboards. Boromir ain't got shit.  He's just a guy with a horn, a long way from home, who went to talk to the elves because he saw the world going to shit and wanted to see what could be done to stop it.

It's the sort of story I love.

Not a superhero. Not a master ninja karate expert mutant wizard. Just someone who does the best they can, knowing that they aren't good enough, and that they'll just have to pull through somehow. Maybe they're not perfect.  Maybe they fuck up.  There's no prophecy in their favor.   No awesome technology or magic protects them. They're just there, doing the best they can.

It's always a terrible disappointment to me when they get mowed down somewhere in the background, because that was the only role I could really identify with.

Letter to Someone Who Will Never Read It

I don't like most people.

One day, I saw you.  You had what I would call "classic American beauty and style" -- the kind not seen so much these days.  The name "Bettie Page" sprang to mind.  Your hair was in a short bob style, with thick bangs in the front -- something most people can't pull off.  I liked it.  And that was interesting.

I heard you call in your order.  Distinct accent.  I liked that, too.  And that was interesting.

I had to get to know you.  But you were working, and you seemed to take your work seriously.  Not someone to want to be sidetracked by a random dude.  (And that was interesting.)

On another day, I saw you again -- I don't know if you would remember -- I was walking down the hall, you were standing at the end.  You smiled at me.  I hadn't seen you smile at anyone before.  I smiled back, but kept walking -- you were on the job again (and I am kind of dumb).  But still... a smile.  And that was interesting.

Eventually, I saw you at a party.  You were dressed head to toe in black.  And that was interesting.  You came up to the bar to order a drink.  I'm never good at breaking the ice with people, but there's a time and a place for everything, and this was my time.  So I went over and we had the following conversation:

Me: "Can I buy you a drink?"

You: "No."

Me: "Oh-kay."

And then I went back and sat back down with my friends and pretended that the last 15 seconds had occurred in some alternate universe that nobody ever need know about.

Later, we were all finishing our drinks, paying our tabs and getting ready to leave. I stood up to leave and turned around.  You were standing right there.

You: "Are you leaving?"

Me: "Yes."

You: "You can stay and have a drink with me."

The tone of this statement suggested that it was a command. I would stay and have a drink with you.

Me: "Oh-kay."

I have long since suspected that my answer of "Oh-kay" to your original "no" was, in fact, the correct response. During the remainder of the evening I learned that your life consists of someone hitting on you roughly every 15 minutes and not taking "no" for an answer. I have never before seen someone get down on one knee just to ask a girl out. It must get annoying after a while.

So we hung out.  You told me about how you didn't understand American fashion.  You were at a store, looking at clothes, and two other girls were there, staring at you and whispering to each other, and you felt like an outsider.  And that was interesting --

Let us detour a moment and discuss "strong" versus "tough".  Tough people simply do not feel the barbs and stings of day to day life.  Maybe they are oblivious.  Maybe they just don't care.  Whatever the reason, they don't deal with social pressure because the thorns of life don't reach them.  Tough people are hard for me to relate to.

Strong people feel all the thorns, but power through them through force of internal will.  From your story, I gleaned that you were not tough; you were strong.  Things bother you, but you are strong and can get through them.  And that was interesting.

Everything I learned about you made me like you that much more.

Anyway, we hung out and chatted a bit and arranged another day to hang out some more.

At the beginning of that day, you told me that you were not interested in a relationship. You were here on a temporary work visa and the status of an extension was in question and you just didn't need to get involved in a relationship. You said there was no real option for staying in America, and that there was no way an American would ever marry you, and you quickly changed the subject.  I was too baffled at the time to respond.  Later, of course, I thought of a number of very good and thoughtful and sincere responses to this.  Why wouldn't an American marry you?  I'm pretty sure you were wrong about that.  Alas, I did not think of these things to say right there on the spot (did I mention I am dumb?). At any rate, I had a very good time and a great conversation.

There are a number of things I would have said if I was a clever person and had thought of them on the spot, and not weeks later.

I wish I was a clever person.

Artificial INTELLIGENCE vs ARTIFICIAL intelligence

Quasi-religious ponderings, part 2...

I was reading Seth Shostak's book (which is quite good, really, if you ever had an interest in the science of the SETI program) and one thing he brought up is something I've heard before... that we will soon surpass the power of the human brain with a single computer.

The implication is that the human brain ("a slow speed computer operating in salt water") is nothing special and since we are going to foreseeably surpass its raw power using computers we will soon replace ourselves with artificially intelligent machines. Silicon based lifeforms, essentially, that will out-think us, will end up being our replacement. Homo sapiens go extinct and thinking machines take over (whether this involves Arnold Schwarzenegger or Keeanu Reeves is not specified).

The problem I have with this concept is one which I would say can best be described as the difference between "artificial intelligence" and "artificial intelligence".


In days of yore, when we computer geeks talked about "artificial intelligence", what we meant was that we can come up with something that appears to be intelligent, but isn't. We can make a game of Pong and get the computer to display a level of intelligence in knocking the ball back to you but it is not, in any way, actually intelligent. It's running a very specific set of instructions. The intelligence is artificial, as in, it is not real.

Shostak uses Deep Blue -- that's the IBM chess machine that played chess champion Kasperov -- as an example of artificial intelligence, albeit one limited to playing chess. Kasperov made a comment that Deep Blue seemed to exhibit a sort of intelligence. However, Deep Blue's intelligence was artificial. That is to say, it was running a very specific set of instructions. Deep Blue was no more intelligent than my hand calculator, but it had a lot of computing power and a program designed to let it create every possible permutation of a chess board and thus decide which move would take the board in a direction most likely to result in a win. It was a very nice machine but it was not intelligent.


I believe Shostak (and certainly lots of other people) are using the term "artificial intelligence" to mean "intelligence which is artificially constructed" -- that is, the intelligence is real but the platform is circuitry rather than a squishy brain.

We are nowhere near having this. We haven't a clue on how to start. You might as well be discussing faeries and elves as artificial intelligence of this nature. Even though we will be able to pack more power than a human brain into a single machine, we don't know how to make it think. We don't know how to make it intelligent. We can't create artificial intelligence -- something which is genuinely intelligent but lives on hardware -- but we CAN create artificial intelligence-- something which seems smart (in a very limited, intentionally designed way) but isn't.

The evidence for this is already in front of us.

If we could create true intelligence, then we should already be able to do so, on today's computers -- it would just run a little slower than we'd like. The beauty of software is that it can simulate whatever you like, given enough time. It would be like creating software for a 32-bit machine which makes it act like a 64-bit machine. It's doable. It would obviously be slower than a real 64-bit machine but you could do it. Similarly, if human intelligence requires a computer 100x more powerful than the ones we have today, we should be able to build it right now, with software, but it would just be 100x slower than it should be.

In other words, we should, right now, with today's technology, be able to create a working human brain, which is, in every way, an intelligent learning being just as smart as any of us, but it might just be a bit slow, as if time was running slower for it, on account of the software having to simulate a better hardware environment than it really has access to.

But we don't know how.

We have no idea.

If we had more powerful computers, we would still have no idea how to make them alive.

In fact, you'd think we could at least create a reasonable artificial, say, pigeon. Perhaps an artificial dog? Surely we have the computing power for that. Surely your desktop machine has more power than a gerbil brain and surely we could do the AI research into creating "the artificial gerbil" which would be indistinguishable from the real thing. In fact, if we could work out the nervous system connections, we should be able to hook it up to a gerbil body and you wouldn't even know the difference, aside for perhaps the cable running from the gerbil's head to your machine.

But we can't. We aren't anywhere close to that. We don't have the artificial gerbil. We don't know where to begin. Actual intelligence -- actual life -- is still the realm of faeries and elves to us -- it's completely incomprehensible magic which we are entirely unable to reproduce, no matter how powerful computers become.


Oh sure, given enough time we might be able to create an artificial intelligence which could pass for a person (or at least a gerbil), but I predict it will take thousands, if not millions of times more processing power than a human brain requires to do its work. This is because it would not actually be intelligent. It would simply be a collection of a lot of smaller works -- it knows how to play chess because it took Deep Blue's coding. It knows how to drive a car because we created a program for that already. It can perhaps even carry on a conversation. But it's not alive and the evidence for this is in the staggering power and programming required to create what will be a rather poor stand-in for a human brain. It will not have true creativity or self-awareness. It will still just be a machine. It will still just be a puppet with programmers pulling the strings.


And this (to bring us back around) is why I'm not an atheist. Among other reasons. Because there is something in us that's not just machinery -- not just programming. We must ask questions like "what is consciousness?" "Who am I and what is this 'I' that's doing the asking?" How do we create software which is alive. What does "alive" really mean?

In order to program a machine, we must fully understand it. We cannot program a consciousness because we do not fully understand it. Consciousness, I believe, defies science. Perhaps it always will. I believe that if we did create an actual, intelligent machine which is truly alive and self-aware, we would not be able to understand how it works anymore than we can understand how we work. It would simply "become alive" and no matter how much digging we did through the circuitry and the programming, we would not be able to find the spark that is "life" or understand where it comes from or how it works.

I believe that life is a mystery.

I believe that "souls", if you will, are a distinct possibility. Are you more than your hardware? Is there something going on which cannot be explained by the number of neurons and connections in our heads?

I believe so, because when it comes to artificially replicating it, we don't even know where to start.

Oh, nevermind.

I was just going to reserve this blog for Significant Thinkings but then I'd have to start a third blog for Inane Ramblings and it's easier to just be inane here.

I've long thought about writing a book. Mostly I think of it in terms of what I would do with my free time if I were rich and didn't have to actually work 40 hours per week. I have very briefly started a couple times. I have ideas but I'm not sure if I can turn them into a full book.

If it comes down to it though, I think I'm too terrified to try. I can live my life thinking I might be good enough of a storyteller to write a book. I can continue thinking that so long as I don't try to actually write one and fail. :-p

I had a particularly vivid and interesting dream the other night, which I'm not going to tell you about, but I woke up and thought, "wow, that's a great basis for a book". It's got an unwitting, uncertain hero and devious, hidden villainy and a couple good subplots. It also apparently has Sigorney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez but that's probably just because the last movie I saw was Avatar... I wrote down the synopsis and have whiled away my vacation time pointedly not sitting down to try and expand on it.

Wouldn't it be great to be an author, though? Paid to imagine stories and write them?

I wish I could ask an accomplished writer what their method is. Come to think of it, I can probably search for exactly that on Google. I don't want to know about their first book, I want to know about their 31st book. After you've written 30 books, how did you start that 31st book? I just want a glimpse into a method, not an actual lesson. Somehow, whenever I read detailed lessons on the proper way to write a novel, I can't help but noticing how many of the rules are broken by my favorite authors. So to hell with the rules. But I would like to see an example of something that works. Do they create an outline? Do they write up profiles of their characters before starting the book? Do they just sit down with an idea in their head and slap down 200 pages and go back to try and make sense of it later?

I have no idea.

I'm leaning towards that last one.

Note to Self

Just a note to self... transcript of Jiraiya's last thoughts from the latest Naruto episode, as he was dying -- I couldn't find a full transcript so I figured I'd just make one. This is me geeking out. Never you mind.

Actually, I skipped basically anything that wasn't Jiraiya's thoughts, so if someone else wants the FULL transcript, well, they can fill it out themselves. :-p

...

It's not how you live, but how you die in the ninja world -- a ninja's life is not measured by how they lived but rather what they managed to accomplish before their death.

Looking back, my life has been nothing but failures... Continually rejected by Tsunade... Unable to stop my friend... And unable to protect either my student or my mentor... Compared to the great deeds of the Hokage, my actions are trifling, insignificant things indeed.

I wish I could have died like each of the Hokage.

A tale is only as good as its final turn of events, the plot twist. Failures must be seen as mere amusements! They are trials, which hone your skills. I lived believing that... And in return, I swore I would accomplish a deed so great that it would obliterate all of my failures... and I'd die a splendid ninja!

At least, that's how it was supposed to go.

But... with my plot twist, my tale ending like this... The Great Lord Elder prophesied that I would guide that revolutionary. A person who will make a great choice, that will bring either stability or destruction to the ninja world.

I thought I would defeat Pain, stop the Akatsuki, and save the ninja world from destruction....

But in the end, I failed in that selection too.

How pitiful... that this will be the twist to "The Tale of Jiraiya the Gallant."

What a worthless story.

[Jiraiya recalls a conversation with Naruto's parents]

Naruto...

Now that I think about it, Naruto, you are just like that novel's main character. You inherited Minato and Kushina's wishes, their hopes. And yet... I...

[Jiraiya recalls a lecture he gave to Orochimaru: "A ninja is one who endures, one who stands brave. Let me teach you one thing: the most important attribute of a ninja is not the number of jutsu he masters. The most important thing is the guts to never give up!"]

Never go back on your word and never give up. Naruto, if that is your ninja way, then as your mentor I have no business whining. For everyone knows that a student inherits his ninja way from his teacher! Isn't that so, Naruto?

Never give up! That was the true choice I was supposed to make!

[Jiraiya, with great effort, manages to come to long enough to write something...a coded message]

Naruto... You are the child of prophesy, I'm sure of it now. I entrust you with the rest!

"The Tale of Jiraiya the Gallant"... Now it'll end a bit better I hope. The final chapter will be "The Frog in the Well Drifts Into the Great Ocean." Not bad. Not bad at all.

Now... it's about time I put down my pen.

Ah, that's right! What should I name the sequel? Let's see... "The Tale of Naruto Uzumaki." Yes... That has a nice ring to it.

Relativistic Environment Principle

I was just thinking...

No matter how awesome of an environment you can think up, if you were born into that environment, you would think it was precisely as interesting as the one you were already in.

That is, while you can read books about space ships or wizards (or wizards flying spaceships...bound to be books like that somewhere) and think, "Cor, that must be a lot more interesting than where I am", if you were born into that setting you'd be just as bored with that as you already are with computers, jet planes and the ability to live in a house that never gets attacked by the Bug Beasts of Zanthorp.

If the universe is infinite, and thus all possibilities exist, then somewhere, someone is, at this very moment, being attacked by ninjas, wishing they could live in a world where they could live a quiet suburban life and perhaps write things into a blog now and then. Or they're watching the sky go from orange to purple and then to a light shade of pink, wishing they could live in a world where things could possibly stay the same for two days in a row without undergoing radical changes.


Perhaps the real issue isn't how much better we can imagine some other place being, but rather, how satisfied we can be with where we already are. Is satisfaction a result of your environment? Would changing the environment increase your satisfaction? Or is satisfaction an internal function and if you changed environments, you would simply bring that same level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with you?

Star Trek review

Short version:
I liked it.


Long version with possible spoilers:
Most of my favorite Star Trek episodes/scenes are from the original show. I liked Star Trek TNG and all that but there are some situations that you can really only get into when you have a belligerent captain who thinks that rules are for chumps. And that's Captain Kirk. I have long been waiting for a Star Trek that brings back Captain Kirk. I had hoped "Enterprise" would be that show, but when it wasn't, I quickly lost interest. Voyager and Deep Space Nine had some fine moments. DS9 in particular had some great episodes. But it didn't have Kirk.

This movie has Kirk.

That was most of what I needed to know about it.

Fist fights, phasers, photon torpedoes. Taking big, arguably stupid risks because you always think there's a way to win. That's Kirk.

As far as the acting goes, I'm not quite sure they got Kirk exactly right. Kirk was never quite THAT reckless and energetic. But I'm willing to give it a pass. The rest of the crew seemed spot on (although since when did Chekov become an expert at the transporter? Oh well, it's high time Checkov got some screen time anyway). Spock was Spock. McCoy was McCoy. Scotty was Scotty, albeit with more energy.

I'm also willing to forgive them the whole time travel thing, since they're doing something unusual with it...

Normally, I hate time travel. "Enterprise" using time travel as basically the first major plot was a huge mistake. Time travel is what you fall back on when all of the good ideas have already been used. Time travel is lame and full of holes.

BUT

In this case I see why they did it, and it's not a bad reason: they wanted to reset the Star Trek universe and not be stuck with old canon. Basically, this Star Trek does not take place in the same universe as every other Star Trek we've watched. Due to time travel, it takes place in a slightly different, parallel universe. It basically gives them license to change small things without every Trekkie howling about it. Well, they can still howl but now there's a simple one-liner explanation for all of it, which is "parallel universe -- different events set this universe down a different path than the other one, so not everything is going to be the same".

That, actually, is another good Star Trek creation: "Treknology". Taking the impossible and making it possible through a vague application of theoretical science. Light speed travel is impossible? Warp drives! Getting to the planet's surface is a pain? Teleporters! Shooting warp speed ships with lasers wouldn't work? Phasers! In this case, the Treknology of parallel dimensions is actually used against THE TREK FANS THEMSELVES as a way to sidestep all complaints about minor differences and oversights.

In a way, I have to sit back, clap slowly and say, "Oh... bravo. Well played, sir."

Count me as officially looking forward to the next movie or show using this cast.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy are back.

Conan, what is best in life?

I often sit around having existential thoughts. What is life? What's the point of it? Why are we so capable of dreaming of so much more than we'll ever have or ever see? What, if anything, comes next? If I could choose another life, anything I could dream of, what would I pick?

I've decided that this world is actually pretty fantastic. We can dream, and in doing so, we can get a glimpse of everything that could ever be. You can't have 25 different careers, but you can imagine them. You can't be a superhero but you can dream it, write it, watch a movie about it, read a book about it and play one in a video game and then be ready for the next dream. We see other people's dreams (through various forums of media) and they can act as a basis for more of our own.

Surely this is the greatest thing in the universe. We come with our own movie studio in our heads. It's like someone asked us what we wanted the universe to be like and we said, "I don't know, give me a little taste of everything."

I confess! I play a lot of games. Read a lot of books. Watch a lot of movies. Some would say this is "throwing my life away". Au contraire! I would say it's making the very best use of the very best part of it: the dreaming part. This explains a lot about me. I like to do things that give further fuel for my dreams; I don't like to do things that don't. People have told me I should travel more, get out more, that sort of thing. Why? My dreams don't involve France. I don't think that would change very much if I went there. They don't really involve dance clubs, either. Not That There's Anything Wrong With That. I'm just sayin', it's not fuel for my dreams, hence, I'm not interested. I don't want to go somewhere just for the sake of saying I've been or do something just for the sake of saying I've done it. Life is not a collectors game for me; it's a chance to dream. Time not spent dreaming or finding the fuel for dreams is time wasted.

The glorious part is how we always strive to make our dreams reality, in some small way. Not just technologically but socially and culturally, too. Surely we owe every advancement, every improvement to someone who spent enough time dreaming.

I can't seem to get enough of it. (Disclaimer: I am not a hermit. My best dreams involve other people!)


[completely unrelated, self-indulgent self-analysis follows]


I've also been thinking about the mind and memory. My memory is odd. Some things I can remember easily, some things I forget in an instant. I remember how to play as the "Core" from Total Annihilation, a game I haven't played in probably 8 years, but I can't recall my mom's birthday. I think I recognize the pattern...

I believe the mind trains itself to handle memory based on how you like to think.

I like to form, let's say, strategies. Strategies for planning my time, strategies for going to work, strategies for writing blogs, strategies for playing games, strategies for conversation. I don't favor the more concrete form of thinking that requires specific details to function. So I am terrible at remembering birthdays. Dates rarely fit into any of my strategies. I will remember YOU, as in your mannerisms and personality even though I probably forgot your name about 5 seconds after you told me. Your personality is important for future strategies but your name? That I can live without. So off it goes, to wherever it is irrelevant information goes. (Although if I'm specifically trying to make friends, remembering your name would be important to that strategy.) I think this explains why I can remember, in great detail, the type of person my next door neighbor was in 1984, but I've forgotten to return my Netflix video for like 6 days in a row. One is an important factor in a social strategy, the other is just a specific detail of day to day life and thus has a hard time holding a spot in any active part of my brain.


Sometimes I wish I had access to a second brain. I need a basis for comparison.


This part of the blog had nothing to do with anything, I've just been meaning to write it down (not that I kept forgetting, just that I had other things I wanted to do more....)

Why I Like Astronomy

I've always liked astronomy. I particularly enjoy reading about new discoveries or trying to understand the physics (as, apparently, so are the astrophysicists...), but that's not really the basics of why I like it.

I like astronomy because it reminds me that I am teeny-tiny and the universe is mondo-gigantor. More specifically, I think the problems of my life can always be put into perspective by realizing that somewhere out there, an unthinkably huge sun is exploding. Ones problems are always small in comparison to exploding suns. Flat tire? Exploding sun. Lonely? Exploding sun. If you want to trump an exploding sun, you'll have to find something else astronomical to compare it to.

Also, the sun is orbiting around the galactic center at about 220 km/second. Wherever you are now, it is 792,000 kilometers away from where you were an hour ago.


The point is it helps me maintain a perspective. My problems are not the end of the world.



Unless my problem is a giant meteor, in which case it might be the end of the world.




But anyway, I also like to look up at the stars whenever I get a chance because it reminds me that there are endless possibilities. We are on a small rock, hurtling through a massive universe. What will tomorrow bring us? Who knows! Science isn't even entirely sure what the majority of the mass in the universe is. Anything could happen tomorrow. Anything. It's hard to hold onto despair when you know that tomorrow could bring you anything.

Life's Philosophies III

I have another life philosophy... actually maybe "strategy" is a better word.

I call this strategy, "Don't Be Richie."

When I was in college, one of my friends started taking guitar lessons from a guy named Richie. Richie was close to our age. He apparently made the unilateral decision that he was now part of our overall friend group and he should invite himself over to hang out with us whenever possible. He'd run into us somewhere and hang out with us. Sometimes he'd show up at my friend's house, where odds were reasonable a bunch of us would be hanging out and he'd...hang out.

Richie was kind of ... awkward. As I recall, his major flaw would be that he would enter into every conversation with some completely different conversation. Like we'd be talking about the movie we saw recently and he'd jump in and start talking about his motorcycle. We sought to ditch Richie whenever possible and never invite him anywhere and do everything reasonable to discourage him without actually saying "go! away!". I think the best moment was when we were leaving my friend's house to go somewhere and passed Richie on the narrow road going the other way. We pretended to not see him and got the hell out of there. Everyone was basically nice to him when he was around but as soon as his back was turned it was all, "Holy crap, how do we ditch this guy?"

A thought floated through my mind at that moment. "Wait... we're all nice to him until his back is turned... and they're all nice to me when I'm around... dun dun dun!"

I immediately began Operation Don't Be Richie, which continues to this day. The cornerstones of this strategy are as follows:
* If someone declines invitations to three events in a row, stop inviting them to anything unless they specifically request otherwise. They might be trying to avoid me.
* Always give people an out when extending an invitation. "Would you like to go to a movie Saturday" is better than "Are you busy this weekend", since the latter question is actually a trap.
* Never invite myself anywhere, even if I really really want to go. Wait to be invited.

Through this strategy I can ensure that I am never Richie, or "That Guy" as people like him are more universally known.

Life's Philosophies II

Here's another one.

So there are times in everyone's life when they're scared, nervous, etc. Maybe it's concerns over bills, their job, the sound of a broken window at 3am, the left wing, which was there just a moment ago, no longer being present, whatever.

Religious folks have it easy. They get to pray to an all powerful presence and in doing so, they can feel at peace and conquer their fears.

Coming from more of an agnostic angle where there may or may not be an all powerful presence who may or may not be inclined to help in any way (Crom!*), I had to come up with some other internal rationalization.

My secret mantra? "Do the best you can." I think I want that on my gravestone: "He did the best he could."

I think I evolved this line of thinking through gaming (see also: "everything I ever needed to know, I learned from gaming"). I've generally felt that while you can't always win, there is no shame in losing when you are out of ammo, out of options and too tired to run anymore. There are times in everyone's Nethack career when they are shoved up against a dead end with 15 Orcs stuffing up the only exit, they have 1 hitpoint left and the only thing left in their backpack that can possibly be of any help is a scroll named "Ugloft Potel" because they haven't identified it yet. And sometimes it saves you and sometimes it just lights up the room so you can witness your death more clearly. But that's not important. The important thing is you did the best you could with what you had and nobody can ask any more of you than that.

This same line of thinking has carried over into my real life.

I maintain a relatively stress free existence by saying things like, "While I don't know what my career will look like in 5 years, or what that noise was just now or whether that left wing is supposed to come off at 30,000 feet, what I do know is that I will simply do the best I can and this is all anyone can expect."

I dunno, I just find a lot of peace in that concept.

There's a joke among competitive gamers that goes, "don't run; you'll only die tired". I've always felt that dying tired (and out of ammo) was the best way to go. You did the best you could and there's no shame in that.

* - I've been reading the Robert Howard "Conan" stories. I like the concept of Crom, the god of Conan's people. Contrary to the movie, you don't pray to Crom. Conan was quite specific about this. Crom doesn't care and if you pray to him, he'll send you doom for interrupting his train of thought. Crom only does one thing for his people: at birth, he gives them the strength to strive. "What else shall men ask of the gods?" What else indeed?

Life's Philosophies

(for lack of a better word)

Occasionally I hear things that seem like good, reasonable advice, like "make time for people who make time for you". I haven't decided if it's good advice or not but I like the direction it's going.

Once in a great while, though, I come up with a philosophy that sticks with me long term and directs me in a very day-to-day way. I think I have three main ones that drive everything I do, so I'll list them here. If you have tracked me here from other comments or blogs, you may be familiar with these already, but I thought it was time to put them all in one place:

1) Monsters are real.
2) Live life as if it was ideal.
3) Seek happiness, not perfection.

"Monsters are real."

When I was little, I thought monsters were big, hairy things with fangs that lived in your closet or under your bed. Now that I'm older, I wish it was that easy. I mean, a big hairy monster with fangs would be easy to identify and if it lived in the closet, at least you'd know where it was at. Now I know that real monsters are much, much worse than we ever dreamed of when we were kids.

Real monsters look just like people and they might be anywhere.

This isn't meant to be a basis for paranoia, which is something you can certainly develop by watching too much nightly news or reading too many history books, but it's important to understand that they exist. Terry Pratchett once mentioned that the important thing to teach children isn't that monsters are real (we are born knowing this), it's to teach them that monsters can be beaten.

I think that it's important to remind adults that they are real. We tend to forget. And then one day they show up and fly an airliner into a skyscraper.

Don't create unrealistic notions about the nobility and universal brotherhood of mankind. Not all of them think like you do.

"Live life as if it was ideal."

This is an important philosophy to have if you're going to have the previous philosophy. This one states that while there is a very small chance that the person approaching you in the dark alley is a serial killer looking to get a start on his career, you should treat him as if he was a nice person who would probably be fun to play Scrabble with. In an ideal world, he would, in fact, be a nice person who is fun to play Scrabble with and the only way you'll ever find out is to approach with that attitude in mind. Whereas if you treated him as a potential serial killer and, say, sprayed him with pepper spray and kicked him in the gemmies without provocation you would never find out about Scrabble.

To put it another way, don't let fears of negative possibilities ruin your life. Make your choices. Other people's choices are up to them. If they do wrong, then that's on them. If you assume they will do wrong and treat the situation as such, you will miss out on life's joys. If you always wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella you will never get wet but you'll also never feel the sun on your skin.


Incidentally, I wrap up these first two philosophies into one package I call "optimistic cynicism": the practice of approaching situations as if they were ideal even when I feel they aren't, which is most of the time.

"Seek happiness, not perfection."

This philosophy applies to everything from vacations to relationships to what you are doing right now this very second.

Are you happy where you are? Happy with what you are doing?

When I ask this, do you think of other things you could be doing? Things which might be more fun? Do you worry that you're wasting your time? Carpe diem? Are you seizing the day? Might you be able to seize it better if you were doing something else?

These are foolish questions. Dangerous questions. "Carpe diem" has to be the worst philosophy to hit our society in the last 20 years. Seize the day...bah!

Never ask yourself if you could be doing something better. If you could be someplace better. If you could be with someone better. If you are "living life to the fullest".

Ask yourself if you are happy.

If you are happy, then be happy. Don't waste that happiness by worrying about ways in which you might become happier.

If you like where you are and what you are doing then stick with it. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". You can find yourself old and miserable because you cast aside too many good things in the search of the perfect thing. By all means, throw away the things that make you unhappy but don't throw away the good just because you think you can find better.

John Adams

I've started watching "John Adams", the HBO series. I'm renting it from Netflix.

Initial thoughts after the first disc:

1) In times of real crisis, smart people are forced into politics.

2) Nothing we are facing today is a real crisis. We have a lot of pseudo-intellectuals proclaiming doom from the highest mountaintops but those are just molehills compared with what John Adams was facing.

3) What a shame that our government has become what it is after its modest beginnings. What a shame that we as a society feel that tax money and government interference is necessary to solve every individual case of poverty or mismanagement. This is not what a government ought to be used for. We (the people) surely ought to be able to fund all the welfare we'd like without actually taxing ourselves and getting the government to do all the work for us. It's probably the worst way to do welfare, given the government's track record on efficiency.


But I'm not too concerned about it, because we aren't in a real crisis.