What could we possibly have in our young solar system that would make it worth the bother for a nomadic civilization of harvesting aliens to visit?
I can think of three things:
1.genomes (evolution as an advance information system)
2.cultural artifacts (like the internet)
3.hot girls
there are probably better places for mineral resources than our solar system. But our planet has one of the rarest resources we know of: life.
It is also Slashdot "worthy" because of the way Eno's music is composed. For instance,here is a link on a talk he recently gave with Richard Dawknings on creativity and generative(evolving) music.
So yes, I also think this is news.
Why is having a geek-board tank thinking of problems and patents wrong? I mean, it is certainly better than paying millions to a lobby group to ban alcohol. I know, some people in I.V. worked for Msoft. Some may not have great credentials, but seriously, why flame them when at least they are trying to find ways to develop technologies that can help us? In any way you think of, it is a laudable enterprise by people like the/. public. I don't think the criticism here is helpful.
there's another thing, somewhat different. The article is kind of naive: It claims "ideas are in the air"... but that (ironically) thae same process that was proposed by Marx during 1860's. He said ideas and "insights" were all conditioned by their historical circumstance(whatever we can think is a product of our current society). I'm not going to go deep into Marx, it's just that its kind of a downer to read a "novel idea" of a statement that was made more than 150 years ago.
words are not the only language. Also, since you can still refer to the event/experience with a word, it makes it communicable. An acid trip or a dream can be communicated because they can be experienced, the problem is that we cannot adequately describe it or convey it. Thus, for example, the sublime in art can be provoked, but not readily described. So since we can convey (in many different degrees) such things, they are language. Even when you say "i cannot describe it" you are still figuring it in language. Everything that we can experience is withing language in general. Not being able to explain it with English would be a question of proficiency
Perhaps the confusion comes from thinking that language is a nomenclature which would refer to an existing thing (e.g. an electron). The point is that language is not a nomenclature of "reality", rather it is a thing in itself. It is not that we describe what math is but rather that we can articulate or interpret reality through mathematical language - or English.
The article refers to this problem, what makes mathematical language "work" differently than say, English. What would be the relationship of math to what's "out there"?
think the thing to learn here is that language isn't reality, it merely describes reality. I disagree. Language is reality as far as humans are concerned. Anything that we can experience, and thus communicate, falls into the concept of language. If we can make it intelligible or derive a pattern out of it, then it is language. I know many people are against this way of thinking (structuralism and post-structuralism) however try to consider it for some time, not just shut it out.
I don't think there is a partial answer to the question, but i do think that if it could be answered in terms of "math is an invention" we could perhaps invent other types of mathematics (types that are not real since we don't know them) and moreover, regarding the question of intelligent life in the universe, it would make it clear that other civilizations would have very different math - perhaps depending completely in how the intelligence organ functions. If math is an invention, then intellect would be an emotion.
no, no, it is not "in the middle" it is both aspects at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. We are immersed in a reality that can be described through mathematical language, but also being part of it(a subset) also makes our activities a mathematical invention(performative)
I also don't think it is an absurd debate, arguing things that seem obvious or insignificant has proven to be really useful for western civilization: questioning why the sun sets or why do species of animals differ leads us to "progress"
Homer's Odyssey and the Iliad: rated nc-17 for violence, sex, aberrational behavior and drug abuse.
(and if you feel like trolling you could include the Bible's more explicit passages)
This author is making a false assumption. no, the summary is. read the article, they are actually making the case you defend -
from the arty:
But as we've asserted in the past, videogames are nowhere nearly as good at telling stories as they are at providing us with experiences, at putting us in spaces where narrative(s) can emerge through exploration and gameplay. Here, depth of character and exploration of theme become difficult to achieve--even compared to a comic book. That's in part because, as Will Wright eloquently said, videogames privilege agency over empathy as the primary means by which the individual "interacts" with the medium.
he also argues that the comparisons are only partially useful, since videogames are a medium by their own right.
It cost Leo Tolstoy what to write 'War and Peace'? 20 bucks worth of paper and 4 or 5 (ok 12) pens? as we all know, Tolstoy worked at a sweat-shop and his time an talent were only worth 10cents per day.
(a long lasting argument in "art" is that the input of the artist+material is asymmetric with its market value - for instance Warhol created pop-art to exploit that particularity)
however, as it is mentioned in the article, there is a moment when the similarities with other media end. Videogames exploit a unique medium and, i think, it is by developing its particularities that they can evolve. There would be nothing worse than to keep videogames as imitations of films or books. They are a medium on its own.
In other words, popularity is everything to the future of gaming. not exactly, a better way to put it is that: the market determines what games can be created. It is a marxist argument, and it applies to the game industry as well. so who cares? well, if the types of games we get are reflections of market forces, then you are not really getting many choices; most of the games will be permutations of a precedent.
an off topic comment: you take for granted that the economics of supply and demand always work. questions these assumptions.
Sounds like you're stuck back in the bad old days of Freud and Skinner. Psychology has come a long way since then, and is no longer all about getting people to fit in, but to reach their full potential. Psychology, at least in its Freudian version, was never a theory for normalization. If anything it was an attempt to question why we behave in a certain way and buy into social constructs - like the CoS -
That it has come a long way - True, it has been mostly discredited as a scientific theory, but it is still fundamental when it comes as a "critical theory" to probe things that are not rational - like the CoS.
The CoS falls apart immediately with just about any logical argument, yet lots of people join in. There exist the assumption that people always follow truth: Freud made a leap when he said that this is not the case, humans can act on purely unreasonable basis, hence when approaching the problem of cults like Scientology -when many people will ignore the facts and follow their "instincts" - psychoanalysis, and specially the readings of Freud developed by structuralism, are an excellent way to asses how the ramblings of an irrational person hooked on meth "work"... and do something about it.
*theory as in critical studies is very different from theory as in scientific method.
The antagonism to Psychiatry is because it's a competitor to Scientology in the "healing the mind" market, and because Psychiatry, proceeding according to actual scientific principles, is in probably the best position to know what nonsense Scientology is. Psychoanalysis and psychiatry are some of the best tools we have to dismantle and understand social systems* like the Church of Scientology. When you scrutinize those systems with critical analysis you can demystify, unmask and even enhance some of their methods. One of the reasons they suppress psychoanalysis would be because the CoS cannot allow itself to change into any other thing - the scam has to remain a scam, otherwise it becomes a predictable trick.
*other social systems usually include capitalism or the military complex
by the way, i just recently saw articles on "the holographic principle." It states that the universe is made up from information and that matter/energy are merely accidentals which pose resistance to the flow of information. How the information moves is dictated by "laws" on the boundaries of preceding dimensions. So for example a 2d boundary describes a 3d, this last dimension acting as a projection of the last. The catch is that the dimensions are nested, so they inform each other, like links on a chain.
it's all quite interesting, perhaps the problem in understanding this problem lies in language. using words like "laws" and "random" when signifying cosmic, or even meta-cosmic properties tends to muddle the whole thing. Ironically, mathematical language is what gives us that middle point.
the universe is ultimately unknowable, or the universe is completely intelligible = main line of discussion during the last 200 years of western philosophy.
Because what I reject is the limitation imposed by atheistic scientists that the answer to that first argued question must be presupposed towards randomness, not design.
my very humble proposition is that an ordered system can only arise from a random/chaotic state. See for example Wolfram's work on rules and laws governing systems and the "phenomena" of complexity arising from simpler governing laws.
actually, it is a great cover...
when looking for the operators of a botnet, you can "plant" fake evidence that points to some kid in Africa. It is precisely their lack of resources and recourse to law that makes them ideal for identity theft.
"Women should remain silent in Slashdot. They are not allowed to comment, but must be in myspace, as the Moderators say. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak at Slashdot."
There, you can feel better - now go and tell her...
Slashdot Mirror
What could we possibly have in our young solar system that would make it worth the bother for a nomadic civilization of harvesting aliens to visit?
I can think of three things: 1.genomes (evolution as an advance information system) 2.cultural artifacts (like the internet) 3.hot girls there are probably better places for mineral resources than our solar system. But our planet has one of the rarest resources we know of: life.
It is also Slashdot "worthy" because of the way Eno's music is composed. For instance,here is a link on a talk he recently gave with Richard Dawknings on creativity and generative(evolving) music. So yes, I also think this is news.
*said while listening to music from ocremix.org , a free music site in dedication to remixing game music.
wow nice link man. thx!
there's another thing, somewhat different. The article is kind of naive: It claims "ideas are in the air" ... but that (ironically) thae same process that was proposed by Marx during 1860's. He said ideas and "insights" were all conditioned by their historical circumstance(whatever we can think is a product of our current society). I'm not going to go deep into Marx, it's just that its kind of a downer to read a "novel idea" of a statement that was made more than 150 years ago.
words are not the only language. Also, since you can still refer to the event/experience with a word, it makes it communicable. An acid trip or a dream can be communicated because they can be experienced, the problem is that we cannot adequately describe it or convey it. Thus, for example, the sublime in art can be provoked, but not readily described. So since we can convey (in many different degrees) such things, they are language. Even when you say "i cannot describe it" you are still figuring it in language. Everything that we can experience is withing language in general. Not being able to explain it with English would be a question of proficiency
Perhaps the confusion comes from thinking that language is a nomenclature which would refer to an existing thing (e.g. an electron). The point is that language is not a nomenclature of "reality", rather it is a thing in itself. It is not that we describe what math is but rather that we can articulate or interpret reality through mathematical language - or English.
The article refers to this problem, what makes mathematical language "work" differently than say, English. What would be the relationship of math to what's "out there"?
besides, when did 'speed-playing the game under a deadline' count as a good "review" ? as a /. entry?
I don't think there is a partial answer to the question, but i do think that if it could be answered in terms of "math is an invention" we could perhaps invent other types of mathematics (types that are not real since we don't know them) and moreover, regarding the question of intelligent life in the universe, it would make it clear that other civilizations would have very different math - perhaps depending completely in how the intelligence organ functions. If math is an invention, then intellect would be an emotion.
no, no, it is not "in the middle" it is both aspects at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. We are immersed in a reality that can be described through mathematical language, but also being part of it(a subset) also makes our activities a mathematical invention(performative) I also don't think it is an absurd debate, arguing things that seem obvious or insignificant has proven to be really useful for western civilization: questioning why the sun sets or why do species of animals differ leads us to "progress"
Anyway, games wise:
MathBlaster
Where in the World is Carmen San Diego (hate this game, but it taught me basic geography)
and of course
Tetris never underestimate the classics! :D
he also argues that the comparisons are only partially useful, since videogames are a medium by their own right.
however, as it is mentioned in the article, there is a moment when the similarities with other media end. Videogames exploit a unique medium and, i think, it is by developing its particularities that they can evolve. There would be nothing worse than to keep videogames as imitations of films or books. They are a medium on its own.
an off topic comment: you take for granted that the economics of supply and demand always work. questions these assumptions.
i guess it is more like an ARG
That it has come a long way - True, it has been mostly discredited as a scientific theory, but it is still fundamental when it comes as a "critical theory" to probe things that are not rational - like the CoS.
The CoS falls apart immediately with just about any logical argument, yet lots of people join in. There exist the assumption that people always follow truth: Freud made a leap when he said that this is not the case, humans can act on purely unreasonable basis, hence when approaching the problem of cults like Scientology -when many people will ignore the facts and follow their "instincts" - psychoanalysis, and specially the readings of Freud developed by structuralism, are an excellent way to asses how the ramblings of an irrational person hooked on meth "work" ... and do something about it.
*theory as in critical studies is very different from theory as in scientific method.
*other social systems usually include capitalism or the military complex
speculation on lesbian toon's store, coming from a blog that is...
(posted while listening to White Riot - The Clash)
by the way, i just recently saw articles on "the holographic principle." It states that the universe is made up from information and that matter/energy are merely accidentals which pose resistance to the flow of information. How the information moves is dictated by "laws" on the boundaries of preceding dimensions. So for example a 2d boundary describes a 3d, this last dimension acting as a projection of the last. The catch is that the dimensions are nested, so they inform each other, like links on a chain.
Here's a googlevideo lecture
it's all quite interesting, perhaps the problem in understanding this problem lies in language. using words like "laws" and "random" when signifying cosmic, or even meta-cosmic properties tends to muddle the whole thing. Ironically, mathematical language is what gives us that middle point.
my very humble proposition is that an ordered system can only arise from a random/chaotic state. See for example Wolfram's work on rules and laws governing systems and the "phenomena" of complexity arising from simpler governing laws.
compare the Estonian Cyberwar: "The strategy requires the aggressor to identify and attack the weakest link on the network, and then use it as a cover to give the appearance of legitimacy and rapidly propagate the malicious code throughout the rest of the network."
it is not irony, only Sophism
"Women should remain silent in Slashdot. They are not allowed to comment, but must be in myspace, as the Moderators say. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak at Slashdot."
There, you can feel better - now go and tell her...