"This House Would Pay Mercenaries to Assassinate Kim Jong-un."
Right then. We are herein talking about a reasonable transaction - one life for potentially millions. Eliminate the main threat, the man with the big red button of mass destruction, and gain a chance to resolve the escalating situation relatively peacefully. It is not unlike what happened in South America a few decades ago when Americans decided to put people they've chosen to lead other countries. Fair enough, that blew up in their faces, but that doesn't have to be the case here. Oppressors tend to have a small detail going against them - loyalty. Their subordinates do what they are told usually because of fear. They have everything to lose if they were to disobey, and quite a bit to gain by remaining on their leader's good side.
The implication of which is that, in the case where the leader were to suddenly stop breathing, most likely oppression would decrease. There is always a slight chance of the leader becoming a martyr and someone will simply assume his position. But there is also a pretty good probability that the successor might want to preserve their life and reopen negotiations - otherwise he risks becoming the next victim. Thus by removing the head of the 'serpent', one has a rather good change of making significant improvements to the current situation.
Naturally, such an action has the possibility that the successor is not so 'enlightened'. Retaliation for the ruthless murder of a respected leader is something we would like to avoid. Then again, it is probable that the retaliation is of the same nature as the potential assault ordered by Kim, in which case the situation cannot become any worse, only better. So it is really picking between two evils - Kim attacking or his successor potentially attacking. Looks like a slam dunk, nothing to lose, everything to win... but is it?
We do not know who would be the successor, which is why we don't know what he would do once in power. He would be unpredictable, his strategy would merit the element of surprise. Having a more competent aggressor opposing us would be worse than the 'Devil we know'. It could happen, it might not.
"I did what I did because all life is sacred. But when the object of your actions does not share that belief...I fear I have served the present by sacrificing the future."
Saturday, April 27, 2013
"Do my eyes and ears deceive me?"
"What if God was one of us?"
When we think of God, we generally assume we are talking about a single creature infinite in both power and in wisdom. We think he has a plan, probably a really good and jolly plan, and that plan is why we are here. We rarely think of God as Spinoza's God who appears in the orderly formation of the Universe and its laws. We also appear to think God is somewhere up high. What if he/she isn't?
"Just a stranger on a bus trying to make his way home."
In the Christian belief, God created man by his own picture, made man to resemble himself. Missing a rib or two for mating purposes, but pretty much like God. That would mean he/she could walk among us without us knowing about it. There are plenty of people who believe God has spoken to them (though it might have been the Metatron), and quite a few who believe they've seen him/her walk around. It's a possibility.
If there is a God that controls the world, does it matter where he/she is? A person with incomparable power and being worshiped by all those beneath him or her would classify as a 'god'. An alien to our world with technology we can only understand as magic would classify as a 'god'. Then again, with enough belief, any one of us could see oneself as 'god'. After all, we appear to have the power to change our own fates, and alter the lives of others. We don't know whether we are the only sentient beings in the known Universe and everyone we meet is but an illusion created by us, simulated to act in different manners to make our imagined life more interesting. We are but homonculi, probing out from a dark room allegedly known as our brains.
When we think of God, we generally assume we are talking about a single creature infinite in both power and in wisdom. We think he has a plan, probably a really good and jolly plan, and that plan is why we are here. We rarely think of God as Spinoza's God who appears in the orderly formation of the Universe and its laws. We also appear to think God is somewhere up high. What if he/she isn't?
"Just a stranger on a bus trying to make his way home."
In the Christian belief, God created man by his own picture, made man to resemble himself. Missing a rib or two for mating purposes, but pretty much like God. That would mean he/she could walk among us without us knowing about it. There are plenty of people who believe God has spoken to them (though it might have been the Metatron), and quite a few who believe they've seen him/her walk around. It's a possibility.
If there is a God that controls the world, does it matter where he/she is? A person with incomparable power and being worshiped by all those beneath him or her would classify as a 'god'. An alien to our world with technology we can only understand as magic would classify as a 'god'. Then again, with enough belief, any one of us could see oneself as 'god'. After all, we appear to have the power to change our own fates, and alter the lives of others. We don't know whether we are the only sentient beings in the known Universe and everyone we meet is but an illusion created by us, simulated to act in different manners to make our imagined life more interesting. We are but homonculi, probing out from a dark room allegedly known as our brains.
Friday, April 5, 2013
"You can't be the best unless you be yourself."
As Sun Tzu once wrote: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
It is rather difficult to know oneself. Personal bias comes to play, we think ourselves to be better or worse than we are. We see things that aren't there and overlook those that are. It is why doctors should never diagnose themselves. Our brains lie to themselves when it comes to thinking about us. So how can we know ourselves?
The easiest method is through experience. Try out new things, see how you perform, observe how you act. What you do better at, what you fail at. Figure it out one test at a time. It takes time, but the result is a pretty good. The problem is that with every test you run, you change yourself. The changes are generally minute, hardly noticeable. But more importantly they change the things we aren't looking out for.
When you focus on one thing, that's it. You can try to not think about a polar bear, but in the end that's all you'll be able to do. Until you try to think of something else, until you test something else. But in the process of the first test, you have skewed the results of the second. After all, if we are what we were, even events and thoughts manifested due to our willful actions influence us, change us. Focus on studying and your logical thinking goes to pot. Focus on puzzles and your memory is forgotten. Do them both and you will become a dull boy, Jack. What changes us annoyingly slowly and unnoticeably, are the things we do on a regular basis. We get used to them, we don't think about them, but we don't forget them.
It is very easy to become a creature of habit. It is very easy to create something that would force you to break that habit, an outside influence you have to enroll in in order to have to do something for that influence. Be it a hobby, a club, or some educational institution. It can be a minor detour or a choice at a crossroad. In any case, it changes our lives. And that is exactly its purpose - change. Break out of the barriers of routine and see yourself in a new light. See the changes that have brought upon you by the chains of time and look upon the person you have become.
We don't know how we would act in certain circumstances until we are. We don't know who we are until we act. But we can figure it out, piece by piece. "Reality is a puzzle, with all the pieces laid out in front of you. Putting those pieces together, that's perception."
I've been busy for a few weeks, but I'm back now.
It is rather difficult to know oneself. Personal bias comes to play, we think ourselves to be better or worse than we are. We see things that aren't there and overlook those that are. It is why doctors should never diagnose themselves. Our brains lie to themselves when it comes to thinking about us. So how can we know ourselves?
The easiest method is through experience. Try out new things, see how you perform, observe how you act. What you do better at, what you fail at. Figure it out one test at a time. It takes time, but the result is a pretty good. The problem is that with every test you run, you change yourself. The changes are generally minute, hardly noticeable. But more importantly they change the things we aren't looking out for.
When you focus on one thing, that's it. You can try to not think about a polar bear, but in the end that's all you'll be able to do. Until you try to think of something else, until you test something else. But in the process of the first test, you have skewed the results of the second. After all, if we are what we were, even events and thoughts manifested due to our willful actions influence us, change us. Focus on studying and your logical thinking goes to pot. Focus on puzzles and your memory is forgotten. Do them both and you will become a dull boy, Jack. What changes us annoyingly slowly and unnoticeably, are the things we do on a regular basis. We get used to them, we don't think about them, but we don't forget them.
It is very easy to become a creature of habit. It is very easy to create something that would force you to break that habit, an outside influence you have to enroll in in order to have to do something for that influence. Be it a hobby, a club, or some educational institution. It can be a minor detour or a choice at a crossroad. In any case, it changes our lives. And that is exactly its purpose - change. Break out of the barriers of routine and see yourself in a new light. See the changes that have brought upon you by the chains of time and look upon the person you have become.
We don't know how we would act in certain circumstances until we are. We don't know who we are until we act. But we can figure it out, piece by piece. "Reality is a puzzle, with all the pieces laid out in front of you. Putting those pieces together, that's perception."
I've been busy for a few weeks, but I'm back now.
Monday, March 25, 2013
To choose is to be ready to face the consequences of the choice.
Facebook. A nifty site where you can give your personal information and store it in some publicly accessible servers. It is generally thought of as a positive thing.
Wikileaks. A project that shares information that is meant to be secret. Military secrets, political affairs, boring reports. Often thought of as a negative thing.
The difference between them? One is mostly input (you give information to it), the other output (you get information from it). But privacy is not the main concern of most people. If it were, Facebook would be an abandoned desert wasteland similar to Orkut. It is consent that makes Wikileaks worse than Facebook. Wikileaks shares information that was originated by people who do not want it to be public, often obtained by shady means. Facebook shares information that people have given it willingly for the sole purpose of letting other people know something. Yet Facebook is the thing that has influence on us directly. It is what potential employers can check to get an impression of you, it is what new acquaintances see and make judgments by, it is what your parents might stumble upon, it is a place where you can be bullied publicly. It does that because we want it to.
Sure, one might argue that Facebook is pretty much obligatory, because how else could you stalk/keep up with people from around the world? The continuing success is caused by previous success. With the rise of FB-chat, the much-beloved Windows Live Messenger network has suffered the loss of many users, thus bringing about the annihilation of the protocol. By that I do not mean the basic IM-protocol (that allows you to chat), I mean the Messenger-specific protocol that allows IM communication through Microsoft's servers in the manner it has worked for so long. Instead, we now (or starting from April 8) we are stuck with a closed protocol (Skype-specific), which is not supported by most freeware IM clients (Miranda, GAIM and Kopete to name a few). To make matters worse, there is not a single IM client for Windows Mobile (a Microsoft product!) that would support Skype (an another Microsoft product!). There used to, but it was pulled due to some issues. Back on the subject, these changes in protocols and products cause people to jump ship and use alternatives, one of which is Facebook. And that is where the vicious circle appears: to be able to communicate with people from around the world, you need to use Facebook, because the people from around the world use Facebook to communicate with other people from around the world who use... you get the point. To leave would be to leave behind numerous contacts, because while you might have other available communication channels, you will hardly keep up with all of your friends without a live feed. It would be cumbersome and time-consuming. And at some point you will forget to check up on how a certain German-speaking ping-pong player from Russia or some pizza-loving Portuguese guy is doing. You will drift apart. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, is very difficult to assess. So it is generally thought of as an experiment better not done on yourself and your friends. And thus Facebook will continue to have active users.
Wikileaks, on the other hand, relies on information obtained from and sorted by a handful of individuals. Resources are scarce, which is why it is less heard of than some anonymous hackers, who remain active despite the efforts of law enforcement officials. Because they are anonymous, anyone can join them unofficially, which makes taking down the original group even more difficult than it already is. Wikileaks is not anonymous, because secrets generally have few people involved in them. It's why they are secrets - they are not shared with others. So if there are ten or so people who know a secret, and it becomes public, then it is certain that one of those people shared it whether knowingly or not. But the pool of suspects is extremely limited. If two secrets come out, the suspect pool shrinks considerably. And with the leak of the first secret, all of the people entrusted with the secret will be under heavy surveillance, many possibly (and likely) interrogated, etc. Internal Affairs will drill until they either find the leak or a scapegoat. Either way, getting caught is highly probable, which is why not a lot of people volunteer to give out classified information. And that means a drought of information for Wikileaks. The less informants they have, the less more are willing to turn in evidence, because while two informants can cover for each other, a single informant must stand along. Thus, it lingers between life and death, struggling to survive. Those random anonymous hackers however don't appear to be going away any time soon.
Secrets are difficult to keep, but in some circumstances even more difficult to share. Secrets are but information that you are prohibited from sharing with others. If the information is indeed shared, it's betrayal, a negative action. But if you can coerce people to share personal information about themselves, then you can use it however you wish, and the people will be glad of it. Because they have gotten to share the name of their cat, which happens to be the password for the e-mail account they have shared. Because they got to upload pictures of their new credit cards and any information pertaining to them. Because they got to share some feelings or comments that make them sound... like not the sharpest tools in the shed. The way people think about sharing information is not so much about the type of information being shared, it is about whether or not they have given the consent for it to be shared. As long as they have only themselves to blame, everything is quite alright. Which is incidentally why people keep using Chromium.
Wikileaks. A project that shares information that is meant to be secret. Military secrets, political affairs, boring reports. Often thought of as a negative thing.
The difference between them? One is mostly input (you give information to it), the other output (you get information from it). But privacy is not the main concern of most people. If it were, Facebook would be an abandoned desert wasteland similar to Orkut. It is consent that makes Wikileaks worse than Facebook. Wikileaks shares information that was originated by people who do not want it to be public, often obtained by shady means. Facebook shares information that people have given it willingly for the sole purpose of letting other people know something. Yet Facebook is the thing that has influence on us directly. It is what potential employers can check to get an impression of you, it is what new acquaintances see and make judgments by, it is what your parents might stumble upon, it is a place where you can be bullied publicly. It does that because we want it to.
Sure, one might argue that Facebook is pretty much obligatory, because how else could you stalk/keep up with people from around the world? The continuing success is caused by previous success. With the rise of FB-chat, the much-beloved Windows Live Messenger network has suffered the loss of many users, thus bringing about the annihilation of the protocol. By that I do not mean the basic IM-protocol (that allows you to chat), I mean the Messenger-specific protocol that allows IM communication through Microsoft's servers in the manner it has worked for so long. Instead, we now (or starting from April 8) we are stuck with a closed protocol (Skype-specific), which is not supported by most freeware IM clients (Miranda, GAIM and Kopete to name a few). To make matters worse, there is not a single IM client for Windows Mobile (a Microsoft product!) that would support Skype (an another Microsoft product!). There used to, but it was pulled due to some issues. Back on the subject, these changes in protocols and products cause people to jump ship and use alternatives, one of which is Facebook. And that is where the vicious circle appears: to be able to communicate with people from around the world, you need to use Facebook, because the people from around the world use Facebook to communicate with other people from around the world who use... you get the point. To leave would be to leave behind numerous contacts, because while you might have other available communication channels, you will hardly keep up with all of your friends without a live feed. It would be cumbersome and time-consuming. And at some point you will forget to check up on how a certain German-speaking ping-pong player from Russia or some pizza-loving Portuguese guy is doing. You will drift apart. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, is very difficult to assess. So it is generally thought of as an experiment better not done on yourself and your friends. And thus Facebook will continue to have active users.
Wikileaks, on the other hand, relies on information obtained from and sorted by a handful of individuals. Resources are scarce, which is why it is less heard of than some anonymous hackers, who remain active despite the efforts of law enforcement officials. Because they are anonymous, anyone can join them unofficially, which makes taking down the original group even more difficult than it already is. Wikileaks is not anonymous, because secrets generally have few people involved in them. It's why they are secrets - they are not shared with others. So if there are ten or so people who know a secret, and it becomes public, then it is certain that one of those people shared it whether knowingly or not. But the pool of suspects is extremely limited. If two secrets come out, the suspect pool shrinks considerably. And with the leak of the first secret, all of the people entrusted with the secret will be under heavy surveillance, many possibly (and likely) interrogated, etc. Internal Affairs will drill until they either find the leak or a scapegoat. Either way, getting caught is highly probable, which is why not a lot of people volunteer to give out classified information. And that means a drought of information for Wikileaks. The less informants they have, the less more are willing to turn in evidence, because while two informants can cover for each other, a single informant must stand along. Thus, it lingers between life and death, struggling to survive. Those random anonymous hackers however don't appear to be going away any time soon.
Secrets are difficult to keep, but in some circumstances even more difficult to share. Secrets are but information that you are prohibited from sharing with others. If the information is indeed shared, it's betrayal, a negative action. But if you can coerce people to share personal information about themselves, then you can use it however you wish, and the people will be glad of it. Because they have gotten to share the name of their cat, which happens to be the password for the e-mail account they have shared. Because they got to upload pictures of their new credit cards and any information pertaining to them. Because they got to share some feelings or comments that make them sound... like not the sharpest tools in the shed. The way people think about sharing information is not so much about the type of information being shared, it is about whether or not they have given the consent for it to be shared. As long as they have only themselves to blame, everything is quite alright. Which is incidentally why people keep using Chromium.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Machines. Machines everywhere.
Namshubs.
They are mindhacks from the Sumerian culture, neurolinguistic programs that use language as a medium and the human brain as the target. Basically you read them, and they imprint a pattern in your brain. They are designed to create some kind of change in your psyche, and have been a subject of accusation for the Babel. A program, Enki's program to be more specific, was written on a clay tablet (well, what else are you going to use in Mesopotamia?). When people read it, it was in Sumerian, it messed up their linguistic centers. The Sumerian language practically disappeared, and other, very different languages took over. Sumerian was a functional language, the new languages were more abstract. The nam-shubs no longer worked in the new languages.
Neal Stephenson brought out this myth, or rather this collection of myths (the story has been retold in many cultures) in relation to a new language that has become rather widespread. A functional language by all accounts, which is why it might be vulnerable to neurolinguistic programming. To be threatened by this, the potential victim has to understand the language, have it hardwired into their brains. The language must come naturally to the person, to have those linguistic centers open to attacks. This is the case with many programmers. Stephenson used binary as the main example, because it could be displayed as a bitmap - it's just a lot of ones and zeros. Someone fluent in binary could easily interpret the information on a screen and have his mind hacked, while other people would just see white noise. Ones and zeros have been important symbols in history, because binary systems are the easiest to understand. Life and death, the earth and the sky, Heaven and Hell. Thus they offer a plethora of possibilities, and all they need are two different characters. That's why they are perfect for information relay.
But why limit oneself to binary? Sure, knowing the ones and zeros is not that difficult, but it would be impractical to actually learn to read code written in binary. We have artificial operating systems to take care of that, so nobody would have to feed the information to the processors a single bit at a time. Those days are way behind us. Which means binary does not actually have much ground, even among programmers and hackers. It is much easier to write code in C (C# or C++) or XML. Yeah, you could do with Python, Java or Pascal, but those are nowhere near as friendly to the user or the machine. But in all these cases, the commands, the bits of data have a meaning for the programmer/enthusiast/whathaveyou. The person reading it has an understanding how every tiny character works, how it makes a difference. Each of these possible pieces of data have a spot in the person's brain, linking it to other neurons. You might look at an 'if' command, and cheer up. You might look at a 'case' command, and feel warm and fuzzy. That just shows which links you have with the data. But as long as there is an understanding of the data, the basic brain architecture won't be that different. And that means it is hackable.
The brain is basically a computer. The nerves are wires, ganglia are controllers and/or device-specific drivers, the brain itself a motherboard, with gray nuclei working as, well, nuclei, core processors. To use the processors, there has to be input, something that activates the receptors. It could be something a person feels or sees. The signal created is sent to ganglia where the information is relayed to the next neurons. Those take it right up (or down) to the nuclei respective to the type and the location of origin of the input. Then the nuclei process the information. Our thought capabilities enable us to use data we gather in real time and compare it to data received before. In other words, if the input is a script, a bunch of commands to be executed, out nuclei will understand those orders as long as we have them in our memory.
Generally, that will have little to no effect on the mind. That is because the brain is still widely considered to be a mystery. We don't know what out 'Language of Eden' works like, we don't know how information is translated and processed. And that will keep us safe for a few decades at the very least. But the possibility is there, and it sounds pretty intriguing. A chance to reprogram a person to be a genius or a madman, who could pass this up?
At the very least, we might be able to eliminate the need for Harlem Shaking...
They are mindhacks from the Sumerian culture, neurolinguistic programs that use language as a medium and the human brain as the target. Basically you read them, and they imprint a pattern in your brain. They are designed to create some kind of change in your psyche, and have been a subject of accusation for the Babel. A program, Enki's program to be more specific, was written on a clay tablet (well, what else are you going to use in Mesopotamia?). When people read it, it was in Sumerian, it messed up their linguistic centers. The Sumerian language practically disappeared, and other, very different languages took over. Sumerian was a functional language, the new languages were more abstract. The nam-shubs no longer worked in the new languages.
Neal Stephenson brought out this myth, or rather this collection of myths (the story has been retold in many cultures) in relation to a new language that has become rather widespread. A functional language by all accounts, which is why it might be vulnerable to neurolinguistic programming. To be threatened by this, the potential victim has to understand the language, have it hardwired into their brains. The language must come naturally to the person, to have those linguistic centers open to attacks. This is the case with many programmers. Stephenson used binary as the main example, because it could be displayed as a bitmap - it's just a lot of ones and zeros. Someone fluent in binary could easily interpret the information on a screen and have his mind hacked, while other people would just see white noise. Ones and zeros have been important symbols in history, because binary systems are the easiest to understand. Life and death, the earth and the sky, Heaven and Hell. Thus they offer a plethora of possibilities, and all they need are two different characters. That's why they are perfect for information relay.
But why limit oneself to binary? Sure, knowing the ones and zeros is not that difficult, but it would be impractical to actually learn to read code written in binary. We have artificial operating systems to take care of that, so nobody would have to feed the information to the processors a single bit at a time. Those days are way behind us. Which means binary does not actually have much ground, even among programmers and hackers. It is much easier to write code in C (C# or C++) or XML. Yeah, you could do with Python, Java or Pascal, but those are nowhere near as friendly to the user or the machine. But in all these cases, the commands, the bits of data have a meaning for the programmer/enthusiast/whathaveyou. The person reading it has an understanding how every tiny character works, how it makes a difference. Each of these possible pieces of data have a spot in the person's brain, linking it to other neurons. You might look at an 'if' command, and cheer up. You might look at a 'case' command, and feel warm and fuzzy. That just shows which links you have with the data. But as long as there is an understanding of the data, the basic brain architecture won't be that different. And that means it is hackable.
The brain is basically a computer. The nerves are wires, ganglia are controllers and/or device-specific drivers, the brain itself a motherboard, with gray nuclei working as, well, nuclei, core processors. To use the processors, there has to be input, something that activates the receptors. It could be something a person feels or sees. The signal created is sent to ganglia where the information is relayed to the next neurons. Those take it right up (or down) to the nuclei respective to the type and the location of origin of the input. Then the nuclei process the information. Our thought capabilities enable us to use data we gather in real time and compare it to data received before. In other words, if the input is a script, a bunch of commands to be executed, out nuclei will understand those orders as long as we have them in our memory.
Generally, that will have little to no effect on the mind. That is because the brain is still widely considered to be a mystery. We don't know what out 'Language of Eden' works like, we don't know how information is translated and processed. And that will keep us safe for a few decades at the very least. But the possibility is there, and it sounds pretty intriguing. A chance to reprogram a person to be a genius or a madman, who could pass this up?
At the very least, we might be able to eliminate the need for Harlem Shaking...
Sunday, March 17, 2013
I am your destiny.
What do Dirk Gently and Doctor Who have in common? Douglas Adams for one, but that is not the one I mean.
Holism.
It is the belief that everything should be approached as wholes, not just a sum of the pieces that put it together. It is the belief that everything is connected to everything else. It is the viewpoint that things happen because of (sometimes far-fetched) links to previous and/or future events, or in other words time is not a direct continuation from cause to effect, but more of a timey wimey wibbly wobbly... stuff. While that may be a bit hard to believe, one mustn't forget that it is basically the same as predestination, which many do believe in. It is a way of saying that everything must be just about right in relation to one another. A single abnormality, and a pathology emerges, similarly to chaos theory.
While holism has been considered to be a bit out-dated and silly, it is making a comeback in medicine. For a while now medicine has concentrated on researching and curing the illnesses. And in the search for the ultimate cure, the patient has become an object, just something to poke sticks and needles at, something to be fixed. But a disease is not just local to a knee or an eye, it has immense psychological effect, and so does the cure. Placebo pills have healed people of numerous ailments, and the same improvement-boosting effect can be achieved by moral support. Keep the patient happy and there is a greater chance for a speedy full recovery. When it comes to exterminating evil-doers, hearts and minds matter more than bombs and guns. A person willing to be healed has better chances than that who believes that their time to die has come. Positive bias has been proven to work in everyday life, and it works when you are in trouble, be it illness or injury.
Holism is actually quite simple to comprehend. An event, no matter how small, that we encounter, changes us. A small influence can have enormous effect on our futures, because everything in the whole wide Universe is connected. We are all connected biologically, chemically, and atomically. We are just specks on the large scale, which is why we are vulnerable to tiny abnormalities. It's just what and who we are.
Holism.
It is the belief that everything should be approached as wholes, not just a sum of the pieces that put it together. It is the belief that everything is connected to everything else. It is the viewpoint that things happen because of (sometimes far-fetched) links to previous and/or future events, or in other words time is not a direct continuation from cause to effect, but more of a timey wimey wibbly wobbly... stuff. While that may be a bit hard to believe, one mustn't forget that it is basically the same as predestination, which many do believe in. It is a way of saying that everything must be just about right in relation to one another. A single abnormality, and a pathology emerges, similarly to chaos theory.
While holism has been considered to be a bit out-dated and silly, it is making a comeback in medicine. For a while now medicine has concentrated on researching and curing the illnesses. And in the search for the ultimate cure, the patient has become an object, just something to poke sticks and needles at, something to be fixed. But a disease is not just local to a knee or an eye, it has immense psychological effect, and so does the cure. Placebo pills have healed people of numerous ailments, and the same improvement-boosting effect can be achieved by moral support. Keep the patient happy and there is a greater chance for a speedy full recovery. When it comes to exterminating evil-doers, hearts and minds matter more than bombs and guns. A person willing to be healed has better chances than that who believes that their time to die has come. Positive bias has been proven to work in everyday life, and it works when you are in trouble, be it illness or injury.
Holism is actually quite simple to comprehend. An event, no matter how small, that we encounter, changes us. A small influence can have enormous effect on our futures, because everything in the whole wide Universe is connected. We are all connected biologically, chemically, and atomically. We are just specks on the large scale, which is why we are vulnerable to tiny abnormalities. It's just what and who we are.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
"So me and mine can lay down and die so that you can live in your perfect world?"
There are always casualties of progress.
"We cannot simply kill you, someone would take your place. That is the problem with creating martyrs."
People die in the name of change, trying to teach the world something. Often they are first tortured in order to coerce those people to stop making ludicrous claims. But they have found it important that the Earth is indeed round, that it orbits the Sun, that people have the right to choose what they believe in. Most importantly, they have found it important to stay true to themselves, whatever the cost. Some become more famous, some we hardly ever hear about. Unfortunately, martyrs are not the only casualties of change.
"I suppose your father lost his job to a robot. I don't know, maybe you would have simply banned the Internet to keep the libraries open."
It is a kind of natural selection - whoever cannot keep up with the changes, does not make it. Whether we are talking about the collateral damage of some bloody revolution or just the natural development of technology, someone always gets stepped on. Someone becomes redundant, someone's contribution to society becomes inconsequential, someone will have to respecialize to stay afloat. You have to keep up with the times, use modern technology to aid you in your work. Otherwise you risk becoming obsolete, which is what often happens to the elderly. Pretty much every employee is now expected to know a thing or two about using computers, the basics of office software, get along with Windows. Being obsolete means being inefficient, and employers tend not to keep inefficient staff around for very long. Granted, there are numerous exceptions, but that is not the efficient way to do things.
Changes in our everyday world do not come without hurt. It is a cruel, but necessary process. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. To move forward, to change the world for the better, you have to make sacrifices. Because while we can never know what the future brings, we know that it is always born in pain.
"We cannot simply kill you, someone would take your place. That is the problem with creating martyrs."
People die in the name of change, trying to teach the world something. Often they are first tortured in order to coerce those people to stop making ludicrous claims. But they have found it important that the Earth is indeed round, that it orbits the Sun, that people have the right to choose what they believe in. Most importantly, they have found it important to stay true to themselves, whatever the cost. Some become more famous, some we hardly ever hear about. Unfortunately, martyrs are not the only casualties of change.
"I suppose your father lost his job to a robot. I don't know, maybe you would have simply banned the Internet to keep the libraries open."
It is a kind of natural selection - whoever cannot keep up with the changes, does not make it. Whether we are talking about the collateral damage of some bloody revolution or just the natural development of technology, someone always gets stepped on. Someone becomes redundant, someone's contribution to society becomes inconsequential, someone will have to respecialize to stay afloat. You have to keep up with the times, use modern technology to aid you in your work. Otherwise you risk becoming obsolete, which is what often happens to the elderly. Pretty much every employee is now expected to know a thing or two about using computers, the basics of office software, get along with Windows. Being obsolete means being inefficient, and employers tend not to keep inefficient staff around for very long. Granted, there are numerous exceptions, but that is not the efficient way to do things.
Changes in our everyday world do not come without hurt. It is a cruel, but necessary process. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. To move forward, to change the world for the better, you have to make sacrifices. Because while we can never know what the future brings, we know that it is always born in pain.
Monday, March 11, 2013
"Very sad life. Probably will have very sad death. But at least there is symmetry."
"Save a life, save the world."
It is a saying that originates from the well-known fact that Adam is our great forefather that engaged in... whatever it is when you reproduce with your own rib. Killing a man at that point (or to be more precise, THE man) would've destined the whole species to nonexistence. Thus, save a life, save the world, save the future. Save the species.
It is also a saying that has meaning in modern times. Chaos theory is a famous phenomenon that merely states that changing even the smallest detail in our timeline compared to what is 'supposed to be' has disastrous consequences. This applies to the present as well. You don't know what a person is bound to do in the future. You don't know how the mere existence of a single particular person affects people around him or her. You don't know the effects of not saving a person on yourself. If you have a chance to save a person, you would probably regret not doing it. Alas, there is a chance that saving a life does more harm to the world than it's worth.
"I did what I did because all life is sacred. But if the object of my reactions does not share this view I fear I served the present by sacrificing the future."
In a way, it is the age-old question of capital punishment. Execution as a form of punishment is quite brutal, but is it really the wrong way to do things? Sure, life imprisonment does not sound dandy, but if you get comforts like TVs, Internet and whatnot that some prisons allow, then it does not sound that bad. Sure, you only get visitors at preset times and often not at all, but you can still live your life. And if there is an economic downturn you might be set free due to overpopulated prisons. Sure, it is not exactly rainbows and blue skies, but it is not exactly hell either. But it is very taxing for the society to keep you alive, to keep you fed, to keep you healthy. So life imprisonment is not 'sentencing someone to live', it is sentencing someone to remain a burden to the society.
There are concerns about how certain can you really be about someone's guilt. Stick an innocent man in jail, find out he is innocent, and you can release him. Kill him at first and there is no going back, resurrection is a long way off. There are concerns about how serious an offense has to be to merit the death penalty. There are no clear boundaries, which is why it is better off to keep the death penalty off the table as a whole.
There is not perfect, elegant solution to punishing people for crimes. Law and justice are determined by the collective sense of morals of the society. Culture is a huge influence. But one cannot ignore that every punishment has its downsides. It is never punishing just an individual, it is always punishing the society that raised the offender as well. It is of the utmost importance that life is preserved, but there ain't just the one way.
"Time not important. Only life important."
Thursday, March 7, 2013
The mind is more powerful than the pen.
What makes us intelligent?
While this blog may be named 'Intellectual mindlessness', I believe intelligence itself has not been a subject of pondering so far. However, it is a part of a person's psyche, it apparently shows how logical the person is, and whether or not he or she has a good memory. That is generally the case when one thinks of IQ tests - they are not just testing logical derivations, they also test cultural knowledge. That is the reason why there can't be a standard test for everyone in the whole wide world - cultures differ from one another. Even in small areas it is difficult to create a test which would assess only the person's cleverness. People are taught different algorithms, different ways of thinking. A test that focuses more on 3D mental projections has to undervalue the ability to see through simple puzzles. Overeducated brains often have difficulties with the simplest of tasks that children can solve without any problems. Intelligence comes in a variety of shapes and sizes.
Nowadays, the memory part of intelligence has met with a huge setback - the infamous Internet. People tend not to memorize data that is easily accessible because it is not worth the effort. Sure it might take two minutes to check it, but that also means your memory has to be burdened less. In a way, a person's knowledge is as great as the Internet's. It often takes more time to try to recall something than check it from the great tube system using nothing more than your personal cell phone. Because so much information is at arm's length, we know more, and because of that, we know less. We no longer need to memorize everything we need to know, we can let some servers do it for us.
It is the same as cooperation. Transactive memory is a concept conjured up by Daniel Wegner about three decades ago, and it is a type of hive mind. It is a phenomenon that people who work in a group or in pairs for a long time develop a sort of shared memory. "A transactive memory system consists of the knowledge stored in each individual's memory combined with metamemory containing information regarding the different teammate's domains of expertise". It explains why it is so efficient to have a long-term team as opposed to constantly alternating team members. And it expands a person's ability to store and access information, much like the Internet does.
People become more intelligent when they work together. People's knowledge is expanded by artificial databanks filled with binary data. But even these phenomena have their limits. A group of people the size of a country can hardly work together efficiently, even a hundred politicians is often enough to cease any kind of cooperation. And cat videos hardly increase our mental abilities. The only thing that we can change significantly is how we use the knowledge that is at our fingertips. How do we make logical conclusions using the data we have, what we decide to do after having assessed the information, how do we make connections between different phenomena. We need to learn to think, because that makes us wise.
Via Tjadens
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Papa keep preaching.
Are popular scientists modern day preachers?
We've all heard of Bill Nye (the Science Guy), Richard Feynman, Harold Kroto and Neil deGrasse Tyson. We've listened to their talks, we've heard their opinions on physics and the world, we've seen countless quotations attributed to them. They are really like the MacGyvers of today, attempting to popularize science among youngsters. Just with less action and more enthusiasm.
But just like MacGyver, they do not limit themselves to chemistry or physics, they wander into the realm of philosophy. They show us dreams of the possible, they give us images of what is from a different perspective. It is not just the perks of being smart that they demonstrate, they use simple analogies to explain mindboggingly complicated processes, and by that they inspire greatness. They really are geeks.
The problem herein is that they are everywhere, and they keep saying the same. That makes them very similar to pious door-to-door 'faith sellers'. Sure, spreading one's religion is great, but stuffing it down others' throats is a bit over the line. One cannot ignore the fact that science bears strong resemblance to religion. The facts we've been taught have been the results of many people agreeing with each other on the topics, like preachers have discussed and agreed on questions of faith. People of authority confirming each other's beliefs, nothing more. The saying 'physics is great because it does not stop working just because you don't believe in it' is irrelevant, because it is the same with many religions. Just because you no longer believe a higher being exists somewhere and is observing the stupid things we do does not suddenly make it not be so. There may yet be someone or something peeking at us through either a really nifty eye or an advanced piece of technology. If you used to believe that everything falls down because God made it so, starting to believe in gravitons does not conflict with your original belief, and everything will continue to fall down.
The standpoints in science and religion change every once in a while. While we might no longer believe that Earth is the center of the Universe, we no longer stone, hang, or perform other life-ending acts of violence upon people that do. We are warming up to the idea of everything consisting of strings, and Catholic church is warming up to homosexuality. Even the topics that science and religion assess are the same, trying to lead us, humans, to a more harmonious coexistence with each other. It is not just 'strength through unity, unity through faith'. It is 'unity through like-mindedness'. While it might not sound as powerful, it is none the less the case. People who believe in the same scientific standpoints are more likely to get along peacefully than those who don't. Note the usage of the word 'believe', because that is exactly what we are dealing with - beliefs.
Popular scientists are modern day preachers. Unpopular scientists are modern preachers. It does not matter how many people listen to you, as long as you keep 'spreading the word', telling people what you find reasonable to believe in, you are a preacher of sorts. You might not be trying to convert people to religious sects, but you are trying to make them think like you. You are trying to change or enhance their beliefs and/or the way they think. The Aristotelean method of inquiry works so well because it is not just telling people what to think, it is telling them how to think. And once you have taught someone to think the way you want them to, you've spread your belief. And you will be a preacher.
We've all heard of Bill Nye (the Science Guy), Richard Feynman, Harold Kroto and Neil deGrasse Tyson. We've listened to their talks, we've heard their opinions on physics and the world, we've seen countless quotations attributed to them. They are really like the MacGyvers of today, attempting to popularize science among youngsters. Just with less action and more enthusiasm.
But just like MacGyver, they do not limit themselves to chemistry or physics, they wander into the realm of philosophy. They show us dreams of the possible, they give us images of what is from a different perspective. It is not just the perks of being smart that they demonstrate, they use simple analogies to explain mindboggingly complicated processes, and by that they inspire greatness. They really are geeks.
The problem herein is that they are everywhere, and they keep saying the same. That makes them very similar to pious door-to-door 'faith sellers'. Sure, spreading one's religion is great, but stuffing it down others' throats is a bit over the line. One cannot ignore the fact that science bears strong resemblance to religion. The facts we've been taught have been the results of many people agreeing with each other on the topics, like preachers have discussed and agreed on questions of faith. People of authority confirming each other's beliefs, nothing more. The saying 'physics is great because it does not stop working just because you don't believe in it' is irrelevant, because it is the same with many religions. Just because you no longer believe a higher being exists somewhere and is observing the stupid things we do does not suddenly make it not be so. There may yet be someone or something peeking at us through either a really nifty eye or an advanced piece of technology. If you used to believe that everything falls down because God made it so, starting to believe in gravitons does not conflict with your original belief, and everything will continue to fall down.
The standpoints in science and religion change every once in a while. While we might no longer believe that Earth is the center of the Universe, we no longer stone, hang, or perform other life-ending acts of violence upon people that do. We are warming up to the idea of everything consisting of strings, and Catholic church is warming up to homosexuality. Even the topics that science and religion assess are the same, trying to lead us, humans, to a more harmonious coexistence with each other. It is not just 'strength through unity, unity through faith'. It is 'unity through like-mindedness'. While it might not sound as powerful, it is none the less the case. People who believe in the same scientific standpoints are more likely to get along peacefully than those who don't. Note the usage of the word 'believe', because that is exactly what we are dealing with - beliefs.
Popular scientists are modern day preachers. Unpopular scientists are modern preachers. It does not matter how many people listen to you, as long as you keep 'spreading the word', telling people what you find reasonable to believe in, you are a preacher of sorts. You might not be trying to convert people to religious sects, but you are trying to make them think like you. You are trying to change or enhance their beliefs and/or the way they think. The Aristotelean method of inquiry works so well because it is not just telling people what to think, it is telling them how to think. And once you have taught someone to think the way you want them to, you've spread your belief. And you will be a preacher.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Look closely enough and you'll see the Universe unfolding in every molecule, in every atom.
"Truth is fluid, truth is subjective."
What is truth, how can we define something to be 'true' or 'false'? A statement may apply almost every single time it is put to the test, but it only takes a single failure to prove it to be false. This is one of the reasons the Bible has been so popular - it is neither provably correct nor incorrect. Sure you might think Noah's Ark is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is pretty difficult to prove a flood did not happen or that there was a huge boat with lots of animals. The tower of Babel was a tower that would reach the skies, and it was not struck down by anyone. However, reaching the skies does not necessarily mean it was infinitely tall, it just meant that there was an image of the stars on top of the tower, symbolizing the sky. This sort of towers have been uncovered, which means that the tower of Babel is not provably false. Common sense dictates that the boat probably didn't house 2 specimens of each species in the world that would then lead the world to a massive case of incest, but then again, books are usually not meant to be taken literally. This causes further difficulties differentiating between 'truth', 'fiction', and 'lie'.
Scientific theories are generally thought of as 'true' once they have been proven to have sufficient basis. Newton's laws, while basic from current viewpoints, do in general apply. Once someone starts looking into quantum physics, one finds that some 'true' Newton's laws do not work. And yet, those laws are not considered false, they are considered incomplete. String theory is currently considered to be 'true' because it explains physics from Newtonian principles to modern discoveries, as long as we have 11 dimensions. It is 'true' because it makes sense, but until we actually see or detect the strings, it is not 'true' for certain. It is neither provably correct nor incorrect, until we find a method that shows us the individual strings and we understand how each string works individually and as a part of the world, or we find a method that shows us there is no such string. We don't know it to be 'true', we believe it to be. And some of us believe it isn't.
It is human nature to pick at things until we find something we do not understand. It is what drives scientific discovery, it pushes the boundaries of human limits. To claim a statement to be 'true' is to not observe it closely enough. To claim a statement to be 'false' is to find a single case where the statement does not apply. Some statements linger in between, true enough to be believable, false enough to be incomplete. The world is more than yin and yang, it is a mix between the two.
What is truth, how can we define something to be 'true' or 'false'? A statement may apply almost every single time it is put to the test, but it only takes a single failure to prove it to be false. This is one of the reasons the Bible has been so popular - it is neither provably correct nor incorrect. Sure you might think Noah's Ark is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is pretty difficult to prove a flood did not happen or that there was a huge boat with lots of animals. The tower of Babel was a tower that would reach the skies, and it was not struck down by anyone. However, reaching the skies does not necessarily mean it was infinitely tall, it just meant that there was an image of the stars on top of the tower, symbolizing the sky. This sort of towers have been uncovered, which means that the tower of Babel is not provably false. Common sense dictates that the boat probably didn't house 2 specimens of each species in the world that would then lead the world to a massive case of incest, but then again, books are usually not meant to be taken literally. This causes further difficulties differentiating between 'truth', 'fiction', and 'lie'.
Scientific theories are generally thought of as 'true' once they have been proven to have sufficient basis. Newton's laws, while basic from current viewpoints, do in general apply. Once someone starts looking into quantum physics, one finds that some 'true' Newton's laws do not work. And yet, those laws are not considered false, they are considered incomplete. String theory is currently considered to be 'true' because it explains physics from Newtonian principles to modern discoveries, as long as we have 11 dimensions. It is 'true' because it makes sense, but until we actually see or detect the strings, it is not 'true' for certain. It is neither provably correct nor incorrect, until we find a method that shows us the individual strings and we understand how each string works individually and as a part of the world, or we find a method that shows us there is no such string. We don't know it to be 'true', we believe it to be. And some of us believe it isn't.
It is human nature to pick at things until we find something we do not understand. It is what drives scientific discovery, it pushes the boundaries of human limits. To claim a statement to be 'true' is to not observe it closely enough. To claim a statement to be 'false' is to find a single case where the statement does not apply. Some statements linger in between, true enough to be believable, false enough to be incomplete. The world is more than yin and yang, it is a mix between the two.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
It is easy to see what you have had.
"I need a friend, I need a love, I need someone who'd miss me.
When I get home I don't want to be all alone."
- "I need a House" by Marie Serneholt
No matter what we do, we generally don't want to end up in solitude. When something really outstanding comes our way, we wish to share our overwhelming exuberance with a companion. When troublesome clouds give a sinister gloom to our horizon, we feel the need for someone's support, even if it is merely moral.
Every once in a while a person comes along in our lives that cheers us up, who we feel we could be together with. If we are lucky, we feel right, and if we are very lucky, we stay together with that person. It is the age-old issue of finding one's other half. Some appear to have more than one other 'half' and some go through their options on a regular basis. In some cultures it is not only acceptable, but encouraged for some men to have many other 'halves', amounting up to several complete people. In others, a person can only choose to bind oneself to a single other 'half'. So why do we do it?
The obvious answer would be the driving force of all living - reproduction.
The less obvious answer is emotional value. In times of great risk, some people believe that it is better to risk when you have nothing to lose. While that may be a safety net of sorts, it has a major negative influence on motivation. Sometimes knowing that you have something or someone to lose is all that you need to get you going. In essence, it is really fear that helps you, and fear is a powerful motivator for getting things done. Moreover, having someone around creates a sense of security, which is invaluable in the cases where that someone is not at risk. It is a safety net for the times you have something else to lose.
It is fairly obvious that while people can be competent enough to fare well alone, it is not the preferred state of affairs. Good company is invaluable.
When I get home I don't want to be all alone."
- "I need a House" by Marie Serneholt
No matter what we do, we generally don't want to end up in solitude. When something really outstanding comes our way, we wish to share our overwhelming exuberance with a companion. When troublesome clouds give a sinister gloom to our horizon, we feel the need for someone's support, even if it is merely moral.
Every once in a while a person comes along in our lives that cheers us up, who we feel we could be together with. If we are lucky, we feel right, and if we are very lucky, we stay together with that person. It is the age-old issue of finding one's other half. Some appear to have more than one other 'half' and some go through their options on a regular basis. In some cultures it is not only acceptable, but encouraged for some men to have many other 'halves', amounting up to several complete people. In others, a person can only choose to bind oneself to a single other 'half'. So why do we do it?
The obvious answer would be the driving force of all living - reproduction.
The less obvious answer is emotional value. In times of great risk, some people believe that it is better to risk when you have nothing to lose. While that may be a safety net of sorts, it has a major negative influence on motivation. Sometimes knowing that you have something or someone to lose is all that you need to get you going. In essence, it is really fear that helps you, and fear is a powerful motivator for getting things done. Moreover, having someone around creates a sense of security, which is invaluable in the cases where that someone is not at risk. It is a safety net for the times you have something else to lose.
It is fairly obvious that while people can be competent enough to fare well alone, it is not the preferred state of affairs. Good company is invaluable.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
"Until there is a name, nothing is real."
Identity.
Who we are, what we are. What makes us who we are.
It is one thing to know how others see you, a spoiled brat, an underachiever, a bookworm... Your appearance and your actions define you for others. What you say, what you decide to do, what you accomplish, what you leave unsaid.
Some of the impression we leave is through the people we know. Who we've decided to befriend, how we deal with troublemakers, who we wish to converse with. Know thy friends, know thyself. It is an old truth that people seek similarity, to find familiarity.
It is another to know yourself. A lot of how we act is the result of a 'social contract', unwritten rules that define common social protocol to retain our standing, to be taken seriously. Break the rules, and you will become a lot less welcome in many circles. To increase our chances of being successful, of finding the perfect someone to spend your days with and to grow old with, we abide by those rules. We act as we have been taught, how we see fit to act in certain situations, trying to act 'human'. And by following the rules, we blend in, we wear a mask to hide who we really are. We may sometimes choose to do what is expected of us, we may sacrifice our inner child to make sure we have a future. That is fine, everybody has to do that, but what we must not forget is who we are. We are not simple creatures who cower from reality, we do not fall easily, even if it might appear we do. We keep pushing, even when it seems like we've given up. We are feisty, we are stubborn.
But the only way to show who we really are, what we feel inside, is by wearing a mask. To be ourselves, we follow the set of rules, because others do the same. It is the most basic thing we all share, that connects us. It is culture that helps us define who we are for others.
We are who we are, and we will never stop wearing our masks.
Who we are, what we are. What makes us who we are.
It is one thing to know how others see you, a spoiled brat, an underachiever, a bookworm... Your appearance and your actions define you for others. What you say, what you decide to do, what you accomplish, what you leave unsaid.
Some of the impression we leave is through the people we know. Who we've decided to befriend, how we deal with troublemakers, who we wish to converse with. Know thy friends, know thyself. It is an old truth that people seek similarity, to find familiarity.
It is another to know yourself. A lot of how we act is the result of a 'social contract', unwritten rules that define common social protocol to retain our standing, to be taken seriously. Break the rules, and you will become a lot less welcome in many circles. To increase our chances of being successful, of finding the perfect someone to spend your days with and to grow old with, we abide by those rules. We act as we have been taught, how we see fit to act in certain situations, trying to act 'human'. And by following the rules, we blend in, we wear a mask to hide who we really are. We may sometimes choose to do what is expected of us, we may sacrifice our inner child to make sure we have a future. That is fine, everybody has to do that, but what we must not forget is who we are. We are not simple creatures who cower from reality, we do not fall easily, even if it might appear we do. We keep pushing, even when it seems like we've given up. We are feisty, we are stubborn.
But the only way to show who we really are, what we feel inside, is by wearing a mask. To be ourselves, we follow the set of rules, because others do the same. It is the most basic thing we all share, that connects us. It is culture that helps us define who we are for others.
We are who we are, and we will never stop wearing our masks.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Even if you do not comprehend, try to understand.
Cooperation.
On Wednesday I attended an event that brought together students from two popular fields of study: medicine and computer science. While I quite enjoy the idea of people from different fields coming together, what I witnessed there was quite sad. These fields should work together, especially as technology is invading more and more into our daily lives, which affects our health. Healthcare relies heavily on technology, from computer-assisted monitoring to online databanks pertaining to people's history of illnesses and treatments. Medicine and computer science work together every day, so the students of these fields should also be able and willing to work together. That they generally are, but effective cooperation needs more than mere will. It requires knowledge of the other side.
While the computer scientists could easily define the differences between diagnosis with similar names, the medicine students had a very difficult time defining what a 'server', 'HDD', or even a 'transistor' is. And I do mean that people did not know what these things are, not to mention what they do. Sure, hardware assembly is not something anyone should be good at, but one should have at the very least a vague idea about what is sitting in their laps, why they can read e-mail from anywhere...
Not knowing these things hardly hurts other people as much as the people who don't know. To be able to use the newest and most efficient technologies you need to understand how to use them, what your actions cause. Technology, especially in healthcare, does not obey the 'something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it' rule. Doing the wrong thing can be the difference between life and death. Doing a very wrong thing can cause permanent damage to multiple patients, and possibly the people around them. This situation is not a new thing caused by the sudden explosion of technology. Getting an EKG is quite difficult and a single wrong move means not getting the right result. Yet a single EKG can be the basis of a diagnosis.
Another problem with not knowing much anything outside your field is simple communication. It is a popular stereotype that all a medical student does is studying. All night and all day, just to become a doctor someday. And so meeting non-med-school people ends up as a Simpsons line: 'Do you like... stuff?'. It just doesn't cut it. What dismays me is that sometimes the stereotype is spot-on. It is no secret that med school requires a lot of studying because there are lots of test, tons of material to be crammed, and your GPA matters. It is true for some other fields of study as well, but this should not keep people's world views to become extremely narrow. It is one to become a specialist, it is another to become an individual. Don't limit yourself.
On Wednesday I attended an event that brought together students from two popular fields of study: medicine and computer science. While I quite enjoy the idea of people from different fields coming together, what I witnessed there was quite sad. These fields should work together, especially as technology is invading more and more into our daily lives, which affects our health. Healthcare relies heavily on technology, from computer-assisted monitoring to online databanks pertaining to people's history of illnesses and treatments. Medicine and computer science work together every day, so the students of these fields should also be able and willing to work together. That they generally are, but effective cooperation needs more than mere will. It requires knowledge of the other side.
While the computer scientists could easily define the differences between diagnosis with similar names, the medicine students had a very difficult time defining what a 'server', 'HDD', or even a 'transistor' is. And I do mean that people did not know what these things are, not to mention what they do. Sure, hardware assembly is not something anyone should be good at, but one should have at the very least a vague idea about what is sitting in their laps, why they can read e-mail from anywhere...
Not knowing these things hardly hurts other people as much as the people who don't know. To be able to use the newest and most efficient technologies you need to understand how to use them, what your actions cause. Technology, especially in healthcare, does not obey the 'something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it' rule. Doing the wrong thing can be the difference between life and death. Doing a very wrong thing can cause permanent damage to multiple patients, and possibly the people around them. This situation is not a new thing caused by the sudden explosion of technology. Getting an EKG is quite difficult and a single wrong move means not getting the right result. Yet a single EKG can be the basis of a diagnosis.
Another problem with not knowing much anything outside your field is simple communication. It is a popular stereotype that all a medical student does is studying. All night and all day, just to become a doctor someday. And so meeting non-med-school people ends up as a Simpsons line: 'Do you like... stuff?'. It just doesn't cut it. What dismays me is that sometimes the stereotype is spot-on. It is no secret that med school requires a lot of studying because there are lots of test, tons of material to be crammed, and your GPA matters. It is true for some other fields of study as well, but this should not keep people's world views to become extremely narrow. It is one to become a specialist, it is another to become an individual. Don't limit yourself.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Tanks, you're welcome. Have some medicine!
So it would appear that the United States wishes to buy a few more Abrams tanks. By 'a few' I mean 'a few hundred' and by 'Abrams tanks' I mean the big mean machines they have a few thousand in spare. In spare, as in 'not in active service', 'for backup'. These are the top of the line tanks that are extremely difficult to even slow down, not to mention to halt permanently. Sure, an actor might be able to do it, but even that has to be an inside job.
The point where it gets interesting is that the military does not want the tanks. They find no use for them, they have more than plenty for any possible encounter. It is all the politicians' work. Isn't it natural to spend a few hundred million dollars on tanks that won't be used, but will require regular maintenance? Well, maybe not during an economic boom, but it appears to hit the nail during a slump.
And tanks are not the only machines that are costing lots of money and are more effective at their duties than puny humans.
Researchers in Indiana University put a computer to do a doctor's job. The result: "The computer was nearly 42% better at diagnosing illnesses and prescribing effective treatments than human doctors.", "The researchers also noticed a significant disparity in cost. Doctors charge about $497 per unit of outcome change, whereas the computer cost only $189 for the same measure.". A staggering result that might make one wonder how come those self-diagnosis web services fail so miserably. The reason, while some of it lies in the underlying architecture of the diagnosing algorithm, is mainly the evaluation. In the case of web pages, the person has to check oneself for symptoms, often missing or misnaming them, sometimes even thinking of symptoms they don't actually exhibit. For a proper examination, you need doctors and nurses. Once you have them, you can let the machine do the diagnosing, always under the watchful eye of the humans. The computer may be extremely adept at diagnosing illnesses and proposing cures, but it depends heavily on data collection. Often enough, subjective data collection. And that can only be done by people. So I wouldn't worry about healthcare suddenly becoming a lot more effective. There is time for that yet.
In other news, the Large Hadron Collider will remain nonoperational for the next two years due to upgrading and maintenance.
The point where it gets interesting is that the military does not want the tanks. They find no use for them, they have more than plenty for any possible encounter. It is all the politicians' work. Isn't it natural to spend a few hundred million dollars on tanks that won't be used, but will require regular maintenance? Well, maybe not during an economic boom, but it appears to hit the nail during a slump.
And tanks are not the only machines that are costing lots of money and are more effective at their duties than puny humans.
Researchers in Indiana University put a computer to do a doctor's job. The result: "The computer was nearly 42% better at diagnosing illnesses and prescribing effective treatments than human doctors.", "The researchers also noticed a significant disparity in cost. Doctors charge about $497 per unit of outcome change, whereas the computer cost only $189 for the same measure.". A staggering result that might make one wonder how come those self-diagnosis web services fail so miserably. The reason, while some of it lies in the underlying architecture of the diagnosing algorithm, is mainly the evaluation. In the case of web pages, the person has to check oneself for symptoms, often missing or misnaming them, sometimes even thinking of symptoms they don't actually exhibit. For a proper examination, you need doctors and nurses. Once you have them, you can let the machine do the diagnosing, always under the watchful eye of the humans. The computer may be extremely adept at diagnosing illnesses and proposing cures, but it depends heavily on data collection. Often enough, subjective data collection. And that can only be done by people. So I wouldn't worry about healthcare suddenly becoming a lot more effective. There is time for that yet.
In other news, the Large Hadron Collider will remain nonoperational for the next two years due to upgrading and maintenance.
Monday, February 11, 2013
"We are really talking about humanism."
Cosplay is an interesting phenomenon. In essence, it is people dressing up really quirky. What sets it apart from many other activities, especially group activities, is that it does not matter what you look like, as long as you dress quirky, imitating a fictional character.
Race and sex, because they are easily distinguishable, have been the basis of much discrimination for millenia. Slavery, bans on short skirts, continually lower salaries and decreased chances of promotion are just a few from a myriad of different methods of discrimination. Cosplay does not discriminate like that, one might even say girls enjoy dressing up even more than the guys do. With all that make-up and masks, the race of a person often remains a mystery. Even when it doesn't, everyone is equal. Well, except for the people who skimp on their costumes and make sub-par effort and consequently look nothing like the characters they attempt to portray. Other than that, equal. Everyone shows what kind of fiction they enjoy, and that is all.
It bears resemblance to 'casual Fridays' - everyone can dress how they want, as long as it has a 'theme'. You still have to dress proper for an office job, you have to dress like an another person for a cosplay event. You can feel more relaxed than usual as everyone around you do the same. It is a good way to hinder racism and sexism, if not other -isms. It is a way to move towards a more equal society.
Race and sex, because they are easily distinguishable, have been the basis of much discrimination for millenia. Slavery, bans on short skirts, continually lower salaries and decreased chances of promotion are just a few from a myriad of different methods of discrimination. Cosplay does not discriminate like that, one might even say girls enjoy dressing up even more than the guys do. With all that make-up and masks, the race of a person often remains a mystery. Even when it doesn't, everyone is equal. Well, except for the people who skimp on their costumes and make sub-par effort and consequently look nothing like the characters they attempt to portray. Other than that, equal. Everyone shows what kind of fiction they enjoy, and that is all.
It bears resemblance to 'casual Fridays' - everyone can dress how they want, as long as it has a 'theme'. You still have to dress proper for an office job, you have to dress like an another person for a cosplay event. You can feel more relaxed than usual as everyone around you do the same. It is a good way to hinder racism and sexism, if not other -isms. It is a way to move towards a more equal society.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
"Was it really me fulfilling my prophecy?"
Often we hear of stories about people who were destined to do something to be some kind of symbol. It could be a status attributed to a newborn, a deity in flesh. Or it could be people dying shortly and suddenly after accidentally missing a certain death situation. If you had a 'destiny', a preset course of life meant for you, would you follow it, or try to break free from the chains of fate?
Now, the issue to be addressed is the fact that prophecies are usually general and vague. They are lousy guides and most of the time you will understand them only once they have come true, and cause useless anticipation and nervousness before it. In a way, this is why horoscopes often hit the bullseye - people interpret them according to events that happen, which is why a single horoscope can apply to a plethora of cases.
In the cases where the events are described in detail, it is more complicated. If it is a single event, you cannot know that it would happen if you did not change your actions. If it is multiple events, then you can see that the first events do happen as per the prophecy, and you can thus test whether you have the ability to change what happens. If you don't, then there really is nothing to be done. However, if you can change the future, then you will know what will happen if you decide to act in a specific way. You will know the end result of your actions. And that is a powerful tool. Obviously you can anticipate the consequences of many of your actions by simply thinking of the actions, their direct consequences, the potential consequences of the consequences et cetera. But knowing the consequences of an action for certain, that gives you knowledge about how things will work out, as opposed to how things might work out. You know what that means - very simple risk management.
Now, the issue to be addressed is the fact that prophecies are usually general and vague. They are lousy guides and most of the time you will understand them only once they have come true, and cause useless anticipation and nervousness before it. In a way, this is why horoscopes often hit the bullseye - people interpret them according to events that happen, which is why a single horoscope can apply to a plethora of cases.
In the cases where the events are described in detail, it is more complicated. If it is a single event, you cannot know that it would happen if you did not change your actions. If it is multiple events, then you can see that the first events do happen as per the prophecy, and you can thus test whether you have the ability to change what happens. If you don't, then there really is nothing to be done. However, if you can change the future, then you will know what will happen if you decide to act in a specific way. You will know the end result of your actions. And that is a powerful tool. Obviously you can anticipate the consequences of many of your actions by simply thinking of the actions, their direct consequences, the potential consequences of the consequences et cetera. But knowing the consequences of an action for certain, that gives you knowledge about how things will work out, as opposed to how things might work out. You know what that means - very simple risk management.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
"A wise man does not cower from knowledge. Instead, he uses it to guide him."
Another BBC report.
Apparently, Dead Space is a computer game that costs £40 and people can choose to pay extra for acquiring equipment sooner than you are meant to. And people found workarounds to make sure they get the equipment without paying EA for it. These workarounds are extremely simple, basically going to resource-laden locations more than once to see that all they have taken with them has reappeared.
However, some people deem it unethical or illegal to use such cunning... trickery to avoid payment. It allegedly borders on piracy - getting stuff you are supposed to pay for for free. However, since there is no actual foul play here, the game files are not being edited, no third party tool is being used, I see no problem. What people are doing is allowed in the game, it is a 'feature', not a 'hack'. If the software allows you to do it, and you have paid for the software, then you should be allowed to use the software in every way it is possible.
What bugs me is that the in-game money-hunting is even there. If you pay for something, you expect to get it. The whole thing. Not most of it, all of it. You should not be asked at every turn to buy additional features. Yes, I read the article, and realize it was made to discourage piracy - even if you already have the game, you still need to pay for it. Even more troubling, the things that are sold are equipment, and I assume they are game-specific. By that I mean that when you finish the game and decide to have an another go at it, and start a new game on a higher difficulty setting, you would have to shell out even more cash for the same thing that you have already bought.
Quite frankly, in this case, I have more of a problem with the option to spend money in a bought game rather than people bypassing it using bugs or features in the game. After all, if the option is there, why not use it?
Apparently, Dead Space is a computer game that costs £40 and people can choose to pay extra for acquiring equipment sooner than you are meant to. And people found workarounds to make sure they get the equipment without paying EA for it. These workarounds are extremely simple, basically going to resource-laden locations more than once to see that all they have taken with them has reappeared.
However, some people deem it unethical or illegal to use such cunning... trickery to avoid payment. It allegedly borders on piracy - getting stuff you are supposed to pay for for free. However, since there is no actual foul play here, the game files are not being edited, no third party tool is being used, I see no problem. What people are doing is allowed in the game, it is a 'feature', not a 'hack'. If the software allows you to do it, and you have paid for the software, then you should be allowed to use the software in every way it is possible.
What bugs me is that the in-game money-hunting is even there. If you pay for something, you expect to get it. The whole thing. Not most of it, all of it. You should not be asked at every turn to buy additional features. Yes, I read the article, and realize it was made to discourage piracy - even if you already have the game, you still need to pay for it. Even more troubling, the things that are sold are equipment, and I assume they are game-specific. By that I mean that when you finish the game and decide to have an another go at it, and start a new game on a higher difficulty setting, you would have to shell out even more cash for the same thing that you have already bought.
Quite frankly, in this case, I have more of a problem with the option to spend money in a bought game rather than people bypassing it using bugs or features in the game. After all, if the option is there, why not use it?
It's a whole new world out there. A world ready for change. A world ready to be experienced.
Unification.
The ideal of socialism - everybody works for the whole and receives according to one's contribution. The idea that won't happen by merely changing the rules or enforcing government oversight. That has been tried in different shapes and forms, and it has failed miserably. Sure, it starts out super-effective, boosting production. But in those cases the economy side has been largely ignored by the powers that be, resulting in the lack of people who would purchase the produced goods. As usual, it meant that the produced goods would have to be aimed at increasing the strength of the military, and as usual, that has ended up really, really badly.
The big issue was that people did not want to be told exactly what to do and gain next to nothing for it. So they started swindling. The lacking motivation meant lower production and the oversight was too rigid to be of any real use - making people grow corn where it does not grow is an exceptional blunder. And it is also the reason why it hasn't worked and why it won't work for years, if not decades to come. Simply put, society is like a human body. The subconscious decisions, such as sweating and blood circulation happen without 'big' orders from above. They happen whether we think of them or not, they are automatic. In a society, these are the adaption events, making sure everything works efficiently without strict oversight. It is a mechanic of 'raise, raise, lower', it seeks for the optimal temporary value that works for the moment, it does not define a value that has to be strictly followed at all times. The only decisions the brain has to take care of are the actions that do not simply preserve homeostasis. These are the guidelines, what should become more developed, what is no longer of critical value, what overall changes and restructurings are necessary. The importance is great - someone has to guide reactions to severe sudden changes of some conditions, but the responsibility is quite small - it should only interfere when the local 'cells' can no longer continue the way they've been going so far.
The problem herein is that Unification means people think alike. They follow the same guidelines, the same basic principles, the only difference is in the manner of applying those principles. For efficiency, the ruling has to be smoothly transitive, but without conflict. That is to say, nobody stays in power for too long, but the people replacing the people leaving power must be like those new rulers. The change serves as a buffer, it holds back possible dictatorship, and it makes sure many people are experienced enough to lead the country in case of a disaster which renders the current 'guides' inactive. To create a society where everyone has the same ideals you'd have to raise a group of people in similar conditions from birth. Or use faith to brainwash people into believing the same ('Strength through unity, unity through faith'). In any case, it is a strenuous process that does not guarantee positive results. And even if it did, it sounds like a horrible place to live for anyone living right now. Sure, I'd like to see it, but being a part of it is another matter altogether.
"The population exists harmoniously without jealousy, envy or concern for individual advancement. Each individual works for the improvement of the whole, instead of the desires of the individual. The unified government is the social equivalent of a colony of bees."
The ideal of socialism - everybody works for the whole and receives according to one's contribution. The idea that won't happen by merely changing the rules or enforcing government oversight. That has been tried in different shapes and forms, and it has failed miserably. Sure, it starts out super-effective, boosting production. But in those cases the economy side has been largely ignored by the powers that be, resulting in the lack of people who would purchase the produced goods. As usual, it meant that the produced goods would have to be aimed at increasing the strength of the military, and as usual, that has ended up really, really badly.
The big issue was that people did not want to be told exactly what to do and gain next to nothing for it. So they started swindling. The lacking motivation meant lower production and the oversight was too rigid to be of any real use - making people grow corn where it does not grow is an exceptional blunder. And it is also the reason why it hasn't worked and why it won't work for years, if not decades to come. Simply put, society is like a human body. The subconscious decisions, such as sweating and blood circulation happen without 'big' orders from above. They happen whether we think of them or not, they are automatic. In a society, these are the adaption events, making sure everything works efficiently without strict oversight. It is a mechanic of 'raise, raise, lower', it seeks for the optimal temporary value that works for the moment, it does not define a value that has to be strictly followed at all times. The only decisions the brain has to take care of are the actions that do not simply preserve homeostasis. These are the guidelines, what should become more developed, what is no longer of critical value, what overall changes and restructurings are necessary. The importance is great - someone has to guide reactions to severe sudden changes of some conditions, but the responsibility is quite small - it should only interfere when the local 'cells' can no longer continue the way they've been going so far.
The problem herein is that Unification means people think alike. They follow the same guidelines, the same basic principles, the only difference is in the manner of applying those principles. For efficiency, the ruling has to be smoothly transitive, but without conflict. That is to say, nobody stays in power for too long, but the people replacing the people leaving power must be like those new rulers. The change serves as a buffer, it holds back possible dictatorship, and it makes sure many people are experienced enough to lead the country in case of a disaster which renders the current 'guides' inactive. To create a society where everyone has the same ideals you'd have to raise a group of people in similar conditions from birth. Or use faith to brainwash people into believing the same ('Strength through unity, unity through faith'). In any case, it is a strenuous process that does not guarantee positive results. And even if it did, it sounds like a horrible place to live for anyone living right now. Sure, I'd like to see it, but being a part of it is another matter altogether.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Progress =? Chaos
A good deed never goes unpunished. And that should come as no surprise, as any 'good' deed is selfish in its nature.
It is an old truth that everything we do we do because of one simple reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time. The reason why our deeds appear like good ideas is because we benefit from them, by acquiring something we did not have before, or to make us feel better. Usually only when it makes us feel better. After all, altruism is based on egoism.
That is true for everyone, every man, every woman, every small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, but it is hardly big news or some kind of insightful wisdom. But what we need to keep in mind is the consequence of this universal truth.
It is a known fact that reactions happen to increase general entropy, to create chaos around us. This is particularly true in isolated systems, but often apply in open systems as well. The cool thing about systems is that you can expand them, you can make them move, you can choose a system that satisfies your needs. So if you were to put a planet and everything orbiting, on, and in it in a system, the processes that take place in general increase entropy. Sure there are some processes that counteract that, but they are overpowered by the entropy-creating processes. Everything slowly moves towards chaos.
The human race is a bit special, at least that's what people keep saying about it. Humans don't just evolve, their civilizations evolve with them. From being basing hunter/gatherers groups to feudalisms, from there on to larger monarchies and other dictatorships, the wheels of evolution turned human civilization towards socialist ideals and democracy. From a clear-cut chain of command (the alpha male society) to insanely complicated institutions that annoyingly often step on each other's toes, hinder each other's functions. With the increase of population to be governed, chaos was inevitable. No matter how good an idea a revolution really is.
With the human population continuously increasing, and the ability to communicate with almost anybody in the whole world face to face without even leaving home, I cannot help but feel that there is a next step just waiting to happen. But will it be more chaotic?
When we think of the past, the societies we find are often construed as 'barbaric' and 'brutal'. But they worked for their times. Those ideals and systems are by large obsolete, and would not work with large populations. So... either a new system and new ideals come along soon, or the population will have to decrease to account for the lacking social change. Either doesn't seem very appealing.
It is an old truth that everything we do we do because of one simple reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time. The reason why our deeds appear like good ideas is because we benefit from them, by acquiring something we did not have before, or to make us feel better. Usually only when it makes us feel better. After all, altruism is based on egoism.
That is true for everyone, every man, every woman, every small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, but it is hardly big news or some kind of insightful wisdom. But what we need to keep in mind is the consequence of this universal truth.
It is a known fact that reactions happen to increase general entropy, to create chaos around us. This is particularly true in isolated systems, but often apply in open systems as well. The cool thing about systems is that you can expand them, you can make them move, you can choose a system that satisfies your needs. So if you were to put a planet and everything orbiting, on, and in it in a system, the processes that take place in general increase entropy. Sure there are some processes that counteract that, but they are overpowered by the entropy-creating processes. Everything slowly moves towards chaos.
The human race is a bit special, at least that's what people keep saying about it. Humans don't just evolve, their civilizations evolve with them. From being basing hunter/gatherers groups to feudalisms, from there on to larger monarchies and other dictatorships, the wheels of evolution turned human civilization towards socialist ideals and democracy. From a clear-cut chain of command (the alpha male society) to insanely complicated institutions that annoyingly often step on each other's toes, hinder each other's functions. With the increase of population to be governed, chaos was inevitable. No matter how good an idea a revolution really is.
With the human population continuously increasing, and the ability to communicate with almost anybody in the whole world face to face without even leaving home, I cannot help but feel that there is a next step just waiting to happen. But will it be more chaotic?
When we think of the past, the societies we find are often construed as 'barbaric' and 'brutal'. But they worked for their times. Those ideals and systems are by large obsolete, and would not work with large populations. So... either a new system and new ideals come along soon, or the population will have to decrease to account for the lacking social change. Either doesn't seem very appealing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)