Computability in the world

This has been a busy week for me. I ran across the work of S. Barry Cooper, got acquainted with the Computing in Europe organization, had direct experience with a problem that is indicative of what truth engineering is all about, and was pushed to get technical again.

Here is each of these, in a nutshell.

• S. Barry Cooper -- Prof Cooper has quite a heritage: both Turing and Wittgenstein. So, his overview of the problem (in the Communications of the ACM) of computing was the best that I've seen. Of course, he was writing this in a popular magazine so that technicalities can be pointed out by those who would like to do that. I think that we need to look at his exposition in detail. In fact, I started that on the fedaerated blog. Prof Cooper was writing about Turing's work, quite well. 

• Computability in Europe -- Many have thought about these problems. It's nice to see that they've met and organized an effort work with a focus. The timeliness is right on. 

• Untangling, on demand -- As we'll see in the discussion about 'decision' (in a broader context than covered by Hilbert), there is almost always a delta between the coming and the reality of such when it gets here. Mature adults deal with this (without prescriptions or other escape mechanisms -- see below). And, this is highly magnified with computing. Actually, looking at bosses (their wishes) and workers (what they can actually do) and the dynamics of differences, we've always seen this. But, it also pertains to those of the abstract (yeah, you, the technical) and those of the world (not dumb, mind you -- perhaps, not of the same numeracy). What we see is that those who run the system think that their worldview is it (yes, FB, et al) and users are stupid. In actuality, the value comes from the use side (see this mess, as an example). So, both sides have cognitive holes (truth engineering can fill in the gap). 

• Ah, those youngsters -- Yes, throughout my career, I've observed a whole bunch of bubbles, such as the most recent one that burst. Some were financial; other were technical. Methinks that computing (including the WWW) will have some downturn (yes, as in crash) whose consequences will be far-flung and deeply felt. Notice that the just-prior bullet goes into a problem that will become more prevalent as we move from the personal computer to the cloud (whatever this is -- okay?). The following section does an overview of the issue that must be recognized and worked. To boot, though, I'll be looking further at what is 'truth' in the many computational senses that we have seen emerge in the past 1/2 century including those latest ones related to the young ones' exploitation of the state of software and systems. You see, these things were not available to me and my cohorts in our prime. However, in the case of computing, age means nothing (we're not yet shown to have that early time limit as we see with mathematics -- what is it? 25 and you're dead?). 

-----

Hilbert's Decision Problem was presented in a formal context. This has allowed a whole lot of maneuvering that tried to negate Turing's work (and that of a whole lot more). But, let's rephrase the 'decision problem' into this: the difference between expectation (as manifested in the human cognitive sense -- to wit, all those things that demonstrate ability and intelligence) and what comes out of some artificial entity (all sorts of marvels, many showing that AI has prominence). Of course, various fuzzy (and other approximative)  approaches have been proposed and used. Yet, those, too, can be problematic. If you go fuzzy, you'll have to eventually de-fuzzify (ask Bush).

----

We will organize discussion of undecidability, and related themes, under Computability. The following list does a search by blog for use of the term. We'll slowly link in the newer discussion in order to make the theme a little more cohesive.

• Truth Engineering -- overall context is foundational in scope
• FEDaerated, plus Undecidable -- overall context deals with the application of the idiots (only on this side of the pond?)
• 7oops7 -- overall context deals with those who have managed risk, or so they say

Remarks:

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

02/28/2014 -- We will carry this forward, with a phenomenological flavor. The basis? Mathematics is as much a naked emperor as are others to which this has been applied. To where ought we look? Well, for starters, we have a bunch of "from whence?" questions to consider.

05/20/2013-- We'll be picking up the singularity for use in dealing with computability respecting quasi-empirical notions.

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

03/23/2012 -- Changed Title to 'Computability' which is what was meant (must have been distracted, at the time :-).

Modified: 01/23/2015

Cognitive holes

One thing that we'll have to discuss will be how 'cognition' is a mutual affair. Yes, from whence things like group-think? It's more natural, and pervasive, than we might want to consider (since, it doesn't say much for our glorious selves -- or, says things about ourselves that need more attention).

---

Lil Timmy wrote, recently, about how many want to get back to their mischievous ways: Financial Crisis Amnesia. We, earlier, used Minsky's work (7oops7, Truth Engineering) to discuss this. In a nutshell (and, 'nut' is more apropos than you may realize): un-grounded finance becomes gaseous quickly (motivation, in part, for Fedaerated).

---

We'll need to get back to looking at our basis and, in doing so, add in some new twists (your cat making you crazy?).

Remarks:

05/22/2012 -- FB will be a focus for discussion.

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog.

03/11/2012 -- In this regard, we need to consider computational aspects, to boot.

Modified: 05/22/2012

Family as crucible

This continues a series, somewhat. There'll be a reorganization, at some point.

---

After a pause to reflect, due to a death in the family (later post), it's time to integrate factors related to family into the truth-processing [see Remarks 02/24/2012] theme. In some ways, this would touch on t-issues. Too, there are links into modern views, such as biology (memes, as representative of particle-ness particular to one species), psychology (Dąbrowski's theory, for example), cosmology (memes, to boot), and more.  

---

Aside: Jung's collective could be metaphor, somewhat (but, not literally, okay - be patient, we'll get there), for an actionable situation not unlike what our friend Albert proposed for space-time. We would have made more progress along these lines were more people to undergo Kazimierz ' transformation.

---

So, the crucible of the family is the second. Your first? Did you call your mother today? There are many more. Some of these are outrageously insane so as to cast doubt on the collective intelligence of the human race (need I start to list these?). From that second crucible, one hopefully steps into the others.

Aside: in our western culture, we have about three going concurrently for the youngster, namely family, school, church (okay, drop this last for the secularist - but there will be some type of equivalence that can be shown). Later, we have family (even if you're single, people, you have other humans with whom you interact), work, community (all the way up to national militaristic roles -- and the ultimate sacrifice), and more.

---

The message, here, is that the space-time-like configuration, to be defined, first populated by the family's energies (how else to characterize?) continues to be refined through time and events. As people come and go, the space warps (and, we have analogs very close to relativistic thinking).

Aside: The 'action' mentioned before is both local and non-local (several senses). Methinks that certain types of experiments, using communication as demonstrated by the web, currently, would show this [in how it relates to the human existential being and intuition].

---

A death makes a permanent hole. No, it's not like someone pulling their hands out of a pail of water (leaving no impression - okay, ripples, for awhile). Yet, it is not permanent (that, too, can be considered - but, initially is not necessary).

---

We may use space-time as an analog, but not necessarily [by necessity] (see Barbour, for example, or even László's Akashic_Field_Theory).

---

It is okay if some get trapped into the physical processes as the chief focus. But, we also know homologous effects abound. The main problem? By what means (which is [will be] beyond Enlightenment) to grapple with these beasts?

Remarks:

09/15/2015 -- Family is where we first experience the psychether.

02/08/2014 -- Two years (02/09/2011), more on Truth Engineering (and, the hombres).

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 

02/24/2012 -- There was an mention of truth-processing themes, in relation to which we find family, to boot, without any explanation. Well, firstly, the attempt at explanation is the focus of this blog. Secondly, usually, in those times of kicking the can down the road, there is a nod to the label. It says: Considering truth engines and Being, in natural and computationally-framed worlds. 'truth engines' are of many types. Our success has been learning to control the natural ones to our benefit. 'Being' is an age-old philosophical concept (of course, we'll have our take on discussions of this). 'worlds' points to what some have seen for awhile. Yet, the arguments have only danced around the issues. So, we'll weigh in there. Our real focus? Those things that are computationally framed. Now, those of a mathematical bent need to realize that I include both 'applied' and 'pure' (yes, Bertrand, too). Of that which goes under the name of mathematics, how much does not go through the human brain (well, of course, those things computed by our beasts)? So, 'filters' are going to be looked at with slightly different connotations than normal.

02/22/2012 -- The approach will continue to augment the GEK III series here (and there). 

Modified: 09/15/2015

Blind or delusional

This really continues the theme from last time as we consider the issues.

---

Listening recently to a discussion (if one might call it that) between CH and a peer (closer than you might think), the peer had the task of arguing the It is (henceforth Is) side. CH could just sit back and take pot shots. Why? It's not that CH was a scientist. It's that the It is not (henceforth Is-not) side has less proving to do.

What? Yes, the matter is not open to proof in the sense of demonstration. No, those types of actions (as in demonstrating something) is on the onus list of the Is folks. You see, science deals with what is. From an operational sense, the issues of Is and Is-not never come up. They don't add any butter to the table.

---

I might add, not yet. Do they ever? Yes, as ostensible choice of either side can have economic ramifications. Go to a country like Iran (and, perhaps, a number of others) and try to be a Christian (mind you, name any religion; perhaps, even Muslim sect that is not in favor of those who hold the power) who has the power of the state behind you and who can be successful in any field. In many cases, education is cut off. Actually, the Jewish diaspora could easily be used as an example due to the breadth involved, in terms of time, space and human suffering.

---

Now back to the CH lambast (some might see it as a basting). His peer kept saying "why can't you see?" in terms of the CH's position of not accepting something supported by writings that get a lot of attention. Or, we could re-phrase: why are you blind to this? That being said, 'blind' implies not being able to recognize something that is there. In reality, we are blind to a lot of things (in short, all of our senses have a lot of limits). Science is to the point where a whole lot is determined after a whole lot of processing (lens, filters, and more -- remember, quasi-empiricism?).

If one does (as in, can) not see what is not there, does that not turn the question around? Yes. Many 'secularist' make this point; some do so very vehemently: I'm sorry, but you are delusional. Ah. Secularists, like scientists, can take the relaxed view (except, there are career, and fame, issues related to the human being that can be troublesome). You see, science's reliance on the lense and filter cannot be said to be delusional. Why?

Two things, mainly. It's public, in that readings (assuming that we can discount any interpretation issues related to vision, etc.) can be shared. If I'm going 100 mph, any passenger can see the speedo. That's the first thing. Public. To boot, many calibration issues are resolvable in the public forum. We'll go on about that, at length. Why? Delusions can be a crowd issue (somewhat due to warpings of the ether -- joke, in part, okay?).

The second thing is that you can do things multiple times; that is, if something is repeatable (or observed time and again), then it may very well be real. But, even here, we have to be careful. For instance, one could take mind alterers and know what to expect. Does that make all of the characteristics of the perturbed sense (nervous system) processing less of a delusion? Wait? If one knows that one is delusional, is one still delusional?

---

So, the whole thing gets to be unsettling. Why? Exchange 'real' with truth, and it seems like we're screwed. Oh, I know. The modern way is that money is the truth; that is, buy what is necessary to make something true. Are we not seeing that in abundance with this election year's experimentation with a whole lot of new ideas (some of which are suspect)?

---

In short, we got pulled into looking at T-issues in an unexpected way. It looks to be an interesting bit of affairs.

Remarks:

06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.

05/04/2012 -- Alan's 100th. We need to look at Computability in the World. 

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

02/24/2012 -- A qualification is necessary, in order to offset what might appear to be an oversight, namely falsifiability (see Karl Popper). Above, it was mentioned that science deals with 'what is' without worrying the Is/Is not issue. That is partly true, in the sense that science is a public means to know reality. It is untrue, unfortunately, in a few senses. One of these is that scientists, being human, are not above the controversies (yes, you, Richard) raised by the big questions. Too, scientists, being biological forms, cannot perceive a bunch. After all, life is essentially successful filtering. We may adjust our filters; we cannot remove them. You know what? No amount of mathematics, artificial means, or what have you will overcome our limitations (yes, cosmologists have extrapolated way beyond their rational basis).

02/01/2012 -- Actually, both of these are highly ad hominen. Which is worse? Let's see, who is the more at fault? Well, the secularist does claim to be a clear thinker. Perhaps, that approach only has so much power; that is, eventually, it gets to a pissing contest. On the other hand, those on the Is side have a whole lot of counsel about behavior to process. Is slapping someone with a diatribe considered okay? 

Modified: 06/25/2015

It is or it is not

I would have used 'tis and tain't but for the taint that might come forth. So, what is this about? Well, we're going to look at issues raised by a growing set of people, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. You see, this type of discussion is central to truth engineering, especially as it relates to T-issues.

--

As well, we see both sides of the arguments claiming to know. On the one side, it's phrased in terms of having fact at hand (to wit, discussions at the Dawkins site), as we expect with science (except, evidence has become increasingly wrapped within computational/mathematical modeling that requires us to put into place the necessary filters/lens, etc. -- recursive issues) as it has evolved in the past few centuries. On the other side, there are statements about material obtained via various types of means, with revelation (whole slew of sacred literature) being one of these.

So, it's like a fence for the reasonable folks. There are two sides, yet one may (ought to be allowed to) waffle on both sides (actually, operational effectiveness may require us to do just that). Too, nuances come into play on both sides. All of this is relevant to the discourse, however we are using an 'engineering' ontology, so that means the following assignment.

• It is not -- argues this: any claims that might have theistic leanings are basically bonkers, as in delusional (look it up on Google). We can wrap ourselves in the Mystery (see Krauss, et al) or Evolution (see Dawkins) or ... 
• It is -- the converse, in a sense: there is a whole lot to look at here as this is an age-old issue. From our viewpoint, though, we'll just say that there exists a meme (or set of memes) that follow Anselm's argument of the ontological nature. Or, in other words, we have times when something outside of the human limits (mind you, only offering the use of a symmetric entity to which we can project) has a role to play in our decision processes. For now, the use of  'meme' means that we can draw benefits (potentially quite remarkable -- hence, the motivation) without taking the discussion to the nth degree (that cannot currently be resolved for many folks - okay?).  

Before we proceed, there needs to be a statement of a disclosure nature. That is, on which side is the blogger? Well, it may be that using 'It is not' as the basis for argument may imply something about that. But, then, again, that question will remain unanswered, for now, in an attempt to be balanced. 

---

Now, again, one might ask if an a-theist (some say, the 'It is not' side) can claim to be scientific (and that might imply a position on the part of the blogger). You know, science does not provide answers in an ultimate sense. There is always a provisional platform that grows in size. Too, that increase in size does not diminish what is not known (at least, from the viewpoint of the less strident mind). If science cannot at this time disprove the meme (or its metaphysical analog), how can one claim to make the decision via science? 

---

On the other hand, if one were to argue for the 'It is' claim, why does it have to take the ultimate leap to describing what exactly is being labelled? You see, the meme would be an operational flavor; nowhere within the context of its use would there be any requirement to subsume the essence (that which is labelled) within some limited sensibility. Look, if science has increasing boundaries, so too will this argument.  

---

Okay, we'll be going back and forth on this. Mind you, the meme mentioned above is a type of closure. As a joke, one could say it deals with compactification (use any sense that you want). Yet, the issue is that we have to assume closure, in many cases, since we have undecidable regions (in both time and space) lurking. You know, we do that anyway with our common sense. Lots of times, it works. 

With computational complexity being a core issue with 'truth' (only one of many other things, so don't leap too far in trying to extract implications here), we cannot use the 'omniscience' approach (though, one wonders how the 'It is not' side is going to look at this -- we'll look at this later) that seems to underlie some notions (those who ponder such things do not know how we can know the truth behind any modern situation with having our arms around the whole thing -- oh yes, some have taken mathematics as the basis meanwhile ignoring quasi-empirical issues). I say 'underlies' as it seems to be that we have a basis moving about down there. Truthfully? Many seem to just jump right over the matter; my hope is to show that they're straddling the fence when they do so.

That brings up the first requirement. Show that there is a fence. At the same time, discuss the symmetry related to this fence's dynamics.

---

How long will this take? Why would there be a rush? Mankind has fought over these matters for thousands of years. My interest is trying to set a framework that will allow increased insights (as well, will provide for some interesting discussions and experiments).

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute.

05/04/2012 -- Alan's 100th. We need to look at Computability in the World.

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/15/2012 --  Hitch lives on. In more ways than one. ..., One might say that this is the middle way (variously characterized throughout our history on the planet). From the viewpoint of product development, middle out is the only way that finds success.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Posts of interest - 2011

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

• --  Leverage and truth II -- From 2008. We all love leverage. Engineering has applied this everywhere with all of our gadgets. But, we also know about limbs; too far can be problematic. What about cutting the limb between yourself and the tree? You see, we do this latter with computation. I can explain if you give me time; it's one motivation for what I've been trying to do here for the past few years. Why no hurry?  You see, every bit of time elapse makes the argument stronger. The big problem is that the boys (and some girls) who like risk (emotional failure on their part - this, too, can be explained) do not just incur it themselves. No, they drag along the hapless. The 99% need to get a grasp on the themes of this blog; it's at the core of computational modeling where we can bring in the human element in a way that has only been considered peripheral. 

• --  Last post for 2008 -- From 2008. Too many seats-of-the-pants decisions by the best and brightest keep things in turmoil. Somehow, we've accepted that as the norm. But, then the dryness of a scientific approach becomes more than tedious, it's a distraction. What ought to be the balance, and how do we attain such a thing?

• -- Extrapolation, calibration, truth -- From 2007. So much is wrapped in knowing. Always has been. The newer methods can be more problematic, though, that we've seen in the past. Now, who is to do the knowing? Obviously, the way things are now, not everybody. Perhaps, that will always be. But, would it not be nice to think that those who have the talents, the resources, et al are not just looking out for themselves? Actually, whom can be trusted is a key issue that we'll address, again and again? Also, how we know the value of things is key, too. 

• --  OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files -- From 2011. Have to love these people who not only put themselves into the class of the 99% but also do something to get attention and to try to attempt change. Before this happened, it seemed that the pall thrown on everyone by the uppers (CEOs, et al) had become an interminable yoke. That is, this pall: if you're not the best and brightest, or if you are not motivated by greed, or a whole number of other things that needs to be listed, then you're of no use. The pall says: we'll export any potential job for you off to the hapless elsewhere who can be more easily exploited; too, we'll make is so that you're indentured forever.   

Remarks:

12/29/2012 --  Summary - 2012.

Modified: 12/29/2012

Christopher Hitchens

R.I.P. (in the many senses -- at some point, will bring forth truth issues, both small 't' and large 'T' -- paraphrasing one comment, he launched avalanches of words/concepts that disallowed precision of a measurable sort)

Also, am trying to maintain a prayerful, and respectful, mindset (never got a chance to discuss my points with him) while traversing his broadly ranging work.

The guy was so right on so many things. What a viewpoint! To wit: When the King saved God. Many burned, on the several sides, of this issue.

He came over here, like all of the others. It's been 400+ years now. And, we still have so much to learn. 

Remarks:

10/01/2015 -- His Ten Commandments.

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion. -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute. Nice. Hitch was a lot of things: he comprehended beyond the ability of most; he thought that our knowledge ought to enhance our awareness of being alive, in all of the meanings. Krauss asks, what would Christopher do? Support Dawkins, we might say. Because Hitch was, we'll use him as a focal point for arguing T-issues.

05/03/2012 -- We'll start a 'meme' discussion, Either / Or. 

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).

01/19/2012 -- Notice the comment of someone dreaming of Hitch's state (this can raise a whole lot of discussion, eventually). Just ran across this debate, in 2008, between Christopher and his younger brother, Peter, at Grand Valley State University. Interesting.

01/15/2012 -- Hitch motivates a series: It is or It is not. Hitch lives on. In more ways than one.

01/13/2012 -- Thinking about Hitch, and the wide-range of topics with which he was involved, will motivate several themes this year. Here is the first one (see the Aside -- to be expanded). Now, coming here will be a discussion of Tis (as in, it is so) and Taint (as in, it ain't so). Guess which will be assigned to which side of the argument? Some would say, and so it is (the operational stance that moves its definitions along as it learns -- you know, the business leaders (yes, Jamie, you and your ilk) think that they're smart for learning how to broaden their pockets and how to increase the flow into such -- world-class jerks, actually).

01/02/2012 -- We'll look at what might be an oxymoron (or almost so, as a whole lot of discussion will ensue about this): atheistic scientist. There are two words here of various meanings. The former denotes a position on a question that may very well be unanswerable; yet, one does have a right to conjecture that God is a man-made creation (ah, creationist thinking?). So, it would be a working hypothesis. Now, unanswerable? Yes, in the terms of falsifiable-ness, cannot be phrased publicly sufficiently to allow tests (and, as in, don't fall for all the contentions about 'literalness'  as being necessary to resolve the thing personally). The latter term ought to have connotations dealing with testable-ness, repeatable-ness, and much more. Too, a moving platform, albeit with a more firm basis in the future from current work, hopefully. To an end? Ah, just as we see no end to the horizon, why ought we see some limit to that which is (may be) unanswerable? Call it what you will. Your recognition of such, nor whatever name you apply, really has no effect whatsoever, except in a limited sense. As, the hubris of the atheist is (can be) as much of an issue as is the idiocy of the fundamentalist. Remember, our states of knowledge are becoming increasingly wrapped within our lens, filters, and what have you; do not all of these have their foundations in mathematics (quasi-empiricism) and our prowess at material manipulations (uncertainty, et al)? By the way, consider that that which is unanswerable (and unknown) may very well have an 'echo' feature which we can understand, and use for our (collective) benefits. Granted the signal may come from our conscious being (oh yes, we'll have to consider essence as opposed to property), yet from whence that?

12/22/2011 -- Remembering, Christopher, at the clear-thinking oasis.

12/20/2011 -- Apropos quote from Paul Wallace: Both the closed-hearted scientism of atheist hardliners and the narrow creationism of religious fundamentalists kill our strange and beautiful world by flattening it beyond repair.

12/17/2011 -- Mocker meets the Mockee, one might say. That theme would offer much to discuss. We'll collect the several of these that Christopher's views might have brought to the fore. Too, as a focal point, the t-issues become very interesting. Perhaps, Hitchens was an angel in disguise.

12/17/2011 -- Our import underwent, and remarked on, the barbarism of waterboarding; power needs its carvers.

Modified: 10/01/2015