Return of the Sasquatch

Returned to the Web

2011-11-09T02:14:00.000-08:00

I was offline for 28 months. I missed everything for about a month. Then I was still thinking about some of the good interesting things I had read online for a few months. Then it faded away into not seeming there most of the time, not that it ever seemed very real in the first place.

The one area of interest that lasted longest that I picked up from the Web was hypotheses about the effects of food, whether diets change people and determine emotional and intellectual differences between people, the sort of differences that people with axes to grind or "common knowledge" or pet theories attribute to genetics or parenting or economic class or infection of the brain, such as by toxoplasmosis. It's an open question.

Anyway I've returned and I'm trying to do everything better this time.

After I had reached an apogee from the world of live electronic media, I began to fall back into it with a new AM/FM/SW radio, then more cable TV. Now I feel like I'm on the hard stuff: Internet with live games and chat at the same time, and Web searches for the latest things going on. It's about twice as much effect as caffeine, or about as much effect as drinking, but in the opposite direction.

Topics of skeptical, iconoclastic, and experimental thinking

2009-03-24T21:57:00.000-07:00

I was thinking of using this blog for posting on a wide range of fringe topics, things I'm skeptical about, "skeptical" in the true sense of "looking, don't know yet," and iconoclastic ideas, and positions taken as experiments in thinking outside the box, and so on.

It turns out the net of blogs is divided up into a lot of little interest groups in which individuals may have their own favorite one or two radical or unconventional opinions, but tend to use any other unconventional or unorthodox opinion as a byword for crazy, wrong, evil, stupid belief, as the word "geocentrism" is often used. The title of this blog "Return of the Sasquatch" puts readers on notice that if they think that way, they might not get it, and I sort of intended that. This is not for people who mock everything they don't understand, and think anything treated as funny is therefore not true. (That reminds me of Jim Bohannon as a guest host on the Larry King radio show in the '80s, who mocked the fringe topics that Larry King and his regular late night callers liked to talk about, by using a smarmy tone of voice in reading fringe news, something like saying, "Here's some news of the odd and stupid," and associating those as equal.)

It's alright to laugh with a topic that might be true. Only falsehood fears joking around. The truth is not afraid of questions or smart alecks.

I could go on preambling for a while, so without further ado:

topics of radical skepticism or unorthodox opinion

AIDS/HIV - People don't seem to take this seriously, but tens of thousands of people are being killed by toxic treatments, for a disease that doesn't really exist. I'm wondering as I write this: Am I supposed to go along with some tacit conspiracy that homosexuals, IV drug users, and Africans deserve to die anyway, so it's not worth sticking your neck out to question medical orthodoxy on this point where it's obviously at least half wrong? http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ This is so serious, it's something that should be covered more by blogs that aren't fringe than ones that are, because maybe association with the fringe makes it look less credible, but every fringe topic suffers that problem of apparent falsity by association, and this is not the blog for following the rules of that orthodoxy perpetuating system.
9/11 - What's so hard to believe about a conspiracy to cause plane crashes? Are we supposed to think it was just an accident that there were apparently two collisions of planes with skyscrapers in New York city, on the same day? So everyone agrees it's a conspiracy, right? Then the FBI quickly releases a list of suspects who supposedly flew the planes into the buildings kamikaze style. Most of those suspects were still alive and interviewed elsewhere. Why was that list never corrected? That's the power of orthodoxy and mockery of conspiracy theories. Anyone at the FBI or other law enforcement or news agencies who questioned and tried to get corrections would have been derided as a conspiracy theorist, going off the deep end, putting careers in jeopardy. Then gradually the news media built up an idea that those suspects were associated with the allegedly existing terrorist organization "Al Qaeda" (meaning "~~the list~~" in Arabic, as in ~~the list~~ of CIA contacts in Soviet occupied Afghanistan [correction: "the base" see footnote 1]) allegedly led by an allegedly alive "Osama bin Laden" (someone who spoke against US military presence in Saudi Arabia and was exiled by his Saudi oil family) who allegedly at first disclaimed connection with the attacks then allegedly belatedly claimed credit for the attacks in a video allegedly of him. Supposedly this blaming of Muslim terrorists led to American acceptance of wars of aggression against Afghanistan (obviously planned beforehand, since it began soon after 9/11) and Iraq (obviously already brewing for a decade during which Iraq was unconscionably punishment-bombed.)
Election fraud - Then supposedly despite all this provoked anger in the American populace, we freely chose to democratically elect "Barack Hussein Obama" (Barry Sotero, born in Kenya according to his relatives and raised as a Muslim in Indonesia) president, without any disruption of "the process"?! That's one of the biggest "conspiracy theories" going, in the sense of "theories of history that don't make any sense." They've been stuffing the ballot boxes so long, and now using computers to do it, and pushing the public's opinions with "push polls" using leading questions, and feeding us news that's propaganda for their system, that they, the political operatives and polling companies and foundations that run this operation, can't remember how to make a plausible show of public opinion leading to election results.
Electric universe - see http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm This is so much more tame and scientific and serious than other fringe subjects. The only thing that makes it fringe is that conventional astronomy tends to be like a religion with people. Religion is often about "the heavens" which originally simply meant "the skies." Once people start talking reverently about "the Big Bang" and "black holes" and such things, it pretty much takes a Reformation to change orthodox opinion. In fact, it never changes. Scientific revolutions happen because the old generation dies out. The new sciences don't even use the names of the old ones. Astronomers or cosmologists will be arguing far in the future about the intricate details of their imaginary cosmology and its inventive theorists, just like astrologers are still going strong, and a lot of other religions that began as descriptions of celestial events.
Fresh fruit diet - Some call the optimal natural diet "raw vegan" but that term sounds a bit dated and frankly oxymoronic to me, and some raw vegans eat correspondingly weird food as that title sounds, instead of mostly fresh fruit. For cutting edge discussions of fresh fruit and natural diets, see 30 Bananas a Day! and Living and Raw Foods.

I'm a bit tired now. That's just a sampling. It's not necessarily what I would write about those topics; it's just bringing them up. Oh yeah, one more I always wanted to see covered on the Nets:

Nuclear weapons - So there are these weapons that supposedly use a totally new source of energy, one that's never been harnessed for everyday purposes, and scientists don't know if it ever will be. These are weapons no one has ever seen with their own eyes, because they would blind you, and besides there's an international treaty against using them above ground. These weapons are bombs that supposedly can be thousands of times more powerful than the bombs used against civilians in Japan that were equivalent to some number of tons of TNT that could have been used instead. Do you believe in them, just based on hearing that? From politicians, who you know are lying when their lips move? Because there's a movie clip from the '50s of some explosion that supposedly was one? The science of it is secret, top secret for obvious reasons. Do you really think they tell the public the truth about things like that?

Footnotes:
1. Al Qaeda means "the base" in Arabic, short for the database of the participants in the Islamic Conference, sometimes used for communication by resistance fighters in Afghanistan, source: Al Qaeda -- the Database, by Pierre-Henri Bunel, Global Research, November 20, 2005 or if you prefer conventional orthodox sources, Al Qaeda means "the base" as in a training base for resistance fighters in Soviet occupied Afghanistan (who were supported by $200 million in mainly American and British aid according to In the Spotlight: Al Qaeda (The Base), by Colin McCullough and Anthony Keats, CDI Research Assistants, and Mark Burgess, CDI Research Analyst, December 30, 2002.) When the "database" interpretation of "al-Qaeda" was popularized on the radio, it was sometimes imprecisely reworded as meaning "the list" in Arabic. Thanks to Skidoo of Skeptical Acid for pointing out my error.

Best site arguing for a natural diet

2008-07-24T02:32:00.000-07:00

The best site I've found that argues for a natural diet is ecologos.org. It's not advertising anything. It's just one person on a mission to tell the world the truth about what diet is natural for humans. It's entertaining if you care about what is true, regardless of having to bend your mental habits and tastes a little to appreciate correctness and correction rather than only sloppy thinking.

Many products and diet-related sites such as mercola.com and various blogs and forums use the word "natural" a lot, but mean food that has a little more to do with what occurs in nature than with what occurs by high technology, not whether it's natural for humans to get that food. Ecologos draws a clear distinction between "natural" and "cultural," putting more on the cultural side than less observant and less logical thinkers do, and has an argument for a natural diet consistent with that.

Some advocates of a meat-eating "Paleodiet" argue that in the Paleolithic, humans ate meat to survive, so that's what humans adapted to eating, by evolution, and what we should eat now. All meat eating by humans is culture, not nature. It involves using tools and cooking, which is how we get the archaeological evidence that it was done. Tools and cooking are culture and artifice, and without them killing and eating wild game is one of the hardest things a human could do, totally against instinct, and quite dangerous. Any meat eater who doesn't recognize that meat eating is artificial and cultural, requiring tools and training, is living in a fantasy world. Meat eaters who are realistic and concerned with preparedness for wilderness survival would agree that tools and training for hunting, cleaning, and cooking meat must be emphasized, or else faced with a live wild beast or a stinking carcass, eating meat in any quantity is not going to happen. Especially not if there's fruit on a tree nearby, and the human hasn't been properly acculturated to think "Fruit is bad for you, it has too much sugar," but instead follows his or her instincts to eat what looks, smells, and tastes good, and is easy to get by hand.

It is a great fallacy to believe that whatever humans have done culturally for a while, we're adapted to doing at a basic biological level. The equivalent fallacy is to believe that whatever we are starting to do, we will soon adapt to doing, by miraculous seeming powers of evolution to cause extremely unlikely, for all we know impossible abilities, for no particular reason. After all: "Evolution is cleverer than you are." (Orgel's Second Rule) So, humans will soon be adapted to breathing in the vacuum of space, because humans are spacewalking on a regular basis. At least humans will soon lose some of our toes, becoming more like horses, because we've been wearing shoes for a few hundred or thousand years. That one was what one of my sisters heard from a biology teacher, who believed it.

Species live well on foods and in conditions that satisfy their biological nutritional needs. If they can live on artificial food or in artificial conditions for a while, food and conditions adjusted to let them survive, that doesn't cause their biological needs to change. No selection pressure means no evolution by selection.

Rational culture should aim to fit human biological needs, not to excuse irrational, unexamined culture with rationalizations of evolutionary adaptation. Dietary culture is rapidly changing, not a stable tradition, because people know we are unhealthy compared with what's possible and we were worse in health before modern conveniences such as refrigeration. Therefore, it's absurd to rationalize cultural diets as something we're adapted to eating, when they certainly evolve many times faster than humans hypothetically could.

State of Fear, by Michael Crichton

2008-04-30T01:45:00.000-07:00

I already totally didn't believe in global warming, because I was following the scientific debate, and the case for it was so lost by 2007 that the IPCC didn't even bother to try to hide that their report summaries are written by UN bureaucrats and approved by UN diplomats without any scientific input or review, like they tried to hide it back in '95. In other words, as of 2008, only the sort of morons who don't know that politicians lie, and don't know or don't care that all their speeches and books have been ghostwritten since at least JFK, still believe in global warming. So it was kind of late to read this book, and the opinions in the book were not really daring or fresh. Maybe they would have been if it had been written in '99, just after the record hot weather year of '98 that made alarmist predictions of global warming catastrophe a popular topic.

It was fun to laugh at the characters who didn't know that global warming was all a crock yet, as they took time to be clued in. The graphs make that a richer experience, as you can think back to looking over some of the same graphs yourself for the first time, and be reminded of your own learning experience. That isn't as boring as it sounds, because it's given a pique by being put in the setting of a violent action novel.

The part with cannibals was over the top and at a similar point in the story structure as the use of cannibals in Forrest Gump. It was also a ham-handed way to express a comeuppance wish on people who have naive views, in the author's opinion, about primitives or savages and nature.

The portrayal of terrorism and terrorist groups and their motives is cartoonish, standard action novel/movie fare, which is surprising given that the book was presumably written after 2001, which should have caused some thought. It's an area where you have to do your own thinking, taking the novel as an example of what people imagine, without any helpful commentary from within the novel. People imagine terrorists and secret agents killing each other with abandon, each believing they're doing what is necessary for ultimate good purposes, saving lives really. That imagination seems so far from reality. I wonder if there are people who believe that as their reality and go around killing on sight whoever is their enemy or target, according to the plot as they see it, and aren't just suffering from paranoid delusions.

New look and fruitarianism

2008-01-27T00:06:00.000-08:00

I just selected custom colors for Return of the Sasquatch, replacing the popular green theme it used to have. I feel like making a lot of changes. New subjects, new directions in my life.

For instance, this year I've already tried two extreme diets, though only for a few days each strictly: First, I tried a very low carb diet, meat and eggs only, except one serving of greens I had in three days. So my diet was the no carb, meat-only diet the other two days. Then with a headache from that, I wanted to try a fruit and nuts only diet, which is pretty close to what I was tending to eat for snacks last year anyway, so the argument that it's the instinctive natural diet for hominids agrees with my taste.

Some people say a fruitarian diet causes too much weight loss and some fruitarians seem to believe that and try to justify becoming unusually thin as healthier. I don't need to lose weight, I just want more energy. Nuts are 2/3 fat by weight, and dried fruit is over 3/4 carbohydrates by weight, so calorie density can be higher than any other diet, for convenient cheap fruitarian snacks.

Nuts are botanically fruit and generally understood as part of a what's meant by a fruitarian diet. A lot of fruitarians define their diet as about eating raw, living food and so might not consider unsprouted, processed nuts and dried fruit and fruit juice and canned fruit really fruitarian. I don't want to be like the ovo-lacto-pesco-pollo-vegetarians who have ruined the word vegetarian, so I don't want to corrupt the word fruitarianism with whatever is convenient to eat. I think it's reasonable to limit what sort of food is considered fruitarian to fruit that can be eaten raw, not to include wheat as some who call themselves fruitarians do just because it's botanically a fruit-like seed of grass, although no one eats it raw like a fruit. However, there are important distinctions between fruitarian and raw fruitarian and raw vegan which get confusing when those terms are treated as equivalent. Many who call themselves fruitarians actually advocate a sort of raw veganism, including almost every vegetable that can be eaten raw.

Is a fruitarian diet survivable long-term? Apparently, according to modern science, fruit and nuts are enough only if they have a lot of insects and bacteria on them to provide the required vitamin B12, which some monkeys probably get that way. The needed amount of vitamin D would be provided by sunlight. I still take vitamins, the fruit of civilization, so to speak, and I've only tried fruitarianism for a day or two at a time between eating other food, so long-term survivability isn't an issue with it for me yet.

Avid activity vs. depression

2007-10-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

Physical activity can be quantified.

It's not the same as the level of depression in terms of amount of non-depressed behavior.
However, physical activity may be useful as a treatment for depression.

Mental activity is hard to quantify.

A variety of activities in a day, a lot of hours used for some different activities every day, isn't necessarily a lot of mental activity, and isn't necessarily not depressed.
A lot of time each day used for difficult mental activity that has some results or progress, even if a hobby, isn't necessarily not depressed. (It might be required work or a habit, and going very slowly or unenjoyably.)

The kind of not depressed I want is an "appetite" for learning and activities, and "energy" to put hours into various hobbies and activities every day.

It's hard to express in abstractions and generalities.

A very depressed state is sleeping in, sitting around, not taking much of an interest in anything, —which means specifically when one happens to look at a book, turn on a radio or t.v., pick up an instrument, there's nothing important about it, it's all boring, and even if one has hours to spend doing that one thing, it's only the most casual amount that gets done and it doesn't catch on to doing every day— going along with watching t.v. sometimes, but not even consistently about that and losing interest in longer, boring things because it gets hard to pay attention.

A moderately depressed state is having activities at various times of day every day, being able to have a routine of media consumption, scheduled radio and t.v. programs that one likes, and reading time to keep up with some periodicals and reading novels, being able to have an exercise routine and regular meals, shopping, laundry. But choice to do new things isn't there much, and avidity to learn and to progress is lacking.

A positively not depressed state includes the ability to take an interest in learning something, to read and to study it avidly for hours every day, to make the time for it, just because it's interesting and one is curious or feels challenged. It doesn't have to be part of a school program or have anyone else's approval as an activity that's "not a waste of time."

It's hard to fake a proper interest in a hobby just by putting time or money into it or making some product or performance to show for it. Without interest, whatever art it is, one barely might put out cookie-cutter, paint-by-numbers, crude models, school-level unenthusiastic performances, etc.

With a proper interest, one can produce results from areas of interest that don't seem to lend themselves to showing results. One can have a wealth of knowledge and skills and related products and accomplishments to show for it, where others if they just heard of the area of interest would think there's nothing really to do in that area, at least not for an amateur who isn't well funded, because there isn't a conventional expectation of school-like project results to show. For instance, people can see how an interest in boats might be demonstrated by the result of having a boat or the result of making model boats, because that's relatively conventional, but to take some arcane, useless-seeming curiosity and make a product people wouldn't expect out of it, resourcefully not extravagantly, is possible with a proper interest.

But not to get materialistic about having products, or to make interests about having something to show off.

With interest, one can take a curiosity about a language, for example, and learn the language and read interesting books in it, and so on.

With less interest, less avidity, one reduces language learning to having to know a list of words that are substitutes for what one already knows, so it becomes intensely boring, then one doesn't seem to have the energy to spend hours on it every day, even if there's still an interesting part left one feels a lack of energy to get through the overhead to getting to that part and would rather sit around and daydream than spend time on it every day.

It has to do with a distinction between "interest" as having a motive to do something that's in one's interest, then it's all a means to an end and one needs to have willpower and low time-preference to get through it for the long-term result, and the more colloquial sense of "interest" as one's curiosity about something, pleasure in learning it, which is really living not preparing to live.

With depression one feels "stuck," "blocked," fears and inhibitions and dislike of routine and tiredness blocking getting through the basic requirements of activities that would be "interesting," that is, mentally stimulating and learning experiences.

What are we all?

2007-08-26T03:39:00.000-07:00

We're part of life on Earth. What life on Earth really is, how new species arise, we don't really know. Random mutation and natural selection doesn't explain it, it just restates the problem of what life is at another level of detail. What is really random and where does randomness come from? That's a deep problem for the philosophy of life and existence. If mutations are random how do they end up so often when and where needed and not very often at other times? That's a problem to keep at least geneticists busy for a long time, if the answer doesn't lie somewhere beyond their specialty. How is "natural selection" different from "what survives, survives," a redundancy?

At least we know we're part of life on Earth. We're just like any other land mammal, except for our behavior. We're adapted to the Earth's atmosphere, gravity, Earth foods, Earth bacteria. There are skeletons of presumable human ancestors who lived about any number of years ago you care to name. Not a skeleton for every year, but enough to fill a picture with links including some extra links that probably aren't ancestors. Within the last 12,000 years, the skeletons are supposed to be about the same anywhere as up to 1492. For skeletons that are believed to be about 40,000 years old, the ones in Europe that looked less like ancestors of anyone were called Neanderthal, and the ones that looked a lot like local ancestors were called Cro Magnon. Since that terminology was vague and misleading for human remains outside Europe, finds that would have been called Cro Magnon are now called "anatomically modern humans" as the preferred terminology. If anatomically modern humans weren't our direct ancestors, then who was?

The story scientists are telling now is that about 100,000 years ago, in East Africa some hominids who were already pretty much anatomically modern humans began spreading out over the whole world, and also became human in behavior, at least as far as painting with ocher and making figurines and other things archaeologists can detect that are beyond just making one kind of sharpened stone by habit. But the alternate story that there was some mixing of regional varieties with a spreading group of humans with modern behavior still has some life in it, because science always has new measurements and hypotheses. Maybe there was a bottleneck roughly 100,000 years ago in terms all human ancestors, then those spread out, then roughly 50,000 years ago behaviorly modern humans arose, and spread out and mixed with the earlier wave, but that spreading and genes for intelligence becoming predominant is not yet complete.

Why hominids split from apes and when is a totally separate range of prehistory problem, whatever you believe about the accuracy of various forms of radiological dating. Of course there are still apes, there are still jungles for them to live in and stay safe by climbing trees, where modern humans are in danger from predators because it's harder for us to climb trees, being adapted so well to walking upright since Australopithecines, which they say lived 4 to 6 million years ago. If it weren't for apes, it would be some other distant relative of humans that creationists would ask their question about. Why are there still cows, if humans and cows share a primitive mammalian ancestor? Why are there still flies? Why are there still rocks? If life evolved and humans are the superior product of evolution, then everything in the universe should be humans, nothing else remaining, according to creationist logic.

Now scientists are saying there are a few more million years to wonder about between Australopithecines and a common ancestor of apes and humans. I think that could be the time in which the pre-hominids developed from forest apes to all the adaptations to walking upright that we have. I tend not to believe that random point mutations and selection can explain major changes in species like that, because if you look at the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, there are entire chromosome reorganizations. Truly distinct species are unable to produce fertile offspring together, due to chromosome set differences, which implies for every species there was a bottleneck of one lucky complete mutant as the founding mother or father of the whole species, and since it's so hard to breed successfully with chromosome differences, a lucky breeding incident of that mutant and the previous normals, or else parthenogenesis.

As for humans having 26 hour biological clocks, I think the deeper physiological clock of humans that regulates heat has been shown to run at about 24 hours, but the sleep clock runs at about 25 or 26 hours when humans are separated from natural cycles of sunlight and dark. That's a good thing, because it allows rotating your sleep to adjust to the seasons and changes of what parts of the day are good for activities and for sleeping, and it may allow a hunter or scavenger to make use of moonlight, following the almost 25 hour cycle of when the moon is up.

The Garden of Eden is an allegory for something that really happened: Humans started judging what was good to eat for themselves, and invented agriculture, instead of just eating the easy and appetizing fruit and nuts and meat that don't have to be cooked to be edible. That choice condemned their descendants to earning their bread by the sweat of their brows, as it is written.

[I wrote this as a comment to a post at Vault-Co. It stands well enough on its own as a sample of where my thoughts on human evolution are.]

Bicycling going well

2007-08-19T21:37:00.000-07:00

I've bicycled 19 days in a row, and I'm starting to feel better and getting better at it.

I rode about 8 miles yesterday, while the weather was sprinkling and it was dark. Today I rode the same a little earlier so I had some light, and I don't feel tired, I feel energized.

I've been averaging about 12 mph for entire rides, including stops, which is supposed to be typical for casual bicyclists (as opposed to cyclists, competitors in the sport of cycling.) I don't keep track precisely of how fast or have a speedometer or bike computer, because that would defeat the purpose of getting out there and letting out energy freely and losing track of time. I blow past some more casual bicyclists despite myself. Since I'm up to using gear ratios of 2 or more through the whole ride including uphills and I'm increasing my cadence along with that, I might get fast enough to keep up with some amateur cyclists, just based on my natural level of enjoying physical exertion.

Exercise literally means "driving out" as in driving animals out of an enclosure to let them have their necessary physical activity. When I studied that and decided to believe it works that way - that you just get out there, then do as much as you like - then it became easy. I just make sure to get out on the bike at all every day, and the rest comes naturally.

Starting Bicycling Every Day

2007-08-05T23:56:00.000-07:00

I'm on my fifth day of biking every day.

I decided at the end of July to start at the beginning of August so that it would be easy to count how many days I've biked, to keep up my resolution. I thought of starting this for several months this year, thinking of how to slide into it easily. Then I realized the months were slipping by without my starting it, and the summer when it's easier to start was slipping by. Conclusion: Start whether it seems easy or not, like my life depends on it. I'll figure out whether it was exactly the right decision later on, instead of letting that worry prevent me from starting when it will very likely be a good decision in hindsight.

An interesting incident from the second day:

I went too many miles too fast, because I was excited by exploring a new bike path and didn't want to wait until I was in shape to go that far. I thought I "bonked" on the way back. The "bonk" may have been a combination of a number of types of exhaustion: dehydration, hypothermia* from having clothes wet with sweat as the day cooled into evening, low blood sugar, out-of-breath**, sore muscles, and sleepiness. The overall effect was that my pedaling was not just weak as in normal tiring, I started feeling like maybe I should just take up walking instead of biking. I felt a desire to sit down and rest at the very next park bench by the path.

When I sat down, my perception of the situation went from a narrow focus on getting somewhere, to realizing how incredibly tired I was and how much I needed to rest and to catch my breath, to resting and taking in some calm, to waking up to the need to get home and my sensitivity to perception and awareness being enhanced. Except my ability to bike wasn't enhanced. I felt weak enough that I didn't pedal at all downhill, and discovered more subtle downhills than I was aware of on previous rides. When I did try to pedal it was like going weak in the knees, not being able to put much force in, and although I didn't feel dizzy, when I went over bumps the bike shook almost out of control. Because of those effects, I walked up every hill and across every road crossing for the rest of the way back, more like stumbling, for safety's sake, not knowing how much more damage I might do to myself in that unusual state. Plus it was dark, since the ride was taking a lot longer than I had planned.

And yet, I liked the experience overall, for the effect of enhancement of perception and enjoyment, which continued for a couple of hours afterwards.

What I learned from the fifth day:

Even if your muscles are sore, that does not mean you can't get out there and bike a useful amount. When I'd had sort legs all day and felt sure it wouldn't be a good idea to go very far, I was able to go a mile away easily, and come back with plenty of energy. The spinning seemed to work the soreness out of my legs by increasing the circulation, so my legs weren't sore afterwards.

In conclusion: Why biking?

The overall reason for biking although it isn't natural, is that civilization judges us for whether we walk or run (or stand or sit) and makes it difficult physically, with pavements and traffic, to choose walking or running by instinct. Bicycling lets a body get out there and let loose any amount of energy it feels like, whether it would count as walking or jogging or sprinting uphill if on foot. You can't tell very well how much energy you're putting into it, unless you have a bike computer that measures that, because even if you can estimate how fast you're pedaling and with how much force, to multiply to estimate power, those quantities are constantly changing, and your perception of them changes as you get excited or tired. It's a good thing that you can't tell how much energy, because it lets you just take out energy that's otherwise pent up in the constraints and self-consciousness of civilization. Taking out energy as your body desires helps your whole nervous and physical system adapt better to living.

Notes added August 8:

* Instead of hypothermia, I may have experienced increased core temperature, which sports medicine says may lead to muscle relaxation and changes in neurotransmitters. (See Runner's High: Is It for Real? at MedicineNet.com and 20 Proven Health Benefits of Exercise at Health24.com, benefit number 5: Exercise is an excellent de-stressor.)

** Instead of out-of-breath, I may have experienced hyperventilation, because of breathing more in anticipation of out-of-breath.

Discarded reasons why civilization should end

2007-06-12T02:12:00.000-07:00

1. global warming, being responsible for it
[A runaway warming is not happening, and not possible. The warming that there is probably has nothing to do with civilization, except urban heat islands. Industry probably hasn't even affected CO2 levels more than a few years cumulatively because of the adjustment of the natural system to absorb industrial output, several times more carbon being in plants than in the atmosphere and increased CO2 increasing plant growth, a powerful negative feedback. Even if it were happening, big deal, the Earth's climate has changed as much before.]

2. DDT and other pesticides and herbicides
[No, they don't kill everything and cause extinctions. There are some that as Rachel Carson wrote about cause local die-offs if overapplied, including poisoning of a few people who are exposed acutely, but that's why there are warning labels and regulations. A major pollution disaster where no one is held accountable is not an everyday thing. The residue in the environment is a small price to pay for control of malarial mosquitoes and other pests, not as bad as civilization's unintentional pollutants. Nature is full of natural insecticides produced by plants anyway. That's why they aren't all eaten by insects already.]

3. destruction of archaeological treasures in Iraq because of war that wouldn't be possible without civilization
[This makes no sense as a reason for civilization to end. If civilization ends, then not only will archaeology not be done and treasures not dug up, and thus effectively lost, but civilization will cease producing artifacts for future archaeologists to dig up, and civilization having been a bad mistake will mean that the treasures considered priceless because they come from the beginning of civilization should be thought worthless.]

4. civilization being too irresponsible to prepare for every contingency that might cause its own collapse
[That's at most a reason why civilization might collapse, not a reason to help it along. If you see a contingency that might require preparation, then you can warn people, and they might take heed. That's the main reason Y2K fizzled: Everyone was warned and overprepared. People are looking at the possibilities of an asteroid impact and of a solar flare causing electric storms and knocking out satellites, so maybe they'll be prepared in time. If they aren't, it doesn't mean civilization was never worth it.]

How this civilization will end

2007-05-02T02:11:00.000-07:00

In September of 1859, the entire Earth was engulfed in a gigantic cloud of seething gas, and a blood-red aurora erupted across the planet from the poles to the tropics. Around the world, telegraph systems crashed, machines burst into flames, and electric shocks rendered operators unconscious. Compasses and other sensitive instruments reeled as if struck by a massive magnetic fist. For the first time, people began to suspect that the Earth was not isolated from the rest of the universe. However, nobody knew what could have released such strange forces upon the Earth--nobody, that is, except the amateur English astronomer Richard Carrington.

(from Princeton University Press catalog entry on The Sun Kings: The Unexpected Tragedy of Richard Carrington and the Tale of How Modern Astronomy Began, by Stuart Clark.)

Greenie Watch (John Ray) comments on the above: "Imagine the impact of such an event on our electronically connected society today."

Today's outspoken astronomers talk about plasma physics and the electric universe. thunderbolts.info makes a good starting point for learning about the subject and has daily updates to continue learning once you get into it. Just as happened to Richard Carrington, no one believes them, not even other astronomers. This despite their supporting the same science that he did, which the world supposedly accepted in the 19th century. Geocentric presumptions say that the Earth and the celestial spheres have different forces working in them and the twain shall never meet. Mainstream popular astronomers claim to think non-geocentrically, but they never consider anything but the forces of gravity and magnetism and think that the force of electricity only occurs, out of all places in the universe, in thunderstorms on Earth.

When the forces of the solar system come down to the surface of Earth again en masse, which they haven't done since the invention of transistors, civilization as we know it, relying on transistors, very vulnerable to electric surges and static electricity, will come to an immediate standstill. Only those who have prepared with vacuum-tube and mechanical equipment or never adopted civilization in the first place will survive.

How violent are humans?

2007-05-02T01:43:00.000-07:00

Humans don't behave violently in conditions of overcrowding or scarcity. (Look at actual crowds and food lines.)

Human violence happens almost exclusively between adolescent males competing for dominance with males from outside groups, and in social situations arranged on that model.

The stress that a person needs to discharge doesn't come mainly from a drive to violence; it comes from a drive to act physically for well-being and to get necessary things for survival. It needs release through physical exercise or else causes worry, depression, and other nervous disorders. Why people don't exercise, how social norms constrain them to sedentary behavior, that I don't know yet.

[I wrote the above as a comment on a post about violence at the blog How to Save the World.]

You Will So You Can (English translation)

2007-04-21T03:41:00.000-07:00

You will so you can
I say you can if you will, you will so you can (It is clear you can)
I say you can if you will, you will so you can

They who govern our world are incompetent
Why ask about conditions why obey and wait
Why waste time we have well willed clearly
Evidently something must happen soon
At a furious pace, they're consuming our globe
They're turning dreams to ashes and soot
On him who obeys the idiot is himself idiot
Affixing fetters around his own foot
So chin up and find strength in your inside
The fools' leadership makes the people lesser
So frightened, snowed, misled
Governed, watched, but never seen
Under compulsion we're not really we
Governed by someone else not really free
High time to stop waiting, get done what's intended
The thought holds the doors closed.

I say you can if you will, you will so you can
I say you can if you will, you will so you can
Dare to will, dare to question, know your own ability

I say what the hell leave off whining stop chattering, talking a load of crap
You are surely far too well to be nagging on complaining that bites
Do off your yoke and chains to get to know how strong you are
Write your own book on construction presses for each good idea
Protest, criticize, sing, cry, talk, discuss
roar, paint, initiate, glow, for bread on the waters for many
Light fires where you see darkness for you have the energy for you never get tired
Turn when you get stuck water where the drought screams when you see rot
Do your own building in authority-free zones
Own battalions of love-soldiers with cannons
At forgotten windmills at millions of illusions
Spreading joy shooting notes reality of visions
Your own thought please so makes reality of it
Let your feeling give you courage and make your neighbor your friend
Best you do it now, for your time is now and not later
Best that you are you and you can do it again

I say you can if you will, you will so you can
I say you can if you will, you will so you can
It is clear you can, clear you can (so yes you can)

So many musts are they actually yours?
Many take second and do them as orders
Stressed rushing for someone else's will
As never exists when you fall downhill
At needs stay only take over glow
Do it till your life's in overflow
Live not so death takes what you never had
You can if you will, you will so you can

What only I see is closed doors there
For us who want more than to build a career
Seek in yourself for it's lies they teach
they play with fire on low desires
So refuse to stand still
Know what you will
Striving in charity with the friend next to
You can and I can, together we can more
Advanced like a fire by the heat, we become more

I say you can if you will, you will so you can
It is clear you can, clear you can, clear you can make the dream come true
I say you can if you will, you will so you can
Let them see you have a damn more to give

[This is my translation of "Du Vill Så Du Kan" by Svenska Akademien. YouTube video Swedish lyrics]

getting going, more specifically

2007-03-26T00:24:00.000-07:00

specifics of my current plan for getting going: (in contrast to the abstract ideas I wrote in "strategies for getting going" that anyone could apply)

1) Quit smoking. (I've thought about this a lot recently, and I think I have how smoking works and how to quit figured out. I won't post all about it, at least not until I prove it in action.) Smoking gets in the way of wanting and doing and feeling satisfied in a natural sequence. Smoking gets in the way of adequate exercise and undoes some of the benefits of exercise.

2) Bicycle every day, or at least get out for a walk if weather, soreness, or mechanical problems prevent bike riding. The human body needs exercise. Bicycles don't occur naturally*, of course, but a bicycle has high efficiency and happens to allow exercising and getting around in my current circumstances. Going out at least once a day would prevent the result of what I did before: trying bicycling sometimes, then taking rest days that continue indefinitely into another period of depression. Once I get out on the bike, I can decide how far to go that day according to how I feel.

3) Whenever I feel nervous, go out and walk or ride, anytime of day or night. Bodily energy bottled up causes nervousness, which leads to depression. "The prison of civilization" involves such obvious physical restriction of activity by social convention. The criticism of civilization as a prison by modern Gnostics and Primitivists doesn't say the world just magically acts like a prison in some invisible way. The imprisonment has physical reality, the locks may not. In various theories, "the prison of civilization" remains that by how we look at it and what we choose to believe.

4) Get fresh real food every day possible. Real food means paleodiet food: food that by nature does not need to be cooked to render it tolerable for human consumption, although having control of fire, we may well choose to cook our food, to neutralize bacteria that artificial handling has introduced and to render it yet more easily digestible to make up for the loss of nutritional value due to artificial handling.

5) When resting, read and study seriously, as should come automatically and enjoyably when energized and physically tired from exercise. The alternative of amusing oneself pointlessly on purpose seems to appeal more the more one lives removed from natural health and guilty about it.

*-The idea that nature includes everything, therefore we can make no useful distinction between natural and artificial, spouts from know-it-alls who don't have the slightest idea of the insidious deadliness of that idea, or they do, which makes them evil.

in short, my proposed regimen:

instead of smoking,

every day, bike out and get some meat, eggs, fruit & veggies, cook them to taste, and enjoy!

I thought of this beginning some time ago, last year, but it seems so highly experimental compared with what most people do and choose, and with the limited degree of freedom of choice of lifestyle that most people allow themselves, that it has taken a while for me to evaluate it as a perfectly reasonable, acceptable choice.

word wrap for Firefox bookmarklet

2007-03-17T01:58:00.000-07:00

Firefox displays each paragraph in a plain text file (txt format) as a single line, if long running off the right side of the window. That doesn't seem optimally useful.

I asked for help on it at MozillaZine forums and got the advice to right click on the page and click View Page Source, which has a word wrap option. That works, but it seems unnecessarily complicated. I wanted the text displayed in a better format in the same tab it was opened in, in one click or less.

At that forum, I also found a JavaScript bookmarklet that was recommended for dealing with a similar problem, text without spaces that needs to be have potential breaks inserted so it can be word wrapped:

javascript:(function() { var D = document; F(D.body); function F(n) { var u, r, c, x; if (n.nodeType == 3) { u = n.data.search(/\S{45}/); if (u >= 0) { r = n.splitText(u + 45); n.parentNode.insertBefore(D.createElement('wbr'), r); } } else if ((n.tagName != 'STYLE') && (n.tagName != 'SCRIPT')) { for (c = 0; x = n.childNodes[c]; ++c) { F(x); } } } D.body.innerHTML += ' '; })();

The raw code intrigued me. I already knew about bookmarklets but I'd never written a new program in JavaScript. I thought I could figure out what was going on and write my own program to fix it anyway. I ended up spending all night learning a little JavaScript by experimenting and reading some definitions of some elements of JavaScript at DevGuru and came up with this:

txt to html v6

javascript:{var x, c; x = document.body.innerHTML; if (x.substr(0, 5) + x.substr(x.length - 6, 6) == '<pre></pre>') {document.write('<HTML><BODY>\n'); x = x.substr(5, x.length - 11); var textline = x.split('\n'); for (c = 0; c < textline.length; c++) {document.write(textline[c] + '<br>\n')}; document.write('</BODY></HTML>'); document.close();}}

Just cut and paste the above paragraph into the "Location:" field of a bookmark "Properties" window, open a txt file, click on the bookmarklet and watch it do its magic.

The only problem I've found using it is that when it's used on ordinary web pages, it strips most of the formatting, and when used extra times, it adds extra line breaks. That is, it's not foolproof. But you can just hit the "back" button to fix any problem.

Regarding this as an example of the increasing complexity of civilization: I find a lot of humor in it, how complicated it gets to deal with the simplest formatting issue within the complexity of modern communications. If it keeps going this way, pretty soon many common formats will be almost useless, like scrambled cable, when not viewed on matched devices and software, and too tricky for anyone to crack, not because they will be designed for copy-protection, but inadvertently because of rampant complexification.

strategies for getting going

2007-03-16T04:36:00.000-07:00

Today I wrote myself a list of strategies for getting going. They included, more or less:

1) Raise my standards immediately, so I choose to do better things all day.

2) Just make sure to do what will improve my health and energy, such as exercising, and let doing better things follow in a more relaxed way.

3) Set myself free of the fear of criticism for doing too much. - I thought of how I feel afraid inside of potential criticism from family I see sometimes or from strangers for having a plan to do more or for keeping busy. Really, in my experience, when people see you doing something different or keeping busy, they ask why. It often seems to disturb them. If you give an explanation, they may restate or exaggerate the explanation in a silly tone, to mock it as pretentious or stupid. For instance suppose you're drawing. They ask "Why?" You: To learn to draw. I might do something with the skill. They: "Oh, I'm going to be a great artist. Look at me. I'm so great." Even if people don't mock so directly, it takes a thick skin not to read that into what they say, when you know that they mean to tell you not to be proud and not to expect fame or fortune, because that would be a crazy expectation. At least that's how people react in the culture I grew up in. All I could think in response while writing today was the desire to say something hurtful in reaction like, "I know you hate me and you want to criticize anything I do so that I won't do anything and I'll be depressed."

Now that I've explained the situation in enough detail for readers who may have different cultural assumptions, I see that this is an example of a message in a specific culture that is a sickness of culture that people constantly communicate to each other without necessarily realizing they're doing it or necessarily feeling hate or envy for another person's activity. This criticism of activity and putting down others for pride is part of the subculture I grew up in. It's a result of certain strains of Christianity, probably influenced by failure-oriented television, and maybe by lower-middle-class class envy. My finding this phenomenon without looking for it, but incidentally in the process of trying to improve my life and doing self-analysis, tends to verify for me a lot of what Nietzsche wrote about Christianity.

4) Try everything at my place every day, a little sample of every hobby I could do, and see what catches on. (You know, instead of letting it gather dust. A pile of stuff. Who needs it? Use it or lose it.)

5) Act like I'm at camp. (I went to a week long summer camp each summer for a few years when I was growing up. They were Christian camps, so there were daily religious services, but it was a great escape from family where there was playing and a variety of activities all the rest of the time. The sort of religion is negative, and the camps luring parents into giving up their children for a week by enticing children is negative according to the religion, but a double negative makes a positive.)

The last three strategies come under the same general strategy of choosing to do a lot of whatever I think that's reasonable, instead of letting it stop me that others who know me might say it's crazy.

Please don't take professional psychiatry seriously. They would say "trying everything" is definitely manic, and the other strategies are at least hypomanic if actually practiced. It's worse than that: If you can go out every day to do something you choose, and you have any energy left over or are speaking quickly, they'll diagnose you with mania or manic depression (euphemism: bipolar disorder) and prescribe something awful to slow you down, regardless of a lack of any of what they would call "irrational ideas" such as the above strategies. A few years ago, I was complaining quickly in a few minute visit to a psychiatrist that I was busy and having trouble starting college because I was staying up late doing homework and sleeping in, out of habit, and missing classes, so that psychiatrist changed her diagnosis of me from depression to manic depression. That doesn't make any sense, and I haven't trusted psychiatrists since.

There have been some news articles about the opinion in a book by Dr. John Gartner that famous creative individuals and typical successful people are hypomanic. There are some people who make money off gimmicks for treating mental illness who are critical of that perspective because it trivializes more serious diagnoses, e.g. Play Attention. Someone who identifies herself as having "hyperthymia," a replacement term promoted by author Dr. Peter Kramer for normal-range mood between average and hypomania, made a brightly colored webpage: Sharen's Outa-Sight Site

(Writing this is going very slowly, because I'm not energized today, and I like correct details. But I think it's important to keep going because the subject might have something to do with how much one can get done in life.)

Then after writing notes on paper on the above strategies for myself, I also wrote the following, with the intention of posting it on this blog (which makes it an experiment in the style of paper and pencil to Internet writing too):

"I'm already doing the best I can do."-Everyone does, in a sense, but whenever you choose to do something physically, you're following some of your ideas and not others. How do you know which are "the better angels of your nature"?

If you're doing less than you could because you're afraid of being busy, then you can change that by changing your mind about it. Consider the truth of the following saying:

"If you want something done, give it to a busy person."

If you're avoiding doing more in a day than you're used to doing, because you're superstitiously afraid it will be too much and you won't remember it all, or that it isn't time to make a big change in your life, then you can realize that's a superstitious fear, maybe a fear you're holding onto because at some time in you life doing a lot in a day became associated with causing yourself pain, then you can change your mind about it and decide to do a lot of things you want to do.

I'm not talking about pushing yourself to keep busy with things you don't want to do to keep your mind off your feelings. Follow what you want. Play. Enjoy life.

Then tonight I found that Jack Trace has new posts for March on his blog, after a break since December, and his "12 March 2007"/"Imagine life where you cared not what you did." goes into the subject of fear in more depth of psychology and cultural critique than what I've mentioned here about fear. He subscribes to the Jiddu Krishnamurti (not the same as Krishna from the Bhagavad-Gita) teaching about desire that comfort leads to fear and becoming fearless turns desire into joy.

About to blog more often...

2007-03-14T23:47:00.001-07:00

I’ve made 15 blog posts in 1 1/2 years, and had 11 comments: one spam I deleted, 6 comments from 4 readers, and my 4 comments in response to each of them. So I want to try to blog more often for at least a while, to see what happens.

Daily blogs that have new content plus news links on a subject that has a blog community seem to have a chance of becoming well-visited. I know that those blogs easily get to the top of my links list for each subject I browse regularly.

Seeing if this post goes through from 43 Things to Blogger forms part of seeing what happens. The main part of seeing what happens: Can I keep up writing and linking interesting things, or will I run out? Then if I keep it up, will I get more comments?

http://returnofthesasquatch.blogspot.com/

I originally wrote this as a post at 43 Things under one of the goals I've chosen there, blog more often. I then tested the option to cross-post to this blog with one click. Their software added the following line to my post, with nothing marking it off as machine generated:

See more progress on: blog more often

I take it as another sign of the potential imminent decline of civilization, if people are willing to accept text automatically inserted into their messages that looks as if they may have written it. For me, this experience calls into question the whole value of 43 Things. A computerized way of socially organizing goal setting and encouragement by word strings, it begins to seem nearly totally insane.

On the other hand, while in civilization, we use its tools. That doesn't make a critic a hypocrite, no matter how much he may criticize civilization's faults, unless he says that everything in civilization only harms and has no potential use for change or for survival.

The Now Club

2007-01-13T21:54:00.000-08:00

Suppose there are two different clubs that meet to talk about improving their lives.

One club is called The Someday Club. They talk about what they want to do: plans, goals, resolutions. They talk over a meal or just hanging around. Whatever they talk about, they never do during their meeting. They expect that anything you mention doing, you'll leave until later, when the meeting is over and you're on your own, at least, better yet the next day or when you said you might do it in a week or two.

It's unseemly to begin doing anything of any importance while with them. You're supposed to relax as a guest and to be entertained, or to be a gracious host only concerned with entertaining, if the meeting is at your place or on your tab. Their sort of entertaining does not include doing things that members have said they want to do. They can do those on their own time. Entertaining is for extras, things you might not have known you wanted, and a good meal or snack, regardless of whose diet it breaks.

Sometimes they'll put someone down for being all talk and no action. They think maybe they're encouraging him to do more before the next meeting, so he can report back on his progress and be proud of himself. They end up not having interesting conversations, just barely reporting how it's going if there's any change and eating quietly, because no one wants to talk about interesting things that they haven't been doing any real work on lately and that they aren't sure they're about to work on, and then to be put down for it.

The other club is called The Now Club. When someone talks about doing something, if it's possible to do then, they do it. They help each other accomplish their goals, right now. Whether it's work or play or going on a trip somewhere, if it's something someone wants to do that's a priority for that person, and it's enjoyable or worthwhile to do, they pitch in and help, or if it's something better done by one, they let a person work on it while they're hanging around.

Which club do you think is going to be more successful? Which club is more help to its members? Which club are better friends or closer family to each other or acquaintances who are more friendly? Which club is like a natural band of human beings and which is an impersonal sharing of all the bad habits of civilization? When you're with your friends or family or neighbors, which club are you participating in? When you plan what you're going to do, thinking by yourself, which club do you belong to?

[I was going to say more about The Now Club, but after writing what I did about The Someday Club in this rewrite, I couldn't add very much honestly. I realized I don't know The Now Club. I've never met them. The Someday Club is my life.]

[I came up with this concept along with the name "The Now Club" a few months ago, in the context of talking about deciding to get regular exercise to have the energy to do more every day.]

[In the middle of this rewrite I looked up the names "The Now Club" and "The Someday Club" to see if they were already widely known in some other use that would interfere with the message.]

["The Now Club" is the alternate title of the song "No Limits" on the album The Look by Shalamar. I checked a sample at Amazon, and recognized I've heard the song, which was released in 1983, and that they say "the now club" in the lyrics.]

[Heyoka magazine has an article that includes an explanation and lyrics of a song titled "The Someday Club" by Layla and the Orlando Rock Band. It's very pertinent. Another "Someday Club" is Someday, a jazz club in Tokyo.]

The Reading Argument

2006-12-04T02:32:00.000-08:00

The Reading Argument: Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Novel is Quite High

Sonny Moonie

(A parody of:

The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High

Nick Bostrom

Times Higher Education Supplement, May 16, 2003)

The Simulation Argument had many otherwise naturally philosophical minds ruminating on the artificiality of reality. Picture the scenario of that essay for ridicule: our own minds assumed to exist possibly only as simulations in a computer programmed to amuse a relatively wealthy extraterrestrial individual, just to probe such questions as whether terrestrial civilization will ever achieve that libertarian tranhumanist fantasy.

However, a serious line of reasoning from a related, more plausible scenario leads to a striking conclusion about the world we live in. I call this the reading argument. Perhaps its most startling lesson is that there is a significant probability that you are living in the reading of a novel. I mean this literally: if the reading hypothesis is true, you exist in an imagined world read in a novel written by some advanced civilization. Your body, too, is merely a detail of that reading. What grounds could we have for taking this hypothesis seriously? Before getting to the gist of the reading argument, let us consider some of its preliminaries. One of these is the assumption of “substrate independence”. This is the idea that conscious minds could in principle be implemented not only on intrinsically unconscious substrates (such as the carbon-based biochemistry inside you or silicon-based electronics inside artificially intelligent computers) but also on some other computational substrate such as another conscious mind.

Of course, the minds we have today are not powerful enough to visualize all the mental processes that take place in your life. Even if they were, we wouldn’t know how to write a novel that lets them do it. But ultimately, what allows you to have conscious experiences is not the fact that your brain is made of squishy, biological matter but rather that it implements a certain computational architecture. This assumption is quite widely (although not universally) accepted among cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind. For the purposes of this article, we shall take it for granted.

Given substrate independence, it is in principle possible to emulate a human mind with a sufficiently intelligent other mind. Doing so would require very high powers of concentration that we do not yet have. It would also require advanced authorial abilities, or sophisticated ways of writing a very detailed factual biography of a human being which advanced novelists could then fictionalize. Although we will not be able to do this in the near future, the difficulty appears to be merely literary. There is no known physical law or material constraint that would prevent a sufficiently literarily advanced civilization from implementing human minds in a novel.

Our second preliminary is that we can estimate, at least roughly, how long a book it would take to implement a human mind along with a virtual reality that would seem completely realistic for it to interact with. Furthermore, we can establish lower bounds on how thick the novels of an advanced civilization could be. Literary futurists have already produced designs for imaginarily possible libraries of books that could be published using advanced molecular printing technology. The upshot of such an analysis is that a literarily mature civilisation that has developed at least those technologies that we already know are physically possible, would be able to write books long enough to describe an astronomical number of human-like lives, even if only a tiny fraction of their pages were used for that purpose.

If you are such a character in a novel, there might be no direct observational way for you to tell; the virtual reality that you would be living in would look and feel perfectly real. But all that this shows, so far, is that you could never be completely sure that you are not living in a reading. This result is only moderately interesting. You could still regard the reading hypothesis as too improbable to be taken seriously.

Now we get to the core of the reading argument. This does not purport to demonstrate that you are in a reading. Instead, it shows that we should accept as true at least one of the following three propositions:

(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming literarily mature is negligibly small

(2) Almost no literarily mature civilizations are interested in reading and writing books about minds like ours

(3) You are almost certainly in a reading.

Each of these three propositions may be prima facie implausible; yet, if the reading argument is correct, at least one is true (it does not tell us which).

While the full reading argument would employ some critical theory and wordiness, the gist of it can be understood in pseudoscientific terms. Suppose that proposition (1) is false. Then a significant fraction of all species at our level of development eventually becomes literarily mature. Suppose, further, that (2) is false, too. Then some significant fraction of these species that have become literarily mature will use some portion of their library resources to read novels about minds like ours. But, as we saw earlier, the number of read about minds that any such literarily mature civilisation could cause to exist is astronomically huge.

Therefore, if both (1) and (2) are false, there will be an astronomically huge number of read into existence minds like ours. If we work out the numbers, we find that there would be vastly many more such characterized minds than there would be non-fictional minds possessing organic bodies. In other words, almost all minds like yours, having the kinds of experiences that you have, would be fictional rather than real. Therefore, by a very weak principle of indifference, you would have to think that you are probably one of these fictional characters rather than one of the exceptional ones that possess real biological parts.

So if you think that (1) and (2) are both false, you should accept (3). It is not coherent to reject all three propositions. In reality, we do not have much specific information to tell us which of the three propositions might be true. In this situation, it might be reasonable to distribute our credence roughly evenly between the three possibilities, giving each of them a substantial probability.

Let us consider the options in a little more detail. Possibility (1) is relatively straightforward. For example, maybe there is some highly dangerous literary theory that every sufficiently advanced civilization develops, and which then destroys its culture. Let us hope that this is not the case.

Possibility (2) requires that there is a strong convergence among all sufficiently advanced civilizations: almost none of them is interested in reading or writing books about minds like ours, and almost none of them contains any relatively wealthy individuals who are interested in doing that and are free to act on their desires. One can imagine various reasons that may lead some civilizations to forgo reading novels, but for (2) to obtain, virtually all civilizations would have to do that. If this were true, it would constitute an interesting constraint on the future evolution of advanced intelligent life.

The third possibility is the philosophically most intriguing. If (3) is correct, you are almost certainly now living in the reading of a book that was created by some advanced civilization. What kind of empirical implications would this have? How should it change the way you live your life?

Your first reaction might think that if (3) is true, then all bets are off, and that one would go crazy if one seriously thought that one was living in a fiction.

To reason thus would be an error. Even if we were in a novel, the best way to predict what would happen next in our story is still the ordinary methods – extrapolation of past trends, scientific modelling, common sense and so on. To a first approximation, if you thought you were in a novel, you should get on with your life in much the same way as if you were convinced that you are living a non-fictionalized life at the ground level of reality.

The reading hypothesis, however, may have some subtle effects on rational everyday behaviour. To the extent that you think that you understand the motives of the authors, you can use that understanding to predict what will happen in the fictional world they created. If you think that there is a chance that the author of this world happens to be, say, a true-to-faith descendant of some contemporary Christian fundamentalist, you might conjecture that he or she has set up the story in such a way that the fictional characters will be rewarded or punished according to Christian moral criteria. An afterlife would, of course, be a real possibility for a fictional creature (who could either be continued in a different story after her death or even be transferred into the simulator’s universe by being provided with the temporary use of an actress's real body there). Your fate in that afterlife could be made to depend on how you behaved in your present fictional publication. Other possible reasons for writing novels include the artistic, scientific or recreational. In the absence of grounds for expecting one kind of novel rather than another, however, we have to fall back on the ordinary empirical methods for getting about in the world.

If we are just in a novel, is it possible that we could know that for certain? If the novelists don’t want us to find out, we probably never will. But if they choose to reveal themselves, they could certainly do so. Maybe an essay informing you of the fact would pop up in front of you, or maybe they would “write” you into their world. Another event that would let us conclude with a very high degree of confidence that we are in a fiction is if we ever reach the point where we are about to visualize our own literary characters exactly equivalent to human lives. If we start reading full characters, that would be very strong evidence against (1) and (2). That would leave us with only (3).

(Nick Bostrom is a British Academy postdoctoral fellow in the philosophy faculty at Oxford University. His simulation argument is published in The Philosophical Quarterly. A preprint of the original paper is available at www.simulation-argument.com.)

(Sonny Moonie is the pseudonymous author of this close parody which makes it possible to visualize a modern presentation of an old idea that is not exactly his own opinion, but may be imagined as being held by some fictional character.)

*************
The Body of
B Franklin Printer,
(Like the Cover of an old Book
Its Contents torn out
And stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
Lies here, Food for Worms.
But the work shall not be lost;
For it will, (as he believ'd) appear once more,
In a new and more elegant Edition
Revised and corrected
By the Author.

"Epitaph," Benjamin Franklin
*************

[I wrote all of the above by March 9, 2004. I think someone else has done a "novel argument" in response to the "simulation argument," and I'm trying to find it. Some famous writer said you're supposed to burn all your backstory when you become a writer, and I agree, but I think this still holds up as funny, and it's just a word-substitution parody, and I haven't really become a writer yet if I'm still using a pseudonym.]

[I found the "novel argument" I was looking for. It's by Rudy Rucker, whose blog I found via Mac Tonnies' blog Posthuman Blues. Rudy's answer to the question at Edge in 2005: "What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?" is approximately that the universe has multiple revisions like a novel, not necessarily that it is any more like a novel.]

nondigital universe

2006-11-30T04:52:00.000-08:00

I was thinking along similar lines to a comment by Morten Bek in a recent thread about the simulation argument, after I read Nick Bostrom's simulation argument from 2003. I continued developing my counterargument and made it a little more general. I don't just conclude we're not living in a simulation, I conclude the universe we live in isn't essentially digital.

1. If something can be simulated on a digital computer, then it is represented by a series of bits, which could be in the form of an array in multiple dimensions. Mathematicians call a particular kind of array a matrix. (That explains only part of the connotations of the name of the movie The Matrix.)

2. All arrays of various sizes already exist in the mathematical sense of existence. They exist in the same way as all counting numbers exist, the same way an infinite number of primes exist, and the same way an answer exists for every addition problem of counting numbers. Also, all various possibilities of digital contents of arrays already exist mathematically. For example: [0] [1] [00] [01] [10] [11] ... [0000,0110,0110,0000] ...

3. If some array contains a description of part of our universe that is adequate to describe someone's conscious experience, then at least a certain number of the bits in that array are determined by that description. If a computer is producing a series of three-dimensional arrays that represents a fourth dimension, time, then if those arrays describe someone's world, what happens in someone's future is described by the rest of the series.

4. It isn't necessary for a computer actually to run for the arrays to exist. You don't have to ask a computer to calculate pi to exact precision and wait for the computer to output an infinite string of digits to know that pi is irrational and has an infinite number of digits in its digital form. You can know that pi is like that with certainty by mathematics. If you accept the same mathematical assumptions, one of the consequences is that all arrays exist.

5. So, somewhere in mathematical space is someone described digitally, whose future is every possible digital array that could follow, no matter how improbable. Some sort of laws of physics might appear to be followed in part of the arrays, but not in other parts.

6. We do not observe the world around us to contain such improbabilities. It appears to contain consistent laws of physics, not things popping into and out of existence on a massive scale and not edges of chaos that swallow up orderly existence.

7. Therefore, our conscious experience implies order that encompasses the material cosmos. That's not to say that we're conscious of how it implies order, just that it does. While all versions of us described digitally, which go through every imaginable digital future possibility and then some, exist mathematically, our conscious selves experience a reasonably orderly universe. The real universe is not digital. Q.E.D.

8. Some physicists believe in interpretations of quantum mechanics that seem to have something to do with this subject. The order we experience may be implied by our conscious existence only to a certain extent of orderliness, while leaving many variations to be determined by the irreducible randomness of standard quantum mechanics. If so, that's still more order than any sort of digital array simulation allows for. The physical things that are supposed to be random under that theory are so small that on the human scale the chance of anything highly unusual happening because of them averages out to about none.

9. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not compatible with this ontology. If all existent things exist on an equal footing, whether mathematical possibilities or some other sort of reality, then all branches of a many-worlds universe exist equally as much. However, in quantum physics most of the types of random events aren't binary choices and even when they are binary, don't have equal probability of going either way in real world situations, only in thought experiments of theoretically perfectly symmetrical measuring devices. How can we keep experiencing probabilities that are unequal, for example the blurring that happens at the magnification limit of a telescope in a smooth probability curve, if we live in a many-worlds universe where all possibilities are equally real?

I meant to get around to proving that nothing is random and something about our existential responsibilities, but I guess those are subjects for another night.

Looking at Morten's argument and mine side by side, I'd put the counterargument to the counterargument like this: To determine if the universe is orderly, if you're a rational skeptic and think by the anthropic principle that you may have arrived here despite the universe not being orderly, you can apply Bayes' theorem. Assign the odds of the universe actually being orderly 1 to 1 as your prior assumption. Then for every moment you continue to exist and don't change into a frog or whatever, double the first number in the odds. If you're not such a skeptic that you disbelieve there was similar existence in the past, then counting historical moments too gives you a way to instantly increase the odds to an absolutely astronomical number to 1, favoring the universe being and remaining orderly.

What is Paleodiet?

2006-11-20T04:51:00.000-08:00

[The following is my translation of Vad är Paleodiet? by Hans Kylberg, an introductory article on Paleodiet. I found this article by a link from www.paleodiet.com, after I first heard of Paleodiet from posts at anthropik.com. This is my first written translation of a whole article from Swedish, or any other language, done as an experiment in language learning.]

Paleodiet means eating the way that man originally did, the way that man is made to eat.

During the most recent millennia the circumstances of man's life have changed radically. Certainly so for people 10 thousand years ago, for others quite recently, for northern Europeans in the last 3 - 4 thousand years. That is a very small part of our existence as a species. The genus "Homo" is approximately 1.5 - 2 million years old. The species "Homo Sapiens" is 100,000 - 150,000 years old (if one counts from when our ancestors became anatomically entirely like us.)

(I have attempted illustrating this here with a simple perspective on prehistoric time [in Swedish].)

What food is valid for us to eat underwent transformation as we began to eat a great multitude of domesticated grass seed and, in our part of the world, milk from cows, a species which overproduces, i.e. gives a surplus of milk in excess of what calves need. Plants which in their natural condition will not do for eating have been incorporated into our diet through being made edible thanks to being domesticated and/or through treating harshly in a different way (heating, fermentation, etc.)

In the latest times we have besides this begun to alter food in yet more sophisticated ways, e.g. refining. It has got to where we can quickly stuff in us a massive sugarlump which corresponds to a wheelbarrow loaded with beets. Or to alter molecules in vegetable oils to get margarine, etc.

Earlier our ancestors lived on what one could hunt and gather in nature. Longer back, the only tools made use of for this were stones and sticks, for killing game (stones and spears,) and cutting (sharpened stones,) and digging up roots (digging sticks.)

For anyone who would immerse himself more in this, see a detailed timeline of our ancestors' diet. (Latest updates: here, here, and here.) [Links in English.]

Our health has also altered. Foremost a new type of illness has arisen, autoimmune diseases, which come from immune defenses mistakenly attacking the body's own cells. These illnesses, in modern man very common, never occur in wild animals (but well may in domesticated animals and animals in captivity, if they get feed that is not naturally theirs) and never either in the small groups of people who still live a hunter-gatherer life.

Many researchers worldwide, in medicine, anthropology, archaeology, etc., have in modern times begun to realize the connection between these points now: (just now seen from the perspective which the human species' history makes up) eating habits and autoimmune diseases, obesity, and cardiovascular diseases.

We are quite simply not made to eat a large part of our usual food. But, you may say, man has nevertheless eaten bread for thousands of years and survived. Yes, we have survived, and by and large multiplying ourselves immoderately (except those most badly getting by on the new food.) But at the cost of worse health, especially during the later part of life. The main point is we are not adapted to grain, milk, and so on. We are still intended to eat hunter-gatherer lifestyle food and nothing else.

Paleodiet is a search to recreate the combination of foods that are natural for mankind. Exactly what that includes is not quite clear. How long back shall we seek? In which environment did our ancestors live then, and what did they find to eat there?

[picture of wooly mammoth]

What we know fairly certainly is that after brains became bigger they demanded more high-quality protein in the diet. That was got from meat, in the beginning maybe in the form of carcasses. When one learned to use tools it became easier to catch and/or cut up prey, thus brains grew larger, thus tools were made better, and so on. Meat is consequently a very important part of the diet. It can come from all kinds of animals, but we do not know if some fish and shellfish originally entered into the diet. (Man especially needs certain substances that are foremost in these animals.)

Longer back we were primarily fruit and plant eaters and before that insect eaters. Among today's hunter-gatherer people this is still an important source of nourishment, if it is available. Some trace of pure vegetarian man has not been found.

How large a part of fare was made up of respective food groups one does not know with certainty. Neither do we know exactly which animals were most important, or which plants were available to eat. Plausibly we all descend from Africa 100 - 200 thousand years ago, but we do not know which part.

Therefore Paleodiet is nothing one can say something absolute about, without each doing research to educate himself for his own comprehension. It must more be looked at as an idea which can lay the ground for a personal diet.

It is clear though that grain and milk and products of these ought not to be eaten. Here one can also show clearly a connection with autoimmune diseases. Beans are by nature poisonous, and none can have entered into our original foodstuffs, but whether judged in a processed condition they can be eaten or not is unclear. Same thing with potatoes.

Besides we do not of course know what happens with food when it transforms through heating, pressure, etc., that is to say, if the result is something that our organism "recognizes" and can handle in the right way. This concerns quite clearly, for example, margarine and artificial sweeteners. But the question is what happens peculiarly when we eat prepared meat, vegetables, etc.

Another question is the composition of food substances in domesticated animals and plants that we eat. Cows, sheep, and pigs contain more and different fat than wild animals in general. Modern vegetables have less fiber than wild; fruit, more and different sugar. We may or may not eat a rich variety of plants, and can worry whether they are without important substances.

Additionally a question is those species which are not found in man's original territory (Africa.) It concerns, e.g., plants of the nightshade family (potatoes, tomatoes, etc.) which answer home to America. Bananas I suppose come from Southeast Asia and are very different from other fruit (but contain by mass important substances, so it would be a pity to give them up.) Citrus fruit likewise. Are we so to speak adapted to fruit in general, or only to those fruits that had a home in (certain parts of) Africa?

Such a view is this very radical departure from the normal Swedish diet. Several important protein sources have gone out, which indicates that meat and fish need to be eaten in greater quantities. Many Paleodieters also have a concentration on moderation in carbohydrates and maybe accentuate fats more.

For those who would like to know more about paleodiet and the like, there a lot of links on The Paleolithic Diet Page. [The site in English that linked to the original of this article.]

Staffan Lindeberg is the foremost Swedish researcher into this territory: http://www.staffanlindeberg.com/ [This site includes one short article in English summarizing Lindberg's published scientific work on the diet of Kitava islanders.]

There is a Swedish e-postlist/forum Go to: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/paleodiet_sv/

A second pair of Swedish sites with, among other features, discussion forums: www.Paleo-Life.com as well as www.paleodiet.nu

An additional Swedish site with a lot of information on food: http://home.brikks.com/xje00/health/on_food.htm [English translation of that page.]

An interesting explanation of how lectin in grain, beans, milk, etc., can lead to autism is found in a contribution of Loren Cordain to "Paleodiet Symposium": "Grains, humanity's two-edged sword" [Links expired.]

For my own part I eat about this much: [In Swedish, but you can see a picture of what he eats.]

Last updated 2004-12-01 by Hans Kylberg

[Translation last updated 2006-11-18]

Open Thread / Where've I been?

2006-11-20T02:48:00.000-08:00

Just reading about things in different places. I'm still hoping to use this blog for something.

If you're just dropping by, feel free to tell me what you expected this blog to be about, or what you'd like me to try to write about, or use this thread as a place to vent.

Prehistoric graves imply different ways of life

2006-03-13T02:44:00.000-08:00

Anthropik had an article about early burials with grave goods and the implication that social hierarchy might have begun before agriculture. This was my response:

This evidence confirms my hypothesis that physical disability was one of the major motives for early settlement.

If the food supply for nomads in an area is high enough to raise population density to a certain point, then settlement at places favored for trade meets or festivals becomes viable. Those who settle down to trade and to store goods for trade are not necessarily disabled themselves, maybe they have a disabled member of their family or socially dedicated foraging band. These early settlers did not need to have any agricultural skills to start, so they are different from what we think of as settlers later in history, and they tend to be overlooked.

Once a person has a fixed location, storing goods becomes possible in quantities far in excess of what a nomadic band would carry or drag from camp to camp. Trade provides a way to accumulate artifacts and a motive for doing so, to have savings for seasonal variations in trade.

The settled lifestyle with caches and hoards of possessions (not yet property, which is a result of agriculture) may lead to a worldview where burial with grave goods is preferred to cremation or other quick forms of return to the energy flow of life on Earth. So then some early settlers, not necessarily all of them, appear to have chosen that new funeral option. It may have been considered especially appropriate when the body was of the member of the band whose disability had motivated the band to settle. By using up stored goods in funerals and burials, early bands may have been giving themselves the option to return to nomadism when their reason for settling was past. If that is the case, then it perfectly explains why all of those early skeletons found with grave goods have defects.

It's making me teary eyed just thinking about it.

[The Anthropik article by Jason Godesky linked to an article in British Archaeology, August 2002, by Paul Pettitt that I read all the way through next. I was disappointed by the sensationalism of speculating that they were all ritually murdered, as if being able to imagine such a hypothetical, culturally relative practice is the most intellectually valuable sort of imagination of history that can result from such archaeological discoveries. Do humans only study history and geography to practice thinking evil of others? (without judging them, of course.)]

TM introduction

2006-01-26T20:29:00.000-08:00

David Lynch's TM presentation

I happened to see part of this presentation that took place at the UW, on cable today [January 7, 2006]:

Consciousness, Creativity, and the Brain

I wouldn't have paid attention to a lecture about meditation, but the part I came in on was showing pictures of activation in areas of the brain, like it was a real science show. They think, and want you to think, that a person who has anger problems or has been abused will have what are called "functional lesions" in the frontal area of their brains, areas where activity is lower as if there are physical lesions, compared with a normal brain scan.

The speaker, Dr. Fred Travis, claimed that when you're stressed, it causes this damage because your brain does "down shifting" to depend more on the motor area for activity, which can lead to making blunders like running to class and forgetting your homework. He explained that the frontal areas do the conscious decision making, "That's where your David Lynch is." He blames damage there for poor decision making, such as violent behavior.

Then the show got even better: They had a young man hooked up to an electroencephalogram and pointed out the differences in the graphs they showed on screen for the front and back of his brain as he they had him blink, close his eyes, open his eyes, and lastly, meditate. (A disclaimer on the screen said due to technical difficulties, some of that was recorded separately.) It made it look like meditating has some scientifically measurable effect, compared to just closing your eyes.

David Lynch and the other speakers talked for a few minutes about the benefits of transcendental meditation and surprisingly it wasn't boring. Knowing that the TM movement is like a religion, it seems like they may have been exaggerating with some of the success stories, such as reducing recidivism in a prison in Africa. (Once I heard a Christian missionary give a speech about a miracle in some place in Africa: lightning out of a clear blue sky that killed a lion. That sort of story about a place that listeners can never check on, if presented as if it is evidence rather than just a story, reduces the credibility of a presentation.)

The closing title screen gave this web address:

www.davidlynchfoundation.org

You can watch or download a video of the "Consciousness, Creativity and the Brain" presentation that was given at Emerson College in Boston (77 minutes). Film students ask Lynch questions about his movies for the first few minutes, until a film teacher asks the expected question about what TM can contribute to film making creativity and he starts on his speech about it.

After a few more questions, John Hagelin the physicist, who was in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" gives a speech about consciousness.

From 48:40 on, the presentation is similar to what I saw and described above, but with a little more apparent nervousness and searching for words, and not seeming to make the entertaining points as well, showing that a month and several tries later, they had improved their presentation. That's evidence of thinking on their feet, an ability which they would probably credit TM for enhancing.

What about the story of the prison in Africa? The first version I looked at: abstract from Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 2003. It says in Senegal, TM was introduced in prisons from 1987 to 1989, and recidivism went from 90% down to 3%. Next I found a webpage by David Orme-Johnson, Dean of Research, Maharishi International University, from 2001 that said recidivism went down to 8%. Here's a paragraph from an article from Corrections Today, December 1991:

"Before the TM program was introduced in Senegal in January 1987, inmates there returned to prison at a rate of about 90 percent within the first month. After TM had been instituted, a study of 2,400 inmates released through an amnesty in June 1988 revealed that fewer than 200 of them returned within the first six months-80 percent of those who returned did not practice the technique."

So the prisoners who didn't reoffend were released in an amnesty, not the usual releases. That means they might not be the usual inmates held for short times for offenses that are often repeated.

A letter from Colonel Mamadou Diop, Director of the Penitentiary Administration (in Senegal,) from January 1989, to one of the writers of later articles about it, who translated it from French, gives the same information, plus more details. It's at www.tmscotland.org/popup/senegal although the index of the site is not up. It appears to be the source behind the other stories. It contains this sentence just before the recidivism statistics:

"Indeed, we can say that in Senegal usually about 90% of the inmates released after serving their sentence (or those released because of the yearly presidential pardon) come back to prison within one month."

So the author (or maybe the translator?) has thought of adding the parenthesis about the yearly pardon to make the implications more scientific. Still, did the pardon in 1988 release the right prisoners for once?

Senegal is a majority Muslim country. Transcendental Meditation is associated with Hinduism. It seems unlikely they would let there be TM classes in the prisons for both the prisoners and guards, but maybe that's why the project was discontinued despite seeming so successful. Some critics of the TM movement say that studies about any form of meditation are called evidence for TM, so maybe it was some form of Sufi meditation.

Who knows what really happened? There are some countries where you can buy forged documents from government officials to have evidence for whatever you like.

Global Warming still in doubt, part 2

2006-01-08T21:51:00.000-08:00

So the next day, I checked for a reply. There was one and I responded to as follows:

177.

Re 140: (Hockey stick beaten again, skip if bored with it:)

I did not claim scientists have not considered the problems I mentioned. I specifically mentioned that those problems were just starter points to think about “in case you have trouble seeing the problems revealed in the disclaimer for the graph on your own.” I almost put the paragraphs containing those obviously non-expert common sense observations into parentheses to link them to that purpose, and I’m sorry that I didn’t. I was trying to point out that no one should be fooled by the hockey stick, because what it’s based on raises questions for anyone thinking skeptically or even critically that would lead to looking for explanations and critical reviews of it before accepting it, and that leads to learning that it has been discredited by scientists. The tree ring studies included WERE better proxies for rainfall than temperature. The statistical method DID lose the absolute temperature signal, by which I mean obviously the information about whether temperatures were generally high or low several centuries ago, not the relative information about when shorter term global highs and lows were.

No, I do not work for the petro industry. Another study by Mann et al. in 1999 doesn’t count to me as replication. You see, I am in fact a rank amateur rather than a professional shill, and as such I have the right and the pleasure of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes when you try to pull that self-replicating study business that is so beloved in professional circles.

Yes, anthropogenic global warming is probably true. I didn’t claim otherwise. The subject I was keeping track of when you brought up the dreaded hockey stick was what world temperature or conditions should be gone back to as a preanthropogenic ideal. The hockey stick shape has the political potential of justifying any amount of global regulation to return nature to a narrow ideal range and to hold it there. It’s not that I’m worried about the specific hockey stick graph. I know science has passed that by. What had me reacting was just the idea of anyone taking such an obvious fudge seriously, and with its huge error margins, as setting a goal everyone should aim for, as if it was the scientific clarion call to a new millennium that has been vindicated. You may not be a socialist personally, and I apologize for the casual way I write implying that, but the pushing of a scientific consensus that dogmatically includes things like the hockey stick serves that sort of ridiculous socialist political movement.

Thank you for a stimulating and honest response to my post. To be perfectly frank, I’m checking whether I was right, because you seemed to have great self-confidence and to be saying that I shouldn’t have so much. Verification of devastating criticism of the hockey stick: McIntyre and McKitrick, in Geophysical Research Letters and in Energy and Environment, 2005. (I’m referring to the abstracts and comments because I’m not a professional subscriber.)

(Re 142: Thank you Philip for your defense against ad hominem on my behalf.)

Posted by sonny · January 7th, 2006 at 3:29 am

[I should have corrected the statement about tree ring studies to say: The tree ring studies of bristlecone pines included WERE found to be better proxies for CO2 than for temperature.]

What does this all mean?

The essay starting that thread at Crooked Timber was saying the debate has been settled, and that Ross McKitrick has no credibility (with a link to a page of criticisms of his past comments on climate science) as if that ad hominem can stand in place of referring or linking to an answer to the scientific arguments raised in reviewed, published articles where he was a coauthor.

Some humans act like finding the truth is all about producing a hierarchy of credibility, a way of socially rating others to decide whether they believe them and allow them to dictate truth or they disbelieve them and, regardless of their arguments, insult them as discredited, ignorant, and so on. To those, the global warming debate is settled in one camp or another.

The history of religions and governments demonstrates that the credibility method alone does not work. However, some degree of rating and sensing credibility is necessary, such as having scientific journals that have a reputation for accurate information. It doesn't matter to current scientists how crankish they think Newton's interest in alchemy was, they know that his published work in physics, optics, and astronomy has been reviewed by many scientists and was the source of many discoveries and formulae they learned in school, so current scientists count Newton one of the greatest scientists in history. He was doing the equivalent of calculus his own way, genius that he was, with his own notation that didn't catch on, while Leibniz founded calculus mathematically.

The religions and politics of individual scientists shouldn't matter to arguing the truth or falsity of the best work they've published. What should be cultivated to find truth is a skeptical attitude that nothing is absolutely sure and an ability to take arguments for what they say, apart from who says them. (Looking back at the last paragraphs of the essay by John Quiggin on Crooked Timber that started the debate, it's a good example of the opposite of this point of view. "Any analysis on this issue coming out of a think tank that has engaged in global warming contrarianism must be regarded as valueless unless its results have been reproduced independently, after taking account of possible data mining and cherry picking.")

That's all being optimistic about science though. I can feel moderately pessimistic too, and think it's the End of Science, as in the John Horgan book of that title. All science that attempts to move beyond the level of what an individual has time to learn from the ground up and beyond applied science that proves itself in technology every day becomes post-modern science. In post-modern science, complications allow adjusting and correcting data and methods and analyses to produce only result that the consensus calls for, and individual researchers depend on products of that consensus for what they work on in turn.

A gambit of stronger criticism of science as post-modern would be to think science has never really gotten anywhere except to provide a rationalization for technology, and the methods used in technology are self-evident mathematics not really discoveries from natural science, and techniques and working knowledge of materials that are always somewhat separate from what scientists explain you should be able to do with those materials. In this view, those who build particle accelerators are technologists, and the scientists who want them and use them have always been post-modern fantasizers.

Stronger pessimism would be to think humans don't even see the real dangers or problems, while science makes no progress on what we are worried about.

Related links to this post: Philip Stott at A Parliament of Things and EnviroSpin Watch. The site given by the critic of my earlier post, ecolanguage.net. The opposing scientists' websites: more established climatologists, including Michael Mann, RealClimate, more skeptical outsider climatologists, mostly Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit. An apparently not vandalized Wikipedia article that shows the main estimates from several recent major studies in one graph, demonstrating a tendency to show a "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" not the flattened past of the original 1998 hockey stick: Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png.

Taking down sidebar links

2006-01-06T20:53:00.000-08:00

I'm removing all the external links from the sidebar of Return of the Sasquatch.

Here they are, just for reference:

cultural derealization:

Pop Occulture

(formerly Occult Investigator)

sasquatch emulation:

Ran Prieur

total pessmism about civilization:

The Anthropik Network

moderate pessimism about peak oil:

Deconsumption

disaster pessimism:

Vault-Co

war and disaster paranoia:

What Does It Mean

not gullible about terrorism:

What Really Happened

political paranoia and channeling:

Signs of the Times

pessimism about government:

Lew Rockwell

optimism about anarchy:

Strike the Root

I thought a lot about what to write about this today, and came up with the following three points:

Links will appear in posts when relevant.

Normal entertainment and periodicals never give static recommendation lists. References occur in context, giving them meaning and weight.

One hot link beats a hundred stale blogrolls.

Really it's more personal than trying to further the art of the blog. I feel tied down by having a list on the sidebar that I feel like I should keep up with to be authentic. Then I feel embarrassed to put the address of the blog into places where I post comments, because one list of a certain pop-media/ bad news genre doesn't represent everything about who I am and whether my comments should be taken seriously or lightly on a given subject.

I want this blog to show development and growth, not becoming a big fan of particular websites just because it seemed cool to have them in the sidebar.

Global Warming still in doubt

2006-01-06T00:52:00.000-08:00

Here's my contribution to the global warming debate, which I posted at Crooked Timber:

128.

ß¬◊, regarding your post 118: That hockey stick graph you link to says right on it: “Data from thermometers (red) and from tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical records (blue).”

Excuse me while I puke over the poor quality of the facade of science being used to justify international socialist regulation of the world. If you’re going to rule the world under the banner of science, could you at least choose some real science, instead of pushing this pseudo stuff onto the podium for forced applause? No, I guess that would be out of character for a real socialist not to make the platform offensive to truthfulness as a test of party loyalty.

(In case you have trouble seeing the problem revealed in the disclaimer for the graph on your own, here are some starter points you should be able to think about for yourself to understand why this is poor quality, unreliable science, which are points in addition to the devastating criticisms of the hockey stick data and statistical methods that have been published:)

Tree rings don’t make a good proxy for temperature, when the species selected are more sensitive to rainfall, humidity, CO2, and maybe a hundred other things than temperature. Corals are an interesting choice of data. That might tell you something about whether there were El Nino oscillations or other changes in circulation in tropical oceans in the past and how strong they were. Ice cores have a selection bias: They can’t possibly exist from places and times that were much warmer in the past. The ice would have melted away. Taking gas content measurement of ice cores as revealing absolute differences in the past requires ignoring that life and chemistry can still happen on and in glaciers.

If a climate historian puts enough proxies that are partial guesses together and averages them, the resulting graph might have some bumps that correlate with what actually happened, but the absolute temperature signal is totally lost in the choice of how to balance various inaccurate estimates.

Posted by sonny · January 6th, 2006 at 3:45 am

Is the Iraq war all about oil?

2005-12-29T00:46:00.000-08:00

Why do the people who run the world and start wars do what they do? I have a suspicion that they don't really know what they're doing any more than anyone else knows exactly what he is doing in life and why. So you can't say a certain war is about one thing really, or for or against one country; it's just a mish-mash of all the motives and reasons that the leaders involved have, (with the followers having their own mostly misguided personal reasons of career or of religiously felt duty to serve.)

There are some loose political groupings of leaders who push certain wars, and without whom those wars wouldn't have happened. For instance, the Neoconservatives (the writers and Bush administration appointees, not every Joe in the street pro-war Republican) were indispensable to the war on Iraq happening. But many things are necessary causes to a major event. Somehow the Neoconservatives and the pro-war sentiment of media figures had to influence the Republican presidential primaries in 2000, to get a Bush in, knowing that Iraq was already a likely war, obviously since US planes were still bombing Iraq regularly under Clinton, in order to have someone in office who would be strongly personally motivated to finish what his father started. Otherwise, with another president with personal attachments to some other region of the world and a tendency to select appointees with similar concerns, the next war might have been fomented and prosecuted against some other country.

What good does continuing the war against Iraq do? How long will Iraqis see foreign soldiers fighting in their country and provoking their young men to take revenge on behalf of their families and honor? I doubt that fans of the US will ever learn to see this from their point of view, even if it lasts fifty years. The schools will still teach about the patriotism of the American Revolution, and still teach that the nationalism of other countries is a horrible thing, and that the rest of the world is better off when it has democracy brought to it by the US. There's nothing to learn from the war for the public.

Does it make oil cheaper, to be fighting over the oilfields and pipelines? Probably not. So really, the war is in the interest of, let's see: oil money (which includes the Bushes,) and super-rich schemers who want to limit the world's use of energy so that their capital is worth more relatively and controls the world more, and so-called liberals who want to limit the use of energy by something like the Kyoto Accords or whatever means necessary, so that their plans for a world socialist order will seem closer.

War conceived for an evil purpose, prosecuted by evil means, directed against the interests of those called to fight it, and lacking any possibility of conclusion except by annihilation of one side or the other: That's par for the course with human beings.

Caffeine and the Economy

2005-12-25T02:20:00.000-08:00

On the way to a Christmas Eve get-together, I was asked what I'd been up to. I said I'd started a blog, but I'd hardly put anything on it, except about naming the blog, and having a problem with putting up links, then a message that there wasn't a problem, it was my fault. Someone was curious what the name was anyway, so I said since I'd hardly put anything on it, I might as well say: Return of the Sasquatch. I also answered about the links that they were a choice collection of the most pessimistic and paranoid websites.

For dessert, we had tiramisu with espresso in it and chocolate pie made from espresso chocolate, and some had coffee too.

This led to conversational comments from several there that they seem to be getting more sensitive to caffeine. They have a little chocolate and feel zooming for a couple of hours, or they have a cup of coffee and feel their hearts racing. Some have had to cut down because it's kind of scary. I thought of when I ate a bar of chocolate over a couple of days recently and it kept me up more than I'd noticed chocolate doing before.

I said, "Maybe there's a secret conspiracy to put more caffeine in coffee and chocolate to keep the economy going."

Over the laughter, the one who'd been asking about my blog said, "You should put that on your blog."

The recent news on the size of a lethal dose of coffee could have been pushed by the conspirators, to prevent indirectly causing more deaths by caffeine poisoning and also to calm coffee drinkers' fears that they're close to giving themselves a heart attack. On the other hand, the Internet flap about caffeine could have been purely a side effect of more caffeine being present in caffeinated foods and drinks, the resulting nervousness and racing hearts causing a general interest in the subject of its danger that reached critical mass.

Similarly, the hypothetical increase in caffeine could have been a result of the process of capitalism: An accidentally higher-caffeine blend of coffee or chocolate would cause consumers of that brand to keep busier, which would result in them buying more of that brand while they're in a phase of using that brand. Any company, especially modern corporations using computerized sales tracking, would detect that change in sales, but without necessarily detecting the reason for it. For all they know, it's a better tasting coffee or chocolate or something they changed about the packaging or advertising that caused the change in sales, but they tend to keep the set of changes that caused that increase in caffeine, whether it is a different blend, variety, or recipe. Thus the amount of caffeine in capitalistic civilization ratchets up to where the stimulus to purchases is in balance with the danger that scares consumers away from it.

It's like I'm debunking myself and at the same time making my point more credible.

Adding external links actually not difficult.

2005-12-05T01:22:00.000-08:00

I've added ten external links.

They didn't show up until I clicked the refresh button in my browser.

This is the point where power users who take computer experience for granted and snarky geeks all laugh. Because obviously it wasn't any problem with the coding at blogger dot com.

But this is exactly the sort of complex breakdown I meant: There's a system that has a hundred different subsystems to it (power hookup, monitor, keyboard, mouse, operating system, browser, screen saver, internet service, etc.) and no one who gives instructions for what to do with one subsystem really cares whether the instructions work for users who aren't experts on the other subsystems. Experienced users laugh at new users who don't know what subsystems within subsystems they're supposed to have: "It's your own fault if you don't have antivirus software and adware scanning and a firewall and . . ."

The obvious buttons and instructions on editing links make it look like you're supposed to hit the republish button, then view the republished blog with the new links by pressing a button labeled View Blog or in new window. What they don't tell you is: Your browser has no special way of knowing that you've just altered the contents of a webpage, so if it usually loads pages from a cache when they're called for repeatedly within a few minutes, it'll do that to your blog page, and you won't see your alterations, until you hit refresh.

I think most people go through these sort of hassles all the time while using computers, and assume that that's what using computers is all about. (That and crashing and restarting for those of us still using Windows.) I'm just being extra sensitive and careful to notice the precise details of what happens, not because I think any of my reports are going to help the programmers and instruction writers make things work more smoothly, but because it's illustrative of how civilization works and breaks down.

Everything gets more complicated until it takes years of education or training to run things that were supposed to be conveniences. Not necessarily blogs, but certainly some aspects of using computers turn into occupations in themselves. Then a move to break out and do things more naturally and directly has a chance of being competitive.

Things don't work when first used, complaint pointless.

2005-12-05T01:09:00.000-08:00

Things like adding links to a blog here don't work the very first time you use them, but there's absolutely no point in complaining about it, because anyone experienced in using a system simply will not believe that someone using it for the first time did as instructed and got no results.

Maybe in the future personal computers will take a year or so just to set up, and all the malfunctions and unusability in that breaking in period will be blamed on the user. That seems like the way things are going.

Return of the Sasquatch, the Blog

2005-11-23T20:20:00.000-08:00

I don't trust words.

Words give impressions of ideas that we assume resemble the thoughts of the speaker. I find myself questioning that. Written words are further removed from shared experience. Writing that seems to communicate ideas the writer had in an unstilted, conversational way is an art.

I've been using computers off and on since the late 70's. After all the science-fiction-like build-up of how many great things computers would do for us, it turns out the best application of computers is human to human communication. There are other sorts of computer programs you can play with to waste time, but the only application that has a positive return may be communication.

I chose a title to suggest moods and subjects without limiting me to anything in particular, since this is my first blog.