A Pixelated Mind » the philosophy of the everyday

Rules for Shotgun

Pixel — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:35:25 +0000

I swear to god, I thought I’d written this down before…

In reference to the last episode and taken from this website and this other one:

Shotgun must be said audibly to all present or the person’s hand must be on the door handle
Window is a separate option that must also be called independently. All other rules for Window are the same as those for Shotgun.
The car must be visible, you must be outside or in the parking structure, and the ride must be imminent. Early calls are strictly prohibited. (Often this rule is split up into several other rules.)
Shotgun may not be called for anybody else.
Shotgun only applies among equals who are of more or less the same age, gender, and status. Also, the seat must be vacant when called. In cases where Shotgun is not available (for instance if the person with directions, an elder, or a disabled person needs the seat), anyone who called Shotgun automatically loses their bid.
In case of a tie, Rock, Paper, Scissors, Australian Thumb to the Head or Mad Dash to the Car rules may be instituted in lieu of the driver’s tie-breaking decision. This is the driver’s choice and one must familiarize oneself with the local rules before playing Shotgun.
The order for automatic Shotgun is as follows: owner of the car, disabled person, elderly person, person who knows the directions, spouse/partner of the driver, all other claimants.

Shotgun is awarded to the quickest thinker for a reason: he must serve as navigator, radio controller, and cop watcher. Theoretically, being the first to call Shotgun better allows for this. Failure to abide by these rules or duties may result in the person with Shotgun being forced to ride Bitch.

Nonsense and Reference

Pixel — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:15:57 +0000

Shockingly obvious realization:

You can have a joke that doesn’t refer to any cultural aspect and you can have a reference that isn’t funny.

Background: I went to a boardgame night a few weeks ago with some friends of a friend. The entire night could be summarized as a series of Internet pop culture references and nerd references. I got a number of them, but many more slipped by me. They seemed to amuse each other, but I mostly just wanted to shout

NEEEEEERRRDDDSS!!!!

Because what they were saying wasn’t amusing in the context. They were only amused because it reminded them of the original amusing quote.

And it occurred to me: If it’s possible to get the reference but not get the joke (or find it funny), then it’s got to be possible to get a joke but not get the reference.

I imagine getting the reference usually adds something to the joke experience, but if a person laughs at something but doesn’t understand that it was actually a reference to another thing– that person shouldn’t be embarrassed. Nonsense and reference are different things.

I think Frege taught us that.

The Journal of Half-Baked Ideas

Pixel — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:34:27 +0000

My friend Hagop once came up with the idea for a “Journal of Half-Baked Ideas.” I wasn’t actually there to witness it, so I don’t know any of the details wanted to include in it, but I’ve decided to run away with the idea and take it as my own.
I have lots of ideas. Usually when people are talking to me about boring things. Often I consider speaking up, but decide not to.
About half the time I realize after a few seconds that my idea was stupid and I was right to keep my mouth shut.
The other half of the time someone else usually speaks up and says my idea for me… and is praised for his originality and intellect.

So from now on, every time I have a half-baked idea, I’m going to post it here. That way I won’t feel bad if they’re stupid (because nobody will read them) and will feel great if they’re not.

Okay. Here’s idea no. 1:(...)
Read the rest of The Journal of Half-Baked Ideas (211 words)

Sequel Space

Pixel — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:21:56 +0000

Every movie is somewhere on this space relative to every other movie.

(Prequels are earlier in the z-space, but that’s hard to represent here.)

Whoo.

For an example and an explanation of how graph space works, read on.

(...)
Read the rest of Sequel Space (118 words)

This is a prologue to a post

Pixel — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:17:57 +0000

Working at a center for ethics has its advantages. (By the way, I work at a center for ethics now.) One of these advantages is the ability to work next to – and be on first name basis with– internationally renowned ethicists. I don’t usually think about ethics, but I used to be fairly interested in it.

Last week I spent half-an-hour talking to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong about some of his views. He essentially summed up his most interesting/relevant papers for me. It’s fun to hear about groundbreaking ideas from the source itself. Especially when it doesn’t require me reading anything.

(...)
Read the rest of This is a prologue to a post (211 words)

We need new verb tenses, guys

Pixel — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:58:28 +0000

I had this idea a long time ago, wrote a draft, then let it sit until now. Now I stand it up because my friend Iris insists that English would be a terrible language in which to discuss time travel. Why?

“Because you have verb tenses. In China, we just have a verb and specify the time period independently. So instead of ‘I jumped,’ you would say ‘I – in past – jump.’”

I admit that Chinese has us by the short hairs on time travel clarity, but at least in English we can sing words that everybody understands the first time!

In any case, I don’t want to learn another language when time travel becomes not only possible, but commonplace. I’ll just hope that we have new verb tenses for the various new situations that we encounter. Here are my suggestions:

As an example, I’ll use the word ‘engorge’

Who	Recent Past to Distant Past	Distant Past to Recent Past	Past to Future	Future to Past	Near Future to Distant Future	Distant Future to Near Future	Anachronistic Self in Present	Self in Anachronistic Present
Me	(-ud) I engorgud	(-oud) I engorgoud	(-uds) I engorguds	(-usd) I engorgusd	(-os) I engorgos	(-ous) I engorgous	(-ack!) I engorgack!	(-ang!) I’m engorgang!
You	(-yd) You engorgyd	(-eyd) You engorgeyd	(-yds) You engorgyds	(-ysd) You engorgysd	(-es) You engorges	(-eys) You engorgeys	(-yck!) You engorgyck	(-yng!) You’re engorgyng
Us	(-uyd) We engorgyd	(-eud) We engorgeud	(-uds) We engorguds	(-usd) We engorgusd	(-eos) We engorgeos	(-eus) We engorgeus	(-uyck) We engorguyck	(-uyng) We’re engorguyng
Them	(-yd) They engorgyd	(-eyd) They engorgeyd	(-yds) They engorgyds	(-ysd) They engorgysd	(-es) They engorges	(-eys) They engorgeys	(-yck) They engorgyck	(-yng) They’re engorgyng
Your mom	Is so fat,	every time	she sits down	she discovers	the Higgs-Boson.	She’s so fat,	she could plug up	a black hole.

These are all going to sound stupid until they start getting used. So what are you waiting for?

Advice is context-relative

Pixel — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:49:44 +0000

Profile 1: A person with a failed marriage, an unwanted child, and many regrets of time wasted and relationships lost.

Profile 2: A person in a successful relationship, in a career that gives them time and challenges, facing future obstacles, but loving their life at the moment.

Profile 3: A person in a happy relationship, with very-loved children, who has seen the worst of the worst, but has prevailed through tenacity and talent.

Question: Is it likely that when you ask them for advice in a certain situation, they will all give you identical advice? It depends on the situation somewhat, but generally the answer will be ‘no.’

Prima Facie Analysis: In choosing who to ask for advice, you are essentially prejudicing the chances of your future actions. A person who has lived through more shades of moral gray area will tend to be more permisive than one who has never found themselves in questionable situations.

Concern: Sometimes there are some people you just can’t ask for advice. Sometimes you only have one or two people you can ask for advice.

Worry: Some people only surround themselves with happy people. Some people only surround themselves with funny or smart people. Some surround themselves with yes-men.

Secunda Facie Analysis: The type of person you are has a huge impact on who you feel comfortable with, which has a huge impact on who your friends and consiglieres are…. which could be absolutely terrible..

Social Awareness

Pixel — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:27:03 +0000

If I didn’t have to see people every day, I wouldn’t shave.

– Frank Jagear

Would you?

Suppose you were caught in a deserted island, would you shave then? Assume you have access to a razor, running water, heat, and shaving cream. For me, the answer would greatly depend on whether the temperature and weather were the same or different. A shaggy mane might be beneficial in the summer.

But it’s not beneficial here.

So that’s introducing variables we don’t want, I guess. Okay. What if it turned out that everyone vanished? You still lived where you live and the water and electricity still ran like it does. And somehow there was a constant supply of food and toiletries. But there’s no people. Would you still shave then? Would you cut your hair?

My friend Frank says he wouldn’t do either. Even when I tried to eliminate every variable other than people. He is quite right, then, when he says that he only does takes care of himself so that he won’t be shunned by society.

I, however, would. I’d shave every few days: not because I care about what I look like, just because I don’t like the feel of it. And I’d cut my hair every few months. Only, because I would only care about comfort, I would shave it (with a 3 or 4) rather than style it. I wouldn’t change any of my clothes, though. Those I only wear for comfort.

…

hm. That’s funny: that’s exactly what I do now!

Pregret

Pixel — Fri, 01 May 2009 04:58:24 +0000

I thought I’d invented this word. Oh, well.

Have you ever been writing an answer on a test and you’re fairly certain it’s wrong, but you write it anyway because the alternative answer sounds even more wrong?

That happened to me yesterday.

But more importantly, I just realized that I’d unnecessarily recreated a concept. Last week, when I wrote my Callooh! Callay post, and last year when I invented the concept of an anti-life, I thought I was being bright and making a useful concept. I didn’t stop to wonder if anyone had thought about it before, I just went with it.

But someone had already created it. Specifically, Otto Binder and artist George Papp in issue 68 of Superboy. I’m talking, of course, of bizarro world.

Now, I hate superman for many reasons (some of which Steve will probably point out in the comments). So I didn’t think about bizarro world when I recreated the concept. But now that I realize it is the same thing as anti-world, I feel like a guy on Linux in a world of PC.

My only consolation is that bizarro world is the opposite of the DC universe, not our own universe. (Believe me, the metaphysics of this bother me.) I’m also slightly consoled by the fact that I hate superman and don’t want to be referencing him– however slightly– in even my rarest of posts.

So yeah. I feel a bit cheated and self-conscious, but silly for feeling that way because it’s a stupid comic. (Not that comics are stupid: just Superman and all associated ‘Super’ superheroes.)

And now I have to think of an awkward end to this post/segue to link to this somewhat related post.

why i blog — Pixelated Mind edition

Pixel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:04:45 +0000

(gakked from Ashley)

I have thoughts. I need a place to store them so that I don’t forget them. You have eyes + time. You want to read thoughts and be entertained and maybebe intrigued. Me + U = Magicks.

That’s all there is to it. When I don’t blog, I feel like I’m living in a permanent zombie state, where nothing I’m experiencing is really happening. Yes, I know that sounds weird, but nothing feels as ephemeral (even if is still awesome) as just hanging out with my friends and doing my job. It’s just the same thing ad infinitum. With text, however… there’s a sense of permanence that doesn’t let things blend into each other. At least in my own twisted mind. A girl with a misspelled last name once said:

“Nothing has really happened until it has been recorded.”

—Virginia Woolf

And… and that’s just it. Plus: jokes. Jokes just plain suck if nobody laughs. I mean, just look at my birth!

How to fail at Philosophy

Pixel — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:47:55 +0000

There is no rest from now on.

My friend’s girlfriend said today that it was silly for people to fail a philosophy class because it was just philosophy. “Nobody’s wrong in philosophy.” To the uninitiated, this might seem a plausible claim. But it’s not. A more accurate claim would be: “Nobody’s right in philosophy.” To illustrate how you could be wrong in philosophy, I’ve made a list of instances in which a person practicing philosophy would fail:

Contradict yourself
Have an argument that doesn’t logically follow from the premises
Assume something that has not been sufficiently defended or supported
Appeal to intuitions that nobody but you has
Get the empirical facts wrong
Misrepresent the opposite position
Pick a topic/thesis nobody cares about
Pick a topic/thesis that has already been extensively covered +
Not have any new ideas
Miss the time-span/page-rage requested

Guess how many of those apply to me?

Book Smarts vs. Street Smarts [part 1 of 2 of (part 2 of 2)]

Daniel — Thu, 15 May 2008 08:54:08 +0000

80. My circle of friends hasn’t really changed since middle school. This alone makes me want to leave New Mexico.

This is Daniel’s long awaited response,

In a recent conversation, Pixel and I argued whether or not “streets-smarts” was anything beyond a made-up term that stupid people used to make fun of the smart. My friend doesn’t think that street-smarts exist, and originally I might have agreed, until my friend “the walking dictionary” decided to start researching the different types of “smarts.”

I’ll play devil’s advocate; this is my defense for the existence of street-smarts. The problem with street-smarts is that it remains nearly impossible to define with any clarity. Furthermore, the examples about the nature of street-smarts create a sliding slope of puzzling interpretations. The difficultly with language and terms is nothing new. The nature of words have always created serious problems for those who study their logical forms. Take the word “chair” for example. The word chair can be easily misunderstood with the simplest of alterations to its form. A chair is something a person can sit on, it often has four legs, and supports the human figure. Yet when does a chair become a seat, bench, stool, place, or settlement? If the legs were removed would it still be a chair? Does a chair need to be made from wood or metal? The truth is that words can become very complex things, but this is nothing we didn’t already know before.

There have been several objections to language and the troubles their terms create, yet language remains one of the most important developments ever made. My friend Pixel doesn’t believe street-smarts exist, I might have agreed before, but I don’t now. Neither does the chair. The importance of words should not be restricted to rigid definitions, because this would make discussions impossible. A chair is nothing more than a word. Like ‘street-smarts,’ what matters is what the connection implies. When I tell my brother that my friend Carlos can’t do anything without the direction of a book, this criticism will never appear in the dictionary, but my implication suggest some element the two of us can relate. The term street-smarts only exists because it contains something people can use to relate the implications, these words offer the means to meaning, and are only instruments of our ability to share.

Thus, unless Pixel is willing to toss out the rest of the dictionary, street smarts must stay.

(Editor’s note: Part One can be found here.)

Street Smarts vs. Book Smarts (part 1 of 2)

Pixel — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:08:10 +0000

66. Even though I usually get in the 99th percentile in standardized tests (both academic and IQ), I don’t believe in standardized tests. At all. They don’t measure anything except for how well the participant can study for them. Believe me, I’ve boosted my scores by hundreds of points at a time without increasing my intelligence or scholarly aptitude in any way. This, of course, means that No Child Left Behind was based on a false premise. Sorry nation’s youth.

I have a secret. I don’t think street smarts exist. I think people came up with that concept to show that smart people can’t be smart about everything. I think they saw some sort of lack of ‘common sense’ among really smart people and came up with a way of describing this: the titular ‘street smarts’

These come up fairly frequently when I tell people that I’m going to go for my Ph.D. Somehow, this triggers an association and, sure enough, they end up saying some bull like, “well, I think book smarts are okay, but street smarts are what is important.”

To wit: a few days ago, my friend Daniel and his girlfriend Ana started talking to me about street smarts. And, seeing as I was really interested in what the phrase even meant, I started arguing with them (type 2). These were their positions:

Daniel seemed to think that street smarts were a way of analyzing things such that you would think of a quick or easy way of doing something that was unfamiliar. He seemed to believe it was something that could not be learned and had to be innate. He saw no contradiction in a person’s possessing both street smarts and book smarts.
Ana believed that street smarts required a form of physical action and involved a sense of resourcefulness. She felt that people with ‘street smarts’ would generally not be educated and gave the example of orphans or street children that grow up learning to hustle tourists. Though reluctant, eventually she admitted she saw no contradiction in a person’s possessing both street smarts and book smarts.

Both gave the example of a person surviving out in the woods alone using only their wits. They also both gave the example of opening up the hood of a strange car and finding out what was wrong with it.

To me, the differences were irreconcilable. Daniel’s definition seemed to be what I would consider intelligence and Ana’s would be what I would consider learned resourcefulness. Both seemed to have something to do with common sense and no correlative association with book smarts, which we soon defined as general trivia or particular knowledge. This may have been a bit of confirmation bias, but I left unconvinced that the term ‘street smarts’ had any value.

If by ‘street smarts’ one just wishes to contrast ‘book smarts,’ why not just say that knowledge alone does not make someone intelligent? If ‘street smarts’ means common sense, then why not just say that? Ditto for resourcefulness. There seems to be nothing left for ‘street smarts’ to refer to that’s not better expressed with another word.

No, instead I think that street smarts are a subtle way to suggest that there is a high degree of correlation between being intellectual about abstract concepts and lacking wits to survive in the concrete world. Otherwise, why would there even need to be a term for it? And why is it always used in contrast to another made up term: book smarts. It’s not true that intellectualness and everyday wits are mutually exclusive, obviously. But as a direct result of this unspoken assumption, people use the term with abandon. As well they should: I’ve never heard anyone take offense.

Not that I’m saying that people that feel they lack ‘book smarts’ are stupid, far from it! I actually think that knowledge and intelligence have a very low degree of correlation. I don’t assume that somebody doesn’t know how to change their oil simply because they’re a professor, but neither would I assume that from a person that works at In-N-Out Burgers.

Stay tuned for Daniel’s response tomorrow.

p.s. Here’s an idea for a good recipe for a Spinach-Artichoke dip.

p.p.s. Today is the National Day of Reason, so take off your aluminum hats, topple a pyramid scheme, and thank a scientist for life-saving cancer fighting bacon candy.

p.p.p.s. How many common words can you name? I got 44.

(Editor’s note: Part Two can be found here.)

When (and how) to argue

Pixel — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:03:35 +0000

65. After my brother joined the military, my mother began forcing my father and I to go to church as part of a ‘family activity.’ They bribed, lied, and cheated to get me to go. So I went, reluctantly. It’s funny, because at the time, I hadn’t been a Catholic in 6 years, so my going there only served to drive us further apart as I reacted like a teenager and sulked.

I get into arguments on a fairly regular basis. I suspect the reason for this is that I like to make grandiose claims and Nobody catches on to my tongue-in-cheek, finger-wagging spectacles. EVER.

But as often as I argue, I used to argue much more regularly. In my youth, I used to really like arguments. Sometimes I would argue positions I didn’t support just because I liked seeing people fluster as they tried to explain to me why slavery was wrong or why clothing was not optional. I’m actually a bit ashamed of that now.

But as I grew and matured (read: grew tired of bickering), I stopped seeking out arguments. Then I stopped continuing arguments even when they came to me. This went on to such a point that now I only ever argue for two reasons:

To disavow someone of their ignorance.
To get to the truth of the matter.

The second reason is the reason I prefer. There’s nothing worse than arguing with a smug-faced bastard who’s just humoring you by pretending to listen to your point with no intention of even analyzing his own. Believe me, I’ve seen that from every angle: it happens a lot when dealing with smart people.

But arguing shouldn’t be that way. A true argument should be between people that have opposing beliefs, or rather, one person that believes something and another that does not (yet) buy into it.

(...)
Read the rest of When (and how) to argue (766 words)

Cool is a fandom

Pixel — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:45:05 +0000

47. I don’t know when I’m joking half the time. Seriously. My brain works on an ironic gear, so sometimes I say funny things or say things in an amused tone of voice, but have no idea I’m doing it. I once tried to explain this to someone and they thought it was “trippy.”

I was not cool in middle school. Then, in high school, I realized I didn’t care what high school students thought. I might have been cool (our school was too large and diverse to have set ‘cliques,’ so ‘well-known’ meant a whole range of things), but I’ll never know. But I’ve thought about this for a while, and it finally occurred to me what ‘cool’ even was.

Cool is a fandom.

I mean that in a very unintuitive, unobvious way. Or maybe it’s not. You tell me.

When older people hear younger people’s slang or see their attire, they end up thinking that they just don’t get ‘it’ anymore. As if they’re the outsiders of a group looking in. What’s hilarious is that this is exactly what they are!

Cool kids are no different than ‘trekkies’ or ‘emo kids.’ They’re all separate groups with vague boundaries, but certain examples of legitimate in-group and out-group members. They all have lexicon and implicit dress and social interactions. The only difference is that cool kids are seen as a dominant fandom in a certain sense, because their only ‘cannon’ is the present actions of other ‘cool kids.’

So when kids do or say stupid stuff to each other, it doesn’t just sound silly to your ears. It IS silly. They just don’t realize it. They’re like trekkies at a convention they’ve never left. They’re the perpetual in-group… at least until they get older and realize how silly the new ‘cool’ things are…..

A Pixelated Mind » the philosophy of the everyday

Rules for Shotgun

Nonsense and Reference

NEEEEEERRRDDDSS!!!!

The Journal of Half-Baked Ideas

Sequel Space

This is a prologue to a post

We need new verb tenses, guys

Who

Recent Past to Distant Past

Distant Past to Recent Past

Past to Future

Future to Past

Near Future to Distant Future

Distant Future to Near Future

Anachronistic Self in Present

Self in Anachronistic Present

(-ud) I engorgud

(-oud) I engorgoud

(-uds) I engorguds

(-usd) I engorgusd

(-os) I engorgos

(-ous) I engorgous

(-ack!) I engorgack!

(-ang!) I’m engorgang!

(-yd) You engorgyd

(-eyd) You engorgeyd

(-yds) You engorgyds

(-ysd) You engorgysd

(-es) You engorges

(-eys) You engorgeys

(-yck!) You engorgyck

(-yng!) You’re engorgyng

(-uyd) We engorgyd

(-eud) We engorgeud

(-uds) We engorguds

(-usd) We engorgusd

(-eos) We engorgeos

(-eus) We engorgeus

(-uyck) We engorguyck

(-uyng) We’re engorguyng

(-yd) They engorgyd

(-eyd) They engorgeyd

(-yds) They engorgyds

(-ysd) They engorgysd

(-es) They engorges

(-eys) They engorgeys

(-yck) They engorgyck

(-yng) They’re engorgyng

Is so fat,

every time

she sits down

she discovers

the Higgs-Boson.

She’s so fat,

she could plug up

a black hole.

Advice is context-relative

Social Awareness

– Frank Jagear

Pregret

why i blog — Pixelated Mind edition

—Virginia Woolf

How to fail at Philosophy

Book Smarts vs. Street Smarts [part 1 of 2 of (part 2 of 2)]

Street Smarts vs. Book Smarts (part 1 of 2)

When (and how) to argue

Cool is a fandom

(-ud)
I engorgud

(-oud)
I engorgoud

(-uds)
I engorguds

(-usd)
I engorgusd

(-os)
I engorgos

(-ous)
I engorgous

(-ack!)
I engorgack!

(-ang!)
I’m engorgang!

(-yd)
You engorgyd

(-eyd)
You engorgeyd

(-yds)
You engorgyds

(-ysd)
You engorgysd

(-es)
You engorges

(-eys)
You engorgeys

(-yck!)
You engorgyck

(-yng!)
You’re engorgyng

(-uyd)
We engorgyd

(-eud)
We engorgeud

(-uds)
We engorguds

(-usd)
We engorgusd

(-eos)
We engorgeos

(-eus)
We engorgeus

(-uyck)
We engorguyck

(-uyng)
We’re engorguyng

(-yd)
They engorgyd

(-eyd)
They engorgeyd

(-yds)
They engorgyds

(-ysd)
They engorgysd

(-es)
They engorges

(-eys)
They engorgeys

(-yck)
They engorgyck

(-yng)
They’re engorgyng