excerpt from a conversation

I get kind of juiced when I think about telling stories that are cutting edge

maybe I'm just young and hyper and want the hype

maybe I have a semi-obsession with video games because they are so immersive to me

I get addicted real fast to video games sometimes

I have to be a bit careful

but anyways

I want to tell stories in new ways, sometimes

and the newest way to tell stories these days is in a game

The difficult thing though, is that people get desensitized.

although hyper-stimulating visually and auditorially and even viscerally through rumble game pads and interactivity,

video games are just as dumb as books, when compared to interacting with a human being

that's why multiplayer games are so successful

BUT

when you are able to calm the visuals down enough to create a peaceful sense,

THEN you can get story in there

heck, you can even get story in there in a fast paced game

More and more, video games are trying to create digital places where the socially stimulating and nourishing experiences we have in the real world all the time, can happen

the excitement of collaboration, of spontaneous or "serendipitous" connection

the cameraderie of shared sufferingt

the fullfillment of sharing a goal or value with another person

***** RE: This Twenty years from now, the CEO of the next "Pixar" may be discussing the seminal chat he had with his artist friends... in a chat room. Unlikely, possibly, because person-to-person communication is so much more efficient and stimulating when you're in the same room, especially sharing a meal. But that's only because of the sensory data that is not transmitted with the telecommunication tech we have at this point.

a little update

16th and S. Van Ness, looking South West. This is on my walk to my new job at MetaSwitch Networks, which I got through my awesome temp agency. My job is working in their warehouse, assembling, testing, and packing the telecommunications hardware they sell. Pretty cool people, neat place- I have to admit that when I first came into the office/warehouse and saw their lab and the ESD safety protocols, the first thing that jumped into my head was that it was a place where something unexpected and supernatural would happen in a sci-fi movie.

Public art on the walls of the 16th and Mission BART station. Walking from work to BART tonight, all of the conversations I overheard were in Spanish.

Here are a couple sketches I did on my phone on the ride home: 

I'm super stoked about life right now, a load of awesome things are going on. I have a steady, well-paying and not mind-numbingly boring day job, I'm back involved in Theater (working backstage for The Farnsworth Invention at Town Hall Theatre in Lafayette, CA), Dad helped me fix my bed frame, so now it doesn't sink in the middle anymore, and I'm starting to do a bit of dating.

The Niners lost the Super Bowl, which is sad. But on the bright side, I found friends to watch it with and cheer and boo and everything, instead of having to watch it at the bar like I did for the World Series.

Colleen P's post about religion.

My opinion is that theology is simply a projection of internal struggles. Spirutuality occurrs naturally in people, and abstraction of morality is a natural tactic to try and optimize the good and minimize the bad in life. The Christian theological framework is not developed in a vacuum, fully formed in the mind. It forms within the context of spiritual feelings. When removed from the psychology of spirituality, theology makes little to no sense, it is, as you said, "absurd."

However, I think pointing out the logical absurdity of theology will not get you far in convincing people to abandon it, as scientific facts can seem equally as absurd when veiwed from an emotional/superstitious point of view. Logic is a newer way of looking at things, and it may very well be better, but no matter how much an individual studies logic, they cannot remove emotions from their worldview, short of surgery.

Human beings are both emotional and rational. A religious worldview emphasizes the emotional and adds logic in later: belief first, then theology. Science takes the logical approach first, emotional later: first you test the equation, then you call it poetic.

For example, you mention an interesting example of a scientific thought that is also emotional: physics easing existential dread: the fact that we are "star stuff," made of heavier elements that were formed in supernovae billions of years ago. But realize that although it comes from scientific fact, this is kind of an "appeal to imagination," because it is a random fact, that's all. It carries special meaning only when applied to a human being whose biology has led him to fear the unknown and his own subsequent insignificance, causing him to imagine that the uniqueness of a star in the void of space is somehow transferred to him because he is made of things that were created in stars.

But now I read your post i realize you didn't mean it in that context, so maybe that whole point is moot.

What

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that science is no better than religion. Science has a good track record in healing great amounts of human suffering and providing insight into how the world, including humanity, works. The pursuit of knowledge and the constant questioning and doubting encourages adaptabiliy in a way that religion doesn't seem to do. It addresses dangerous shortcomings of how we naturally view the world.

A better understanding of how religion works on a personal level may help you if you wish people to not feel offended by your comments. 

Thank you for posting because it's giving me the opportunity to reexamine my beliefs.

philosophy

I originally wrote this like, a month ago and didn't post it 'cause I wasn't sure if it was worth posting. I just reread it and here it is.


So maybe Spotify is better, but Pandora is leaving me somewhat non-plussed. I'm listening to Cool Jazz Radio, but they seem to be filtering out any song longer than 4 minutes. Seriously, I have a longer attention span than that.

It's not bad, it's just not as good as it purports to be. No substitute for a good DJ, or a record store.
I mean, think of how specific a database query can be. Would if I could do that with an online music collection? "Computer, find 25 songs from the genre "Jazz," that has >50 but <100 five star reviews, that was from either Blue Note or Colombia, recorded between June 1965 and April 1972."
Statistics and Data Analysis lead to many insightful findings in science. Couldn't these same tools be used to benefit the arts?

IF emotional state is the main factor causing action, and IF art is the best way to affect someone's emotions, AND art could be scientifically controlled to produce a chosen result...

To cause change in someone's life through a piece of art, you need to have the right combination of things: the internal state, that is the state of the person's mind and emotions, and the external inputs, that is, the information that the person's senses pick up. That's all that's really happening right? Would if we knew as much about that interaction as we did about interactions of chemicals? Obviously right now it's impossible, because there is no way to be accurate enough about measuring the internal state. But we can do much to measure the external state.

I mean, why do we keep science out of the arts? Forget writing art about people doing science, I'm talking about scientifically analyzing great works of art! Forty people go into a dark room and experience a bunch of stuff on the stage for about two hours. TWO HOURS and the course of their entire lives could be drastically changed, they may even change dramatically as people, that is, they may become something else. I'm taking these assumptions based on the self-evaluations that I've heard from people who have seen plays, and from my own observations of myself and others. I mean, they're not scientific observations, so they may be worthless, but doesn't the phenomena at least require more specific study?

Some scientists are already doing this, using active MRI scans on people listening to music, seeing movies, etc. I think more could be done, however.

Now here's the science fiction part: Would if we were able to reliably understand and control the outcomes of artistic experiences (between an individual and a stimulus) with the same accuracy as we can understand and control chemical reactions?

Not only could you make someone think or feel anything you wanted at any given time, you could change them into entirely different people (internally). Would if you could cure depression by showing someone a painting? Having them listen to a song?

-Miracle gun: can create the feeling of divine presence in anyone within 15 yards. 99% effective.
-how about this: a lump of intelligent material that can change its form into something that will infuriate whomever is looking at it. It can only do this for one person at a time, and it doesn't work on blind people.

Of course, if you want to be able to provoke any response possible, you'd need something like the Ultimate Holodeck. It would have to be like a programmable universe, that can create any type of sensory stimulus possible for any required amount of time.

You'd also need the Ultimate Tricorder, which would be a device capable of determining the state of all the relevant internal mechanisms of the subject in the Holodeck, hyper-accurately, as they happen, especially their neural connections and brain chemistry.

Of course, both those devices would have to be limited by the laws of physics, especially the current limits on how accurately you can manipulate or observe matter. I'm also assuming that a person is a closed system, that all aspects of the self are able to be determined from a body. I am also assuming that everything that is important to governing a person is measurable and able to be affected.

We already know that it is very difficult for people to change. Most people go their entire lives without changing very much on a deep level. Would if it was a lot easier to change people, all other factors remaining?

With great power comes great responsibility. And I'd say that as a species, our power has increased significantly over the past few hundred years, and we have already done things that have had drastic unintended consequences.

Will our power keep increasing? Will our understanding increase with it?

A narrative that I have been taught is the narrative of power increasing faster than understanding. That is, we usually have the ability to alter something before we have the understanding of how it works. And I suppose that's how it must be.

If we can never know everything,
and all things are connected,
then whenever we understand something enough to alter it,
we are ALSO altering things we don't understand.

long time no post

This 

+

 this 

+

This

=

This

Yay pragmatism!

Here's a little quick post just illustrating my own hypocrisy, or I guess you could call it a change in attitude over the course of time.

I wrote this little stub a long while ago (Not quite sure when, blogger software only keeps one date for drafts: the date last viewed.)

"Entrepreneurshit"


This  is what set me off.

Yes. That is what a real education is. How to bullshit people and get away with it. How to take something that has no value, convince people that it has value and to pay you for it. Fuck trying to find out what things in life are truly valuable. All you really need to do is convince people that you are valuable. 

Thanks for telling us all about your wonderful college experiences Scott. That was so cool how you got people to think that you were taking their opinions into account, but really weren't, when you were writing their "constitution." They were dumb enough or didn't care enough to call you out on it, so who cares? At least you're making money on it. You're being efficient. 

Now, here's another more recent stub: 

Smart people go to jobs that will make them money, and improve those companies, which in turn attracts more smart people, feedback loop

that could be broken by putting more money into important industries that need more help, like education, science and the arts

hell, maybe it's our education that's the problem, teaching us to care about stuff that won't be useful in 90% of the jobs we might hold

Notice especially the last bit there. Haha. 

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR POST IS ABOUT!!!!

This is kind of a repost, as I wrote it on facebook, but I'm very proud of it and I got a lot of positive feedback.

My friend from college Drew Gorham was originally a music major, and he changed over to philosophy, and on his wall he posted on of those "photo/caption" chain letter things that are big right now: here.

Here is my response:

"I consider myself spiritual and somewhat religious, and I don't claim to be a very good scientist, but I am sorry to see scientific beliefs twisted and condemned in a story like this. 


I certainly think the story provides comfort, but mostly because of the reasons expressed by Sumair here. I think that the story is bastardizing logic and reason in order to tell a story. As long as you view it as a story and not a proof, I don't think it is very offensive or dangerous, but it is assumed that many people will take it as a scientific proof of the validity of faith, which is a dangerous misconception, and a sorry facsimile of the true power of logic and reason.

The world is a very uncertain place, and people will go through all kinds of effort to find some mental and emotional certainty. I see the crux of science being a devotion to a remembrance of our inherent fallibility, that the most reliable truth is found only through intense scrutiny, through observation and experimentation.


Also, I have found that using Wikiquote and Snopes is a really good idea when dealing with quotes or stories attributed to universally admired figures. A lot of the time, people like to reinforce the perceived clout of their worldviews by projecting them onto those figures, and the emotionally positive association will bleed over from the figure to the worldview."

I am also really stoked about a economic discussion that I started on my timeline by asking people who study economics if lowering federal taxes has been shown to increase economic growth. Unfortunately I didn't understand all of it, but it did reanimate my memories of economics class, which is good. Also it's cool to see two people from totally different parts of my life talk to each other.  

CM Punk "Best in the World" (who is also Straightedge) putting the elbow drop on Mark Henry "The World's Strongest Man" (He actually won the World's Strongest Man competion)

So I don't know if all of you know this, but I've developed a taste for Pro Wrestling, thanks to my roommate and very good friend Odie. Now, in intellectual circles, Wrestling has a bad rap, almost as bad as organized religion. "Don't you know it's fake?" is what Odie often gets asked, and his answer is usually an Irish Whip into a clothesline followed by a moonsault from the top rope. Haha I'm kidding (Odie does like to wrestle, however, and he knows the name of every move...I mean literally every move...) But I have come to enjoy it somewhat and I have some thoughts about it. 

What people usually mean by "fake" is one of two things: that the outcomes of the matches are scripted, or that the combat is staged, both of which are true. Odie tells me that "plots" of the season of wrestling are written sometimes years in advance. The wrestling itself takes great strength and skill, but also involves stage combat techniques that give the impression of a "real" fight. I must point out however, that people who have done intense stage combat can attest that it is not as far removed from actual fighting as one might think. Then again, I've never really been in any real fights so I can't say much to the comparison. But it is dangerous, and people do get hurt, but it looks a lot more dangerous and painful than it is. 

Because what wrestling presents itself as is different from what it "really" is, watching wrestling requires suspension of disbelief, much like you would suspend your disbelief for a play or a television show. The reason I think people feel jilted is that at first glance, pro wrestling most closely resembles a traditional sport, and in traditional sports, a huge part of the appeal is that nobody knows which team will win. In baseball, basketball, fencing, and chess, who will win depends primarily on the skill of the players, and no punches are pulled, so to speak, as the players from opposing teams compete. 

The truth is that pro wrestling is I would say half sport, half entertainment. It is a hybrid, it has aspects of both genres. 

There's a little infographic for you, not in color cause I don't know how to do that easily. Most of the stuff in there is fairly obvious. 

Something I didn't have room to add but I think is worth noting, is that Traditional Sports and Pro Wrestling both have long histories to them. Wikipedia tells me that pro wrestling goes back to the 19th century. Also I'm seeing that Wikipedia has lots more info about pro wrestling than I post here. 

So back to the question, "Don't you know that it's fake?" To that, I offer another question: would you ask someone watching a play if they knew it was fake? The appeal of wrestling comes partly from the fact that it imitates "real" sports, but also largely from the intensified dramatics. Baseball players get to choose what music gets played when they come to the plate, but in Pro Wrestling each "superstar" as they call them has an elaborate, specific entrance involving gestures, pyrotechnics, video graphics on giant screens, catchphrases, etc. that can last up to five minutes. We usually get a very limited glimpse into an athlete's "off-field" life and interactions with other competitors, whereas in wrestling we stop the entire proceedings just to have a backstage interaction played out on the jumbotron. In a way, pro wrestling has more in common with Dragonball Z than it does with "real" wrestling. 

So what's the appeal of wrestling, anyways? I think it really comes down to the phenomenon of a streaker jumping onto the field at a baseball game. He gleefully sprints his way around, dodging the officials, and the crowd cheers. Why does the crowd sometimes cheer for him? Shouldn't they all be annoyed that he's interrupting the game as it's meant to be played? The fact is that sometimes people need to see the rules being broken, as kind of a cathartic, vicarious experience. I think it's healthy sometimes. Pro wrestling does a great job of creating the illusion of breaking rules and going extreme, when in fact they wrote the rules and are allowing them to be broken. 

Both sport and entertainment have been given noble stature over the ages- sport is said to embody the virtues of self-improvement, commitment, and discipline. Entertainment is said to enlighten, to move, to communicate. Pro Wrestling is kind of a bastard child of the two, and as such is viewed as a half-assed version of either: how can the spirit of competition be there if it's scripted, and how can enlightenment and communication be there if characterization and plot are simplified? 

I don't really know what the answer is to that. I'm not a huge fan of wrestling, but after a period of adjustment I'm able to enjoy it to a certain extent. I would say that despite its perceived lack of integrity, it does have value. It does require a high level of skill and discipline, and the superstars have to be excellent entertainers as well as athletes. The stories deal with basic themes such as betrayal, revenge, idealism, narcissism, cruelty, and love, even sometimes touching on harder issues such as alcoholism. It is multicultural, showcasing athletes from all over the world and including cultural aspects of their nations. People from all over the world and all walks of life enjoy it.

Now to bring this full circle, in my facebook post above I mentioned the danger of taking something at face value and believing it wholeheartedly, when in reality it doesn't hold water. I would say that it's really hard for me to enjoy pro wrestling while remembering all the time that it is scripted. Is it dangerous to have such a misleading thing as pro wrestling be "believed" in? Well it certainly doesn't help out the more gullible parts of us, but I don't think it's that dangerous. However, I think it would be true to say that modern American society could use a good booster shot of skepticism. With so much of our culture tied up in television and movies, we need to be able to think for ourselves. With so much money and power being used to convince people of things, and comparatively little being spent to figure out what things are worth convincing people of, we could get into trouble.  

It probably didn't need the analysis. But being out of school, I have to flex my academic brain somehow.