I just realized that video games satisfy different fundamental needs. Imagine a pyramid, with more common games at the bottom:
Most games have a Darwinian/Athenian-Olympics emphasis. Tap the buttons faster than the other person (ah, Summer Games for the Commodore 64!). Beat them in head-to-head tournaments. The irony is each person, playing alone, can be master of his own domain and top of his own food chain. But then we have millions of food chains, each an illusion. It works until you turn the power off (or until the interminable credits are scrolled off the screen). Or you can get online and be better than someone you don't know in a country far away.
Then there's rhythm music games: This involves following complex instructions precisely (no real tone control, only timing). If you hit the notes you get the reward of the music. It feels like you're creating something but the real goal is parroting. Yet you can learn about song structure from these. I have a new respect for Ringo Starr after realizing some of that drum stuff he did was actually pretty hard.
Then there's The Legend of Zelda: exploration (which is like foraging for food and recreating maps of the environment in your head) The joy of getting food in the form of hearts and fake money is supplemented by the joy of solving puzzles and getting new tools, a eureka moment, like doing well on a final exam. Mario and other platformers generally fall below Zelda in exploration, and are closer to the pure competition/repetition of button-mashing, but can include puzzle elements that move them up the hierarchy. Little Big World has a considerable creativity element from what I understand but I've never played it.
I've never been able to play The Sims but it seems to be social: some interaction with others (real or not), putting the self in context. Most games just don't put a high priority on this one but the success of this series suggest it's a good idea to try to build on. The complexities of this and what it can reveal about you means it may be the highest on the complexity of purpose list. But I still don't have the patience to figure out how to play the darn thing. I rented it once for the GameCube and gave up after 5 minutes. What does that say about me?
... And yet, and yet, don't you feel there must be something more? (I assume it's not the Playstation 4!) (It must be James Cameron's Avatar!) (um, maybe not.)
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Handy Blog Cheat Sheet
Welcome new visitors of all stripes and persuasions. Apparently no one wants to debate a book review of Odd and the Frost Giants (or even Knowing Christ Today) but ID is on everyone's mind. The main point I'd like to make here is that there's LOTS of posts on this blog and if you have questions about me or what I believe or why, here's a road map for where to start:
1.) "What do you know/believe about creation?"
On the sidebar you'll see a series of posts titled Eight Days of Creation that address this. If you can make it through all that ... you'll get a certificate. :) The RJP Williams book I am thinking about now is called The Chemistry of Evolution. It's cool. But it's expensive. Try a library, I did! Another good book is The Open Secret by Alister McGrath. It's reviewed somewhere here too.
2.) "What do you know/believe about Jesus?"
Funny, this comes up in Day Eight and the final post of the Eight Days of Creation. (Day Seven has some useful stuff too.) I recommend reading them all in order but if you're pressed for time, give it a try. (Snarky comments about religion are most appropriate for those posts, if you'd like to save time and avoid reading something new. Anybody wishing to be taken seriously in a debate about religion should at least familiarize yourself with N.T. Wright's amazing book Resurrection of the Son of God. It's long but it's a great (and surprisingly readable) academic work.)
3.) "Why are you doing this?"
My very first post ("This is not a blog") has something along these lines, but I suggest clicking randomly. If you get a large enough "n" of posts you'll probably find something that annoys you. But you may find something you like, who knows?
I ask myself question #3 myself sometimes. I'm going to have to be a bit hands-off for the next few days as I grade finals and write lectures/presentations and build some proteins, so please don't take lack of personal response personally. I'm just throwing this out there and seeing what happens, as Bill Mallonnee sang: "You sew your heart onto your sleeve // and wait for the axe to fall."
1.) "What do you know/believe about creation?"
On the sidebar you'll see a series of posts titled Eight Days of Creation that address this. If you can make it through all that ... you'll get a certificate. :) The RJP Williams book I am thinking about now is called The Chemistry of Evolution. It's cool. But it's expensive. Try a library, I did! Another good book is The Open Secret by Alister McGrath. It's reviewed somewhere here too.
2.) "What do you know/believe about Jesus?"
Funny, this comes up in Day Eight and the final post of the Eight Days of Creation. (Day Seven has some useful stuff too.) I recommend reading them all in order but if you're pressed for time, give it a try. (Snarky comments about religion are most appropriate for those posts, if you'd like to save time and avoid reading something new. Anybody wishing to be taken seriously in a debate about religion should at least familiarize yourself with N.T. Wright's amazing book Resurrection of the Son of God. It's long but it's a great (and surprisingly readable) academic work.)
3.) "Why are you doing this?"
My very first post ("This is not a blog") has something along these lines, but I suggest clicking randomly. If you get a large enough "n" of posts you'll probably find something that annoys you. But you may find something you like, who knows?
I ask myself question #3 myself sometimes. I'm going to have to be a bit hands-off for the next few days as I grade finals and write lectures/presentations and build some proteins, so please don't take lack of personal response personally. I'm just throwing this out there and seeing what happens, as Bill Mallonnee sang: "You sew your heart onto your sleeve // and wait for the axe to fall."
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Could Your Car Run on Vitamin C?
[from C&E News Nov 16 2009]OK, not like putting vitamin C in your car and having it run on that, but with a middleman: vitamin C feeds a molecular engine that makes hydrogen, and THAT fuels your car. Here is the outline of events:
1.) Vitamin C (ascorbate) gives electrons to cytochrome c. (It has enough "energy" that this would work.)
2.) Cytochrome c gives electrons to photosystem I. (That's its job after all!)
3.) Light excites the electrons in photosystem I. (Again, that's its job.)
4.) The electrons move to platinum clusters on the other side of the photosystem.
5.) Platinum catalyzes the conversion of acid protons to hydrogen gas.
6.) Hydrogen gas carries the "light energy" anywhere it goes (and when burned in a car produces water vapor as the waste!).
The especially good news: this scheme (shown above) self-assembles and runs for months without help. Not sure how much platinum it needs ... but at least as a catalyst it's not consumed.
I'm getting more and more keen on hydrogen as a versatile fuel, if we can just solve the storage problem. This shows just how easy it is to make it. Storing it is a bigger problem, but it doesn't seem insurmountable (easy for me to say, I don't research that!).
Friday, December 4, 2009
Comments on the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) Emails
I'm hoping to put this together with other thoughts on other topics but I think something needs to be said now since it's on a lot of people's minds.
Basically, several emails were hacked from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU), which has been the source of a lot of climate history research. What this means is the reality TV cameras have been turned on for the scientists in that their private emails have become public, with all the politics clearly exposed, and some data presentation discussions. Does the data presentation become data distortion? Are they trying to hide some of their research to put forward what fits with their theory?
So if the camera adds ten pounds, I think it also takes away 10 IQ points. Some of the stuff that's said is just plain tribal and I'm sure there's sociologists of science talking about how it show "groupthink." There's two responses: 1.) This proves climate scientists are frauds and 2.) This proves climate scientists are just human but it has no effect on climate science.
Of course, I'm going to come down firmly between those two straw men. (What else are straw men for?)
There is a deep problem here, with the authority of science. When scientists want to use the authority of science, they emphasize how it's monolithic, how those who disagree must have other interests, that the science is somehow neutral. When the scientists themselves are revealed to have non-scientific interests ... the monolith falls over.
Look, if you spend your life's work on something you will want to defend it. Just because someone is defensive doesn't mean they're wrong.
The fact of the matter is, the science is not monolithic. There are some things that are near 100%: old earth, evolution, HIV causes AIDS. Then there are some things that are more 75%/two-thirds, where you have a clear majority and then some reasonable dissent. Climate change is in this category, and the most reasonable argument I've heard on it is the "driving in fog" argument: we're not sure if there's a cliff out there, but just in case there is doesn't it make sense to put on the brakes?
Another analogy may be cancer. We've found a lump. It could kill us. But hacking off the limb with the lump could hurt us too. So this is the time for reasonable prevention and "watchful waiting." (See recent mammogram advice shift!)
So I'm in favor of inexpensive, straightforward solutions to this problem. The rubber-meeting-road conclusions are:
1.) Cap-and-trade as it stands now seems too close to a shell game. Let's get something simpler on the table. I'm not usually for taxes but a gasoline tax may be in order. That's better than a convoluted system that seems more like medieval indulgences than a true solution. The point of the tax is not to generate money but to let other things that are now more expensive cost less relatively ... which can lead to lower costs in the long run.
2.) Research, research, research into solar/hydrogen cells and build, build, build nuclear. Also work, work, work on transportation with alternate fuels and try some geoengineering on a small-scale basis. It's not time for geoengineering yet, but if we get a decade of data that suggests it's time let's get ready. There's positive things to do with energy that as a chemist I'm really excited about.
3.) Stop pretending there's a 100% consensus about the future. Instead argue that a clear majority of scientists think there's a problem and that should be enough for now -- try inexpensive or innovative options now and keep a close eye on temperatures and weather patterns and species extinctions. There may be a cliff out there in the fog, but if stomping on the brakes causes a 15-car pileup I may still end up hurt. Instead, can we slow down and at least try to watch things like this recent cooling?
What's really needed is probabilistic thinking. I still think there's a majority chance that we have a problem but we need to watch more to be sure. There are simple ways to try to cut down -- I've noticed that car miles are down and bus miles are up. This is important enough that all the stops should be pulled out for low-impact, low-cost solutions. I don't see a clear justification for drastic costs yet.
Let's watch this lump and see if bad stuff happens; in the meantime, let's "eat healthier" with our energy choices and try to see if energy research hits the jackpot.
Basically, several emails were hacked from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU), which has been the source of a lot of climate history research. What this means is the reality TV cameras have been turned on for the scientists in that their private emails have become public, with all the politics clearly exposed, and some data presentation discussions. Does the data presentation become data distortion? Are they trying to hide some of their research to put forward what fits with their theory?
So if the camera adds ten pounds, I think it also takes away 10 IQ points. Some of the stuff that's said is just plain tribal and I'm sure there's sociologists of science talking about how it show "groupthink." There's two responses: 1.) This proves climate scientists are frauds and 2.) This proves climate scientists are just human but it has no effect on climate science.
Of course, I'm going to come down firmly between those two straw men. (What else are straw men for?)
There is a deep problem here, with the authority of science. When scientists want to use the authority of science, they emphasize how it's monolithic, how those who disagree must have other interests, that the science is somehow neutral. When the scientists themselves are revealed to have non-scientific interests ... the monolith falls over.
Look, if you spend your life's work on something you will want to defend it. Just because someone is defensive doesn't mean they're wrong.
The fact of the matter is, the science is not monolithic. There are some things that are near 100%: old earth, evolution, HIV causes AIDS. Then there are some things that are more 75%/two-thirds, where you have a clear majority and then some reasonable dissent. Climate change is in this category, and the most reasonable argument I've heard on it is the "driving in fog" argument: we're not sure if there's a cliff out there, but just in case there is doesn't it make sense to put on the brakes?
Another analogy may be cancer. We've found a lump. It could kill us. But hacking off the limb with the lump could hurt us too. So this is the time for reasonable prevention and "watchful waiting." (See recent mammogram advice shift!)
So I'm in favor of inexpensive, straightforward solutions to this problem. The rubber-meeting-road conclusions are:
1.) Cap-and-trade as it stands now seems too close to a shell game. Let's get something simpler on the table. I'm not usually for taxes but a gasoline tax may be in order. That's better than a convoluted system that seems more like medieval indulgences than a true solution. The point of the tax is not to generate money but to let other things that are now more expensive cost less relatively ... which can lead to lower costs in the long run.
2.) Research, research, research into solar/hydrogen cells and build, build, build nuclear. Also work, work, work on transportation with alternate fuels and try some geoengineering on a small-scale basis. It's not time for geoengineering yet, but if we get a decade of data that suggests it's time let's get ready. There's positive things to do with energy that as a chemist I'm really excited about.
3.) Stop pretending there's a 100% consensus about the future. Instead argue that a clear majority of scientists think there's a problem and that should be enough for now -- try inexpensive or innovative options now and keep a close eye on temperatures and weather patterns and species extinctions. There may be a cliff out there in the fog, but if stomping on the brakes causes a 15-car pileup I may still end up hurt. Instead, can we slow down and at least try to watch things like this recent cooling?
What's really needed is probabilistic thinking. I still think there's a majority chance that we have a problem but we need to watch more to be sure. There are simple ways to try to cut down -- I've noticed that car miles are down and bus miles are up. This is important enough that all the stops should be pulled out for low-impact, low-cost solutions. I don't see a clear justification for drastic costs yet.
Let's watch this lump and see if bad stuff happens; in the meantime, let's "eat healthier" with our energy choices and try to see if energy research hits the jackpot.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
All I Want for Christmas is Some Borax
Here's a great recipe for making sparkly Christmas ornaments from pipe cleaners and a Borax solution, from the Houston Museum of Natural Sciences Blog.
This year, we're putting off getting a tree for another week or so because it means less trouble keeping ornaments out of a certain rugrat's mouth.
But that just means I'll have time to get together the ingredients. I just need to ask my wife if we already have Borax or if I'll need to get some from the store.
This year, we're putting off getting a tree for another week or so because it means less trouble keeping ornaments out of a certain rugrat's mouth.
But that just means I'll have time to get together the ingredients. I just need to ask my wife if we already have Borax or if I'll need to get some from the store.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Name Chart
Here's a figure from a recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing how frequently babies were given certain names in certain years. The message of this graph is "the faster they rise, the faster they fall." Which means Aidan as a name should pretty much disappear in the next few years!
Friday, November 27, 2009
Book Review: Knowing Christ Today
Dallas Willard, author of this book, is a professor of philosophy at USC and a friend of Richard Foster (author of many books on the spiritual disciplines). At first this may seem on the list of "combinations we wouldn't think of offhand," but Willard's writing makes it perfectly natural. He is one of the best writers at conveying heavy philsophical concepts without you even knowing it; the writing is so sharp you don't even feel it. This book is about "epistemology" on that level, but he makes a strong case that knowing Jesus is a category of knowledge as strong (or stronger than!) scientific knowing. What he has to say goes right along with the Weter Lecture (although I hope to approach half his heart for the practical "application points" for the reader). Some post-its that didn't make it into the lecture:
"When we have knowledge ... we are not just guessing, and the anxieties, hesitations, and vacillations that prevail where knowledge is absent no longer control our lives." p.45. (From those three characteristics I take is that knowledge is very much absent 'round here.) A correlation between Idols, Ignorance, and loss of Identity (Israel's national identity at the very least) is provocative. Contrary to this is the Real stuff that one can Rely on (and know).
His chapter on natural theology is great on evolution but not so helpful when it comes to quantum physics. The problem is he builds a lot on the statement that something never comes from nothing. This is fine on our level, but the quantum level has the uncertainty principle in which something does sometimes come from nothing. The philosophical edifice can still be built I think but it changes the equations importantly. This is in some ways the most disappointing part of the book. There's just a lot of complexities he skates by.
p.118: The Apostles Creed is a list of knowable, historical events. It's no good to just pretend they're mere "spiritual truths"; they are events that can be known. Not just facts either, but events that happened to a person who can still be known.
p.137: The story of R.A. Torrey is retold (it's even in VeggieTales now). He counted on God's provision through prayer to extreme levels. Reading this alongside the Jubilee rules points out that God put sabbath and Jubilee rules in the law to try and codify this kind of radical reliance.
p.153: Willard's conception of the Kingdom of God is very interesting. He says your kingdom is what you can control with your will. So if the kingdom of God is near/at hand, does that mean your choices can be made, can be given to God? I'm trying to see how this fits with NT Wright's historical explanations of what that phrase meant to second-temple Jews. I think there's overlap but there's some things to explain too.
p. 158: The most challenging part of the book: Willard reminding me that my job is to seek the best for others, the first thought, love. Let's just say this doesn't exactly come naturally to me...
p.160: Another simple but mind-blowing quote: "Prayer is God's arrangement for a safe power sharing with us in his intention to bless the world through us."
p.207: For those teaching at Christian colleges: Willard suggests that because the scriptural knowledge is reliable and real, it is therefore testable. This is where the rubber meets the road. What does this mean? It's a huge challenge. But I think it's valuable. The knowledge taught at a Christian college should be different from that taught at a secular college. Scary but true.
"When we have knowledge ... we are not just guessing, and the anxieties, hesitations, and vacillations that prevail where knowledge is absent no longer control our lives." p.45. (From those three characteristics I take is that knowledge is very much absent 'round here.) A correlation between Idols, Ignorance, and loss of Identity (Israel's national identity at the very least) is provocative. Contrary to this is the Real stuff that one can Rely on (and know).
His chapter on natural theology is great on evolution but not so helpful when it comes to quantum physics. The problem is he builds a lot on the statement that something never comes from nothing. This is fine on our level, but the quantum level has the uncertainty principle in which something does sometimes come from nothing. The philosophical edifice can still be built I think but it changes the equations importantly. This is in some ways the most disappointing part of the book. There's just a lot of complexities he skates by.
p.118: The Apostles Creed is a list of knowable, historical events. It's no good to just pretend they're mere "spiritual truths"; they are events that can be known. Not just facts either, but events that happened to a person who can still be known.
p.137: The story of R.A. Torrey is retold (it's even in VeggieTales now). He counted on God's provision through prayer to extreme levels. Reading this alongside the Jubilee rules points out that God put sabbath and Jubilee rules in the law to try and codify this kind of radical reliance.
p.153: Willard's conception of the Kingdom of God is very interesting. He says your kingdom is what you can control with your will. So if the kingdom of God is near/at hand, does that mean your choices can be made, can be given to God? I'm trying to see how this fits with NT Wright's historical explanations of what that phrase meant to second-temple Jews. I think there's overlap but there's some things to explain too.
p. 158: The most challenging part of the book: Willard reminding me that my job is to seek the best for others, the first thought, love. Let's just say this doesn't exactly come naturally to me...
p.160: Another simple but mind-blowing quote: "Prayer is God's arrangement for a safe power sharing with us in his intention to bless the world through us."
p.207: For those teaching at Christian colleges: Willard suggests that because the scriptural knowledge is reliable and real, it is therefore testable. This is where the rubber meets the road. What does this mean? It's a huge challenge. But I think it's valuable. The knowledge taught at a Christian college should be different from that taught at a secular college. Scary but true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
