Saturday, 31 December 2016

How To Get Out of a Dark Hole.

Just read a pretty good book - Bill Myers' The Dark Side of the Supernatural. 

Here's the link to the Australian kindle store if that's where you buy stuff.

Very good to read to understand what is of God, and what isn't, in the supernatural world.

Something I'm thinking about at the moment - how can people get out of the dark holes they get themselves into? (Despair, depression, mental illness, etc, etc)

Only one way I know of - Jesus Christ.

He is the Light of the World.

Anyone who asks Him for help, guidance, light in their life, will find the help they need.

It's really that simple.




Saturday, 24 December 2016

How Postmodernism Becomes A Tool For Maintaining the Status Quo.

When a postmodernist examines an article or opinion the first question he asks is, "Who wrote this? Whose opinion is it?" Following this, the postmodernist says to himself, "What position are they coming from? Why do they take this position?"

"Oh," s/he says to her/himself, "This person has a vested interest."

This then becomes a reason for being suspicious of the person's reasoning. The vested interest, prior position (Christian, white male, being middle class, working for the oil industry once, etc etc) delegitimises that person's argument, before they have even said anything.

When people believed that it was possible to argue about things rationally in a free society, this would have been called an 'ad hominem attack,' one of the standard logical fallacies. 'Ad hominem', 'against the man' in latin, means to argue that a person's position is wrong because of the person. To be logical one must argue against the logic of what they are saying, rather than who they are or what group they come from.

What this kind of postmodernist rhetoric does (in the name of truth) is makes democracy impossible: if you can't argue a point from logic agreeing that the other person might be just as right as you are, if you are saying, "this person cannot be logical because they are a member of a particular social group" - then you may as well stand there singing 'la la la la' with your hands in your ears as have a conversation where you try to get at truth, or an argument where you try to convince others (i.e. democracy) if you have already decided that whatever they say is influenced by their 'vested interest' and is therefore not worth listening to.

Thursday, 22 December 2016

The Turing Test.

A follow on from my previous post...

The Turing Test is a test invented by the mathematician Alan Turing in a paper published in 1950 in Mind. He is approaching the question, "Can Machines Think?"

Here is an excerpt from this paper:

1. The Imitation Game
I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think." The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game." It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B thus:

C: Will X please tell me the length of his or her hair?

Now suppose X is actually A, then A must answer. It is A's object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification. His answer might therefore be:

"My hair is shingled, and the longest strands are about nine inches long."

In order that tones of voice may not help the interrogator the answers should be written, or better still, typewritten. The ideal arrangement is to have a teleprinter communicating between the two rooms. Alternatively the question and answers can be repeated by an intermediary. The object of the game for the third player (B) is to help the interrogator. The best strategy for her is probably to give truthful answers. She can add such things as "I am the woman, don't listen to him!" to her answers, but it will avail nothing as the man can make similar remarks.

We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?"

He replaces this question with another question, "Can a machine fool a human into thinking the machine is conscious?"

The real question which most of these fictional stories about AIs answer in the affirmative, is, "Can a machine be created which actually is conscious?"

In fact, it is very hard to prove consciousness. No one really knows what it is. The only person one can be completely certain is conscious is oneself, when one is conscious. Believing others are conscious is actually an act of faith, in a sense.

The philosopher Alvin Plantinga in his book God and Other Minds 1967 proposed that belief in God was analogous to belief in other minds, both being apparent from evidence and fundamentally rational beliefs, but that neither belief in God nor belief in other minds could be conclusively proven against a determined sceptic.

Since we do not really know what consciousness is, how can we ever create it in a machine?

In other words, the Turing Test can never prove consciousness (Turing never claimed it could) it can only prove that a machine can be created that can imitate consciousness.




Tuesday, 20 December 2016

Robots, AI, and what consciousness is.

I've been watching HUMᗄNS, a BBC show, and also Westworld, on iTunes. Both are about AI androids who start exhibiting human characteristics. But the central premise on which these shows are based, that a machine that appears to be human actually is, is not really explained - it is simply assumed. The central premise is that same miracle in the Golem myth - that somehow a robot/machine/lump of clay can be given human/divine breath and made to live.

It started me thinking - the central characteristic of a human being is self-consciousness - I realised a long time ago that Descartes' fundamental basis for all of his philosophy of a Clockmaker universe, "I think therefore I am", is actually illusory - "I am" is the more fundamental realisation. That this realisation is possible for us is explained in Talmudic and Biblical teaching by God having breathed His life, a portion of His spirit (breath and spirit being the same word in Hebrew, neshamah) into us. In ontological terms, it follows, "I am, therefore I think". (i.e. The fact that I am is what causes me to be able to think)

A computer in its own way 'thinks' - the circuits bleep over and create a certain pattern - but the meaning of that pattern only becomes apparent to a human being. In fact, the meaning of any pattern requires a conscious being to see it, for it to have meaning. In other words, the genetic code is only the mechanics of a machine that orders the process that creates the body, but it must have been designed, because it is a construct involving symbolic meaning. i.e. it is a code - but strangely enough, the only living creatures who can see that it is a code are human beings (or other sentient beings, angels, God, aliens perhaps). The bacteria who benefits from this vastly clever piece of engineering cannot see that the DNA through which it comes into existence is a symbolic representation of the creature that comes into existence. (This awareness of symbolic pattern, by the way, is another aspect of self-awareness - the ability to discern the difference between signifier and signified - something post-modernism minimises by destroying that difference, being a system that attempts to treat human consciousness as analogous to a computer in an endless goto loop - which is precisely what consciousness is not. The Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel demonstrates that ultimately it takes a human being to discern when a theorem is self-referential, i.e., in an endless goto loop. Similarly, despite programmers putting in super-programs called daemons to monitor the program while it is running, and daemons to monitor the daemons, they still can't stop the computer from crashing from time to time, getting itself into an endless loop. You see, a machine is only a machine, but the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth. )

There are already dolls that talk to children, mobile phone 'personalities' (Siri), games that can hold conversations with us, and these can be programmed to have apparent feelings. I am sure Google eventually will become very good at extrapolating normal human emotions from the massive amounts of data they have collected about people - perhaps to the degree that they can eventually create an AI machine that can realistic imitate a human, and fool many people into thinking it is alive and conscious.

But if there is no centre to that creation, no part of it that can honestly say, "I am", then despite its apparent 'feeling', 'thought', even despite the fact that it might appear to have self-awareness, if there is no real self-consciousness, no divine spirit, then it is still nothing more than an artificial machine imitating human behaviour, something electronic, certainly, that really could just as well be made of cogs and wheels. We don't have to worry about offending it, hurting it, breaking it, sinning against it, except to the degree that we might be hurting its owners or ourselves by doing such things, just the same as any other machine. (Stealing a car is wrong, not because the car has feelings and sentience, but because the owner does. )

It seems to me that self-consciousness is spiritual, an effect of having a spirit. It is an exceptional thing for an animal to be able to recognise itself in a mirror. It is a normal thing for a human to be able to do so. Having feelings also, i.e. a soul, (nefesh) is a miracle in itself - only certain animals have this almost to a human degree - the higher mammals. But self-consciousness is uniquely human.

Some people, who insist that we are nothing more than machines ourselves, would say that the existence of self-awareness is an illusion. But the fact is, the grammar of their own statement shows how ludicrous this statement is: for there must be someone having an illusion, for it to be an illusion. If there is no self, if we are machines just as much as a computer is, then there can be no illusion at all, because there is no real person at the centre of it all who can be deceived.

I think self-consciousness in AIs is a problem that is insoluble to science. I really don't believe a human being can create another self-conscious being except through the usual methods (a sperm and an egg).

(In Henry Lawson Hero of the Robot Revolution, (*spoiler alert this paragraph*) of course, I solved the problem of the soul and spirit in AI machines in the narrative by giving them a soul, a spirit, that has been transferred from a human by some unexplained and drastically inhuman process. This is the only way I believe that AIs could be truly conscious, if a spirit could be transferred somehow from one vessel to the other. This in itself is a scary thought and is the main source of the horror in my novel, for anyone who has read it.)

In these shows (HUMᗄNS, Westworld, etc) the terrible thing that happens is that these AIs whom anyone with any human feeling can see are conscious, are being treated as impersonal machines, and they are fighting back. If this was possible it would indeed be terrible. It is the premise of many, many science fiction stories, from Frankenstein to Rossum's Universal Robots, to Blade Runner.

But no one yet has shown that it is possible to create a conscious machine, and no one yet has even shown us what consciousness is. A machine may be able to be created that can feign consciousness, but until this mystery can be solved (which I believe it cannot, precisely because self-consciousness is one aspect of the divine image in us, perhaps the main aspect, and this is a mystery) - until this mystery can be solved, we will never have to worry about offending, hurting, sinning against the machines in our lives. No, we should worry far more about hurting our fellow humans, and the other living creatures in our lives - a dog, after all, while not self-aware, does have genuine feelings (Nefesh) but a computer never will.



Friday, 9 December 2016

'Tis the Season to Consider the Checkout Staff.

Checkout Lady: I'm sorry you've been waiting.
Man at checkout: Don't worry! We all know that it's not your fault if there's congestion.
Checkout Lady: Well you're one in a million.
Man at checkout: We know it's those b*st*rds in Sydney in the head office in their Mercedes Benz's who're always cutting corners, not the checkout staff causing this problem.
Checkout Lady: Well, thank you for that! I've been working for fourteen hours and haven't even had lunch - I had one minute for my lunch break and didn't have time to eat anything. How's that for dedication? And I've got to supervise the stacking of the shelves, but I simply haven't had time because we're short staffed.
Man at checkout: Well that's okay, the main thing is you're doing your best and we all appreciate it.
Checkout Lady: You should be cloned!

Thursday, 17 November 2016

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.

This is a great picture:


From this excellent article:
http://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/why-a-fractured-nation-needs-to-remember-martin-luther-kings-message/19004

My thought - there is no monopoly of righteousness on either the left or right of politics that gives anyone on either side the ability to drive out hatred with hatred. Because only love can drive out hate...

...This is a spiritual point, and my further thought on this is that only God can help us love those who hate us, forgive those who hurt us, respond kindly to those who set out to harm us.

Sunday, 13 November 2016

Where to get help when you need it.

I find life difficult at times. For a long time, I found mornings particularly difficult - just to get to work was a battle, just to get myself motivated for another day - but through all of that I've found a few things that help a lot, in getting through the day, getting through life. I'm telling you these because I am a fellow beggar, looking to find some food! And I want you to know where to find help too.

1) Call out to God, call out to Jesus, for help. God is real! He will hear your prayer.

 Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (in the Bible 3 times - in Joel 2:32, Romans 10:13, and Acts 2:21) 

For that difficult period in my life, He heard my prayer for help and salvation every day, and he still does. But these days I find myself getting stronger:

Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint. Isaiah 40:31

2) Understand that you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by doing good works or balancing up the scales by achieving something. To really understand this, read Paul's epistle to the Romans, or Galatians gives the short version. In fact, all of Paul's letters in the Bible emphasize this fact, as do John's letters also in the New Testament.

3) Deal with sin by putting your trust in Jesus. Jesus' blood, shed for you on the cross, is all that can cleanse sin and the past from our lives. Pushing uncomfortable thoughts away, burying them, avoiding them, will not work, but faith in Jesus will.

4) Place your hopes on Jesus. Jesus' resurrection is what gives hope, ultimately, not anything else we can think or do or wish for or imagine or hope for. We can trust God for everything else!

Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart. Psalm 37:4

5) Read the Bible. It really is God's word, and through the words of the Bible God is able to help you and speak to you. I can't emphasize this enough - God is a living God - and He can and will speak through this book that He caused to be written. He cares enough to speak to you personally. 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-19 (Yes God wants us to do good works, but these are the result of our salvation, not the cause of it.)

And

Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path. Psalm 119:105

6) Talk to a wise counsellor - a Christian. Someone who will tell you points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5! Someone who will guide you to follow in Jesus' way.

7) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. Love is, after all, what it's all about.

God is love. 1 John 4:16

Monday, 7 November 2016

Saturday, 5 November 2016

...and Even More Book Covers



And here are the two new Henry Lawson book covers, using an out-of-copyright image of Lawson from the New South Wales State Library as well as a copyright free image, from Darpa, of a robot (!) (not meaning to imply any endorsement by Darpa) (But those Darpa robots are pretty freaky.) 

Photoshop really makes this sort of thing so easy...

And the new Talon of Destiny book cover, below, using the picture from the previous blog post. 


Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Panorama

Panorama of the Lockridge Bush (click on it to see the whole thing)

I've removed quite a few posts. Rethinking some things again! Going back to writing.

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Love

Love is at the heart of the Christian gospel. 

God is love - no one can go past that. 

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Miri It Is

A storm is raging outside, the second in the past four days.

The storm makes me think of the medieval song, Miri It Is. 

Mirie it is while sumer ilast
With fugheles song,
Oc nu necheth windes blast
And weder strong.
Ej! Ej! what this nicht is long,
And ich with wel michel wrong
Soregh and murne and fast.

translation:
Merry it is while summer lasts,
With birds in song;
But now there threaten windy blasts
And weather strong.
Ah, but the night is long,
And I, being done such wrong,
Sorrow and mourn and fast.


**By the way this is a truly lovely version of Miri It Is, combined with another medieval song, "Sumer Is Icumen In," which contains the immortal line, "Bullock sterteth, Bucke uerteth" which means, "the bullock starts, the buck farts". They were a lot more down to earth in medieval times...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkklQbuuXlM






Monday, 23 May 2016

Jesus shall save his people from their sins

This great sermon by the African American preacher D J Ward, mentioned in John Yates' article (link at the bottom):
https://vimeo.com/163252033 

The description of the video: "The death of Christ was an accomplishment, and our works cannot add to Christ's death. In this video, Elder D.J. Ward, the late pastor of Main Street Baptist Church in Lexington, K.Y., powerfully reminds us of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all who turn to him in repentance and faith."



And John Yates' recent reflections on it: 
Promise

I read somewhere that there is little difference between the pagan clutching at idols and people who rely on religion or conscience or good deeds to save them - Jesus' salvation is on a different order, it is not something we have to do, it is complete, He has done everything for us, we can rest in what He has accomplished. 

Friday, 8 April 2016

Vulge and other words that ought to be words

Some words that don't exist but really ought to. 

Vulge - (n. 'vəʊldʒ) what you have before you have divulged something, a secret, a piece of gossip, innuendo, or a dreadful fact that you are keeping to yourself. "Bruce kept the vulge in his heart, until he could find someone he could trust to divulge it to." "Once Warren had divulged the secret, he found he was singularly lacking in any other vulges. He went around looking for other vulges, but no one was willing to talk to him now." 

Sjog - (v. sdʒɒg) To snog while having a jog, for instance, two Scandinavian fitness freaks kissing while still running. "Look at those two Swedes sjoging - those northern Europeans really don't have any shame do they?" 

Sponk - (n. 'spɒŋk) To have the kind of pluck, spirit, mettle or spunk that Mister Spock from Star Trek has. A kind of nerdy, Asperger's kind of attractiveness. -> Sponky - very attractive in a Mister Spock sort of way. "That Benedict Cumberbatch has got a lot of Sponk, hasn't he? He's very, very Sponky." -> Sponking - being at a bar or pickup joint and trying to use one's Sponk to pick up babes. 

Divulgent - (adj. 'daɪːvəʊldʒnt)  a conversation containing many acts of divulgence. "They had quite a divulgent conversation, at least, he ended up divulging a lot. Afterwards he realised her side of the conversation hadn't been nearly as divulgent as his." (Actually this could always be the title of the next book in the Divergent series, couldn't it?)

Devulge - (v. 'dvəʊldʒ) To devulge. To purposely leave a vulge undivulged, in case the divulgee divulges it later on someone else. (Incidentally this group of words is etymologically and logically related to vulgar - a vulgar person seldom devulges things and often divulges them.) "I wish he hadn't devulged that piece of gossip - I was really hoping to find out what it was." "Instead of telling them I decided that to devulge is better than to divulge."

Chyleof - (n. tʃiːliɒf)from anc. Welsh and Egyptian, Chyleofw, who was an Egyptian Pharaoh from the Fourth Dynasty (identified with Khulufu possibly a nephew of Sneferu). Chyleofw decided to take a short sea voyage and visited Wales by accident. After being extremely impressed by the part singing, he appropriated aspects of Welsh culture and gave himself a half-Welsh, half Egyptian name. After several thousand years of Grimm's rule being applied to successive versions of the word Chyleofw in different languages, Chyleof ended up an English word, meaning anyone who pilfers other people's culture for himself. Etymology: Chyleof, anc. Hieratic and Welsh, Chyleov, Middle Egyptian, Kyleou, Gk, Kurevulge, Latin, Ghruelvue, Old Fr. Glyreov., Angl. Sax, to Old Engl. Glyreof., Middle English, Grlyeof, Modern English, Chyleof*.  Examples:  "Sasha Barron Cohen is a real Chyleof, he keeps pilfering other people's culture." "Oh, listen, that singer is trying to sound Celtic, but the person playing it is from Australia. What a Chyleof he is." "That Robert Denethon is such a Chyleof I'm surprised anyone reads anything he's written." "Do they?"

*incidentally Chyleof is one of the few words to make it all the way round.