An article in the current Atlantic has the same title as this post.
The author muses about that question, and his musings deserve to be widely read. He suspects, for one thing, that using Google is actually changing the way we think.
The article says that the founders of Google are trying to supplement the human brain with a search engine that is artificially intelligent, that gets us the information we want as quickly as, well, Googling someone, only better that how that works today -- it should, they think, get us exactly what we want. But would that be a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. Contemplation, reflection, messing around with stuff we weren't planning to think about, seem to be at the bottom of a lot of important discoveries.
Well worth reading, and thinking about.
Showing posts with label computing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label computing. Show all posts
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Ursula K. Le Guin on reading, art, and the Web
You can look at pictures or listen to music or read a book on your computer, but these artifacts are made accessible by the Web, not created by it and not intrinsic to it. Ursula K. Le Guin, "Staying Awake: Notes on the alleged decline of reading," Harper's, January 2008, pp. 33-38. Quote is from p. 37.
Thanks for reading this, which, originally, did not come from the WWW.
Thanks for reading this, which, originally, did not come from the WWW.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
"What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" pt. 5
I continue comments on Edge's "World Question" issue, which question is the same as my title. See the first part of this series, which gives some explanation, the second part and the third.
On this page of the issue, Diane Halpern, former president of the American Psychological Association, admits that she used to have a simple answer for "Why are men underrepresented in teaching, child care, and related fields and women underrepresented in engineering, physics, and related fields?" Now, after a career spent considering the matter, she doesn't.
Roger Shank no longer believes that Artificial Intelligence close to that of humans will be developed any time soon, although it has been predicted for decades. In his essay, on the same page, he writes: "How can we imitate what humans are doing when humans don't know what they are doing when they do it?" Good question.
On the same page, Sherry Turkle voices her opposition to the possibility of "love" between humans and robots. (In case you didn't know, this has been proposed. See here.)
Thanks for reading!
On this page of the issue, Diane Halpern, former president of the American Psychological Association, admits that she used to have a simple answer for "Why are men underrepresented in teaching, child care, and related fields and women underrepresented in engineering, physics, and related fields?" Now, after a career spent considering the matter, she doesn't.
Roger Shank no longer believes that Artificial Intelligence close to that of humans will be developed any time soon, although it has been predicted for decades. In his essay, on the same page, he writes: "How can we imitate what humans are doing when humans don't know what they are doing when they do it?" Good question.
On the same page, Sherry Turkle voices her opposition to the possibility of "love" between humans and robots. (In case you didn't know, this has been proposed. See here.)
Thanks for reading!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" pt. 3
I continue comments on Edge's "World Question" issue, which question is the same as my title. See the first part of this series, which gives some explanation, and the second part.
The first essay on this page of the issue is by Rodney Brooks, who questions the use of computational metaphors to explain the nervous system.
On the same page, Robert Trivers asks:
"And consider one of the great mysteries of mental biology. The human brain consumes about 20% of resting metabolic rate come rain or shine, whether depressed or happy, asleep or awake. Why? And why is the brain so quick to die when deprived of this energy?"
He doesn't know, of course.
Ken Ford used to think that science was practically free of unethical behavior, but has changed his mind, based, he says, on the evidence. He writes:
We do need to teach ethics as essential to the conduct of science, and we need to teach the simple lesson that in science crime doesn't pay. But above all, we need to demonstrate by example that the highest ethical standards should, and often do, come naturally.
Indeed!
I have found this publication to be fertile ground for thought, and expect to continue with this series.
Thanks for reading.
The first essay on this page of the issue is by Rodney Brooks, who questions the use of computational metaphors to explain the nervous system.
On the same page, Robert Trivers asks:
"And consider one of the great mysteries of mental biology. The human brain consumes about 20% of resting metabolic rate come rain or shine, whether depressed or happy, asleep or awake. Why? And why is the brain so quick to die when deprived of this energy?"
He doesn't know, of course.
Ken Ford used to think that science was practically free of unethical behavior, but has changed his mind, based, he says, on the evidence. He writes:
We do need to teach ethics as essential to the conduct of science, and we need to teach the simple lesson that in science crime doesn't pay. But above all, we need to demonstrate by example that the highest ethical standards should, and often do, come naturally.
Indeed!
I have found this publication to be fertile ground for thought, and expect to continue with this series.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" pt. 2
I continue comments on Edge's "World Question" issue, which question is the same as my title. See here for the first part of this series.
This page contains, as its last entry, an essay on the reality of the soul, by Todd Feinberg. Feinberg believes that there is such a thing as a soul, which is not the same thing as the brain. He indicates why he now believes as he does. Feinberg does not believe this for religious reasons -- he does not believe in the persistence of the soul after death.
On this page, the first entry, by Keith Devlin, considers one of the most fundamental questions underlying mathematics, namely, whether math is invented or discovered. He now believes the former. (Not everyone agrees!)
On the same page, David Dalrymple raises some fundamental questions about how computers are designed, using an analogy with a business.
Tor Nørretranders points out that our body isn't a stable thing. "98 percent of the atoms in the body are replaced every year," he writes.
And Helen Fisher discusses what she calls "the four-year itch" -- that is, more divorces occur after four years of marriage than at any other point. (Her data is from many societies, not just North American.) She speculates about how natural selection might have brought this about.
Thanks for reading!
This page contains, as its last entry, an essay on the reality of the soul, by Todd Feinberg. Feinberg believes that there is such a thing as a soul, which is not the same thing as the brain. He indicates why he now believes as he does. Feinberg does not believe this for religious reasons -- he does not believe in the persistence of the soul after death.
On this page, the first entry, by Keith Devlin, considers one of the most fundamental questions underlying mathematics, namely, whether math is invented or discovered. He now believes the former. (Not everyone agrees!)
On the same page, David Dalrymple raises some fundamental questions about how computers are designed, using an analogy with a business.
Tor Nørretranders points out that our body isn't a stable thing. "98 percent of the atoms in the body are replaced every year," he writes.
And Helen Fisher discusses what she calls "the four-year itch" -- that is, more divorces occur after four years of marriage than at any other point. (Her data is from many societies, not just North American.) She speculates about how natural selection might have brought this about.
Thanks for reading!
Monday, January 14, 2008
"What Have You Changed Your Mind About?"
Edge has published it's fascinating "World Question," with answers, for 2008. For this year, the "World Question" is "What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?"
Each year, Edge poses this question to a group of more or less influential people, scientists, computer experts, and others, and publishes their replies. The replies are mostly about something in the contributor's area of expertise, but this is not always so. There are something like 160 responses included this year. I confess that I have not read them all, and probably won't. It is also true that some of the responses weren't interesting to me, for various reasons. But some of them were very interesting. Generally, the responses are about a page each, and well-written.
This page of responses included several responses that I found interesting.
The most interesting response on the page was the shortest. Joseph Ledoux has, he says, changed his mind radically about how human memory works, and says why. If he's right, I need to change my mind, too.
Martin Seligman (there's a line or two about the accomplishments of each person, and you can click on the name to find out more about each contributor) has come to believe that there aren't any other civilizations in the galaxy, or maybe the universe.
Douglas Rushkoff says that the Internet hasn't changed people very much, if at all, and he's obviously pretty sour about the whole thing.
Howard Gardner says that psychologist Jean Piaget raised good questions, but came up with wrong answers.
Donald Hoffman believes that natural selection often has not selected for senses that bring in exact information about the world.
James O'Donnell writes about the Fall of Rome.
Colin Tudge thinks that genetic engineering of crops won't solve all the problems of agriculture, world-wide, because scientists don't understand all these problems, and that this merely illustrates that science as a whole is not as powerful an enterprise as many of us think it is.
Thanks for reading!
Each year, Edge poses this question to a group of more or less influential people, scientists, computer experts, and others, and publishes their replies. The replies are mostly about something in the contributor's area of expertise, but this is not always so. There are something like 160 responses included this year. I confess that I have not read them all, and probably won't. It is also true that some of the responses weren't interesting to me, for various reasons. But some of them were very interesting. Generally, the responses are about a page each, and well-written.
This page of responses included several responses that I found interesting.
The most interesting response on the page was the shortest. Joseph Ledoux has, he says, changed his mind radically about how human memory works, and says why. If he's right, I need to change my mind, too.
Martin Seligman (there's a line or two about the accomplishments of each person, and you can click on the name to find out more about each contributor) has come to believe that there aren't any other civilizations in the galaxy, or maybe the universe.
Douglas Rushkoff says that the Internet hasn't changed people very much, if at all, and he's obviously pretty sour about the whole thing.
Howard Gardner says that psychologist Jean Piaget raised good questions, but came up with wrong answers.
Donald Hoffman believes that natural selection often has not selected for senses that bring in exact information about the world.
James O'Donnell writes about the Fall of Rome.
Colin Tudge thinks that genetic engineering of crops won't solve all the problems of agriculture, world-wide, because scientists don't understand all these problems, and that this merely illustrates that science as a whole is not as powerful an enterprise as many of us think it is.
Thanks for reading!
Saturday, December 01, 2007
In Defence of the Soul, by Keith Ward
One of the few books I have found on the important subject of what a soul is is Keith Ward's In Defence of the Soul. (Oxford, UK: OneWorld, 1998.) Ward argues strongly that there is such a thing as a soul, that the development of a soul depends on something physical, but that a soul is transcendent -- it can survive without the material necessary to produce one in the first place:
The most important characteristic of a soul is its capacity for transcendence. It has the capacity to 'exist', to stand outside the physical processes that generate it, and of which it is part. We might see the soul, the subject of awareness, deliberation and intention, as one part of a vast web of interacting processes, at various degrees of complexity, coming to conscious perception of the actions of other forces upon it, and realizing its own capacities in accordance with more or less clearly formulated principles. It is distinguished not by being quite different in kind from its material environment, but by reflecting and acting in that environment in a more conscious, goal-oriented way. In other words, the soul is not an alien intrusion into a mechanistic world. It is the culmination and realization of the principles that dimly inform what we call 'matter' at every stage of its existence. Yet, in that culmination, it is able to transcend the material. The material is limited by a particular location in space and time. It is contained by that location. But the soul by nature 'transcends', it is orientated away from itself, to what is beyond itself. (pp. 142-3)
Ward does not rule out the possibility of a computer having a soul. He doesn't seem to think that computers of today have such.
Thanks for reading.
Added Dec 3, 2007: I have written an extensive document, entitled "Soul uploading: computers and the mind-body problem." I make no claim to understand exactly what a soul is. The Bible says that we have one, so we must.
The most important characteristic of a soul is its capacity for transcendence. It has the capacity to 'exist', to stand outside the physical processes that generate it, and of which it is part. We might see the soul, the subject of awareness, deliberation and intention, as one part of a vast web of interacting processes, at various degrees of complexity, coming to conscious perception of the actions of other forces upon it, and realizing its own capacities in accordance with more or less clearly formulated principles. It is distinguished not by being quite different in kind from its material environment, but by reflecting and acting in that environment in a more conscious, goal-oriented way. In other words, the soul is not an alien intrusion into a mechanistic world. It is the culmination and realization of the principles that dimly inform what we call 'matter' at every stage of its existence. Yet, in that culmination, it is able to transcend the material. The material is limited by a particular location in space and time. It is contained by that location. But the soul by nature 'transcends', it is orientated away from itself, to what is beyond itself. (pp. 142-3)
Ward does not rule out the possibility of a computer having a soul. He doesn't seem to think that computers of today have such.
Thanks for reading.
Added Dec 3, 2007: I have written an extensive document, entitled "Soul uploading: computers and the mind-body problem." I make no claim to understand exactly what a soul is. The Bible says that we have one, so we must.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunspots 127
Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:
Science:
Velociraptor, the predatory dinosaur, seems to have had feathers.
An excellent post on what design means.
Politics:
I saw former President Clinton interviewed on the Comedy Channel last week. He wasn't being funny when he put forward an interesting thesis on the nastiness in Washington: Congress is sleep-deprived. Many of them fly to their home districts and back every weekend during Congressional sessions, and the result is that they don't get enough sleep, and that some of them are chronically jet-lagged. No wonder they are grumpy. Clinton is on to something, no doubt.
Computing:
Version 2.3 of OpenOffice is available, for those interested, which might well include those who can't afford Microsoft Office, or who choose not to use it, but still need one or more of a word processor, spreadsheet, drawing program, presentation program. It is freeware -- there's no charge for it.
OSHA, a US government agency has advice on monitor placement, so as to avoid eyestrain.
This week's Christian Carnival is here. For information on these Carnivals, go here.
Thanks for reading! Keep clicking away.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Article on social networks
There's a thoughtful article in The New Atlantis about social networks, mostly MySpace and FaceBook.
As the author concludes: "Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen."
This blog isn't part of a social network, or, if it is, it's a small network that's seldom used. Some blogs, using Blogger, or similar services, are more so. Nonetheless, I am always grateful when anyone comments on a post.
Thanks for reading, whoever you are (if you are anyone!).
As the author concludes: "Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen."
This blog isn't part of a social network, or, if it is, it's a small network that's seldom used. Some blogs, using Blogger, or similar services, are more so. Nonetheless, I am always grateful when anyone comments on a post.
Thanks for reading, whoever you are (if you are anyone!).
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Rainbow's End, by Vernor Vinge
A shorter than usual (for me) book review.
I read Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End, a science fiction book set later in this century, in the San Diego area. Vinge is a good writer. He won the Hugo award for A Fire Upon the Deep. I remember that chiefly for the society of telepathic dog-like creatures on a far planet that Vinge made up. A Deepness in the Sky is about an intelligent spider-like species.The two books also have some underlying cosmological/philosophical ideas.
Rainbow's End is pretty good science fiction. The ideas that it extrapolates into the future include curing some currently terminal diseases and crowdsourcing. There's also a lot about the extension of the Internet and computing. People wear computers, sort of like a shirt, and glasses, so that they can access information and communicate wherever they are, or almost wherever. While wearing such a computer, you can see hyperlinks for most of the landscape features around you, which is both scary and intriguing, I guess.
Vinge is a good "hard" science fiction writer -- there's no magic in his works, other than technology.
Thanks for reading.
I read Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End, a science fiction book set later in this century, in the San Diego area. Vinge is a good writer. He won the Hugo award for A Fire Upon the Deep. I remember that chiefly for the society of telepathic dog-like creatures on a far planet that Vinge made up. A Deepness in the Sky is about an intelligent spider-like species.The two books also have some underlying cosmological/philosophical ideas.
Rainbow's End is pretty good science fiction. The ideas that it extrapolates into the future include curing some currently terminal diseases and crowdsourcing. There's also a lot about the extension of the Internet and computing. People wear computers, sort of like a shirt, and glasses, so that they can access information and communicate wherever they are, or almost wherever. While wearing such a computer, you can see hyperlinks for most of the landscape features around you, which is both scary and intriguing, I guess.
Vinge is a good "hard" science fiction writer -- there's no magic in his works, other than technology.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Should I be Person of the Year?
Time has named "you*," the computer user, as the person of the year. The subhead of the cover story says "In 2006, the World Wide Web became a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter." That would be me, I guess, and probably you, too.
*This link to this specific story may not last long.
OK. Besides this blog, we have an active Flickr account. I have a web page, or pages. I have contributed a little content to the Wikipedia, and reviewed a book or two for Amazon. I have sold items on eBay. I have an account with Project Gutenberg, and am set up to begin to join the many proofreaders. I guess that qualifies me, even though I haven't uploaded any videos to YouTube, and I don't have a MySpace account (and don't plan to do either anytime soon). You probably do all these things, and more, making your "small contributions," too.
But Person of the Year? Well, that's Time's judgment, not mine. Somehow, what I do seems pretty ordinary. How about the framers of the Constitution of the US, who put in free speech? How about those who made it possible to use glass, harnessed electricity, found out about semiconductors, discovered quantum physics, and wrote computer languages? Aren't they the ones who really deserve this?
Have my "small contributions" really done anybody, even me, any good? They keep me occupied, my wife says. Perhaps I have uplifted someone, or informed them, or even reflected Christ in some small contribution way. I hope so.
I read much of the Time article and sidebars on-line. Later, I saw the magazine, next to the checkout line of our local grocery. It has a mirror on the cover. I picked up the periodical, and looked into the mirror. It was a cheap mirror. I suppose that was me reflected, but not very well. As Paul said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12, ESV) Fuzzy as I am, and ordinary as I am, I don't deserve to be person of the year. Sorry, neither do you. Only one Person does -- Jesus Christ, the eternal Lord and Savior of the world, the one who reflects God perfectly.
Thanks for reading.
*This link to this specific story may not last long.
OK. Besides this blog, we have an active Flickr account. I have a web page, or pages. I have contributed a little content to the Wikipedia, and reviewed a book or two for Amazon. I have sold items on eBay. I have an account with Project Gutenberg, and am set up to begin to join the many proofreaders. I guess that qualifies me, even though I haven't uploaded any videos to YouTube, and I don't have a MySpace account (and don't plan to do either anytime soon). You probably do all these things, and more, making your "small contributions," too.
But Person of the Year? Well, that's Time's judgment, not mine. Somehow, what I do seems pretty ordinary. How about the framers of the Constitution of the US, who put in free speech? How about those who made it possible to use glass, harnessed electricity, found out about semiconductors, discovered quantum physics, and wrote computer languages? Aren't they the ones who really deserve this?
Have my "small contributions" really done anybody, even me, any good? They keep me occupied, my wife says. Perhaps I have uplifted someone, or informed them, or even reflected Christ in some small contribution way. I hope so.
I read much of the Time article and sidebars on-line. Later, I saw the magazine, next to the checkout line of our local grocery. It has a mirror on the cover. I picked up the periodical, and looked into the mirror. It was a cheap mirror. I suppose that was me reflected, but not very well. As Paul said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12, ESV) Fuzzy as I am, and ordinary as I am, I don't deserve to be person of the year. Sorry, neither do you. Only one Person does -- Jesus Christ, the eternal Lord and Savior of the world, the one who reflects God perfectly.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Brother Lawrence on using the Web
The Practice of the Presence of God, about Brother Lawrence of the Cross, written in the late 1600's, is a short book, available in several places on the web, including here. It details how Brother Lawrence found ways to be in constant communion with God in his daily tasks. I have read that the book is the second most widely read, after the Bible. I don't know if that is true. Brother Lawrence never heard of the Internet, of course, but it strikes me that I need to practice God's presence in my activity on the web. Here's an excerpt, which, if I substitute appropriately, is a guide to doing that. May I do so.
He noted that in the beginning of his novitiate he spent the hours appointed for private prayer in thinking of God so as to convince his mind and impress deeply upon his heart the Divine existence. He did this by devout sentiments and submission to the lights of faith, rather than by studied reasonings and elaborate meditations. By this short and sure method he exercised himself in the knowledge and love of God, resolving to use his utmost endeavor to live in a continual sense of His Presence, and, if possible, never to forget Him more.
When he had thus, in prayer, filled his mind with great sentiments of that Infinite Being, he went to his work appointed in the kitchen (for he was then cook for the community). There having first considered severally the things his office required, and when and how each thing was to be done, he spent all the intervals of his time, both before and after his work, in prayer.
When he began his business, he said to God with a filial trust in Him, "O my God, since Thou art with me, and I must now, in obedience to Thy commands, apply my mind to these outward things, I beseech Thee to grant me the grace to continue in Thy Presence; and to this end do Thou prosper me with Thy assistance. Receive all my works, and possess all my affections." As he proceeded in his work, he continued his familiar conversation with his Maker, imploring His grace, and offering to Him all his actions.
When he had finished, he examined himself how he had discharged his duty. If he found well, he returned thanks to God. If otherwise, he asked pardon and, without being discouraged, he set his mind right again. He then continued his exercise of the presence of God as if he had never deviated from it. "Thus," said he, "by rising after my falls, and by frequently renewed acts of faith and love, I am come to a state wherein it would be as difficult for me not to think of God as it was at first to accustom myself to it."
Thanks for reading. Practice the Presence of God.
He noted that in the beginning of his novitiate he spent the hours appointed for private prayer in thinking of God so as to convince his mind and impress deeply upon his heart the Divine existence. He did this by devout sentiments and submission to the lights of faith, rather than by studied reasonings and elaborate meditations. By this short and sure method he exercised himself in the knowledge and love of God, resolving to use his utmost endeavor to live in a continual sense of His Presence, and, if possible, never to forget Him more.
When he had thus, in prayer, filled his mind with great sentiments of that Infinite Being, he went to his work appointed in the kitchen (for he was then cook for the community). There having first considered severally the things his office required, and when and how each thing was to be done, he spent all the intervals of his time, both before and after his work, in prayer.
When he began his business, he said to God with a filial trust in Him, "O my God, since Thou art with me, and I must now, in obedience to Thy commands, apply my mind to these outward things, I beseech Thee to grant me the grace to continue in Thy Presence; and to this end do Thou prosper me with Thy assistance. Receive all my works, and possess all my affections." As he proceeded in his work, he continued his familiar conversation with his Maker, imploring His grace, and offering to Him all his actions.
When he had finished, he examined himself how he had discharged his duty. If he found well, he returned thanks to God. If otherwise, he asked pardon and, without being discouraged, he set his mind right again. He then continued his exercise of the presence of God as if he had never deviated from it. "Thus," said he, "by rising after my falls, and by frequently renewed acts of faith and love, I am come to a state wherein it would be as difficult for me not to think of God as it was at first to accustom myself to it."
Thanks for reading. Practice the Presence of God.
Monday, September 18, 2006
More on authority
I was struck by a recent experience I had with Flickr, the Internet photography posting site. Like over a million other people, I am a member. Anyone can join, and it's free. Flickr is not only a photography site, but, for many members, a social network. I'm one who uses it both ways.
There are Groups in Flickr. For example, there is one for photos of leaves, and another for gnarly trees. Membership is usually open to anyone, although some groups require invitation. Groups are administered by volunteers, usually the founder of the Group. (Anyone can found a Group.) Most Groups have requirements, such as only adding two photos a day, or not adding photos that don't belong in the Group's content area. Some Groups require members to comment on photos added by others. I belong to a few such Groups.
A few days ago, a discussion arose among one Group with a requirement for commenting on two other photos for every one you add to the Group. Some people occasionally ignore such requirements, sometimes by oversight, sometimes deliberately. An administrator said that he had asked a member to comment, as he was supposed to, once, twice, and a third time, with no compliance. The non-compliant member responded that the administrator was being "rude." I didn't think so, and most members didn't. That person was prevented, at least temporarily, from posting any further photos to that Group.
How did the administrator get that authority? He (or she) got it from the founder of the Group, who established the rules, and made the Group possible. There's a lesson in that. God has authority, because He is the author, the Founder. Genesis 1:1 begins the Bible by making that clear. That's the most important question about origins. Not how old the earth is, or whether Noah's flood was world-wide, or whether God designed the eye, but Who? And Genesis 1:1 tells us Who.
I discovered another person who had not been following the same rule. It developed that he is an administrator of the Group. I decided that, in that case, it was time to withdraw, and I did.
God is just, and fair, and abides by His own rules. We don't know what all of them are, but He does, and He obeys them. See here for a previous post on authority.
Thanks for reading.
There are Groups in Flickr. For example, there is one for photos of leaves, and another for gnarly trees. Membership is usually open to anyone, although some groups require invitation. Groups are administered by volunteers, usually the founder of the Group. (Anyone can found a Group.) Most Groups have requirements, such as only adding two photos a day, or not adding photos that don't belong in the Group's content area. Some Groups require members to comment on photos added by others. I belong to a few such Groups.
A few days ago, a discussion arose among one Group with a requirement for commenting on two other photos for every one you add to the Group. Some people occasionally ignore such requirements, sometimes by oversight, sometimes deliberately. An administrator said that he had asked a member to comment, as he was supposed to, once, twice, and a third time, with no compliance. The non-compliant member responded that the administrator was being "rude." I didn't think so, and most members didn't. That person was prevented, at least temporarily, from posting any further photos to that Group.
How did the administrator get that authority? He (or she) got it from the founder of the Group, who established the rules, and made the Group possible. There's a lesson in that. God has authority, because He is the author, the Founder. Genesis 1:1 begins the Bible by making that clear. That's the most important question about origins. Not how old the earth is, or whether Noah's flood was world-wide, or whether God designed the eye, but Who? And Genesis 1:1 tells us Who.
I discovered another person who had not been following the same rule. It developed that he is an administrator of the Group. I decided that, in that case, it was time to withdraw, and I did.
God is just, and fair, and abides by His own rules. We don't know what all of them are, but He does, and He obeys them. See here for a previous post on authority.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
John 3:16, Donald Knuth, and Hermann Zapf
Donald Knuth has been one of the most important pioneers of computing. He is also a Lutheran Christian. One of the things he decided to do was to study the Bible in a unique way, studying the 3:16 verse in each book. (Some books don't have 3 chapters, and some 3rd chapters don't have a 16th verse.) One of the things he did was to translate each of the verses.
Hermann Zapf has been arguably the most important designer of computer fonts. (His wife is also an excellent font designer.)
Knuth translated John 3:16, and Zapf designed a splendid graphic, using Knuth's translation. The file is freely available in .pdf form. Go here. Scroll down near the bottom, and open the link that says (Also in Acrobat form). It makes a nice poster when printed.
I plan to post more on Knuth at a later time.
Thanks for reading!
Hermann Zapf has been arguably the most important designer of computer fonts. (His wife is also an excellent font designer.)
Knuth translated John 3:16, and Zapf designed a splendid graphic, using Knuth's translation. The file is freely available in .pdf form. Go here. Scroll down near the bottom, and open the link that says (Also in Acrobat form). It makes a nice poster when printed.
I plan to post more on Knuth at a later time.
Thanks for reading!
Thursday, May 18, 2006
On selecting a digital camera
April posted one of our Flickr photos, as part of a request for advice on purchasing a digital camera.
I have commented three times (so far) on her post, and decided to make my thoughts into a post of my own. Thanks, April!
First, why would anyone want to get a digital camera? They are expensive, compared to traditional cameras. I have been to weddings where the guests were given disposable traditional cameras to use, they can be so cheap. My answer? Ease in communication. You can easily e-mail digital photos, use them in a presentation, or place them on the web. There are other advantages, too:
Digital photos are easy to screen and cull. In many cases, you can do it in the camera. You don't have to get the film developed to see which photos aren't worth keeping.
Digital photos can be easily edited. Many cameras come with good editing software. You can purchase good software for a hundred dollars or less. Most photos, digital or on film, could stand to be cropped, that is, have the parts you don't need removed, so as to emphasize what you do need. Other common improvements you can make with editing software are to brighten a photo, or increase the contrast, or the reverse. Much more sophisticated manipulation can be done. (See the first item in the images section of this post, for a good example.) Manipulations like these are beyond almost everybody with traditional film, but most people can pick up the basic tasks of editing with digital photos.
Digital photos are easy to store. You can make backups the same way you do with your other important computer files. You are backing up your files, aren't you?
Having established that digital cameras can be useful items, how to select one? I have a few rather idiosyncratic guidelines:
7) You shouldn't spend a few hundred dollars without doing some research. There are sites that review digital cameras. As far as I know, they aren't influenced by advertising. Here are some of them: dpreview, megapixel, CNet and imaging resource, which latter I have found to be especially helpful.
8) Try before buying. Borrow a friend's digital camera. Try it out, and work with downloading to your computer. Find out what you like, and don't like. The display cameras in retail stores usually can be used, even when they are tethered to the shelf. Take a few photos. See what they look like.
After you get a digital camera, join Flickr. They have a free membership, for up to 200 photos (for having more that you and others can see, it's $29.95 per year), and your friends can look at them (so can everybody else in the world) without having to join it themselves, so long as you send them the URL. (Here's mine) Some on-line sites require passwords even to look at photos of your cousins. Flickr doesn't. Besides, as I can testify, it's addictive. But that's another story.
Thanks for reading.
I have commented three times (so far) on her post, and decided to make my thoughts into a post of my own. Thanks, April!
First, why would anyone want to get a digital camera? They are expensive, compared to traditional cameras. I have been to weddings where the guests were given disposable traditional cameras to use, they can be so cheap. My answer? Ease in communication. You can easily e-mail digital photos, use them in a presentation, or place them on the web. There are other advantages, too:
Digital photos are easy to screen and cull. In many cases, you can do it in the camera. You don't have to get the film developed to see which photos aren't worth keeping.
Digital photos can be easily edited. Many cameras come with good editing software. You can purchase good software for a hundred dollars or less. Most photos, digital or on film, could stand to be cropped, that is, have the parts you don't need removed, so as to emphasize what you do need. Other common improvements you can make with editing software are to brighten a photo, or increase the contrast, or the reverse. Much more sophisticated manipulation can be done. (See the first item in the images section of this post, for a good example.) Manipulations like these are beyond almost everybody with traditional film, but most people can pick up the basic tasks of editing with digital photos.
Digital photos are easy to store. You can make backups the same way you do with your other important computer files. You are backing up your files, aren't you?
Having established that digital cameras can be useful items, how to select one? I have a few rather idiosyncratic guidelines:
1) Be sure you get enough memory. Most digital cameras come with enough memory to store about 8-12 photos, and that's just not enough. Buy a memory stick, or some such, so that you can store at least 50-100 photos before transferring them to your computer, or changing to another memory card/stick/whatever.
2) Some cameras do not have batteries that can be removed, and replaced (the entire camera has to be connected to house current to recharge it). Avoid them. You need to be able to change batteries if they run dry, right there at the wedding/sporting event/hike/picnic whatever. Have a spare set of batteries with you whenever you take the camera.
3) Zooming: I found, after over 3 years with our first camera, that I wished I could zoom to get better photos close up. There are digital and optical zooms. Digital zooms (where the software adds in pixels) help some, but not very much, compared to optical zoom. However, the problem with an optical zoom (where the glass lens does the work) is that it usually makes the camera larger, or you have to carry a special add-on lens for it. I decided it was worth it, for me. It won't be for everyone. Zooming also lets you take better photos of distant objects.
4) Digital cameras tend to be slow. The dog, or the baby, has changed position before you can capture it. Look for a rapid response.
5) Get a camera with a large viewing screen, the larger, the better. You can see what you are getting, you can check your photos to delete the bad ones, and you can even pass the camera around to share your pictures without waiting for a print-out or putting them on your computer.
6) Digital cameras change rapidly. The life of a particular model is generally less than a year. For most people, especially most people getting their first one, having a newly released model isn't of primary importance, and retailers reduce the prices of the models that are six months old or so, making them more attractive.7) You shouldn't spend a few hundred dollars without doing some research. There are sites that review digital cameras. As far as I know, they aren't influenced by advertising. Here are some of them: dpreview, megapixel, CNet and imaging resource, which latter I have found to be especially helpful.
8) Try before buying. Borrow a friend's digital camera. Try it out, and work with downloading to your computer. Find out what you like, and don't like. The display cameras in retail stores usually can be used, even when they are tethered to the shelf. Take a few photos. See what they look like.
After you get a digital camera, join Flickr. They have a free membership, for up to 200 photos (for having more that you and others can see, it's $29.95 per year), and your friends can look at them (so can everybody else in the world) without having to join it themselves, so long as you send them the URL. (Here's mine) Some on-line sites require passwords even to look at photos of your cousins. Flickr doesn't. Besides, as I can testify, it's addictive. But that's another story.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, March 10, 2006
The Turing Test and Computer Intelligence
A recent article in The New Atlantis discusses the Turing Test and related issues dealing with intelligence in computers.
Allan Turing was one of the pioneers of computer theory, perhaps the greatest. In 1950, he wrote an article which begins with this sentence: "I PROPOSE to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Hardly a modest beginning.
Turing stated that he did not believe in an all-powerful God, or special properties of human immortal souls. Nevertheless, he attempted to consider his question theologically, in particular this objection: "Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think." He concluded that "In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates."
As to the objection stated by Turing, I'm not sure it's completely true. I don't find any scriptural evidence that rules out some thinking by animals (or machines, for that matter). Although humans are in the image of God, perhaps other entities (even rocks) have at least a little of God's image in them, too, whatever the image of God is, just as an artist or composer leaves something of herself in all of her creations. And, whatever it is, I don't think that the ability to think is all there is of God's image in humans. I suspect that it includes creativity, the ability to form relationships, the ability to make moral choices, and emotions.
Turing went on to attempt to dispose of eight additional arguments against the possibility of machines being able to think. Perhaps the most important argument, historically, was originally made by Lady Ada Lovelace, also one of the great pioneers of computing, in notes to an article which she translated, and which was published in 1842:
The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths. Its province is to assist us in making available what we are already acquainted with. (from note G) [emphasis is Lovelace's]
Turing said that new types of machine were now available, which hadn't been available in Lovelace's time, which was true, of course.
Toward the end of his article, Turing wrote: "We may hope that machines will eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields."
The Turing Test, proposed by Turing, is to communicate with an unknown entity -- carry on a conversation, such as by instant messaging, (which was not available in Turing's day -- back then some sort of typing would have been used) and see if you can tell if the unknown is a human or a computer. Turing said that, if we cannot be sure, then the computer has achieved intelligence.
The article in The New Atlantis basically says that Lady Lovelace was right, at least so far. The Turing Test criterion, says the author, has not been met. Computers, so far, seem only able to do what they have been programmed to do. Mark Halpern, the author, concludes that ". . . we have not yet achieved artificial intelligence, and have no idea if we ever will." This in spite of Turing's affirmation that we will achieve this. Halpern discusses some attempts to apply the Turing Test, and related matters.
Note: The New Atlantis article is readable by any reasonably intelligent person. The article by Turing is also mostly readable, but considerably longer. The article translated by Lovelace, and most of her notes, are not for the faint-hearted.
Note: This post was revised somewhat on March 13th. Thanks for reading!
Allan Turing was one of the pioneers of computer theory, perhaps the greatest. In 1950, he wrote an article which begins with this sentence: "I PROPOSE to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Hardly a modest beginning.
Turing stated that he did not believe in an all-powerful God, or special properties of human immortal souls. Nevertheless, he attempted to consider his question theologically, in particular this objection: "Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think." He concluded that "In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates."
As to the objection stated by Turing, I'm not sure it's completely true. I don't find any scriptural evidence that rules out some thinking by animals (or machines, for that matter). Although humans are in the image of God, perhaps other entities (even rocks) have at least a little of God's image in them, too, whatever the image of God is, just as an artist or composer leaves something of herself in all of her creations. And, whatever it is, I don't think that the ability to think is all there is of God's image in humans. I suspect that it includes creativity, the ability to form relationships, the ability to make moral choices, and emotions.
Turing went on to attempt to dispose of eight additional arguments against the possibility of machines being able to think. Perhaps the most important argument, historically, was originally made by Lady Ada Lovelace, also one of the great pioneers of computing, in notes to an article which she translated, and which was published in 1842:
The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths. Its province is to assist us in making available what we are already acquainted with. (from note G) [emphasis is Lovelace's]
Turing said that new types of machine were now available, which hadn't been available in Lovelace's time, which was true, of course.
Toward the end of his article, Turing wrote: "We may hope that machines will eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields."
The Turing Test, proposed by Turing, is to communicate with an unknown entity -- carry on a conversation, such as by instant messaging, (which was not available in Turing's day -- back then some sort of typing would have been used) and see if you can tell if the unknown is a human or a computer. Turing said that, if we cannot be sure, then the computer has achieved intelligence.
The article in The New Atlantis basically says that Lady Lovelace was right, at least so far. The Turing Test criterion, says the author, has not been met. Computers, so far, seem only able to do what they have been programmed to do. Mark Halpern, the author, concludes that ". . . we have not yet achieved artificial intelligence, and have no idea if we ever will." This in spite of Turing's affirmation that we will achieve this. Halpern discusses some attempts to apply the Turing Test, and related matters.
Note: The New Atlantis article is readable by any reasonably intelligent person. The article by Turing is also mostly readable, but considerably longer. The article translated by Lovelace, and most of her notes, are not for the faint-hearted.
Note: This post was revised somewhat on March 13th. Thanks for reading!
Friday, December 30, 2005
Biblical warning about aimless web-surfing
Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways. Psalm 119:37 (ESV)
Friday, July 29, 2005
Emergent Properties & Computer Consciousness
Emergent properties come about when lower-level structures create higher-level structures with properties additional to those of the lower-level structure. (If that made sense to you, you are probably a genius!) Here's the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on emergent properties. Here's the Wikipedia's article. The Wikipedia uses the shape and behavior of flocks of birds as an example. The flock has properties that individual birds do not. Probably the most common use of the term is to explain consciousness*. Some people believe self-consciousness simply arises, as a new property, when you connect a lot of neurons.
In a recent post, I discussed a book by Bernd Heinrich, which was about how insects cope with being cold-blooded. Some of the behavior exhibited by social insects, namely bees, ants, wasps, and especially termites, is remarkable. They cooperatively construct elaborate and effective ventilation and air-conditioning systems.
Heinrich, and most scientists, agree that there seem to be emergent properties in such behaviors. However, I am not aware of any scientists who believe that social insects have a single controlling intellect, somehow guiding the behavior of each worker. Rather:
As I noted above, there are important current thinkers who believe that self-consciousness is an emergent property of intelligent animals. That is, simply having all those connections in the brain is enough to cause consciousness to appear. Perhaps they are right. We have not reached general agreement on what self-consciousness is, and how it comes about. Most Christians suppose that consciousness was somehow imparted to humans, as part of the image of God, but I don't think that we have any better idea than anyone else how to explain what it is and how it works, nor can we prove that, say, dolphins or gorillas do not have self-consciousness. It is possible that, indeed, I am self-conscious because I have more connections than some threshold. That could be God's mechanism for putting self-consciousness in humans, just as DNA is His mechanism for passing on characteristics.
There are important current thinkers who believe that computers now have, or soon will have, consciousness as an emergent property. Kevin Kelly, in an important article on the state of the Internet, 10 years after the Netscape initial stock offering, seems to be one such example:
Perhaps the time will come when computers are allowed to vote, or to join a church, or when they will inspire evangelization. (How would one become a missionary to computers?) I don't think it is here yet, and am not certain that it ever will be. If it ever does occur, it won't be a surprise to God.
*In this post, I am supposing that "consciousness" is the same thing as self-consciousness, or self-awareness. That's probably being a little too loose with words.
In a recent post, I discussed a book by Bernd Heinrich, which was about how insects cope with being cold-blooded. Some of the behavior exhibited by social insects, namely bees, ants, wasps, and especially termites, is remarkable. They cooperatively construct elaborate and effective ventilation and air-conditioning systems.
Heinrich, and most scientists, agree that there seem to be emergent properties in such behaviors. However, I am not aware of any scientists who believe that social insects have a single controlling intellect, somehow guiding the behavior of each worker. Rather:
Many of the bee's responses are shaped by social needs, and in that sense the colony is like a machine, or "superorganism," with different parts that contribute to the functioning of the whole. Although this analogy acknowledges the obvious, it is not generally useful in specifying how coordination is achieved. It does not reveal how the individuals react, or why they react, in the way that we know how the various organ systems are controlled to produce an overall effect in an individual organism. Ultimately, the functioning of the whole can only be understood by dissecting it and learning how, when, why, and to what the individuals respond. Bernd Heinrich, The Thermal Warriors: Strategies of Insect Survival. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 180)
I was a little surprised to note Heinrich's use of "superorganism." There were, decades ago, influential thinkers who believed that there was, somehow, a collective consciousness in colonies of social insects, especially in African termites. Maurice Maeterlinck, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1911, was one such. (See here, for an interesting complication to this.) J. R. R. Tolkien was not a scientist, of course, but this passage illustrates the idea:As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope. J. R. R. Tolkien, The Return of the King: Being the Third Part of The Lord of the Rings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963, p. 227.
Scientists of today would almost all agree with Heinrich: "Ultimately, the functioning of the whole can only be understood by dissecting it and learning how, when, why, and to what the individuals respond." Natural selection, in other words, operates at the level of the individual. There is no "swollen brooding thing" in an ant or termite colony. The colony doesn't become self-aware as more individuals are added. At least we don't think it does.As I noted above, there are important current thinkers who believe that self-consciousness is an emergent property of intelligent animals. That is, simply having all those connections in the brain is enough to cause consciousness to appear. Perhaps they are right. We have not reached general agreement on what self-consciousness is, and how it comes about. Most Christians suppose that consciousness was somehow imparted to humans, as part of the image of God, but I don't think that we have any better idea than anyone else how to explain what it is and how it works, nor can we prove that, say, dolphins or gorillas do not have self-consciousness. It is possible that, indeed, I am self-conscious because I have more connections than some threshold. That could be God's mechanism for putting self-consciousness in humans, just as DNA is His mechanism for passing on characteristics.
There are important current thinkers who believe that computers now have, or soon will have, consciousness as an emergent property. Kevin Kelly, in an important article on the state of the Internet, 10 years after the Netscape initial stock offering, seems to be one such example:
When we post and then tag pictures on the community photo album Flickr, we are teaching the Machine [The global Internet] to give names to images. The thickening links between caption and picture form a neural net that can learn. Think of the 100 billion times per day humans click on a Web page as a way of teaching the Machine what we think is important. Each time we forge a link between words, we teach it an idea. Wikipedia encourages its citizen authors to link each fact in an article to a reference citation. Over time, a Wikipedia article becomes totally underlined in blue as ideas are cross-referenced. That massive cross-referencing is how brains think and remember. It is how neural nets answer questions. It is how our global skin of neurons will adapt autonomously and acquire a higher level of knowledge.
The human brain has no department full of programming cells that configure the mind. Rather, brain cells program themselves simply by being used. Likewise, our questions program the Machine to answer questions. We think we are merely wasting time when we surf mindlessly or blog an item, but each time we click a link we strengthen a node somewhere in the Web OS, thereby programming the Machine by using it.
Kevin Kelly, "We Are the Web", Wired, July 27, 2005.
Perhaps the time will come when computers are allowed to vote, or to join a church, or when they will inspire evangelization. (How would one become a missionary to computers?) I don't think it is here yet, and am not certain that it ever will be. If it ever does occur, it won't be a surprise to God.
*In this post, I am supposing that "consciousness" is the same thing as self-consciousness, or self-awareness. That's probably being a little too loose with words.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
I hope this doesn't hurt US-Canadian relations
I had what I thought was a simple question for my ISP. It didn't turn out that way:
First, I tried e-mail.
First, I tried e-mail.
First e-mail:
* Name: Martin LaBar
* Issue: General Info on [ISP] Services
* Detailed Issue: Other
* Message Body: I have activated 800 number access on our account.
What 800 number do I dial when in Stratford, Ontario? Thanks.
Relevant portion of response:
Dear Martin LaBar,
Thank you for contacting us.
We understand that you are inquiring about the 800 number to dial from Stanford and Ontario.
Please be informed that, you can use the following 800 number to access internet from anywhere in US
. . .
Once the service is activated, you may start using the 800 access numbers at any time.
800 service is billed at a rate of $6.00 per hour ($0.10 per minute) surcharge is added to your regular dial-up account charges for all calls using the Service in the United States. Calls are billed in 1 minute increments, with a 30 second minimum.
If you need any further assistance, please let us know.
Sonny N 3713
[ISP] Electronic Customer Support
[ISP], Inc.
So I tried again:
For your information, STRATFORD (not Stanford--see my original query . . .) ONTARIO is in CANADA, not the United States (it's North of most of the US).
What number, if any, can I use to access dial-up from there? I don't need, nor do I expect to get, DSL from there.
Thanks.
Reply 2:
Dear Martin Labar,
Thank you for your reply.
We sincerely apologize for the miscommunication.
We understand that you are inquiring about the access numbers for Stratford and Ontario, to use the dial up services there.
We are sorry to inform you that, we are unable to find the access numbers for the cities, Stratford and Ontario.
However, in order for us to assist you in finding the nearest access number, please provide the following details:
1. Your phone number including area code.
2. The city where you live.
3. Surrounding cities.
4. The current access number you dial to connect to [ISP].
So I e-mailed again:
Let's try this one more time. I live in South Carolina, which is a State in the United States. I am planning on taking a trip to Stratford, a town in the Province of Ontario, which is in Canada. Canada is a country separate from the U. S. What phone number can I use to access [ISP] with my laptop from Stratford, Ontario, Canada?
Thank you.
Reply3
Dear Martin Labar,
Thank you for contacting us.
We sincerely apologize for the confusion.
We understand that you are inquiring for access number for Stratford, which is located in the Canadian State of Ontario.
We are sorry to inform you that, we are unable to find access number for the City of Stratford.
However, you can find the access number of its near by cities and use that number to have dial up internet access at Stratford.
You can also locate an [ISP] access number of the near by cities for your area(i.e., Stratford), by visiting the following link:
So I gave up, and tried chatting:
'Anthony M' says: Thank you for contacting [ISP name] LiveChat, how may I help you today?
[me]: We will be travelling to Stratford, Ontario, Canada, and taking our laptop. Is there an 800 number I can access from that city? If so, what is it, please? Thanks.
Anthony M: I understand that you wish to know about the 800 number for few cities.
[me]: I want to know if there are any 800 numbers for Canada, a country adjacent to the US.
Anthony M: I am sorry to inform you that there are no 800 numbers for canada.
[me]: OK. Thanks.
Anthony M: You are most welcome.
Anthony M: I appreciate your understanding.
Anthony M: Is there anything else I may assist you with today?
[me]: No. Thanks.
Anthony M: You're welcome and thank you for using [ISP name] LiveChat. Should you need further assistance, please feel free to contact us again.
Anthony M: Bye.
Except for eliminating some boilerplate, and hiding the ISP's name, and our own e-mail address, this is a verbatim transcript of interchanges on June 18, 2005.
I am reasonably sure that "Sonny M." and "Anthony M." are pseudonyms for tech support workers from Asia, who, apparently, are even more ignorant of geography than most U. S. residents. (I hope!) I don't care if my ISP gets its tech workers from Mars, as long as they are reasonably competent. Being competent in geography is probably too much to ask. I see that I didn't continue to ask "Sonny M." about 800 service, which I should have. I'm not at all sure that I got a correct answer from "Anthony M."
I hope this doesn't hurt US-Asian relations, or Asian-Canadian relations.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Confessions of a FreeCell addict
I'm a FreeCell addict. If I'm in recovery, it doesn't show. I probably play 4-12 games a day. (For those who may not know, FreeCell comes with Windows. Except for computers where it was not installed, it is available as an accessory, a game, or an accessory>game from the Start menu.)
When thinking about posting about this subject, it suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't looked at the game as a scientist. For one thing, how many games are possible? I thought about it, and decided that I'd look it up, rather than trying to figure it out. So I did. "FreeCell, Frequently Asked Questions," tells even addicts more than they would want to know. One thing it told me was that the first version had 32,000 different deals. Way more than that are possible. Way, way more, like "roughly 1.75x10^64."
The link above includes a link to a freeware game, FreeCell Pro, which has some interesting options. These include more than one undo, keeping track of all your moves, so they can be printed out or saved in digital form, adding more than four freecells, and other options.
So where are the confessions?
Well, I've got just one, and it's this. I spend more time playing FreeCell than I should. I like to think that it is covered by Philippians 4:8*, as something I can think about, but I think about it too much. Sorry. I'm also sorry for the title, or should be. The first word looked better as a plural than as a singular.
Three lessons
1) As in life, nearly everything is solvable, if you are doing what you should. The aforementioned FAQ states that only one game, in the original set of 32,000, is unsolvable. That's number 11982. That can be solved with FreeCell Pro, by adding some freecells.
2) Plan ahead. Don't just blindly move. Think about the consequences.
3) The best way to win is to aim to build up from the Kings. That's my own observation. It's tempting to worry about the Aces, and often you have to, but the goal should be to get the Kings where they belong, namely at the bottom of a stack, and build from there. There's a moral there, of course. Put the King where He belongs, and you'll win.
*Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. (ASV)
P. S. (November 14, 2006) I'm now coming off several months of Sudoku, slowly, and easing back into FreeCell.
When thinking about posting about this subject, it suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't looked at the game as a scientist. For one thing, how many games are possible? I thought about it, and decided that I'd look it up, rather than trying to figure it out. So I did. "FreeCell, Frequently Asked Questions," tells even addicts more than they would want to know. One thing it told me was that the first version had 32,000 different deals. Way more than that are possible. Way, way more, like "roughly 1.75x10^64."
The link above includes a link to a freeware game, FreeCell Pro, which has some interesting options. These include more than one undo, keeping track of all your moves, so they can be printed out or saved in digital form, adding more than four freecells, and other options.
So where are the confessions?
Well, I've got just one, and it's this. I spend more time playing FreeCell than I should. I like to think that it is covered by Philippians 4:8*, as something I can think about, but I think about it too much. Sorry. I'm also sorry for the title, or should be. The first word looked better as a plural than as a singular.
Three lessons
1) As in life, nearly everything is solvable, if you are doing what you should. The aforementioned FAQ states that only one game, in the original set of 32,000, is unsolvable. That's number 11982. That can be solved with FreeCell Pro, by adding some freecells.
2) Plan ahead. Don't just blindly move. Think about the consequences.
3) The best way to win is to aim to build up from the Kings. That's my own observation. It's tempting to worry about the Aces, and often you have to, but the goal should be to get the Kings where they belong, namely at the bottom of a stack, and build from there. There's a moral there, of course. Put the King where He belongs, and you'll win.
*Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. (ASV)
P. S. (November 14, 2006) I'm now coming off several months of Sudoku, slowly, and easing back into FreeCell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
