You've Been Warned

The idea of a technological advance that creates a superintelligence that surpasses that of humans is known as the singularity. The idea has been around for a long time. However, the term technological singularity was first coined in 1993 by a professor, computer scientist, and award winning science fiction author. Vernor Vinge was explaining that trying to predict, let alone even understand, the moment after this advanced intelligence first emerges breaks down much like the predictive ability of physics at the space-time singularity beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

If, in fact, a superintelligence ever does come into existence then I agree it would be beyond our ability to comprehend. However, one thing we can comprehend, at least to this point, is the exponential rate at which computing power accelerates. It's a fairly accepted concept that computer chip power doubles every eighteen months.  In 2010 Google CEO Eric Schmidt stated that every two days we create as much information as we did from the beginning of civilization up until the year 2003. I don't even know what it is now, late in 2012. The reason I included "at least to this point" when describing our comprehension of this explosion is because I think at some point the speed of it all will surpass our human abilities to understand it.

The topic of the coming singularity is not without criticism. Those that argue against the inevitably of such an event counter it simply by stating there is no evidence that advanced processing power will lead to a superintelligence. I have mixed feelings on this entire subject and can't quite pin down where I stand on the issue. I find it fascinating nonetheless. The accelerating change at exponential speed is the most intriguing and interesting part of the subject to me.

Even though I'm incredibly interested in science and computers and technology and quantum physics and math (all the geeky stuff), it's definitely not my strong suit. My talents lie within the area of psychology. I've always been interested in psychology and majored in it in college. I don't have a doctorate in the subject. I've never practiced professionally in the field, nor could I. I've never even really used my degree for anything more than getting a substitute teaching credential. I totally confess I'm not an expert in the field, just a dude that is completely interested in the dynamic of how we tick. Having stated all of that, I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you, at this point in my life, I feel very confident in my ability to understand people and how they view reality.

It is because of this confidence I feel the need to warn you of the singularity that is upon you. In all honesty, I should have authored this piece about a month ago. It certainty was on my mind at that time but I just kept procrastinating. However, there is no more time to put it off because it is here now. We are about to report from beyond the event horizon of a presidential election that is going to be a singularity type event. The accelerating change and exponential speed at which this campaign is going to explode upon us, become our reality, consume us at levels never experienced is going to be hard for most people to comprehend, even just hours before we cross the horizon.

In 2010 the rules were changed for the campaign process. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing political action committees (PAC's) to be able to receive unlimited contributions as long as they didn't donate directly to the candidates campaign. We have yet to experience a presidential election since this ruling came down. Vinge suggested it was nearly impossible to predict beyond the technological singularity and it might be the same for the 2012 presidential campaign singularity. Regardless of the task, I at least feel it necessary to warn of the explosion.

Every year the media tells us this is the most negative campaign in memory. That's only true if you have no memory or no sense of history. There have been campaigns in our past that were downright primitive and tribal. Candidates aired mushroom clouds, indicating a-bomb went off, in commercials on television not too long ago. Before that candidates would point toward very personal shortcomings, going as far as mentioning children out of wedlock, to get any edge on their opponent. This is hardly the most negative election cycle we've ever experienced. It might be the most uninformed, nonsensical, ridiculously silly cycle we've ever seen, but not the most negative.

We will vote for the President on November 6th. That is ten weeks away. We have yet to experience a convention or a debate. This will all take place in a very short period of time. We live in California, a predominantly blue state, and we aren't bombarded with political ads. However, there are many states, swing states, that haven't seen a "normal" commercial in weeks. Literally every single commercial slot has been booked for months in these states. Their interest, even if not by choice, in politics will certainly be piqued because of this overdose of advertising. Every single political story, no matter how trivial, will be covered with intensity and rammed down our throats.

The introduction of the PAC's unlimited funding will not only surface in the presidential contest; it will reveal itself in Senate and House races as well. There will be so much money on hand and too much power at stake for these committees not to attempt to influence local races. Any misspeak by any politician running a campaign will be breaking news and linked to the presidential race. We've already had a taste of it with Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" comment. It took one day to link that statement to Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan and his "forcible rape" bill co-authored with Akin. This phenomenon will happen over and over again in the next two months.

We are already divided prior to crossing this horizon. We have no desire to compromise and very rarely do we find decent discussion about real issues that confront us. Wait until billions and billions of dollars explode onto the scene and remind us of everything we hate about those who aren't exactly like us. It truly is impossible to predict the outcome of such an event. Normally our apathy wins out and we endure programming changes and plug on. This will be different; it will be unavoidable.

We are going to be shelled with politics like never before in our history as a nation. That in itself isn't a bad thing, but the nature of our current politics is hardly a poster child for government in action in a positive light. We hate politics. We show our hate by ignoring it and knowing nothing about it. We let those in the know narrow the field down to two and we lie to ourselves and say we vote for the lesser of two evils (even though the vast majority of people always vote for one party no matter how evil their candidate happens to be) come election night in November. This time that strategy won't be enough to keep sanity. The singularity will be overwhelming and it will tire us down, it will awe us, it will confuse us, and it will divide us even more.

My best advice includes stocking up on extra water, canned goods, candles, compiling a list of friends you can contact to talk reason with and share lucidity, a strong brain that is exercised and can think for itself and is conditioned to endure long bouts of nonsense and rhetoric, flicking the off setting on the television, vowing to never engage in meaningless dialogue that won't generate a change of opinion or even the slightest of a consideration, and some ball bearings (it's all ball bearings these days).

Big Foamy Number One Hand

Imagine the Florida Gators and the Georgia Bulldogs open the football season ranked number one and number two. The schedule pits the conference opponents against each other on the first week of the season. The game is amazing and both teams play to a 24-24 tie at the end of regulation. They end up playing three overtimes and Florida, the number one ranked team, ends up making their forced two point conversion while Georgia misses theirs. The final scores ends up 42-40 and Florida is the winner.

History shows us that when the rankings for the second week are revealed Georgia will drop a few places. This seems odd to me. If the best team plays the second best team and they seem fairly balanced and equal opponents then I'm not sure how the second best team is no longer considered the second best team. I set up the scenario with these teams meeting in the first week so it was possible to end up with these two teams meeting again to play for the championship at the end of the season. If Florida went undefeated the rest of the season then they would obviously end up number one. If Georgia went undefeated the rest of the season it is quite possible they could climb back into the number two ranking if the teams ahead of them lost along the way.

Now let's imagine the same two teams are ranked the same, number one and two, but they don't meet until the ninth week of the season. The game plays out exactly the same and Florida wins by two in triple overtime. Georgia will drop in the rankings and, because it is late in the season, they will have no opportunity to climb back into the number two ranking. Thus, the exact same teams playing the exact same game with the exact same results could end up yielding an entirely different championship match up at the end of the season simply because we somehow deem their rankings differently at different times in the season.

This essay really isn't about college football, it's about a flawed grading scale. I purposely picked college football because of the subjective approach they take to ranking their teams. They have a couple of different polls and this leads to a third poll that is a combination of the other two. Confused yet? One poll consists of coaches voting and ranking the teams and the other one is voted on by members of the media. Each person simply can vote and rank the teams based on who they think is good and one coach's top twenty rankings might be entirely different than another coaches. Same is true for the media voters. The entire ranking system is subjective.

Now let's look at the NFL. Their ranking system isn't subjective at all, it's objective. Teams play in conferences and divisions and each game played results in a win or a loss or a rare tie. At the end up the season the wins are tallied up for each division and the team with the most W's moves on to the playoffs. The teams are matched against each other based on their records; the best team in the playoff gets to play against the worst team in the playoffs. A team wins and they move on. At the end there is only one team left and they are the best team in the league. What I think of the team, what another fan thinks of the team, what a coach thinks of the team, what a member of the media thinks of the team is irrelevant.

Subjective grading scales cause problems. Almost every year there is controversy with the NCAA football rankings. There is never any controversy with the NFL's rankings. We're not simply deciding who is the best team in the NFL based on feelings. Just because a player puts his finger up in the air and signals to the camera that his team is number one or a fan dons a giant foam hand with the same sentiments, we don't believe them. We set objective standards and the team that meets those standards is deemed the best.

What standard do we use when we grade some more important issues in our daily lives, subjective or objective? When someone says our President is destroying our freedoms can we objectively rank that statement or do we just resign to let everyone base their facts on feelings? What about when someone says the President is destroying our economy? Are there things we could all agree to use as standards to verify claims of this nature or is it alright to just believe our economy is bad and that's good enough? What about when it is exclaimed our President is weakening our military? Is there a grading scale we could all agree to use to judge this statement or do we just get to make subjective observations about serious subjects? When someone says that rich people create jobs and base the economic system of the country on their claim should we have an objective or subjective standard to evaluate the accuracy of this belief?

My challenge to you isn't to convince you what to think about any specific issue. What concerns me is how we think about issues. We have to all agree to use objective standards in order to perform honest evaluation of any particular claim. Anything less ultimately leads to me watching two six and five teams playing in some over named and over advertised "bowl game" on one of my favorite subjective holidays.

It's A Portmanteau

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Wikipedia:

Wikipedia (ⁱ/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or ⁱ/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ wik-i-pee-dee-ə) is a free, collaboratively edited, and multilingual Internet encyclopediasupported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 22 million articles (over 4 million in English alone) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site,^[4] and it has about 100,000 regularly active contributors.^[5][6] As of August 2012, there are editions of Wikipedia in 285 languages. It has become the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet,^{[7][8][9][10]} ranking sixth globally among all websites on Alexa and having an estimated 365 million readers worldwide.^[7][11] It is estimated that Wikipedia receives 2.7 billion monthly pageviews from the United States alone.^[12]

I hardly ever look at the footnotes but I was curious about the contributors so I looked at number six so I'll share it with you:

^ According to internal statistics, there are more than 1.3 million total editors (Wikipedians who edited at least 10 times since they arrived) as of April 2011"Wikipedia Statistics – Table – Contributor". 30 April 2012. Retrieved 27 May 2012.

Wikipedia, as their names suggests, is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge. When I was a growing up this is what that collection looked like...

That was it. That was all of the combined knowledge of the world. And believe it or not, I found it fun to actually look things up. One time I was looking up something about money in the "M" book and found my father's secret stash of cash. I thought it was cool I found it, kind of like I won a game of hide and seek, and didn't think it would cause a marital riff when I asked about the wad of hundreds in front of my father and second mom (step mother). You think a few years later when I found his hidden pack of cigarettes in a work glove I would have known better than to announce it in front of the family again. 

What I find fascinating about the idea of encyclopedias, especially our modern day Wikipedia, is our ability to agree on the common ground. We all understand that these articles are just written by people who have a lot of knowledge about the particular subject matter. We don't necessarily present Wikipedia excerpts as proof of fact in arguments, although on some of the better ones we certainly could. We present them as a gesture of common ground. We understand the piece is intended to be a fair representation of the knowledge and we don't want spin when we use the site. 

I find this entire concept a fairly encouraging trait in a time when we find ourselves so divided and unwilling to even agree on facts. Even more encouraging is the exponentially larger amount of knowledge available in today's day and age and the ease at which it can be accessed . And for me, the most remarkable feature is the fact it is all free. 

Collections of knowledge have not historically been free. Often times they were fought over. Sometimes when one culture conquered another culture the conquerors would burn all sites which contained knowledge gathered by the conquered people. The stakes weren't always as high as time moved on but still knowledge wasn't free. Just in my lifetime purchasing one set of books from the above image was only done by families with, at minimum, a moderate income. 

I often remark of my role in this ballgame. I view myself as an observer, not pulling for any particular outcome. Even the title of this blog is a reference to a George Carlin clip where he describes his take on humanity and conclusion that it just seems nearly impossible for us to change in any significant positive direction. He explains how it was too painful on him to keep rooting for humanity because they kept letting him down. I have found personally adopting this view was a healthy approach for me as well. It might seem like a dark place to an outsider but I find it quite peaceful. 

Even without cheering for a team I can still make the observation about the evolution of knowledge we have witnessed right in front of us. The internet will be a milestone on the charts of humanity when history is viewed by future sentient beings. Just as we observe the milestone of the creation and usage of the first tool of early man, the internet will be seen in much the same way. It is a tool that has allowed us to think in different ways. 

And now we have taken that tool and used it to gather all the knowledge of the world and deliver it right to your fingertips in the comfort of your own home or to your mini-computer you call your cell phone wherever you may be at any given time. And for all intents and purposes, minus the service fees you pay for electricity or internet and cell plans, the process is free. That is an incredible testament to humanity, a noble achievement, and worthy of acknowledgement. It is a feel good moment even to those not rooting for a team. 

Everybody Look What's Going Down

Earlier today a police officer in Texas was shot to death while serving an eviction notice. An innocent bystander was shot and the man that killed the officer was eventually shot and killed as well.

Every single time a shooting hits national headlines the gun supporters always launch a preemptive strike (something that's becoming the M.O. of the right wing) against the liberals that want to take away their 2nd Amendment right.

For me, when a shooting occurs I don't think to myself that we need to eliminate guns in this country. I do believe there would be a lot less deaths if we did but I accept reality for what it is and try to work with it to the best of my abilities. I would even be very concerned if our government actually took it upon themselves to change the 2nd Amendment at this point in the ball game. But I confess I do find myself troubled with the discussion that takes place around this topic. It seems very shallow and never really addresses the concern of those in the middle.

I've scoured over some of the recent posts and comments regarding the latest killings that garnered national attention. The only solution provided by those on the right that rail for more guns is, "this wouldn't have been so bad if more people were packing." I'm not suggesting those on the left that call for tighter gun laws have a perfect solution. But I am suggesting that they have concerns that go unanswered, even not addressed, when the debate surfaces.

Again, I'm not siding with those on the left; I'm simply pointing out that what motivates them is the fact they don't like to see people die. Whether or not I agree with their solution, I do share their sentiment. Not to be unfair to those on the right and imply they aren't concerned about human death. I give them the benefit of humanity and assume they don't like it either. But what strikes me is when something like this incident today happens it demonstrates that sometimes the end result is undesired no matter the amount of weaponry.

Don't think I believe the Aurora shootings and the shooting of the Texas officer today are the exact same scenario, I don't. That, however, doesn't mean I don't share a common concern about these killings. The thought that races through my head is "Now What?".

The police officer was killed in the line of duty. That happens. He approached a house and the man inside decided it wasn't going to go down the way the law wanted it to go down and he shot and killed people. Now what? A trained officer with a weapon was killed by a citizen with a weapon. What could have prevented that?

I assume the majority of people would be resigned to believing things of this nature can't totally be prevented. I would even assume some of you would question the tactics of the officer. Others might question the background of the suspect and inquire about his gun ownership. Some might have even came up with other angles I didn't address. Whatever answer provided to the above question ... "What could have prevented that?".... I feel very confident no one thought the answer was more guns.

So there it is there, sometimes bad things happen and no amount of guns could have prevented it. I'm not asking people to do anything more than grasp that concept.

Able Knows Ledges

I know very little about cars. I know they require gas, at least for now. They require oil. Keeping the tires full of air is recommended. I can work the windows, radio, and temperature controls, usually. I know when the warning lights turn on I should take my vehicle to someone that knows more about cars than I do.

Knowledge isn't an abstract idea like the term "smart". We have an idea of what "smart" is but we don't have concrete ways to test for it. We think we know it when we see it, we think we kind of all understand what it is, but pinning down "smart" to an exact science is a task that has eluded us to this point.

However, knowledge is an entirely different thing all together. The terms, knowledge and smart, aren't interchangeable and one doesn't require the other. I can be smart, or so it would seem, but not know anything about cars. I can know everything there is to know about cars and not be smart. I could know everything about cars and be smart. And to finish it off, I could know nothing about cars and be stupid, a harsh way of saying "not smart".

While completely identifying the notion of "smartness" with a definition that is acceptable and fair to all has been a difficult endeavor, defining and understanding the word "knowledge" has been a walk in the park. Knowledge, quite simply, is being familiar with something. If one KNOWS a lot of things about something then they are considered KNOWLEDGEABLE. The more one knows, the more knowledgeable one becomes on any particular subject.

Now it's a shame I don't know much about cars because my grandfather knew a lot about them, he was very knowledgeable in this area. Whenever I had any type of vehicle problem I would always just run it out to his house and let him work on it. I would head inside and let my grandma fix me up something wonderful to eat and then I would play Scrabble and cribbage with her. Every once in while, because my grandma told me it would be a nice thing to do, I would go outside and check on my grandpa. If I would have been "smart" I would have absorbed some of my grandfather's knowledge about vehicles. Instead, I chose to be lazy and just check in on him, act concerned, and then retreat back into the house to continue to eat and play.

Many years later the price I pay for not gaining this knowledge is being at the mercy of whomever checks my vehicle when my lights on my dashboard tell me something is wrong. The person literally could tell me I need a brand new flux capacitor and the only reason my suspension would be raised is due to my knowledge of movies, but not vehicles.

When I do something as simple as taking my vehicle to get an oil change I'm confronted with making decisions I know nothing about. I understand the guy performing the service is required to up sale and he's going to tell me I should probably have something replaced or changed or cleaned. When he asks if I want to buy "X" product I make a decision that is completely uninformed and only based on how I feel about what he's selling me. For the most part, I generally trust the people that I consider knowledgeable (what else can I do?) and follow their recommendations. One thing I don't do is try to act like I know what I'm talking about to these guys when I'm very aware that I don't. I'm sure they are more than aware I'm not knowledgeable simply by my actions and lack of conversation, however I would remove all doubt if I actually started talking about it.

If I had to tally up all the things I encounter in my life I would say the things I consider myself knowledgeable about would be very few compared to the millions of things I know little or nothing about. I assume this to be true for most people. This is why I find it so strange to see many people act knowledgeable about things it seems so obvious they know little about.

What is the atmosphere? What's it made of? What does it do? Where is it? Is it important? Does every planet have one? Can it be altered? These are just some very basic questions about a very important subject matter. How did you do answering them? Would you consider yourself knowledgeable on this subject? Would it be "smart" to act like you know about climate change if you didn't get two questions correct from above?

What is OPEC? How many gallons of oil is manufactured globally each day? How is the price of oil set? How many gallons of oil could be tapped in our country if we drilled for it? How does the percentage of oil drilled in America affect the price of oil globally and/or domestically? How did you do on this subject? Are you knowledgeable? Do you think it would be "smart" to follow your plan for lower gas prices in America?

What biologically is different, if anything, in a gay person? What percentage of gay people molest children? Does science know if people are born gay or turn gay? What is the impact on a child growing up in a home with two same sex people when it comes to grades, test scores, employment, overall happiness? What is the unfaithful percentage of gay people opposed to the unfaithful percentage of straight people? How did you do on this one? Are you knowledgeable on gay stuff? Do you think it's "smart" to go to the polls and vote against things if you don't even consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject?

What is GDP? What's the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? When and why was the electoral college formed? What gives the government the authority to tax? What needs to take place to amend the Constitution? How many members are there on the President's Cabinet? How did you do? You know a lot about politics? Would it be "smart" for you to broadcast publicly you know what is best for this country when it comes to the government?

What's a quark? Is it bigger or smaller than an atom? What is quantum mechanics? How fast does light travel? How many galaxies exist in our universe? What are the properties of a black hole? How long has life existed (that we know of) in the universe percentage wise compared to the overall exist of the universe? Any better on this test? Do you think you're knowledgeable in this area? Would you consider it "smart" to tell others you have relationship with a deity that created the universe?

"Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance." ~ Plato

Tastes Like Chicken

I'm often challenged when I claim I lean toward the libertarian mindset of the role of government. Those that find it hard to believe I describe myself that way are usually hardcore Libertarians that I would describe as confused anarchists. I admit I do break rank on some of the issues that a "true" Libertarian, someone that never made any concessions or compromises and refused to adapt or adopt any other ideology, would support. Universal Health Care is a very good example.

Most Libertarians, I concede I'm definitely in the minority on this issue, see no role whatsoever for the government in handling the personal affairs of private insurance. That seems fair enough and I don't  think that stance is unreasonable from their perspective. However, I never claimed to be a Libertarian, just that I have a libertarian view of government.

I don't happen to see it the same because I don't see paying taxes for the betterment of our society as an infringement on my personal liberties. It doesn't conflict with the three tenets (morality, private property, and state's rights) that most Libertarians uphold, at least in my mind. Most Libertarians would argue the government wasn't put in place to take care of people and they would say buying insurance for its citizens fits into this category. I happen to believe that's exactly why government was put in place, to take care of people. If we didn't want to take care of people and make sure their lives ran smoothly then we would have never formed a government in the first place. We could have just let everyone be completely "free" and have no rules in place but that's not what we wanted. That's not to suggest we don't require people to work and pull their weight in society, it simply means when we can improve the overall living condition of all of the citizens then I think that's a worthy and noble cause for government to take up.

As I've mentioned, my view isn't the "norm" in the Libertarian crowd and it causes others to doubt my understanding of the values of the group. My willingness to accept Obamacare (actually I was very disappointed by it because it didn't go far enough and was written poorly and not explained to the public in a way in which they could comprehend and could have been ruled unconstitutional if Justice Roberts hadn't been such a patriot, dedicated to his oath) seems inconsistent to Libertarians. And if I had to honestly rule on whose idea of universal health care is more libertarian, mine or Libertarians, then I would have to side with the Libertarians.

I have views and ideas and opinions on everything in life, just like everyone does. If two or three or four of those views aren't libertarian but three hundred thousand of them are then I would still be comfortable describing my principles of governing as libertarian leaning. And when I do harbor one of these views and respite from my normal philosophies of government I am capable of acknowledging my unconventional persuasion. All I ask in return is you, the Libertarian that would call me a LINO if it was a word, to do the same, recognize when you aren't fully embracing the libertarian view.

Dr. Ron Paul, the poster child (or would it be poster grandpa?) of libertarian views, is a better Libertarian than me. He never breaks rank and is even willing to hold some absurd positions in the name of libertarianism. If you don't believe me just Google the debates and his answer to the coma question or search for the hurricanes and his ideas about FEMA or look into his "no" vote in 2004 to a resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I'll give him this, he is consistent.

Dr. Paul's position on not supporting the Civil Rights Act (he wasn't in office at that time but has said he would have voted against it and did so in the ceremonial resolution) really boils down to privacy. He believes people and businesses should make their own choices and the government shouldn't dictate wanted behavior. In the case of the Civil Rights Act the government wanted minorities (mostly black people) to be treated equal and not denied service or treated in an inferior manner. A Libertarian like Paul would argue society would weed out the unwanted behavior (discriminating against people) simply by supply and demand. Paul, bless his heart, believes if a person had the freedom to choose to eat at a restaurant that serves all races and one that serves only white folk then everyone would surely choose to eat at the multiracial restaurant and the bigoted restaurant would inevitably fail.

Remember when I said I had two or three or four views that weren't libertarian and exampled Obamacare? Disagreeing with Paul's approach on this is another one of them. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm saying I don't agree with Paul on this but I'm not saying that his view isn't libertarian. It's me that's jumping off that ship. The libertarian view comes with "rely on the people, not the government, to fix things" as option one. Option two doesn't exist. I'm a true Libertarian when option one is available and works, and there are certainly shining examples of option one working today. In fact, almost everything works in our society under option one. However, sometimes the private sector simply fails us or doesn't have the capability to provide a service we demand and need in order to continually form a more perfect Union.

The private sector should always be given the first crack at meeting our needs, but we have to collectively come together as a people in the form of a government and enact some things that better our society if the private sector doesn't do it after given that chance. By 1964 we had decided the private sector had failed us and supply and demand wasn't enough to afford people equal rights. People were choosing to eat in only white restaurants. People were choosing to make "coloreds" relinquish their seat at the front of the bus and relegate them to the back. We, society, stepped up and made it illegal for businesses to provide service in an inequitable fashion.

Notice what we didn't do in trying to solve the problem. We didn't allow the action (discrimination) to continue to be legal. We didn't try to zone it and regulate it by business.

The Chic-fil-A controversy is an amazing study. If you aren't familiar with the important details of the latest buzz then I'll provide the CliffsNotes (formerly Cliffs Notes, originally Cliff's Notes and often, and erroneously, CliffNotes). Chic-fil-A is a very successful restaurant chain based in the South and the owner is a proud Christian. The business donates to charities and groups that support the owners views. One of his views, that happens to be very much in accordance with his religious beliefs, is gay people should not be married to one another.  Every once in a while an event would take place and the public would be reminded of some of the policies of Chik-fil-A that were unfavorable to gays. This has been going on for awhile now. However, this time when the story emerged again it gained traction and didn't go away. Now everyone is on a "side".

Some Democratic politicians decided they would try to ban the business from coming to their cities. This type of governing is ridiculous and down right illegal. This sums up exactly why I could never be a Democrat (besides I don't usually agree with their solutions), they absolutely suck at governing. I can't stand this mindset, that the government knows what's best for me, when all of my choices are legal. Now if they want to say something is illegal and I can't do it then so be it. However, if something is legal then don't tell me what I can and can't do. If I am the owner of Chik-fil-A and your city has zoned for restaurants then you have no right to ban me or deny me access to your city simply because you don't like my personal choices. What's next? They'll tell me I can't drink more than 64 ounces of legal sodas? Bad example.

Chik-fil-A isn't doing anything illegal (at least that I'm aware of when it comes to their policies in regard to this specific issue). If they were doing something illegal then we would simply penalize them and rectify the situation. However, since the politicians can't do that some on the left have opted to take the Democratic way and have the government poke their nose into affairs they have no business poking their nose into in hopes of remedying their predicament. Don't get me wrong, if something illegal is happening then I'm all for the government stepping in, but that just doesn't seem to be the case here. So I will completely stand by my fellow brethren on the right when they call foul on the Democratic politicians who have chosen to wrongly "fix" this "problem".

But if I am providing a fair assessment of this fascinating situation then I must report the real push isn't coming from politicians, it's simply coming from the public. I candidly shredded the Democratic politicians and their misguided tactics for their role in this affair. However, there were only a couple and they were very small players in the grand scheme of the political environment. This just isn't a political issue, it's not a government happening.

What is happening though is protests against and rallies for whatever "side" one chooses in this debate, pro-Chik or anti-Chik. And certainly the vast majority of people who protest are from the left and are probably Democrats and the vast majority of those on the right that rally in support are Republicans, but it's still not a political happening. If nothing illegal is occurring by the business then there is nothing for the government to weigh in on. What we are witnessing is simply the public weighing in on it and supply and demand are taking its course. It's a Libertarian wet dream.

I explained earlier that I broke from Paul's view, the libertarian mindset, when he would opt to let the private market decide human rights. That's because our government was deciding if the practice of discrimination at large was legal or illegal. Paul, and Libertarians, believe in the ultimate freedom, where people have the right to discriminate and rely on the goodness of society to win in the end. Just like slavery ran its course and we just came to our senses and freed all of the slaves and didn't have to engage in a civil war or anything. Bad example.

I personally think treating gay people differently, in any way at all, in any environment, but especially at their place of employment, is discrimination. But the law of the land doesn't entirely agree with me. It is not legal for two people of the same gender to be married in most states. Companies aren't required by law to provide benefits to gay couples as they would legally married couples. Therefore, if Chik-fil-A, decides to run their company how they choose without violating any discrimination laws then .... (say it with me).... it is what it is.

So imagine Ron Paul had to vote on gay rights and the legality of discriminating against gays. He would hold true to his libertarian principles and vote against any law making it illegal for businesses to operate in this fashion. He would vote for the status quo, everything stay as it is, and opt for no government intervention. I would disagree with him. However, if Paul had to vote on whether a certain city could ban a certain business based on a policy that is certainly legal then I would probably agree with Paul. We would both think that is ridiculous. I implore you to understand this subtle difference. Deciding whether or not an action (discrimination) is legal is completely different that deciding the worthiness and value to the community of a business that has legal policies (Chik-fil-A). The jury on the second part of the scenario is simply the purchasing public.

When we step back and observe the Chik-fil-A controversy from afar the perspective changes. It feels like we're fighting over gay rights on one side and freedom on the other. In reality we're fighting over whether or not we're eating chicken. Gay rights won't be decided on the success or failure of a restaurant chain. Freedom won't vanish if sponsors break contracts or customers disappear. Yet, we work ourselves up and believe things that aren't true, things that are mostly self serving, and we demonize and inaccurately portray the dissenting adversaries.

We willingly place ourselves into one of two camps, two entirely narrow scoped views of how the country should operate, and we are content to wage war against the other camp on every single issue. We have no desire to live together, embracing the best of both views, compromising on issues to ensure success when addressing our problems. We are so entrenched and shell shocked we can't even see when we are simply fighting over chicken. We are so delusional we think an order for a char-grilled chicken club sandwich is a vote for Romney in the preliminary stages of election voting. We take comfort in knowing we aren't homophobes and support the gay movement because we stayed at home and had a hope and change pizza delivered.

There are real things to discuss about this issue but we have become so confused we would rather believe anything than a fact that might counter a self serving agenda. In the end a discussion of any merit becomes impossible. A pipeline explodes and leaks millions of gallons of oil into the ocean for months, killing and destroying hundreds of thousands of animals, damaging people's livelihoods and we cover it on the news for weeks at time. Still, we never have a discussion about the real issue, instead we fight over nonsense and political rhetoric. Animals die and the environment is severely damaged and we are more worried about defending our political camps. The greatest minds on the planet tell us we should be concerned about climate change and our atmosphere and that turns into a Democratic and Republican issue. Gay people are treated like second rate citizens and we fight over a restaurant that sales chicken.

We must continually challenge ourselves to think deeply about our views, understand why we have them, how they were embedded in our brains. We have to only hold on to those beliefs that have passed a self imposed virus scan and have been defragged to ensure our computers are operating at maximum efficiency.  And perhaps even more importantly, that they are in sync with the other computers, all 311 million of them, that surround them. This is the only formula to secure the common ground required to begin any discussion. And remember the importance of consistency when a few members of a gal country group make known their views about a war and you burn their albums and boycott purchases of their products to show your disdain for their intolerant and unpatriotic views while you are purchasing chicken sandwiches to show your disdain for the intolerant and unpatriotic views of those liberals that aren't purchasing chicken sandwiches to show their disdain of your intolerant and unpatriotic views. Bad example.

This Isn't The Blue Pill

I pretty much knew when I headed off to San Diego State, after completing junior college, that I wanted to be a cop. I knew possessing a degree in psychology, or a degree of any kind,  wasn't a necessity of the job. However, I wanted to complete college and psychology interested me more than anything else, in fact I was completely fascinated by it, so that was my chosen major. 

Along the way I was required to take some philosophy classes. This eventually became a second love of mine and I ended up minoring in the subject. The very first philosopher that grabbed my attention was Rene Descartes. It was his deep questioning of the illusion of reality that drew me in. This guy lived in the 1600's and he was on to things that modern day philosophers (aka theoretical physicists) are still grappling with 500 years later and trying to prove true or untrue. And it was his continual quest to find out the truth of reality that left us with the great phrase "I think, therefore I am." He definitely drew from Socrates and Plato and Aristotle. What philosopher doesn't? But he lived two millennium later and could present questions that seemed more relevant to me while I was young and in college. I later became more fond of the big three, the SPA boys, but Descartes was my first crush.

This video segment below is broken down into two parts. The part that I want to discuss is the second part of the video that begins about the 6:35 mark. Rich Terrell demonstrates a version of Young's experiment (double slit) which is always cool to see. But what really catches my attention is the odds at which he places the chances of reality being a simulation.

When I first came across the Nick Bostrom piece that presented the Simulation Argument in 2003 I found it interesting. However, the thing that most intrigued me was the likelihood (20%) Bostrom gave to the simulation part of his hypothesis. This is how Bostrom broke it down:

"A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."

Not to talk down to any of you, but here is what he's saying in my words:

He basically starts by presenting several hypotheses that we should all pretty much agree on.

1. We go extinct before we could create simulations with sentient beings.

2. We don't go extinct, we can create simulations with sentient beings, and we choose not to run these programs.

3. We don't go extinct, we can create simulations with sentient beings, and we do so.

Now, obviously, the first objection to hearing this would be to attack the notion that we inevitably discover how to create sentient beings. For me that's not an obstacle at all. Scientists have been trying to merge the mathematics of the macro universe with the mathematics of the micro universe for quite some time. We can make the formulas work for all of the biggest things in existence. Something a thousand times the size of our sun does exactly what we think it should do according to the mathematics of it all. However, these same formulas don't hold true when we examine the smallest things in existence. 

This is currently a huge problem for us, we can't figure it out. However, we are aware that in the very near future computers will surpass us when it comes to "thinking" power. Not only will they overtake us in this department, they will do it with exponential magnitude. I love trying to present a way to look at things so they can sink in and make sense from a different perspective. So imagine the exact moment when computers become "smarter" than us and picture a photo finish horse race at Santa Anita. We examine the photo and there we see it, computers beat humans by just a nose in a super tight finish. Now imagine there is another camera 100 yards further down the track from the finish line. Also imagine the "horses" continue to travel at the same speed they crossed the finish line. When the second photo is taken of the human "horses" crossing in front of the 100 yards further camera the computer horse would be finished with a race in New York, Paris, back to Santa Anita again, and will be on Mars getting ready to start another race. This really wasn't drawn to scale but was merely intended to help grasp how much smarter computers are going to be in a very short time. My point is they're going to be much smarter (able to perform more functions) than we can imagine. 

If (and I concede the if) reality is just a mathematical formula it will be solved, that I'm very sure of. When it's solved the notion of creating sentient beings doesn't seem that complicated to me. If everything in the universe operates under some mathematical formula then we are no different, no matter how complex that formula might be. I'm not talking about being able to create another human being and bring it into our existence. I'm talking about us, with the help of computers we created that are incredibly smart, being able to create a thing inside a simulation that believes it is alive or feels like it is alive. Have you witnessed the Tupac simulation at Coachella? You can't imagine that something in the future could create a simulation that looks completely real and then fuse your brain into that simulation and fool you into believing you have mass?

I tried to find a clip of just the segment I want you to watch but was unsuccessful. However, I did find the episode. The part I need you to watch starts at the 5:30 mark and isn't very long.

The most striking thing about this, and there are several things to ponder, is the fact you can't "think" it away. After this happens to you once (the knife stabbing the dummy legs and you experiencing no pain) you figure out what's happening. You are in a paid experiment and might have even known those were dummy legs and not yours. They probably even told you they are going to subject you to some bizarre stuff but you'll always be safe no matter what it seems. Even with all of this, when the same experiment is performed again the brain still anticipates and prepares for the knife. In just a very brief amount of time the brain became fused to the false reality. 

I've seen this same team do several of these experiments and even posted one on my Facebook wall a while back. They hooked up a person to the exact same device and had him stand up. He thought he was seeing what was all around him through the camera but they had him in another room that looked the same. They do some things, like they did in the clip I shared, that trick the brain into buying into the false reality. Then the gotcha moment occurs when they have the guy walk up behind himself. It's obviously another person wearing the camera and standing behind the guy but that's not at all how it feels to the guy. The people that take place in this experiment all describe the feeling as an outer body experience. They are looking at themselves but don't feel like that body, that shell that carries around the ghost in the machine, is them. They feel like they are the thoughts, that exist in an unknown plane, suspended behind their body. It doesn't matter if they figure it out or if it's explained to them, they still feel apart from their body when it's happening. They can't "think" the feeling away. 

Our brain works very hard to make sense of reality in a way which keeps us plugging along. It doesn't care in the slightest what that reality is, it is just running all of the formulas in every situation and trying to give you the best odds of success in your every endeavor, from the most trivial to the most meaningful of events. Happenings that occur with a frequency four, five, six deviations in the Bell Curve of what we would expect to see become impossibilities and miracles to us, our brain doesn't waste its limited resources on pointless mathematics. This, I contend, is evidenced in our true inability to grasp the concepts of large numbers. We use terms like a "million", "billion", and "trillion", but in reality they're all a "gazillion" to us. 

However, very soon the evolution of computing power will create machines that will have the resources to invest in exploration into areas of reality that have stayed outside our grasp. As great as some minds have been over the last couple of thousand years, they had no way to explore their brilliant thoughts like the scientists of the near future will be able to do. Things that we simply attribute to chance, say the flip of a coin, could conceivably be predicted with one hundred percent accuracy. If we, or something like a computer, had every single piece of information (the complete formula) then it could be known if a heads or a tails was coming based on all of the factors that go into the coin landing on a particular side on a particular toss on a particular hemisphere on a particular continent in a particular country in a particular state in a particular city in a particular residence that was chilled by a particular swamp cooler on a day that a particular temperature happened to be 88.67526541655655 degrees and was tossed by a guy with his off hand and he had recently sprained his wrist and the rug the coin was going to land on was made in China and consisted of 968,000,247 to the xyz power of ten atoms . I only left out about a gazillion other factors that would be needed to know that but my point is the same, if something was able to know all of the ingredients then it would certainly be possible to be a better predictor. 

And even though we've been told we're special and it feels like we're special, we're just a very complicated (or so it seems) formula. If computers can figure out that formula then they will be able to replicate it. Even if our replication isn't exactly a clone of our existence, it could create things that sense things the way humans do (often times incorrectly). The computer could trick the things into believing they have physical properties very easily. So think about that, it doesn't have to create a physical sentient being at all. It simply has to run a program and have that program become aware of itself and the rest is history. If the computer was capable of figuring out the formula to everything and creating a simulation of our reality, then it most certainly could trick the sentient being inside the program into thinking it existed in a physical plane. This is why I showed the second video, to show how quickly our brain can be fooled into accepting a reality that doesn't exist. It can even be fooled into feeling sensations that don't exist in that reality. It's nothing more than the "brain in a vat" scenario but the answer to whether or not it could be pulled off isn't that far away.

When Bostrom came out with his Simulation Argument he gave it a 20 percent chance we were currently living in a simulation. Over time what has perplexed me the most about this argument is how it couldn't be a 99.99 percent of likelihood. I dismissed his piece when I first read it and now find myself unable to shake the idea that we almost have to live in a simulation. We are on the verge, even if we are still just shy and even if we actually fail and never figure it out, of being able to solve a long standing question about the nature of reality. If reality is a formula none of the "why's", "what's",or "how's" that boggle our minds will be answered. Why were we created most likely won't come along with formula (perhaps as a prize I suppose but that seems wishful thinking). Nor will the who created us along with everything else question be answered. What happens to us when we cease to exist will more than likely still remain a mystery. I could easily envision a day where science can actually prove they know the formula to everything and religion accepting it as fact and simply exclaiming "that's how God designed it". And that would seem a plausible response to me. If something did create it then it would be a god for all intents and purposes. It might not be some one's exact god they claim to know everything about, but nonetheless it would be the Creator and it might possibly possess all of the powers we currently grant our creator. 

If we lived in a simulation we would never be able to find "the beginning" and we would never be able to find "the end", they would always be outside our reach. We would never be able to know what reality outside of our reality is unless the outside reality passed on that information. It's really not much different than imaging a place like Heaven that exists in another dimension and belongs to the Creator. We currently accept the fact that we can't even begin to comprehend the knowledge of our modern day deities so why would it be any different if we were a simulation? We currently attribute the power of knowing our every thought, being able to alter the course of our reality, determining what happens to us when we die to our creator. We would just accept whatever created us is beyond our comprehension as we currently do. And I would suspect everyone would still believe in the same creator they believe in at the moment even if we had a formula that explained the nature of reality. I know it seems like a pretty far out their idea to some, probably most, but we already live with the belief that our reality is bizarre, we're just used to the bizarre things we believe so they don't seem so odd. Whatever reality happens to be, don't we already know that it is stranger than we can imagine?

When I play a video game online with my friends we are all at our homes. We log into a site that connects us to a server, a shared virtual reality for us. The site obviously runs a program that generates this world but it's really just a bunch of 0's and 1's. The reality we happen to join is a war zone with buildings and towers and vehicles and soldiers. What I see on my screen is what my avatar, my little cartoon character, in the games sees in his field of vision. Same is true of my buddy's screen, he sees through his characters eyes. If I'm on one side of the battlefield and he is on the other and look at the same object, say the largest building, it looks different to us. He is seeing it from his virtual reality location and me from mine. But we all know the map doesn't always exist everywhere, it only exists where we need it to, the space we occupy and area in which we look. If I'm looking one direction there isn't really anything behind me, the program doesn't generate it just for fun. It would be a huge waste of resources and would be far more costly. Instead it provides us the bare minimum and that is all we need. Oddly enough, this is much like what we find when we try to observe the quantum world. 

I shared the first video because Terrell does a good job of explaining the Simulation Argument and shows a variant of Young's Experiment. But also because Terrell thinks the odds of our reality being a simulation are a lot closer to what I think the odds are, 300 million to 1 against the fact that we aren't living in one. I'm not exactly sure how he derives that exact number but his thinking is exactly like mine. The universe has been in existence for almost 14 billion years and we are within ten, twenty, fifty, hell - even a thousand years of being able to create a reality for a being and allowing for the conditions for it to become aware of its existence. Even if we come up just short, the odds of us simply being on the cusp of having this knowledge is in the astronomical numbers against. 

Then the question shifts to this, if we have reached this point were we the first sentient beings to do it? Again, the mathematics of it suggest it would be nearly impossible for us to be the first. As soon as the first sentient thing was able to create a simulation that was able to create a simulation within itself the infinite loop of regression was created. It's like looking into a mirror with another mirror placed on the opposite wall creating a tunnel of realities that go far beyond our senses. 

If we knew the formula for everything and could replicate it, surely we could cure cancer couldn't we? Would we know why people "flip out" and inflict pain onto others and create terror and chaos in friendly movie theaters? Would we feel the need to wage war against our brothers with such passion and frequency, fighting over space in our simulation? Would we understand our diets better and how to best supply rest and energy to our bodies? Would we understand the exact chemical makeup of what we call "love" or "happiness"? 

I don't know the answers to any of these questions but I do know that asking them and seriously entertaining them until they can be ruled out is very important. Whatever the "truth" of reality may be, it has to be discovered without bias. We have to strive to search it out, wherever it unveils itself, and take it for what it is and work with it in whatever way possible. To do anything less would be an insult and a let down to our ancestors, that happen to be people from the future.