Primary tabs
Posts
not including Doodles
Without the right moral orientation, the automated car will be as much a tool of tyranny as the mass media have become a tool for propaganda
I foresaw the digital revolution as a powerful force in reversing some of the trends caused by the industrial revolution, specifically the alterations to home and work patterns. Two aspects in particular intrigued me. One was education, the other was transportation. The real technical future of transportation is more like the private car than the bus or train. But without the right moral orientation, the automated car will be as much a tool of tyranny as the mass media have become a tool for propaganda.
My failed college major concerned the ways computers were involved in the future. I saw the digital revolution as a powerful force in reversing some of the trends caused by the industrial revolution, specifically the alterations to home and work patterns. The industrial revolution inherently removed work from home, fathers from families, and families from the land. Two aspects in particular intrigued me.
One was education, which I saw becoming decentralized and more home-oriented, and neighborhood-oriented. You don't have to pack kids off to a huge school many miles away if they can have the best teachers in the world "online" as we now call it. I had envisioned a return to the little red schoolhouse, in a sense, if you had schools at all, a neighborhood resource similar to a library, with world-wide knowledge and educational experts available equally to all. In a sense, this is increasingly possible, even coming to be in some ways, although I admit the intrusion of the Internet so thoroughly into our homes and even our pockets was beyond my vision.
The other was transportation. Much of the reason why people commute to work has to do with "paper-shuffling," and I foresaw the same kind of decentralization of the workplace — and consequently the urban center — that I foresaw in education. The movement to "tele-commuting" and even the "home office" has not been as dramatic as it could be, and will be. Partly this has to do with the technical lag of real-time ability to tele-conference and have different people in different places working on the same documents, "on the same page." Virtual presence will accelerate these trends, I deem, but the inertia of the Industrial Age will take a long time to overcome. The Peter Pans of the workplace actually like it that they get away from family and go to work where they have their self-esteem contests, and that psychology will take time to change. It's coming. It's coming.
I saw that the connected world would mean that human beings could spend less time just going from place A to place B to shuffle paper and make decisions (which also gets into means of direct self-government by involved citizens, which has been developing rapidly), reducing the enormous waste of long commutes with all the attendant problems of traffic, pollution, and parking. But I also saw that the automobile as we know it would be replaced. This has not even begun.
I've lived in the future all my life. At Disneyland I rode the monorail and talked on a (crude but working) videophone, and at the NY World's Fair I had my hands on a computer terminal in 1964. But I'm from the wide-open prairie, and from the mid-20th Century where people "loved" their cars. I didn't see mass transportation as a serious option. People like their rides, for good reason. What I foresaw, and foresee, is the automated automobile. What they are working on these days, high-speed mag-lev trains, and self-driving, self-parking cars are all wrong-headed, but are developing the technology that will be used in the real thing when it arrives. The real technical future of transportation is more like the private car than the bus or train. There are myriad problems to be worked through to arrive at a truly automated transportation system, and as with any human system there will be serious problems, but the advantages will transform society and change everything about how we think of travel.
Imagine getting into your "car" the way you walk into your home office. You "dial up" (isn't anachronistic language fun!) your destination the way you currently link to a webpage. Then, you are a passenger, free to sleep, read, write, or do what teenagers will inevitably do (oh my!). The incalculable lost hours spent steering a car will be returned to us. The threat every person faces driving down the road will be, not gone, but infinitely less. The traffic cop, the stoplight, the gosh-awful traffic circle they're putting in at Price Road and Silver Lake Road, all such nonsense will disappear. The boon is incalculable.
As in all things, though, the spiritual is what matters. Without the right moral orientation, the automated car will be as much a tool of tyranny as the mass media have become a tool for propaganda, and make it easier to put a "car-bomb" in strategic places. The potential for tyrannical use of the system was excellently illustrated in Robert Heinlein's masterwork, Stranger in a Strange Land. In the future Heinlein envisions, one of the central characters is a reporter who has dirt on a political bigwig. (I think this is how it goes — been a long time since I read it.) At one point, the fellow hops in a "taxi" — an automated single-passenger vehicle. Some weeks later, he comes back, having had his taxi hijacked by the politician's goons. Nobody had to jump the car, hold a gun to him, or do anything but re-route the taxi's destination electronically! This will have to be anticipated just as we now have virus-protection software and otherwise fight the battles for cyber-turf.
I still look forward to all the benefits of our digital and automated future. My coffee pot starts on-schedule. I control the house lights and some appliances (for some thirty years now) by remote control. I am delighted daily by the availability of the world's knowledge and news and all the mighty power of the home computer for work and play. The threat to liberty is increased with technology. with better weapons and better eavesdropping and all the rest. Just as the Constitution is worthless when 70% of the electorate doesn't even know what it is or what it says, all the advances in the world won't make any difference if people aren't prepared to defend — and respect — true liberty.
I'd like to think that the good I see on-line represents that future. Mass media are on the decline while voices of liberty increasingly have access to the "press." Tyrants try to regulate and limit our communication but freedom-fighters find ways around their barriers. The old guard tries to keep control over the dollar while a whole new economy grows outside their ability to manipulate. The domination of the educational system by a clot of elitist tyrants is opposed by an entirely superior approach to access to — and evaluation of — knowledge. At root, though, it is a matter of spirituality. Without that respect for one another that derives from the Almighty, the devil wins. With God, of course, all things are possible, so that's where I'm placing my bet. I only bet on sure things.
When I began pondering the question of determinism and free will, I found myself, philosophically and theologically, going back and forth.
Many years ago, we read this, upon which we've often reflected:
In the question of nature v nurture:
Parents of one child believe it's all environment.
Parents of more than one child understand, it's all genetics.
I'm sure you get it, but to belabor the point anyway because I suffer from prolixism: the former take all credit or blame, depending on the results, the latter recognize that given the same approximate upbringing, one can get radically different results.
Certainly has been something we think about a lot as parents of fraternal twins! (If other parents have yet to fully appreciate this, so far having nothing but wonderful darling little ones, wait until you've shepherded all the offspring to adulthood. But then, it may be God's will all yours will remain trouble-free and you can take all the credit. While thanking God of course. Lest my humor be misunderstood due to deadpan delivery, please note: :-^ tongue in cheek.)
There are determinists among scientists and determinists among religionists. There is room for free will in quantum physics, though, and some religionists hold that we are the free-will children of the God of free will, even that free will may be the primary way in which we are created "in His image."
When I began pondering the question of determinism and free will, I found myself, philosophically and theologically, going back and forth.
On the one hand, the omnipotence and omniscience of the Almighty, that God knows the end from the beginning, that God cannot be surprised, augers for the theologies which favor election (and rejection). On the other hand, if there is no free will, how are we aught but automatons? That the Creator is in absolute control of the entire Creation can't be questioned, yet if the Creator chose to grant to the creature true spiritual liberty, full and free choice regarding eternal destiny, that also can't be questioned. (The limited time-frame of the earth-life for the full presentation of the eternal choice has incited ameliorating possibilities, reincarnation in the East, purgatory in the West, but merely extending the question to one type of after-life or another does not affect the basic dilemma under consideration.)
We are raised — in the modern West at least — with the rejection of old conceptions such as the divine right of kings and with the acceptance of the right of personal liberty. We recognize that one may be mentally incapacitated, truly incapable of recognizing right and wrong, but we assume, socially and in our courts, that, otherwise, people are freely choosing. (Otherwise, we would be like those tyrannies where both the thief and the political dissident are considered "insane" and are alike sentenced to "re-education.") However, in religion, such libertarianism and individualism might seem truly the endowment of our Creator as the revolutionary wrote, or could be construed to be more like the diabolical rebel angel who contested the God-centered universe. A philosophically distressing dilemma to ponder.
Perhaps the best clarity I've had on the matter is this simple comparison with the mortal parent: A mere human parent may know the child well enough to predict what choice the child will make. This in no way abrogates the free will of the child, but it does acknowledge that we choose according to our nature and training. If we as material parents can be so foreknowing, we can extrapolate that our divine Parent can, indeed, grant us true freedom of choice, yet foreknow how we will choose. In the end, I can't do better than that, except to confess that the divine power and prerogative makes such conundrums practically beyond our comprehension.
Therefore, I have long since concluded — not too surprisingly considering my own sometime artistic bent — that I am…
…a Calvin & Hobbesian.

A Mindful Original Remix

John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes by Spacecoyote
after Watterson, of course
Linked from Robin Parrish at Forever Geek
Linked from Alan Gardner at Daily Cartoonist

Also available uncensored.
![[*]](/toolshed/new-window.png)
![[*]](/toolshed/new-window.png)
![[*]](/toolshed/new-window.png)
![[*]](/toolshed/new-window.png)
![[*]](/toolshed/new-window.png)
Remixed from the long-ago cartoon by R. Crumb, "Mr. Natural Meets the Kid" from Zap Comix #7, 1974. Freely offered. Irony alert: Crumb's original six-page cartoon seemed to be favoring Prem Rawat, a.k.a. Maharaji, as "God." No comparison is intended between the huckster guru and Sarah "the real deal" Palin — Crumb's work was just a great page for this purpose.
When 70% of Americans do not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, guess what! It isn't.
"When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal."
—Allison Bricker
"'What is the supreme law of the land?' 70 percent of the 1,000 citizens polled by Newsweek couldn't answer correctly."
—Nat Hentoff
When 70% of Americans do not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, guess what! It isn't.
The Tea Party is the greatest revolutionary movement since the founding of the forgotten Libertarian Party (heh — sorry, LP), because of its steadily maintained focus on Constitutionality and the rule of law, and, relatedly, constrained government. I expect that the reason the movement is still relatively small and utterly misunderstood has much to do with the above statistic. So the grassroots push to educate the electorate on that one point would be slow going, even without the armed and dangerous opposition. But what else matters? Go door-to-door, person-to-person. Hand out literature for Palin (or your candidate). Encourage folks to vote — message: We want you to vote for [Sarah], but above all, we want you to get out and vote! Push the primaries! Push for November!
But reinforce first and foremost that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution. Otherwise, all other efforts will be moot, for democracy without the Constitution is four jihadis and a libertarian voting on who gets to be the suicidal bomber.
Problems are sometimes simple. More often problems are compound and complex, and complicated.
Part 1 - Simple, compound, complex, and masking
Simple example
Trying to reconcile a bank statement. (If you don't know how to reconcile a bank statement, learn. Meanwhile, just go with it. It's about addition.) There's an error of $3.95. Go back through the records, and, aha! there's a check for $3.95 that wasn't entered, or hadn't been marked as returned. Voila! Simple problem, relatively easily resolved.
Compound example
Two checks were not recorded, one for $5.00 and another for $2.00. The bank reconciliation shows a $7.00 error. Searching for a $7.00 check is fruitless. Looking for multiple checks that add up to $7.00 works. Once one of the two errors is discovered, the compound problem becomes simple.
Complex example with partial masking
A check for $5.00 was not recorded. Another check for $2.00 was not marked as returned. The bank reconciliation shows a $3.00 error, but the error is really $7.00 in two different directions. Searching for a $3.00 check is fruitless. Looking for multiple checks that add up to $3.00 is fruitless. Finding the $2.00 check and marking it as returned seemingly increases the reconciliation imbalance from $3.00 to $5.00, but really the problem has been lowered from $7.00.
Complex example with total masking
A check for $5.00 was not recorded. Two other checks for $2.50 each were not marked as returned. The bank reconciliation does not reveal any error because the three errors combine to look like nothing. How would you even know there was a problem? You might not, until the next month when the unentered check clears.
Part 1 review
Errors can compound. The more errors compound, the harder to resolve each of them. Symptoms may partially mask each other, making it harder to know what the errors are. Symptoms may combine to utterly mask that there even is a problem. Until things get worse.
Part 2 - Compound, complex, and complicated considerations
Simple considerations
If the error is single, only two possiblities need be considered. Either the check was not entered, or the check was not marked as returned.
Compound considerations
With two errors, there are more possibilities to consider. Both might be un-entered. Both might be not marked returned. One might be not returned, one might be un-entered. The problems may mask each other, partially or completely.
Complex considerations with masking
A check for $5.00 and another for $3.00 were not recorded. A third check for $5.00 was not marked as entered. The reconciliation shows a $3.00 error. Recording the $3.00 check appears to make the account reconciled, but there are really two $5.00 errors remaining totally masking one another.
False resolutions
The foregoing examples suppose two possible ways to err, not entering a check, or not marking a check off as returned. In reality, there are so many ways to err! The check was written for $3.95 but was entered as $3.85. Searching the records and the bank statement diligently will never disclose why the reconciliation is off by a dime. Only going outside the registry to the original document will disclose the real error.
Understanding complexity
Attempting to reconcile an account statement discloses $3.00 in error. At the outset, there is no clue how many errors exist, of what amounts or in which directions. Consideration is given first to the simple error, then to the complex possibilities, then to compound and masking possibiliites.
First, there must be awareness of the problem even existing. Then, consideration must be given to all the possibilities of compound and complex. Masking may make it seem that resolving one error was sufficient, but others lurk undetected.
All these account-reconciliation examples result in one symptom, addition error. Most real-world problems have multiple causes and multiple symptoms.
Second: Perceptual Pareidolia — In order to imagine an alternative to your perception, you must admit to the possibility of perceptual confusion.