Why do they do it?
The US government is broken, the Republicans and the cancer that is the Tea Party are actively seeking to destabilize the Federal government simply to line their pockets even more brazenly at the expense of the US citizenry, and global economic stability. They are all rich enough but they are peerless in their unwavering greed and avarice.
They are not dumb, they sabotage all efforts to improve efficiency and spend responsibly, stoke fear and insecurities if their ignorant, credulous base, then use the inefficiencies and broken disjointed policies they fostered with their obstructionism to fan those very flames of unrest even higher! All simply to keep their base aligned to their singular purpose, which is the conversion of a democracy to a plutocratic corporatocracy of which they are they ultimate beneficiaries. And in the process they turn the us citizenry into what is effectively feudal serfs, serfs of corporations instead of barons and lords.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Above Zero Cryo Stasis
I recently posted this entry on my idea for cryo surgery but I have been kicking around another more generally applicable idea for long term hibernation/stasis for quite some time, but have never written it down.
I would love to see research/investigation into hibernation stasis at temperatures slightly above freezing. A long time staple of science fiction - from the Alien franchise, through Demolition Man, Stargate, Firefly and many other classics of science fiction including let us not forget, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Buck Rogers, as well as a recurring trope of video games from Portal to Fallout, I think it's actually a technology we could develop in reality, in the here and now.
The problem with freezing a complex organism like a human is that when ice crystals form, their structure destroys the cellular workings of the body.
This makes freezing a person to put them into long term stasis kind of problematic - as they will wake up dead when melted.
But - other than killing the subject, freezing a person would be a great way to get people to the Moon, Mars, other plantes/moons in our solar system and even to other stars. It would also be a good way for people to 'quickly' (subjectively) travel to the future. But it would also save taxpayer money. Beyond all the space travel aspects, think of the Military - when not in use, tax payers have to maintain the personnel in the military, and they must constantly train to avoid skill fade, which consumes additional costly resources, etc. If we could induct classes from boot camp, furnish them with advanced skills training, and then put them in cryo-stasis, they could sit there on ice until a situation requiring their skills were needed. When reanimated they would be as prepared and capable as graduation day. We would be able to have instant-on-demand military might, without paying for standing armies when not in use. Meanwhile, the soldier thus stored could be earning half or quarter pay for the entire time, and when they get discharged, be as young and healthy as they day they graduated boot camp, but significantly more well off financially.
So - how do we get there?
I think the following approach would likely bear fruit.
Rather than trying to freeze a person solid, drop their body temperature to less than a degree above freezing, and let no part of their body get colder than that. This would require very precise temperature sensors both in the body (needle thin thermocouples inserted into the major organs and muscle groups) as well as in the cooling mechanisms to ensure no transient thermal dips.
A non-toxic cocktail of substances could be introduced into the body to increase the temperature ice crystals form - such as glycerine, mixed with probably some broad spectrum anti-biotics to further suppress bacterial growth.
The subject would be intubated and would be put on bypass at extremely low speeds, blood would continue to flow, and oxygen would be in the lungs, but respiration and cardiac functions would be completely stopped. Almost all metabolic activity would cease, but there would be fuel/oxygen in the system for cellular consumption. This would help in several ways. First, any minimal metabolic activity would be sustained, and Second, when the subject is awoken, their will be fuel and oxygen in the system for cellular activity to resume.
Consider the many examples of people falling into ice cold bodies of water, and being recovered hours later, who make a full recovery. Some of those victims make partial recoveries, suffering brain damage, but others are fully 100% recovered with no deleterious effects at all. I suspect the difference is how quickly the brain cools once respiration and cardiac functions cease, once fuel and oxygen stops being renewed in the cerebral tissues. I suspect that a victim of falling into freezing water who's brain rapidly cools to sub 40 degrees, before oxygen depravation starts to work its ravaging way thru the neural tissue, are the ones that make the full recovery.
It is also possible that some of the victims with lingering negative effects got too cold, and perhaps ice crystals started to form in their brain or other organs, those crystals ripping their cellular walls to ribbons.
We know that a mammal's heart beat and respiration will stop at temperatures much higher than freezing. And we know that refrigeration keeps food (which for some people includes the flesh of dead animals) fresh for longer than leaving the food at room temperature. If we can cool a person to just above freezing, rapidly and while keeping oxygenated, nutrient filled blood flowing, and if we can return them to normal body temperature quickly, without ever interrupting the flow of blood and nutrients, there should be no reason a person kept in such a state could not be maintained for extended periods of time.
To quiesce a subject, placing them into stasis, one would likely require several days of preparation. First, the subject would be subjected to a regime similar to the preparation for a colonoscopy, they would have their GI and bowels completely cleaned out, and would spend 24 hours after being purged consuming nothing but water. They'd also be put on a broad spectrum anti-biotic. The subject would be placed in the stasis chamber, connected to an IV which would introduce a solution comprised of a soporific, anti-biotic, and a saline solution, possibly laced with other non-toxic anti-freeze molecules, such as glycerine. Once unconscious, the subject would be intubated, and would be partially submerged in a thermally conductive hydrating gel. The body temperature would be reduced until cardiac and respiratory functions ceased, at which point the subject would be connected to a low velocity / low pressure bypass system to circulate the blood through the subject's body. At this point, needle thin thermocouple temperature sensing probes would be inserted into the major muscle groups, and thoracic cavity, as well as a probe deep into the sinus cavity. These thermocouples would be used to precisely control the temperature of the chamber and the subject. A ventilator would be connected to the intubation tube, and the ventilator, bypass system and IV would serve the subject for the duration of their stasis session.
Measures would need to be taken to control bacterial/viral proliferation, the stasis systems would need to be designed to offer little vibration, the low pressure, low velocity bypass pumps would need to be gentle enough not to damage any red blood cells, the lungs would need to be kept on ventilators, and the whole body would need to be kept in a hydrating thermally conductive gel so that there was no 'freezer burn' dehydration of tissues.
Upon reanimation, the subject would need to be warmed back up to normal operational temperature, while being kept on bypass and ventilators, and when warm enough, the heart would need to be restarted with a defibrillator.
Once the subject's heart was beating and lungs were functioning on their own, the bypass and intubation systems could be removed, and shortly thereafter, the subject could be allowed to wake up, where after a brief recovery they would be able to resume normal physical and mental activities.
While the subject would be on bypass and ventilated and while nutrients would be available via the IV, the total calories consumed, total O2 consumed and total waste produced during this period of stasis should be negligible, which would make this process ideally suited to long term space travel where resources are so costly, further, such a chamber would be easily shielded from radiation.
But - this process would also be useful where resources were not at issue but instead, time was the villain, time sapping the skills and preparedness of soldiers, or time sapping the youth and vitality of key citizens who's skills/knowledge/experience would be needed in the future, or simply time that remains between the current time and a future time where newer technological capabilities await. Imagine, for example, some of the luminaries of our age - Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Carolyn Porco, etc, etc - imagine being able to allow them to hibernate in stasis until such time as senescence could be staved off indefinitely, thereby allowing them to continue to contribute to our society for the life of our civilization?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I would love to see research/investigation into hibernation stasis at temperatures slightly above freezing. A long time staple of science fiction - from the Alien franchise, through Demolition Man, Stargate, Firefly and many other classics of science fiction including let us not forget, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Buck Rogers, as well as a recurring trope of video games from Portal to Fallout, I think it's actually a technology we could develop in reality, in the here and now.
The problem with freezing a complex organism like a human is that when ice crystals form, their structure destroys the cellular workings of the body.
This makes freezing a person to put them into long term stasis kind of problematic - as they will wake up dead when melted.
But - other than killing the subject, freezing a person would be a great way to get people to the Moon, Mars, other plantes/moons in our solar system and even to other stars. It would also be a good way for people to 'quickly' (subjectively) travel to the future. But it would also save taxpayer money. Beyond all the space travel aspects, think of the Military - when not in use, tax payers have to maintain the personnel in the military, and they must constantly train to avoid skill fade, which consumes additional costly resources, etc. If we could induct classes from boot camp, furnish them with advanced skills training, and then put them in cryo-stasis, they could sit there on ice until a situation requiring their skills were needed. When reanimated they would be as prepared and capable as graduation day. We would be able to have instant-on-demand military might, without paying for standing armies when not in use. Meanwhile, the soldier thus stored could be earning half or quarter pay for the entire time, and when they get discharged, be as young and healthy as they day they graduated boot camp, but significantly more well off financially.
So - how do we get there?
I think the following approach would likely bear fruit.
Rather than trying to freeze a person solid, drop their body temperature to less than a degree above freezing, and let no part of their body get colder than that. This would require very precise temperature sensors both in the body (needle thin thermocouples inserted into the major organs and muscle groups) as well as in the cooling mechanisms to ensure no transient thermal dips.
A non-toxic cocktail of substances could be introduced into the body to increase the temperature ice crystals form - such as glycerine, mixed with probably some broad spectrum anti-biotics to further suppress bacterial growth.
The subject would be intubated and would be put on bypass at extremely low speeds, blood would continue to flow, and oxygen would be in the lungs, but respiration and cardiac functions would be completely stopped. Almost all metabolic activity would cease, but there would be fuel/oxygen in the system for cellular consumption. This would help in several ways. First, any minimal metabolic activity would be sustained, and Second, when the subject is awoken, their will be fuel and oxygen in the system for cellular activity to resume.
Consider the many examples of people falling into ice cold bodies of water, and being recovered hours later, who make a full recovery. Some of those victims make partial recoveries, suffering brain damage, but others are fully 100% recovered with no deleterious effects at all. I suspect the difference is how quickly the brain cools once respiration and cardiac functions cease, once fuel and oxygen stops being renewed in the cerebral tissues. I suspect that a victim of falling into freezing water who's brain rapidly cools to sub 40 degrees, before oxygen depravation starts to work its ravaging way thru the neural tissue, are the ones that make the full recovery.
It is also possible that some of the victims with lingering negative effects got too cold, and perhaps ice crystals started to form in their brain or other organs, those crystals ripping their cellular walls to ribbons.
We know that a mammal's heart beat and respiration will stop at temperatures much higher than freezing. And we know that refrigeration keeps food (which for some people includes the flesh of dead animals) fresh for longer than leaving the food at room temperature. If we can cool a person to just above freezing, rapidly and while keeping oxygenated, nutrient filled blood flowing, and if we can return them to normal body temperature quickly, without ever interrupting the flow of blood and nutrients, there should be no reason a person kept in such a state could not be maintained for extended periods of time.
To quiesce a subject, placing them into stasis, one would likely require several days of preparation. First, the subject would be subjected to a regime similar to the preparation for a colonoscopy, they would have their GI and bowels completely cleaned out, and would spend 24 hours after being purged consuming nothing but water. They'd also be put on a broad spectrum anti-biotic. The subject would be placed in the stasis chamber, connected to an IV which would introduce a solution comprised of a soporific, anti-biotic, and a saline solution, possibly laced with other non-toxic anti-freeze molecules, such as glycerine. Once unconscious, the subject would be intubated, and would be partially submerged in a thermally conductive hydrating gel. The body temperature would be reduced until cardiac and respiratory functions ceased, at which point the subject would be connected to a low velocity / low pressure bypass system to circulate the blood through the subject's body. At this point, needle thin thermocouple temperature sensing probes would be inserted into the major muscle groups, and thoracic cavity, as well as a probe deep into the sinus cavity. These thermocouples would be used to precisely control the temperature of the chamber and the subject. A ventilator would be connected to the intubation tube, and the ventilator, bypass system and IV would serve the subject for the duration of their stasis session.
Measures would need to be taken to control bacterial/viral proliferation, the stasis systems would need to be designed to offer little vibration, the low pressure, low velocity bypass pumps would need to be gentle enough not to damage any red blood cells, the lungs would need to be kept on ventilators, and the whole body would need to be kept in a hydrating thermally conductive gel so that there was no 'freezer burn' dehydration of tissues.
Upon reanimation, the subject would need to be warmed back up to normal operational temperature, while being kept on bypass and ventilators, and when warm enough, the heart would need to be restarted with a defibrillator.
Once the subject's heart was beating and lungs were functioning on their own, the bypass and intubation systems could be removed, and shortly thereafter, the subject could be allowed to wake up, where after a brief recovery they would be able to resume normal physical and mental activities.
While the subject would be on bypass and ventilated and while nutrients would be available via the IV, the total calories consumed, total O2 consumed and total waste produced during this period of stasis should be negligible, which would make this process ideally suited to long term space travel where resources are so costly, further, such a chamber would be easily shielded from radiation.
But - this process would also be useful where resources were not at issue but instead, time was the villain, time sapping the skills and preparedness of soldiers, or time sapping the youth and vitality of key citizens who's skills/knowledge/experience would be needed in the future, or simply time that remains between the current time and a future time where newer technological capabilities await. Imagine, for example, some of the luminaries of our age - Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Carolyn Porco, etc, etc - imagine being able to allow them to hibernate in stasis until such time as senescence could be staved off indefinitely, thereby allowing them to continue to contribute to our society for the life of our civilization?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Robot Surgeons and Cryo Surgery
I was thinking about medicine, and medical technology. Specifically about surgical procedures and what I know of the state of the art.
For quite a while it has baffled me why we perform surgery on patients while they are warm, have hearts beating and lungs inflating. There's all that movement, and of course, the flowing blood, which can leak out and make a mess, etc. Further, it seems a lot of surgical procedures are under a variety of time constraints and I have heard of marathon surgical sessions where a doctor (or tag team of doctors) have performed surgery for many hours consecutively without breaks. This seems like a recipe for disaster.
I would have thought it would be better to chill a subject down to 35 degrees F, just above freezing, that way a surgeon could perform delicate surgery without the heart beating, lungs inflating or blood flowing. Additionally, the subject could be kept at that temperature, stable and without metabolic functions occurring for quite some time, most likely days (*may require some non-toxic preservative, possibly just a broad spectrum anti-biotic). This would allow surgery to be performed over time, unhurried. It would be measured and methodical. Additionally, while the tissues would not be frozen solid at 35 degrees F, they would be firmer, allowing for more precise manipulation.
So - why isn't that the normal practice today? It occurred to me that the issue might be that a human surgeon would not be able to perform delicate.. or actually even gross surgery at those temperatures. The human surgeon's fingers would lose fine motor control, there would be risk of chills and shivers causing undesired muscle contractions, and none of those effects would be tolerable in any surgery.
Gloves would not be an option because if they were thick enough to allow the human surgeon to operate without degradation of dexterity and risk of shivers, then they would be too thick for any delicate movements. If the gloves were ultra thin but somehow heated, then the heat would risk the integrity of the patient's tissues which have to be maintained at the 35 degree F temperature.
So - while attractive in theory for a variety of reasons, Cryo surgery would be impractical if the procedure was being performed by one or more human surgeons.
NOW ALL THAT CAN CHANGE
Robotic surgery has become a viable and quite successful alternative to surgical procedures performed directly by a human. Robotic surgery has allowed for procedures that a human cannot do manually due to the requirement for exactingly precise and fine movements which are not possible with a human hand and a human eye but which can be done by a human directing a robotic limb and using enhanced vision from electronic ccd cameras.
If Robotic surgery allows for procedures which a human cannot perform on their own, then a Robot should be able to perform any procedure that a human can as well. And a robot can perform at any temperature range with no change to performance capabilities.
If we combine the two concepts above -
chilling the surgical subject down to 35 (or 34 or 33, anything just north of 32) degrees F, and then use Robotic surgical systems to perform the surgery, then all procedures should see an increase in success rates, some minor procedures may not see much of a change as they are close to 100% successful now, and the cost/complexity of the cryonic process may exceed the benefit but for others the improvement should fully warrant the extra
effort.
I would further speculate that procedures performed in this manner would result in reduced recovery time and better post operative response. Inflammation should be reduced, sutures should be more precisely implemented, etc.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, August 30, 2013
True Random Number Generation using Radio-Isotopes
Using a series of long life beta emitter radio isotopes and detectors in separate vessels to generate truly random binary numbers. At any given moment, a detector will detect a particle emission (1) or will not (0), and this detector can be sampled hundreds or thousands of times per second. If there are 10 vessels with 10 samples and detectors, then every time the detectors are queried one will receive a truly random number. If the detector can be interrogated 1000 times per second that would allow for a binary string 10,000 factors long per second (slice up any way that a consumer would require).
So ... turns out that a lot of other people have had this idea and are doing something about it.
RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service uses atmospheric noise to obtain truly random numbers.
Even more interesting is Hotbits: Genuine Random Numbers - Fourmilab which uses radioactive decay to obtain a random number sequence
Both of these services are available via the web, and a person or company can subscribe to them and obtain random numbers. Of course, for encryption, cryptography, gaming, gambling, and certain other activities where random number generation is mission critical, it would seem obtaining them from a 3rd party might introduce some uncertainty.
I'm envisioning motherboards and discrete systems with on-board true random number generation.
Imagine for example a tiny sample of Tritium gas, which is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen, very safe, a beta particle emmitter, with a 12 year half life. A sample in a phial the size of a grain of rice, with a detector on each end, could obtain a continuous stream of random 1's and 0's for well over 12 years, which is far beyond the life of any computer system. Something like this would easily fit on the circuit board of even a mobile phone.
One note on the issue of half life and radioactive decay. Over time the sample will become less radioactive, and if 'no-particle-detected' = zero, then over time the average ratio of 1 (particle detected) to zero will deviate from 50/50 to some ratio where it is statistically more likely for a zero to come up than a 1. BUT - a detection even, while happening many times per second, is still not exactly an instantaneous event. The detector is 'detecting' for a very narrow window of time. So - a very small ROM and a small amount of DRAM storage should allow the randomness to be maintained for more than the life of the circuit board in the following manner. The DRAM would be used to store the detector's output from the last - few million detection events, and the ROM would have an algorithm that calculated a running average of '0' events, and a clock circuit that controlled the time span of the detector window. As the 1/0 ratio trends towards 0 being more frequent than 1, the system would expand the detection time span window duration so that the rolling average of 1's and 0's remains 50/50. At all times the actual result of any one detection event would be 50/50 to all significant digits, but over time as the sample decayed the amount of time that the system would leave the detector on would need to increase to allow for the fact that older samples emit particles less frequently.
Editorial on why I was thinking about this....
Well, I like to play a lot of games, and when I'm on the go, a game I like to play is the iPad version of RISK, which involves lots of computer generated dice roles. And I play so much that I can usually tell very early on if the random number 'seed' the game is using is favorable towards the attacker or the defender and I can modify my gameplay style to account for that. And that is sad because the dice rolls should be completely random.
This got me thinking of a circuit board sized random number generator for the iPad/tablet computers.
I also happen to be a futurist, and I think about the direction technology will unfold and how that will affect human life/culture/civilization (now don't get too excited I'm pretty pessimistic about our chances for long term survival - we could, there's no technical reason we shouldn't, but people are very myopically selfish, and poorly educated and very bad decision makers so all our actions over the last 50 years especially have all been doing nothing more than accelerating our civilization's collapse) - BUT... say we didn't all die off, say on the off chance for example, we actually bothered to stop destroying our planet, and each other. Well, while it's probably unlikely, if we did decide to stop the madness, then humanity would have a great potential to spread out to the rest of the solar system and beyond, and we could easily eliminate poverty, homelessness, famine, and improve health care enough so that death would be something much less likely than it is today. If we did so there'd be a lot of people around, since right now we do such a great job of killing each other and our population is still growing. So - I think about what to do with all those beings, the sentient minds.
There's every reason to believe that brains can be kept alive and connected to a 'matrix' like virtual reality simulator for quite some time, allowing people to live on long after their bodies give out but ultimately, even a brain will decay and stop functioning. Over a long enough timeline, if humanity is going to prosper, humans must evolve away from these organic meat-sacks and into a more robust architecture, in other words, must become sentient inorganic systems (some of you might call them machines or robots). Its easy to see several developmental paths to such an architecture, but all of them require truly random number generation. A human brain is the most complex configuration of matter in the known universe and it will take some time to model it, though the good folks at IBM are making great strides already in the nascent first steps. Once these systems start to improve themselves, there should be a pretty rapid increase in their capabilities, but if the systems are always based on pseudo-random numbers they will never make the leap to a truly dynamic, unpredictable system of sentient self aware processes.
So - while a circuit board based truly random number generator would be great for people who like to game-on-the-go, it is also a critical component of the architecture humans will one day rely upon within their own inorganic bodies.
[I know that some people of our current generation would not call an inorganic sentient being a human, but I would warrant that if Australopithecus met a modern human and had the capacity to do so, she would not call us human either. While likely a topic for another post, if humans don't succeed in committing mass global suicide, the most probably path of evolution will be a blending of organic and inorganic components, possibly powered by systems such as these, with more and more of the functions performed by our organic brains migrated over to inorganic processing subsystems until finally there is no need for any of the organic components at all. Over this whole transition, society will always call the beings in question, (at least in english) "human".]
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
So ... turns out that a lot of other people have had this idea and are doing something about it.
RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service uses atmospheric noise to obtain truly random numbers.
Even more interesting is Hotbits: Genuine Random Numbers - Fourmilab which uses radioactive decay to obtain a random number sequence
Both of these services are available via the web, and a person or company can subscribe to them and obtain random numbers. Of course, for encryption, cryptography, gaming, gambling, and certain other activities where random number generation is mission critical, it would seem obtaining them from a 3rd party might introduce some uncertainty.
I'm envisioning motherboards and discrete systems with on-board true random number generation.
Imagine for example a tiny sample of Tritium gas, which is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen, very safe, a beta particle emmitter, with a 12 year half life. A sample in a phial the size of a grain of rice, with a detector on each end, could obtain a continuous stream of random 1's and 0's for well over 12 years, which is far beyond the life of any computer system. Something like this would easily fit on the circuit board of even a mobile phone.
One note on the issue of half life and radioactive decay. Over time the sample will become less radioactive, and if 'no-particle-detected' = zero, then over time the average ratio of 1 (particle detected) to zero will deviate from 50/50 to some ratio where it is statistically more likely for a zero to come up than a 1. BUT - a detection even, while happening many times per second, is still not exactly an instantaneous event. The detector is 'detecting' for a very narrow window of time. So - a very small ROM and a small amount of DRAM storage should allow the randomness to be maintained for more than the life of the circuit board in the following manner. The DRAM would be used to store the detector's output from the last - few million detection events, and the ROM would have an algorithm that calculated a running average of '0' events, and a clock circuit that controlled the time span of the detector window. As the 1/0 ratio trends towards 0 being more frequent than 1, the system would expand the detection time span window duration so that the rolling average of 1's and 0's remains 50/50. At all times the actual result of any one detection event would be 50/50 to all significant digits, but over time as the sample decayed the amount of time that the system would leave the detector on would need to increase to allow for the fact that older samples emit particles less frequently.
Editorial on why I was thinking about this....
Well, I like to play a lot of games, and when I'm on the go, a game I like to play is the iPad version of RISK, which involves lots of computer generated dice roles. And I play so much that I can usually tell very early on if the random number 'seed' the game is using is favorable towards the attacker or the defender and I can modify my gameplay style to account for that. And that is sad because the dice rolls should be completely random.
This got me thinking of a circuit board sized random number generator for the iPad/tablet computers.
I also happen to be a futurist, and I think about the direction technology will unfold and how that will affect human life/culture/civilization (now don't get too excited I'm pretty pessimistic about our chances for long term survival - we could, there's no technical reason we shouldn't, but people are very myopically selfish, and poorly educated and very bad decision makers so all our actions over the last 50 years especially have all been doing nothing more than accelerating our civilization's collapse) - BUT... say we didn't all die off, say on the off chance for example, we actually bothered to stop destroying our planet, and each other. Well, while it's probably unlikely, if we did decide to stop the madness, then humanity would have a great potential to spread out to the rest of the solar system and beyond, and we could easily eliminate poverty, homelessness, famine, and improve health care enough so that death would be something much less likely than it is today. If we did so there'd be a lot of people around, since right now we do such a great job of killing each other and our population is still growing. So - I think about what to do with all those beings, the sentient minds.
There's every reason to believe that brains can be kept alive and connected to a 'matrix' like virtual reality simulator for quite some time, allowing people to live on long after their bodies give out but ultimately, even a brain will decay and stop functioning. Over a long enough timeline, if humanity is going to prosper, humans must evolve away from these organic meat-sacks and into a more robust architecture, in other words, must become sentient inorganic systems (some of you might call them machines or robots). Its easy to see several developmental paths to such an architecture, but all of them require truly random number generation. A human brain is the most complex configuration of matter in the known universe and it will take some time to model it, though the good folks at IBM are making great strides already in the nascent first steps. Once these systems start to improve themselves, there should be a pretty rapid increase in their capabilities, but if the systems are always based on pseudo-random numbers they will never make the leap to a truly dynamic, unpredictable system of sentient self aware processes.
So - while a circuit board based truly random number generator would be great for people who like to game-on-the-go, it is also a critical component of the architecture humans will one day rely upon within their own inorganic bodies.
[I know that some people of our current generation would not call an inorganic sentient being a human, but I would warrant that if Australopithecus met a modern human and had the capacity to do so, she would not call us human either. While likely a topic for another post, if humans don't succeed in committing mass global suicide, the most probably path of evolution will be a blending of organic and inorganic components, possibly powered by systems such as these, with more and more of the functions performed by our organic brains migrated over to inorganic processing subsystems until finally there is no need for any of the organic components at all. Over this whole transition, society will always call the beings in question, (at least in english) "human".]
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, August 5, 2013
Passcode Lock Circumvention for iOS suggestion
Unlike most of my rants this is just a sketch I want to write so I can tweet it to Apple.
Currently mobile security and BYOD are huge catchphrases that many companies are pouring tons of money and effort into.
Part of these initiatives is requiring encryption/passcode locks on mobile devices like phones and tablets.
In iOS, it's possible to access the camera without unlocking the phone but everything else is behind that iron curtain.
My proposal is thus - create a special container that sits in a DMZ - outside of the passcode lock/encryption. Any apps dropped into that DMZ container would then be accessible via a swipe from the lock screen.
A user could put "words with friends", "angry birds", or any app - including calendar, phone, email, SMS, whatever, into that container and have quick access to it.
If said user were to sign up for their corporate BYOD program, then the MDM could send a policy to the iOS device tagging certain apps as disallowed from being in the DMZ container. (the api would need to be extended to support this functionality).
If these enhancements to iOS were made, then a person would be able to drop aps they use frequently - maps, imdb, sms-messaging, etc - into this DMZ container and be able to use them without traversing the passcode lock.
In slightly related fashion, as a further enhancement - for SMS messaging - incorporate the type of functionality already available in Android to allow a user to reply to an SMS message without switching out of the application they are currently using.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Currently mobile security and BYOD are huge catchphrases that many companies are pouring tons of money and effort into.
Part of these initiatives is requiring encryption/passcode locks on mobile devices like phones and tablets.
In iOS, it's possible to access the camera without unlocking the phone but everything else is behind that iron curtain.
My proposal is thus - create a special container that sits in a DMZ - outside of the passcode lock/encryption. Any apps dropped into that DMZ container would then be accessible via a swipe from the lock screen.
A user could put "words with friends", "angry birds", or any app - including calendar, phone, email, SMS, whatever, into that container and have quick access to it.
If said user were to sign up for their corporate BYOD program, then the MDM could send a policy to the iOS device tagging certain apps as disallowed from being in the DMZ container. (the api would need to be extended to support this functionality).
If these enhancements to iOS were made, then a person would be able to drop aps they use frequently - maps, imdb, sms-messaging, etc - into this DMZ container and be able to use them without traversing the passcode lock.
In slightly related fashion, as a further enhancement - for SMS messaging - incorporate the type of functionality already available in Android to allow a user to reply to an SMS message without switching out of the application they are currently using.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, August 2, 2013
3 Ideas to power internal Cybernetic Implants
I was thinking about all the great cybernetic enhancements that we will soon be able to have installed in our bodies, and while I'm strongly in favor of any cybernetic enhancements, I have often thought that the electrical power requirements are really going to be the primary limiting factor for this type of technology application.
I can imagine a day when implants along the path of the optic nerve or a sheet of stimulators laid against the back of the brain where the visual cortex is located could be used to create augmented reality visuals without having to wear Google Glasses. I can imagine similar applications of stimulators along the auditory nerves so that one could listen to music or participate in a phone conversation without there being any actual physical noise created that others could hear, or eaves drop. There are a wide range of physical and mental enhancements that are probably on the horizon, but I know that it would be pretty annoying if I had to plug a power cord into my navel every night so my implanted cybernetic enhancements would operate.
There are many possible ways to address this short coming.. here are a few ideas that I'd like to see pursued.
1) Nuclear Battery - this is a natural and logical choice. Polonium and Plutonium both have 100 year half lives and give off quite a bit of energy for a very low volume of material. It would be feasible to take a few grams of either material, encase in a heat/radiation sink, wrap in a thermocouple and create a small RTG that would produce power for a century. This could be coupled with super-capacitor batteries so that the continuous power from the nuclear battery could charge the capacitors and the capacitors could then provide high/variable output power to the various cybernetic devices within one's body. There are some downsides to this solution though. Even though it is the only one that's been effectively proven to work subcutaneously, it is hampered by political obstacles and the public's irrational fears of nuclear technologies (irrational fears based on ignorance and capitalized upon by fear mongers, IMHO, but I'm not bitter. ;) ) But - I should also note a legitimate concern with this type of power source, namely the issue of heat dissipation. For any volumes of material that would produce sufficient amounts of power to operate high drain mechanical cybernetics, such as artificial limbs and organs, the amount of waste heat generated would be substantial, requiring an active heat dissipation system. Should there be a failure of that active cooling system, the battery might get hot enough to cause thermal tissue damage.. and since the device is located INSIDE a body, that could be cause for alarm. Therefore, a nuclear battery would be best suited for low power consumption self contained devices, like emergency locator beacons.
2) 'Blood Fuel Cell power source' - while the nuclear battery concept is already a proven reality on both the large and small scale and would need only modest changes in materials to make a viable subcutaneous long life high power version (there have been low power subcutaneous nuclear batteries used for pace makers in the past, but those have very low output), the blood battery is something I have never heard of from anyone else. I don't want to say its an original idea, I can only say I haven't heard of it from anyone else. My idea for the blood battery is pretty simple - blood has chemical energy in the form of ATP that is released using free electrons in Oxygen to handle the electron transport. Cells use this energy to drive their processes. It should be possible to create something like a fuel cell, that can extract energy from the ATP found in the blood. That energy is electrical - the oxygenation process of the body converts hydrocarbons and oxygen into electrical motive energy to drive cellular processes. Each organic cell is already a mini-fuel cell. If we create a slightly larger version and hook it to a traditional battery, then one's own blood can charge the battery, and that battery can then supply current to the various cybernetic implants in the body. This is probably my favorite approach to electrical power for implanted cybernetics. As long as you're alive and eating, you have power. So it truly becomes a part of you.
3) Mechanical Motion Capture power source - Everyone should be familiar with self-winding watches from the past, and their newer offspring the self winding electrical watch. Self winding watches today capture the motion of the movement of one's limbs, convert it to electrical energy and store it in a battery. This could be used to power internal electronics as well - bind the mechanical motion energy capture mechanisms to bones in the forearms and calves. (Radius / Ulna in the forearms, and Tibia in the lower legs), route wires from those locations to a battery pack located in the main body cavity, such that movement of the limbs is converted into electrical current that is routed to the battery pack to charge. That power pack can then supply power to any implanted tech. An upside to this type of power source is that it would encourage people to exercise more.. if only to keep their augmented reality systems powered up.
Any of these would be great options but I think I would prefer a combination of option 2 and 3... a primary power source from capturing some of the mechanical energy of moving one's limbs, but with a secondary source - pulling chemical energy directly from the blood. I think that this would be an ideal configuration for military personnel - who would be more likely to have high energy drain devices, possibly implants with defensive or offensive capabilities. Civilian applications would most likely be in social communications, and interactive info-tainment (augmented reality, gaming) so their power consumption requirements would be lower.
Of course, there are also the health/medical applications - powering artificial inorganic limbs and organs (though I expect 3d printed or vat grown organic tissue organs and limbs will be the dominant treatment protocol of the future). Where I see this tech really shining is in situations where a person's heart stops and an AED could automatically kick start it without any user intervention.
Another area of application would be in performance enhancement - using electrical energy generated in the above manner to stimulate muscle groups more powerfully - allowing individuals to exhibit profound increases in strength and stamina.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I can imagine a day when implants along the path of the optic nerve or a sheet of stimulators laid against the back of the brain where the visual cortex is located could be used to create augmented reality visuals without having to wear Google Glasses. I can imagine similar applications of stimulators along the auditory nerves so that one could listen to music or participate in a phone conversation without there being any actual physical noise created that others could hear, or eaves drop. There are a wide range of physical and mental enhancements that are probably on the horizon, but I know that it would be pretty annoying if I had to plug a power cord into my navel every night so my implanted cybernetic enhancements would operate.
There are many possible ways to address this short coming.. here are a few ideas that I'd like to see pursued.
1) Nuclear Battery - this is a natural and logical choice. Polonium and Plutonium both have 100 year half lives and give off quite a bit of energy for a very low volume of material. It would be feasible to take a few grams of either material, encase in a heat/radiation sink, wrap in a thermocouple and create a small RTG that would produce power for a century. This could be coupled with super-capacitor batteries so that the continuous power from the nuclear battery could charge the capacitors and the capacitors could then provide high/variable output power to the various cybernetic devices within one's body. There are some downsides to this solution though. Even though it is the only one that's been effectively proven to work subcutaneously, it is hampered by political obstacles and the public's irrational fears of nuclear technologies (irrational fears based on ignorance and capitalized upon by fear mongers, IMHO, but I'm not bitter. ;) ) But - I should also note a legitimate concern with this type of power source, namely the issue of heat dissipation. For any volumes of material that would produce sufficient amounts of power to operate high drain mechanical cybernetics, such as artificial limbs and organs, the amount of waste heat generated would be substantial, requiring an active heat dissipation system. Should there be a failure of that active cooling system, the battery might get hot enough to cause thermal tissue damage.. and since the device is located INSIDE a body, that could be cause for alarm. Therefore, a nuclear battery would be best suited for low power consumption self contained devices, like emergency locator beacons.
2) 'Blood Fuel Cell power source' - while the nuclear battery concept is already a proven reality on both the large and small scale and would need only modest changes in materials to make a viable subcutaneous long life high power version (there have been low power subcutaneous nuclear batteries used for pace makers in the past, but those have very low output), the blood battery is something I have never heard of from anyone else. I don't want to say its an original idea, I can only say I haven't heard of it from anyone else. My idea for the blood battery is pretty simple - blood has chemical energy in the form of ATP that is released using free electrons in Oxygen to handle the electron transport. Cells use this energy to drive their processes. It should be possible to create something like a fuel cell, that can extract energy from the ATP found in the blood. That energy is electrical - the oxygenation process of the body converts hydrocarbons and oxygen into electrical motive energy to drive cellular processes. Each organic cell is already a mini-fuel cell. If we create a slightly larger version and hook it to a traditional battery, then one's own blood can charge the battery, and that battery can then supply current to the various cybernetic implants in the body. This is probably my favorite approach to electrical power for implanted cybernetics. As long as you're alive and eating, you have power. So it truly becomes a part of you.
3) Mechanical Motion Capture power source - Everyone should be familiar with self-winding watches from the past, and their newer offspring the self winding electrical watch. Self winding watches today capture the motion of the movement of one's limbs, convert it to electrical energy and store it in a battery. This could be used to power internal electronics as well - bind the mechanical motion energy capture mechanisms to bones in the forearms and calves. (Radius / Ulna in the forearms, and Tibia in the lower legs), route wires from those locations to a battery pack located in the main body cavity, such that movement of the limbs is converted into electrical current that is routed to the battery pack to charge. That power pack can then supply power to any implanted tech. An upside to this type of power source is that it would encourage people to exercise more.. if only to keep their augmented reality systems powered up.
Any of these would be great options but I think I would prefer a combination of option 2 and 3... a primary power source from capturing some of the mechanical energy of moving one's limbs, but with a secondary source - pulling chemical energy directly from the blood. I think that this would be an ideal configuration for military personnel - who would be more likely to have high energy drain devices, possibly implants with defensive or offensive capabilities. Civilian applications would most likely be in social communications, and interactive info-tainment (augmented reality, gaming) so their power consumption requirements would be lower.
Of course, there are also the health/medical applications - powering artificial inorganic limbs and organs (though I expect 3d printed or vat grown organic tissue organs and limbs will be the dominant treatment protocol of the future). Where I see this tech really shining is in situations where a person's heart stops and an AED could automatically kick start it without any user intervention.
Another area of application would be in performance enhancement - using electrical energy generated in the above manner to stimulate muscle groups more powerfully - allowing individuals to exhibit profound increases in strength and stamina.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, July 12, 2013
Nature's Beauty more profound when not marred by religious delusion
I recently took this picture in a park located in the middle of urban downtown Manhattan.
Sitting there I contemplated the following, as I often find myself doing... I thought how there is not a day that goes by that I'm not filled with speechless awe at the sublimely beautiful complexity of the universe and staggered by the knowledge that it is all comprised of around 12 unique sub atomic particles and 3 distinct forces mediated by another 4 particles (the Standard Model).
I'm amazed at how delightful complexity can arise from the bleakness of the universe's movement towards entropic stagnation.
But its not just fantastic complexity from a small number of players and rules at that level only. There are nested levels of complexity to consider as well! Each level is made up of a few simple, easy to conceptualize rules or factors, and yet, each one, with enough time - especially thanks to the random nature of the universe - leads to a seemingly limitless wonder of diversity.
At one level you have the physical particles of the standard model, and their interactions that lead to this scene. This entire tableau due to interactions played out by a dozen particles and 3 forces (and billions of years of time). A few levels up in the scale, on a biological level, evolutionairily, genetically speaking, you have about a billion years of life evolving from what is likely just a single (or small number of temporally concomitant) event(s) leading to the first metabolically active molecular confluence ('life'), and from there to all the myriad varieties of life present in this picture. All of us, all the mammals, avians, piceans, even the insects, bacteria, all us fauna, and all the flora - all of us related to one another (lets not forget fungi and the other biota either!), sharing that common origin, that first random spark of life, yet all this diversity itself, also a result of a simple rule - just one basic function, that thanks to the very same entropic chaos, events that can occur are random and over time, those random events will result in changes, and those changes over time will be shown to be more or less competitive for whatever local enviornment the changess occur within, and that from this simple pressure - which we call evolution - all life's diversity comes into existence.
I know I'll die all too soon, but while I am a sentient self aware creature - the awe I feel that time, random chance, 3 phsyical forces, and a dozen particles - can result in all of this is immeasurable.
It is sad to think that there are many people who think this is all fabricated by some perfect invisible ghostly being, not a natural wonder that is governed by simple to understand rules yet resulting in such wild and wondrous diversity, but just a mundane construct assembled by a being (or beings) with infinite knowledge, infinite energy/power, and infinite resources. Theists claim to be in awe of the universe as well (calling it 'all of creation') but while I can be in awe of a human made wonder like the Hoover dam, still that pales in comparison to the evolution of this beautiful universe thanks to simple rules and particles. Given the time, money, people and resources - I could build the Hoover dam.. and given infinite power, energy, resources, and knowledge, just about any modern human could build a better running, more efficient universe. But - that this universe, flawed as it is, yet utterly beautiful and breathtakingly magnificent developed in a way we humans can understand, made up of such a limited number of simple rules - that it just more profound than any blog post of words could possibly capture.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sitting there I contemplated the following, as I often find myself doing... I thought how there is not a day that goes by that I'm not filled with speechless awe at the sublimely beautiful complexity of the universe and staggered by the knowledge that it is all comprised of around 12 unique sub atomic particles and 3 distinct forces mediated by another 4 particles (the Standard Model).
I'm amazed at how delightful complexity can arise from the bleakness of the universe's movement towards entropic stagnation.
But its not just fantastic complexity from a small number of players and rules at that level only. There are nested levels of complexity to consider as well! Each level is made up of a few simple, easy to conceptualize rules or factors, and yet, each one, with enough time - especially thanks to the random nature of the universe - leads to a seemingly limitless wonder of diversity.
At one level you have the physical particles of the standard model, and their interactions that lead to this scene. This entire tableau due to interactions played out by a dozen particles and 3 forces (and billions of years of time). A few levels up in the scale, on a biological level, evolutionairily, genetically speaking, you have about a billion years of life evolving from what is likely just a single (or small number of temporally concomitant) event(s) leading to the first metabolically active molecular confluence ('life'), and from there to all the myriad varieties of life present in this picture. All of us, all the mammals, avians, piceans, even the insects, bacteria, all us fauna, and all the flora - all of us related to one another (lets not forget fungi and the other biota either!), sharing that common origin, that first random spark of life, yet all this diversity itself, also a result of a simple rule - just one basic function, that thanks to the very same entropic chaos, events that can occur are random and over time, those random events will result in changes, and those changes over time will be shown to be more or less competitive for whatever local enviornment the changess occur within, and that from this simple pressure - which we call evolution - all life's diversity comes into existence.
I know I'll die all too soon, but while I am a sentient self aware creature - the awe I feel that time, random chance, 3 phsyical forces, and a dozen particles - can result in all of this is immeasurable.
It is sad to think that there are many people who think this is all fabricated by some perfect invisible ghostly being, not a natural wonder that is governed by simple to understand rules yet resulting in such wild and wondrous diversity, but just a mundane construct assembled by a being (or beings) with infinite knowledge, infinite energy/power, and infinite resources. Theists claim to be in awe of the universe as well (calling it 'all of creation') but while I can be in awe of a human made wonder like the Hoover dam, still that pales in comparison to the evolution of this beautiful universe thanks to simple rules and particles. Given the time, money, people and resources - I could build the Hoover dam.. and given infinite power, energy, resources, and knowledge, just about any modern human could build a better running, more efficient universe. But - that this universe, flawed as it is, yet utterly beautiful and breathtakingly magnificent developed in a way we humans can understand, made up of such a limited number of simple rules - that it just more profound than any blog post of words could possibly capture.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, May 31, 2013
Time and Probabilistic Fields in Quantum Mechanics, an Inquiry
I was thinking (after attending a lecture given by Brian Greene, at the 2013 World Science Festival), of the nature of time and how it might affect some aspects of quantum theory, specifically related to probabilistic fields.
I am not skilled in the advanced mathematics necessary to formally describe my thoughts, nor even skilled enough to find out if there is math or theory that can clarify and either dismiss or substantiate this thinking. As I can't describe it mathematically I will do so metaphorically. The below is basically an open question to the world, I'm sure I'm just missing some nuance that is only revealed by the deeper math but if someone can point it out to me I'd love to know where/how this breaks down (preferably with a response that is non-mathematically presented)
One of the conundrums of Quantum Physics, according to Greene, is related to probabilistic fields and the many world's solution to the idea of uncertainty. The posit being that maybe every possible particle position/value actually does exist in an alternate universe and every time a particle can have multiple states, a universe comes to exist where that particle has that state value. Clearly it can be seen that this leads to an infinite number of mirror universes, each one as validly 'the universe' as the singular one we think we exist in. That's not the issue with the probabilistic field though - the issue is that if there is a many worlds solution to the idea of a probabilistic field then why does it appear that some position/states are more likely than others? If every possible state happens somewhere, what would it even mean that a particle has a 60% chance of being observed as X and a 40% change of being observed as Y?
So here's some thoughts on why we might have multiple universes, but still be able to observe a probabilistic field that shows different probabilities for a particle's position/state at any observational point.
My first thought is - what if time isn't what we think it is. It is my understanding that time is not required to move from the past to the future in the math that describes particles and quantum reactions.. and that we only observe time as moving from the past to the future with causal outcomes resulting from initial actions because of the nature of the instantiation of our universe- the Big Bang was highly ordered and of extremely high energy so the resulting decay thru entropy of the universe from order to complete chaos (total heat equilibrium) leads to events that are perceived by our brains as a present made of events occurring in such a manner that it appears we are moving from the past to the future. What if this is not precisely correct? I recall reading about particle and anti-particle annihilation that described an anti-particle as a regular particle traveling thru time from the future to the past. For example, we as observers might observe the following phenomenon - a proton and an anti proton traveling on a trajectory that brings the two together where they annihilate and and release energy. So the two particles are traveling thru space and time from the past to the future and at a particular time value they interact and cease to exist. But according to the article I read, the math is equally valid if we consider a single particle, a proton, traveling thru time along with us from the past to the future, then at some particular inflection point in time, the particle reverses its direction and starts traveling on a different trajectory thru time from the future to the past. Creating a loop. If this is equally valid, then here is my first question regarding a probabilistic field.
What if time isn't what we think it is and the particle we observe as having a probable position/state that creates a wave form is really that particle existing in all those positions along a different temporal axis. i.e. that the time value is actually a spectrum rather than just a linear vector from the past to the present. If Quantum Mechanics is agnostic to time, then maybe the formulae are describing the particle position/states as they exist in a volume of time - a volume of time that expands in vectors perpendicular (or at least not parallel) to the time that we think we are traversing from the past to the future. And maybe when we observe the particle and the probabilistic field collapses, that is really just us applying a particular temporal lens to the observation - maybe that is the effect of the observer on the universe - maybe our brains which perceive time as a vector from the past to the future - allow us to perceive the results of the particle's position as a definite point in space is because of our perception of time as this sequential series of 'ticks'.
Another thought was on the very nature of these infinite universes for every possible particle state. Greene stated that the multiverse conundrum was that if there was a universe for every possible state, what could we even mean by there being a higher probability of a particle in any one state than another. If we can accept the notion that every time a particle can have more than one state a whole new universe for that particle state is spawned we can still preserve the notion of a probabilistic field for the particle in question. Imagine this multiverse where every time any particle could have more than one set of values for it's state, that a new universe was spawned. Eventually this many branched universe would spawn universe leafs at different branch coordinates that were identical to each other, even though the two branches were distinct and separate, and for each universe branch, at no previous point in time were those 2 universes identical in every way. At that time, when the 2 universes in the multiverse both contained an identical set of particles with identical values down to the quantum level, wouldn't they cease to be two separate universes and collapse into a single version? So - the multiverse would have two opposing forces at play - a force that lead to more and more universes (infinity times infinity right? LOL) but a moderating factor of universes collapsing as they fell back into synchronicity (infinity minus infinity = infinity). Either way, it's still an infinity of universes but some entire branches would simple collapse as they became identical to other distinct branches.
If that is the case, maybe the probabilistic field is simply higher where there is less likelihood of universal branches collapsing into a single branch, and the probability field is low where, for whatever reasons, that particular universal configuration is more likely to lead to a branch (or branches) collapsing into a single universe again.
I am sure that if I throw this out there with enough tags, someone somewhere will be able to dispute this and point me to someone who's shown this to simply be a total lack of understanding of the deeper nature of the problem on my part. I have found this and it appears to discuss some of the elements I raise above but either I don't understand it well enough to see how it clarifies my above inquiry or I still see room for alternative interpretation - for example - the idea of different worlds collapsing when they become identical at a quantum event level - this article says is too unlikely to happen, but there are infinite universes, and in infinity, even something virtually impossible will happen regularly. And if anyone can I would ask they tweet me @galvorniii or email me
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I am not skilled in the advanced mathematics necessary to formally describe my thoughts, nor even skilled enough to find out if there is math or theory that can clarify and either dismiss or substantiate this thinking. As I can't describe it mathematically I will do so metaphorically. The below is basically an open question to the world, I'm sure I'm just missing some nuance that is only revealed by the deeper math but if someone can point it out to me I'd love to know where/how this breaks down (preferably with a response that is non-mathematically presented)
One of the conundrums of Quantum Physics, according to Greene, is related to probabilistic fields and the many world's solution to the idea of uncertainty. The posit being that maybe every possible particle position/value actually does exist in an alternate universe and every time a particle can have multiple states, a universe comes to exist where that particle has that state value. Clearly it can be seen that this leads to an infinite number of mirror universes, each one as validly 'the universe' as the singular one we think we exist in. That's not the issue with the probabilistic field though - the issue is that if there is a many worlds solution to the idea of a probabilistic field then why does it appear that some position/states are more likely than others? If every possible state happens somewhere, what would it even mean that a particle has a 60% chance of being observed as X and a 40% change of being observed as Y?
So here's some thoughts on why we might have multiple universes, but still be able to observe a probabilistic field that shows different probabilities for a particle's position/state at any observational point.
My first thought is - what if time isn't what we think it is. It is my understanding that time is not required to move from the past to the future in the math that describes particles and quantum reactions.. and that we only observe time as moving from the past to the future with causal outcomes resulting from initial actions because of the nature of the instantiation of our universe- the Big Bang was highly ordered and of extremely high energy so the resulting decay thru entropy of the universe from order to complete chaos (total heat equilibrium) leads to events that are perceived by our brains as a present made of events occurring in such a manner that it appears we are moving from the past to the future. What if this is not precisely correct? I recall reading about particle and anti-particle annihilation that described an anti-particle as a regular particle traveling thru time from the future to the past. For example, we as observers might observe the following phenomenon - a proton and an anti proton traveling on a trajectory that brings the two together where they annihilate and and release energy. So the two particles are traveling thru space and time from the past to the future and at a particular time value they interact and cease to exist. But according to the article I read, the math is equally valid if we consider a single particle, a proton, traveling thru time along with us from the past to the future, then at some particular inflection point in time, the particle reverses its direction and starts traveling on a different trajectory thru time from the future to the past. Creating a loop. If this is equally valid, then here is my first question regarding a probabilistic field.
What if time isn't what we think it is and the particle we observe as having a probable position/state that creates a wave form is really that particle existing in all those positions along a different temporal axis. i.e. that the time value is actually a spectrum rather than just a linear vector from the past to the present. If Quantum Mechanics is agnostic to time, then maybe the formulae are describing the particle position/states as they exist in a volume of time - a volume of time that expands in vectors perpendicular (or at least not parallel) to the time that we think we are traversing from the past to the future. And maybe when we observe the particle and the probabilistic field collapses, that is really just us applying a particular temporal lens to the observation - maybe that is the effect of the observer on the universe - maybe our brains which perceive time as a vector from the past to the future - allow us to perceive the results of the particle's position as a definite point in space is because of our perception of time as this sequential series of 'ticks'.
Another thought was on the very nature of these infinite universes for every possible particle state. Greene stated that the multiverse conundrum was that if there was a universe for every possible state, what could we even mean by there being a higher probability of a particle in any one state than another. If we can accept the notion that every time a particle can have more than one state a whole new universe for that particle state is spawned we can still preserve the notion of a probabilistic field for the particle in question. Imagine this multiverse where every time any particle could have more than one set of values for it's state, that a new universe was spawned. Eventually this many branched universe would spawn universe leafs at different branch coordinates that were identical to each other, even though the two branches were distinct and separate, and for each universe branch, at no previous point in time were those 2 universes identical in every way. At that time, when the 2 universes in the multiverse both contained an identical set of particles with identical values down to the quantum level, wouldn't they cease to be two separate universes and collapse into a single version? So - the multiverse would have two opposing forces at play - a force that lead to more and more universes (infinity times infinity right? LOL) but a moderating factor of universes collapsing as they fell back into synchronicity (infinity minus infinity = infinity). Either way, it's still an infinity of universes but some entire branches would simple collapse as they became identical to other distinct branches.
If that is the case, maybe the probabilistic field is simply higher where there is less likelihood of universal branches collapsing into a single branch, and the probability field is low where, for whatever reasons, that particular universal configuration is more likely to lead to a branch (or branches) collapsing into a single universe again.
I am sure that if I throw this out there with enough tags, someone somewhere will be able to dispute this and point me to someone who's shown this to simply be a total lack of understanding of the deeper nature of the problem on my part. I have found this and it appears to discuss some of the elements I raise above but either I don't understand it well enough to see how it clarifies my above inquiry or I still see room for alternative interpretation - for example - the idea of different worlds collapsing when they become identical at a quantum event level - this article says is too unlikely to happen, but there are infinite universes, and in infinity, even something virtually impossible will happen regularly. And if anyone can I would ask they tweet me @galvorniii or email me
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, April 22, 2013
Magical/supernatural/religious thinking is an affliction.
I saw a bunch of posts going back and forth on Facebook. The topic was regarding so-called verbal insults of atheists against religious people. And the argument was that there are lots of religious moderates and while lots of terrible things have been done by religious people, some (or even most) religious people are not dangerous and evil and don't deserve to be insulted.
I do agree that one should NOT insult the people (in general) who harbor delusional religious thinking. I don't condone turning any criticism of thought/reason into Ad Hominim attacks on either side.
Insults of the people suffering from religion aside - religious belief (and all magical thinking, all supernatural thinking, all credulity in things for which there is no evidence) is a mental defect, a delusion (i.e. a persistent belief in things for which there is no evidence, or for which there is evidence against). It is not generally recognized as a mental defect because it is so wide-spread. But - if everyone on the planet were addicted to alcohol (alcoholism) that would not make it any less of a disease. Everyone on the planet is mortal and therefore dying of at least 'old-age'. While it took centuries, 'old-age', (senescence) is now recognized as a disease, a cascade failure of systems which might be curable. In the same way, the disease of delusional credulity in things for which there is no evidence is a mental disorder.
I would not endorse personal attacks on theists, not on them as people, but it is fair to label them ignorant, because clearly they are ignorant of at least the fact that they are suffering from a delusion. Everyone is deluded about something, it's part of having an organic super computer like a mammalian brain - 90% of one's experience is generated internally. Our theory of mind, our sense of self, the ephemeral thing we think of as 'I', or being conscious - it's an emergent property of an organ designed to keep this mechanism functional and to propagate it's genome.
Having a working brain doesn't guarantee accurate perception of reality, it only helps inform the behavior of the animal far enough to achieve those goals of propagating one's genome.
But our brains are so complex now that we can expand our theory of mind and we can observe the mechanism that is doing the observing and we understand it's strengths and weaknesses.
(or... I should say we ARE BEGINNING to understand its strengths and weaknesses.)
We can KNOW when and where our brain's inherent weaknesses manifest and we can build mental tools (and physical tools) to keep us from succumbing to those impulses and urges which are now dangerous due to our scope and breath of destructive capacity. In other words, knowing how prone to delusion we are, the armor against it is to refute/refuse any claims which are NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. The corollary is that humanity must not tolerate delusional, magical, supernatural thinking in any form. It is like giving everyone a nuclear bomb. It's just too dangerous to allow.
There is only one way to cure this disease and that is to give it no quarter, to constantly throw reason and logic and rational thought at it. To REFUSE to tolerate it.
And it is important to fight this because magical thinking - credulity in things that cannot be proved - open up too too far too many dangers.
Imagine for a moment if it was A FACT that if you performed a certain function or act, that you would DEFINITELY receive an immeasurable reward? Imagine for a moment that it was a FACT - and undisputed FACT that one human was worth something but another human was not? There is no evidence that killing infidels will get you to paradise. There is no evidence that christians are going to heaven and jews are not. Yet - if someone is afflicted with the disease of magical supernatural thinking - it is possible for them to be UNABLE to realize that it is NOT A FACT.
If it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was GOOD and if it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was the key into PARADISE then it is perfectly rational to kill infidels.
ALL religions, all magical thinking, all credulity, all moderation and tolerance of this disease opens up the possibility of an infected person believing things for which there are no evidence, i.e. thinking things for which there is no evidence is a fact.
Even simple, so-called moderately afflicted people are dangerous. Think of all the people who Pray instead of taking action? Think of all the people who tacitly accept ludicrous actions because of tradition? Who turn a blind eye to discrimination or to ostricization due to some superstition. Think of the Psychological Damage done to children who are terrified by delusions of hell and ghosts and other mumbo-jumbo. Think of all the DEATH And SUFFERING due to religious opposition to scientific research deemed 'against god's will' which includes a lot of vaccination research of the past.
This disease must be confronted and should not be tolerated any more than one should tolerate Cancer or Heroin addiction. Certainly those that are afflicted should not be abused or attacked ad hominim. But - the beliefs themselves deserve NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER and in fact DESERVE TO BE CONTINUALLY put under the scathing scrutiny of reason. The important thing is to not turn disrespect of the belief into disrespect in the person harboring the belief because that person is suffering from an affliction.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I do agree that one should NOT insult the people (in general) who harbor delusional religious thinking. I don't condone turning any criticism of thought/reason into Ad Hominim attacks on either side.
Not to say that there's anything wrong with insulting someone that one generally doesn't like - i.e. Its not Ad Hominim for me to say that Mitch McConnell is a stupid, dangerous, possibly evil, ignorant fool who not only doesn't deserve to be a Senator, he doesn't deserve to pick out his own underpants. He's a complete idiot and on top of that, I can easily and dispassionately deconstruct every one of his ridiculous positions on any topic. The two correlate but I don't say his arguments are silly because he's an idiot. I say he's an idiot because his positions are so ridiculous and his provably ridiculous positions and the danger he represents in spewing them as a Senator make me despise him.
Insults of the people suffering from religion aside - religious belief (and all magical thinking, all supernatural thinking, all credulity in things for which there is no evidence) is a mental defect, a delusion (i.e. a persistent belief in things for which there is no evidence, or for which there is evidence against). It is not generally recognized as a mental defect because it is so wide-spread. But - if everyone on the planet were addicted to alcohol (alcoholism) that would not make it any less of a disease. Everyone on the planet is mortal and therefore dying of at least 'old-age'. While it took centuries, 'old-age', (senescence) is now recognized as a disease, a cascade failure of systems which might be curable. In the same way, the disease of delusional credulity in things for which there is no evidence is a mental disorder.
I would not endorse personal attacks on theists, not on them as people, but it is fair to label them ignorant, because clearly they are ignorant of at least the fact that they are suffering from a delusion. Everyone is deluded about something, it's part of having an organic super computer like a mammalian brain - 90% of one's experience is generated internally. Our theory of mind, our sense of self, the ephemeral thing we think of as 'I', or being conscious - it's an emergent property of an organ designed to keep this mechanism functional and to propagate it's genome.
Having a working brain doesn't guarantee accurate perception of reality, it only helps inform the behavior of the animal far enough to achieve those goals of propagating one's genome.
But our brains are so complex now that we can expand our theory of mind and we can observe the mechanism that is doing the observing and we understand it's strengths and weaknesses.
(or... I should say we ARE BEGINNING to understand its strengths and weaknesses.)
We can KNOW when and where our brain's inherent weaknesses manifest and we can build mental tools (and physical tools) to keep us from succumbing to those impulses and urges which are now dangerous due to our scope and breath of destructive capacity. In other words, knowing how prone to delusion we are, the armor against it is to refute/refuse any claims which are NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. The corollary is that humanity must not tolerate delusional, magical, supernatural thinking in any form. It is like giving everyone a nuclear bomb. It's just too dangerous to allow.
There is only one way to cure this disease and that is to give it no quarter, to constantly throw reason and logic and rational thought at it. To REFUSE to tolerate it.
And it is important to fight this because magical thinking - credulity in things that cannot be proved - open up too too far too many dangers.
Imagine for a moment if it was A FACT that if you performed a certain function or act, that you would DEFINITELY receive an immeasurable reward? Imagine for a moment that it was a FACT - and undisputed FACT that one human was worth something but another human was not? There is no evidence that killing infidels will get you to paradise. There is no evidence that christians are going to heaven and jews are not. Yet - if someone is afflicted with the disease of magical supernatural thinking - it is possible for them to be UNABLE to realize that it is NOT A FACT.
If it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was GOOD and if it WAS A FACT that killing infidels was the key into PARADISE then it is perfectly rational to kill infidels.
ALL religions, all magical thinking, all credulity, all moderation and tolerance of this disease opens up the possibility of an infected person believing things for which there are no evidence, i.e. thinking things for which there is no evidence is a fact.
Even simple, so-called moderately afflicted people are dangerous. Think of all the people who Pray instead of taking action? Think of all the people who tacitly accept ludicrous actions because of tradition? Who turn a blind eye to discrimination or to ostricization due to some superstition. Think of the Psychological Damage done to children who are terrified by delusions of hell and ghosts and other mumbo-jumbo. Think of all the DEATH And SUFFERING due to religious opposition to scientific research deemed 'against god's will' which includes a lot of vaccination research of the past.
This disease must be confronted and should not be tolerated any more than one should tolerate Cancer or Heroin addiction. Certainly those that are afflicted should not be abused or attacked ad hominim. But - the beliefs themselves deserve NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER and in fact DESERVE TO BE CONTINUALLY put under the scathing scrutiny of reason. The important thing is to not turn disrespect of the belief into disrespect in the person harboring the belief because that person is suffering from an affliction.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Non Human Animal Intelligence
This is a comment to the excellent Blog Post "News About Animal Cognition – Are They Too Smart for Honey Boo Boo?", written by Aline Kaplan in the Blog, "The Next Phase", the post itself a blog entry commenting on the NY Times Article " ", written by Frans De Waal and published on March 22, 2013
Great post.
I'm shocked that this is still news, I have seen research that hinted at much greater intelligence levels in non-human animals for decades. And there's been many developments over the years pointing to the depth and range of non-human animal emotional intelligence (which is perhaps even more important). Shocking to me is that human animals have emotionally bonded with non-human animals for centuries but have failed to consider that their non-human friends genuinely reciprocated.
Personally I blame religion/magical thinking - even Descartes postulated this soulless automaton ridiculousness based on a flawed delusional belief that human animals were somehow not only superior to others because of their position as apex predator but because a magic book written by Stone Age mental patients who heard voices and had hallucinations said their sky-daddy told them that humans are special and get to go to a wonderful place when they die but everything else just ceases to exist.
I recently recovered from Carnism myself so I know how insidious the psychosis can be, how it can affect a human and cause delusions. Having been raised to eat other sentient creatures, even though I was presented with the evidence of their cognitive abilities, and having been exposed to their emotional range, I failed to make the connection and even dismissed it when it was directly pointed out to me. I stopped eating animals because it became obvious that to eat animal meat, and consume the products of animals like their milk, is unhealthy for humans. I also realized that the amount of pollution and waste associated with consuming other animals was 7 to 10 times worse than eating plant based foods. It was only after a few years of not being a party to this terrible cycle that I was able to realize how deluded I was, to realize how I overlooked all the evidence that I was eating beings who could feel and think in ways that were similar to me.
Turns out there is a lot documented (not in rigorous lab setting perhaps but well recorded and documented nonetheless) data out there of non-human animals doing things that clearly show emotional intelligence and capacity to feel similar to human animals. Selfless acts of sacrifice for loved ones, depression, anxiety, fear, generosity, abstract planning, concepts of time, strategic planning, etc. Almost every rescue story you learn of in an non-human animal sanctuary illustrates a story of a brave and intelligent non-human animal doing everything it can to save its offspring, or to escape its torturous existence. They hide escape implements or loved ones from their captors, they capitalize upon spontaneous opportunity to flee, they can recognize a human willing to help from a human out to harm them.
For some reason (I blame this arrogance of superiority that religious thinking encouraged) humans feel they are special and they act as if they have the right to cause suffering and perpetuate torture that makes the concentration camps of the Nazi's look like vacation spots.
That's what gets me. We blanche at the notion of 6 million people tortured over the course of a few years, and we do this because we think this is morally reprehensible, because we empathize, because we can imagine the fear, pain, suffering of those victims. Yet 10 BILLION (yes, with a B) non-human animals are subjected to conditions as bad or worse than a Nazi camp every year in the USA alone. And all the evidence indicates they can suffer, they can feel pain, anxiety, depression, fear, empathy for their family suffering similarly, trepidation for the future, terror, etc... just like the humans in the Nazi camps.
Having been a part of that cycle for more years than I have not been, I'm as guilty as everyone else. I think this research is important but with the very real effects of the psychosis Carnism affecting most humans, plus the terrible influence of religion fostering not only Carnism but arrogant superiority and hubris, I don't know if facts alone will have much impact. Certainly in the USA it is clear that facts are not important to the average US Citizen.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Great post.
I'm shocked that this is still news, I have seen research that hinted at much greater intelligence levels in non-human animals for decades. And there's been many developments over the years pointing to the depth and range of non-human animal emotional intelligence (which is perhaps even more important). Shocking to me is that human animals have emotionally bonded with non-human animals for centuries but have failed to consider that their non-human friends genuinely reciprocated.
Personally I blame religion/magical thinking - even Descartes postulated this soulless automaton ridiculousness based on a flawed delusional belief that human animals were somehow not only superior to others because of their position as apex predator but because a magic book written by Stone Age mental patients who heard voices and had hallucinations said their sky-daddy told them that humans are special and get to go to a wonderful place when they die but everything else just ceases to exist.
I recently recovered from Carnism myself so I know how insidious the psychosis can be, how it can affect a human and cause delusions. Having been raised to eat other sentient creatures, even though I was presented with the evidence of their cognitive abilities, and having been exposed to their emotional range, I failed to make the connection and even dismissed it when it was directly pointed out to me. I stopped eating animals because it became obvious that to eat animal meat, and consume the products of animals like their milk, is unhealthy for humans. I also realized that the amount of pollution and waste associated with consuming other animals was 7 to 10 times worse than eating plant based foods. It was only after a few years of not being a party to this terrible cycle that I was able to realize how deluded I was, to realize how I overlooked all the evidence that I was eating beings who could feel and think in ways that were similar to me.
Turns out there is a lot documented (not in rigorous lab setting perhaps but well recorded and documented nonetheless) data out there of non-human animals doing things that clearly show emotional intelligence and capacity to feel similar to human animals. Selfless acts of sacrifice for loved ones, depression, anxiety, fear, generosity, abstract planning, concepts of time, strategic planning, etc. Almost every rescue story you learn of in an non-human animal sanctuary illustrates a story of a brave and intelligent non-human animal doing everything it can to save its offspring, or to escape its torturous existence. They hide escape implements or loved ones from their captors, they capitalize upon spontaneous opportunity to flee, they can recognize a human willing to help from a human out to harm them.
For some reason (I blame this arrogance of superiority that religious thinking encouraged) humans feel they are special and they act as if they have the right to cause suffering and perpetuate torture that makes the concentration camps of the Nazi's look like vacation spots.
That's what gets me. We blanche at the notion of 6 million people tortured over the course of a few years, and we do this because we think this is morally reprehensible, because we empathize, because we can imagine the fear, pain, suffering of those victims. Yet 10 BILLION (yes, with a B) non-human animals are subjected to conditions as bad or worse than a Nazi camp every year in the USA alone. And all the evidence indicates they can suffer, they can feel pain, anxiety, depression, fear, empathy for their family suffering similarly, trepidation for the future, terror, etc... just like the humans in the Nazi camps.
Having been a part of that cycle for more years than I have not been, I'm as guilty as everyone else. I think this research is important but with the very real effects of the psychosis Carnism affecting most humans, plus the terrible influence of religion fostering not only Carnism but arrogant superiority and hubris, I don't know if facts alone will have much impact. Certainly in the USA it is clear that facts are not important to the average US Citizen.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Building on the Nantenna idea from my previous post
Building on my previous post about nantennas and nano-emissive displays - and a little background on the way most electricity is produced today.
How electricity is produced: Hydrocarbons are burned (or using a nuclear reaction) to produce heat which boils water, generates steam, the steam is ducted into a turbine, turbine spins, causing a dynamo to rotate and that rotation produces electricity.
This process is pretty efficient, ranging from about 33% (on the low end, usually coal power plants) to almost 60% (high end using a combined cycle gas fired design).
But it is bulky. It has a LOT of moving parts. [diagram] A lot of maintenance. It is not really useful on moving vehicles. Like boats, submarines, space ships, etc.
So here's what I was thinking - if you can tune a nantenna type structure to convert visible light and IR spectrum photons into electricity at around 50% or 60% (theoretical nantenna efficiency limit is over 80%) then might it be possible to take a nantenna and configure it in some kind of heat flow path between burning hydrocarbons (or nuclear reactor) and a heat sink/radiator?
This may not be more efficient than the the most efficient turbine dynamos but it seems like it could be more efficient than coal and competitive to the most efficient means, BUT with the benefit of being much much smaller, much fewer moving parts, and therefore, possibly more advantageous for use in mobile power sources.
Think about how revolutionary something like this could be. Imagine for example, an RTG [diagram] using something like this instead of a thermocouple that might be between 2% to 7% efficient at converting the heat from the radioisotope to electricity. If you could use this nantenna instead of a thermocouple and if you could realize 30% to 60% conversion efficiency, then instead of building an RTG that produces 150W for 30 years, it could produce 3KW for 30 years. Imagine 3KW for 30 years out of a 300lb device with zero carbon emissions. Thats the kind of thing that could power an average household for 30 years with no additional costs and no carbon footprint.
What about the science that could be done on satellites and on other planets using RTG's 15 to 30 times more powerful than they are today.
What about smaller nuclear powered submersibles, nuclear powered air craft, etc. The mind boggles at the possibilities.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
How electricity is produced: Hydrocarbons are burned (or using a nuclear reaction) to produce heat which boils water, generates steam, the steam is ducted into a turbine, turbine spins, causing a dynamo to rotate and that rotation produces electricity.
This process is pretty efficient, ranging from about 33% (on the low end, usually coal power plants) to almost 60% (high end using a combined cycle gas fired design).
But it is bulky. It has a LOT of moving parts. [diagram] A lot of maintenance. It is not really useful on moving vehicles. Like boats, submarines, space ships, etc.
So here's what I was thinking - if you can tune a nantenna type structure to convert visible light and IR spectrum photons into electricity at around 50% or 60% (theoretical nantenna efficiency limit is over 80%) then might it be possible to take a nantenna and configure it in some kind of heat flow path between burning hydrocarbons (or nuclear reactor) and a heat sink/radiator?
This may not be more efficient than the the most efficient turbine dynamos but it seems like it could be more efficient than coal and competitive to the most efficient means, BUT with the benefit of being much much smaller, much fewer moving parts, and therefore, possibly more advantageous for use in mobile power sources.
Think about how revolutionary something like this could be. Imagine for example, an RTG [diagram] using something like this instead of a thermocouple that might be between 2% to 7% efficient at converting the heat from the radioisotope to electricity. If you could use this nantenna instead of a thermocouple and if you could realize 30% to 60% conversion efficiency, then instead of building an RTG that produces 150W for 30 years, it could produce 3KW for 30 years. Imagine 3KW for 30 years out of a 300lb device with zero carbon emissions. Thats the kind of thing that could power an average household for 30 years with no additional costs and no carbon footprint.
What about the science that could be done on satellites and on other planets using RTG's 15 to 30 times more powerful than they are today.
What about smaller nuclear powered submersibles, nuclear powered air craft, etc. The mind boggles at the possibilities.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, April 8, 2013
Nantenna and SED/NED Nano-Emissive Displays - Solar Power
Reference Links
Nano-Emissive Display (SED/NED TV)
Nantenna Solar Panel
So - I was thinking about this idea of nantennas - basically a super solar panel. The link to Wikipedia above outlines the basic concept. The thing that I am thinking - if you read the other link, about SED/NED displays is that the NED/SED displays exist, and basically are the nantenna process in the reverse.
the Nantenna, visible and IR light goes in, and it moves electrons in a circuit. In a SED/NED display - (which does exist already) - is electrons moving in a circuit making photos go out.
So - my thinking is that we ALREADY have nantennas, and they have the potential to be over 80% efficient. (current commercial PV solar panels are about 20% efficient, so that's 4 times more efficient).
Even if they can make one that's 50% or 60% that's still almost triple the efficiency.
I have read that the average home solar installation has about 5kw of panels - which is not enough to provide all the power for the house, but it offsets some of its power needs and occasionally produces a surplus. With a nantenna you're looking at the same surface area producing 15 to 20kw, which would power the house in question and its neighbors.
We gotta get on that.
UPDATE:
I expanded on the above in my next post:
Suggestions for research into other applications of Nantennas
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, April 5, 2013
Suggestion to fix Social Security in the US
Social Security is a program that I think has market perception issues. It is further hobbled due to some flawed initial logic in its setup.
The market perception issues is that people think that Social Security is a retirement plan or that the funds paid into Social Security are one's own funds.
Social Security was created to be an emergency compassionate safety net for people who lived beyond the average lifespan but who did not have the means to save up for the period of their life they could not work, and further was conceived at a time where work was generally physical in nature. Further, the monies paid in to Social Security by workers are distributed to
individuals who are not in the work force any longer.
At the time of inception it was many people to each retired person collecting Social Security. Now I believe it is 3 working people for every recipient of Social Security.
The flawed initial setup logic is that the model did not include mechanisms to adjust for dynamic variables. Probably because the architects of the time did not foresee some of the variable parameters. At the time, I don't know if they would have foreseen a time when work would be mainly defined as an intellectual endeavor, a moving or reshaping of information, rather than physical labor. So they would not have foreseen a time where much older people could still be viable contributors to society in the work force, as they can today since it takes little physical stamina to be a knowledge worker. Further, I don't know if they could conceive a time where living to 100 was no big deal and insurance companies are not realizing that the first person to live to 150 is alive today.
I am a democrat, a progressive liberal, a humanist and I person who is generally compassionate and all for a society that cares for those in need and does not simply allow its citizens to suffer needlessly. However, I still see merit in a free market. I am not generally in favor of unnecessary hand outs.
Towards that end, here are some suggestions to enhance the Social Security safety net.
- Build a mechanism to allow for changes in longevity and definitions of productive capability. In the near term that might mean creating a stepped program such that persons within 5 years of retirement receive all existing benefits at the age previously set as standard, persons 10 years to retirement receive benefits 2 years later, persons 15 years 5 years later, and so on. Further down the road, for persons born after the new methodology is implemented, they become eligible for benefits at the apex of the actuarial bell curve for that birth date.
- Build a mechanism that allows for adjustment of retirement age based on the then current definitions of what it means to be an employable citizen. I cannot foresee what the workforce requirements 20 years from now will be, for all I know people can put a cap on their head and perform work in a virtual reality, and perhaps the best candidates for that future work reality will be people over 80 years old.
- Clarify that these benefits, as a safety net are not universally doled out equally but instead distribute as needs dictate. This does not mean participation is optional - this is a safety net by society for society - to help those in need. So - all citizens legally working are compelled to participate but set net worth thresholds by which the amount of benefit distributed after retirement is determined. If a person retires with significant financial resources (I am not going to propose here what the thresholds and levels should be, but only illustrating the concept), then that person has no need of Social Security benefits, further, a person who has reached an age where they are no longer able to participate in the work force but who has moderate means may need moderate additional benefits and would receive moderate Social Security benefits, and finally one of exceptionally meager means may need a greater degree of Social Security benefits.
- Finally - there is a wealth of information out there which illustrates how the current system is inefficiently operated, and which reformation can shave billions off the current costs, extending even the existing operational paradigm's viability for many more years. For example, Medicare is currently not allowed to negotiate better pricing on prescription drugs. Those types of bureaucratic inefficiencies need to be analyzed and logically/rationally addressed.
By making these reasonable and logical enhancements, by removing emotion and rhetoric, I think that we can establish a compassionate, responsible and sustainable program to ensure those citizens who need support after they can no longer participate as wage earning members of society, are sustained and supported in their senescense.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, March 29, 2013
Jesus Christ died for Original Sin
Wait a tick...
According to christian myth, Jesus is the human corporeal manifestation of the god Jehovah/Yahweh, (and several hundred years ago they also made a 3rd component, the Holy Spirit), but back to the myth - the 'christ', Jesus was a human male manifestation of the god, and was separate but one with the god. This human died for human sin, but - well, not all human sin, for original sin, to open the doors to the rest of humanity from limbo into heaven, since all were barred due to original sin.
However, Original Sin - was a made up sin (well, all sins are made up, but in general, sins are supposed to be 'bad things'), but original sin, was eating the secret fruit, it was the gotcha sin. Because - this god, Jehovah/Yahweh created humans - so when the god made humans, it made them human, that is to say, curious, trusting, credulous, ambitious, etc... so - this perfect god made these imperfect beings, set them up to fail, when they acted in exactly the way they were designed (remember, they didn't evolve in this myth, they were designed to be the way they are), then they were punished.
And Then, this very same immortal god made a temporary meat-sack avatar, let it get destroyed (doing him no long term harm of course, because he is a DEITY and immortal and omnipotent), to 'save' us from the punishment He/It dealt humanity in the first place.
Now - why is anyone supposed to be grateful for any of this? Isn't it incredibly circular and at best the metaphysical version of self gratifying auto-fellatio by this god?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
According to christian myth, Jesus is the human corporeal manifestation of the god Jehovah/Yahweh, (and several hundred years ago they also made a 3rd component, the Holy Spirit), but back to the myth - the 'christ', Jesus was a human male manifestation of the god, and was separate but one with the god. This human died for human sin, but - well, not all human sin, for original sin, to open the doors to the rest of humanity from limbo into heaven, since all were barred due to original sin.
However, Original Sin - was a made up sin (well, all sins are made up, but in general, sins are supposed to be 'bad things'), but original sin, was eating the secret fruit, it was the gotcha sin. Because - this god, Jehovah/Yahweh created humans - so when the god made humans, it made them human, that is to say, curious, trusting, credulous, ambitious, etc... so - this perfect god made these imperfect beings, set them up to fail, when they acted in exactly the way they were designed (remember, they didn't evolve in this myth, they were designed to be the way they are), then they were punished.
And Then, this very same immortal god made a temporary meat-sack avatar, let it get destroyed (doing him no long term harm of course, because he is a DEITY and immortal and omnipotent), to 'save' us from the punishment He/It dealt humanity in the first place.
Now - why is anyone supposed to be grateful for any of this? Isn't it incredibly circular and at best the metaphysical version of self gratifying auto-fellatio by this god?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Liberal, Democrat, Progressive, Pro-choice
- Pro-choice on reproduction, check.
- On schools, yeah, progressive liberals support teachers, investment in education and better learning environments, and basically anything research and empirically based. Don't support the status quo when it's proven ineffective.
- Guns? Of course we are pro-choice. As pro-choice as we are about doctors and airline pilots. People who wield guns should be stable non-criminals who are capable and responsible enough to wield the gun, so they should have a license, should be certified, should have to undergo regular checks to ensure they remain qualified, and if so, and they want to own a firearm, that's fine. Is there anyone who thinks that a gun is less dangerous than an airplane? Than an automobile? Than a surgeon or other doctor? Heck, you need to be licensed and certified to scuba-dive
- Trade - we support trade that is fair and balanced. Not trade with countries that charge less for goods because of human rights violations, or harmful poisonous polluting practices
- Health care - pro-choice again - the ability to choose care and not die thanks to for-profit insurance companies, not choosing the super disgusting rich over the sick, yes we choose that. We also support the option to pay more for additional private insurance if you want that conscierge level of service and can afford it, I guess we don't choose to let people die in the richest country in the world just so a few really really rich fuckers can be even really really richer.
- Energy - we are pro-choice too - choose to use renewable energy (the 174 petawatts falling on the earth, since we only need 16 terawatts, so we have 11000 times more energy than we need without mercury, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, soot, and a host of other toxins and poisons in the air and water. We choose to have the facts and not let the shell game and smoke and mirrors lies being spewed by vested interests detract for decades of hard science and basic physics.
- We are pro-choice on smoking, as long as the smokers pay extra in taxes to pay for the disproportionate amount of health care they will require, not to mention lost productivity and wages that will impact any company they work for. And as long as the smokers don't smoke in areas where there liberty to smoke infringes on the rest of our ability to breath non-toxic air
- Pro choice on unions, hell yeah, we support unions, and the right for citizens to choose to be a part of unions, UNLIKE corporations that try to union bust
- Pro-choice on light bulbs, sure do - we choose the safest and most efficient, and if people want to use Flintstones era lightbulbs (that are really very efficient heaters that happen to give off some visible light) then let them, but they should be taxed accordingly, as is fair for taking a disproportionate amount of the nation's resources and services, causing more pollution, more wear and tear on the nation's infrastructure, and so on.
- Pro-choice on bags, again, yes, we choose to have the option of using our own reusable ones, never saw anyone forcing anyone else to be responsible
- Walmart - pro-choice, we want everyone to be able to choose when fully informed, when they know that they are not paying $1.00 for 10 pairs of sox, because they are bearing the cost of all the walmart employees who are on welfare and on high cost subsidies that all us tax-payers pay, b/c walmart is effectively lobbying congress to avoid paying them a fair wage.
- Pro choice on what foods you can eat? Again, hell YES, we want our foods labeled. If you WANT to eat poison and toxin, go for it - put the label on the box and let people choose with information, not lie to them and use their ignorance to sell them poison and toxins in the form of colorful vittles.
Yes, this is absolutely correct, except for the "except".
What I don't get about libertarians is that they often argue strongly in favor of large corporations that are intentionally hiding information from average citizens. I'd be all for libertarianism if most citizens were not so ignorant of the facts at hand. And I don't blame the ignorant citizens - 7 times out of 10 at least, it's because of powerful, well monied organizations intentionally misinforming large groups of citizens, or using fear tactics, or other psychological warfare tactics to manipulate the masses.
If you are a libertarianism and you think that being lied to and manipulated and misinformed is ok and that it is fair and that everyone should be able to sift thru the morass of misdirection and then make an informed intelligent choice against all those odds, then I don't know how to counter that. If you don't think that the basis for good decision making is having the facts - having the truth - not being lied to. Then, there really is no hope. I'm aware that there are a lot of religious people.. and obviously people who swallow those lies despite all the evidence to the contrary are very good at lying to themselves and each other and seeking solace in ignorance instead of embracing reality, not to go on a tangent against religion, I'm just saying that there's a lot of people who provide clear empirical evidence that facts and truth are not always the most important things in their life. HOWEVER with that said, for not supernatural mumbo-jumbo issues - for mundane real world issues - like how we ALL pay for the 'low-low-low' cost of Walmart goods, how the nation prospered when unions were empowered and the middle class flourished, how much more expensive a smoker is to society than a non-smoker, how much worse the plastic food we are fed today is for us, how much more it costs in health care, etc - for those mundane issues - shouldn't everyone AT LEAST have access to the facts first, and then let them decide to delude themselves? Rather than hiding it from them by suppressing laws to list ingredients on labels, by banning videos of how food is made, by hiding the cost of wal-mart goods in the public entitlement programs, by denying affordable health care to citizens so they cost us tax-payers 3 times as much, by incarcerating 25% of the nation in private for-profit prisons, etc..
Please...
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Gun Ban = Book Ban? No, logical fallacy.
I just saw this tweet (pictured below) from one Tom Gresham, and read the embedded link, which was to a blog post from a website titled, "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership". It had a certain appeal, and at first blush seemed to make an odd kind of sense. For a moment I considered reposting it with an endorsement that it was worth deeper consideration.
But as I gave it the consideration it was due, I realized I was falling for a classic logical fallacy blunder - the most popular of all logical fallacies, the "Strawman".
The Strawman argument logical fallacy is where one draws an equivalency with something that seems similar, then forms an argument based on that similar thing, and presents it as a valid argument for the primary thing. Similar to a valid logical argument of communicative or transitive properties. However, the Strawman is a logical fallacy because the equivalency is inherently invalid. The 2 things being compared may be similar in certain aspects, but the minor differences may be central to the nature of the argument for(or against) the one or the other.
In this article, the author argues that Books are like Guns in that books sometimes contain ideas that cause people who read them to do things that bring harm to others. Therefore Books are dangerous too. Then extends the argument to say, "maybe we should register all books and who owns them, and maybe ban the more dangerous ones". Then, banking on that fact that most people would find the idea of book banning or tracking to be abhorrent, says, "Well, Guns are the same thing."
First and Foremost - while I'm not a fan of it - society DOES in fact deem certain pieces of information to be too dangerous for public dissemination. If you ever watch "Mythbusters" there are several episodes where they work with explosives where they specifically say that they can't show/explain something b/c the information is classified. Beyond that, the entire concept of "classified information" shows that some information is deemed inappropriate for public dissemination. So - the author's argument already breaks down right there.
However that's not the Strawman, that's giving the argument too much credence on its face than it deserves because this is a classic Strawman. The reason this is a Strawman logical fallacy is that a Book is simply an information storage medium. That some books contain information that is dangerous is similar to saying that a crate can store guns but not all crates store guns. So - you can't say a CRATE is dangerous. (you can use truck or locker or whatever, any container will do). The argument presented, to be valid would have to be asserting that since Books can store dangerous information all books need to be tracked, therefore that's why it would be absurd to say Crates can store guns so all crates need to be tracked. And of course, this is not what modern gun control is all about.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
But as I gave it the consideration it was due, I realized I was falling for a classic logical fallacy blunder - the most popular of all logical fallacies, the "Strawman".
The Strawman argument logical fallacy is where one draws an equivalency with something that seems similar, then forms an argument based on that similar thing, and presents it as a valid argument for the primary thing. Similar to a valid logical argument of communicative or transitive properties. However, the Strawman is a logical fallacy because the equivalency is inherently invalid. The 2 things being compared may be similar in certain aspects, but the minor differences may be central to the nature of the argument for(or against) the one or the other.
In this article, the author argues that Books are like Guns in that books sometimes contain ideas that cause people who read them to do things that bring harm to others. Therefore Books are dangerous too. Then extends the argument to say, "maybe we should register all books and who owns them, and maybe ban the more dangerous ones". Then, banking on that fact that most people would find the idea of book banning or tracking to be abhorrent, says, "Well, Guns are the same thing."
First and Foremost - while I'm not a fan of it - society DOES in fact deem certain pieces of information to be too dangerous for public dissemination. If you ever watch "Mythbusters" there are several episodes where they work with explosives where they specifically say that they can't show/explain something b/c the information is classified. Beyond that, the entire concept of "classified information" shows that some information is deemed inappropriate for public dissemination. So - the author's argument already breaks down right there.
However that's not the Strawman, that's giving the argument too much credence on its face than it deserves because this is a classic Strawman. The reason this is a Strawman logical fallacy is that a Book is simply an information storage medium. That some books contain information that is dangerous is similar to saying that a crate can store guns but not all crates store guns. So - you can't say a CRATE is dangerous. (you can use truck or locker or whatever, any container will do). The argument presented, to be valid would have to be asserting that since Books can store dangerous information all books need to be tracked, therefore that's why it would be absurd to say Crates can store guns so all crates need to be tracked. And of course, this is not what modern gun control is all about.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, March 23, 2013
U.S. Gun Control Regulations - a modest 5 point proposal
-
(what should be regulated)
As a preface, I have read the Second Amendment and do not think it means what the NRA and a lot of others seem to think it means. Even if one doesn't read it in context of the time period and cultural/technological level, it seems to be speaking about an entirely different thing than this notion of a gun in every house, defend oneself from one's own government. When one DOES read it within the contextual framework of when it was written the meaning becomes even less indicative of this current fantasy that it means our Founding Fathers wished everyone to be able to carry a deadly weapon to defend themselves from the Federal Government or that it was some kind of inalienable right to own a firearm. However, THIS ESSAY is written with the assumption that regardless of it's initial TRUE intent, the current paranoid, violent, and let's face it, historically/culturally ignorant society we live in *believes* it means "everyone should be able to own a gun".
This ESSAY is therefore a proposal to suggest that "everyone" be tempered with the reality that some elements of our free society are not responsible or skilled or qualified to possess a deadly long range weapon.
I have developed the following platform which I believe is a moderate, even conciliatory method of appeasing the (I think of them as ignorant/paranoid/intollerant/deluded, but not actually immediately threatening) people who so sorely want to own a lot of guns.
Gun Control should represent and encompass the following 5 point platform.
- 1: a National Database. Publicly available, accessible via the internet and with real time data updates, containing information such as who owns what firearms, when they were purchased, where they are registered. Also, building on the insane paranoia of the inappropriately named "Patriot Act" link all Federal, State, and Municipal criminal records, synchronized by Social Security Number, Driver's License, and with Photo Identification, plus, a mental health database which does not display the diagnosed disease but does flag persons who have been diagnosed or are being treated for any mental/psychological conditions. Person's who have criminal records, or any history of mental illness are not qualified to own a fire arm.
- 2: For qualified individuals, they must still have a mandatory 10 day waiting period for each purchase.
- 3: A complete ban on all extended clips- no sport or hunting or self defense reason can justify more than 6 or 8 shots. Perhaps active military duty and active law enforcement personnel can get an exemption. Maybe even non-law-enforcement but security industry professionals can have an exemption to this too
- 4: Like a car or boat or pilot or medical license, the aforementioned qualified gun owner should maintain a valid Firearm ownership permit license. License qualification must include regular mental health/emotional stability examination resulting in a clean bill of mental/emotional health.
Similar to how not just anyone can fly a plane, perform surgery, build a bridge, prescribe drugs or operate a power plant.. Could anyone argue with the assertion that one should be highly qualified, capable and stable enough to own a gun. - 5: I think this is really the key to successful implementation: If a gun is used in a violent crime the owner it's registered to should be held fully accountable for any crimes committed using that firearm. There would need to be some exceptions and special circumstances, for example, if a gun owner is attacked and their gun is stolen or if they are robbed and the gun is stolen (after investigation to confirm the firearm was properly secured according to then current regulations governing such storage), they may be exempted from the penalty described here. But if they are shown to be negligent in any way, from improper storage to irresponsible inattentiveness, they should suffer the same penalty as if they had committed the crime themselves.
With those caveats, gun ownership, like any dangerous regulated machinery or tool, could (some may argue 'should') be allowed.
This is a reasonable set of safeguards for a tool who's only job is to kill animals.
I believe that, in the same way one is to be trained and licensed to drive a car (which is a tool whose primary purpose is NOT to kill), and unlike knives and poison which are slow acting and inefficient, easily defended against agents of death, there needs to be reasonable measures taken that tools of death are prevented from being used irresponsibly.
As to those second amendment rights, one could make the following converse argument, should the above platform prove too unpalatable: The state of the art technology at the time of the amendment was a single shot musket. So yeah, anyone should be able to own and carry single shot, black powder and flint fire arm rifles.. I have no problem with that. But I simply think that a hand gun with 27 bullets that fits in a large pocket needs a little bit more regulation.
I agree that knee-jerk reactions are rarely good or measured. But every time there is a mass shooting or assassination attempt... (Which I just read that since Newtown (about 4 months ago) in the US, another 2400 people were shot and killed) I have sketched out and refined the above 5 point platform and sent it to my elected officials, the White House, and tried to socialize it around the interwebs. I generally only ADVERTISE this approach after lots of innocents are murdered because people are like goldfish and forget tragedy a scant second after it happens, but it is by no means a knee-jerk reaction.
As an example of how easy it would be to implement this 5 point platform, consider this: A company like Fieldprint can do a 10 year criminal background check in all 50 states plus the Federal records for around $60 a person, and get the results in about 24 hours. For under $100, one can also get educational, employment and civil case info too. It's not 100% complete, but its part of the FINRA rules that Financial companies need to do that for bankers and traders. This already exists and could be used as part of that qualification to own a firearm. Isn't it odd that we MANDTE that a person who could possibly take your financial health away from you has to have this done before they can touch your money yet we can't seem to legislate similar protections for anyone who wants a tool that takes your ACTUAL life away?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Are you Xenophobic? (let kids get an affordable education)
Fox News reports legislation in Colorado to let illegal immigrant kids attend college for in-state resident rates.
I just read this article (that a Facebook friend posted on Facebook). Assuming that I would need to research the bill further, since it's well documented how many 'accidental' innacuracies Fox News incorporates into its reporting, I figured I'd read the Fox News article then try to cross reference it to see what the real skinny was on the legislation. However, I didn't need to read any further, even within this article it says that kids who are residents of the state but who have illegal immigrant status are going to get the in-state resident rate. The same rate as the kids that live in state that have legal status get.
What's wrong with this exactly? This makes perfect sense. These kids, students, live in the state. Sure - there are issues with their immigrant status, and I agree we as a nation need to do something rational and non-descriminatory, which protects our economy and our citizenry.. and our security. However, that's an entirely separate discussion on border control, border permeability, etc. Fact is, everyone who bothers to do more than drink the kool-aid on Fox knows that even when unemployed US Citizens are given the option of performing the type of labor illegal immigrants perform they flat out refuse to do that work... so until we can build robots willing to do the necessary work that illegal immigrants do, we need them because American US Citizens are - well let's not call them lazy, let's just say they are so drunk on the lies of the so-called 'american dream', they feel so entitled to having a middle class existence, that they won't do those jobs they consider 'beneath them'. Every state that has tried to enforce some kind of practice of giving unemployed people a chance to do the jobs illegals have traditionally performed have empirically documented resounding and utter failure. They are unable to find US citizens willing to do the work.
Again - that's a side comment that is unrelated to the education of kids in this country.
Back to this legislation in Colorado. If a kid lives in a state, regardless of immigrant status, it makes perfect, logical, economic sense to give them the in-state tuition rate. Either way everyone benefits, the state, the kid, our economy. The kid is not 'self-deporting'. The kid will be in the state, right? So - we give him or her an affordable education, he/she becomes a contributing part of society and improves the state's net worth/productivity, or we create a 'money-gate' to make it harder (or impossible) for this illegal alien child to get an education and he/she becomes a drain on the state's economy, maybe, worst case, turning towards some kind of chaotic path, like crime.
Me, I am not a people person. That doesn't mean I dislike people, just don't have any favorites, which means I don't have any I dislike more than anyone else. I'm totally neutral. I don't favor white people, I don't favor males, I don't favor anyone. I am concerned with the human race as a species, because I think they are all dangerous, yet necessary for my survival. I want every human to prosper, I want to minimize suffering. I want to reduce crime and boost my nation's productivity and to boost the world's productivity.
I guess if I had strong feelings of xenophobia like Faux News employees and viewers, maybe I would want to harm my own well being and my nation's well being, just so I could take out my impotent xenophobic paranoid fear against brown people or whatever. But I don't have those impulses. I don't actually have a whole heck of a lot of emotions in general. I just see cost/risk/reward, and my goal is a stable global society of humans that have the resources to start to make the changes necessary to preserve our human technological civilization. My reason is simple, I need that to survive as long as possible with as little suffering as possible. My only goal in life is to live as long as possible with as little suffering as possible. To do that, every other human has to be able to live as long as possible and suffer as little as possible.
Anything anyone does to increase the entropy of the system is basically acting against their own best interest and by my definition is a threat to my own well being, which - I don't like to use strong language, but I define anyone who is harming my well being a potential enemy. The interesting thing is that the only way to combat the enemy is to create confluence. If I can show all humans that they are all part of a single tribe and if I could make them see how this planet (not even the whole solar system but only this one little planet) as more resources than 10 times the current population requires, if we could just start utilizing the available energy properly, and that everyone on the planet, if they worked together, could live long, healthy, stable lives free of suffering, then, I could eliminate the threat.
Allowing hatreds and prejudices to form against one set of humans in favor of another does neither set of humans any good, and it definitely doesn't do ME any good, since my goal is to live as long as possible with as little pain as possible.
The urge that most humans feel is a throwback to a past that no longer exists, when each human animal fought independently to advance it's genome over it's competitors in an environment of limited resources. Evolution programs us to have short term myopic problem solving targets. But our human sentience and theory of mind allows us, if we try hard enough to expand our view to a farther horizon. It is that expanded view and farther horizon that will save humanity, and if we as a species fails to do this, then we deserve the extinction we will get.
Me, I see that far horizon, (so I feel I don't deserve the extinction)... so if I end up suffering and dying painfully due to the myopic vision of other humans, then I will justly spew my rancor at them with my final breaths.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I just read this article (that a Facebook friend posted on Facebook). Assuming that I would need to research the bill further, since it's well documented how many 'accidental' innacuracies Fox News incorporates into its reporting, I figured I'd read the Fox News article then try to cross reference it to see what the real skinny was on the legislation. However, I didn't need to read any further, even within this article it says that kids who are residents of the state but who have illegal immigrant status are going to get the in-state resident rate. The same rate as the kids that live in state that have legal status get.
What's wrong with this exactly? This makes perfect sense. These kids, students, live in the state. Sure - there are issues with their immigrant status, and I agree we as a nation need to do something rational and non-descriminatory, which protects our economy and our citizenry.. and our security. However, that's an entirely separate discussion on border control, border permeability, etc. Fact is, everyone who bothers to do more than drink the kool-aid on Fox knows that even when unemployed US Citizens are given the option of performing the type of labor illegal immigrants perform they flat out refuse to do that work... so until we can build robots willing to do the necessary work that illegal immigrants do, we need them because American US Citizens are - well let's not call them lazy, let's just say they are so drunk on the lies of the so-called 'american dream', they feel so entitled to having a middle class existence, that they won't do those jobs they consider 'beneath them'. Every state that has tried to enforce some kind of practice of giving unemployed people a chance to do the jobs illegals have traditionally performed have empirically documented resounding and utter failure. They are unable to find US citizens willing to do the work.
Again - that's a side comment that is unrelated to the education of kids in this country.
Back to this legislation in Colorado. If a kid lives in a state, regardless of immigrant status, it makes perfect, logical, economic sense to give them the in-state tuition rate. Either way everyone benefits, the state, the kid, our economy. The kid is not 'self-deporting'. The kid will be in the state, right? So - we give him or her an affordable education, he/she becomes a contributing part of society and improves the state's net worth/productivity, or we create a 'money-gate' to make it harder (or impossible) for this illegal alien child to get an education and he/she becomes a drain on the state's economy, maybe, worst case, turning towards some kind of chaotic path, like crime.
Me, I am not a people person. That doesn't mean I dislike people, just don't have any favorites, which means I don't have any I dislike more than anyone else. I'm totally neutral. I don't favor white people, I don't favor males, I don't favor anyone. I am concerned with the human race as a species, because I think they are all dangerous, yet necessary for my survival. I want every human to prosper, I want to minimize suffering. I want to reduce crime and boost my nation's productivity and to boost the world's productivity.
I guess if I had strong feelings of xenophobia like Faux News employees and viewers, maybe I would want to harm my own well being and my nation's well being, just so I could take out my impotent xenophobic paranoid fear against brown people or whatever. But I don't have those impulses. I don't actually have a whole heck of a lot of emotions in general. I just see cost/risk/reward, and my goal is a stable global society of humans that have the resources to start to make the changes necessary to preserve our human technological civilization. My reason is simple, I need that to survive as long as possible with as little suffering as possible. My only goal in life is to live as long as possible with as little suffering as possible. To do that, every other human has to be able to live as long as possible and suffer as little as possible.
Anything anyone does to increase the entropy of the system is basically acting against their own best interest and by my definition is a threat to my own well being, which - I don't like to use strong language, but I define anyone who is harming my well being a potential enemy. The interesting thing is that the only way to combat the enemy is to create confluence. If I can show all humans that they are all part of a single tribe and if I could make them see how this planet (not even the whole solar system but only this one little planet) as more resources than 10 times the current population requires, if we could just start utilizing the available energy properly, and that everyone on the planet, if they worked together, could live long, healthy, stable lives free of suffering, then, I could eliminate the threat.
Allowing hatreds and prejudices to form against one set of humans in favor of another does neither set of humans any good, and it definitely doesn't do ME any good, since my goal is to live as long as possible with as little pain as possible.
The urge that most humans feel is a throwback to a past that no longer exists, when each human animal fought independently to advance it's genome over it's competitors in an environment of limited resources. Evolution programs us to have short term myopic problem solving targets. But our human sentience and theory of mind allows us, if we try hard enough to expand our view to a farther horizon. It is that expanded view and farther horizon that will save humanity, and if we as a species fails to do this, then we deserve the extinction we will get.
Me, I see that far horizon, (so I feel I don't deserve the extinction)... so if I end up suffering and dying painfully due to the myopic vision of other humans, then I will justly spew my rancor at them with my final breaths.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, March 8, 2013
Need a god to have good relationships?
I just came across the following picture and caption on facebook:
It made me think. Well, moreso it seemed so bizarre and condescending. So I started to think of, and decided to craft, the following essay to catalog my thoughts on the topic.
I can't speak for tomorrow but so far I've been in a relationship with the same woman for 10 years, 4 months, and a handful of days. I have a strained relationship with my mom because she was mentally unstable and abusive to me my entire life, however, I have nonetheless provided care and succor for her for the past 15+ years, for which she's grateful, in her more lucid less unstable moments. My 3 oldest (and possibly closest) friends are friends whom I met in 6th grade, 12th grade, and when I was 21 (so about 20 years ago) respectively.
I have been at the same job for 15+years and have worked with many of my current co-workers for 6 years or more.
I am itemizing this because I am as hard core a flaming atheist as they come, I have no relationship with any of the several thousand different gods humans have chosen to worship.
I know a lot of atheists, both in real life and via social networking, plus the people I have met at rallies, conventions, and events. Many of them are in long term relationships - in fact, we just moved to a suburb and have made friends with a couple who've been married for a while (who not only are married, they also work together), who are atheists, and rekindled a friendship with a friend from 10 years ago who happens to live near by and her, her hubby and her kid are atheists.
There's a lot of atheists who make a lot of relationships work.
Even if I lost my girl, my job and all my friends tomorrow.. (which I can't speak for tomorrow for who can say with certainty, what tomorrow may bring?) I can say that I have had long duration, mutually reciprocal, healthy, supportive, and warm relationships - romantic, platonic, and professional All without any supernatural support and far from being alone, I am part of a huge, happy, well adjusted, optimistic, hopeful, politically, socially, and community-ly(?) active fellow atheists who also have long term, warm, supportive, reciprocal, healthy relationships.
Me, them, none of us worship, or have a relationship with, any of the several thousand different gods that humans have worshiped thru history... not even the 3 or 4 that are the most popular fads of the past few centuries.
I'm just Not Sure if you need a relationship with the idea of a god to have healthy relationships with real people who actually exist in the real world.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
A personal relationship with god is the most important relationship you will ever have and it is what will make all other relationships work.
It made me think. Well, moreso it seemed so bizarre and condescending. So I started to think of, and decided to craft, the following essay to catalog my thoughts on the topic.
I can't speak for tomorrow but so far I've been in a relationship with the same woman for 10 years, 4 months, and a handful of days. I have a strained relationship with my mom because she was mentally unstable and abusive to me my entire life, however, I have nonetheless provided care and succor for her for the past 15+ years, for which she's grateful, in her more lucid less unstable moments. My 3 oldest (and possibly closest) friends are friends whom I met in 6th grade, 12th grade, and when I was 21 (so about 20 years ago) respectively.
I have been at the same job for 15+years and have worked with many of my current co-workers for 6 years or more.
I am itemizing this because I am as hard core a flaming atheist as they come, I have no relationship with any of the several thousand different gods humans have chosen to worship.
I know a lot of atheists, both in real life and via social networking, plus the people I have met at rallies, conventions, and events. Many of them are in long term relationships - in fact, we just moved to a suburb and have made friends with a couple who've been married for a while (who not only are married, they also work together), who are atheists, and rekindled a friendship with a friend from 10 years ago who happens to live near by and her, her hubby and her kid are atheists.
There's a lot of atheists who make a lot of relationships work.
Even if I lost my girl, my job and all my friends tomorrow.. (which I can't speak for tomorrow for who can say with certainty, what tomorrow may bring?) I can say that I have had long duration, mutually reciprocal, healthy, supportive, and warm relationships - romantic, platonic, and professional All without any supernatural support and far from being alone, I am part of a huge, happy, well adjusted, optimistic, hopeful, politically, socially, and community-ly(?) active fellow atheists who also have long term, warm, supportive, reciprocal, healthy relationships.
Me, them, none of us worship, or have a relationship with, any of the several thousand different gods that humans have worshiped thru history... not even the 3 or 4 that are the most popular fads of the past few centuries.
I'm just Not Sure if you need a relationship with the idea of a god to have healthy relationships with real people who actually exist in the real world.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Improved Elevator
Improved High Capacity/ High Efficiency Elevator
This elevator design can be incorporated into new construction OR retrofit into any existing Elevator Building provided the following criteria are met.
1: Existing building must have at least 2 elevator ascent shafts
2: The design only works on even numbers of shafts, if there is an odd #, then the odd #'d shaft will not be capable of receiving the retrofit.
3: There must be sufficient space below the last floor with elevator service, and above the last floor with elevator service, OR there must be room laterally on the upper and lower most floor to accommodate the additional mechanicals.
The elevator makes use of existing vertical ascent shafts and elevator cars, but would require additional superstructure, mechanicals and software.
Connect 2 adjacent shafts at the top and bottom most levels, creating a loop. If there is no space lower the the lowest service floor or higher than the highest service floor, consolidate the elevator into a single entrance/egress at the apex of the loop. On one side of a thusly created loop, created a spur channel capable of holding at least one but preferably multiple elevator cars.
Install more than 2 elevator cars within the loop and engineer it so that the elevators can travel along the entire loop circuit (elevators raised and lowered via cables would need to be engineered to rise and lower vial guide rails and brushless electric drive traction motors). All elevator cars will travel in the same direction in the loop, when a call button is depressed the next elevator on the loop preceding the call button will stop and accept the new passenger(s).
The configuration can be side by side where the passengers face the loop head on, or across a corridor where the passengers are waiting in the lobby created by the loop. However the across the corridor configuration would require space above the top most serviced and bottom most serviced floor as the loop would have its bottom and top apex points in the center of the elevator lobby.
Additional software would need to be developed to ensure anti-collision measures are employed, and the spur line would be to take elevators out of service for maintenance, repair or replacement. In extreme cases, one entire shaft can be taken out of service and the elevator will travel up and down the single shaft at reduced efficiency.
The benefit of this design is that wait times will be significantly cut and capacity will be dramatically improved. Since the elevator cars all travel in the same direction, (one shaft being up-only and the other being down-only), more than 2 elevator cars can be housed in any 2 shafts, allowing for configurations such as 5 cars in 2 shafts (or a greater or lesser #), even at 2 cars per 2 shafts, which would afford the same number of cars per shaft as in a traditional elevator configuration, as there would never be the need to back track empty in the event of more passengers traveling in a particular direction, such as during the start and end of a work shift, there would still be efficiencies realized. The greater efficiency would be to have multiple cars in the transit loop.
Responsible safety protocols should likely require each elevator's emergency support brake/clamps to be able to withstand greater than 1 full cars. Perhaps as many as all full cars. A possible more cost effective alternative is to construct a mechanical clamp engagement system which is triggered by a car physically encountering another car, the primary physical contact point could be a lever that severs power to the ascent/descent drive motors and mechanically engages the clamping brakes of both cars. In such a configuration, even a cascade failure of all cars, would result in nothing more than a string of cars all locked into place by emergency clamps. This configuration would eliminate the need for clamps on any one car being required to support more than one full car in weight.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
This elevator design can be incorporated into new construction OR retrofit into any existing Elevator Building provided the following criteria are met.
1: Existing building must have at least 2 elevator ascent shafts
2: The design only works on even numbers of shafts, if there is an odd #, then the odd #'d shaft will not be capable of receiving the retrofit.
3: There must be sufficient space below the last floor with elevator service, and above the last floor with elevator service, OR there must be room laterally on the upper and lower most floor to accommodate the additional mechanicals.
The elevator makes use of existing vertical ascent shafts and elevator cars, but would require additional superstructure, mechanicals and software.
Connect 2 adjacent shafts at the top and bottom most levels, creating a loop. If there is no space lower the the lowest service floor or higher than the highest service floor, consolidate the elevator into a single entrance/egress at the apex of the loop. On one side of a thusly created loop, created a spur channel capable of holding at least one but preferably multiple elevator cars.
Install more than 2 elevator cars within the loop and engineer it so that the elevators can travel along the entire loop circuit (elevators raised and lowered via cables would need to be engineered to rise and lower vial guide rails and brushless electric drive traction motors). All elevator cars will travel in the same direction in the loop, when a call button is depressed the next elevator on the loop preceding the call button will stop and accept the new passenger(s).
The configuration can be side by side where the passengers face the loop head on, or across a corridor where the passengers are waiting in the lobby created by the loop. However the across the corridor configuration would require space above the top most serviced and bottom most serviced floor as the loop would have its bottom and top apex points in the center of the elevator lobby.
Additional software would need to be developed to ensure anti-collision measures are employed, and the spur line would be to take elevators out of service for maintenance, repair or replacement. In extreme cases, one entire shaft can be taken out of service and the elevator will travel up and down the single shaft at reduced efficiency.
The benefit of this design is that wait times will be significantly cut and capacity will be dramatically improved. Since the elevator cars all travel in the same direction, (one shaft being up-only and the other being down-only), more than 2 elevator cars can be housed in any 2 shafts, allowing for configurations such as 5 cars in 2 shafts (or a greater or lesser #), even at 2 cars per 2 shafts, which would afford the same number of cars per shaft as in a traditional elevator configuration, as there would never be the need to back track empty in the event of more passengers traveling in a particular direction, such as during the start and end of a work shift, there would still be efficiencies realized. The greater efficiency would be to have multiple cars in the transit loop.
Responsible safety protocols should likely require each elevator's emergency support brake/clamps to be able to withstand greater than 1 full cars. Perhaps as many as all full cars. A possible more cost effective alternative is to construct a mechanical clamp engagement system which is triggered by a car physically encountering another car, the primary physical contact point could be a lever that severs power to the ascent/descent drive motors and mechanically engages the clamping brakes of both cars. In such a configuration, even a cascade failure of all cars, would result in nothing more than a string of cars all locked into place by emergency clamps. This configuration would eliminate the need for clamps on any one car being required to support more than one full car in weight.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)