Courts and Crosses

In regard to the controversy regarding the maintenance of the Bladensberg World War One memorial cross on public land, I made the following post:

Quite an interesting problem. I’ve long taken the position that America, in order to be a just government, must be a secular government neutral towards religion. Having said that, while this cross was obviously erected as a Christian symbol and the court so ordering otherwise cannot change this hard-core reality, this particular symbol has become an historical monument. While I would oppose the direction of a new monument on public land of this type, the fact that this monument was constructed at a time when this was considered acceptable should be taken into consideration. I believe it should be allowed to stand. That is not to say we should not have appropriate symbology added which indicates that this represents the national attitude of a long gone time.

Some will say, ”Well then, this must justify Confederate statuary”. It does not. While putting up the cross was supporting Christianity as a state supported, if not actually state sponsored, religion; maintaining Confederate statuary is the equivalent of the Germans putting up monuments to such as Hitler, Borman, and other Nazi leaders. Tolerating a past that lived in error is not the same thing as glorifying those who supported a vile and despicable cause.

Of Cats And Men Part 2

Once again tiny steps forward contrasted with big slides back mark my relationship with the cat who came to dinner, but all in all our relationship has improved.

He got to the point where he would not run away when he saw me, especially if I had his dinner in my hands, but instead would hover quite close. He also was not above loud complaining if I was late with this food. Clearly he had come to have certain expectations for me and expected me to fulfill them dutifully.
As time went on, he would maintain closer and closer proximity as I fed him. I was surprised one night when he actually came forward to sniff my fingers (as cat lovers know that's quite a big step in becoming friends with an animal). A few days later he actually allowed me to scratch his ears.

Of course, then he went right back to refusing to let me touch him and insisting that I had to go in the house and close the door before he would begin to eat.

Two nights ago he really shocked me. He not only let me scratch his ears, he let me pet him for a time. Naturally, all the while I was petting him he was busy complaining because he was afraid to eat until I went, yes, you guessed it, back in the house and closed the door. It's also interesting to note that just a moment, literally one or two seconds before he allowed me to pet him, he was hissing at me because he was so terrified that he was within touching range, but even as he was hissing, he didn't run away and did follow it up by letting me pet him.
I always knew we was conflicted and didn't know wheher to trust me or not, but I've decided now that he is, in fact, a case of multiple personality disorder.

I used to have interesting debates with my best friend (who was also our district Attendance and Child Welfare Officer and a licensed child psychologist) about the existence of multiple personality disorders. It was in the DSM, so he accepted it as real. I pointed out that the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists never encounter even a single case whereas one or two encounter many cases. I contended then and I contend now that the whole thing is a delusion imposed by the therapist on his patients. At least it is in humans. Apparently, it's very real in cats.

Sidenote to my daughter Racquell: OK, so I guess it needs a name. Lately other cats have been coming around and taking part in the great free feast of cat food I put out for him. I found I resent it because I'm not paying money I can't really afford to feed cats who have a home. I find myself thinking that they're stealing my cat's food.
So, considering that I know he has a very thick coat from petting him and of course he does in this winter, also because he's the cat who came to dinner (Google the movie The Man Who Came to Dinner and you'll understand the reference), And since the star of the American movie version of the play was named Wolley, for now I'll just call him Wooly. Happy now?

Final note: In case you haven't guessed, since that one time he let me pet him he has again reverted to not coming closer to me than a good yard. Thus proving that the mouse in the Merry Melodies cartoon Scaredy-cat had it right when he declared, "Pussycats is the cwaziest peoples!"

SifFi, Space, And Quantum Entanglement

A recent Facebook conversation.

ME: Bobby. Just finished watching an episode of The Orville for the first time. Apparently its a very popular show. I didn't like it.

It is listed as a comedy, so perhaps it's not surprising that as a drama it's a total failure. The characters display as much depth and rich color as a set of shadow puppets. Since this includes even the characters introduced as dramatic elements only for a single show, it's not simply a lack of character development. It's a lack of character.

As for comedy… I didn't find much. During the entire show I did smile very briefly at one moment. That's it.

As for the program's setting, it would work as a spoof of Star Trek since it's almost entirely an imitation thereof, right down to the color-coded tunics and replicators, but it manifests as nothing but a badly planned rip off.

Ever seen it? I'm curious as to your responses.

C: No and it doesn't sound like something I would want to see.

ME: C, I would say don't waste your time but there are an awful lot of people who think it's wonderful.

BOBBY: Glad to hear your opinion. I suspected a repelling incongruence between Seth MacFarlane's flippant cynnicism and the bright-eyed promise of progress I like to get from the Star Trek universe that I've avoided the show altogether.

ME: You and me both. But I decided I ought to give it a least one look.

BOBBY: Have you checked out Bandersnatch yet?

ME: That I haven't. Dark Mirror was just a bit too dark for me. Well-made shows, you understand, but I found them depressing so I don't generally watch. I'm willing to give Bandersnatch a try. Are you recommending it or just wondering?

ME: I saw the most amazing show on YouTube today. It was a lengthy discussion of quantum physics. The panel was emceed by Brian Green and included none other than Gerard t' Hooft!! I was really shocked to see him sitting there. (He had some really great insights but he did stand firmly in the "hidden variables" school.)
The show was interesting but what absolutely stunned me was when one of the panelists, for the first time I could ever even imagine such a thing, actually exlained his theory of how space itself is generated. I mean it isn't as if I haven't asked, "Where does space come from?" Who hasn't? But I never thought anyone would have an answer!

His explanation isn't one I want to try to dictate out right now, But it is based on the holographic principle as in the concept that three dimensional reality is actually projected by two dimensional Holographic images on the event horizon surrounding our universe.

He made it convincing.

Now if only someone would do the same thing for time.

ME: Hey, did you ever check out The Expanse?

A FEW DAYS LATER:

Found out more about this from an article. The theory does cover not only space, but also time, and even to some extent, gravity. It also has strong applications for black holes because a black hole would be the result of when the whole system just falls apart. Oddly enough the whole theory began with looking into quantum systems and how they self correct with hopes that it could be applied to quantum computing.

True Believers

Re: https://quillette.com/2018/12/27/from-astrology-to-cult-politics-the-many-ways-we-try-and-fail-to-replace-religion/

Humans have certainly used religion as a reason for hatred and extremism, but without religion, Communism turned to fanatic dedication to ideology, as have so many other “isms“. Atheists who like to blame religion for humanity’s problems, somehow seem to forget that the real cause of all of humanity’s suffering very often stems from the simple fact of being human.

> When people turn away from one source of meaning, such as religion, they don’t abandon the search for meaning altogether. They simply look for it in different forms. < > And if you imagine that secular ideologies and political movements now seem to exhibit faux-religious characteristics, you aren’t alone. “We have the cult of Trump on the right, a demigod who, among his worshippers, can do no wrong,” wrote Andrew Sullivan recently in New York magazine. “And we have the cult of social justice on the left, a religion whose followers show the same zeal as any born-again Evangelical. They are filling the void that Christianity once owned, without any of the wisdom and culture and restraint that Christianity once provided.”<

Well, the wisdom and culture and restraint that Christianity provided on occasion. I didn’t notice any of those three elements as a significant part of either the Protestant Discipline or the Spanish Inquisition.

Experts begin to realize I was right all along...

An article in Politico pointed out today that a professor described North Carolina as not a democracy two years ago. Although many supported his point, others savagely attacked him. Now time has made the case for him. As you probably are aware, it is clear that massive election fraud was practiced by the Republican Party in at least one county in the recent election, and there is some evidence that this may have been a many years long practice. Furthermore, gerrymandering has insured that the majority of Americans who live in North Carolina will not be able to control government, unless they happen to agree with Republican party line. I’ve been saying this about America for quite some time. Here are two posts that made my point (although I referred to America as a kleptocracy ruled by the rich, the point applies to the Republican Party in general):


https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5229995409371692545&pli=1#editor/target=post;postID=3273074109903929931;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=2;src=postname

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5229995409371692545&pli=1#editor/target=post;postID=207980492168859013;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=1;src=postname

Of Cats and Men

An interesting story has been developing here. Since it's changing I'll share it with everyone. Back when the fight against cancer was just beginning, and even before, there were some neighborhood cats who kept turning up in our yard. They liked to hang around in my bushy shrubs, apparently hunting squirrels and birds. When any of us would come out, they would rush into the bushes to hide or race back across the street.

it seemed obvious they were neighbor cats who liked the available hunting grounds once the dogs had moved to Maine.

Over a year ago, I noticed that an opening into the crawlspace under the house had lost it's screen. This led to squirrels moving in and causing problems. I blocked it off with a weight that I knew no squirrel could get through. Some months later I was surprised to see it been pushed aside. I couldn't see a squirrel being strong enough to do that. So I blocked it again and then later found it been moved away for the second time. Clearly no squirrels were living under the house so I wasn't sure what was going on.

Some months ago I realized that what it happened was that one of the cats was homeless. This wasn't a problem for it during the summer but the nights were starting to get cold. So it moved under my house. I didn't really mind. It was wild and instead of running across the street when it saw me, would begin running under the house. It wasn't causing any harm, and I don't have anymore squirrel problems. I put water out for it. But whenever It saw me it would race away as if it expected me to chase it down and attack.

As time went on, I got tired of all the dead birds turning up in the yard. Obviously it was a good hunter and was feeding itself. So I started putting out food for it in hopes that would protect the bird population. It seems to have worked. But the cat still acted as if I was a monster to be feared. Still, it stopped racing away at top speed and began merely hurrying away whenever it's saw me. About two months ago as it was hurrying away it stopped just before it disappeared looked at me and meowed. This was the first time it ever made eye contact, first time it ever reacted to me other than with fear.

With the weather turning cold I took an old box and cut open a door which was just large enough for him to enter comfortably, filled it with old T-shirts, and set it out under the house so he could sleep warm at night. With temperatures dropping to freezing that no longer seemed enough, so I wrapped it up in an old mattress pad. That should keep it quite comfortably warm once he's inside.

About a month ago I stepped out at night to check the temperature, looked up and saw the cat sitting in the sun in a huddle. It was about 60 feet away, And it surprised me by just staring at me. It didn't run away. Having checked the temperature, I just stepped back in the house and closed the door. After that he went back to hurrying away whenever he saw me.

Today was a rather big breakthrough. Instead of just giving him leftovers I actually bought some cat food. No, he is not my cat. But if I don't feed him he leaves dead birds around the yard. I stepped out the back door where I keep a bowl of water and food for him, He was poking at the empty bowl and ran around the side of the house. I called out to him and said I've got food for you, put a little of the new cat food in the bowl, rattled it, called him, and he stepped back around the corner the house, looked at me and made a friendly meowing at me.

I put the food down, stepped back in the house and he came up and began to eat as I watched him through the window. It was the first really good look I've had. It turns out he's much more a tawny cougar sort of color than the striped orange cat I thought it was from the glances I had caught before.

I'm not sure where any of this is going. I thought he would never be friendly but he acted as if he wasn't terribly afraid of me for the first time today. I still don't think of him as my cat but I would love to get him to the vet although he looks quite healthy.

If anything changes, I'll let you know.

Soul Brothers

https://aeon.co/essays/why-is-the-language-of-transhumanists-and-religion-so-similar

When I read this article I responded as follows:



Bobby, a really engaging and interesting article if you are interested in the subject (and I know you are).

Anyone else interested? I'm going to post a link to my blog for further discussion.

The discussion of Roko’s Basilisk is very amusing, while still frightening in potenia.

I must agree with a key point of the article, which is that from an outsider's view, there are surprising levels of similarity between the "religionist" and "transhumanist" positions. I see the both of them as different sides of the same coin. To put that in extreme focus terms, think of the Hitler versus Stalin situation in the 30s. Every Communist and every Nazi would declare with utter passion that they were the exact opposite of each other, eternal enemies with totally different visions of the future. Yet outsiders saw little difference between the societies they created -- secret police, torture, mass murder, propaganda, ad infinitum.

As regards this article I see both sides as deeply emotionalist and anti-rationalist. Each believes that their cause so profoundly that any criticism is seen as beyond the pale. In short, even the supposedly rational side is deeply faith based.

I find the whole concept of uploading oneself quite interesting. I also find it deeply flawed. Here are a few of the issues:

What exactly is meant by "consciousness"? The way it's described by transhumanists is identical to the soul. From a strictly rational view, whatever consciousness may exist, it must arise within the structure of the brain itself. There is no ghost in the machine, the two are inseparable, indeed identical. And yet transhumanists refer to their consciousness exactly in the same way that the religious refer to the soul. It is an awareness, and existence, a state of being entirely separate from physical reality.

This could be referred to as the Star Trek transporter problem. The transporter disassembles you, copying your patterns in the process and then sends the information in a datastream to a receiving transporter which rebuilds "you". But you have destroyed your brain. Your consciousness is gone. What you have created is a copy of yourself which, because it has your memories, thinks it is you. Even in the Star Trek universe this problem was acknowledged because occasionally there is a transporter accident in which multiple copies of a person are made. Starfleet regards all those copies as the original person even though we now have multiple "original persons".

The same issue arises with a copy of your intelligence. Once it's copied into machine form, into a computer state of zeros and ones, it could be copied indefinitely. So if we destroy your brain to copy it and then upload it into 1 million computer systems, there are now 1 million original yous. Each one will insist that it is in fact the actual real you and the others are the false ones. But in fact the real you will have been destroyed along with your brain, unless you accept the concept of a separate consciousness, a separate soul which does not depend upon the physical brain.

And then there's the problem of reprogramming. What if somebody hacks the new you? A teenage kid is bored and hacks the system decides to turn you into a… Who knows what? When she changes your data programming, it will change you. You can be turned into a monster, or a maniac, a saintly prophet; anything the hacker programs in, that will be the new you.

So the question quickly becomes, is that you at all? Was it ever you?

And let's never forget Roko’s Basilisk. The transhumanist view here is one of a perfect world which everybody is nice and everybody is good and no one will ever do anything bad or wrong. I find that unlikely.

Once you have become a computer program you would be helpless. Anyone who has retained their body (or perhaps become a cyborg) and is outside the system and can hack into it and do whatever they want to you. Imagine a Hitler, Stalin, or even any number of average personalities having complete control over not only you but the entire universe you inhabit.

I'm going to refer to the Heechee series again. All these issues are dealt with in novel form, including that emergency services may "save" your life by uploading you into a computer program if a disaster renders you unconscious and unable to continue to live in your body. If you have good health insurance you will now live wonderful life. If you don't, they make you pay back the debt by enslaving your program and selling it to whoever cares to bid on it.

As scary as the future is, and I'm certain it will have its horrors, I believe it will be better than things are now. However, I am forced to admit that that is a matter of faith.