Before I begin the rant you've all been waiting for, I must first apologise for my absence the last month. I have had the flu, and have been without access to the Internet. I missed last months "Insane Imagery" and will hopefully post that this weekend. However, I'm back now and completely ready to rant.
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration." Dune 1965, Frank Herbert. This quote is memorable for it's vivid imagery and simplicity. Everyone has been scared before and everyone can understand the thoughts and feelings that occur when one is scared. This seems to make this quote more substantial, more real. And I assert a similar idea: Apathy is the soul-killer. Apathy is the slow but steady death of passion and thought that bring utter annihilation. I use the word soul as a synonym for inspiration, and not as an ethereal entity that acts as your mind.
Apathy has been a major concern of mine, first as my classmates succumbed to its allure, then as I battled it during my years of social anxiety. And now as the world hides from itself behind the shadowy cloak of apathy, I find myself rejuvenated, my normal wish to stay inside and do nothing destroyed, and a new desire to get out and work washing over me, soaking to my core. There isn't much that I can do, especially in gfc world, but without doing something I will go insane. Aside from looking for work, I am going to do my part to save the world. I will write on this blog, make my YouTube videos (currently in editing by the way), and I will be taking every opportunity I can find to discuss this problem and remove it. This will involve public speaking, so I'll be letting everyone know when I do it and how it went. As a personal note, my apathetic nature during puberty led me to become frail and unfit, lacking in self-confidence and stooped over to boot. I am rectifying the situation, working out more, eating healthier and visiting the doctor in regards to a overall health plan. This is all about me, I got off track.
Apathy is a major symptom of clinical depression, as there is virtually no difference between not feeling and hiding from your feelings. Depressed people don't want to show their feelings for various reasons, including being scared of what they'd see, or thinking no-one would like them. They need care and understanding, but because it's a difficult problem, they mostly get confusion or outright rejection. The first step a person can take to help inspire the world is to notice broad spectrum apathy for what it is, and try to help those they see with it.
Harder than noticing apathy in others is noticing it within yourself. If those around you seem worried, or you're bored 90% of the time, you might be depressed and hiding behind apathy. If you think you might be depressed, talk to someone, either someone you trust or a mental healthcare professional. Preferably the latter, as they have been trained to help and know what they are doing. A single apathetic person can deflate a whole room, and as such should do all they can to help themselves, if not for themselves, then for the inspired people they might meet.
Finally, apathy within a group is an easy fix. Anyone can do it, as passion can be contagious. A word of encouragement here, a pat on the back there is all it takes to bring someone out of a slump. If you're really up for it a well timed speech can cause even the least caring individual to become fervent. Even without a set stage a speech can work wonders. If whilst walking down the street you see the chance to inspire, take it. Talk proudly, passionately and with conviction, and people will listen. Let it come from within and people will be impressed by your passion, or have it prepared and let your words come out clear. There are other ways to eliminate the soul-killer, but this is a start, I call it the "Inspire the World Campaign". Please comment with your contributions and support, or point to the multiple flaws in my ad hoc plan. I can benefit from both.
crites evidentia logica.
Showing posts with label Idea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idea. Show all posts
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Written Word
I like to think that I have an entertaining and easy-to-understand way of getting my ideas across. This is because I try my best to educate people with all levels of learning. I know I don't get everyone, but those that I do make me feel great. I love to teach. That being said, I won't become a teacher, I don't really like kids. Instead, I'm going to write a non-fiction book, with the aim of educating the masses with my brilliant mind, comedic wit and incredible ego. Here are the ideas I have so far:
crites evidentia logica.
- Magical Miracles: Discovering that 'miracles' are nothing more then tricks.
- The Right side of Wrong: Explaining sin, and why there's nothing wrong with it.
- The Arguing Atheist's Guide: Debunking Creationism 1 'proof' at a time.
- The Price of Faith: Examining the cost faith has on the person, the country and the world.
- Prophets of Logic: Explaining and applying reasoning from the Old world to the New.
crites evidentia logica.
Friday, April 8, 2011
My idea of SPORE 2: The Micro
I recently discovered Darkspore, which appears to be another creature designer game, with a few key differences. Mostly due to the fact it's a "fast-paced action RPG". I will say that it looks good. I plan to own it as soon as I can, in the meantime, I will have to make do with blog posts like this.
They should make a second spore. Not Darkspore, the Action RPG using a similar game concept, but SPORE 2, the creature creator that allows for any evolutionary eventuality, within reason. At the begining players start with little photosythetic cells. After so much energy an DNA is collected, the cell reproduce (Preferably by mitosis), allowing for the devolpment of herbivourism, or a more effficient photosythesis. Once again the game continues in the collection of DNA and Energy until the next change is made, adding the third potential, carnivourism. These levels are easily adapted into the original game system by use of evolution parts.
By the use of this system, players are given the opportunity to expand their imaginations outside of the generic "Cell->Terrestrial animal->Intelligence". So far outlined the posibilities included all plants and animals, with a potential for fungi. What the game would lack in scientific accuracy it would make up for in adaptability. I will continue through all the stages of the game, but not all in this post. The potential stories from Protocell to Space-faring being are likly to be as varied as they are entertaining. Next post: "The Early Macro"
crites evidentia logica
They should make a second spore. Not Darkspore, the Action RPG using a similar game concept, but SPORE 2, the creature creator that allows for any evolutionary eventuality, within reason. At the begining players start with little photosythetic cells. After so much energy an DNA is collected, the cell reproduce (Preferably by mitosis), allowing for the devolpment of herbivourism, or a more effficient photosythesis. Once again the game continues in the collection of DNA and Energy until the next change is made, adding the third potential, carnivourism. These levels are easily adapted into the original game system by use of evolution parts.
By the use of this system, players are given the opportunity to expand their imaginations outside of the generic "Cell->Terrestrial animal->Intelligence". So far outlined the posibilities included all plants and animals, with a potential for fungi. What the game would lack in scientific accuracy it would make up for in adaptability. I will continue through all the stages of the game, but not all in this post. The potential stories from Protocell to Space-faring being are likly to be as varied as they are entertaining. Next post: "The Early Macro"
crites evidentia logica
Monday, July 12, 2010
Evolution, my thoughts
Been a while since the last post... Time to enter the debate!
Let me start by stating my credentials. I am not the most intelligent person, but I always try to think my arguments through. My IQ is roughly 121. I am currently in an Australian University studying Microbiolgy.
Now, as for my argument:
I am going to point out a few things I know about life. Things which are rather obvious.
1. Everything that lives will eventually die. Be it Disease, famine, predator, accident, not knowing water depth and jumping, everything that is alive, or will be, will die.
2. Something that is not suited to it's environment is more likely to die. Examples: A crocodile out of water, Plant in constant shade, slow rabbits etc.
3. While things are alive, most of them will reproduce. These reproductions are not clones. Life reproduces with variation. Easily observable, just notice how you're different from your parents. The exception to this rule are creature is reproduce asexually, but even these mutate to create variation.
Because life reproduces with variation, life is constantly changing. In an unchanging environment, if a species has a high survival rate, few changes will occur over long periods of time. If the environment changes, and the species is no longer well adapted to living there, the changes will be more dramatic.
The term 'more dramatic' means that while individuals will still look very similar, the whole population will change in a certain evolutionary 'direction' very quickly. The individuals who are best at surviving in the environment will reproduce more, causing certain features to be more prominent, and/or others to be less prominent. In some cases, two populations of the same species, in the same environment, will begin to diverge. The populations have to be somehow separeted, or else the gene pool will be flooded by the other. The separation may be an earthquake caused fissure leaving half the population on each side, or perhaps a diverted river.
I haven't found evidence for it, but it seems to me that if behavioural conditions cause certain packs or herds to remain separate, despite no other barrier stopping interbreeding, speciation could occur. This would probably take much longer, considering the likelihood of outliers who cross to another herd or pack.
Eventually, the separate species have varied so much that interbreeding is no longer an option. This is when they are considered 2 different species. I even have an analogy for how a reptilian-like creature(RLC) could have evolved into a bird.
Based on observed facts, we can choose a group of RLC's who lived in trees. The survive on a diet of insects and plants. A RLC is born with slightly lighter bones. This gives him the advantage of being able to jump higher, and use less energy during the course of life. He survives longer, and reproduces more, because he can get more food, and is less susceptible to death due to fatigue. There are other factors, but they don't play a particularly significant role. His genes are passed onto the next generation, some with lighter bones, some with heavier, but all lighter then the average of the last generation. This trend continues, creating lighter and lighter bones, until a compromise is reached between survival through extra resources, and death through broken bones. The original mutation could have occured a number of ways. It could have been a random mutation caused by mutagens in the diet, or environment; it could have been a result of a particular combination of genes; etc..
To answer the obvious statement: "Bone-density doesn't make a bird", I say You're right! But the idea behind my logic can be applied to wings, feathers, beaks.... basically anything. The thing it can't work for, are things that don't originally give a benefit, even if the might eventually. It uses the argument "what's the use of half a x" as evidence for evolution. AND, whose to say that only one change can occur in a population at a time? While bone density is improving, perhaps vestigial wings are developing, or scales are growing into feathers.
And finally, evolution has no aim, no foresight. It has no hindsight either. Whatever works right now is what is selected. And, NO! I am not suggesting something is guiding natural selection, other then the energy, and fertility, of the individual beings, and the choices of the sexual chooser. (By this I mean when a certain sex selects a mate based on appearance, or dominence)
Now, hit me with your best shot! I want to hear counters to my explaination, flaws in my argument and other such things. I especially want to hear from Athiests, and Evolutionists (I know, not a real group, but used for understanding purposes). If you come at me with a stupid argument, be prepared for an equally stupid response. I'll do my best to answer all responses.
Let me start by stating my credentials. I am not the most intelligent person, but I always try to think my arguments through. My IQ is roughly 121. I am currently in an Australian University studying Microbiolgy.
Now, as for my argument:
I am going to point out a few things I know about life. Things which are rather obvious.
1. Everything that lives will eventually die. Be it Disease, famine, predator, accident, not knowing water depth and jumping, everything that is alive, or will be, will die.
2. Something that is not suited to it's environment is more likely to die. Examples: A crocodile out of water, Plant in constant shade, slow rabbits etc.
3. While things are alive, most of them will reproduce. These reproductions are not clones. Life reproduces with variation. Easily observable, just notice how you're different from your parents. The exception to this rule are creature is reproduce asexually, but even these mutate to create variation.
Because life reproduces with variation, life is constantly changing. In an unchanging environment, if a species has a high survival rate, few changes will occur over long periods of time. If the environment changes, and the species is no longer well adapted to living there, the changes will be more dramatic.
The term 'more dramatic' means that while individuals will still look very similar, the whole population will change in a certain evolutionary 'direction' very quickly. The individuals who are best at surviving in the environment will reproduce more, causing certain features to be more prominent, and/or others to be less prominent. In some cases, two populations of the same species, in the same environment, will begin to diverge. The populations have to be somehow separeted, or else the gene pool will be flooded by the other. The separation may be an earthquake caused fissure leaving half the population on each side, or perhaps a diverted river.
I haven't found evidence for it, but it seems to me that if behavioural conditions cause certain packs or herds to remain separate, despite no other barrier stopping interbreeding, speciation could occur. This would probably take much longer, considering the likelihood of outliers who cross to another herd or pack.
Eventually, the separate species have varied so much that interbreeding is no longer an option. This is when they are considered 2 different species. I even have an analogy for how a reptilian-like creature(RLC) could have evolved into a bird.
Based on observed facts, we can choose a group of RLC's who lived in trees. The survive on a diet of insects and plants. A RLC is born with slightly lighter bones. This gives him the advantage of being able to jump higher, and use less energy during the course of life. He survives longer, and reproduces more, because he can get more food, and is less susceptible to death due to fatigue. There are other factors, but they don't play a particularly significant role. His genes are passed onto the next generation, some with lighter bones, some with heavier, but all lighter then the average of the last generation. This trend continues, creating lighter and lighter bones, until a compromise is reached between survival through extra resources, and death through broken bones. The original mutation could have occured a number of ways. It could have been a random mutation caused by mutagens in the diet, or environment; it could have been a result of a particular combination of genes; etc..
To answer the obvious statement: "Bone-density doesn't make a bird", I say You're right! But the idea behind my logic can be applied to wings, feathers, beaks.... basically anything. The thing it can't work for, are things that don't originally give a benefit, even if the might eventually. It uses the argument "what's the use of half a x" as evidence for evolution. AND, whose to say that only one change can occur in a population at a time? While bone density is improving, perhaps vestigial wings are developing, or scales are growing into feathers.
And finally, evolution has no aim, no foresight. It has no hindsight either. Whatever works right now is what is selected. And, NO! I am not suggesting something is guiding natural selection, other then the energy, and fertility, of the individual beings, and the choices of the sexual chooser. (By this I mean when a certain sex selects a mate based on appearance, or dominence)
Now, hit me with your best shot! I want to hear counters to my explaination, flaws in my argument and other such things. I especially want to hear from Athiests, and Evolutionists (I know, not a real group, but used for understanding purposes). If you come at me with a stupid argument, be prepared for an equally stupid response. I'll do my best to answer all responses.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Youtube Channel
Hello my faithful followers, all three of you, I'm here to say I'm actually going to post a video on my Youtube channel soon. The only problem is that everything I think to do has been done. Everything I wish to debunk, or disprove, has a video debunking, or disproving it. So, seeing as I have no idea where to start adding to the ever growing pile of redundancy, I'm going to leave it up to to you.
Tell me what you want to see! When I'm done, I'll post a link to the video here. Then, maybe I'll get some more followers. Don't be afraid, I'll take all suggestions into consideration, and may even post videos of each, unless they're just completly retarded.
Also, my next post: Sexy Sexism in the Sex Industry... Sex, will be here soon, after I've finished my research. Any thoughts about that should be left to stew, so that when read it, you have a strong point to make. Thanks guys!
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Tell me what you want to see! When I'm done, I'll post a link to the video here. Then, maybe I'll get some more followers. Don't be afraid, I'll take all suggestions into consideration, and may even post videos of each, unless they're just completly retarded.
Also, my next post: Sexy Sexism in the Sex Industry... Sex, will be here soon, after I've finished my research. Any thoughts about that should be left to stew, so that when read it, you have a strong point to make. Thanks guys!
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)