09.14.09
Posted in NYC, biology, evolution, game theory, internet, news, philosophy, products, random idiocy, technology at 10:33 pm by nogre
For those readers of mine, I’d like to open up a small opportunity. Quite a bit of my time and effort has gone into revamping parts of the theory of evolution and I have previously mentioned here that I’ve taught myself to program and created a simulation. Well, this isn’t completely true.
The short version is that I’ve made computers try to survive the real world. By real world, I mean my program contains lots of little files that make decisions, and these decisions are about buying and selling stocks, based upon actual real-time data available on the internet. The decision engines (or ‘orgs’, as I like to call them) that correctly predict the movement of the stocks make money and eventually replicate. Those orgs that are unsuccessful at predicting stock movements lose money and die off. The replication process is governed by genetic algorithms that include various mutations.
The short short version is that the program is a cross between a stock market program and a tomagotchi (digital pet). You host a colony of organisms that survive by ‘eating’ (buy and selling) stocks; it acts as your own personal hedge fund.
Anyway, I could use a tester or two, so if anyone here wants to participate, send me an email. I’ll get around to writing up more details about the program soon too.
—————————————————————–
In other news, I’ve finally gotten around to updating the NYC Area Philosophy Calendar. Someone even sent me a nice email asking if I was still going to do it (before I got around to it.. busy busy) and another person even asked if they could start adding events.
Hmmm, interest in the calendar (it only took 2 years). An actual object (program) that came from studying philosophy (original theory of biology, 2004.). It’s taken some time but I feel like I must be moving up in the world.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
04.24.09
Posted in Relativity, biology, evolution, fitness, philosophy, science, technology at 4:48 pm by nogre
I’m sure the dearth of posts here has not gone completely unnoticed. So what in the world have I been up to? While it is possible that I had decided to forgo my normal practice of just making up philosophy as I see fit, this, of course, is ridiculous.
I do not know if any of my readers have been around since the beginning, but this blog started out with a good deal of my philosophy of biology. The one-sentence description of my philosophy of biology is: I have relativized the theory of fitness within evolution and comported the rest of evolutionary theory to make it work.
In the last few months I’ve been teaching myself to program and, as of today, I have incorporated as much of my theory of evolution into a simulation as I can possibly hope to accomplish (at the moment). All that is left is to get all the bugs out.
It is not every day that I can say that I have created something that is a direct result of a theory of philosophy, moreover a theory that I have personally developed. I’m pretty stoked. There is still a good amount of work getting the thing to actually run from this point forward, but at least none of the issues will be theoretical, just technical.
And of course there is no guarantee that things will go the way I want them to, but at least I gave it a shot.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
03.27.09
Posted in fun, physics, random idiocy, science, technology at 12:00 pm by nogre
I was trying to figure out how planes stay in the sky.
So this is what I came up with.
As the plane moves forward, a small vacuum is created above the wing. The vacuum is a low pressure zone which pulls the wing up and the air down to fill itself in (because Nature HATES a vacuum). This upward pull that the low pressure zone creates we call lift.
I thought, “Hooray. This isn’t so complicated! Planes stay up because they create small vacuums above their wings as they move forward, creating an upward force.”
Then I thought, “And this is why planes can’t fly in outer space, because there is no air to displace and create a vacuum.”
Then I thought, “But if there is an aether theory, why not?”
So as a wing moves through a vacuum, generally we don’t think there is anything to cause lift or drag. But if we have an aether theory of a vacuum, i.e. there is some substance below what we can observe that our matter exists within, then why can’t we create a vacuum in that substance?
My line of thought was: Air is to Vacuum as Vacuum is to Black Hole.
Can’t we just spin a propeller fast enough in outer space to create lift? As the prop turns small vacuums in the aether will be created, and, insofar as Nature hates vacuums, a force will be created to fill in this vacuum, pulling the propeller in that direction.
(Someone please tell me how this is nonsense so I won’t go around thinking I’ve come up with a new model of space flight.)
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
02.19.09
Posted in Wii, fun, technology at 12:53 pm by nogre
Most of the time video game designers are trying to make 3 dimensional virtual worlds that are as realistic as possible, or focus upon a particular art style, and tell a story within that world.
What I would like to see is a lifelike 3-D world that has a main character that has special abilities, or levels, taken from modern art. This means, for example, that a character with Cubist special abilities (or in the cubist level) can flatten parts of the world that they are looking at into a 2-D space, but in this space they have the ability to see around corners, rearrange objects and do all the other funky things that happen in cubist art.
On the flip-side, when using the Cubist skills, the character would lose depth perception, motion would be funky, and other sorts of strange phenomena would go on.
Moreover the character could get skills associated with other artists or artistic movements. Say there was a Dali gun: it could stretch the legs of elephants (or any other animal) such that they become unstable. Or a Duchamp Readymade skill which combines random objects in the world into other objects depending upon the angle at which you are looking at them. Frankly I think that there are too many different and good ways to go; it would take some effort to really take a few ideas and make them work well.
This would be a great way to combine the ‘new’ media form of interactive video gaming and more ‘traditional’ modern art. It might even be considered educational. But if executed well, it would definitely be fun, interesting and visually impressive.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
09.29.08
Posted in language, philosophy, science, technology at 11:40 am by nogre
Perhaps there is magic that some people have and others do not, and cannot, have. I do not know. However there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Consider the maxim, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” What does ’sufficiently advanced technology’ mean? The words ’sufficiently advanced’ imply there is something futuristic about this technology, but this is not a necessary requirement; the technology needs to be different from what is known, but not futuristic. Any unknown technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Of course there are plenty of technologies that I am unfamiliar with that I do not count as magic. The upshot is that knowledge is not the determining factor in distinguishing magic because any one of us may be ignorant of a particular technology, but, if we desired to, we could go find out how the unknown technologies work. Magic requires that we cannot simply pick up a book and read how a something happens.
Therefore a more accurate description of magic is: Any unexplainable technology is indistinguishable from magic. If some technology is unexplainable then how it works cannot be written.
We now have a question of technology and meaning: if some technology is unexplainable, then what is the purpose of calling that thing technology? To ascribe a property to some unknown object is begging the question and hence the use of the world technology in this instance is misleading:
Anything unexplainable is indistinguishable from magic.
This description of magic may seem like a non-starter because it would be impossible to learn something that is unexplainable by definition. However, magic only requires a special kind of unexplainability: magic cannot be explained in terms of science. So magic is not completely unexplainable, only scientifically unexplainable.
As broadly construed as possible, science is a description of the world in terms of objects made up of other objects according to some process. Physics tries to find the smallest objects that, when combined by some process, make up all the biggest objects in the universe. Biology looks to find the fundamental objects and processes that make up ecosystems and life.
To get around science we would need something that necessarily cannot be described in terms of another object according to any process. This might seem impossible because of the open-ended ‘according to any process’ clause but, compositional accounts of natural language have consistently failed in certain circumstances. Therefore, if you wish to look for magic, I suggest understanding why this happens.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
08.18.08
Posted in Relativity, Special Relativity, biology, epistemology, evolution, fitness, independence friendly logic, logic, measurement, mind, philosophy, physics, science, technology at 1:26 pm by nogre
I just returned from a cruise to Alaska. It is a wonderful, beautiful place. I zip-lined in a rain forest canopy, hiked above a glacier, kayaked coastal Canada and was pulled by sled-dogs. Anywho, as on many cruises, there was a casino, which is an excellent excuse for me to discuss probability.
What is probability and where does it come from? Definitions are easy enough to find. Google returns:
a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible …
So it’s a measure of likelihood. What’s likelihood? Google returns:
The probability of a specified outcome.
Awesome. So ‘probability as likelihood’ is non-explanatory. What about this ‘ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible’? I’m pretty wary about the word favorable. Let’s modify this definition to read:
a number expressing the ratio of certain cases to the whole number of cases possible.
Nor do I like ‘a number expressing…’ This refers to a particular probability, not probability at large, so let’s go back to using ‘measure’:
a measure of certain cases to the whole number of cases possible.
We need to be a bit more explicit about what we are measuring:
a measure of the frequency of certain cases to the whole number of cases possible.
OK. I think this isn’t that bad. When we flip a fair coin the probability is the frequency of landing on heads compared to the total cases possible, heads + tails, so 1 out of 2. Pretty good.
But notice the addition of the word fair. Where did it come from, what’s it doing there? Something is said to be fair if that thing shows no favoritism to any person or process. In terms of things that act randomly, this means that the thing acts in a consistently random way. Being consistently random means it is always random, not sometimes random and other times not random. This means that fairness has to do with the distribution of the instances of the cases we are studying. What governs this distribution?
In the case of of a coin, the shape of the coin and the conditions under which it is measured make all the difference in the distribution of heads and tails. The two sides, heads and tails, must be distinguishable, but the coin must be flipped in a way such that no one can know which side will land facing up. The shape of the coin, even with uniform mass distribution, cannot preclude this previous condition. Therefore the source of probability is the interdependence of physical conditions (shape and motion of the coin) and an epistemic notion (independence of knowledge of which side will land up). When the physical conditions and our knowledge of the conditions are dependent upon each other then the situation becomes probabilistic because the conditions preclude our knowing the exact outcome of the situation.
It is now time to recall that people cheat at gambling all the time. A trio of people in March 2004 used a computer and lasers to successfully predict the decaying orbit of a ball spinning on a roulette wheel (and walked out with £1.3 million). This indicates that after a certain point it is possible to predict the outcome of a coin flipping or a roulette ball spinning, so the dependence mentioned above is eventually broken. However this is only possible once the coin is flipping or the roulette ball is rolling, not before the person releases the roulette ball or flips the coin.
With the suggestion that it is the person that determines the outcome we can expand the physical-epistemic dependence to an physical-epistemic-performative one. If I know that I, nor anyone else, can predict the outcome until after I perform a task, then the knowledge of the outcome is dependent upon how I perform that task.
This makes sense because magicians and scam artists train themselves to be able to perform tasks like shuffling and dealing cards in ways that most of us think is random but are not. The rest of us believe that there is a dependence between the physical setup and the outcome that precludes knowing the results, but this is merely an illusion that is exploited.
What about instances in which special training or equipment is unavailable; can we guarantee everyone’s ability to measure the thing in question to be equal? We can: light. Anyone who can see at all sees light that is indistinguishable from the light everyone else sees: it has no haecceity.
This lack of distinguishability, lack of haecceity (thisness), is not merely a property of the photon but a physical characteristic of humans. We have no biology that can distinguish one photon from another of equivalent wavelength. To distinguish something we have to use a smaller feature of the thing to tell it apart from its compatriots. Since we cannot see anything smaller, this is impossible. Nor is there a technology that we could use to augment our abilities: for us to have a technology that would see something smaller than a photon would require us to know that the technology interacted at a deeper level with reality than photons do. But we cannot know that because we are physically limited to using the photon as our minimal measurement device. The act of sight is foundational: we cannot see anything smaller than a photon nor can anything smaller exist in our world.
The way we perceive photons will always be inherently distributed because of this too. We cannot uniquely identify a single photon, and hence we can’t come back and measure the properties of a photon we have previously studied. Therefore the best we will be able to accomplish when studying photons is to measure a group of photons and use a distribution of their properties, making photons inherently probabilistic. Since the act of seeing light is a biological feature of humans, we all have equal epistemological footing in this instance. This means that the epistemic dependence mentioned above can be ignored because it adds nothing to the current discussion. Therefore we can eliminate the epistemic notion from our above dependence, reducing it to a physical-performative interdependence.
Since it is a historical/ evolutionary accident that the photon is the smallest object we can perceive, the photon really is not fundamental to this discussion. Therefore, the interdependence of the physical properties of the smallest things we can perceive and our inherent inability to tell them apart is a source of probability in nature.
This is a source of natural randomness as well: once we know the probability of some property that we cannot measure directly, the lack of haecceity means that we will not be able to predict when we will measure an individual with said property. Therefore the order in which we measure the property will inherently be random. [Assume the contradiction: the order in which we measure the property is not random, but follows some pattern. Then there exists some underlying structure that governs the appearance of the property. However, since we are already at the limit of what can be measured, no such thing can exist. Hence the order in which we measure the property is random.]
————–
If I were Wittgenstein I might have said:
Consider a situation in which someone asks, “How much light could you see?” Perhaps a detective is asking a hostage about where he was held. But then the answer is, “I didn’t look.” —— And this would make no sense.
hmmmm…. I did really mean to get back to gambling.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
06.11.08
Posted in Wii, design, fun, technology at 10:43 pm by nogre
The Wii has a lot of potential as a golf simulator/ practice program. With the introduction of the Wii balance board the opportunity for using weight distribution has become a real factor, and, though I know nearly nothing about golf, balance and weight distribution during a club swing has to be critical.
Now using the balance board to monitor weight distribution is somewhat obvious. However, very accurate motion sensing from the controller would also be required to really pinpoint the motion of the swing. By some pretty basic reasoning about cost and manufacturing I heard once, it is fair to say that Nintendo is providing middle of the road accelerometers- they are good, but there is still a lot of noise (inaccurate random data) to be dealt with. Lots of noise means that a lot of processing of the data from the motion sensors is required to get a clear picture of what is going on, and if lots of processing occurs, then the nuances of the motion are also getting smoothed over. My solution is to connect the nunchuck controller to the main controller in a rigid way.
 |
A mockup of the connected remote and nunchuck in the
shape of a traditional controller. |
The nunchuck controller is incredibly light and would add almost no bulk to the main controller, while doubling the number of accelerometers. With double the accelerometers, a clearer picture of the motion would be provided.
Secondly, to get a more complete picture of the orientation of the Wii controllers, the sensor bar which is normally placed near the television should be placed on the floor where the golf ball ought to be. With the sensor bar on the floor where the golf ball should be the controllers would be able to pick up the location of the sensor bar and provide non-inertial data about its velocity. As the controllers swing past the sensor bar, the location of the infrared lights would act as fixed points with which to measure velocity.
 |
A picture of someone on a Wii balance board with
the sensor bar on the floor. |
All on-screen menu navigation can be done in the traditional way by using the directional keys; pointer-enabled functions are nice but unnecessary for this sort of game. Moving the sensor bar around the room would be a clever way to also have a swing trainer for baseball.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
03.18.08
Posted in biology, ethics, evolution, fitness, mind, philosophy, technology at 9:47 pm by nogre
The only ways to enhance the mind is to learn or evolve. Since evolution is out of our hands, all that is left is to learn.
Drugs that purport psychopharmacological enhancement do not do what their name states: they may change certain psychological factors but there is no drug that will make you smarter. This would be to eat from the tree of knowledge.
However drugs may be able to let you do things that you were unable previously, but this is nothing mysterious. If you do not breath enough oxygen, you will not be able to run. You get enough oxygen, you will be able to do more things. Now is oxygen a performance enhancing drug? It depends: the World Anti-Doping Agency recently ruled on oxygen tents (tents that vary the amount of oxygen inside) because using these tents can affect red blood cell counts. This example illustrates two things: that there is nothing inherently special about any particular chemical, be it oxygen or a newfangled drug, and secondly, that drugs only affect intermediary situations, not the final outcome.
The first point is that there is no moral dimension associated with the chemicals themselves. If it is possible to use the most fundamental of chemicals required for our survival in a way that could be seen as inappropriate, then any other chemical could be equally accused. If any chemical can be equally accused, then there is nothing unique about any individual chemical that makes its use morally wrong.
The second point is that drugs only have a specific range of effects. In the above example, the oxygen tents affect red blood cell count. An increased red blood cell count can be used to boost endurance, but this benefit will only appear under certain situations. The tents themselves do not increase endurance: they merely increase red blood cells. If a different drug was consumed to weaken the muscles, then the two ‘drugs’ would counteract each other and there would be no change in ability. Therefore it is not a drug that gives people an ability, such as endurance, but a drug may change how an ability is expressed.
The question is (and always was), “What do you want?” Since drugs have no moral dimension nor imbue the user with unknown (super-human) ability, the only issue is of fair play. Fair play in terms of other people and with your own goals. If you want to be able to lift heavy things, then you can use a machine, you can use drugs or you can work hard. Using a machine or drugs is to use someone else’s technology to assist whatever ability you have. If you use discipline to achieve the same results, then the technology that is being used is your own. Therefore if you are trying to play fair with others, then you have to ensure everyone has access to the same technology, be it machine or drug. If you are trying to achieve something yourself, then only you know whether or not using drugs makes a difference.
As we learn what is safe(r), we are going to have a fun future. Nothing changes our natural born ability or the hard work we have put in, but that has never stopped us from trying. Better drugs are on the way and this means options will be open to us that weren’t possible in the past. Good luck, be safe, have fun.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
03.02.08
Posted in metaphysics, mind, philosophy, science, technology at 4:24 pm by nogre
This interview with Hubert Dreyfus (just the parts about computers: part 1, part 2. via Continental Philosophy) briefly outlines one of the major criticisms leveled against artificial intelligence: computers will never be intelligent because our intelligence is based upon our physical interactions in and with the world. Very briefly, our intelligence is fundamentally tied to our bodies because it is only through our bodies do we have any interaction with the world. If we separate our intelligence from the body, as in the case with computers, then whatever it is that the computer has, it is not intelligence because intelligence only refers to how to bodily interact with the world.
As Dreyfus says this problem is attributed to a Merleau-Ponty extension of Heidegger and the only proposed solution is to embody computers by providing them with a full representation of world and body. I don’t think there is generally much faith in this solution; I certainly don’t have much faith in it.
However, this bodily criticism is a straw man. Computers have ‘bodies,’ they are definitely physical things in the world. But what of the physical interactions required for intelligence? Computers interact with the world: computers are affected by heat, moisture, dirt, vibration, etcetera. The only differences are the actual interactions that computers have as compared to humans: we experience humidity one way and they experience it differently. So yes, computers will have different interactions and hence they will never have the same intelligence that we have, but that does not imply that computers cannot have an embodied intelligence. It only means that computer embodied intelligence will be significantly different than our own intelligence. Therefore the above argument against computer intelligence only applies to those people who are trying to replicate perfect human intelligence and does nothing against people trying to create intelligence in computers.
For example, light-skinned and dark-skinned people have very slightly different physiologies. Now I see the above argument as saying that someone of different skin color cannot have the same sort of intelligence that you have because their interactions with the world are inherently different. Sure, everyone experiences things slightly differently due to having different bodies, but to claim that this creates incompatible intelligences is obviously wrong: No one on the face of the earth would be able to communicate with each other due to everyone being physically unique. Computers may be physically different to a greater extent, but this does not impact intelligence.
The criticism of computer intelligence based upon the need for a body is no more than subtle techno-racism.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
10.11.07
Posted in Wii, design, products, technology at 4:33 pm by nogre
I’ve bought meself a Wii and I quite like it. But there needs to be some more killer games.. freaking mercury meltdown got delayed. So for some reason – this is a first for me – I thought of a video game design. Simply put it is a spy game. The interesting thing is that each level is composed of 2 parts: the first part is a ‘training’ program put on by the spy agency to train the spy in what needs to be done. This ‘training program’ will not make use of the Wii motion sensors but will feature classic style gameplay only. Then the spy is sent on the mission but now to do everything will require using the motion controls. This game design will specific highlight the immersion that the motion controls bring to the game by contrasting them with the classic controls for doing the exact same operation. Also, the game design is efficient by reusing aspects of the same level design twice, though with different art direction, and differences in the ‘training’ and ‘mission’ – due to ‘incomplete intelligence’ – will make for good surprises. Ok game makers, hop to.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
