The Fake Branch of Support

In my times, I often like to see how individuals say they 'support' or 'advocate' causes.  I find there is a disjoint property between most who call themselves 'supporters', or 'advocates' for a cause, and those who actually carry about benefits for a cause.  Now, this doesn't apply to every person who would apply to this label, but it definitely covers a good majority of those who loiter the internet claiming to help others, or help maybe two people and brag how they save billions with others who support some kind of cause.

The Problem

Most people who call themselves 'supporters', or 'advocates' for a cause don't actually do anything to support or advocate the cause.  It is a common problem I see whether it be irrational classes of feminists, pseudo-scientists, or even people who say they support solving a problem.  Now, if maybe one of these individuals is reading this, maybe here are some effective steps to really support a cause:

1. Is it actually a problem, or something to promote? - Believe it or not, most supporters or advocates who don't get involved directly very rarely will actually have at times a proper scope or understanding of a cause.  Do some research.  For instance, if you are a 'spiritual scientist', and believe that sacred geometry is the root to all answers, I'd recommend evaluating your position.  Most I find whether it be religious, or political, in a lot of circumstances will not even understand what it is actually about, or even evaluate more than one perspective on a matter.  Some causes are not even worth morally supporting, but that is another discussion.
2. Get Involved - Believe it or not, to support or advocate a cause can be a lot of work depending on the problem.  For instance, when I help others I could be spending hours helping them outside of my time, and not clicking a "Like" on a facebook page.  Some problems can be quite personal, or require a lot of study, or even just getting off the couch.
3. Network - If there is a problem and it is really that big of a problem, don't just sit on your butt and expect it to solve itself, network with others and promote it (if (1) has been properly evaluated).

It is really that simple!  We can't make a positive difference in our world alone and independently.  Just don't call yourself a supporter if you are going to sit on your butt, go for a walk, talk about it, research your position, and lastly be yourself.  A lot of 'supporters' commonly use their positions on causes as shields.  Don't do that, it makes your ability to reason seem lacking.  If you're going to tell me you support _____, have reasons for it, and don't dogmatically follow it because somebody told you to.  Lastly, just saying something is not the same as actually going out and doing it.

We need more 'do-ers' and less supporters to solve problems.

Have a beautiful day!

D R Page

The Split Minded Delusional

Sorry for the Delay

It has been quite a while since I have posted on my blog, so I apologize to any readers, expect entries on an eventful basis.  

My Research

I have been rather successful in my field on publishing my new algorithm [http://www.springerlink.com/content/w31081rw26p610t1/].  It unifies a couple decades worth of generalizations in the field of generating integer compositions.  I will be submitting some work on a context-free grammar I have cooked up a while back to better analyze my algorithm.  It has interesting applications in parsing, and efficient space-complexity for practical use.

Following this, I will be taking a bit of side step into a further generalization of my specialization in Theoretical Computer Science under the supervision of my adviser for my graduate studies.  My goal is to make the world a better place by solving problems which will strengthen what we know, and use it to solve problems us as human beings have to encounter with the technology we have at hand.  Whether it be with computers, or feeding less fortunate countries, or turning around the economics of countries, optimization and hard problems are what we need to solve.

  To enlighten and change, we must not put a band-aid on problems whether it be the flawed social services our social workers perpetuate, or the social taboos we as a society have placed to cover up unsolved problems.  We as a society must abandon pseudoscience, or anything really which holds us back to cover up a band-aid to progress.  We don't need band-aids, we need surgeons to fix the wounds that keep opening.  I believe the basis of all mathematics can lend itself to understand and tackle these problems.

Now onto track

As somebody likes to try to comprehend the reasoning of others.  I merely do so as a scientist and educator, to help them learn and comprehend an argument, or the facts placed in front of them.  I always find it interesting when you encounter a person which has a lack or insufficient propensity to help others, or guides or shrouds themselves in an identity they themselves cannot fill.  Whether it be a 'new age' artsy fellow, a science fan who claims they know more than they actually do, a young filmmaker who claims to be George Lucas, a programmer who claims to be a computer scientist, or even an individual who claims they are one thing, but cover this with lies to hide their sadness.  I pity such people when they have no rational reason to hold such confidence in their abilities, and often times I will have to encounter them directly.  In these types of discussions, their common argument patterns will fit the following form:

1. (The individual)I'm right.
2. (The individual) You're closed minded, and can't think outside of the box.
3. (The individual) An attack, and blame for action.
4. (Yourself) [tries to explain the actual matter]
5. (The individual) Doesn't matter because I'm 'x', and that's 'y'.
6. (Yourself) Explains that is not how to support a position, and explains the actual matter once again.
7. Repeat (1), if the not halted.

I find such direct chains common with individuals who I often will think of as 'split minded delusional', or an individual who maybe is a little cocky about their own abilities, or possibly has something wrong mentally with them.  As an educator, I believe such people can be a problem with others who wish to improve and understand directly.  To learn from an educator, one must be able to bring themselves to the same level as the educator, and his/her peers.  Whether it be a discussion, or trying to convince others, it all comes back to logic.  Sadly, such people do not employ a rational mindset due to their lack of education or understanding of mathematics to employ logic.

  I really ask myself, why do they insist putting on this show?  I believe it is simple, they have something to hide in some form.  Whether it be a lack of talent for profit, or psychological, or neurological, or any feature possible, we should try to be as openly critical about ourselves as we are to others.  In a world where we need to improve it, it will not be such attitudes which bring us a better age, it will be people who learn and understand.

Have a beautiful day!

D R Page

Going from Existential to Universal, the dangers of Delusion when Wrong

Hello everybody,

I felt like reflecting a quick post on something I seem to notice. Why do people seem to always persist in delusions that could be classified as universal quantifier as opposed to existential quantifiers?

I of course don't mean the typical questions of does one particular thing exists. Those are the bearing of the person to demonstrate or prove but, I mean when a body of people take an existential quantifier and bring it into the universal quantifiers status. For instance, one would say a single ghost may exist and that would be something for someone to prove (yet the neuroscientific data we have contradicts the existence of ghosts since they seem to be human delusions but, let's ignore that for the sake of demonstration) but, they wish to assert not just one ghost exists but, ghosts of all kinds exist like they were a realm of their own that is a part of our universe (making it a universal quantifier). Or for example that God exists and is everywhere. Taking concepts of existential things and making them universal concepts.

Makes me ponder why they would do this. It definitely makes disproving them way easier than if they were existential. Like it's fairly clear we can't assume spiritual realms and the supernatural exist since they contradict the observations of nature since yet we know much... there is little to none suggesting that there is some supernatural force out there. Of course there is much out there to be explained but, invoking something we can't understand makes little sense when we have numerous methods to naturally. It is safe to assume the supernatural doesn't exist since we are in a natural universe. It's like throwing an element that is not relating to a set U into U for the heck of it when they are completely unrelated so that U1 intersection Unew is not an empty set.

I feel some either don't know how far these assumptions can be but, it is definitely clear it helps them make their message clear when they jump to this level of assumption from existential to universal. It is fairly clear it makes it easier for people to understand yet it's illogical and fairly dangerous nature. Considering there are a fair number of people who may for instance assume say something like alien abductions may exist or that the spiritual realm can be used for medical purposes when these are all delusions. If a delusion is brought to this quantifier it can be quite dangerous if gone unverified or contradicted by science since it gives uneducated people a reason to be convinced they exist since it is a 'universal' level statement. For instance, one may say ohh I'm not sure if God exists but, I'm sure since someone may claim a supernatural realm exists that it is more believable when neither is valid nor scientific.

I just always find it interesting to observe numerous examples, even including things that conflict with modern systems like medical which the public get confused between normal medical science and alternative medicine. Just the label of 'for any', or 'for all' really sounds like a guarantee to the public yet it's lack of a spine in practice. This includes God, gods, ghosts, paranormal supernatural, and other superstitious delusions to our common knowledge thus far but, we can only say I don't know to some of these but, majority are debunked. Till we have the knowledge to approach them can we assert anything but, based on modern knowledge these can't be accepted universally. Just I find it humourous when people bring these existential concepts into universal quantifier territory for us scientifically literate people to debunk them so quickly since a universal quantifier is for 'for all' or 'for any' when an existential quantifier is 'there exists' or 'for some'.

The basic lesson of this entry is that assertions beyond a non-valid claim are dangerous but, so easy to disprove when you have the knowledge. The key is to distinguish these fallacies and idiotic claims about the supernatural from the real and informative data we have about our universe. It is that simple. We have science, logical reasoning, mathematics (yet all of these are science but, to spread them out better), and they are our greatest tools, make us of them!

Have a beautiful day!

All the best!

Mega Man Eternal

MEGA MAN ETERNAL

mega man fan game

Hello everybody,

I'm currently working on a Mega Man fan game which will feature the return of the Mega Man Killers, 8 new robot masters and much more! So far I am designing Tune Man's stage :).

Have a beautiful day!

Dan :)