'To die, to sleep ... To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause...' - Hamlet

- Status quo bias

- A report by the president's council on bioethics: Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness

Excerpt:

"... Yet if there is merit in the suggestion that too long a life, with its end out of sight and mind, might diminish its worth, one might wonder whether we have already gone too far in increasing longevity. If so, one might further suggest that we should, if we could, roll back at least some of the increases made in the average human lifespan over the past century.

These remarks prompt some large questions: Is there an optimal human lifespan and an ideal contour of a human life? If so, does it resemble our historical lifespan (as framed and constrained by natural limits)?* Or does the optimal human lifespan lie in the future, to be achieved by some yet-to-be-developed life-extending technology? Whatever the answers to these intriguing and important questions, nothing in our inquiry ought to suggest that the present average lifespan is itself ideal...”

- A book reco: Flowers for Algernon

- And lastly a rant. Notice how a lot of SF stories and movies tend to be alarmist? There is a new invention which makes humans superhuman, or AI is developed to aid humans, or a new drug is discovered, or a paleontological species is recreated, or humans overcome odds to grow brains to travel across space. In the end, there is always a catch, and things go horribly wrong and threaten extinction, some calamitous catastrophe or at least a few shrieking kids later, a hitherto incompetent but large-hearted doofus saves everyone, or a flaw in the thingamacascafadr-that-is-hitherto-not-discovered-by-super-intelligences-but-the-reader/audience-can-get-in-one-cinematic-revelation brings the adversary to its suspiciously anthropomorphic knees. Sick.

Two quotes that I came across recently I liked:

"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself" -- A. H. Weiler

"A good horse runs when it sees even the shadow of a whip" -- The Buddha

Deep wisdom, good advice, metacognition

Have you had a conversation with someone on a subject you did not quite know much about, or read a write-up on a subject on which you have limited expertise, and subsequently remarked "Now, that is deep". Better even, have you asked someone for advice regarding something you did not know how to handle, and subsequently remarked "That is good advice". I have, and recoiled at the metacognitive gaffe. (Subsequently, the occurrences of my these utterances have diminished.)

(In order to know that the wisdom is deep, your own wisdom of the subject matter must be deep. In order to know that the advice is good, you must have a way to judge good and bad solutions.)

I think perhaps, this is explainable as a matter of terminology:

- When one says "This is deep", one doesn't really mean that one can gauge the depth of the wisdom. One just means that the wisdom is/was sufficiently nontrivial, that one's mind could imagine that the path to it must be hard.

- When one says "This is good advice", one perhaps doesn't really mean that one metacognitively examined the quality of the advice against other solutions and realized it's superiority, but instead means

• the solution given meets some desirability criteria (known a priori) that would be common to unknown solutions to the problem at hand.

or

• the solution to the problem makes one feel emotionally good.

Or is this another thing to be expected of the status seeking missiles that are humans? i.e. upon encountering depth, or quality, humans want to signal themselves and others that they possess the metacognitive ability to evaluate it? Or is this just an ack, to make the other person feel better?

Intention, Free Will etc.

'When the real demonstration came he had us walk on stage, and he hypnotized us in front of the whole Princeton Graduate College. This time the effect was stronger; I guess I had learned how to become hypnotized. The hypnotist made various demonstrations, having me do things that I couldn't normally do, and at the end he said that after I came out of hypnosis,instead of returning to my seat directly, which was the natural way to go, I would walk all the way around the room and go to my seat from the back. All through the demonstration I was vaguely aware of what was going on, and cooperating with the things the hypnotist said, but this time I decided, "Damn it, enough is enough! I'm gonna go straight to my seat." When it was time to get up and go off the stage, I started to walk straight to my seat. But then an annoying feeling came over me: I felt so uncomfortable that I couldn't continue. I walked all the way around the hall.'
...
'So I found hypnosis to be a very interesting experience. All the time you're saying to yourself, "I could do that, but I won't" -- which is just another way of saying that you can't.'

------- Richard Feynman, "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman"

'I am a brain, Watson. The rest of me is a mere appendix.'
--------- Sherlock Holmes, "The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone" by A.C. Doyle.

Enter the I of the vortex

Quick Gun Meran

The update on the WCC match between Kramnik and Anand is that Anand selected what appears to be a brilliant strategy of turning the tables on Kramnik. To counter Kramnik's longstanding "Safety with Black, push with White" strategy, Anand seems to have adopted the "Safety with White, attack with Black" strategy. And so far it has worked brilliantly.

Anand leads the match 3.5 - 1.5 having won 2/3 Black games. With 7 games to come, Kramnik faces a precipitous uphill climb. Kramnik needs to play in an unprecedented manner to have a shot at the title from here on.

Interestingly, Anand has shown that he can ditch his loyal preference for 1. e4, which he has consistently stuck to over a very long, eventful and brilliantly successful career, by choosing to move 1. d4 against a player who is one of the current experts on both sides of the d-pawn opening. Moreover, Anand has energetically entered the Meran lines of the QGD semi-slav while responding to 1. d4, which makes for sharp chess which suits Anand style, in positions he has had a lot of success in the past.

Kramnik has to do something extra-ordinary to stage a comeback, and while this is not unheard of in WCC matches, it promises great chess for the next few days.

An excellent paper on the economics of moral righteousness: Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions

A classical duel: The aging lightning kid takes on the ice king

The paths of two shooting stars in the chess world will cross in a few days, in an event that will be noted with at best mildly passing curiosity (I am basing this on history for guide) by all but a few geeky woodpushers across the world. This championship match is of historical importance, for it marks the end of an era of controversy in the chess world. Probably the most popularly held view is that the rarefied area at the top of the world of chess is split in the middle, with Vishy Anand wearing the crown handed down from Wilhelm Steinitz from champion to champion, when the previous champion of the bloodline lay it on the line in a tournament style championship held under the auspices of FIDE. FIDE held the championship tournament in 2007 to unify the bloodline title with the FIDE world championship title. Traditionally leaning chess fans feel strongly about the handing over of the bloodline title over a tournament, which they feel doesn't establish the head-to-head superiority of the champion over the challengers. Vladimir Kramnik will be playing Vishy Anand for the unified world championship title in a head-to-head 12 game match.

Vishy Anand: Known for his extremely quick calculations, however in classical games, speed of calculation is usually not of prime importance. Anand's style is sharp but safe and probing. His creative approach does open up vulnerabilities in his camp OTB, but at the same time prods the opponent into areas of tactical possibilities where Anand out calculates his rival. He is known to play the so called "open game" in almost every game of his career with White, by choosing to move 1.e4. This will be a potential weakness for him, since Kramnik is expected to play neutralising lines from the Petroff defence 1...e5, 2.Nf3, Nf6 and so on, which have proven very hard to crack so far. However, Anand does have a more incisive track record with Black than Kramnik, but Kramnik is known to be close to undefeatable with White. Anand's nerves could be a problem for him, especially if he lets Kramnik take the lead early.

Vladimir Kramnik: Known for his deep positional play. Kramnik is known to play for positional long term advantages, especially with White. He is known to seek positions that offer slow gradual improvement, which Kramnik usually exploits to grind down the opponent until he/she pops. Kramnik has been criticized by fans for his extreme passive play with Black, where he firmly places the burden-to-prove-advantage on the player playing White. With Black, he is known to avoid all complicating and risky lines, and is content with entering drawing lines at the earliest opportunity, unless the opponent blunders. This strategy has proven very efficacious for him in all three WC matches he has been part of. His solid playing style and ability to come back from losing the lead make him a formidable match opponent, although his style is not well adapted in winning tournaments where one has to win a lot of games.

The two opponents go back a long way, with Kramnik holding a tiny lead over Anand in head-to-head classical games. I think that this will be a very interesting match, with Kramnik somewhat of a pre-match favourite. I would put it at 55%-45% in favour of Kramnik.

We are all individuals!

(I attempt at haiku)

I pause from pithy
prose and my dry doggerel
to write bad haiku
--------

Ages pass it seems
until the one asks you how
you have felt lately
---------

A jaundiced moon beamed
down on old 101
and she rode with me
----------

I watched her recede
and walk away out of sight
the sun was way harsh
-----------

Mid happy chatter
I rise for a quick breath
of isolation
-----------

Thought that burns right through
the fabric of a subject
like a cigarette

Have hit a dry spell w.r.t. evocative thought. Might take a break from the parables, hyperbole... ellipses too, and stick to some laconic sections for a while.

Sheep in Scotland, and bullet-biting

"I've burned my own house down, the torch is in my hand.
Now I'll burn down the house of anyone who wants to follow me" -- The Bijak, Kabir


A philosopher-joke runs like this:

An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher were hiking through the hills of Scotland. Cresting the top of one hill, they see, on top of the next, a black sheep. The engineer says: "What do you know, the sheep in Scotland are black." "Well, *some* of the sheep in Scotland are black," replies the experimental physicist. The theoretical physicist considers this for a moment and says "Well, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black." "Well," the philosopher responds, "on one side, anyway."

You will notice it is possible to go further in the one-up-man-ship game emphasized in the joke. For instance, a philosopher' (or a pseudo-quantum-collapse-philosopher, if you will) may say "One side of the sheep is black when you look at it".

Let us go exactly opposite to the trend highlighted in the joke in analysing it. What the joke captures is a tendency I often encounter: the tendency to steer clear of that beast called falsifiability. Notice how the 'hierarchical heros' of our joke steer ever so clear of abstraction and universalizing, and by doing so, carefully disentangle themselves from falsifiability.

Notice however, that falsifiability is intimately coupled with hypothesis-building, and by consequence - learning something new, above-and-beyond what is experientially true at this point. A non falsifiable statement is content-free, contains no new information, or doesn't impinge on the real world.

Metaphorically speaking, it behooves us to leave our safe havens of terra firma and step on the rocky boats of falsifiable hypotheses, if we ever intend to discover unknown and exotic worlds.

Bite the bullet. It holds the sweet juice of anagnorisis.

For those who came in late to the postmodern party..

One common pattern that executes itself repeatedly in human history is the following loop:

Step 1. Individual (small-collection) nonconformism with prevailing philosophies and establishments.
Step 2. A successful nonconformist movement gaining establishment status.
Step 3. A different counter-culture looping back to Step 1.

The transition from Step 1 to Step 2 is curious. This is where large numbers of individuals consider themselves unique in their nonconformism. This is where people are occasionally surprised to learn that there already is an 'ism' in prevalent language for their espoused brand of antiestablishmentarianism.

One such contemporary phenomenon is self-proclaiming (in a sense) definition-defying postmodernism. (Although, I believe that it is now generally considered that we have left the postmodern era behind us, or are in the process of doing so.)

The following are excerpts from Paul Newall's introduction to postmodernism:

" ... we could say that postmodernism is skeptical of theoretical viewpoints that are foundational (as we discussed in our fifth article) or grounded in some way, and critical of theory in general. Sometimes a distinction is made along the following lines:
Affirmative postmodernists: theory needs to be changed, rather than rejected
Skeptical postmodernists: theory should be rejected, or at least subject to severe critique ..."

"... Although we must be careful to over generalization or oversimplification, opposing modern to postmodern we have:

Structure opposed to anarchy

Construction opposed to deconstruction

Theory opposed to anti-theory

Interpretation opposed to hostility toward definite interpretation

Meaning opposed to the play of meaning or a refusal to pin down

Metanarratives opposed to hostility toward narratives

The search for underlying meaning opposed to a suspicion (or certainty) that this is impossible

Progress opposed to a doubt that progress is possible

Order opposed to subversion

Encyclopedic knowledge opposed to a web of understanding ..."

"... Another telling criticism is to note that to be anti-theory is still to have a theory; that is, the theory that we shouldn't have a theory. Rejecting the need for criteria (whatever their purpose) is still a criterion. Is it possible to be as playful as some suggest, not holding beliefs or methodological approaches and instead refusing to define or pin down narratives? How lightly can we hold our ideas before we end up either holding nothing at all or become certain of them without realising it? ..."

"... Are long, complicated words being used as part of a specialist language or because postmodernists have nothing of consequence to say and want to hide this fact behind their rhetoric? Often the answer is a matter of opinion, or of saying that even a difficult writer can sometimes offer a comment clearly enough to raise an eyebrow before plunging back into a thicket of terminology. Since a key assumption of this series is that anything worth saying can be said clearly, it may be that some people are reluctant to wade into postmodernist thinking for fear that their time will be wasted; unless the writer is composing his thoughts merely for the amusement of himself and a few select friends, this is a difficulty that still restricts the impact that postmodern ideas can have. ... "

The following are excerpts from Richard Dawkins' polemic on postmodernism: Postmodernism Disrobed reviewing the book "Intellectual Impostures"

Quoting Medawar: "... Style has become an object of first importance, and what a style it is! For me it has a prancing, high-stepping quality, full of self-importance; elevated indeed, but in the balletic manner, and stopping from time to time in studied attitudes, as if awaiting an outburst of applause. It has had a deplorable influence on the quality of modern thought . . . "

and

"... No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that most of us will not understand the language in which they are expressed. And no doubt there is also language designed to be unintelligible in order to conceal an absence of honest thought. But how are we to tell the difference? What if it really takes an expert eye to detect whether the emperor has clothes? In particular, how shall we know whether the modish French 'philosophy', whose disciples and exponents have all but taken over large sections of American academic life, is genuinely profound or the vacuous rhetoric of mountebanks and charlatans? ..."

The following link leads you to a new, automatically generated "postmodern" article, each time: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

The postmodern mara-dragon has slippery and multi-speckled skin of indeterminate colour. It is said to spew flames of rhetoric with a hiss that is said to sound like "Who is to say?".

The postmodern Rainman writes up a self-referenced, anti-structural, high-style null-truth-value (what is that?) interpret-me-if-you-dare write-up and gloats to his brother: "I made a falutin'! ".

Upon encountering passive and active resistance, and apathy regarding my persistent (- but I will be the first to note, of questionably formal precision -) focus on logic, rationality, limits, formalism: I ponder some more on the relationships of the above to emotions, building of opinions and changing of minds.

It was said that logic, formalism, rationality and evidence are all fine and dandy, but they do not comprise what it takes to influence minds into doing XYZ. It was said that people make up their minds, change them et. al. based on emotions and no strength of logic will get Joe/Jane to do something they wouldn't do if it weren't for another's influence. In other words, an appeal to people's reason is inconsequential. Shouting against the wind. Also, who is to say nonformal, haphazard, inconsistent or whimsical means, methods and frameworks do not contain truth or do not offer equally valid approaches at getting at answers.

There is a lot of truth in the above statements, and they contain little I would disagree with if presented as such. However, I have to state where logic, formalism, demonstration of evidence, appeal to reason etc. do play a role. Perhaps I will present this as a laundry list.

• We are minds that do not start out with complete knowledge of everything. In other words, we need to learn to fill in the incompleteness in our knowledge.
• We need to exchange information in order to learn.
• If it were true that one needs to influence a mind in a write-only (or more write-only than read-write) fashion, then a formal system that uses logic, reasoning to build on established ideas and principles is probably not the most effective instrument.
• I am more interested in the "read" part of "read-write" than in the "write" part.
• The "read" part of "read-write" is important. This is what enables learning.
• For the read part of read-write to be effective, demagoguery is not the right instrument. The below bullet-points on this.
• If my mind were to provably advance in knowledge-update, it has to convey information to another mind in clear, transparent ways where the path traversed to labels are visible to the other mind. Elaboration in next bullet.
• When a held position and its motivations are transparently exposed to another mind, that is when the other mind can offer checks and guidelines to further knowledge-update to my own mind. By occluding the traversed paths i.e. introducing any non-transparency, I may protect myself from criticism, but I will be stubbing out learning along that unexposed vector.
• The above bullet point means that while an argument by emotion, or to emotion, such as appeal to emotion may hold truth value and may convey truth to a mind, this truth value may not be establishable in a framework where the path-transparency is guaranteed. In other words, this truth that may be felt is not provable leading to lack of transparency, leading to lack of utility in further guaranteeable knowledge update.
• This is why, while a statement such as "I'll vote for Clinton, because I feel good about her" may hold intrinsic appeal and may be above reproach, and that is how people may decide on their voting, its intercommunicability-value with another mind is low. Lack of transparency means lack of communicability on a commonly establishable basis.
• The role of logic, formalism and reasoning is to provide a framework which if accepted by minds engaging in answer-seeking, lead to establishable ideas the trails to which remain transparent, and further provide transparent trails to other ideas following the same system that led to the labeling of intermediate nodes.
• This, in my opinion is the value of reasoning and frameworks. It is "establishability" of meaning that can be held common across minds.

Daniel Dennett: The self as a center of narrative gravity

Autopiloting, Bonsai minds and a Yodaism

"Boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon? "


We like the comfort of our beliefs and positions. They are our old friends. We have spent a lot of time coochi-cooing with them, ironing out every annoying crease of disformity. Using the chisel of cognitive dissonance, we have sculpted our mind for maximum fit with the undulations of our container beliefs, like a bonsai plant.

No wonder then, new beliefs and new ways of thought appear unpleasant, and rightly so, need to be extensively studied and checked for contaminants under the torchlight of logic, before sweet, happy uptake. Yet, like John Lennon said "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans", we do not step outside life, the universe* and everything, while we happily evaluate options.

We continue to make choices, execute decisions based on our current philosophies - considered, happened upon, underevaluated et. al.- the only thing common to them is we have grown comfortable to them - and reap the benefits/pay the price for the consequences.

Waiting to commit to a (any) school of thought is in consequence, an endorsement of our subscribed (by default) school of thought (which may not have been subjected to the same rigour to which the new school is subjected). (This is different from the argument by verbal skullduggery that starts with "Atheism is also a religion because it is the belief in non-existence of ..." and so on.) There is safety in (default) loyalty to our beloved beliefs, but this safety comes at a price.

The fence is illusory. Do or not do. There is no fence.




* Archimedes said "Give me a place to stand and I shall move the earth". Change "earth" to "universe", and 'Houston, we have a problem!'

Prof. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on flow

the meditation on mara

mara is the omega to the alpha. Agent Smith to Neo. Mr. Nobody the busybody. The serpent seducing you to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The tail of the Ouroboros that has to be consumed to complete the circle of life.

mara is always at hand when you need him and when you don't. He has handy easy-to-understand low negentropic answers to every question you have thought of, and to those you haven't yet thought of.

He speaks of random walks in the dance of rationality. Of destinations the bridges to where have long been burnt.

Your refusal to commune with him is what he wants. Or maybe not. Call him in for a tete-e-tete and ask Ananda to make some tea.

Jessica L. Lakin, Tanya L. Chartrand: Need for inclusion with in-groups, nonverbal behaviour, reaction to exclusion, nonconscious mimicry

"Exclusion from social groups has negative emotional, psychological, and behavioral consequences. Yet it also seems important to explore the potential positive consequences; perhaps after exclusion, individuals engage in behaviors that help them affiliate with new people or re-establish themselves in the excluding group. The research described here demonstrates an affiliative behavior that occurs after exclusion – nonconscious behavioral mimicry."

Some dogs do not want to have their day: Learned helplessness