So, what's with the new "Atheism+" thing? Some like the idea and some don't think we should be messing with their word. Me, I always thought "Atheism+" was simply a way of saying, "Atheism plus a little something else positive". You see, "Atheist" isn't really a positive word. It's not a positive statement. It's actually a very negative statement. It's saying, "I lack a belief in God." That's talking about something you don't have. Let's talk about something you do have instead. Let's talk about some love and concern for your fellow humans. Let's talk about the fact that since you don't believe any "God" will be looking out for you or anyone else, then what does it take to build a world in which we can all live together and flourish? What kind of a world should we have? What would it take to get there?
This is where "Humanism" steps in. Secular Humanism (more properly) looks at what type of world we humans could have and how to attain it. Since "God" isn't going to just pat us on the head, give us toys for our birthdays, and drive us to the park, we need to provide our own paradise. We're willing to work hard for it because we think it's actually attainable, right here, right now. What would it be like? Well, we would treat others with at least a little love and understanding. That seems like a good idea, since most conflicts stem from misunderstandings. We would try to help other people, because everyone can use a little help now and then, including you. In short, we would treat others in somewhat the same way as we would treat a loved member of our own family. (Yes, I know some family members can be treated somewhat badly, which is why I included "loved" in that statement.)
So Humanism says, "We don't believe in any 'God', so we think we should work toward creating a nice, loving, supportive, world right here, right now. Let's all act toward others as more religious people would expect their 'God' to act toward them. In short, let's be our own 'God' to each other."
That's definitely positive, but is it "Atheism+"? Well, I think it's basically what "Atheism+" is trying to be. I think "Atheism+" is trying to recognize that you don't change peoples' minds by yelling at them. You don't change peoples' minds by cutting them down and insinuating that they're stupid. Actually, most of the time, you just don't change peoples' minds. Period. People change their own mind, and they way they come to such a change is by thinking about things. The thing that gets them thinking is not by someone attacking their closely held beliefs. People get to thinking when they hear or read something which pushes their understanding just a little, to a slightly uncomfortable zone. Not too uncomfortable, or they will reject it outright. Just a little uncomfortable.
How does a person get "pushed" just a little while still feeling somewhat "safe"? Many times it's by over hearing. This is why blogs and forums are most important that debates and confrontations. People are reading a blog or a forum voluntarily. They can stop whenever they begin to feel threatened. They over hear maybe one or two little things which don't sit well with them, or maybe which explain something they misunderstood before, then they go away. But... they're still thinking about it... and it starts to weigh on them... so they return to the blog or forum and read some more... A year later, they're making the same arguments to someone else!
This is what I think of when I think of "Atheism+", or "Humanism." Just act as an example of you would like to see from others. Let people come to their own understanding in their own time. They will. The world is gradually becoming more and more secular and more and more Humanist. (This, incidentally, is why so many religious people are scared. They know this is happening.) If we, Atheists, can be friendly, supportive, and most importantly inclusive, then we are something that no religion can touch! Religions can't be inclusive. They're exclusive by nature. We, Atheists, know what it's like to be persecuted. Let's not wish that on anyone else. Let's be different. Let's be what religions can't. That's "Atheism, plus more." That's "Atheism, in a positive way." That's "Humanism," and it's a powerful thing.
Religionists, you can't touch this! :)
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
A walk on the wild side
(I originally wrote this quite a few years back, but having recently read Greta's blog "Fashion Friday: Menswear, and Some Thoughts Anout Gender Roles" made me think that I really should put this back up, so here it is.)
I recently tried a little experiment. I created an account inside the 3D role playing game "Second Life", however instead of creating a male avatar, I decided to try out my "second life" by experiencing the other side. My avatar was female. Interestingly, this opened up a whole new world immediately. I decided that if I were to have a female avatar, I may as well have a good looking one! I spent a lot of time tweaking with the visual appearance of my avatar and then started searching for nice clothes. I found myself going to shopping malls inside the "game", looking at all of the dresses, trying things on, and even looking at matching shoes! Why the sudden change? Why the sudden interest in fashion when I never searched out such things before? Well, maybe that's a topic for another blog entry at some point. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with, "since I could be beautiful, I felt as though I should," or something like that.
The topic of this entry, however, is related to other parts of my experience. I noticed, very quickly, that male avatars were drawn to me. As a matter of fact, if there was a male avatar anywhere around, I could pretty much bet that they would at least try to talk to me. I must say, I found it annoying! I couldn't go anywhere, do anything, without guys trying to hit on me! And what did they want? A good conversation? Nope. They wanted "Second Life" sex. (Yes, there are places you can go in "Second Life" where two avatars can be moved in such a way as to make it appear as though they're having sex.) Why do so many guys seem to want this? Ok, I know what you're thinking. You're wondering if I let my avatar have sex with a guy. No, I didn't. That just seemed wrong in so many ways. As a matter of fact, I found myself doing exactly what women do a lot. I found myself hanging out with the girls because at least I knew I wouldn't be targeted for one single-minded purpose.
So, having experienced a little "life as a woman", I can tell you other guys a thing or two about it. Women want to do other things than just have sex. They want to pursue their intellectual interests. They want to experience life. They want to have a good conversation, have an interesting experience, and they don't want to be pursued by guys everywhere they turn! (Of course, when it comes down to it, guys don't always want sex either. No, really! Sometimes they want to go for bike ride, read really good book, play a great video game, do some programming. Really, guys don't think about sex all of the time. But when they see a beautiful woman, thoughts do go right there; it's built in.)
Girls enjoy looking beautiful and, let's face it, guys want them to look beautiful. However, just because they're beautiful, or even sexy, doesn't mean they want to have sex with any guy who just happens along. Maybe they're busy learning about a future world. Maybe they're learning how to create their own buildings. Maybe they're building their own buildings. Maybe they're just reading an interesting article in a magazine. If some guy comes along who has similar interests and if we can work both together, then maybe things will develop, but it's also possible that the woman isn't interested in starting a conversation at all and simply wants to be left alone!
I finally realized that if I wanted to investigate the "Second Life" world without being bothered, I needed to select an avatar which was totally un-gendered. I purchased a small blue sphere. That works quite well! I wonder what would happen if I started a conversation as a woman and then suddenly changed to a man? :)
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Are Atheists missing the point?
Alright, I need to just write this down and get it out there because I'm not sure how long it'll be before I'm able to write something completely clear, coherent, and complete on the topic. Here goes...
Are Atheists missing the point? I'm a regular listener of "The Atheist Experience". I've been listening to it for years now and find it both entertaining and informative. After you've been listening for a while, it becomes more of a "Gilligan's Island" experience; since you've seen/heard it all before, you now see how long it takes for you to remember what happens! I've often thought it would be interesting to simply write up all of the arguments against "god" (I don't feel I need to capitalize the title of egomaniacle, genocidal, homophobes), give each argument a number, and then simply reply to each caller with, "number 15", "number 23", etc. We keep hearing the same arguments for and against god over and over again. As the Lotus Sutra clearly states, a person has to come to understanding in their own time, in their own way. (Read it, if you haven't.)
I came across an interview many months ago... heck, it was probably more than a year ago now, and I wish I knew who it was. Anyway, the person's primary point was that if you think religion is all about having a good reason for believing in god, having a "proof" for god, etc., then you're missing the point. The point of religion is not to show that there's this "God" person out there somewhere who answers prayers, etc. The point of religion is simply to draw a person's awareness and understanding out of the mundane world, out of their own petty little "issues", and instead focus on something greater, something beyond yourself. If you can focus on something outside of your world, outside of your understanding even, then you can escape whatever bad things may be happening, you can escape from a limited view, and instead embrace something greater than yourself, your community, even your planet. Religion gives you a sense of awe and wonder; we've all heard that before. But it also gives you something greater than yourself to believe in. He went so far as to say that even if we knew that "God" didn't exist, there would be still be a place for religion.
So, when believers try to come up with some "good" reason for believing in a "God" who is loving, kind, and looks after them, they're really doing it because they feel they need to in order to fight back against this "Atheist" thing, which is trying to "destroy all that's sacred". We atheists would ask, "why do you need anything to be sacred?" Well, they need it not because they need the religion, not because they need their "God" so much, more simply because they need to feel a connection to something bigger than their own life. They feel as though "Atheism" is trying to take away that connection to something bigger and it makes them defensive.
Of course, most Atheists have probably already dealt with this. We're human also and being such, we're primarily social creatures. We also have this need to feel connected to something bigger than just us. (Some more than others, obviously.) Some of us have moved to Humanism as a way to feel a connection to the rest of Humanity. That's certainly a cause outside of ourselves. Others have latched onto Science, and in particular Astronomy, as a way to feel connected to the rest of the universe. (We're all "star stuff" after all, as Carl Sagan was famous for saying.) These are all ways to feel the "sense of awe", yes, but also to give one's life "meaning and purpose."
So, once we have broken all of the arguments for God, once we have made believers think enough to realize that they really have no basis for the foundation of their life thus far, with what shall we leave them? Now that they have no connection to a creator of the universe, they have no vision of something greater than their own miserable little existence, where shall they get the connection to something bigger? We, as humans, need this. We must get it from somewhere, or else we start asking questions such as, "what is there to live for?", "is this all there is?"
I'm not saying that we should stop pulling the rug out from under believers. If a person never takes that first step, then the journey will never be started. Coming back to the Lotus Sutra, we all need an Upaguru sometimes. However, we Atheists should be careful, while we're pushing that believer off the cliff, to prove the parachute which we know they'll need. We need to find out where that person gets their sense of inspiration. In what way to they feel that connection to something greater, something outside of their own life. Then provide them with a more reasonable, solid, rational, way to receive that same feeling of "this is where I belong", "this is why I'm here."
Remember that Theism and Atheism isn't just about logical arguments for or against "God". The real reason for Religion, is to provide that link to something outside of normal life, that link to the infinite. We all need that.
Are Atheists missing the point? I'm a regular listener of "The Atheist Experience". I've been listening to it for years now and find it both entertaining and informative. After you've been listening for a while, it becomes more of a "Gilligan's Island" experience; since you've seen/heard it all before, you now see how long it takes for you to remember what happens! I've often thought it would be interesting to simply write up all of the arguments against "god" (I don't feel I need to capitalize the title of egomaniacle, genocidal, homophobes), give each argument a number, and then simply reply to each caller with, "number 15", "number 23", etc. We keep hearing the same arguments for and against god over and over again. As the Lotus Sutra clearly states, a person has to come to understanding in their own time, in their own way. (Read it, if you haven't.)
I came across an interview many months ago... heck, it was probably more than a year ago now, and I wish I knew who it was. Anyway, the person's primary point was that if you think religion is all about having a good reason for believing in god, having a "proof" for god, etc., then you're missing the point. The point of religion is not to show that there's this "God" person out there somewhere who answers prayers, etc. The point of religion is simply to draw a person's awareness and understanding out of the mundane world, out of their own petty little "issues", and instead focus on something greater, something beyond yourself. If you can focus on something outside of your world, outside of your understanding even, then you can escape whatever bad things may be happening, you can escape from a limited view, and instead embrace something greater than yourself, your community, even your planet. Religion gives you a sense of awe and wonder; we've all heard that before. But it also gives you something greater than yourself to believe in. He went so far as to say that even if we knew that "God" didn't exist, there would be still be a place for religion.
So, when believers try to come up with some "good" reason for believing in a "God" who is loving, kind, and looks after them, they're really doing it because they feel they need to in order to fight back against this "Atheist" thing, which is trying to "destroy all that's sacred". We atheists would ask, "why do you need anything to be sacred?" Well, they need it not because they need the religion, not because they need their "God" so much, more simply because they need to feel a connection to something bigger than their own life. They feel as though "Atheism" is trying to take away that connection to something bigger and it makes them defensive.
Of course, most Atheists have probably already dealt with this. We're human also and being such, we're primarily social creatures. We also have this need to feel connected to something bigger than just us. (Some more than others, obviously.) Some of us have moved to Humanism as a way to feel a connection to the rest of Humanity. That's certainly a cause outside of ourselves. Others have latched onto Science, and in particular Astronomy, as a way to feel connected to the rest of the universe. (We're all "star stuff" after all, as Carl Sagan was famous for saying.) These are all ways to feel the "sense of awe", yes, but also to give one's life "meaning and purpose."
So, once we have broken all of the arguments for God, once we have made believers think enough to realize that they really have no basis for the foundation of their life thus far, with what shall we leave them? Now that they have no connection to a creator of the universe, they have no vision of something greater than their own miserable little existence, where shall they get the connection to something bigger? We, as humans, need this. We must get it from somewhere, or else we start asking questions such as, "what is there to live for?", "is this all there is?"
I'm not saying that we should stop pulling the rug out from under believers. If a person never takes that first step, then the journey will never be started. Coming back to the Lotus Sutra, we all need an Upaguru sometimes. However, we Atheists should be careful, while we're pushing that believer off the cliff, to prove the parachute which we know they'll need. We need to find out where that person gets their sense of inspiration. In what way to they feel that connection to something greater, something outside of their own life. Then provide them with a more reasonable, solid, rational, way to receive that same feeling of "this is where I belong", "this is why I'm here."
Remember that Theism and Atheism isn't just about logical arguments for or against "God". The real reason for Religion, is to provide that link to something outside of normal life, that link to the infinite. We all need that.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Are we alone in the universe?
"Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." - attributed to Arthur C. Clarke
If we are not alone, then why haven't we heard something already? It very well could be that the distance between intelligent civilizations is simply too far and we simply haven't had the capability to receive the correct type of signals for long enough. After all, we haven't been able to receive radio waves for all that long, really. On the scale of time of the universe, whole advanced civilizations could easily miss each other by millions of years simply because their star got started that much earlier or later than the other civilization. Others who are less than 100 lightyears distant could have seen our signals by now, if they were tuned to the correct frequencies and happened to be looking in the correct direction. Even so, it would take another 100 years or so for any reply to reach us, assuming they have the technology to produce one and that we're listening on the right frequencies and in the right direction at the right time. It could simply be a grand game of chance and we simply haven't be playing it long enough.
Here's another viewpoint I've heard mentioned before. Look at a primitive tribe in Africa who knows nothing about radio waves. Radio waves with all sorts of information could pass through them every minute and yet they simply don't know of its existence! As a matter of fact, satellites are constantly sending whole catalogues of information right through their villages, with lots of information which could easily revolutionize their lives, and yet they know nothing about it at all! What if we're the same with respect to other civilizations? What if their methods of communication (higher dimentions, hyper-space, tachyons, etc., happen be passing right though us currently and we simply don't see it. We're sitting here looking for smoke signals and they're sending radio waves.
How long would an advanced civilization last, however? Maybe they wouldn't usually get to the stage of traveling amongst the stars? Maybe something else happens first and we simply are not old enough to know what that could be? Many people have theorized that maybe an advanced civilization would blow itself up, or destroy itself in some other way, long before they would be capable of making contact with us or anyone else. The movie "Forbidden Planet" talks about one such scenario. But, maybe there's another? Maybe a truly advanced civilization stops producing radio waves after only a few hundred years? After all, sending out radio waves is rather wasteful of energy. Arthur C. Clarke, the inventor of the satellite, theorized in a later story about the possibility of a solid ring around the equator with antennas sending and receiving tight beams of information to and from the surface. Even today, scientists are busily working on the idea of beaming information directly to satellites instead of allowing the transmissions to spread out as much as they do currently, in order to save energy.
Maybe a civilization tends to turn inward as it grows older. We, today, are finding that social interactions on the Internet, role playing games, and other forms of virtual reality, seem to be a fascinating and time consuming thing for many people. What if a truly advanced civilization could live inside an advanced virtual reality, becoming whatever they want, living wherever they want, virtually visiting far away places, far away times, even other whole virtual worlds? Would such a civilization really need to seek outside for anyone else? Maybe as a civilization advances it tends to turn more and more inward and thus disappears from the rest of the universe. If this is the norm, then we would stand a really small chance of detecting other civilizations and an even smaller chance of being recognized or visited in any way.
Maybe instead of seeking other life elsewhere in the universe, we should be developing a graph of possible futures for a civilization. We may be surprised to find that only a very small number of possible futures actually result in a civilization which is detectable!
Some comments from the previous blog: "mike", Date: 2011/01/05 Thanks for your article. I truly enjoy reading and thinking of the possibilities but I am profoundly disappointed that in this day and time of exploding knowledge & abilities in technology & communication so few people seem to be interested in these type of questions. Instead the public obsessions are in which sports teams will win this time or which celebrity is making news. I think we are looking for smoke signals and a newer form of communications just may lead to an inpouring of welcomes (wishful thinking though). Thanks again. "maureen", Date: 2011/01/05 Detectable by whom, with what instruments? The human eye cannot detect even all physical reality not to mention other possible realities.
If we are not alone, then why haven't we heard something already? It very well could be that the distance between intelligent civilizations is simply too far and we simply haven't had the capability to receive the correct type of signals for long enough. After all, we haven't been able to receive radio waves for all that long, really. On the scale of time of the universe, whole advanced civilizations could easily miss each other by millions of years simply because their star got started that much earlier or later than the other civilization. Others who are less than 100 lightyears distant could have seen our signals by now, if they were tuned to the correct frequencies and happened to be looking in the correct direction. Even so, it would take another 100 years or so for any reply to reach us, assuming they have the technology to produce one and that we're listening on the right frequencies and in the right direction at the right time. It could simply be a grand game of chance and we simply haven't be playing it long enough.
Here's another viewpoint I've heard mentioned before. Look at a primitive tribe in Africa who knows nothing about radio waves. Radio waves with all sorts of information could pass through them every minute and yet they simply don't know of its existence! As a matter of fact, satellites are constantly sending whole catalogues of information right through their villages, with lots of information which could easily revolutionize their lives, and yet they know nothing about it at all! What if we're the same with respect to other civilizations? What if their methods of communication (higher dimentions, hyper-space, tachyons, etc., happen be passing right though us currently and we simply don't see it. We're sitting here looking for smoke signals and they're sending radio waves.
How long would an advanced civilization last, however? Maybe they wouldn't usually get to the stage of traveling amongst the stars? Maybe something else happens first and we simply are not old enough to know what that could be? Many people have theorized that maybe an advanced civilization would blow itself up, or destroy itself in some other way, long before they would be capable of making contact with us or anyone else. The movie "Forbidden Planet" talks about one such scenario. But, maybe there's another? Maybe a truly advanced civilization stops producing radio waves after only a few hundred years? After all, sending out radio waves is rather wasteful of energy. Arthur C. Clarke, the inventor of the satellite, theorized in a later story about the possibility of a solid ring around the equator with antennas sending and receiving tight beams of information to and from the surface. Even today, scientists are busily working on the idea of beaming information directly to satellites instead of allowing the transmissions to spread out as much as they do currently, in order to save energy.
Maybe a civilization tends to turn inward as it grows older. We, today, are finding that social interactions on the Internet, role playing games, and other forms of virtual reality, seem to be a fascinating and time consuming thing for many people. What if a truly advanced civilization could live inside an advanced virtual reality, becoming whatever they want, living wherever they want, virtually visiting far away places, far away times, even other whole virtual worlds? Would such a civilization really need to seek outside for anyone else? Maybe as a civilization advances it tends to turn more and more inward and thus disappears from the rest of the universe. If this is the norm, then we would stand a really small chance of detecting other civilizations and an even smaller chance of being recognized or visited in any way.
Maybe instead of seeking other life elsewhere in the universe, we should be developing a graph of possible futures for a civilization. We may be surprised to find that only a very small number of possible futures actually result in a civilization which is detectable!
Some comments from the previous blog: "mike", Date: 2011/01/05 Thanks for your article. I truly enjoy reading and thinking of the possibilities but I am profoundly disappointed that in this day and time of exploding knowledge & abilities in technology & communication so few people seem to be interested in these type of questions. Instead the public obsessions are in which sports teams will win this time or which celebrity is making news. I think we are looking for smoke signals and a newer form of communications just may lead to an inpouring of welcomes (wishful thinking though). Thanks again. "maureen", Date: 2011/01/05 Detectable by whom, with what instruments? The human eye cannot detect even all physical reality not to mention other possible realities.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Problems with twitter
1. Twitter needs meta-data. Using up your reply text area for "#", etc., and now location data is just becoming too restrictive.
Meta-data future?
2. Twitter needs location information associated with each tweet (if it's available or configured into the user agent used) (see [1])
Location info,
More Location info
3. Why is twitter restricting message length? They should sell the capability of sending longer messages, thus making money.
4. There's no way to link up replies with the original tweet. Each tweet has a unique number, so this should be trivial, however... see [1].
5. There needs to be a way of specifying that a tweet should go to a "group" of people you have defined, or should be sent to everyone except a "group" of people you have defined. (see [1]).
6. Twitter needs to be able to include URL into a tweet via metadata. Why not just use the various services which allow you to shorten a URL? Because it's insecure! When you click on that URL someone else sent in a tweet, you don't know where it'll take you! This is an extremely big security hole! Metadata would solve it because Twitter applications could then display the URL to which you will be taken in the same way they do now in browsers. Since long URLs would no longer use up message text length, including one or more of them would not be a problem.
7. Many companies (and individuals) will follow a person on Twitter hoping that the person will follow them back such that the person will then receive their ads. This is a problem for Twitter because it adds to the overhead on their servers by sending thousands of tweets to such company or individual accounts when they're really not interested. Metadata would solve this by allowing such companies to send out a message which clearly asks the person to follow them and even allows a one-click response to do so! Once again, this could be an additional for-pay service, since mostly companies would be using it. Providing it would save a lot of unnecessary overhead on Twitter's servers as well. Need I also mention that this would address the Twitter "follow-me" email Phishing attack (see the Twitter security article above).
8. Twitter could become the first of a new way of advertising! Imagine being able to actually search out ads for an item, or a type of item, which you would like to buy. If you're thinking of purchasing a new flatscreen TV, imagine being able to search through Twitter messages for any notes about flatscreen TVs, what people liked, what people hated, what deals are out there, and even ads from companies? "Pull" advertising, where the customers actually want the information instead of more of the same old "Push" advertising which everyone hates.
I'm sure there are others. Anyone want to add a few?
I'm sure there are others. Anyone want to add a few?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
iPhone tablet predictions
Ok, I've been thinking about this and reading news, rumors, and other predictions for quite some time, but I think I'd like to make my own predictions about the supposed forthcoming Apple iPhone Tablet. First of all, the basic rumor of an Apple Tablet has been ongoing for quite some time. Apple has said they're not interested in doing one at this time because they're waiting for the tablet market to settle down. This is their usual method of operating, of course; wait for the market to show a clear direction, then come in with some small new innovation which truly changes the experience and makes the technology much more useful to more people. Tablets have never been profitable for any company which has released one. People seem to think they want one, but in the final analysis, using one is always cumbersome and eventually the product is dropped due to lack of interest.
Let's review what Apple has from the past which they could bring to the table. First, remember that Apple actually introduced the first version of a "Palm Pilot" long before the Palm existed; the "Newton". It used handwriting recognition and didn't do it very well, but there are still many people who would swear that the Newton was a wonderful device! The "Inkwell" software which was used there is still owned by Apple and is actually a current part of MacOS X. If you plug in a USB tablet device, you'll see it under "Software Preferences". Apple's "Print recognizer" has also been part of MacOS X since 10.2. Apple has many tablet related patents.
Back in 2004, Steve Jobs referenced a new "Apple PDA". Many people think this device was simply never shipped. Others have since related stories about the origins of the iPhone stating that the phone started life as a prototype "Newton" or "Tablet" and later had a phone added as well. If this last story is true, then the 2004 "Apple PDA" was most likely simply the original iPhone.
So, where are we today? Apple has a new "Unibody" construction method which seems to be widely recognized as the best way to produce a large, thin, device, such as a laptop; or maybe a tablet. There's a rumor that Apple will be using the newly introduced Intel "Atom" chip in a new device. Could this be a "Larger, 7 x 9 tablet"? We know that there is a market for a MacOS X Tablet. One company already produces them by purchasing the MacBook systems from Apple, then modifying it into the first "Modbook". Apple has been pushing for a patent on an innovative tablet docking station. There have also, recently, be rumors of a new MacBook Pro 17" which would have a builtin battery such as the iPhone and all iPod models. Does this make sense for a laptop, especially a large one which would use a lot of power on the large screen and would be expected to perform heavy graphics work? I don't think so. Could this rumor be confused and actually be talking about a builtin, long lasting, battery for a tablet device? That would make a lot more sense.
Finally, there's "Haptic Feedback". Many people, including people inside Apple, have been doing research on this for years and it's beginning to finally pay off. Samsung has a few haptic feedback phones; the "Armani" and the "Instinct". I've even heard from some people that the "Instinct" could be a real "iPhone killer", mostly due to the keyboard being easier to use because of the feedback. Apple has a patent on haptic feedback touchscreens.
So, what market would Apple be targetting with a new Tablet computer? They always have one primary market in mind for any new device. The device usually appeals to more than the original targetted market, but in order to succeed Apple knows you must have at least one good sized market for which the device is a prefect match. Well, let's take a look at how well theAmazon Kindle has done. Even though the device leaves much to be desired, it generally has been fairly well received. So much so that Amazon is working on a new version. Amazon has opened a whole online eBook market with this device. As a matter of fact, eBooks are becoming so popular that you can get a reader and books for your iPhone as well. The biggest problem with reading a book on your iPhone is simply the size of the screen. (Wasn't there a mention above of a larger version of the iPhone?)
Can you see where this is going? Apple introduces the new "iTablet", based on the same, proven, iPhone OS. It runs all iPhone applications, including games, which can all be purchased already via the Apple "App Store". At the same time, this new device is perfect for use around the house because, like an iPhone, it wouldn't need to be charged very often at all, lasting at least 1-2 days, if not more, on a single charge. It would be the perfect small, take along, device for listening to Podcasts (even remotely controlling other iTunes machines over the network), reading web pages (easier, especially for older people, due to the larger screen), and, yes, reading eBooks. By using Haptic Feedback, the on-screen keyboard would have a good enough feel to be very usable, and the larger form factor means the keys would be drawn closer to normal size, allowing touch typing. It would have a dock station where it would plug in to be recharged while allowing use of any USB or Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, the same as a normal desktop computer. Finally, Apple would extend the "App" and "Music" store to also include "eBook" sales and would provide an eBook reader (or simply use one of the already existing ones). The device, being about the same size as a large format paperback book, would be perfect for travelers who read a lot and don't want to take heavy books with them, especially since it would run so long on battery power! Finally, Apple could do something which would help education by signing an agreement with major publishers to provide eBook format textbooks at a reduced price for currently enrolled, full-time, students! Since the device would be manufactored using Apple's "Unibody" construction process, it would be sturdy enough to handle being dumped into a backpack multiple times a day. Finally, students could take notes on a portable laptop which would have enough battery time to last the entire day, and we can say "goodbye" to all of the noise of hundreds of fingers hitting keys, due to touch typing on a completely silent software keyboard with the assistance of haptics.
Can you see it all coming together? I can. I hope I'm correct. I want one!
Let me leave you with a video showing basically what I think Apple is designing. (Of course, this is a much thicker and clunkier version from Microsoft back in 2006.) Microsoft's Origami revisited?
/raj
Let's review what Apple has from the past which they could bring to the table. First, remember that Apple actually introduced the first version of a "Palm Pilot" long before the Palm existed; the "Newton". It used handwriting recognition and didn't do it very well, but there are still many people who would swear that the Newton was a wonderful device! The "Inkwell" software which was used there is still owned by Apple and is actually a current part of MacOS X. If you plug in a USB tablet device, you'll see it under "Software Preferences". Apple's "Print recognizer" has also been part of MacOS X since 10.2. Apple has many tablet related patents.
Back in 2004, Steve Jobs referenced a new "Apple PDA". Many people think this device was simply never shipped. Others have since related stories about the origins of the iPhone stating that the phone started life as a prototype "Newton" or "Tablet" and later had a phone added as well. If this last story is true, then the 2004 "Apple PDA" was most likely simply the original iPhone.
So, where are we today? Apple has a new "Unibody" construction method which seems to be widely recognized as the best way to produce a large, thin, device, such as a laptop; or maybe a tablet. There's a rumor that Apple will be using the newly introduced Intel "Atom" chip in a new device. Could this be a "Larger, 7 x 9 tablet"? We know that there is a market for a MacOS X Tablet. One company already produces them by purchasing the MacBook systems from Apple, then modifying it into the first "Modbook". Apple has been pushing for a patent on an innovative tablet docking station. There have also, recently, be rumors of a new MacBook Pro 17" which would have a builtin battery such as the iPhone and all iPod models. Does this make sense for a laptop, especially a large one which would use a lot of power on the large screen and would be expected to perform heavy graphics work? I don't think so. Could this rumor be confused and actually be talking about a builtin, long lasting, battery for a tablet device? That would make a lot more sense.
Finally, there's "Haptic Feedback". Many people, including people inside Apple, have been doing research on this for years and it's beginning to finally pay off. Samsung has a few haptic feedback phones; the "Armani" and the "Instinct". I've even heard from some people that the "Instinct" could be a real "iPhone killer", mostly due to the keyboard being easier to use because of the feedback. Apple has a patent on haptic feedback touchscreens.
So, what market would Apple be targetting with a new Tablet computer? They always have one primary market in mind for any new device. The device usually appeals to more than the original targetted market, but in order to succeed Apple knows you must have at least one good sized market for which the device is a prefect match. Well, let's take a look at how well theAmazon Kindle has done. Even though the device leaves much to be desired, it generally has been fairly well received. So much so that Amazon is working on a new version. Amazon has opened a whole online eBook market with this device. As a matter of fact, eBooks are becoming so popular that you can get a reader and books for your iPhone as well. The biggest problem with reading a book on your iPhone is simply the size of the screen. (Wasn't there a mention above of a larger version of the iPhone?)
Can you see where this is going? Apple introduces the new "iTablet", based on the same, proven, iPhone OS. It runs all iPhone applications, including games, which can all be purchased already via the Apple "App Store". At the same time, this new device is perfect for use around the house because, like an iPhone, it wouldn't need to be charged very often at all, lasting at least 1-2 days, if not more, on a single charge. It would be the perfect small, take along, device for listening to Podcasts (even remotely controlling other iTunes machines over the network), reading web pages (easier, especially for older people, due to the larger screen), and, yes, reading eBooks. By using Haptic Feedback, the on-screen keyboard would have a good enough feel to be very usable, and the larger form factor means the keys would be drawn closer to normal size, allowing touch typing. It would have a dock station where it would plug in to be recharged while allowing use of any USB or Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, the same as a normal desktop computer. Finally, Apple would extend the "App" and "Music" store to also include "eBook" sales and would provide an eBook reader (or simply use one of the already existing ones). The device, being about the same size as a large format paperback book, would be perfect for travelers who read a lot and don't want to take heavy books with them, especially since it would run so long on battery power! Finally, Apple could do something which would help education by signing an agreement with major publishers to provide eBook format textbooks at a reduced price for currently enrolled, full-time, students! Since the device would be manufactored using Apple's "Unibody" construction process, it would be sturdy enough to handle being dumped into a backpack multiple times a day. Finally, students could take notes on a portable laptop which would have enough battery time to last the entire day, and we can say "goodbye" to all of the noise of hundreds of fingers hitting keys, due to touch typing on a completely silent software keyboard with the assistance of haptics.
Can you see it all coming together? I can. I hope I'm correct. I want one!
Let me leave you with a video showing basically what I think Apple is designing. (Of course, this is a much thicker and clunkier version from Microsoft back in 2006.) Microsoft's Origami revisited?
/raj
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
How the brain works, part 2
Tonight I played nay (middle eastern flute) in a middle eastern music and dance concert at UCSB (Santa Barbara, Ca., here's the URL). We had a guest artist, an oud player from New Mexico who was originally from Iraq. (You see, the university is having a middle eastern conference this weekend and the focus is on Iraq. You can read about it linked from the URL I gave above under "Performances".) The guest artist's name was Rahim Alhaj (Here's his web page). He was a really nice person and he plays amazingly well! I love the mellow sound of his oud and the way he plays the strings very softly even while he's going quickly, unlike some other people who strike the strings hard.)
But this isn't what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about is that he told me afterward that when he first saw me sitting on stage during the rehearsal he thought to himself, "I've met this guy before somewhere!" He couldn't get it out of his head that we had definitely met somewhere before. Now, I don't think I've met him before anywhere, but I"m not sure. He, at first, suggested that maybe we had met at some airport somewhere. Well, that's a good bet if it's someone from far away because people meet quickly in airports all of the time while traveling to distance places and then never see each other again. (Someone should write a story about that sometime. About how chance meetings in airports and railroad stations, etc., can sometimes end up changing people's lives and the person who has the effect on someone will never know what effect they had. Very Buddhist, connectedness of everything in the world, etc.) Anyway, he then said what many people say these days, "maybe in a previous life..." Now, how many people who say this really truly believe in previous lives? Probably no more than half, I would think.
So, had we met before? Maybe. Probably not. Yes, I do have my Buddhist moments and thinking of it in that way, I can't say we *didn't* meet in a previous life. But then I also have my Atheist moments (one day I'll have to try writing about how Buddhism and Atheism are compatible and even in many ways the same thing) and during those moments I have what Occam's Razor would say is a much more likely possibility, and it tells you something about how the brain works. (See, I *did* get to the topic finally!)
You see, the brain is primarily a pattern matcher. We see evidence of this visually all of the time. Just think of all of those optical illusions we've all seen since childhood. Many of them deal with how the brain completes a pattern, fills in a missing line, etc. We also have lots of evidence that the hearing brain is a big pattern matcher as well. Think about what happens when you hear the beginning off a song you know. You tend to fill in the rest. Sometimes we hear a song which is similar to something we know and we may say, "I know this song!", only to have another person say, "Ah, you know a similar one! This one is new!" We do it with other senses as well. How many times have you tasted something which tasted familiar but knew you had never eaten it before? Then you realized what the similar item was later. You then tend to think of those two things together even if they're not really related at all, simply because your brain said, "this is like that", "this fits a pattern that I know already". How about touch? Do we do it there? I think so. We might feel some fabric and say, "Oh, that feels like silk!", even though we know it isn't. We don't put it in a category by itself even though we know it's something different. Instead, we try to clump it in with other stuff we already know.
Researchers on how the brain works sometimes call this "clumping". We know, for example, that people can only remember, on average, about 7 things at a time. You can remember more than 7 things fairly easily, however, if you clump some of them together. It's harder to remember 7 random numbers (14, 23, 74, 89, 52, 28, 93) than it is to remember numbers in which you can see a pattern (11, 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 77). This is because, in the first case, you're remember 7 items while in the second case you're only remember three (two digits, both the same, increasing by one).
How many times have you met someone and said, "You remind me of someone I know. I remember. You look sorta like Joe!", or something similar? We tend to clump people we know into categories according to how they look, how they act, etc.
So, my theory is that Rahim probably met someone who looked sorta like me and the two faces were close enough that his mind simply merged the two and said, "we've met before". It's a rather common occurance, actually. But knowing that the brain is always pattern matching, helps you see how such things can happen. It also helps you deal with those times when your brain is tricked by events or items which are so close that your brain claims they're the same (usually only until someone points out how they're different at which point you immediately see the difference and say, "oh yeah, how could I have missed that!"
This pattern matching thing is huge, actually. Once you start recognizing pattern matching and clumping when it's happening, you start to realize that it's happening all of the time in many forms. Habits, for example. (Buddhism would, at this point, mention "karma". When you do something, "good" or "bad", you build up a "habit" of acting that way. When you find yourself in a similar situation again, you will now have a small tendency to repeat the action. If you repeat it, you will then have a stronger tendency to repeat it again when the situation occurs again. In this way we all build up "habits" or "tendencies toward a particular view or action", otherwise known as "karma". There's no such thing as "good" karma or "bad" karma. There's only "karma". If you act the way you want to be, you'll eventually find yourself being that way and it won't be an act.) You see, your brain matches a pattern, fits the next thing into the overall view which you've built up over the years. You can chanage your entire view of the world but it takes a while because you need to break down all of those associations which you've built up. Eventually, you end up with a new world view and you start to fit new experiences, etc., into that instead. It definitely works. I can tell you first hand. But not tonight.
Thanks for reading! I'd be interested in feedback if you want to give me any.
Goodnight and take care!
But this isn't what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about is that he told me afterward that when he first saw me sitting on stage during the rehearsal he thought to himself, "I've met this guy before somewhere!" He couldn't get it out of his head that we had definitely met somewhere before. Now, I don't think I've met him before anywhere, but I"m not sure. He, at first, suggested that maybe we had met at some airport somewhere. Well, that's a good bet if it's someone from far away because people meet quickly in airports all of the time while traveling to distance places and then never see each other again. (Someone should write a story about that sometime. About how chance meetings in airports and railroad stations, etc., can sometimes end up changing people's lives and the person who has the effect on someone will never know what effect they had. Very Buddhist, connectedness of everything in the world, etc.) Anyway, he then said what many people say these days, "maybe in a previous life..." Now, how many people who say this really truly believe in previous lives? Probably no more than half, I would think.
So, had we met before? Maybe. Probably not. Yes, I do have my Buddhist moments and thinking of it in that way, I can't say we *didn't* meet in a previous life. But then I also have my Atheist moments (one day I'll have to try writing about how Buddhism and Atheism are compatible and even in many ways the same thing) and during those moments I have what Occam's Razor would say is a much more likely possibility, and it tells you something about how the brain works. (See, I *did* get to the topic finally!)
You see, the brain is primarily a pattern matcher. We see evidence of this visually all of the time. Just think of all of those optical illusions we've all seen since childhood. Many of them deal with how the brain completes a pattern, fills in a missing line, etc. We also have lots of evidence that the hearing brain is a big pattern matcher as well. Think about what happens when you hear the beginning off a song you know. You tend to fill in the rest. Sometimes we hear a song which is similar to something we know and we may say, "I know this song!", only to have another person say, "Ah, you know a similar one! This one is new!" We do it with other senses as well. How many times have you tasted something which tasted familiar but knew you had never eaten it before? Then you realized what the similar item was later. You then tend to think of those two things together even if they're not really related at all, simply because your brain said, "this is like that", "this fits a pattern that I know already". How about touch? Do we do it there? I think so. We might feel some fabric and say, "Oh, that feels like silk!", even though we know it isn't. We don't put it in a category by itself even though we know it's something different. Instead, we try to clump it in with other stuff we already know.
Researchers on how the brain works sometimes call this "clumping". We know, for example, that people can only remember, on average, about 7 things at a time. You can remember more than 7 things fairly easily, however, if you clump some of them together. It's harder to remember 7 random numbers (14, 23, 74, 89, 52, 28, 93) than it is to remember numbers in which you can see a pattern (11, 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 77). This is because, in the first case, you're remember 7 items while in the second case you're only remember three (two digits, both the same, increasing by one).
How many times have you met someone and said, "You remind me of someone I know. I remember. You look sorta like Joe!", or something similar? We tend to clump people we know into categories according to how they look, how they act, etc.
So, my theory is that Rahim probably met someone who looked sorta like me and the two faces were close enough that his mind simply merged the two and said, "we've met before". It's a rather common occurance, actually. But knowing that the brain is always pattern matching, helps you see how such things can happen. It also helps you deal with those times when your brain is tricked by events or items which are so close that your brain claims they're the same (usually only until someone points out how they're different at which point you immediately see the difference and say, "oh yeah, how could I have missed that!"
This pattern matching thing is huge, actually. Once you start recognizing pattern matching and clumping when it's happening, you start to realize that it's happening all of the time in many forms. Habits, for example. (Buddhism would, at this point, mention "karma". When you do something, "good" or "bad", you build up a "habit" of acting that way. When you find yourself in a similar situation again, you will now have a small tendency to repeat the action. If you repeat it, you will then have a stronger tendency to repeat it again when the situation occurs again. In this way we all build up "habits" or "tendencies toward a particular view or action", otherwise known as "karma". There's no such thing as "good" karma or "bad" karma. There's only "karma". If you act the way you want to be, you'll eventually find yourself being that way and it won't be an act.) You see, your brain matches a pattern, fits the next thing into the overall view which you've built up over the years. You can chanage your entire view of the world but it takes a while because you need to break down all of those associations which you've built up. Eventually, you end up with a new world view and you start to fit new experiences, etc., into that instead. It definitely works. I can tell you first hand. But not tonight.
Thanks for reading! I'd be interested in feedback if you want to give me any.
Goodnight and take care!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)