2013

The universality of superior intelligence

I’ve heard it theorized that if we ever contact sentient intelligent aliens from other planets, we may have no way to relate to them because their methods of thinking will be too outlandish for us. They will think in fundamentally different ways.

Nonsense, I say! While there may be some variations on thought processing speed, memory, and perceptions (being able to hear different sound frequencies, for instance, or having a stronger sense of smell, or perhaps being able to sense infrared light, though I’m not sure what good that would do), I theorize the foundations of intelligence are like the laws of physics or mathematics; they are universal. Nature always hones in on the same principles.

In this way, I believe humans are the most intelligent possible beings in the universe. If something cannot be understood by a human, then it cannot be understood by any physical being at all. There may be aliens just as intelligent as humans, but there can be no aliens with “superior” intelligence (of the “I understand things you cannot even fathom!” sort, not the “I can do math in my head faster than you!” sort), because there exist no different systems of logic that are just as valid as the system humans use, because our system is based on immutable principles ingrained in the nature of nature of itself. (I do not mean the system of logic as defined by mathematical laws in a text book; these systems are incomplete. We do not yet fully recognize the logic we use, yet we use it naturally. Its subtle simpleness and ease of use is what makes so hard to find, but we’re getting there.)

By S P Hannifin, ago

Twitter suspended me

I just tried tweeting something, and couldn’t. My twitter account has been suspended! (Don’t have schadenfreude!) I’m guessing they have some automated algorithmic process for suspending accounts and mine came up as a false-positive. (Too many links, maybe? I do post links a bit, but they’re never misleading or repetitive or spammy.) Either that or this is the work of my arch-nemesis, Finneas Blinn, who is envious of my intellect and success and seeks to ruin me in every way.

Fortunately, Twitter allows you to submit a ticket asking them to review and restore your account, which I of course immediately did.

We’ll see how long it takes. Googling around, seems false-positives are not uncommon, and restoration can take anywhere from a couple of days to several weeks. So it’s like querying agents!

Anyway, I’m not too worried. I only follow around 40 people and only have around 240 followers. I don’t have a business that relies on tweeting people or something, so waiting won’t bother me. Besides, there’s always you, WordPress, my ever faithful friend and ally.

Oh, and here’s the tweet I was trying to tweet when my account suddenly became suspended: “almost done plotting my next novel… have a summary of all the scenes, but still need to work out the specifics of connecting some of them”

By S P Hannifin, ago

Professor turns test into a game, blogger remains unimpressed

Here’s an interesting article a friend shared on Facebook. The article has gotten a lot of likes and tweets, and commentators on the article congratulate the author, a professor of Behavioral Ecology at UCLA, for his wonderful brilliant idea.

His idea? He let his students “cheat” on an exam by letting them work with each other and with any other resource they wanted. The “meta” idea is that they’d learn something about behavior by how they take the test.

What would they learn?

I don’t know. The article is rather vague on the specifics, save for an idea any idiot should know, “If we all work together, we can do more.” That doesn’t mean working together is automatically a good thing, obviously; it depends on what people are trying to achieve. If two or more people are trying to achieve the same thing and lose nothing by another person achieving it, then, of course, work together. I think the human species would’ve died out long ago if humans didn’t innately understand this, so I fail to see anything very amazing or brilliant by exemplifying this in allowing such cooperative behavior to emerge in a set of unconventional exam rules.

The professor writes:

In the end, the students learned what social insects like ants and termites have known for hundreds of millions of years. To win at some games, cooperation is better than competition. Unity that arises through a diversity of opinion is stronger than any solitary competitor.

But did the students themselves realize this?

Is that supposed to be profound?

What really bugs me more than anything, however, is when the professor writes:

Is the take-home message, then, that cheating is good? Well…no. Although by conventional test-taking rules, the students were cheating, they actually weren’t in this case. Instead, they were changing their goal in the Education Game from “Get a higher grade than my classmates” to “Get to the best answer.” This also required them to make new rules for test taking.

What student’s goal is merely to “get a higher grade than my classmate”? Is the value of a D worth more if everyone else got an F? I think the goal for most students is to “get the best grade I can based on how much I value it.” Because, in the end, for the purposes of the student, the true worth of a grade is decided by himself, not a professor or an institution’s arbitrary rating system.

You see, you silly professor, your test was never a “game.” At least, not in the sense you thought it was. You do not get to decide what the students are playing for, so you never had control of the rules in the first place. The students have always been in control of the rules, because they’re in control of their own goals. The rules any educator establishes for his students are part of the educator’s goals, what the educators are playing for, what the educators want to do with their student’s grades and what they want those grades to reflect.

So I fail to see how the professor accomplished anything worthwhile.

If you want to accomplish something worthwhile, follow my education philosophies!

By S P Hannifin, ago

Slash as a conjunction word

Here’s an interesting article about the word “slash” becoming a new modern conjunction word, as when people say the word to mean what its corresponding symbol means in writing, as in: “I think I’m going to watch TV slash take a nap.”

I have used the term myself, though not often, and I would never spell out the word in writing, such as in a blog/article.  (See?)  And when I say it, I prefer to physically slash the air with two fingers for gesticulatory emphasis.

Of course, we can quickly infinite loop the definition of “slash” by defining it as “and slash or” meaning “and and slash or or” meaning “and and and slash or or or” ad infinitum.

Anyway, it’s interesting to see how language evolves like this.  I’m always annoyed when people say “that’s not a word” as if only some select group of humanity has the ability to decide what is and isn’t a word.  There’s a fine argument to be made that just making up a word or changing a word’s definition without anyone’s consent will only hurt your chances of being understood when you try to communicate, but if the meaning is clear by the word’s context and the origins of the word’s roots, language can be completely gruptious.

By S P Hannifin, ago

What do you think?

Haven’t posted much in a while. Continuing to work on my novel; my progress can be read about on my writing blog. Also making some slow progress on my search for Strong AI. Anyway, he’s a post about thinking.

As humans, we don’t very often turn our brains off, save for the deeper cycles of sleep. While awake, we’re almost always thinking about something.

So what are you thinking about? The possibilities include:

1. Going over stuff that happened. Perhaps to try to make sense of it. Perhaps to guess at other people’s intentions (which may lead to delusions). Perhaps to decide what you’ll do should you find yourself in the situation again.

2. Daydreaming. Just making up scenarios for yourself, putting yourself in really awesome situations that you’d love to live through, or really awful situations in an effort to prepare for them. A form of self-comfort or self-torture.

3. Deciding what to do. What should you eat for dinner? What movie should you watch? What book should you read? Should you take a shower now or later? What should you say to that guy you need to talk to? The answer is trivial, but still requires at least some thought.

4. Observing. Or, I might say, paying attention. Perhaps watching squirrels scurry along branches, or ants build their dirt mounds. Perhaps watching TV or listening to music or reading a blog post. This may be paired with another form of thinking, but you have to dedicate some brain power to making sense of what your watching or reading or listening to if you’re truly paying attention to it.

5. Deep problem-solving. This is when you’re solving a problem you’ve never solved before and don’t plan on needing to solve again. Perhaps a particular chess position. Perhaps a mathematical conundrum. Perhaps a philosophical consideration. Perhaps a scientific query. Perhaps an algorithmic design. Coming up with a solution (or coming to understand someone else’s solution) may take weeks, months, or even years, but the solution will usually result in a paradigm shift, forever shaping how you understand something from then on.

6. Praying. More than a recitation of memorized word sequences (though it may include them), I consider this to be a profound idea. In fact, I’m not even sure how to describe it off the top of my head. At it’s foundation, it’s a form of honest self-reflection, humble thankfulness for existing, and perhaps a request for something desired (forgiveness if nothing else). What makes it profound is the idea that the prayer is being heard by an entity you neither have the capacity to fully understand nor hear in return.

7. Meditating. Purposefully trying not to think about anything, or at least much less than usual. (There may be more to it depending on who you ask; I can’t claim to be a meditation guru.)

———-

The first three or four are so easy that many spend their lives never daring to try to solve a deep problem or reflecting on the nature of spiritual things. So, the exercise is, as you’re going about you’re day, try to notice what you’re thinking about and perhaps try to think differently. If you’re spending all your time going over something or daydreaming, move on to some deep problem-solving. Try to come up with theories to explain something. If you’re spending too much time deciding what to do, try observing something. You’ll get new ideas. Obviously, try praying at some point, and thinking about the nature of God and life and eternity.

By S P Hannifin, ago

Christianity and science fiction

It’s almost Easter! So how about a little post on Christianity and science fiction?

I recently read this article: Christianity vs. Science Fiction

I must admit, with all the political correctness going on the sci-fi world (perhaps from the strange recent mainstream popularity of “geekdom”, mostly comprised on wannabes who consider themselves geeks because they have an iPad, use social media, and enjoy some sci-fi based thing (not that I mind sci-fi going mainstream in and of itself, only that the new crowds are helping to shape sci-fi’s future in ways I find inane)), I was expecting this to be an article about why Christianity is somehow incompatible with the enlightened scientific progress of sci-fi.

But, thankfully, no! The article reads:

On the other hand, I have to wonder where all this Christian animosity in Science Fiction & Fantasy has come from. Sure, I realize there are a lotta overzealous religious types spewing hatred on a daily basis, instead of the compassion and respect Jesus preached. But c’mon, has it really been that bad? No one alive today was ever tortured to death in the Inquisition (unless you believe in reincarnation) so why is it often used as an example of how bad Christians are? Shouldn’t non-Christians take the high road and not follow in the footsteps of history’s worst “Christians”? Get some compassion, not some contempt.

I’m digressing… the point here really is, where has Jesus gone in the Science Fiction & Fantasy world? He was once there, you know.

…

SF/F fans, what really is so bad about Christianity? (The Biblical teachings of Jesus, not the televangelist pleas for donations). There seems to be a recent trend to exclude or discredit Christianity in Science Fiction.

I think it’s really part of an ancient trend of trying to exclude or descredit Christianity in general.

But in terms of Christianity vs science (and sci-fi by extension), I think there are a few common fundamental misunderstandings of what both actually are.

“If Christianity teaches that I am a sinner, then it condemns me, and that is evil!” No, it calls you to recognize your sins in order to redeem you, because you are worthy of it.

“Science explains things!” No, science is a method of correcting incorrect explanations in order to do something useful, not a system of creating or verifying explanations. Science fiction seems to suggest that Science! somehow provides some magical systems in and of itself that makes scientific progress achievable. So if only more people would do some Science! life would be easier and there’d be more technology, and maybe more world peace. It’s a bit like thinking Math! will build skyscrapers. Sorry, no. Progress still relies on human ingenuity, imagination, and interest.

“Christianity doesn’t explain things!” No, it does not explain physical phenomena, nor does it seek to. It calls you to have faith in what you already feel in your heart: that love is real, that there is a real moral difference between right and wrong, and that you are worth something and will live forever. You will never be able to experience any physical phenomena that can prove or disprove this to you; you can only choose to believe it or not.

I reckon there are darker reasons Christianity is frowned upon, such as pride and self-righteousness and the worshipping of money, fame, the physical body, etc. They have to condemn Christianity lest they condemn themselves. And they are masters at self-deception, like alcoholics in denial, so they see themselves as the honest ones.

So the anti-Christian sci-fi author thinks: “We are smarter than people were hundreds of years ago, so in the future, people will be smarter still! So, since Christianity is obviously false, it will be much more apparent in the future. Either people will be smart and less Christian, or what Christians remain will be very obviously stupid.”

Which amounts to little more than a pat-myself-on-the-back “I told ya so!” story.

By S P Hannifin, ago