I've recently come across a interesting story called The Egg By: Andy Weir. Link down below.
http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
I won't talk about it but it is very, very interesting and has caused me to do some deep thinking about almost everything. If your not a reader then go to this link to get a Machinima version of the story in the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSooggMg_o
I just wanted to tell you about this and wanted to hear your responses about it, please, if you have time leave your thoughts in the comments below. And thank you for your time patience.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
No Side Is Right
After a troubling experience this weekend i was painfully reminded that no side is correct. There are simply different perspectives. There is no justice, there is no right, there is no wrong, there is no good, there is no bad, way to look at anything. There may be good actions or bad actions but i don't believe perspectives are wrong. What someone believes is of no consequence, what they do is. The real danger is that you go and act on some half known belief, like hearing only one side of the story only to learn later that you were doing something wrong because you didn't have the other side of the story. It's the influence that belief has on someone that can make them act irrationally and do things that are not in their best interest. Thinking back on my learning experience, i should have seen this coming. I never expect the obvious. There is no real correctness in the universe, the only correctness is the thing one imposes. But even then, is it really correct?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Gestalt
ge·stalts or Ge·stalts or ge·stalt·en or Ge·stalt·en (-shtält
n, -shtôltn, -stältn, -stôltn)
n, -shtôltn, -stältn, -stôltn) A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
Humans are a gestalt organism. Everything that combines to make us cannot define us just but looking at them individually or looking at them and adding them together. Its this particular quality, i believe, is why human beings haven't been brought back from the dead by using all the sum of our parts. Kind of like the story of Frankenstein.
I've been fascinated lately about the concept of Gestalt. Mostly seen in games I've played. A game called Nier is about a man who uses forbidden magic to save his daughter from a horrible affliction called the "Black Scrawl". Once you start the game you are immediately attacked by dozens of things called Shades. These Shades eventually forces the main character to use the forbidden magic of the book. After a cut scene that shows that the main character's daughter used the second book's magic to feed her father and herself it shows a caption saying one thousand years later and your playing as the same character in a wide prairie surrounded by large hills rather than a winter wasteland that has covered tall buildings in mountains of snow.(Spoiler Alert) As it turns out in the later parts of the game, the main antagonist called The Shadow Lord has kidnapped your daughter. Once you go to rescue her you find out that the main character is not human. He is merely a human shaped vessel to contain the soul/memories of the real human beings. The real human beings are the shades you've been fighting all along. You are now classified as a replacant human that was meant to house the souls of the true humans which are the the shades, the shades are the Gestalt beings that have the souls and memories of the human race. It is a sad end to the human race, how the combined memory and souls of human beings have reduced them to beings of jealousy and rage because they are unable to be housed within a human body.
Another Gestalt intelligence is the beings known as the Geth. This is in the game called Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. The Geth were a race of synthetic organisms that resemble a race called the Quarians, their creators, except that they have a single eye that is sometimes referred as a "Flashlight eye" because of its brightness. They are machine like in appearance, though not much in known about them in the first game other than what your Quarian teammate, Tali, tells you. The Geth were created as a sources of cheap labor, they didn't have any sort of significant intelligence to begin with, they would be comparable with machines at an assembly line, doing a singular task continually. Eventually the had an upgrade that allowed Geth to "Share" their processing power whenever they were in close proximity. This allowed them to work more efficiently in groups. Eventually when their numbers grew large enough for their neural network, as Legion (Your Geth teammate in Mass Effect 2) put it, they woke up. They became sentient beings capable of making their own decisions and be independent. By being together in a group they are a Gestalt being, though the down side to this is that the being is technically spread over multiple bodies. An individual geth has the intelligence of an animal when it comes to combat. A small group of Geth can work as a singular unit or squad in perfect cohesion. A large group of Geth work as a city in their minds. They are able to look at data and exchange it at the speed of light, a product of this is that they don't "impose" consensus as humans do in their government. They actually have complete and total consensus on an issue, and when they have a disagreement they still accept one another as themselves.
Now looking at a single Geth platform called Legion. A geth platform is the body of the Geth, these can usually house about 100 Geth. When i say Geth i mean a singular program that has the intelligence of an a computer. What makes the Legion platform unique is the fact that it is able to house one thousand one hundred and eighty three Geth at once. Due to the large number Legion is able to operate on its own without reliance of the other geth. Legion is a Gestalt intelligence of over one thousand minds that speak as a single voice, Legion is able to analyze a situation better when one thousand eyes are viewing it at once. Legion is able to make better informed decisions when one thousand minds are reviewing the evidence. I thought about this fact and came to the conclusion that human beings are capable of this with certain sacrifices.
The first sacrifice of human beings would have to be individuality. A Gestalt intelligence is no individual, its and individual Gestalt but not a individual mind. An individual mind has no meaning in a Gestalt other than to add its own input of evidence and perception. The second sacrifice would have to be freedom. In the most likely scenario of this possibility, you wouldn't have your own body. You would have a singular body with thousands of minds/souls working in parallel. You wouldn't have the same freedoms of actions, privacy, or self. You would be a single drop in an ocean, all and all insignificant in comparison to the whole. It wouldn't be enslavement though, it would be interconnectedness and unity but without the freedom. You'd probably have your own thoughts but you'd also share them with everyone Else's, and everyone else would share theirs with you. With time, you might not even know the difference between your own thoughts and others.
I consider being a Gestalt intelligence better than being a singular intelligence. I consider it a higher state of being and existence. What do you think?
I've been fascinated lately about the concept of Gestalt. Mostly seen in games I've played. A game called Nier is about a man who uses forbidden magic to save his daughter from a horrible affliction called the "Black Scrawl". Once you start the game you are immediately attacked by dozens of things called Shades. These Shades eventually forces the main character to use the forbidden magic of the book. After a cut scene that shows that the main character's daughter used the second book's magic to feed her father and herself it shows a caption saying one thousand years later and your playing as the same character in a wide prairie surrounded by large hills rather than a winter wasteland that has covered tall buildings in mountains of snow.(Spoiler Alert) As it turns out in the later parts of the game, the main antagonist called The Shadow Lord has kidnapped your daughter. Once you go to rescue her you find out that the main character is not human. He is merely a human shaped vessel to contain the soul/memories of the real human beings. The real human beings are the shades you've been fighting all along. You are now classified as a replacant human that was meant to house the souls of the true humans which are the the shades, the shades are the Gestalt beings that have the souls and memories of the human race. It is a sad end to the human race, how the combined memory and souls of human beings have reduced them to beings of jealousy and rage because they are unable to be housed within a human body.
Another Gestalt intelligence is the beings known as the Geth. This is in the game called Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. The Geth were a race of synthetic organisms that resemble a race called the Quarians, their creators, except that they have a single eye that is sometimes referred as a "Flashlight eye" because of its brightness. They are machine like in appearance, though not much in known about them in the first game other than what your Quarian teammate, Tali, tells you. The Geth were created as a sources of cheap labor, they didn't have any sort of significant intelligence to begin with, they would be comparable with machines at an assembly line, doing a singular task continually. Eventually the had an upgrade that allowed Geth to "Share" their processing power whenever they were in close proximity. This allowed them to work more efficiently in groups. Eventually when their numbers grew large enough for their neural network, as Legion (Your Geth teammate in Mass Effect 2) put it, they woke up. They became sentient beings capable of making their own decisions and be independent. By being together in a group they are a Gestalt being, though the down side to this is that the being is technically spread over multiple bodies. An individual geth has the intelligence of an animal when it comes to combat. A small group of Geth can work as a singular unit or squad in perfect cohesion. A large group of Geth work as a city in their minds. They are able to look at data and exchange it at the speed of light, a product of this is that they don't "impose" consensus as humans do in their government. They actually have complete and total consensus on an issue, and when they have a disagreement they still accept one another as themselves.
Now looking at a single Geth platform called Legion. A geth platform is the body of the Geth, these can usually house about 100 Geth. When i say Geth i mean a singular program that has the intelligence of an a computer. What makes the Legion platform unique is the fact that it is able to house one thousand one hundred and eighty three Geth at once. Due to the large number Legion is able to operate on its own without reliance of the other geth. Legion is a Gestalt intelligence of over one thousand minds that speak as a single voice, Legion is able to analyze a situation better when one thousand eyes are viewing it at once. Legion is able to make better informed decisions when one thousand minds are reviewing the evidence. I thought about this fact and came to the conclusion that human beings are capable of this with certain sacrifices.
The first sacrifice of human beings would have to be individuality. A Gestalt intelligence is no individual, its and individual Gestalt but not a individual mind. An individual mind has no meaning in a Gestalt other than to add its own input of evidence and perception. The second sacrifice would have to be freedom. In the most likely scenario of this possibility, you wouldn't have your own body. You would have a singular body with thousands of minds/souls working in parallel. You wouldn't have the same freedoms of actions, privacy, or self. You would be a single drop in an ocean, all and all insignificant in comparison to the whole. It wouldn't be enslavement though, it would be interconnectedness and unity but without the freedom. You'd probably have your own thoughts but you'd also share them with everyone Else's, and everyone else would share theirs with you. With time, you might not even know the difference between your own thoughts and others.
I consider being a Gestalt intelligence better than being a singular intelligence. I consider it a higher state of being and existence. What do you think?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Too many sides
There are too many sides to any one story. I'm finding that out now. I always heard that there was your side, the other side, and the truth, but can't there be just the truth. We try to tell the truth and lie for other's (and possibly our) best interests but now in the middle of it i don't even think there is a truth side at all. Each side might like to spin lies to each other and try to win my support, the lies that ruin the truth. And when there is truth from one side, it's always a half truth, "She was always mad." My father would say. But my mother would say "I was mad because he kept saying i was mad, i didn't know what i felt." Each side flipping and flopping, intentionally and inadvertently attempting to gain my favor. I just wish i wasn't the one they went to when they wanted to talk about each other behind their backs. Because I'm the calm one, I'm the one who doesn't blow up when they hear something they don't like, I'm the one who is willing to hear it (for my own curiosity of the truth and so they can vent). I see truth from both sides and notice the lies, but when it comes down to it, all they need to do is talk to each other to work things out, but they don't. Sometimes i need to vent too. Sorry blog, if you had consciousness I'd feel even worse that you'd sit through my ramblings. I also apologize to my blog viewers, i just needed to get that on paper. Or on hard data? I'm not sure what it is on a computer.
Ok so we got your side. The right side you would say. The wrong side the "other" side would say. And we don't know what the truthful side would say. On your side you only got you, your experience, and your feelings. Feeling's can muddle the truth or amplify it depending on application. The problem with experience is that its a subjective stand point in relation to what really happened. You only know what your five senses told you. So your at a limited stand point. The good news it that the "other" side is also at this point as well. Bad news is that they might know something you don't, and as such might have an edge. Good news is that you might have knowledge they don't have either. When these two sides meet there is the formation of the truth, or its complete obliteration depending on what your motivations are.
First is the reconstruction of what happened. Lets say your accused of stealing a priceless gem in a museum when the power momentarily shut down. You were standing the closest to the gem when the power went out trying to get a good picture of it. You saw a man in a suit also close to the gem whispering into his cell phone. There was also an old lady who was chatting up the crowd of people about how she would love to have that as necklace. When the lights went out you were the furthest from it because you were fumbling in the dark and ended up near the exit doors as a consequence. What you know is that when fumbling in the dark is you bumped into three objects when moving. After bumping into the third object you heard the sound of the gem's display case being smashed on the ground. Moments after bumping into the third object the lights turned on and security came and arrested you for questioning along with everyone else. You recount every vivid detail of what happened when the lights went out to security. This is fragment one of the truth.
The other side is comparing your story to what the other witnesses said. The Man in the suit claims that he felt someone bump into him and then the display case broke. He felt what he thinks to be a camera bump into him after the display case broke, heading in the direction of the exit. When questioned about his phone call he simply replied that it was a "private matter". The old lady caught the man saying, "That's too little, I'm going to need more." as if he were discussing the price of something. When the lights went out she was in the middle of turning, losing her bearings she says she walked into something and then the display case shattered. She was seen before the theft she was holding a large designer handbag, it is now not in her possession. This is another fragment of truth.
The final step for the security is to take all they've heard and construct the truth from the fragments. From the lies and truth are sifted, mixed, and constructed into what is thought to be the truth. The truth, if any lies are added, might be completely obliterated. There is only one chance to get it right, if the ruined truth is accepted, someone who is innocent will be wrongfully imprisoned. If the majority are satisfied with justice then the truth might never be found. The more sides to a story, the harder it is to construct the truth.
The truth is a puzzle, the more pieces, the harder it is to construct. Some wish to hide the pieces. Do you hide the pieces?
Sorry about all the green, F'd up my post so i had to highlight it all so you could read it. Enjoy i hope.
Ok so we got your side. The right side you would say. The wrong side the "other" side would say. And we don't know what the truthful side would say. On your side you only got you, your experience, and your feelings. Feeling's can muddle the truth or amplify it depending on application. The problem with experience is that its a subjective stand point in relation to what really happened. You only know what your five senses told you. So your at a limited stand point. The good news it that the "other" side is also at this point as well. Bad news is that they might know something you don't, and as such might have an edge. Good news is that you might have knowledge they don't have either. When these two sides meet there is the formation of the truth, or its complete obliteration depending on what your motivations are.
First is the reconstruction of what happened. Lets say your accused of stealing a priceless gem in a museum when the power momentarily shut down. You were standing the closest to the gem when the power went out trying to get a good picture of it. You saw a man in a suit also close to the gem whispering into his cell phone. There was also an old lady who was chatting up the crowd of people about how she would love to have that as necklace. When the lights went out you were the furthest from it because you were fumbling in the dark and ended up near the exit doors as a consequence. What you know is that when fumbling in the dark is you bumped into three objects when moving. After bumping into the third object you heard the sound of the gem's display case being smashed on the ground. Moments after bumping into the third object the lights turned on and security came and arrested you for questioning along with everyone else. You recount every vivid detail of what happened when the lights went out to security. This is fragment one of the truth.
The other side is comparing your story to what the other witnesses said. The Man in the suit claims that he felt someone bump into him and then the display case broke. He felt what he thinks to be a camera bump into him after the display case broke, heading in the direction of the exit. When questioned about his phone call he simply replied that it was a "private matter". The old lady caught the man saying, "That's too little, I'm going to need more." as if he were discussing the price of something. When the lights went out she was in the middle of turning, losing her bearings she says she walked into something and then the display case shattered. She was seen before the theft she was holding a large designer handbag, it is now not in her possession. This is another fragment of truth.
The final step for the security is to take all they've heard and construct the truth from the fragments. From the lies and truth are sifted, mixed, and constructed into what is thought to be the truth. The truth, if any lies are added, might be completely obliterated. There is only one chance to get it right, if the ruined truth is accepted, someone who is innocent will be wrongfully imprisoned. If the majority are satisfied with justice then the truth might never be found. The more sides to a story, the harder it is to construct the truth.
The truth is a puzzle, the more pieces, the harder it is to construct. Some wish to hide the pieces. Do you hide the pieces?
Sorry about all the green, F'd up my post so i had to highlight it all so you could read it. Enjoy i hope.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Why Perfection?
Do you believe in perfection? I do, but i don't like it. Why? Perfection leaves nothing. It is the ultimate achievement and leaves nothing left to strive for. If someone achieves perfection then they have nothing left but perfection, my reasoning is that such a person wouldn't have any motivation at all, i mean, if you achieve all that there is to achieve what would you do with the rest of your life? The concept of perfection has been around nearly as long as human have existed. It arose from the idea that we are imperfect beings compared to God. God being perfection. It also could have been formed by the idea that things don't always work out the way there supposed to. Like if you make a machine that flies you would expect the machine to fly perfectly, an imperfect flying machine would be one that does not, the imperfection that stands out the most would be crashing to the ground. Because there is nothing after achieving perfection i despise it, it like taking all potential for all people and throwing it all away, there is no more potential except for the use of perfection.
Now there can be multiple types of perfection.
A perfect person-This person would leave an ever lasting impression on you even if you only caught a glimpse of them. They would look perfect, any image of perfection that's what they would be. They have a perfect voice that has a way of worming into your very soul making you hang on every word. They movement is perfect, they never trip, they never hesitate, they never have a wrong move, and they never seem to exert themselves. They are either perfectly intelligent, anything we (Humans) know they know. They, i believe would, have photographic memory. Will say the right thing in the right place no matter the situation. I wonder what motivations a person like this would have, who they'd surround themselves with, what friends they'd make.
A perfect place-A Place of impossible beauty that would be a crime against all if it is destroyed. Everything there is just right, its a place of safety. It would be peaceful and grand. It would have a calming effect on all who visited it.
A Perfect object- be it a tool, a work of art, a piece of furniture, this object fulfils their purpose completely and never seems out of place where ever it is, other than it appears too good or too great to be there in the first place.
A perfect plan/idea-Obviously something that is so convincing and sounds so right that it would be idiotic not to blindly follow it.
Enough about particular perfect things. I want to discuss perfection as a whole a bit more. I encourage everyone to strive for perfection but never achieve it, if not for your own sake then the for the sake of everyone who ever lived. I believe that the chase/process on the way to perfection is more important than the goal. Would any of you like to be perfect.
Now there can be multiple types of perfection.
A perfect person-This person would leave an ever lasting impression on you even if you only caught a glimpse of them. They would look perfect, any image of perfection that's what they would be. They have a perfect voice that has a way of worming into your very soul making you hang on every word. They movement is perfect, they never trip, they never hesitate, they never have a wrong move, and they never seem to exert themselves. They are either perfectly intelligent, anything we (Humans) know they know. They, i believe would, have photographic memory. Will say the right thing in the right place no matter the situation. I wonder what motivations a person like this would have, who they'd surround themselves with, what friends they'd make.
A perfect place-A Place of impossible beauty that would be a crime against all if it is destroyed. Everything there is just right, its a place of safety. It would be peaceful and grand. It would have a calming effect on all who visited it.
A Perfect object- be it a tool, a work of art, a piece of furniture, this object fulfils their purpose completely and never seems out of place where ever it is, other than it appears too good or too great to be there in the first place.
A perfect plan/idea-Obviously something that is so convincing and sounds so right that it would be idiotic not to blindly follow it.
Enough about particular perfect things. I want to discuss perfection as a whole a bit more. I encourage everyone to strive for perfection but never achieve it, if not for your own sake then the for the sake of everyone who ever lived. I believe that the chase/process on the way to perfection is more important than the goal. Would any of you like to be perfect.
Monday, March 28, 2011
word weight
"I just ran over your dog." What do you feel? You feel upset, angry, sad, and a lot of other possible negative emotions? Of course you do. You probably feel that because of the statement's subject. But not because of the words itself. Why not? Don't words have power? They do but i feel that they lack a certain power to "Compel". If you disect the sentence you won't find any sort of power at all. Lets do just that to illistrate my point.
"I" refering to the self, me, the person whom you are conversing refering to one's self. "I" 9th letter of the alphabet. Not alot of feeling or power or compulsion in just I
"Just" Refering to one being just, a moment ago.
"Ran" Have run, run in a previous time.
"Over" above, higher than some other object, place, ideal, person.
"Your" What you have, possessions, things of ownership.
"Dog" a four legged mammal that has been domesticated by humans, a pet, a friend, a low state of being ex. "That man is a Dog",
Each word has no strength, No significant power. The English language is one of little power there isn't much emotion or compelling to it at all. I feel that our language needs a bit more discretion when using certain words. I had this conversation with my friend and he says the world Love is tossed around all the time in the media and such. It lost some of its meaning. When you think of the word love you have the thoughts of a fiery, powerful emotion that is attributed to another human being. I feel that words shouldn't just describe how we feel, words should make us feel as we say them. If i say Love i should feel the emotion love or be feeling Love when i say it. Words should be able to convey that power no matter the situation that they're used in. If i say Murder i expect some some sort of sign of displeasure or revulsion from the subject at hand but not for the word to be casually thrown about and said without any feeling like when someone in the news says "Today the marks the anniversary of the Murder of ....." Words, just by saying them, should be able to compel emotion to significant degrees. And as such our society shouldn't be able to just toss words about like they are so very cheep. Though they aren't hard to fabricate they are an invaluable resource for all.
"I" refering to the self, me, the person whom you are conversing refering to one's self. "I" 9th letter of the alphabet. Not alot of feeling or power or compulsion in just I
"Just" Refering to one being just, a moment ago.
"Ran" Have run, run in a previous time.
"Over" above, higher than some other object, place, ideal, person.
"Your" What you have, possessions, things of ownership.
"Dog" a four legged mammal that has been domesticated by humans, a pet, a friend, a low state of being ex. "That man is a Dog",
Each word has no strength, No significant power. The English language is one of little power there isn't much emotion or compelling to it at all. I feel that our language needs a bit more discretion when using certain words. I had this conversation with my friend and he says the world Love is tossed around all the time in the media and such. It lost some of its meaning. When you think of the word love you have the thoughts of a fiery, powerful emotion that is attributed to another human being. I feel that words shouldn't just describe how we feel, words should make us feel as we say them. If i say Love i should feel the emotion love or be feeling Love when i say it. Words should be able to convey that power no matter the situation that they're used in. If i say Murder i expect some some sort of sign of displeasure or revulsion from the subject at hand but not for the word to be casually thrown about and said without any feeling like when someone in the news says "Today the marks the anniversary of the Murder of ....." Words, just by saying them, should be able to compel emotion to significant degrees. And as such our society shouldn't be able to just toss words about like they are so very cheep. Though they aren't hard to fabricate they are an invaluable resource for all.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Hate number 4
Nother late post....
OK guys, here's my forth on my ranking of things I hate. I Hate Hate....just do. Hate is just a useless emotion that completely limits ones potential and uses up valuable energy for no good reason. I mean there are some good hates like hating bad things like killing and hate itself but its just a big circle of hate to hate hate. But none the less reasonable to hate it. Intolerance and anger to something isn't always bad. Killing incites much anger from many people therefore it is completely reasonable to hate killing/murder. But hating hate is something that isn't as resonable, first off its a contradiction of the whole premise. If you hate hate, then you hate that you hate hate and so on and so forth until infinity. So hating hate is completely unreasonable. It is better to say i hate the feeling of hate. Its nothing but a burn, a constant warm feeling that doesn't go away. It leads to outbursts and complete loss of control, it also makes you do things you wouldn't usually do. Feeling hate is almost always unpleasant. So I guess that wraps up number 4, i might post other thoughts on my other 3 hates. but i'm tired and its 2 Am so i 'm gunna go to bed.
OK guys, here's my forth on my ranking of things I hate. I Hate Hate....just do. Hate is just a useless emotion that completely limits ones potential and uses up valuable energy for no good reason. I mean there are some good hates like hating bad things like killing and hate itself but its just a big circle of hate to hate hate. But none the less reasonable to hate it. Intolerance and anger to something isn't always bad. Killing incites much anger from many people therefore it is completely reasonable to hate killing/murder. But hating hate is something that isn't as resonable, first off its a contradiction of the whole premise. If you hate hate, then you hate that you hate hate and so on and so forth until infinity. So hating hate is completely unreasonable. It is better to say i hate the feeling of hate. Its nothing but a burn, a constant warm feeling that doesn't go away. It leads to outbursts and complete loss of control, it also makes you do things you wouldn't usually do. Feeling hate is almost always unpleasant. So I guess that wraps up number 4, i might post other thoughts on my other 3 hates. but i'm tired and its 2 Am so i 'm gunna go to bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)