Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Lori Ann and Corey Cole: Rogue to Redemption

Lori Ann Cole and Corey Cole, the creators of the Quest for Glory series, a ground breaking adventure and RP game from the early 90s, are great supporters of critical analysis.

See some of my comments on their forums;

Global Energy (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/784/global-warming-–-what-if-we’re-wrong/#comment-1298);

Our response here should be independent of the reality of climate change and its human influence.

The fossil fuel supply is limited. Currently, it is the only source which can fuel jet aircraft (based on its high chemical energy to mass ratio), meaning it will retain a high military value for some time. In a few hundred years fission fuels required for 20th century nuclear power plants will become rarer (uranium), meaning the only long term option is nuclear fusion (hydrogen/helium). Fortunately our supplies are plentiful. For early generation fusion, this will constitute Deuterium (extractable from sea water) and Tritium (breedable in fusion reactors), and then Helium 3 (requiring potentially moon harvesting – although providing an even cleaner alternative). It will be thousands of years until either sources are depleted.

With respect to environmental safety; in all designs, there is no probability of melt down (stopping the reaction basically involves switching off the power). The radioactive half lives of first generation fusion power by-products are orders of magnitude less than that used in fission power (they naturally decay x1000 faster, meaning they do not stay radioactive for thousands of years). Hydrogen bombs use the same process, which for reference are 1000 times as powerful as an atomic bomb (uranium/fission), like that which was dropped on Hiroshima. The main task of scientists today is to harness nuclear fusion in a controlled manner (effectively creating a star on earth). The two main projects working on this at the moment are ITER (based upon a Russion Tokamak design / magnetic confinement), and LIFE (laser inertial confinement, promoted by the US at the National Ignition Facility).

Atomic hydrogen constitutes 90% of the visible universe, and helium nearly 10%. Fusion is the primary source of energy in the universe. Massive stars are kept from internally imploding as a result of nuclear fusion: all stars 30% or greater than our own would collapse and become black holes [/neutron stars], instead of becoming shining power plants for billions of years. In the case of our sun, nearly 50% of the age of the universe. It heats the earth to provide wind and wave power, and of course feeds solar cells directly. Heavy elements including those used in fission power plants are known to be the by-products of supernovae, and therefore a result of nuclear fusion. Elements heavier than iron actually take energy to join, and give energy when split – the opposite of fusion. Perhaps tidal energy is an to the rule exception, but even that is affecting the moon’s orbit.

Right now, the world is governed by those who think the 1960s was the peak of human ingenuity and scientific progress. If human climate change is both real and negative, then I couldn’t imagine a worst state of public opinion (mass conformity to a futile ideology). Individual efforts in 1st world countries are not going to solve the problem (apart from making us feel good – hence the morality). Wind mills are not the solution. There is a reason people don’t use “renewable” energy – economics. One has to solve the economic problem; making it both viable and competitive. This means funding research and education.

Links:
http://www.iter.org/
https://lasers.llnl.gov/


Personal Freedom (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-1926);

Maybe this is why their games are so good- because they don’t always share the same concerns as each other and are able to represent/integrate their synthesis. The truth of any matter is able to address all concerns...

Regarding the classification of personal freedom. The fundamental issue is not abortion/birth control; it is both rape and why women are assumed the burden to control pregnancy themselves. Interestingly enough, there is a common basis – and it is not human nature, however suggestible the subconscious may prefer to remain. Rather it is artificial – a by-product of misrepresentation called objectification. It is not evolutionarily advantageous for a woman to admit failure in a man. Neither is it evolutionarily advantageous for a man to concede weakness or damage, and so women are left with the result. Hence the common conclusion that these issues (which represent the mitigation of the result) belong to women and are framed under such terms, despite the fact their implications obviously go beyond mature female organisms.

...continued (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-2210);

I didn't have any problems with the article as it was obviously bi-directionally biased. That is actually what I found so constructive about it.

Have people given up trying to articulate the division which besets them? Or perhaps they are such great believers in sexual equality (as long as they can retain their fantasies) that they have dismissed all purpose in a conversation that extends to the opposite gender.

To say that people are against women or exclusively homosexually orientated individuals is absurd, and am surprised anyone has fallen for that semantic trap. And this is exclusive homosexuality albeit whose representation in the animal kingdom has yet to discovered- if indeed it is a natural phenomenon. It is interesting that republicans have the dignity to take such nonsense in their stride - rather than declare an equally absurd war on baby girls. They just don't believe that truth is democratic.

Yet any discrepancies in conclusion (or vote as the case may be) signifies a real and present information gap. Why on earth have we failed to address this? What is causing people to feel threatened? Is it perhaps that they have failed to identify the basics- and they are trying to solve the inevitable consequences thereof without realising that their mission is impossible? That any human gain in one hand will result in the sacrifice of another? Is it not that in mutual error we have lost trust in the other? That is what happens when you start to tolerate dehumanisation.

It is fair to say that when a nation classifies the objectification of a human being as artistic freedom of expression they have given up on logic entirely.


They currently have a Kickstarter campaign going for game development on Hero-U(niversity): Rogue to Redemption.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

War on women: the final solution

Surely there are better ways to solve problems than striving to terminate all inconvenient less-than-human life forms?

Yet what is anyone actually doing to solve anything? Republican or Democrat? These are serious problems in and of themselves;
a) psychological abuse
b) physical assault
c) unintentional relations

Outsourcing our financial and sexual problems to third world countries doesn't count.

As men and women's mutual liberation from labour is the result of technology, so is our freedom to choose our role in society.

Yet movement forward (however circumstantial the terminology) does not consist of mass dehumanisation*, and cannot come at the expense of this.

One cannot mentally write-off their opportunity of ever being respected out of free will. Are women still being paid to be silent?

*objectification

Friday, July 20, 2012

Natural Science and Philosophy

Some comments posted recently;
 

New Humanist (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge);

Agreed. But the problem is unfortunately on both sides. We need to separate philosophy from natural science.

Materialism is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one. Let's state our terms and run with them. Clearly.

Here are some starting points for those concerned;

- There is no empirical evidence for two universes, let alone an infinite number of them. Furthermore, if another universe is non-observable by definition, then it can and will never constitute a scientific hypothesis. There are thousand year old debates regarding first cause, predictive power, observed-to-predicted-number-of-elements-ratio; all far more advanced than your average "cosmology" pass off.
- don't down play zombie arguments. Just because we have no less reason to believe another person than ourselves on this matter, doesn't mean that the logical possibility is beyond rational thought. Find a monkey that doesn't believe in itself. An evolutionary by-product to benefit our survival perhaps - but we all believe in it - yes believe.
- observed probability in nature is not equivalent to "random chance" (this is a subtle but real philosophical position) - and we certainly don't have any "random chance" without law - we have zero chance
- we have no reason to accept the scientific method applied without first accepting non-physical abstract objects (logic included) - again this speaks against philosophical manipulation of scientific theory that claims to be able to prove otherwise (circles are real)

And for the people who probably won't read this blog;
- The book doesn't say it all happened at once
- and I would swear it mentions something about a light, and an alternative cosmological principle - the modern one

I like to think that if you didn't have philosophical absurdity paraded as science, then you wouldn't have "creationism".


The Daily Beast
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html);

Science and Philosophy;

: Excuse us, but the author is quite mistaken. This is science not philosophy.
:: Philosophy is just science for people too lazy to do experiments and research.
::: No science relies upon philosophical presuppositions like causality, logic, and the empirical method (it cannot hypothesise regarding that which cannot at least in theory be disproved by observation).

Paranormal Activity;

If paranormal activity could be documented in a repeatable fashion, then it wouldn't be paranormal - it would constitute scientific data.

But you raise an interesting question regarding that which cannot be confirmed by empirical method. Is sense of self only physical (an evolved belief to benefit our survival), or does our brain's belief in itself as an observer correspond (map) to something else beyond neural activity? If you think this is a silly question, then add it to your presupposition list.

Mythology;

Monkeys don't wake up in the morning and decide to wear ties. Things take time. Generally the reason this has involved religious belief, is the same as that why we prefer not be monkeys. Even the Greeks came to their systems of values in this way. Mythology laid the groundwork for modern civilization. Yet even civilization is not everything it is cut out to be.

"God" as a definition;

"God" is generally defined as the cause of the universe, or the "first cause" as Aristotle put it. I believe he claimed an infinite regression of causes implies there is no cause.


"Why We Believe in Gods" - Andy Thomson - American Atheists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg);

The physical development of mind and its corresponding time scales, being viewed from a human perspective, are otherwise irrelevant and cannot be used to judge/negate intentionality in creation/evolution. The 'hijacking' of such evolutionary developments [by religion] is therefore quite possible. Yet human civilisation and culture (including the speaker's tie) are perhaps more profound examples of the hijacking of evolved cognitive processes, including in particular those related to our sense of self

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The parable of the frog

A frog visits a new tadpole bowl and thinks all of the young frogs there are insane. This view doesn't take too well- Of course the young frogs do their statistical calculations and discover its opinion must be incorrect- it doesn't represent the majority. Democracy runs well in this bowl, and they pride themselves on it. What could be more sick and unfavourable than an unpopular opinion? Why, reason is against it - how couldn't it be?

Some of the more meditative of frogdem can't seem to work out, why are all of the tadpoles dying? Frenzies break out religiously. Other frogs are even throwing out their eggs. A tadpole beats its chest saying to itself I am a terrible tadpole - I can't seem to swim right - it's all my fault.

Had they not realised frog induced bowlal warming had brought temperatures literally out of this water. The environmental management brought by their civilisation- the ancient pod we revere them- was naught to be seen. In fact, they had evolved at lower temperatures than this.

What would Frogger do? That is not the question. It is what would he..

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Sydney Bus Advertisement #2

[Insert Berle Sydney Bus Advertisement #2 here]

Abortion is bad. Contraception is bad. Drugs are bad. Violence is bad.

Ever wondered why no one takes you seriously?

And this is not even objectification. It is apparent objectification. [Obscenity Warning:] It is completely natural to subconsciously want to create as many offspring as possible with an apparent object (even disregarding someone as a person in the process). Do your homework and read the science (if you are that out of touch with reality and need to be held by the hand).

This is why society invented clothing (or has maintained the evolutionary by-product) - because it is surprisingly conducive to higher order consciousness. Buy a fast car. In fact it is required once standardised, and so affects expectation (perception). Listen to your ipod. Psychologists are quite happy to study basic instinct, only have their research completely disregarded, or manipulated for commercial ends. This is assuming they don't recommend we return to our pre-historic state. Whatever you do, for heaven's sake, don't come to terms with yourself.

The trick is to keep one's gender specific advertisements (however incomprehensible) out of public, and off public property.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Friday, June 15, 2012

Food intake theory

In layman's terms, food intake theory states; you are what you eat. It was developed after a long period of introspection (near decade), and is still under test. It extends to national stereotypes, policy, and health, although the evidence falls short here (begins to seriously wane). Below is some WHO data compiled in 2008 both illustrating and failing to illustrate the hypothesis. The major determiners being meat consumption, where traditional interpretations may hold;
  • Chicken - peace, non-aggression
  • Bovine - independence, strength
  • Pig - lowest common denominator (conformity, opposition to change, carelessness, self-satisfaction)
  • Sheep - happiness in group; positive outlook
  • Fish - appreciation / timidity (of big blue world)
What follows also, is that if you remove one or more of these from diet, you can get an apparent negative impact - leading to conceptualisations like 'extremism'. Behavioural expectation (including interpretations of 'arrogance') is dependent upon dominant intake. It can therefore, arguably, be viewed as a self-enforcing hypothesis.




The determination of character

How much of one's character is determined as consequent of their upbringing / context in their immediate family? Here are some candidate classes and respective hypotheses worth investigating;
  • No siblings (introversion/extroversion)
  • Sister with all brothers (confidence)
  • Brother with all sisters (concern/care/sensitivity)
  • Sister with all sisters (expectation)   
  • Brother with all brothers (expectation)
  • Younger brother no sisters (appreciation/trust)
  • Younger sister no brothers (appreciation/trust)
  • Older brother no sisters (leadership / planning)
  • Older sister no brothers (leadership / planning)
  • Female with no father (concept of self-worth)
  • Male with no father (concept of responsibility)
  • [No mother?]

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Period

Ever wondered what a male period looks like? Do males have them?

Well they do, and they might even be seriously periodic - just strongly affected by sexual abuse/activity. It is difficult to obtain data for other reasons also; for example not wanting to remember and subsequently reflect upon experience (generally leading to conscious desire for objectification).

Observed periodicity appears to be monthly (and perhaps half-monthly). The weak periodicity observed could however be explained by other factors, including experience of ambient objectification, synchronisation with ambient female cycle, regular build up and subsequent release, etc. Selection bias is unlikely considering this is all of the data I have. There is a likely bias as resultant of the peak detection algorithms applied (stacking and centring of data). But it is definitely worth some more research. Unfortunately it is a more difficult experiment to conduct in this day and age. I wonder how many psychologists would have risked conducting such an experiment given their current definition of mental health. Well to be fair, perhaps there is good data out there already... I suspected they might be somewhat periodic years ago, but it has taken yet more years to start recording them. Recording a first data point is never very exciting (considering it means nothing by itself - it is just an isolated date).

There was a time in history when people didn't need to talk about this, let alone publish (- ever wondered why psychology started?), but with a non-functional state actively subjecting its younger population to abuse, it is probably worth recognising reality for what it is given it is so rarely encountered.

For reference, the average period is taken to be 30.05 days. This is measured peak to peak across a) all peaks > 1 WD per night (taking the final peak / maximum within each cycle) + b) isolated peaks (of 1 WD). Peak generation / stacking is applied within a 1 week interval (up to 7 days). Data is taken across 3 independent periods. Approximate data marked with tilde (~). It probably requires a K-S test versus a simulation of the average (or fourier analysis) to validate the likelihood of a coincidental versus real correspondence.

Long live intellectualisation.




Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Sexual Sedation = Mental Health

Or does it?

Does sexual relations in an otherwise "unsustainable" (unwanted) relationship constitute mental health? Voluntary engagement in a task where the subconscious and conscious have conflicting intentions? Traditional psychology (common sense) might denote this as disintegration, or perhaps divergence.

Does exclusive relations with an object of the same sex constitute mental health? It doesn't in every other species on the planet.

Who is going to raise (restore) the standard in psychology? Are there any good psychologists out there (left)? It makes it impossible for philanthropy to operate on a consistent front. We end up destroying someone's capacity for virtue and therefore happiness on the basis of "mental health".

What is subconscious should stay subconscious.

Google is struggling to maintain its professionalism

Here are some help forum posts demonstrating Google's quality management failures in recent years;

Google now returns results that don't contain all the keywords specified~ Why??????

Search box at bottom of page

Search Box Size

Why force inappropriate preview images?

Cannot disable Autocomplete? -- Google's Software Principles

How do I turn off autocomplete?

Please remove FADE-IN now!!!

Google gets a new look

When will Google give users the ability to turn off the Everything Sidebar

TURN OFF THE SIDEBAR - SOLUTIONS HERE

YouTube Advertising - no Images

What the hell is up with the EVONY OFFENSIVE ad on youtube?

Too Right


Thursday, May 24, 2012

Use your capacity to make people's brains think you want to have sexual relations with them



I was harassed by the "government" in order to bring you this evidence - use it wisely.

It is not entirely clear what constitutes their so called governance.

Monday, May 7, 2012

The toleration of objectification in public advertisements on government property



After repeated failures of the NSW government to respond to our letters, and 16 months after publishing our open letter, the issue of acceptable use of advertising on government property is probably worth talking about. Regrettably, we are forced to use sarcasm - one would have thought our elected government could have been mature enough to respond to reason, without us needing to resort to rhetoric.

What is the Australian government teaching our school children exactly? I mean children are too stupid to tell the difference between what we teach them inside school and outside of school anyway. Just lets make sure we continue to give them lots of harmless nonsense - we wouldn't want to feed them anything intellectually challenging or of undefined political correctness. I am surprised they haven't outlawed the Mysterious Cities of Gold - what a primitive cartoon. Hayao Miyazaki is a dangerous man. And if the children feel something is inappropriate. Tell them this is the only bus they are going to get. Wear your uniform and shut up (you have freedom to objectify but not to speak in this country).

Ah, but they are not actually advertising clothes are they. What were they advertising again? Technically it is not primary objectification, it is apparent objectification (a psychological by-product of our education/developmental environment - ie, expectation that a human should be clothed in public). Perhaps they should have advertised the Richard Bruce Baxter fashion line instead - which wholly consists of tight pants and mini skirts for men (we like to highlight the genital features in particular). I mean, at least this would be a socially realistic and publicly acceptable form of ASO. A kitten shakes its head.

Psychology is a science invented by marketing agencies right? What on earth is supply and demand? ... Don't worry - the NSW government has legalised brothels - a little bit of dehumanisation should solve everything.

Oh yeah, and the school children - sorry we forgot about them. I hear they have good contraception programs going down in Victoria. Until then..

A brave new world.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Third Wave Blackism

What percentage of the population supports dehumanisation? Perhaps we might find that the people have something to say about corporate exploitation of the human body? Maybe we don't agree with the corporate lawyers on their definition of obscenity, let alone their definition of speech? Or is it too late - have we all become addicted to power? What would Mary Wollstonecraft have to say about this? Has not the very thing we sought to destroy (sexual exploitation) in desexing the vote / removing the presupposition of family become the end of our education?

Electronic democracy - restoring freedom through referendum (giving individuals choice in policy)

The following is a proposal for an Electronic democracy - restoring freedom through referendum (giving individuals choice in policy):
  • open politics [centralised electronic database of all policy - allows voting on individual policies (mini referendums) - allows international comparisons] - removes politicians
An obvious advantage of this system, is that it would instantaneously deny any attempt to impose rules on people where the majority does not wish such regulation (e.g the protection of advertising material / obscenity, that might otherwise be called "public property"). Disadvantages of course being the application of budgeting, and the resolution of conflicting policies.

Evolution of markets - computerisation of the economy (bureaucracy, finance, accounting, taxation, law, scientific literature, and medical diagnosis)

Here is a web-integration idea set relating to the evolution of markets and computerisation of the economy (electronic centralisation of bureaucracy, finance, accounting, taxation, law, scientific literature, and medical diagnosis):
  • open accounting [centralised electronic database of all transactions {assumes cash is abolished} - applies taxation automatically] - removes accountants
  • open law [centralised electronic database of all laws and punishments - applies judgements automatically] - removes lawyers
  • open product/service [centralised electronic database containing user experience for commercial entities, products/services] - encourages competition
  • open infrastructure [centralised electronic database containing a location aware review of government services - eg speeding limits, signage, traffic, investment in scientific research/energy, etc] - increases public involvement
  • open science [centralised electronic database of all research - all information structured in hierarchies - supporting links between intra/inter-hierarchy nodes (eg between process hierarchies {cancer - chemical induction - neural dysfunction - death}, and substance hierarchies {living system - animal - genre - species}). Supports access to raw/processed data, analysis, and conclusions; for critique of current/established hierarchy. Scientists enter all relevant data based upon their experiment while or instead of submitting a refereed paper. Standards relating the referencing of scientific data in scientific papers is being discussed as part of the development of Web 3.0 / semantic web initiative - but this goes beyond this in having the ability to replace papers entirely] - optimises research (re)use

Reverse augmented reality - from AdBlock to non-virtual content aware filters

With the growing involuntary saturation of advertising in society, it becomes evident that filters will be designed to restore peace where desired. AdBlock first brought us virtual content aware filters of advertising material in 2006.

I propose Reverse Augmented Reality - non-virtual content aware filters (technology that shuts out information from the outside world). Such technology needn't be restricted to advertising material, but could be used to target any content the user desires. For example, it could be used as a mature content filter for children.

[UPDATE] Augmented Reality applications could also be designed to overlay offensive material, for example with that which is (less provocative and) more beautiful. "More pirates".