The past few weeks seem to have flown by - I seem to have started six or seven projects, and completed precisely none of them.
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Monday, 15 October 2012
Do you like numbers?
I do. I think numbers are wonderful; because they provide one of the best frameworks for doing mathematics, an endeavour that is close to my heart*; because they themselves are the prototypical example of a purely imaginary construct which nevertheless models the world remarkably well; because they are rigid, structured, and ordered, but from them spring complexity of such dizzying and breath-taking scope that you cannot help but be awed by it.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Any port in a storm...
Since I've been messing around with my Raspberry Pi, I've had cause to become more well acquainted with Port Forwarding, as a method of exposing it to computers outside my local network.
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Like Lazarus, I am returned!
Hello everybody!
I would apologise for the long silence, but that would imply that I thought anyone was hanging on my every word and desperately missing me in my absence :)
Just a short one for now, which will hopefully be followed up on tomorrow.
I would apologise for the long silence, but that would imply that I thought anyone was hanging on my every word and desperately missing me in my absence :)
Just a short one for now, which will hopefully be followed up on tomorrow.
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
A little more colouring-in
(This is a follow-up post to this one, where I introduced you to the wonderful world of Graph Theory)
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Maths is just colouring-in, really!
Well, blog posts are just like buses, it seems - you wait ages for one, and then when they do come, they're a bit disappointing and rushed! Wait, no, hang on...
Today, I want to talk to you about some maths. Specifically, a branch called Graph Theory, which was the module that kept me sanest during my final year at Uni, primarily because it involved a lot of drawing pretty pictures (a fact which all my geographer friends were quick to take advantage of!).
In Graph Theory, a graph isn't something like this:
it's more like this:
A "graph" in graph theory terms is a collection of points (or "vertices") joined by lines (or "edges"). Graph theorists study various properties of graphs - the minimum number of edges that must be crossed to get between two vertices, the average number of edges meeting at vertices, and so on. Since these graphs can provide very good models for road layouts and computer networks, you can see how the ability to concisely gather information about them could be useful - but, mostly, we just do it 'cos they're pretty (both mathematically and visually!)
I'm going to talk about something called a Ramsey number, and outline a simple but elegant proof. This is something where you can follow along at home, kids! Grab a pen and paper and meet me back here! Actually, better make that at least two pens (of different colours), though three would be even more helpful.
Got 'em? Good.
Right, first of all, draw yourself a hexagon - that's a six-sided regular shape, that looks like this:
(Do your best to make the corners sharply defined, rather than curves - it'll make your life easier later on.)
Congratulations, you've drawn your first graph! Technically, this called C6, (the C stands for "cyclic", since, as you can see, it resembles a circle in that you can go round in turn and return to your starting place) and there are various things that we could learn from examining it, but I have more a more interesting result in my sights.
Now join each vertex to every other vertex with a straight line. This should end up looking like this (where the vertices have been highlighted in blue):
What you have drawn is called the "complete graph on 6 vertices", or K6 for short. For any number n, Kn is simply n vertices with each one joined to every other. K1 is just a single vertex, K2 is a line joining two vertices, K3 is a triangle, K4 is a square with the diagonals filled in, and so on, as shown below:
Now, to introduce the Ramsey numbers, I first have to introduce the notion of graph colouring. This is just as it sounds - a colouration of a graph is a drawing of it where all of the edges have a particular colour. So, for instance, this is a colouring in red, blue, and green, on an (incomplete) graph of 20 vertices;
and this is a colouring in 7 colours (we would say a "7-colouring") of K8
(Note that it doesn't matter that the vertices of this graph aren't arranged around the points of an octagon - graph theory only cares about the connectedness (or unconnectedness) of points, not their relative positions. K3 is still K3 whether it's represented as a small scalene triangle, or an equilateral triangle the size of the galaxy)
Now (and don't worry, I'll come back and explain this later), we define the Ramsey number R(m) as being the smallest number n such that, for any 2-colouring of Km, there will always be a monochromatic Kn.
Phew...what on earth does that mean! Well, let's start off with a simple example. Let's try to find R(2) - that is, the smallest number n such that, if we link up all n vertices with either red or blue lines, we'll either have a red K2 or we'll have a blue K2. Well, since K2 is just a single edge, if there's more than one vertex in our graph, there's bound to be either a red or a blue K2, otherwise we haven't coloured it all - but if there's only one vertex in our graph, there are no edges (nothing to link to!), so no K2. So R(2) is 2.
Let's get a bit more adventurous. What's R(3)? Well, it's clearly bigger than 3 - as long as you don't use the same colour to draw all three sides of the triangle, you won't end up with a monochromatic triangle in your colouration. Similarly, we can 2-colour K4 (remember, a square with the diagonals drawn in) without making a mono-K3 - for instance, draw the outside square in red and the diagonals in blue.
This post is dragging on a little, so I'll set you a question to ponder and give the answer (and proof) in the next post - what is R(3)? If you think you know it, try to consider how you'd prove it - how can you prove, for instance, that there isn't a satisfactory 2-colouring on a smaller complete graph? I'll warn you now, while sketching out some ideas will help, trying to prove a result by exhausting all possible colourations will take you a while - there are, for instance, 378 possible colourations of K8* , so you'll be there for a while! I'll give the solution and proof next time.
* - where xCy is the choose function, there are 8C2 = 28 edges (for each of the eight vertices, there is precisely one edge for every way of choosing two of them), and so, since there is one colouration for every way of choosing a colour for each of these, there are 28C2 = 378 colourations. For mathematicians - yes, I'm aware that I've double-counted isomorphic colourations, but if you're seeking a solution by brute force exhaustion like this, it's appropriate to warn of an appropriate upper bound!
EDIT: I tried to get a definitive answer on the number of 2-colourings of K8 by using Wolfram Alpha, a "computational knowledge engine". The results were...less than satisfactory:
Today, I want to talk to you about some maths. Specifically, a branch called Graph Theory, which was the module that kept me sanest during my final year at Uni, primarily because it involved a lot of drawing pretty pictures (a fact which all my geographer friends were quick to take advantage of!).
In Graph Theory, a graph isn't something like this:
it's more like this:
I'm going to talk about something called a Ramsey number, and outline a simple but elegant proof. This is something where you can follow along at home, kids! Grab a pen and paper and meet me back here! Actually, better make that at least two pens (of different colours), though three would be even more helpful.
Got 'em? Good.
Right, first of all, draw yourself a hexagon - that's a six-sided regular shape, that looks like this:
Congratulations, you've drawn your first graph! Technically, this called C6, (the C stands for "cyclic", since, as you can see, it resembles a circle in that you can go round in turn and return to your starting place) and there are various things that we could learn from examining it, but I have more a more interesting result in my sights.
Now join each vertex to every other vertex with a straight line. This should end up looking like this (where the vertices have been highlighted in blue):
What you have drawn is called the "complete graph on 6 vertices", or K6 for short. For any number n, Kn is simply n vertices with each one joined to every other. K1 is just a single vertex, K2 is a line joining two vertices, K3 is a triangle, K4 is a square with the diagonals filled in, and so on, as shown below:
(Note that it doesn't matter that the vertices of this graph aren't arranged around the points of an octagon - graph theory only cares about the connectedness (or unconnectedness) of points, not their relative positions. K3 is still K3 whether it's represented as a small scalene triangle, or an equilateral triangle the size of the galaxy)
Now (and don't worry, I'll come back and explain this later), we define the Ramsey number R(m) as being the smallest number n such that, for any 2-colouring of Km, there will always be a monochromatic Kn.
Phew...what on earth does that mean! Well, let's start off with a simple example. Let's try to find R(2) - that is, the smallest number n such that, if we link up all n vertices with either red or blue lines, we'll either have a red K2 or we'll have a blue K2. Well, since K2 is just a single edge, if there's more than one vertex in our graph, there's bound to be either a red or a blue K2, otherwise we haven't coloured it all - but if there's only one vertex in our graph, there are no edges (nothing to link to!), so no K2. So R(2) is 2.
Let's get a bit more adventurous. What's R(3)? Well, it's clearly bigger than 3 - as long as you don't use the same colour to draw all three sides of the triangle, you won't end up with a monochromatic triangle in your colouration. Similarly, we can 2-colour K4 (remember, a square with the diagonals drawn in) without making a mono-K3 - for instance, draw the outside square in red and the diagonals in blue.
This post is dragging on a little, so I'll set you a question to ponder and give the answer (and proof) in the next post - what is R(3)? If you think you know it, try to consider how you'd prove it - how can you prove, for instance, that there isn't a satisfactory 2-colouring on a smaller complete graph? I'll warn you now, while sketching out some ideas will help, trying to prove a result by exhausting all possible colourations will take you a while - there are, for instance, 378 possible colourations of K8
* - where xCy is the choose function, there are 8C2 = 28 edges (for each of the eight vertices, there is precisely one edge for every way of choosing two of them), and so, since there is one colouration for every way of choosing a colour for each of these, there are 28C2 = 378 colourations. For mathematicians - yes, I'm aware that I've double-counted isomorphic colourations, but if you're seeking a solution by brute force exhaustion like this, it's appropriate to warn of an appropriate upper bound!
EDIT: I tried to get a definitive answer on the number of 2-colourings of K8 by using Wolfram Alpha, a "computational knowledge engine". The results were...less than satisfactory:
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
And after the drought...
Ooooh, Blogger has had an overhaul! Long overdue, the old interface really didn't fit in with the sleek shiny unified Google UI look they've been moving towards. A little confusing for now, but I'm sure I'll get used to it!
<Insert tired excuse for not posting here> - yeah, I really have no excuse. And this is going to be a bit short and sweet anyway. Apologies for those hanging on my every word!
It may not surprise you to hear that I've been watching, and very much enjoying, the Game of Thrones TV series (adapted from the books by George R. R. Martin). In Season Two (slightly confusingly, still titled Game Of Thrones, despite being adapted from the second book, A Clash of Kings), an increasing number of liberties have been taken with the canon, which is enraging some of the more die-hard fans. Characters have been introduced or written out, conversations happen in different ways, at different times, and sometimes between different characters. More commonly, the tone and subtext of exchanges is altered, both by the lack of internal monologue, and the choice of which lines to keep and which to cut/merge.
Personally, I think they're doing a fantastic job. I'm very much of the opinion that to stay slavishly true to the original is the mark of a lazy adapter. If you're reinterpreting a work, you are creating a new piece of art, which, by the nature of its different medium, must fulfil different demands and work in a different way. The truly excellent comic book Watchmen, by Alan Moore (which you really should read, by the way - it is one of the best arguments for comics being "not just for kids anymore", along with the truly staggering Sandman series by Neil Gaiman) was adapted into an equally excellent film, which managed to please critics despite having a completely different ending! The different interpretation of results, however, was not only well supported by the preceding drama, but also lent itself well to the silver screen, and so, it was a success.
The most obviously different conditions between books and TV are both caused by timing. When reading a book, you can take your time over it, re-read sentences, and work your way to the subtext and the implications - two things that Martin loves to spread throughout his writing. A TV viewer doesn't have that luxury, and so insinuations and hints have to be made a little more explicit. Conversations must necessarily lose a little of their subtlety, or risk leaving non-readers stranded.
Additionally, a TV episode has to keep viewers wanting more, and so each episode must end on a cliffhanger, a dramatic scene, or at the very least something that makes viewers think that they will want to tune in again next week. While books can employ similar techniques (and, indeed, several of Martin's chapters do end on notes that leave readers frantically scrabbling through pages to find the resolution), they are not forced to with the same regularity as episodes, and do not have to hit the same narrative "beats". Chopping and changing of event orders is entirely understandable, under this pressure. As a good example, a particular character would have, in the books, spent several weeks wandering the wilderness, hiding from marauders and would-be captors, in the narrative space between episodes 3 and 4, before finally being captures. In the show, she is taken directly from her previous escort. While the intervening time helps build the sense of desperation, it is not, narratively, important, and so its removal is justified.
There are downsides, of course. I fear that viewers are missing out on some of the rich backstory and history of the world, and that future plot twists might seem a little like Di ex machina without the subtle foreshadowing that peppered the books - but, on the whole, I feel that a hard job is being done very well, and the crew and cast should feel very proud! Of course, it does help to have the author as an Executive Co-producer :)
Plus, at the end of the day, this way someone who has only seen the show can effectively discover a whole new depth to the series by reading the books, furthering their enjoyment - and that can't be bad!
[A personal plea - those links what you see up there are Amazon Affiliate links. If you click them and then buy anything (not necessarily the product they link to, as long as you browse in the same tab), a percentage of what you spend will go to me instead of Amazon, at no extra cost to you. Obviously, if you're thinking of expanding your library, or indeed buying anything Amazon-wise, I'd very much appreciate it if you did so via these links! It's completely anonymous and, once again, adds not a cent to the price you pay]
<Insert tired excuse for not posting here> - yeah, I really have no excuse. And this is going to be a bit short and sweet anyway. Apologies for those hanging on my every word!
It may not surprise you to hear that I've been watching, and very much enjoying, the Game of Thrones TV series (adapted from the books by George R. R. Martin). In Season Two (slightly confusingly, still titled Game Of Thrones, despite being adapted from the second book, A Clash of Kings), an increasing number of liberties have been taken with the canon, which is enraging some of the more die-hard fans. Characters have been introduced or written out, conversations happen in different ways, at different times, and sometimes between different characters. More commonly, the tone and subtext of exchanges is altered, both by the lack of internal monologue, and the choice of which lines to keep and which to cut/merge.
Personally, I think they're doing a fantastic job. I'm very much of the opinion that to stay slavishly true to the original is the mark of a lazy adapter. If you're reinterpreting a work, you are creating a new piece of art, which, by the nature of its different medium, must fulfil different demands and work in a different way. The truly excellent comic book Watchmen, by Alan Moore (which you really should read, by the way - it is one of the best arguments for comics being "not just for kids anymore", along with the truly staggering Sandman series by Neil Gaiman) was adapted into an equally excellent film, which managed to please critics despite having a completely different ending! The different interpretation of results, however, was not only well supported by the preceding drama, but also lent itself well to the silver screen, and so, it was a success.
The most obviously different conditions between books and TV are both caused by timing. When reading a book, you can take your time over it, re-read sentences, and work your way to the subtext and the implications - two things that Martin loves to spread throughout his writing. A TV viewer doesn't have that luxury, and so insinuations and hints have to be made a little more explicit. Conversations must necessarily lose a little of their subtlety, or risk leaving non-readers stranded.
Additionally, a TV episode has to keep viewers wanting more, and so each episode must end on a cliffhanger, a dramatic scene, or at the very least something that makes viewers think that they will want to tune in again next week. While books can employ similar techniques (and, indeed, several of Martin's chapters do end on notes that leave readers frantically scrabbling through pages to find the resolution), they are not forced to with the same regularity as episodes, and do not have to hit the same narrative "beats". Chopping and changing of event orders is entirely understandable, under this pressure. As a good example, a particular character would have, in the books, spent several weeks wandering the wilderness, hiding from marauders and would-be captors, in the narrative space between episodes 3 and 4, before finally being captures. In the show, she is taken directly from her previous escort. While the intervening time helps build the sense of desperation, it is not, narratively, important, and so its removal is justified.
There are downsides, of course. I fear that viewers are missing out on some of the rich backstory and history of the world, and that future plot twists might seem a little like Di ex machina without the subtle foreshadowing that peppered the books - but, on the whole, I feel that a hard job is being done very well, and the crew and cast should feel very proud! Of course, it does help to have the author as an Executive Co-producer :)
Plus, at the end of the day, this way someone who has only seen the show can effectively discover a whole new depth to the series by reading the books, furthering their enjoyment - and that can't be bad!
[A personal plea - those links what you see up there are Amazon Affiliate links. If you click them and then buy anything (not necessarily the product they link to, as long as you browse in the same tab), a percentage of what you spend will go to me instead of Amazon, at no extra cost to you. Obviously, if you're thinking of expanding your library, or indeed buying anything Amazon-wise, I'd very much appreciate it if you did so via these links! It's completely anonymous and, once again, adds not a cent to the price you pay]
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Meditations on Mass Effect 2
A quick and unpolished blog post because, well, I wrote most of this out on Facebook, and then I remembered that I hadn't posted anything here in a while!
OK, thoughts on Mass Effect 2;
It's better. A lot better. A LOT better. Almost every aspect has improved - the storyline, characterisation and voice acting, and level design, in particular, show a MARKED improvement.
One thing that feels worse, however, (and I seem to be in the minority in feeling this) is the combat. Finding cover is hit-and-miss, with Shepherd regularly diving into cover and then standing straight back up again, or outright refusing to duck behind/out of an area that is obviously intended as such. Add to that the fact that a number of enemy weapons appear to ignore cover, to the point of even knocking you OUT of cover, and it rapidly becomes frustrating. When you can find a safe place to fire from, the scatter radius is so large that I'm essentially spraying bullets in the approximate direction of the enemy (admittedly, this may be due to the fact that Vanguard appears to have been nerfed between games, but the rest still stands - though, on that topic, where'd all my skill customisation options go!? And Lift!? Lift was AWESOME! Don't give me this "Charge" bullshit, that's crap and you know it.).
That's all the more frustrating since the combat difficulty has ramped up MASSIVELY between games. I think I died maybe ten times, if that, in the whole of Mass Effect, so I thought I'd try this game on Veteran. Even after I gave up and switched back to Normal after trying the same mission twenty times, I'm still dying two or three times on each non-mook fight. I'm switching weapons to prioritise barrier/amour/health etc., and making extensive use of biotics, but the deciding factor in most fights seems to be the suicidally depressed (or otherwise) impulses of the AI. If they break cover to flank me, I haven't got a hope (whereas if I try to do the same, I'm gunned down inside two seconds), but if they stay put I can whittle their health down inch by inch. Maybe I haven't got the hang of the combat system, but I'm definitely finding the regular restarting is interrupting my enjoyment of an otherwise excellent story.
That said, the story *is* excellent, and I'm sure once I've had the chance to do a few side missions (which seem a lot thinner on the ground this time round) Shepherd will be more effective than a disable Chihuahua trying to hump the Collectors' collective legs and I'll enjoy combat a bit more. I just hope it comes around sooner!
OK, thoughts on Mass Effect 2;
It's better. A lot better. A LOT better. Almost every aspect has improved - the storyline, characterisation and voice acting, and level design, in particular, show a MARKED improvement.
One thing that feels worse, however, (and I seem to be in the minority in feeling this) is the combat. Finding cover is hit-and-miss, with Shepherd regularly diving into cover and then standing straight back up again, or outright refusing to duck behind/out of an area that is obviously intended as such. Add to that the fact that a number of enemy weapons appear to ignore cover, to the point of even knocking you OUT of cover, and it rapidly becomes frustrating. When you can find a safe place to fire from, the scatter radius is so large that I'm essentially spraying bullets in the approximate direction of the enemy (admittedly, this may be due to the fact that Vanguard appears to have been nerfed between games, but the rest still stands - though, on that topic, where'd all my skill customisation options go!? And Lift!? Lift was AWESOME! Don't give me this "Charge" bullshit, that's crap and you know it.).
That's all the more frustrating since the combat difficulty has ramped up MASSIVELY between games. I think I died maybe ten times, if that, in the whole of Mass Effect, so I thought I'd try this game on Veteran. Even after I gave up and switched back to Normal after trying the same mission twenty times, I'm still dying two or three times on each non-mook fight. I'm switching weapons to prioritise barrier/amour/health etc., and making extensive use of biotics, but the deciding factor in most fights seems to be the suicidally depressed (or otherwise) impulses of the AI. If they break cover to flank me, I haven't got a hope (whereas if I try to do the same, I'm gunned down inside two seconds), but if they stay put I can whittle their health down inch by inch. Maybe I haven't got the hang of the combat system, but I'm definitely finding the regular restarting is interrupting my enjoyment of an otherwise excellent story.
That said, the story *is* excellent, and I'm sure once I've had the chance to do a few side missions (which seem a lot thinner on the ground this time round) Shepherd will be more effective than a disable Chihuahua trying to hump the Collectors' collective legs and I'll enjoy combat a bit more. I just hope it comes around sooner!
Monday, 12 March 2012
A quick and dirty bit of fun
Coding fun, that is. Why, what were you thinking?
Amy, for reasons best known to herself, posited the following problem on Facebook:
Challenge: See how many words you can make using the letters from "entertainment", but *only* in the order they originally appear, i.e. tram is fine but meat is not.
We'll ignore the pro-public-transport-and-vegetarianism agenda clearly supported by this brain-washing exercise, and focus on solving the problem.
I used the word list available here: http://www.puzzlers.org/pub/wordlists/enable1.txt to solve the problem. A more efficient, but slightly less comprehensive, solution would have used the Official Scrabble Wordlist, which is limited to words of eight or fewer letters, and is available here: http://www.puzzlers.org/pub/wordlists/ospd.txt. Thankfully, "aardwolf", my new favourite word, is included on both.
The Python script I used to solve the problem can be found here: http://pastebin.com/1QvTwvCq. Anyone on a Mac or a UNIX/Linux computer should be able to simply run the script by double-clicking it - anyone on Windows will probably have to download and install the excellent, wonderful, graceful, beautiful, utterly splendid language known as Python (from the download link off of here) to run it. You won't regret it. Coding has been one of the more life-changing skills I've ever learnt (not that I would claim to be very good!), and while every nerd has their favourite language, Python is generally acknowledged as being one of the easiest to learn on (citation: here)
Amy, for reasons best known to herself, posited the following problem on Facebook:
Challenge: See how many words you can make using the letters from "entertainment", but *only* in the order they originally appear, i.e. tram is fine but meat is not.
We'll ignore the pro-public-transport-and-vegetarianism agenda clearly supported by this brain-washing exercise, and focus on solving the problem.
I used the word list available here: http://www.puzzlers.org/pub/wordlists/enable1.txt to solve the problem. A more efficient, but slightly less comprehensive, solution would have used the Official Scrabble Wordlist, which is limited to words of eight or fewer letters, and is available here: http://www.puzzlers.org/pub/wordlists/ospd.txt. Thankfully, "aardwolf", my new favourite word, is included on both.
The Python script I used to solve the problem can be found here: http://pastebin.com/1QvTwvCq. Anyone on a Mac or a UNIX/Linux computer should be able to simply run the script by double-clicking it - anyone on Windows will probably have to download and install the excellent, wonderful, graceful, beautiful, utterly splendid language known as Python (from the download link off of here) to run it. You won't regret it. Coding has been one of the more life-changing skills I've ever learnt (not that I would claim to be very good!), and while every nerd has their favourite language, Python is generally acknowledged as being one of the easiest to learn on (citation: here)
Friday, 9 March 2012
Foundation's Edge
Several years ago, the only presents I asked for for my birthday were the "Foundation" series, by Isaac Asimov. I'd just discovered some of his incredible "Robots" short stories, which are widely regarded as being some of the most concise, imaginative, and visionary science fiction of its time. I think it's fair to say that, without Asimov's pioneering work in exploring the possibilities of robotics, and the mirror that it holds up to humanity, both science fiction and science fact would have been majorly hampered. I'd put good money on a large proportion of engineering or physics students having been inspired, at least partly, by an Asimovian story - and, as John Jenkins said in a review, "It has been pointed out that most science fiction writers since the 1950s have been affected by Asimov, either modeling their style on his or deliberately avoiding anything like his style."
I had great fun poking around in the many dusty old bookstores of Uppingham, happening across all manner of quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore which, if I had a thousand lifetimes and funds to match, I would happily devour. Eventually I tracked down battered old paperback versions, which were promptly bought on my behalf and ceremonially presented to me.
The Foundation saga is one of Asimov's two best known series, along with the Robots series. The main premise of this futuristic storyline is the concept that, with a great deal of sophistication and study, and the application of statistical modelling, it would be possible to refine large-scale sociology to the state of being a predictive science, capable (in the hands of a skilled analyst) of making accurate forecasts of the behaviour of large bodies of people. Using this newly-founded discipline of "psychohistory", a man named Hari Seldon realises that the current apparently-glorious Galactic Empire is soon headed for a collapse, after which there will be a period of thirty thousand years of "dark ages", where planets will become cut off from one another, and science and civilization will regress. He foresaw a solution to the equations, however, wherein this interregnum was limited to only one thousand years, after which a new uniting Empire would arise, preserving the knowledge and culture of humanity. To this end, he commissions the foundation of a colony of scientists and researchers at the precise point in unsettled space where, according to his calculations, the evolution of their society will be such that they will be perfectly situated to react to any emerging threats, and to spread their influence until they can establish a new Empire.
The first book in the series, Foundation, was originally written and published as a string of short stories, which together told of the Foundation's rise to prominence - and it is simply wonderful. While the writing isn't of Shakespearean, Wildean, or Wodehousean standards, it's still very enjoyable - but the beauty of the series lies not in its language, but in its content. Each episode succinctly encapsulates another stage in the society's development, with most providing some sort of interesting twist or witty observation. The next two books, Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation, told more of a cohesive story - of the burgeoning Foundation's clashes with the expiring Empire, and subsequently with a mutated human named the Mule, who has the ability to affect emotions and inspire fanatical loyalty - something which Seldon's plan, relying as it did abstractions over large groups of people and the assumption that no single person could have a measurable effect on galactic civilization, was not designed to accommodate.
Three fantastic books, with which Asimov was well-pleased, and which wrapped up with a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, while the series continued to be popular more than thirty years after their publication, Asimov's publishers exerted increasing pressure on him to return to the series, despite his protests. "Foundation's Edge" is the result - and his lack of inspiration really shows. The writing falls prey to the worst pitfalls of bad science-fiction writing - over-emphasis on technological development itself (rather than its effect on persons and society), and "tell, not show" dialogue - "as I'm sure you're aware, my friend, this ship is equipped with the latest gravitic drive technology...". In fact, there is a character - a previously planet-bound historian who accompanies the main character on his journeys - who, except for one short passage in which he takes a leading role, serves solely as an exposition-post: "oh, I know nothing of the ways of space travel - please, tell me [and the reader] what is going on!". I paraphrase, but the awkwardness of the writing is of almost that level.
What's more, the book isn't redeemed by its predecessors' intriguing insights or unexpected twists either. Every "surprise" is easily foreseeable, every hidden allegiance is plainly obvious - it got to the stage that I was almost expecting a double-bluff, so obvious were the deceptions!
I really wouldn't recommend reading this, unless you are a fanatic Foundation fan and are absolutely desperate for more material (though, even more so than with the latter Matrix movies, it is a "sequel" in almost name-only - the content and style is so far removed to be almost unrecognisable). I'm not even sure that I'll be reading the fifth book, Foundation and Earth. Far better to enjoy the sublime three original books in isolation, and then to move on to another master of science fiction without sullying them. On that note, I discovered that I still have Iain M. Banks' Consider Phlebas sitting on my bookshelf - since the last two of his books that I read were outstanding (and worthy of posts in their own right - certainly The Culture should really have been mentioned in any discussion of transhumanism, so I'll have to remember that for my follow-up post!), and I've been reliably informed that this is even better, I have high hopes!
You may notice that I've been linking out to Amazon more than usual in this post - that's no coincidence. I've just signed up for a service known as "Amazon Associates", whereby, if someone clicks on a link from my site to Amazon and then buys an item, 5% of the price goes to me instead of Amazon (the user pays the same price). I don't foresee being able to retire on the proceeds anytime soon, but I figure every little helps! Clicking a link, browsing around, and then buying another item works in just the same way, so if you do feel the need buy anything from Amazon and decide to navigate to it through one of my links, I would be massively appreciative!
I had great fun poking around in the many dusty old bookstores of Uppingham, happening across all manner of quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore which, if I had a thousand lifetimes and funds to match, I would happily devour. Eventually I tracked down battered old paperback versions, which were promptly bought on my behalf and ceremonially presented to me.
The Foundation saga is one of Asimov's two best known series, along with the Robots series. The main premise of this futuristic storyline is the concept that, with a great deal of sophistication and study, and the application of statistical modelling, it would be possible to refine large-scale sociology to the state of being a predictive science, capable (in the hands of a skilled analyst) of making accurate forecasts of the behaviour of large bodies of people. Using this newly-founded discipline of "psychohistory", a man named Hari Seldon realises that the current apparently-glorious Galactic Empire is soon headed for a collapse, after which there will be a period of thirty thousand years of "dark ages", where planets will become cut off from one another, and science and civilization will regress. He foresaw a solution to the equations, however, wherein this interregnum was limited to only one thousand years, after which a new uniting Empire would arise, preserving the knowledge and culture of humanity. To this end, he commissions the foundation of a colony of scientists and researchers at the precise point in unsettled space where, according to his calculations, the evolution of their society will be such that they will be perfectly situated to react to any emerging threats, and to spread their influence until they can establish a new Empire.
The first book in the series, Foundation, was originally written and published as a string of short stories, which together told of the Foundation's rise to prominence - and it is simply wonderful. While the writing isn't of Shakespearean, Wildean, or Wodehousean standards, it's still very enjoyable - but the beauty of the series lies not in its language, but in its content. Each episode succinctly encapsulates another stage in the society's development, with most providing some sort of interesting twist or witty observation. The next two books, Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation, told more of a cohesive story - of the burgeoning Foundation's clashes with the expiring Empire, and subsequently with a mutated human named the Mule, who has the ability to affect emotions and inspire fanatical loyalty - something which Seldon's plan, relying as it did abstractions over large groups of people and the assumption that no single person could have a measurable effect on galactic civilization, was not designed to accommodate.
Three fantastic books, with which Asimov was well-pleased, and which wrapped up with a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, while the series continued to be popular more than thirty years after their publication, Asimov's publishers exerted increasing pressure on him to return to the series, despite his protests. "Foundation's Edge" is the result - and his lack of inspiration really shows. The writing falls prey to the worst pitfalls of bad science-fiction writing - over-emphasis on technological development itself (rather than its effect on persons and society), and "tell, not show" dialogue - "as I'm sure you're aware, my friend, this ship is equipped with the latest gravitic drive technology...". In fact, there is a character - a previously planet-bound historian who accompanies the main character on his journeys - who, except for one short passage in which he takes a leading role, serves solely as an exposition-post: "oh, I know nothing of the ways of space travel - please, tell me [and the reader] what is going on!". I paraphrase, but the awkwardness of the writing is of almost that level.
What's more, the book isn't redeemed by its predecessors' intriguing insights or unexpected twists either. Every "surprise" is easily foreseeable, every hidden allegiance is plainly obvious - it got to the stage that I was almost expecting a double-bluff, so obvious were the deceptions!
I really wouldn't recommend reading this, unless you are a fanatic Foundation fan and are absolutely desperate for more material (though, even more so than with the latter Matrix movies, it is a "sequel" in almost name-only - the content and style is so far removed to be almost unrecognisable). I'm not even sure that I'll be reading the fifth book, Foundation and Earth. Far better to enjoy the sublime three original books in isolation, and then to move on to another master of science fiction without sullying them. On that note, I discovered that I still have Iain M. Banks' Consider Phlebas sitting on my bookshelf - since the last two of his books that I read were outstanding (and worthy of posts in their own right - certainly The Culture should really have been mentioned in any discussion of transhumanism, so I'll have to remember that for my follow-up post!), and I've been reliably informed that this is even better, I have high hopes!
You may notice that I've been linking out to Amazon more than usual in this post - that's no coincidence. I've just signed up for a service known as "Amazon Associates", whereby, if someone clicks on a link from my site to Amazon and then buys an item, 5% of the price goes to me instead of Amazon (the user pays the same price). I don't foresee being able to retire on the proceeds anytime soon, but I figure every little helps! Clicking a link, browsing around, and then buying another item works in just the same way, so if you do feel the need buy anything from Amazon and decide to navigate to it through one of my links, I would be massively appreciative!
Saturday, 3 March 2012
Pilindrome
[Warning: this blog post contains mathematical notation. Continue at your own risk]
[edit: It's by no means clear that the A(i) are mutually exclusive, which renders this proof dodgy - though you can consider the events B(i), that the sequence up to i is a palindrome but contains no shorter palindromes, which are mutually exclusive, and have (I believe) the same probability, yielding the same result]
I recently rediscovered the truly excellent Abstruse Goose, a webcomic in the same vein as XKCD - reflections on a life more nerdy. Their (currently) latest comic piqued my interest - of course, π isn't a palindrome, since it's endless, but there are related questions that are intriguing.
I was particularly interested in determining whether π could be definitively stated to contain a palindromic elision - that is, some point at which, if you chopped it off there, the first digits of π (without decimal point) would read 314159265...562951413. A quick google turned up the following question, involving a reply from someone who clearly knows more about the relevant areas of maths than I do - I never took measure theory, and number theory and probability weren't my strong points. Still, I thought there would still be something interesting that I could tinker about with.
Since the question of π's normality[1] is apparently both important to the question, and an unsettled matter, I thought I'd transfer the question to a random sequence, since they're a bit more well-behaved. Note that below I'm investigating the question of whether truncating this sequence at some point will generate a palindrome, rather than the somewhat-looser question of whether the sequence will contain a palindrome at some point[2].
However, the "answer" that I got out doesn't seem intuitively right (for one thing, I was expecting a series that converged to 1), so I'm by no means staking my mathematical reputation on this - if anyone with a better grasp on the mathematics spots an error, please, by all means point it out!
Since this blog is meant to be accessible to non-nerds, I've done my best to provide a line-by-line commentary below so those without a mathematical education can follow along.
(Note that I'm not counting single digits as palindromes here, because that's a) silly and b) boring)
1. Let xi be an infinite random sequence, xi ∈ [9] ∀i
2. Let a finite sequence y1, y2, ... yn-1, yn, be called palindromic if yi = yn-i ∀i
3. We seek the probability that ∃n s.t. xi≤n is palindromic
4. Let A(n) be the event that x1, x2, ..., xn-1, xn is palindromic. Then we seek â„™[j=2U∞ A(j)]
5. â„™[A(j)] = 10 -floor(j/2)
6. â„™[j=2U∞ A(j)] = j=2Σ∞10 -floor(j/2) = 2 j=1Σ∞10 -j
∴ Probability sought is 0.2̇
Apologies for the horrible horrible formatting - I haven't yet found a way to write LaTeX or similar on blogger, if anyone knows of one, please let me know!
Right, walkthrough time:
1. The subscript "i" is the index of the sequence. For instance, x1 would be the 1st number in the sequence, x52 the 52nd, and so on. [n] is a shorthand notation for "the set of numbers less than or equal to that number" - so [9] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. The symbol ∀ means "for all" - so this statement is saying "whichever number you choose for i, xi will be a whole number between 0 and 9 inclusive"
2. This is defining what we mean by "palindromic" in terms of mathematical notation.
3. That symbol ∃ means "there exists" - i.e., we are looking for the probability that there is a number n such that, if we chop off the sequence at the nth number, it will form a palindrome.
4. The double-struck P (this font is sometimes called "Blackboard Bold") stands for "probability". The "U" symbol stands for "Union" (essentially, "combining" various events), and the sub- and super-script means that we are taking the union from j=2 to infinity. That is, we are looking for the probability that any truncation of the sequence (of length two or more) will be a palindrome.
5. This is stating the probability of the truncation at the nth digit being a palindrome. "floor" is a function that gives the smallest whole number less than or equal to the argument - so floor(2.5) is 2, but floor(3) is 3. The explanation for this probability is as follows; in order for a sequence to be a palindrome, we need the second half of the numbers (rounded down) to match the first half. The probability of any one number matching its partner is 1/10 (as there are 10 digits to choose from), so the probability of all of them matching is (1/10)floor(j/2) - and since (1/10) can be represented as 10-1, this gives the probability given above.
6. Putting a bar over a symbol or expression in maths is a common way of expressing "not/negation". In this case, since A(n) is the probability of the n-truncated sequence being a palindrome, A(n) is the probability of it not being a palindrome. If p is the probability of an event happening, then 1-p is the probability of that event not happening.
7. The spikey-E shape on the right-hand side here is called "Sigma". It represents repeated addition - in this case, "add up all values of 10 -floor(j/2) from j=2 upwards". We can do this because the probabilites of A(n) are mutually exclusive - that is, the probability of either one of them occurring is the addition of both of their probabilities. Since floor(2n/2) = floor(2n+1/2), this is equal to twice the addition with the floor and division-by-two removed.
The dot over the 2 means "repeating" - that is, the probability is 0.22222...
So, in summary, the maths above, in which I can't find a problem, gives us a 0.2222... probability of any given random sequence of numbers having a palindromic. In hindsight, and having benefitted from the added insight afforded by having to explain my working, I'm less uncomfortable with this answer than I was before - an answer of 0 would have been non-sensical, as clearly some random sequences exist with a palindromic truncation, but so would 1 as there "do" exist infinite sequences not containing palindromes. In fact, the construction of palindromes is quite artificial, so you would expect them to be reasonably rare. 0.222... therefore seems a sensible value for this probability.
It's amazing how quickly I've lost my fluency with maths, and especially probability - I could still remember all the pertinent details and get it done, but with none of the fluidity that I used to have! Definitely need to keep my brain in gear somehow...the iTunes U courses that have been recommended might be a good idea!
Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed this jaunt through maths...I'm at home right now, and our dinner guest has just appeared, so I must away!
[1] A "normal" number is one in which every possible digit (from 0 to 9, in the decimal system) occurs with the same density (i.e. has the same "chance" of occurring), every pair of digits has an equal density, every triple has an equal density, every string of four digits has an equal density, and so on. Confusingly, the vast majority of numbers that we encounter outside of a maths degree are not normal, because they are either integers ("whole numbers"), or terminating decimals (e.g. 5.324, as opposed to a non-terminating decimal like 7.3333333...). A little thought will show that neither of these can be normal, since they only have a finite number of digits to play with, and so they could not fulfil all of the conditions - trivially, it cannot be true that an integer with n digits contains all (n-1)-length digit strings with equal density, because there is only room for two such strings.
[2] Indeed, this is certain to happen in an infinite random sequence. Consider the fact that dd is a palindrome for any digit d. Then we seek the probability that the sequence contains any dd. The probability that any digit pair is any dd is 1/10 (the first digit can be chosen freely, and there is a one in ten chance that the next digit matches), so the probability they do not match is thus 9/10. The probability that not a single pair of digits in the sequence match is (9/10)*(9/10)*(9/10)*..., which tends to 0. So the probability that the sequence contains a matching pair (which are a palindrome) is 1.
[edit: It's by no means clear that the A(i) are mutually exclusive, which renders this proof dodgy - though you can consider the events B(i), that the sequence up to i is a palindrome but contains no shorter palindromes, which are mutually exclusive, and have (I believe) the same probability, yielding the same result]
I recently rediscovered the truly excellent Abstruse Goose, a webcomic in the same vein as XKCD - reflections on a life more nerdy. Their (currently) latest comic piqued my interest - of course, π isn't a palindrome, since it's endless, but there are related questions that are intriguing.
I was particularly interested in determining whether π could be definitively stated to contain a palindromic elision - that is, some point at which, if you chopped it off there, the first digits of π (without decimal point) would read 314159265...562951413. A quick google turned up the following question, involving a reply from someone who clearly knows more about the relevant areas of maths than I do - I never took measure theory, and number theory and probability weren't my strong points. Still, I thought there would still be something interesting that I could tinker about with.
Since the question of π's normality[1] is apparently both important to the question, and an unsettled matter, I thought I'd transfer the question to a random sequence, since they're a bit more well-behaved. Note that below I'm investigating the question of whether truncating this sequence at some point will generate a palindrome, rather than the somewhat-looser question of whether the sequence will contain a palindrome at some point[2].
However, the "answer" that I got out doesn't seem intuitively right (for one thing, I was expecting a series that converged to 1), so I'm by no means staking my mathematical reputation on this - if anyone with a better grasp on the mathematics spots an error, please, by all means point it out!
Since this blog is meant to be accessible to non-nerds, I've done my best to provide a line-by-line commentary below so those without a mathematical education can follow along.
(Note that I'm not counting single digits as palindromes here, because that's a) silly and b) boring)
1. Let xi be an infinite random sequence, xi ∈ [9] ∀i
2. Let a finite sequence y1, y2, ... yn-1, yn, be called palindromic if yi = yn-i ∀i
3. We seek the probability that ∃n s.t. xi≤n is palindromic
4. Let A(n) be the event that x1, x2, ..., xn-1, xn is palindromic. Then we seek â„™[j=2U∞ A(j)]
5. â„™[A(j)] = 10 -floor(j/2)
6. â„™[j=2U∞ A(j)] = j=2Σ∞10 -floor(j/2) = 2 j=1Σ∞10 -j
∴ Probability sought is 0.2̇
Apologies for the horrible horrible formatting - I haven't yet found a way to write LaTeX or similar on blogger, if anyone knows of one, please let me know!
Right, walkthrough time:
1. The subscript "i" is the index of the sequence. For instance, x1 would be the 1st number in the sequence, x52 the 52nd, and so on. [n] is a shorthand notation for "the set of numbers less than or equal to that number" - so [9] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. The symbol ∀ means "for all" - so this statement is saying "whichever number you choose for i, xi will be a whole number between 0 and 9 inclusive"
2. This is defining what we mean by "palindromic" in terms of mathematical notation.
3. That symbol ∃ means "there exists" - i.e., we are looking for the probability that there is a number n such that, if we chop off the sequence at the nth number, it will form a palindrome.
4. The double-struck P (this font is sometimes called "Blackboard Bold") stands for "probability". The "U" symbol stands for "Union" (essentially, "combining" various events), and the sub- and super-script means that we are taking the union from j=2 to infinity. That is, we are looking for the probability that any truncation of the sequence (of length two or more) will be a palindrome.
5. This is stating the probability of the truncation at the nth digit being a palindrome. "floor" is a function that gives the smallest whole number less than or equal to the argument - so floor(2.5) is 2, but floor(3) is 3. The explanation for this probability is as follows; in order for a sequence to be a palindrome, we need the second half of the numbers (rounded down) to match the first half. The probability of any one number matching its partner is 1/10 (as there are 10 digits to choose from), so the probability of all of them matching is (1/10)floor(j/2) - and since (1/10) can be represented as 10-1, this gives the probability given above.
6. Putting a bar over a symbol or expression in maths is a common way of expressing "not/negation". In this case, since A(n) is the probability of the n-truncated sequence being a palindrome, A(n) is the probability of it not being a palindrome. If p is the probability of an event happening, then 1-p is the probability of that event not happening.
7. The spikey-E shape on the right-hand side here is called "Sigma". It represents repeated addition - in this case, "add up all values of 10 -floor(j/2) from j=2 upwards". We can do this because the probabilites of A(n) are mutually exclusive - that is, the probability of either one of them occurring is the addition of both of their probabilities. Since floor(2n/2) = floor(2n+1/2), this is equal to twice the addition with the floor and division-by-two removed.
The dot over the 2 means "repeating" - that is, the probability is 0.22222...
So, in summary, the maths above, in which I can't find a problem, gives us a 0.2222... probability of any given random sequence of numbers having a palindromic. In hindsight, and having benefitted from the added insight afforded by having to explain my working, I'm less uncomfortable with this answer than I was before - an answer of 0 would have been non-sensical, as clearly some random sequences exist with a palindromic truncation, but so would 1 as there "do" exist infinite sequences not containing palindromes. In fact, the construction of palindromes is quite artificial, so you would expect them to be reasonably rare. 0.222... therefore seems a sensible value for this probability.
It's amazing how quickly I've lost my fluency with maths, and especially probability - I could still remember all the pertinent details and get it done, but with none of the fluidity that I used to have! Definitely need to keep my brain in gear somehow...the iTunes U courses that have been recommended might be a good idea!
Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed this jaunt through maths...I'm at home right now, and our dinner guest has just appeared, so I must away!
[1] A "normal" number is one in which every possible digit (from 0 to 9, in the decimal system) occurs with the same density (i.e. has the same "chance" of occurring), every pair of digits has an equal density, every triple has an equal density, every string of four digits has an equal density, and so on. Confusingly, the vast majority of numbers that we encounter outside of a maths degree are not normal, because they are either integers ("whole numbers"), or terminating decimals (e.g. 5.324, as opposed to a non-terminating decimal like 7.3333333...). A little thought will show that neither of these can be normal, since they only have a finite number of digits to play with, and so they could not fulfil all of the conditions - trivially, it cannot be true that an integer with n digits contains all (n-1)-length digit strings with equal density, because there is only room for two such strings.
[2] Indeed, this is certain to happen in an infinite random sequence. Consider the fact that dd is a palindrome for any digit d. Then we seek the probability that the sequence contains any dd. The probability that any digit pair is any dd is 1/10 (the first digit can be chosen freely, and there is a one in ten chance that the next digit matches), so the probability they do not match is thus 9/10. The probability that not a single pair of digits in the sequence match is (9/10)*(9/10)*(9/10)*..., which tends to 0. So the probability that the sequence contains a matching pair (which are a palindrome) is 1.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Transhumanism - what is it, and what will it do to you?
After the last few Facebook updates, I'm not sure if this is even still visible, but once upon a time, on that hallowed Internet tome, I described my Religious views as "Transhumanist Discordian Buddhist" (you can probably infer what a smug little self-satisfied prick I was at that age by the fact that I simultaneously gave my Political views as "Non-believer".). As has already been pointed out to me, I can't legitimately lay claim to being a devout Buddhist (since I, among other unworthy activities, eat meat), which I readily concede - the union of these three is simply the most efficient way of concisely approximating most of my worldview.
Although I would LOVE to spread the word of Discordianism a bit further, I believe it's one of those things that's far better discovered on your own. For eager disciples of the Way, the holy text can be found here: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/5.php. Remember, though, a Discordian is prohibited of[sic] believing what he reads.
[Note - if you've never heard of the concept of transhumanism before, don't click the link in the following paragraph until I tell you to!]
The reason that I chose to write about Transhumanism this week is because of this article, which I found very thought-provoking. Although I don't agree whole-heartedly with all the points made in it, it's a very good jumping-off point for debate on the concept as a whole - what is it, what does it entail, is it a worthy goal, and how close are we getting to it?
The following are entirely my own opinions, based off what I have read on the topic. I intentionally haven't referred to other sources (except the article mentioned above) in writing this, because I wanted this to be a personal account - if I simply copy-and-pasted Wikipedia's definition, I wouldn't really be producing anything new! Therefore, any definite statements on the topic (e.g. "Transhumanism is") should always be regarded as being preceded with "in my opinion".
Ahem. Transhumanism is a paradigm which holds that it is crucial for sentient beings to grow and develop, and that two vital parts of that growth are the betterment of tools (making the growth exponential), and developing the ability to take control of and modify oneself. To this end, transhumanists embrace the possibility of cybernetic implants, the development of artificial intelligences, and the furtherance of medical science, with the ultimate end goal of transcending the limitations inherent in our bodies as they currently are.
[This is probably a good point to go read that article, if you haven't already]
Yes, ok, so at first glance this might seem like a slightly more high-brow justification for nerds who were already wildly enthusiastic about computers and robots - and, I'll admit, this was what first snared my interest with the idea when I was young! But, as with good sci-fi stories (and one day I will write an entire rant about what sci-fi really is, and what it isn't - here's a clue, putting spaceships or lasers into your story doesn't make it sci-fi, and vice versa), the otherness of the initial impression can help to raise interesting questions that are immediately relevant to our own lives.
I found points 5 and 7 in the linked article to be particularly interesting (if the reference to African grey parrots puzzled you, by the way, read this, though prepare to get a little teary!). They are, if you'll excuse a little pretension in my language (and if you won't, you've certainly come to the wrong place), emergent properties of initial impulse. As human lifespans lengthen, the increasing over-population will make debate over contraception all the more urgent, prompting further discussion on the right to parenthood and early rights. Likewise, when we start constructing/becoming/encountering organisms that transcend our instinctive definitions of "human", the paradigm shift required to recognise the sentience and agency of non-humans should, hopefully, make it that much easier for us to recognise the inherent rights of other non-human creatures with which we are already familiar, and the ludicrousness of the idea that humans should have different rights because of different race, class, or sexual orientation.
Aaah, I've already ranted for many many and still have lots more to say, but people would be in danger of nodding off. Hopefully this will be a primer good enough to get people intrested in the topic, so that my follow-up post (WHEN it comes, not if!) will be better received. If you're interested in some further musings on how the progress of transhumanism might affect our view on natural rights, and how you might already hold some transhumanism ideals dear without even realising it, browse through this article about Pixar films. For a good refutation of one of the main counter-arguments to human improvement ("When everyone is special, no-one is", or "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."), via two of my favourite books and films, see here. And for an article on the development of the ability of storytelling to explore non-anthropocentric narratives, and the philosophical points that then emerge - an article that is only tangentally related to the subject of this post, but whose quality renders it deserving of far wider readership - see here (many thanks to George Lockett for the link).
[Disclaimer: it is an irrefutable law that any system of thought sufficiently advanced to be useful will contain flaws. Transhumanism as a concept is not perfect, nor are all of its aims compatible with my personal ethical stance - but it is an interesting and productive concept on which to muse]
Although I would LOVE to spread the word of Discordianism a bit further, I believe it's one of those things that's far better discovered on your own. For eager disciples of the Way, the holy text can be found here: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/5.php. Remember, though, a Discordian is prohibited of[sic] believing what he reads.
[Note - if you've never heard of the concept of transhumanism before, don't click the link in the following paragraph until I tell you to!]
The reason that I chose to write about Transhumanism this week is because of this article, which I found very thought-provoking. Although I don't agree whole-heartedly with all the points made in it, it's a very good jumping-off point for debate on the concept as a whole - what is it, what does it entail, is it a worthy goal, and how close are we getting to it?
The following are entirely my own opinions, based off what I have read on the topic. I intentionally haven't referred to other sources (except the article mentioned above) in writing this, because I wanted this to be a personal account - if I simply copy-and-pasted Wikipedia's definition, I wouldn't really be producing anything new! Therefore, any definite statements on the topic (e.g. "Transhumanism is") should always be regarded as being preceded with "in my opinion".
Ahem. Transhumanism is a paradigm which holds that it is crucial for sentient beings to grow and develop, and that two vital parts of that growth are the betterment of tools (making the growth exponential), and developing the ability to take control of and modify oneself. To this end, transhumanists embrace the possibility of cybernetic implants, the development of artificial intelligences, and the furtherance of medical science, with the ultimate end goal of transcending the limitations inherent in our bodies as they currently are.
[This is probably a good point to go read that article, if you haven't already]
Yes, ok, so at first glance this might seem like a slightly more high-brow justification for nerds who were already wildly enthusiastic about computers and robots - and, I'll admit, this was what first snared my interest with the idea when I was young! But, as with good sci-fi stories (and one day I will write an entire rant about what sci-fi really is, and what it isn't - here's a clue, putting spaceships or lasers into your story doesn't make it sci-fi, and vice versa), the otherness of the initial impression can help to raise interesting questions that are immediately relevant to our own lives.
I found points 5 and 7 in the linked article to be particularly interesting (if the reference to African grey parrots puzzled you, by the way, read this, though prepare to get a little teary!). They are, if you'll excuse a little pretension in my language (and if you won't, you've certainly come to the wrong place), emergent properties of initial impulse. As human lifespans lengthen, the increasing over-population will make debate over contraception all the more urgent, prompting further discussion on the right to parenthood and early rights. Likewise, when we start constructing/becoming/encountering organisms that transcend our instinctive definitions of "human", the paradigm shift required to recognise the sentience and agency of non-humans should, hopefully, make it that much easier for us to recognise the inherent rights of other non-human creatures with which we are already familiar, and the ludicrousness of the idea that humans should have different rights because of different race, class, or sexual orientation.
Aaah, I've already ranted for many many and still have lots more to say, but people would be in danger of nodding off. Hopefully this will be a primer good enough to get people intrested in the topic, so that my follow-up post (WHEN it comes, not if!) will be better received. If you're interested in some further musings on how the progress of transhumanism might affect our view on natural rights, and how you might already hold some transhumanism ideals dear without even realising it, browse through this article about Pixar films. For a good refutation of one of the main counter-arguments to human improvement ("When everyone is special, no-one is", or "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."), via two of my favourite books and films, see here. And for an article on the development of the ability of storytelling to explore non-anthropocentric narratives, and the philosophical points that then emerge - an article that is only tangentally related to the subject of this post, but whose quality renders it deserving of far wider readership - see here (many thanks to George Lockett for the link).
[Disclaimer: it is an irrefutable law that any system of thought sufficiently advanced to be useful will contain flaws. Transhumanism as a concept is not perfect, nor are all of its aims compatible with my personal ethical stance - but it is an interesting and productive concept on which to muse]
Monday, 13 February 2012
Geeky triumph
Just a quick celebratory post to note that trexlyrics (come now, you really should be up to date on this if you've been reading my blog - and if you haven't, why not!? My twitterbot project, inspired by http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2121 (hover your mouse over the picture for a caption) and viewable here: www.twitter.com/trexlyrics) is now properly live, and will reliably reply to @mentions with a random lyric within five minutes of posting. Go forth and play with my creation!
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Big Mac
I've been using a Mac regularly for a few months now at work, and for the most part, it's been a pleasure. Many things that would be hassles on Windows are simple, and "just work". Mounting network drives, in particular, was really surprisingly easy. I've also really appreciated the way that mousing over a window makes scrolling active in that window, without having to actually click the window - such a small thing that I didn't even realise I was missing out on with Windows until I discovered it!
Monday, 6 February 2012
John, what happened?
I am really, really, surprised to be writing this, but here goes: *deep breath* I'm not enjoying "Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare" at all.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Friday, 27 January 2012
IT LIVES!
This is a follow-up to my last post - if you haven't already read that, you should go check it out otherwise this won't make a great deal of sense!
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Do you want to hear something funny?
Right, here we go then - my review of Arkham City. T'is probably going to be short and sweet (especially compared with my previous rambling monologue on Batman!), though I may end up eating those words...
The inevitable post about Batman
I wanted to write more about A Stranger In A Strange Land today. I wanted to write about how it made me half an hour late getting back to St. Albans because I got on the wrong train because I was engrossed, and I didn't even care. I wanted to write about how one particular scene (for those who've read it, the one where Mike is hiding in the pool while the SS soldiers invade Jubal's ranch) portrayed an innocent soul, thinking and learning, so beautifully, that it literally moved me to tears. But I have something else to write about. Something on which I can write a whole lot more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)