28 July 2018: De Plane!
Pain. Pain. Pain.
Still in some pain as I write three hours later: 20 minute workout first thing at 6:00 AM: very painful: 10/10 at times. Up from yesterday and day before.
Although lying flat does prevent night pain, I was in 5/10 pain on arising and had to punch thru 100 lowrise steps, a walk and 200 supine reps with weights. Inadvertent moves then caused screaming unless I focused on the need to keep quiet and take the pain during early morning workouts to let my homeys have their own pain-free sleep at this time when, in Horatio’s words,
No planets strike,
No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,
So hallow’d and so gracious is the time.
– Shakespeare, Hamlet
Loading up on painkiller even as I write, but troubled and worried in mind for this could be a permanent change. Down we go unless I trust in Thee.
Still plan to workout, thru the pain but this commitment may not be kept if nthis pain increases, which would indicate that my compulsive working out may be the cause of this pain, and, possibly, much worse.
Evening 28 July note: for this week, do no step workouts. Walking and supine dance with or without weights OK for typical durations of 20, 30, 30+ minutes; will get leg workouts from the Rackety Rower in Physio.
Keeping Computers Alive (with No Money From a Hospital Bed)
Nick the Brain has found that my Black Screen of Death on my MacAir, which has me using a Powerbook, was caused by a dying fan. Not good, because given the way a Mac Air depends on cool air (because its electronics are so powerful and packed in a small space in a way unprecedented in the Mac world), not only the Fan but also the system, depending on cool air flow patterns from the Fan, must shut down unexpectedly to avoid a Kentucky Fried Computer. This only appears to be a software problem but it’s a hardware feature which overrides software.
In addition, Nick the Brain points out that by dropping and cracking my Mac Air I create air holes and apertures which the power engineers could not anticipate. You’d think the holes would consistently cool the computer but as I learned, years ago, in my Windows certification class, they will generally HEAT the computer (whether by way of a crack or removing a panel on a desktop running Windows) since the air flow on either an old Windows or new MacAir system was designed to be OPTIMAL…therefore almost any change will HEAT the computer.
It’s just logic, not Weird Science: if airflow is as near to the theoretical best B such that airflow is B* (B*<B), the chance of accidentally changing your airflow, by dropping your computer, for the better and making the actual airflow A optimal such that B*<A<=B will be zero. Since A can NEVER exceed B by definition A will always be less than B*…worse than any airflow improvement obtained by dropping the system like a stupid idiot.
The problem HERE is that I drop computers, like unto a stupid idiot. I do so more frequently than the average end user because my natural clumsiness which was learned behavior back in the day is reinforced by the crippling effect of my cancer.
So now my resources for communicating with the world consist of a PowerBook 13 inch system with a cracked screen and a Mac Air that may be fried. In addition there's an excellent, and well-supported, Windows system which I can use for emergencies in the common room.
I could break into savings to get an HP Mini running Windows and .Net (native, not mono) or another MacAir but at this time I think it far more prudent to hack around and put up with problems for you learn more from such hacking and "with putting up".
But but … this returns me to my role of "the only truly effective computer user in the room" unless Nick Berriff (the Brain) is here, and this means I have to devote blocks of time to learning the latest "best designs" of idiots, hacks and corporate drones who don't give a s*t…unlike me or Nick. But I would rather read Kant.
Includes significant updates added 28 July 2018
Finished Michelle Grier on “The Ideal of Pure Reason”, primarily a discussion of the ontological proof method in general. Although Kant famously rejected the equivocation on properties and “existence” and other prerequisites to having properties he did believe that objects in the world could have a perfection as it were of properties and tried in the Ideal to make use of this.
To determine (or describe) a thing completely would seem to require that we know all possible positive predicates of that thing and have a list, say (A…Z, A0…Z0, … Az…Zz) of applicable predicates handy. Each NEGATIVE predicate (where, for example, “bad” is ~good or “male” is ~female in the sort of taxonomy we’d look for at this point) can be removed.
Of course, Kant’s optimism on this is rather touching. We can discover new predicates and in other cases we can find predicates meaningless as applied to certain objects. But proceeding as if these wrinkles were ironed-over…
…there exists a perfect being PB such that A(PB) & B(PB) & C(PB) & … Zz(PB) qed.
For example, if we can in such a facile manner prove the existence of the perfect being we also can prove using the same method, the existence of the Perfect Being’s “foil”, PBF, let’s say the Devil, simply by writing (~A(PBF) & ~B(PBF) & … & ~Zz(PBF).
And, if God doesn’t exist, and the same set of properties applies to God and the Devil in reverse, then the Devil doesn’t exist: God exists if and only if the devil exists: you can prove God’s existence by proving the Devil’s existence: “Imagine there’s no heaven”. Because you can in this world enumerate all properties of God, and because its logic is consistently two-valued, questions are easily answered in favor of God.
Complexity of thought is discouraged in universities which increasingly find it difficult to teach philosophy as opposed to “values and ethics” classes with a conservative slant, “critical thinking” with a nice leftist bias exactly where it is needed, or a neutral comparative religion class which isn’t philoophy.
However, we should leave off attacking modern philosophical pedagogy and take a look at our reasoning from overly facile lists of attributes to big results. At this point, we’ve been reduced to conjuror’s tricks which assume almost that beings can be brought into existence by writing or saying certain Kabbalah-like things but that is nonsense. What we’ve done is shown the backward-looking nature of Kant’s thought in addition to its forward looking nature when he, like we, reifies properties; traditional grammar did this as a matter of course since no need was seen for dividing things and properties when both were nouns in most languaged.
However, Kant’s thought is the ground of the very developments in modern logic which he would probably have found most useful, but which defy him here, including the very idea that our ordinary language including the ordinary mathematical notation we use in the spot (without fear that our calculus has occult, Kabbalistic power).
Both traditional and modern logic can treat properties as things and thereby making lists of properties including the excellencies of a Perfect Being. But modern logic can discover contradictory and nonsense properties (such as “shaves all men that do not shave themselves”) that much better.
In a sort of “hack” of symbolic logic notation I can “say” things that look meaningful such as this paraphrase of “some properties are excellencies but not all”.
(Ex)[isProperty(x) && isAnExcellency(x)] && (Ey)[isProperty(x) && ~isAnExcellency(x)]
These amusing parlor games raise issues. For example, the above implies that the world has two objects, one of which is an ordinary object and the other a property.
Now, suppose we have implemented the above notation as a “programming language” (which I ask you not to do for your own sanity). If its world data base contains fewer than two objects then we crash, or at best “there is a bug”. There may also be problems if there is object in the world which is an “excellency”.
I am not saying there are problems. I am saying that in my experience, the problem of “data with no value” was a philosophical and sociological education in itself.
“Data with no value” occurs in outlier and deviant cases and therefore deserves the most attention in social research and computing while getting the least, as does data that doesn’t fit a reified framework (male or female).
If the And operator is not implemented lazily such that in A && B, the “lazy” evaluator does NOT evaluate B when A implies that such evaluation may be a problem, then we crash. Computing here overrides the social need.
But because I have needed so much painkiller booster today, I am getting quite fuzzy and unequal to digital philosophy. I shall return to this subject tomorrow (Monday, China dating, 29 July 2013 starting around 0900, and going to 0100 (1:00 AM approximately USA).
I have just sleepily plugged this Kant Study in. I am so unutterably sleepy that it would be best to check it out tomorrow. My prose must flow between male and female polarities … zzz … huh wuzzat. I shall be well rested tomorrow, and won’t have to torment myself, doing mega step aerobics. Kant students, including graduate students studying Kant, are asked to comment on my sanity based on their knowledge of Kant, helping me to detect whether I’m going off the rails. When thanks to the professionalism and scholarship of the late ED Klemke at Roosevelt University in 1970, and that of his mentor Henry Veatch at Northwestern, we all had the extraordinary privilege of reading the complete Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus I had the privilege, perhaps the last time in the West, of reading a complete text and my purpose is to recreate what such close reading is like.
1 Aug 2013 Correction to post date. [Change records are important here because we’re possibly documenting a Singularity here. “28 Feb 2028”?? Uh, NO, I cannot travel in time! Make it 28 July 2018, something like that.]’