"A multi-agent system can also be seen as a loosely coupled network of problem solvers that work together on problems that may be beyond the scope of any of the agents individually (Durfee and Lesser 1989).
The problem solvers of a multi-agent system, besides being autonomous, may also be of heterogeneous design. Based on analysis by Jennings, Sycara, and Wooldridge (]998), there are four important characteristics of multi-agent problem solving. First, each agent has incomplete information and insufficient capabilities for solving the entire problem, and thus can suffer from a limited viewpoint. Second, there is no global system controller for the entire problem solving. Third, the knowledge and input data for the problem is also decentralized, and fourth, the reasoning processes are often asynchronous."
-Artificial Intelligence, George F Luger

If we consider a human to qualify as one of the autonomous problem-solving agents, then this is what I desire to create. The heterogeneity is a key component that I feel that many people with perhaps somewhat related intentions forget.

What makes me a little sad is that I have all these desires and ambitions, things that I want to *happen*, and although I occasionally get it in my head that maybe I actually *will* try very hard, and that maybe things actually *will* be different this time, I pretty much know that I'm not going to have much if anything to do with creating the sorts of technologies and advances and ideas and changes that I want. I'm not going to make any significant contributions to AI or brain emulation or longevity or DNA programming, or to any sort of autonomous non-decidophobic movement, and probably not even really any minor ones. Yes, I know that having that sort of attitude is certainly going to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, but there's also merit in being realistic once in a while. That isn't the problem so much as this sort of dreadful, impossible to extirpate Manicheanism that drives me to assume that since I can't or won't be doing anything huge, then I won't be doing anything at all and that I'm useless and everything I do is shit that doesn't matter. Without getting into the impossible morass of something mattering, I can at least find something relatively satisfying to spend my time doing. And that is to build a multi-agent parallel processor out of humans.

I think I actually feel more like I am 25 than I have felt that I was any of the earlier ages when I was them. Which means that I feel old and useless, while at the same time young and foolish. Which is how I have felt since at least 15, although perhaps now the oldness is a little stronger, and the youngness feels maybe slightly less acceptable. But I have been intensely aware of age and youth, which, I gather, not everybody is.

I feel like we have been working largely on extending childhood. This is, of course, neither good nor bad, but has elements of both. Biologically, we're ready to have children at puberty, but culturally and mentally, we're not until at least 18 or 19, probably more like 30 or 60. It's a little strange to me, in light of recent studies on teenage neurology that show that it's not only that our culture doesn't prepare teenagers to be mature and responsible by puberty, but that there is actually a distinct biochemical difference in teenage brains that makes them more impulsive, or fickle, or whatever it is that makes them so eerily unhuman.

But anyway, it used to be perfectly natural and expected and common for people to start reproducing and whatnot by 18 or 20. When that happens now, we find it to be almost tragic. It seems perfectly reasonable for someone to remain partially or significantly reliant on their parents until at least 22 or 23, and it's even required for a person to count their parents' income on the FAFSA until age 25. Now, being financially independent is only one aspect of adulthood, same with reproduction, but they're both indicators of the sort of responsibility and general competence that makes one an adult, a state of being that I find both mysterious and terrifying.

I guess it's a good thing to have the responsibility of an adulthood, but what terrifies me is the expectation that I would. And while it's silly to think that there's anything wrong with maintaining aspects of childhood at any age, like video games or toys, it seems dissatisfying to me, because these things do nothing to savor or retain the things about childhood that need to be preserved, such as wonderment and creativity. Not many adults who have action figures actually *play* with them, creating worlds and characters and stories. And the worst part is that even if we manage to recreate some remnant of the imagination and enthusiasm of youth, our brains are still less flexible and bogged down with our years of preconceptions. I guess I just wish that the precious time we have where we get to not be expected to do shit that's no fun wasn't the same time when it was pressingly necessary to devote ourselves to learning and practicing before it was too late and our rate of learning slowed down by several orders of magnitude. I want my Anton's Key!

"The truth of the matter is that things are and always have been terrible."

-Walter Kaufman, Without Guilt & Justice

Apparently George Bernard Shaw said this:
"Ibsen's message to you is: If you are a member of society, defy it! If you have a duty, violate it! If you have a sacred tie, break it! If you have a religion, stand on it instead of crouching under it! If you are bound by a promise or an oath, cast them to the winds! If the lust of self-sacrifice seizes you, wrestle with it, as with the devil! And if, in spite of all, you cannot resist the temptation to be virtuous, go drown yourself before you have time to waste the lives of all about you with the infections of that disease! Here, at last, is a call to arms that has some hope in it!"

Sure makes me want to read him!

Add to that this passage from Bertrand Russell's essay, 'On Catholic and Protestant Skeptics':
"I remember in Japan coming across a Buddhist sect in which the priesthood was hereditary. I inquired how this could be since in general Buddhist priests are celibate; nobody could inform me, but I at last ascertained the facts in a book. It appeared that the sect had started from the doctrine of justification by faith and had deduced that so long as the faith remained pure, sin did not matter; consequently, the priesthood all decided to sin, but the only sin that tempted them was marriage. From that day to our own the priests of this sect have married but have otherwise lived blameless lives. Perhaps if Americans could be made to believe that marriage is a sin they would no longer feel the need for divorce. Perhaps it is of the essence of a wise social system to label a number of harmless actions "Sin" but tolerate those who perform them. In this way the pleasure of wickedness can be obtained without harm to anyone. This point has been forced upon me in dealing with children. Every child wishes at times to be naughty, and if he has been taught rationally, he can only gratify the impulse to naughtiness by some really harmful action, whereas if he has been taught that it is wicked to play cards on Sunday, or, alternatively, to eat meat on Friday, he can gratify the impulse to sin without injuring anyone. I do not say that I act upon this principle in practice; nevertheless, the case of the Buddhist sect which I spoke of just now suggests that it might be wise to do so."

It's an interesting and charming idea, but not one I would ultimately support implementing. It is, however, relevant to some of my recent thoughts, which are pretty much about the need to rebel and dissent, and and how to channel that for good in a society where you're raising people to not be afraid of things that don't exist, like sin.

"Now all my tales are based on the fundamental premise that common human laws and interests and emotions have no validity or significance in the vast cosmos at large. To achieve the essence of real externality, whether of time or space or dimension, one must forget that such things as organic life, good and evil, love and hate, and all such local attributes of a negligible and temporary race called mankind have any existence at all." -H.P. Lovecraft

HOT!

I'm not much of a human chauvinist, as you may well know. As one I can't help but find them to be interesting and relevant, but I'm not attached to remaining decidedly 'human.' I'd turn us over to the alien overlords in a heartbeat if it meant creating something bigger and greater. As is discussed in this fantastic article, not only are humans not anything particularly important evolutionarily, they're also not really a distinct, unified thing. I care much more about things that are much more enduring beyond humanity, although for the time being and to my present knowledge, those things mostly involve humans anyway.

'The tensions between security and adaptability, between social order and social experiment, are encapsulated in the idea of utopia. In a utopia, social structure takes the place of the messiah or the mechanical God as a means of protecting man from the unpleasant facts of the real universe. Adaptability is not needed, because every conceivable problem has been taken care of. In most imaginary utopias rigid social control is a necessity, because men have a distressing tendency, when left to themselves, to fall away from the "perfect" norm. Herbert observes that utopian writers "turn to more and more planning, a pervasive planning- octopus which reaches deeper and deeper into the individual life."'
-Tim O'Reilly, Frank Herbert

That's pretty much the opposite of what I imagine when I think of any sort of utopia I might actually be aiming toward. I mean, I don't actually aim for a utopia, per se, but I'd certainly like to strive always towards a better method of living and a reduction of suffering and increase of happiness. And since social structure will inevitably* exist as long as there is a society, then there are going to be more effective or better social structures. But 'rigid' or 'social control'? That's the opposite of utopia. The only way to get anything remotely resembling a utopia (which wouldn't actually exist) is to have every single individual be empowered, and have everyone, and as a result the society as a whole, be adaptable. Every time someone makes up a "utopia" it turns out to be a dystopia, because they're just feeding different variables into the same equation.

Luckily, that is exactly what the rest of the chapter goes on to demonstrate is what Frank Herbert is saying:

'The holders of power in this world have not awakened to the realization that there is no single model of a society, a species, or an individual. There are a variety of models to meet a variety of needs. They meet different expectations and have different goals. The aim of that force which impels us to live may be to produce as many different models as possible.'

Because Frank Herbert is** a genius. This statement in particular, endears me to him:
'Herbert has a profound distrust of those very ideas that are most appealing to him.'
It also reassures me, because I tend to share that distrust, which I think is healthy. Although in my case, I tend to acknowledge the distrust and then just barrel on forward anyways, but that is another story.


*Is it actually inevitable? Discuss.
**I say 'is' instead of 'was' because Frank Herbert has transcended time and space and become eternity.

Promises. I mean, I'll do my best, but you have to take into account a changing situation and my lack of ability to predict the future. Some things just don't apply after a while.

Likewise, loyalty. This has actually never sat easily with me. It is usually meant to apply to a particular person or group or state or whatever, and I always wonder what exactly it is that makes you loyal to someone, and if that changes, then are you really obligated to maintain your loyalty to them?

Justice, a la Walter Kaufmann. The best way to get a fawning, impressionable young person to accept you as their bible is to simply tell them what they already believe in more eloquent terms.

Owing somebody or something. You can certainly appreciate that you would not have gotten wherever or however you are without the means bestowed on you by some method or way of thinking or person, but I don't think it follows that you have to stick to that for the rest of your goddamn life.

Money. I've never been really into money, but I don't mean that we need to go back to the barter system or whatever. I certainly understand its use as an incentive, and the value of competition and whatnot, but I'd really like for it to be different than it is. See also my previous post linking to Douglas Rushkoff.

Self-hatred. 'Cause, fuck it, I've got better things to do than not be a horrible and insufferable person.

I'm sure there are plenty more widely held views that I have not ascribed to for a long time, and more that are relatively new, and many that I am still working on, so maybe there'll be a part II someday.

"History has demonstrated the absurdities to which man descends when he excludes God from the horizon of his choices and actions," the pope said in an open-air Mass in the Czech Republic.

Oh? Has it? Such as what? And these were all fundamentally different and worse than God-related absurdities?

In unrelated news, I listened to another TTBOOK episode today, this one lamenting the dumbing down of America from not reading books. I have mixed feeling about this sentiment. I certainly get the impression that education practically doesn't exist anymore, and I've found myself up against an insurmountable and ineffable barrier when I try to level with people who don't read books. But I do sort of get the sense that there is an element of hysterical, elitist traditionalist hand-wringing going on here.

I still have no trouble finding people who are as voracious and adamant about reading as I am. There are all sorts of websites and subcultures set up around it. It's not everyone, clearly only a subset of most of the world, but is that really new? Are the numbers of book readers decreasing? And if so, what are they doing instead? Partly, we just have more options than books. There is a ton of stuff to read on the internet, multiple ways of gathering information and ideas and experiencing stories or carrying out thought experiments or learning or what have you. And much of that stuff is valuable.

Some of the hoopla has to do with the way we think and read is changing. Attention span is certainly a factor. A book can take days to read, and in that period you have the chance to let all the thoughts and ideas percolate throughout your brain and life, and it becomes intricately interwoven with many other things you are doing and thinking about, instead of just being one little nugget that you picked up for a minute. On the podcast they talk with a neuroscientist who is concerned because of the amazing sorts of ways that your brain works as you read. And I think that it is important to encourage these ways of thinking, and these pathways in your brain, to grow, but I also don't think it's necessarily the case that just because now our brains are being configured differently that that is bad. There will be some trade-offs, and some loss of some positives, but if you've read enough books about history and the human brain and society and thought about it with your amazing powers of book-enabled deep thinking, you might realize that everything has a trade off as technologies and societies change.

And every now and then you also get a creeping sense that people think that the end of physical, paper books means somehow the end of reading of books. I am very fond of books themselves, and will be sad to see them become a rare novelty, but the thing about a book, in the sense of it being a novel or the non-fiction equivalent or whatnot, is that it is not a physical object. It is a collection or words or ideas, an abstract, non-physical thing, and that will continue. Books, unlike humans, exist independently of their bodies. Now I love books dearly, and I do so want for them to continue to be read, but I also understand and accept, you know, sociological transformation and change. I think people will still read books, but even more, I believe that the underlying value I get from them will continue to exist and be gotten, in whatever guise.

"Are you suggesting that this corporate age that we live in is to some degree responsible for our current economic crisis?"
"The corporate age that we live in *is* the current economic crisis."

Zing! Good one, Douglas Rushkoff! He says more things that please me over here.

So I read this article about how Facebook ruins friendships. Given the data presented in it, however, I do not draw the same conclusion as the author. What I conclude is that she has boring friends. Facebook in itself, like any tool or technology, is neutral. Wonderful things can happen through the magic of the internet. But it also provides people with the opportunity to reveal their inner histrionic, boring selves. Most of my friends, and this includes all you lovely readers, very rarely if ever have inane or meaningless drivel on their facebook pages, either from not spending all their waking hours on facebook or from being actually interesting people with worthwhile things to say.

Saw 9 yesterday. I think I can manage to discuss some of the issues and ideas it made me think about without giving too much away. And don't expect me to have any points, either.


I think we like to have a protagonist in a story, not just to have someone to focus on, but in order for us to put ourselves into it. In order to make sense of events, we need to have a narrative, even though there really aren't any naturally occurring narratives, just many events. And in order to understand and care about a narrative, it needs to have something to do with us. Hence the propensity towards main characters and limited perspectives. Of course this makes the most sense if the story is about a particular person's trials and actions, but as the background and universe being portrayed becomes more complex and part of the story itself, the main character is less important and more just an anchor to allow us to figure out how to deal with the universe.

As I get more and more old and cantankerous, I have less and less patience for tired old conflicts. Sure, depending on how it's done and how important and personal the conflict is to me I can certainly appreciate and enjoy it, but there's always a twinge of boredom or exasperation whenever the same old fight is fought. Movies are probably the worst for this, although it happens often enough in other media and in real life. In this case, the ancient battle between the dangers of curiosity and the importance of safety through sameness. I think we've all seen this tired old argument trotted out again and again, almost invariably with between the peppy young hero who's championing the acquisition of new knowledge and change, and the stodgy old chief who is almost suicidally resistant to absolutely everything different in the name or tradition or safety. These are caricatures that bolster the conclusion that we can all pretty much agree on, so it's a pointless battle, and at the expense of pretending like the other side doesn't have any valid points to make. It's not that being conservative or cautious is entirely stupid or bad, it's that there is a trade off that most, but not everyone, is willing to make. It would be far more interesting to actually address the implications of the trade off then to just pit two imaginary straw men against each other. There's a lot of semi-modern themes, like the little guy against the big corporation, that I think by now have outlived their usefulness, but that continue to be played out again and again as if there's a new point being made. And it's not just themes in movies or stories; I am also tired of having to deal with basic issues that I think we all have (or should have by now) moved past, in real life.

You might have heard that I am a little bit pro-science. I think science is great! But I have this fear that many other people do not realize this, and see science as one singular system, so that when it goes wrong, they think that science is the problem. Now! There is a legitimacy to trying not to solve a problem by just doing the same sort of thing that started it. I think Fight Club said something to this effect, but it was probably a little misogynous. But there is also something to be said for working within the framework that something exists in, and also using the tools you have. A lot of deciding what part of what doesn't work needs to be thrown out is heavily dependent on defining your terms. 'Science' or 'technology' are incredibly broad, so if you say that it was 'science!' that brought us to this terrible place of being enslaved by horrible killer robots, that does not mean that the way to defeat them is to get rid of anything that smacks of the last 50,000 years of human technology and rely entirely on prayer sticks and the human spirit. Again, this idea works not just for anti-science sentiment (although that one seems to be the most popular to wildly misuse), but for any situation where you have to decide if the problem lies in the very basis of what is happening, or the mental framework you are looking at it from, or what.

Even when I'm totally enraptured and enjoying a movie (which I totally was), I can't stop thinking about what they're doing and saying and why. I never understand dialogue in movies whenever there is some sort of urgent action required. I always explain it to myself by saying it's because people function differently in pressing moments than I think makes sense just sitting there quietly and comfortably, but that's never quite satisfactory. I guess what I'm trying to say is I would never make it in any stressful situation because I wouldn't be starting from the same assumptions and mindsets that absolutely everybody in the universe is apparently born with. Why is this just 'something you have to do'? Where did these 'rules' come from? Wait, I think we need to assess the larger situation and not just react to this one momentary development. It'll save us time and trouble later. I guess I'm just not cut out for being thrown into a strange and dangerous situation.

None of these are meant to be complaints about the movie itself, as I think a lot of it was dealt with quite well and even if not, well, who cares. I don't need one adorawesome movie to be the answer to everything I've come to grow suspicious of over the years.

From the last week or so, backwards through time.

(1) I'm sorry, but no matter how much you insist otherwise i stand by my original statement that paula abdul is TERRIBLE
(2) Dan Brown, ladies and gentlemen, am I right?
(3) It wouldn't have been nearly so hard to get through work today if i had known that afterwards i would be handed a white russian to tide me over until the grill is ready.
(2) Smack her on the ass. They like that.
(1) Downloading janet jackson to listen to at work is the second best idea Ive ever had
(4) Did you, sir, realize that Batman is not, in fact a hero?

(2) "between a rock and a heart place"
(5) Bene gesserit ftw!
(2) I want to starfuck mcchris
(2) I dont have my finger on the pulse of punks!
(2) Womenomics

(2) yes because frank herbert was about to find god, and kill him.
(2) Why did frank herbert have to die?
(2) Hells yeah! Also a whistling medley of 30% of all the songs there are.
(2) You know whats really amazing when youre high?
(2) So apparently one thing i do when high is extoll the virtues of hip-hop

I don't like it when the emotions I feel seem to be largely a function of my age. It makes them seem illegitimate to me, even though, being emotions, they sure feel genuine. And then it also makes me feel like it reflects poorly on my person, showing that I am, in fact, immature and meriting no respect.

In the interests of keeping my phone's memory cleared, but also of perpetuating my aggrandizing sense of self, and also as a means of dealing with my jealousy of textsfromlastnight.com, I am going to publish many of the texts I send here on my blog. These are only the texts that I sent, starting with the most recent and moving backwards to the beginning of the period in question. A few that only say things like "yep" without contributing to the story, that I feel are too boring or contain too much identifying information, or that are otherwise unpublishable, have been left out, and the recipients have been numbered to help you identify which people actually had anything else to do other than stimulate my need to constantly text about everything.*

(1)'preference' what a great name for a cheap brand of toilet paper
(2)I like how 'pervasive language' is a cause for a bad rating; all those movies without any communication are so much better for children
(2) No i think you didnt understand two out of the three key words i used
(2) The multiplayer ds game for tween girls
(1) two amazing finds at wal-nart: mini plateamescs skateboards you can deck out and a tin lunchbox shaped and with a zipper like a backpack
(2) All of history has been leading up to L.O.L.

(2) Sorry, bootie.
(2) During foot sex?
(2) Seriously what the shit
(3) What are the chances that the secret guy in metalocalypse is based on the creepy klingon high judge in star trek vi
(2) I am going to murder someone and its pretty likely that person likes star trek
(2) Im trying to keep up with all these interstellar politics
(2) Man why ou gotta tell me now while im trying to watch this terrible star trek movie
(2) I know right?
(2) This star trek movie is ridiculous!
(2) To be fair shes wearing this awesome polka dot dress so she is the most deserving
(2) Oh man i bet but th other girls are jealous that she got the black guy
(2) I have found the happiest straight man- oh shit she was passed off
(1) Did ou make this one up?
(1) Everything will. Eventually. The USSR and the united states did
(1) Doomed to fail against all odds?
(1) Jerk!
(1) What is heliotropism?
(1) Wat!

(2) Zing!
(2) Man whats a girl gotta go to get proper respect round here?
(2) Hot dog! What kind is it and why do you hate it?
(2) Just smoking pot parked outside the hospital is all
(1) Yeah but there was all fucking sorts of other stuff
(1) Theres so goddamn many copies of the naked ape here!
(2) Followed by a gasm that words have difficult capturing
(2) I just had a fantastic nerdgasm
(1) If sharlton copley doesnt get best actor i am officially ending mankind
(1) I already took thyroid supplements it was crap

(2) Does that mean you are not going to share with him or that you are going to have sex with him or both
(2) You and or he clearly need to get on drugs
(1) I am sorry for your loss
(1) Kelley is the person who holds the key to the pants cabinet then? That seems like a weird setup
(1) Yeah id be too busy to worry about it. You mean you shivered from sheer disgust at how bad the movie was?
(1) I bet id feel like much less of a fuckup if i got laid a lot more
(2) Thats cause you dont use eclipse (R) carrying cases
(2) Seriously though have you tried those eclipse gum things, the containers are unbelievably perfect portable kit



*If you are one of the recipients of these texts and feel that I am violating your privacy, or depleting our shared experience of special meaning by utilizing it in such a way, please let me know and I will remove the offending texts, even at the expense of art, because I care about your feelings more than I do about expressing universal, transcendental human experiences. Jerk.

Today's post is sponsored by Victoria's Secret's contest "What do you love about your body?" Tell us why you love your body and upload a picture. The prize? A "3-day body pampering getaway for 2 to NYC!" You have approximately 95 minutes to stop me from entering with something to the effect of "I love that my body can give me orgasms!"

Is Ron Paul going to run again? Because I have a great slogan for all his bumper stickers, that I think perfectly captures both Libertarianism and third parties in a dangerously polarized two party system:

You know what? Fuck all y'all
Vote Ron Paul

1. I have a hard time relating to emotional attachments to hair, particularly in the sense of a person who has not cut their hair for an extremely long time, possibly even ever. And then they cut it down to a length that is still long in my book, but shorter than it was, and it's a big deal for them. I actually harbor no judgment about such things, I just can't really emotionally get it.

2. I do, however, have judgments about this one, which is: You know what I don't get? Lying to children. I mean, sure, if you're lying about the same thing you would lie to anybody else, or just for fun and profit, that's fine. But I don't get (to the point of almost hating) the sort of lying as a method of operation for dealing with a child. Like about Santa Claus or the existence of sex. I am no longer even going to allow for the cynical explanation that they need to go through the experience of realizing they'd been lied to in order to understand that the world is crap and people are assholes, or any variations on that theme. Sure, you might need to simplify something you are explaining to a child so that they can understand it, or leave stuff out, or whatever. But the idea that it is acceptable or preferable to just make shit up because you are uncomfortable getting into the vagaries of the topic, or because you think it's too complicated for them, or for no discernible reason whatsoever other than cultural habit, just makes no sense to me.

Instead of living longer, I would like to just have each decade of my life last a little longer and live the same amount of time. For example, rather than having only 5 years left of my twenties, I would prefer to have 10-15 years left, and not enter my thirties until I am almost forty. Then I would like for my thirties to last 15 or 20 years, and so forth. Yes, this is partially a result of my being subject to the youth-worshipping of our society, coupled by a fear of growing old, but I have good reasons for that. I will continue to gain wisdom and knowledge so that I get the advantages of living all this time, but I don't have to worry about being such a late bloomer, and I would really like to be able to have the energy and flexibility of body that I've got for much longer yet, because things are hard enough as they are.

Try Plastic Razors! Cuts skin, not hair!

I assumed, up until I started paying attention to any news at all, where the phrase is used at least 7 times an hour, that to "toe the line" meant pretty much the opposite. I think I had a vague picture in my mind of some old cartoon where they draw lines in the sand and cross them or something. It just sounds like it should mean that someone is hanging around just the edge of acceptability and sneaking over the edge whenever opportunity strikes.