Waking Nightmare

This http://youtu.be/GrfXtAHYoVA (and this http://youtu.be/a6cNdhOKwi0)
terrifies me.  Today's technology leaders envision a future where pretty bubbles and always-on connectivity guide you through every step of your waking world.  Google's project Glass and Microsoft's Vision depict tech. devices embedded in glasses and on every surface.  These projects aim to replace deliberative human thought with constant, consumeristic impulse.  Notice in the Vision video, the office worker sees an ad, and donates to a cause without pausing to evaluate the organization it comes from.  In Google's Glass video, the wearer lets the device guide him through a city, a task which formerly required minimal effort, into a book store, then the device finds the book, enables friend stalking, then shares the location and information.  The future, as envisioned by the tech giants, is one of no thought, no divergence from consuming.  Voluntary constant surveillance tempered with helpless dependence upon the enabling technology will usurp freedom of action and thought from the user.  From all users.  From all enablers.  I am afraid for the future.

(Funny, how even now, as I frantically type this on a Mac in a closet on Google's own service, that I can only voice this fear to an audience at the whim of tech giants.)

Disenchanted, Isolated, Alienated

So, I was watching CNN on break at work recently, and an idea hit me like Tyson uppercut: I don't care about it anymore.  I've always felt that as sentient humans and citizens of the world, we have a responsibility to be well informed and mentally active.  However, after ingesting hours of rancid doom reels, I've ceased caring. Even the newspapers can't offer me solace.  Everywhere I turn, the media throws dramatic and flashy packages around about America's impending demise because its credit rating fell ONE grade from AAA to AA+!  Tell me, does ONE letter grade from ONE rating agency really make much of an impact on ANYONE's existence?  No, it doesn't.  But, it sells like crack in Harlem.  Fanatics on both ends of the Hitler - Stalin spectrum eat this stuff up, just to blame it on the other side.  

Historically, mankind had an excellent firewall against this onslaught of drivel:  sovereignty of mind.  Sadly, few employ it daily.  Political media & social media cultures promote easily relate-able stories to stir emotions and views / posts / heated one sided arguments with whomever will listen.  There's no point in having your own opinion when no one respects it.  I hear story after story about winning over the idealogical independents to "x" cause.  Perhaps they don't support it because it's simply not a good cause!  

I should like to thank FOX & MSNBC for ruining news, Facebook for killing everyone's corporeal social skills, Kindle for killing Borders, and the ad agencies for making independent thought irrelevant.  Ayn Rand wrote about how forced collective thinking is terrible for everyone in the Fountainhead, and I certainly agree. 

Contributions to the Fields of Mathematics and Logic

Today, I set forth my ultimate contribution to the fields of Mathematics and Logic.  I can sternly assure you that the impact of my dissertation will be equivalent to that of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia.

In the following Tenets, I provide a clear and logical method for one to view and understand the world as we know it, using the sociological phenomena of the Meme as a medium.  These Tenets, I believe, also explain a plethora of human psychological functions and disorders, such as paranoia and trust.  

As such, I formally present to you 

"The Logical Theory of Visible and Invisible Social and Psychological Stabilty Concerning the presence of Dangerous Objects"




============Tenet I===============


Let P = Admiral Ackbar;
Let Q = the Presence of a Trap

Statement: "If Admiral Ackbar is present, it's a trap."  
                                       P => Q 


As we know, Admiral Ackbar always indicates a present trap.  The logical value of this statement is true.
                                       L(P => Q) = True


This implies that
                  "If a trap is present, Admiral Ackbar is there." 
                                              Q => P


As we know, this is not always true.  Traps exist in nature independently of Admiral Ackbar's presence.
                                        L(Q => P) = False


The presence of a Trap does not necessarily imply the presence of Admiral Ackbar.  Traps can (and do)
exist without his physical presence.

============Tenet II================

In the case of
Let R = Jigsaw,


Statement: "If Jigsaw is present, it's a trap." 
                                      R => Q

Indeed, the presence of Jigsaw indicates the presence of a trap.  The logical value of this is True.
                                      L(R => Q) = True


This implies that 
                  "If a trap is present, Jigsaw is there."   
                                     Q => R


As we know, traps exist in nature independently of Jigsaw's presence, such as in the presence or absence of Admiral Ackbar.  The logical value of this statement is False. 
                                     L(Q => R) = False

============Tenet III================

Statement:  "Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw both indicate the presence of traps." 

                                    (P => Q) ^ (R => Q)

Indeed, both Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw indicate the presence of traps.  The logical value of this statement is True. 

                L(

(P => Q) ^ (R => Q) ) = True

However, this does not imply that

               "Since Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw both indicate the presence of traps, Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw are one in the same." 

               (

(P => Q) ^ (R => Q) ) => ( (P => R) ^ (R => P) )

It has been proven that, although Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw both indicate the presence of traps, Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw are versed in different species of traps.  Therefore, Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw are, in fact, not one in the same.  

=============Tenet IV================

Statement:  "Since Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw both indicate the presence of traps, if a trap is present, Admiral Ackbar or Jigsaw is there." 

                                    Q => (P V R)

However, we have already proven that traps exist without the presence of Admiral Ackbar or Jigsaw, though they are always present when Admiral Ackbar or Jigsaw is present.  Therefore, the logical value of the previous statement is False. 
                                     L (Q => (P V R) ) = False

=============Tenet V================

Statement:  "The absence of both or either Admiral Ackbar and Jigsaw indicates an absence of traps."

                                     ~(P V R) => ~Q

We have already proven that traps exist in nature without the presence of both or either Admiral Ackbar or Jigsaw.  The logical value of the previous statement is false. 

                                     L ( ~(P V R) => ~Q) = False

=============Tenet VI================

Therefore, 

Let S = ( L (Tenet I) + L (Tenet II) + L (Tenet III) + L (Tenet IV) + L (Tenet V) ) 

As we have proven, the logical values of Tenets I-V are true. The logical value of S is, therefore, also true.  

                                   L ( S ) = True

This implies that 

                    "Tenets I-V are true, therefore, a trap is present." 

                                   S => Q

Because the Variable S is the sum of the logical values of Tenets I-V, and the logical values of Tenets I-V are true, the logical value of the previous implication is true.

                                   L (S => Q) = True

=============Conclusion================

Based on the truths set forth by Tenets I-VI, we can imply only one thing:

                                 Q

As we have defined previously, Q indicates the presence of a trap.  If traps exist in nature independently of the presence of either or both Admiral Ackbar or Jigsaw, we can reach only one logical conclusion:

                                IT'S A TRAP!!!!

Thoughts about Time

I'm pondering how infinitesimally short the "present" is, thinking aloud, if you will.
If it takes light about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, we're seeing the sun as it was eight minutes ago.  If that holds true, then what we see everyday is actually the reflected light from several nano-seconds ago.  We see a small subdivision of the past.  Technically, we cannot biologically process anything as it actually happens.  The only place where something instantaneous can happen is the mind, but then it only exists in the present at the instant the thought happens, and then it slips into the near past.  You can't define the exact instant a thought happens, because measurements are technically continuous and infinitely sub-divisible, so the present doesn't exist, but only varying degrees of the past, because the future hasn't happened yet and any predictions of that future happened in the past. So, therefore, the past encapsulates all of our understanding of time. 

First Post, and Thoughts about Nudism!

Friends, Romans, Countrymen...
STAND HO!
I've got a blog now, where I'll be posting my thoughts on anything from Philosophy, to Politics, to Science, to Religion, to Music and anything else my overly-adventurous mind might stumble upon.

I like to think of this experiment as an exercise in "Mental Liberation." And you, the reader, can think of this as a sounding board--- feel free to respond, to ARGUE, if you must.  It is your duty, after all.

=========================================================================

Now, this blog is like baby now.  Freshly delivered, still smoldering and covered in various bodily fluids...
And it's totally naked.  Like a Nudist.

These guys and 'gals fascinate me with the whole no clothes thing.  If you think of the implications, it's really deep:  People wear clothes to hide things.  "We (the Nudists) have nothing to hide!" It's really beautiful and just... awesome.  If I had a better physique, I might seriously try it, some day.

BUT---  There is nothing Natural about it.
I've meditated on this for a while, and I've reached a conclusion:  Nudism is a slap in the face to Mother Nature and Father Darwin.
It goes like this:  clothes are an adaptation.  Way back in the day, some people realized that by dawning the organs of their slain prey, they attain much higher levels of warmth and comfort.  Human hair just doesn't match up to carcasses in that respect.  So, we need less built-in warmth because we wear clothes, so we lose most of the hair over time.

See where this is going?  Even though (I'll argue this, though I can't precisely back it up) people beat Natural Selection once populations stabilized in the 1500's, there's no sound biological reason to NOT where clothes.  They provide warmth and keep us clean.
I'd wager that if some calamity drastically reduced human populations and the separated the remainder, an isolated Nudist population might someday "Revolve" increased body hair, assuming they live in mild climates.  I doubt they'd get much if they lived in, say, the tropics.

Granted, I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that the "naturally nudist" argument falls flat.