Examine all the possibilities before you start. Maybe you'd like to share?

Something that frustrates me as an audience, is when information is hidden for no better reason that to be a whammy surprise. For instance, in the excellent movie, "The Martian," there is a specific point where the astronaut is figuring out how to communicate with Earth. It's engaging, interesting, fascinating, and bewildering. The audience is right there with him, both in thought and action. Then, the astronaut sees something on his computer, goes "Aha!" and scurries away. Immediately, NASA is watching his activity and puzzling over what is going on. All this is a mystery for a good ten minutes, as the NASA guy figures it out and says only, "I know where he's going." Then, there's an airplane trip, some rushing through a warehouse, and finally the big reveal, when they say, "So, this is Pathfinder." Tada! Huh?

The Pathfinder lander, with the little Sojourner wheeled rover, being prepared for launch.

First of all, why couldn't the astronaut have simply said, "Easy, I'll use Pathfinder?" The audience likely doesn't recognize what that means immediately and, even if they do, the information does little to dampen the suspense. Actually, I think the suspense would be greater, since the audience has information NASA doesn't yet possess. Why prevent the audience from knowing? Especially since the reveal of Pathfinder isn't fully understood until the beginnings of actual communications. I believe it's a lost opportunity to raise the level of storytelling.

I'm not sure if this is a trend, but it does pop up frequently. The funny thing is, keeping this information hidden is actually more work for the author, because it's really hard to misdirect an intelligent audience, so authors are forced to omit information and send characters wheeling about in a frenzy of non-explanation. Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" is a great example of doing it properly. Everything the detective knows is expressed to the audience, and we have the possibility (unlikely as it is) to figure out the solution before him.

Modern audiences are wise to story trickery, jaded by overused clichés, and eager to see anything new. Myself, I long for meaty concepts that stretch my imagination, and to enjoy stories that don't hold my hand and treat me like a grown-up. Don't arbitrarily hide something so there's a "zinger" later. I want to be in on the joke. I want to know what's going on. I want to be an active part of the story!

- M

The value of opinion

In my opinion, the most beautiful castle in the world (Neuschwanstein Castle, Germany)
image source

Why do we value the opinions of others? Well, when those opinions are from people we know and trust, it makes those expressions very important to us. You don't even necessarily need to personally know them. For instance, newscasters enjoy wide support, celebrities are given points for their fame, and if your best friend tells you to listen to someone's opinion then I'll bet you will. On the other hand, I sure wouldn't care what the fellow down the street thinks about my favorite restaurant, or a passing pedestrian says regarding a new movie.

The fascinating thing about all this, is opinion is a mercilessly personal aspect of life. A food critic may have decades of experience, yet it's still a personal opinion (though based on wide experience). This makes opinion a very dicey proposition. Why do we care so much about what other people think? Well, I believe it's because it's part of the many intricate connections that bind us all together. We deeply want to strengthen those ties, so we let people we know influence our own choices. So, when people grow more important to you, so do their opinions; it's only natural.

This also creates the strange realm of the professional reviewer. Usually, these people have wide experience in their chosen field, and so speak from that background. The rest of us seek out these opinions, in the idea that the reviewer knows what they're talking about. But, it's still just an objective opinion, so isn't something you can measure--kind of like how ice skating and gymnastics are judged. So, it's also an opinion if an opinion is an opinion to be trusted. And, that's my opinion on the matter ...

- M

The worries of "established" science

Modern science is founded on the scientific method, which is basically: come up with a theory, test it, check the data, rework the theory, test, examine data, and repeat until things appear to match. However, the testing and reworking of theories should never simply end (unless there's nothing further to be learned). Life is constantly slapping our perceptions in the face, forcing us to reconsider what we previously agreed was true. Science should reflect this reality.

Why bring up this thorny topic? Well, there's been a growing movement to shut down new theories by claiming the science is "established" and therefore unquestionable. Science should be constantly questioned. Even the theory of gravity has come under attack (not that it changes how it affects our lives, but the underlying reasons for gravity existing and how it actually works). Science is not determined by committee or general agreement. There are numerous examples of single scientists who questioned firmly accepted theories and ended up turning the entire scientific community on their collective ears--Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Curie, Newton, Einstein, and on and on.

When we stop questioning theories, we give up our creativity and any motivation to forge better science. Should we have stopped at horse transportation, because cars would never be economical? Should our concept of solar systems have ended with the Earth being the center of everything and the universe revolving around it? Of course not. I say, bring on the crazies! Throw some stones into the waters of science and see if current concepts hold up. We need skeptics to rock the boat. I think we've become complacent in our knowledge, and that diminishes us. Bring in idiotic ideas and see what works--I don't see any other way that I'll get Star Trek phasers and flying cars.

- M

Schrödinger's cat ... two cats in one!

"Schrödinger's Cat" is a thought experiment created by a dazzlingly bored mind (at least that's how I imagine it) to prove an observer is required to know the actual state of something--in this case, whether or not a cat is alive. The setup is simple: a closed box, a healthy cat, and a flask of poison attached to a hammer (in such a way to absolutely ensure the hammer would break the flask). The question he proposed was simply, "Is the cat alive or dead?" The implication being that the aliveness of the cat cannot be determined until the box is opened and the cat observed.

Cat on a tank? What could go wrong?

I raise this point because we face a lot of uncertainties in life which are only problems when we get philosophical about it. "Does a tree falling in a forest make a sound, if nobody is around to hear it?" Of course it does. Is Schrödinger's cat dead? Yup, as a door nail. Checking only verifies the fact. We make these questions hard by thinking too deeply about them. Ask any child, and you'll get the simple truths. Many considered and tough questions are answered just as easily.

My favorite riddle is this old classic: "What can you sit on, sleep on, and brush your teeth with?"

* * * * *

"A chair, a bed, and a toothbrush."

Before you fry your brain with impossible complexities, try slouching back and seeking the easiest solution. Even a spaceship needs a simple push--though it's a mind-boggling sequence of controlled explosions doing it. Life is so much better when we stop doing everything the hard way. Just don't go flying rockets with helium and good wishes, because that won't work.

- M

Let's debate!

To be fair, it does take at least some concentration to debate.

Well, now that politics have thrown debates into common vocabulary for a little while ... why is debating such an uncommon practice? I'm not talking about arguing without any hope of persuasion, but providing reasoned arguments either for or against a topic. Schools have debate clubs, and there are national debate teams, yet few people ever learn how to debate at all. Mostly, it's just arguing and calling names. We can use fancy words to describe debates, but in my mind debates are a form of persuasion where you provide your view in the hopes of changing opinion.

 

I've tried to teach my children how to have a civil disagreement (sometimes loudly) without moving beyond arguing varying points and into abusive attacks. Yes, it's okay to disagree. Actually, tolerance is defined by having someone you disagree with and letting them carry on disagreeing. Debates hopefully clarify the pros and cons to any particular subject, so reasoned thought can determine which is best for you. Bickering and finger pointing does nothing to persuade anyone, and it only causes strife.

 

I'm the first to admit my emotions get enflamed when people loudly disagree with me. Still, why should such disagreement be shut down? It's good to be challenged in your own beliefs. In fact, I'm a big believer in facing challenge because it's only then that you find out just how firmly you hold your views. If you can't back up your viewpoint, then you probably don't have much reason to believe it, do you?

 

Aha! Suckered you into a debate, didn't I? Yup, I'm sneaky that way.

 

- M

Learning never stops, and really is good for you. Honest.

Something I try very hard to do is learn. There is a world out there of things I don't know. But, even stuff I do know, I can always learn more. I admit, it's very easy to sit back and eat jelly while I watch television. Simply switch off your brain and let someone else drive for a while. Why should I take the time and effort to stuff more and more information (much of it trivial, I agree) into my already full noggin? Because when you stop learning you drift aimlessly in a sea of other people's opinions.

 

I'm fond of telling my children that they should never flatly accept what someone tells them is true. Get to the source (often, happily, in a book) and find out themselves. Educate yourself and make up your own mind about it. I want to have solid debates with knowledgeable people, who can back up their arguments and hopefully help me see another point of view. It's no fun always having the answer, so I make it a point to help others find it themselves.

 

My point is you don't have to be in school to continue learning. Discovery is a primal urge of we crazy humans. Indulge yourself now and then. Find something new and learn about it. Pick a hobby and practice. Get your brain working and you'll be happy to discover the old gray matter works pretty well. Flex those mental muscles and become a new titan of philosophy, or science, or art, or whatever you wish. Learn!

 

- M

Building a better brain

In the field of artificial intelligence (AI for short), scientists are constantly working to give a computer the ability to reason. So far, there hasn't been much success. A new system from Google is now tackling a neat idea: trying to figure out where any particular picture was taken. They call their new project PlaNet, and it's a neural network AI (basically, it's a primitive brain, which can make all sorts of connections and basically program itself). Technology aside, the premise is asking how we humans recognize places and doing the same from a machine perspective. You can try a game about this idea at www.geoguessr.com.

 

I'm not particularly worried that computers will overtake humans in the world of thinking. Yes, computers are amazing at calculations, and geo-locating is just that, but reason is beyond programming. Logic, cold and hard facts, massive databases, blitzing to the answer, these are things computers do well. I read that just recently a proficient GO program was beating most players. That's excellent, yet the program is only examining all possible moves rather than intuiting the best flow for the game (as a human does). It's called brute force computing (throw enough power and resources at the problem and you will eventually find the best answer).

 

Until we can give computers any kind of intuitive ability to leap beyond facts and to an answer, computers will never reason. But, there is danger in trying, because we have a word for people who can reason but have no morality--sociopaths. Computers have no morals, holding only what has been specifically programmed into them. That's why I'm not worried about robots taking over. At some basic level no human wants to make such a beast. Instead, we make intelligent tools for specific tasks and watch in awe as they perform with perfect ability.

 

- M

Moving is like Tetris, it's all about stacking

30 years of Tetris

Ever play Tetris? It's a very simple game, where you stack basic figures (an "L", square, line, "S") and try to make a compact sequence. Fill a horizontal line and it vanishes. It's basically a test of spatial awareness, mental agility (the game speeds up), and decision making. For such an simple concept it's incredibly entertaining, frustrating, and mindless fun. I loved it as a kid, and still enjoy it as an adult.
Packing and moving is just like it. When you pack a car's trunk there's an art to it. This one there, that over there, and then we can put this here, and with those there, this other just barely fits. It's pure planning, action, and diligence. With a bit of forethought you can make it all fit in. I love doing that. I just with reality matched the non-weight of the game. Yikes it's a backache doing a lot of packing. Yeesh.

The idea of moving is sweet and bitter. Sweet because it's like getting a wonderful present to play with, but bitter because it's all new and changes are inevitable. I think helping someone else move is the best of everything, because you get the joy of helping a friend, the pleasure of real-life Tetris, and the throbbing backside of solid hard work. Just try not to stack too high, or bend too low--it's not a good outcome.

- M

Games of thought and logic. Especially turn-based or real-time strategy games.

Strategy games are the playground of the mind. My best buddy introduced me to them years ago (a little game called Command and Conquer). I'll admit I was never very good, but I was awesome at creating maps for it. Somehow I can make maps that improve computer AI and incredibly change the game--remember the 1 tree, Bert? Yup, I altered a game to insane difficulty by removing a single tree on my custom map. From then on the computer went absolutely crazy with difficulty. I love making maps.

When I was a kid, we played the board games Stratego and Risk. My dad stopped playing Stratego with me when I started laying traps and never giving openings, and we actually only played Risk a few times (maybe me staying up all night and planning out the first dozen or so moves was a negative? Dunno, but I accurately predicted everyone's moves, and I'm very proud of that). There's also Checkers and Chess, which are hugely more complex and great fun!

I still get a rush with strategy games, which is why I like puzzle games so much (or maybe it's the opposite?). Games like these teach forethought, consideration, and mostly patience. We do need reminders to stop and consider. Not everything should be point and click and rush. Give it some time and think about it. Let the possibilities race around in your mind's eye. Watch the outcomes and weight the options. With practice you'll find these new skills apply throughout your life.

So, yes, kiddies, playing games makes you better at life! Woohoo!

- M

Criticism and Critical Thinking

Being critical isn't a bad thing, and it isn't even necessarily negative. The concept is to judge deeply, to analyze, to find any flaws and examine them, and to really think about it. There's a strong element of logic to the exercise, of applying principled thought and detailed analysis to determine the worth of something. So, being critical of say a slice of cheese is to determine if it is a good representation of that brand, but it also entails noticing if it is spoiled or not.

Critical thinking is training your mind to be critical, to analyze, and to examine any evidence with a mind searching for truth. It doesn't come naturally to many people, and added training is always useful. This is particularly useful in scientific pursuits, but logical analysis will help you in nearly any area of life. It's good to be logical about things. That's one reason why debate is good, or games like chess, and, yes, even critics.

I believe one reason people are afraid of these concepts is because it's difficult to hear it addressed to yourself, like someone saying your cooking is bad. Especially if it's true. Yes, good manners comes into play as there's no reason to be offensive. Still, why should the truth be ignored? We should learn to accept constructive criticism as well as constructive praise. Both are necessary parts of logic.

- M

Chess, the playground of the mind

Keeping to the topic of logic for the moment... I'd like to discuss the game of chess. I think most people view the game as something highly intelligent people do for fun. While that is true, it is a battlefield simulation and a fantastic teacher of logical thinking. The trick is to remain moves ahead of the other player. There are very few lucky winners in chess.

Disciplined thinking is mature thinking. Ability to organize thoughts, plan strategies, and execute those ideas takes mental acuity. Some people seemingly are born with the ability, but I believe it's trained and learned. Like any muscle, the brain gets better the more it's exercised. Chess is a fine way to exercise that gray matter.

I don't pretend to be a grandmaster at chess--far from it--but I have learned a few things over the years. The most important thing I've learned is how to forecast the future, see farther ahead, and guess at moves. That talent is so useful in life it's hard to express how valuable it is. Try it out, and you'll see what I mean. It's the closest we can get to predicting the future. And, all from a game!

- M

Lateral thinking and puzzles of logic

The riddle: A man goes to sleep in a chair then is startled awake. Without opening his eyes, he knows he is in a different place. How?

Logic is pretty straight forward: take a concept, add facts, follow the numbers and arrive at a conclusion. Lateral thinking is related to logic, but it removes the single concept and replaces that with many. For example, I once read about an engineer that was tasked with making ball bearings. The problem was in a part of the plant where the ball bearings had to make a 20 foot drop, and they always were damaged during such a long fall. His solution was to create many small drops, with several angled platforms making the ball bearings go down the same path but in small increments, thus preventing damage. The neat thing is, that isn't the only solution possible.

Lateral thinking is a manner of arriving at novel solutions to problems. It's "thinking out of the box" kind of stuff. Being able to bring in ideas that may at first seem silly, but prove useful. And, there isn't a single correct answer. With lateral thinking, any answer you can support will work. My riddle has many answers, but I will give you mine at the end. So, work on it.

From time immemorial, humans have asked riddles of each other. I think the real reason is we like challenging our minds, demonstrate our intelligence, or humiliate those who don't know. Mostly, I believe riddles teach, and in particular teach how to think. The challenge with riddles is to out-think the creator, and that makes it a game. And that brings me to lateral thinking riddles, where the challenge becomes to think of as many answers as possible. There might be hundreds or thousands of correct answers!

- M

So, my riddle... The man is sitting in an airline seat, on a plane. He falls asleep while on the runway, but is startled awake when the plane lands and thumps the ground. Without opening his eyes, he knows he has arrived at his destination and is therefore in a different place.
<note, this isn't the only solution, there are many possibilities.>

How many answers did you come up with? I'd love to hear them.