Saturday, January 1, 2011

The Talking Dog Defense

I hear this particular logical misnomer so often these days that it's practically become a cliche'.  I've heard it from stand-up comedians, radio hosts, and dozens of times in personal conversations.  You've probably heard it yourself.  You might have even been guilty of proliferating it.  Here's what happens:  You're talking to someone about a movie that contains science fiction or other fantastical elements in its concept.  You point out an inconsistency in the plot, or some unrealistic detail of the story that bears no connection to the fantastic element involved in the story's basic concept, and what is the retort of the person you're debating this point with?  It's usually some variant of "There's talking dogs in this movie, and you're complaining about...", etc.  This is usually said with a tone so heavily  laced with snarkiness that it even comes across in the tone-deaf world of internet communication, where we have to qualify even the mildly rudest jokes with smiley faces.   

And yet, the person is completely wrong.  Making a movie about talking dogs isn't a free pass to throw logic and sense out the window.  Such a movie simply postulates the existence of another world, one in which dogs talk.  Aside from this conceit, as ridiculous and scientifically untenable though it may be, the movie is still under an obligation to follow certain rules.  1.) It must establish the difference between its world and our own and follow this difference with consistency.  If the dogs talk but behave otherwise like normal dogs in every other respect in the first act, they can't be performing brain surgery in the third.  2.) It can not break consistency with other details of its world that it shares in common with our own, without accounting for these differences.  You can't move Christmas to April 15th without explaining why or how the change is a consequence of dogs talking.  Suppose your story has a subplot about a secret society of mailmen.  Without further explanation, this subplot would simply leave the audience perplexed.  But if this development is explained by the fact that mailmen are the only ones who can hear the dogs talk, then everyone's on board.  Of course, rule 1 comes into play here again.  If you establish that only mailmen can hear the dogs talk, you can't have little Billy hear them talk later without accounting for it.  3.) The fantastical conceit of your story isn't a giant rug to sweep plot holes under.  Just because your movie has talking dogs, that doesn't mean that Mr. Smith can break his leg in one scene and then be playing basketball in the next.

Of course, I'm using the talking dog example precisely because of the absurdity of it.  A movie like that, you could cut it a certain amount of slack because it's clearly a comedy, but the leeway isn't unlimited.  Besides, the "Talking Dog Defense" is used for all kinds of stories.  It rears it's ugly head when discussing stories with elements that range from everything from aliens to zoos for dinosaurs.  Pointing out the logical fallacy involved seems almost too obvious to be worthy of mentioning, but since so many people routinely resort to this argument, apparently it needs to be said.  Most people are aware of the literary concept of suspension of disbelief, but they don't know how to discriminately apply it.  They treat it like a magic screwdriver in their toolbox of artistic appreciation, and they think it can fix anything.  You show them a loose tile that needs re-grouting, and up they pop with the screwdriver.    

If you get what I'm saying, feel free to use the phrase.  I'm hoping it catches on.  The next time you're debating a plot hole in a sci-fi movie with your friend, and you point out that the corporate espionage sub-plot didn't make sense and they say, "You expect a movie about robot armies from the future to make sense?", tell them that they're using the "Talking Dog Defense."  When they ask what that is, send them here.  Tell them to click on the ads and order a few recommended Amazon products while they're here.  I'd feel a lot better making money off of your belligerent friends.                             

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Life is Good (I Guess)

Well, I was stumped trying to think of a good post to end the year with, and then Donna over at Refusing to Age Gracefully passed along this Life is Good Award:


What sort of unholiness has she signed me up for? Well, I guess I'm now under a contractual obligation under threat of death and dismemberment to:

1. First thank, and link back to the person who gave you the award.  (I'm sure my undying gratitude comes through clearly in the above sentiments.)
2. Answer the 10 survey questions.
3. Pass the award on to other bloggers that you hope to alienate.
4. Contact the bloggers you have chosen and tell them they're dying, and then say, "Just kidding...how do feel about answering questions?"

So, on to the questions:

1.  If you blog anonymously, are you happy doing this?  If you aren't anonymous, do you wish you started out anonymously, so that you could be anonymous now?

I actually do write another blog anonymously, it's called "How I'm Going to Kill My Neighbor in His Sleep."  It's details my plan to jimmy open the lock, creep quietly up the...oh, whoops!  Damn survey!  I hope my neighbor isn't reading this.

2. Describe an Incident that Shows Your Stubborn Side.

No.

3. What do you see when you really look at yourself in the mirror?

I see a parallel universe that's exactly like ours but everything's backwards.  There's this bald guy that lives there and he keeps staring at me every time I'm in the bathroom.  What a creep.  

4. What's your favorite summer cold drink?

I like to relax on the deck of my million dollar yacht with an ice cold margarita while my three diamond studded flying ponies put on a live theater production of Forest Gump in the sky above me.   

5. When you take time for yourself, what do you do?

Oh, I just buy duct tape and rope and write on my anonymous blog.  You know, the usual stuff.

6. Is there something you still want to accomplish in Life?

I'd like to beat the Guinness Book's record for the largest beard of bees.
 
7. When you attended school were you the class clown, the class overachiever, the shy person, or always ditching?

I remember this one time we put Drano in the teacher's coffee.  Oh, we laughed and laughed.  His wife was a little upset at the funeral, but I'm sure she sees the humor in it now.  Those were good times.

8. If you close your eyes and visualize a poignant moment in your life, what do you see?

The only thing I ever see when I close my eyes is a clown cutting off the tip of his tongue with a razor blade while tiny demons dance around him laughing in the flames.  The only way I can find peace is to kill again.  I wonder if my neighbor's home yet.

9. Is it easy for you to share your true self in your blog, or are you more comfortable writing about other people and events?

I'm bearing my soul here.  What do you want from me, survey?  I give and I give, and it's never good enough for you!  I hate you, survey!  You've ruined my life!

10. If you had a choice to sit down and read a book or talk on the phone, which would you do and why?

You know, it's funny you should ask.  I used to face this very choice every day, and it always left me paralyzed with indecision.  Then I heard about 1-800-Mmm-Book.  You call them up, and they read a book to you over the phone.  They've got Wuthering Heights, David Copperfield, all of the classics.  They're all read by this lady with a really breathy voice.  $9.99 a minute. 

So, there you go.  I should mention that I have a medical condition that renders me incapable of answering survey questions seriously.

I would like to pass this award on to:

I guess I'd like to inflict this on Scott @ Atypical Read.  Don't make me come looking for you.

Anyway, Happy New Year everybody.
See you on the other side.   

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Trying to Understand Relativity (part 6)

This relativity business is pretty confusing.  I've been thinking that my thought experiment might be a little easier to follow if I made it a little less abstract.  With that in mind, I think that I should give the people in house A and house B actual names and identities.  We'll call the guy in house B "Bob", and we'll call the person in house A "Ann".  Yep, the person in house A was a woman the whole time!  Bam! That's what they call a plot twist.  Bet you didn't see that coming.  You see, Ann had just called Bob to tell him that she was lonely and wanted him badly.  That's why he was pushing the light barrier to get over to her house.  It all makes sense now.

Please.  No comments about the Freudian symbolism in this picture.
So anyhow, when we last left these two, I had just made a nice break in the case.  I had said that if Bob made the trip between the two houses at a speed which allowed him to cross the light-year between them in a year and one day, then it would appear to Ann that he was making the trip in one day, unless you accounted for the constant velocity of light.  By taking that into account, time itself would have to expand.  I speculated that the trip would have to take 365 years from Ann's perspective to keep her view of the image of Bob's ship from exceeding the speed of light.  (If this sentence sounds like gibberish to anyone new here, please refer to the Relativity tab above.  It'll probably still sound like gibberish after that, but you'll have the satisfaction of reading 5 other pages of gibberish.)       

I want to try something to test the math here.  It's not that I absolutely need to know the math.  I'm not going for a PhD in relativistic physics.  I'm just trying to grasp the basic concept.  But if I can check my idea against the percentage of distortion that relativity actually predicts, then I'll know if I'm on the right track.  

Okay, let's say we slowed Bob down to a speed where he was crossing a light year in a year and 6 months.  That would put him at about 75% of the speed of light.  Without taking the constancy of light into account, the trip would appear to Ann to take 6 months.  This means that she would have to see the ship coming towards her at twice the speed of light.  Now then, going by what I said last time, in order for her vision of the ship not to exceed the speed of light then the trip would have to take 2 years from her perspective.   That makes the trip 1 year and six months for Bob, and two years for Ann, and the ratio of distortion would be  approximately 1:1.3 at 75% the speed of light.

So this is basically what I'm doing here: I'm considering how many times faster than the speed of light Ann would have to see Bob's ship going for her to witness the trip without any time distortion.  Then I'm multiplying that number by a year, because there's one light year of distance, so light at it's constant speed should take a year to cross that distance.  Then I'm comparing that result to the time it actually takes Bob to make the trip.  In that manner, I'm coming up with a ratio between time for Bob and time for Ann that expresses the distortion mathematically.  Again, in this case 1:1.3 at 75% the speed of light.

At this point, I feel like I've thrown this whole thing together with duct tape.  It can't be right, can it?  Well, check out this handy little chart showing the distortion courtesy of Zayini at wikimedia commons:

I was forced to attribute this picture at gunpoint.  Sorry.
The numbers running up the left of the graph show the ratio of distortion, while the numbers running along the bottom show the percentage of the speed of light.  You can see that between 70 and 80% the curve hits at around the 1.5 mark.   So I'm a little off.  My formula is predicting that Bob's 18 month journey will take 24 months from Ann's point of view, but the chart is suggesting that the journey would take 27 months from Ann's perspective.   I'm off by three months.  That might not seem like much, but it definitely shows that my formula is wrong.  

Last time I think I got a clear glimpse of the time distortion.  I can at least see not how it's possible.  Progress is being made.  But I've still got some work to do, figuring the finer details of how it works.  The thing to focus on now is how Bob's 18 month journey at 75% of the speed of light can come out to be 27 months for Ann.  This handy chart is telling me the result I'm supposed to get.  I just have to come up with an understanding which produces this result.  Should be pretty simple, right?   

Thoughts?  Anyone?             

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

A Demonstration of Consciousness

In yesterday's post I compared our conscious faculties of perception to a flashlight.  I said that the beam represented the focus of our attention.  Well, the following video provides a nice demonstration of how that beam works by asking you to perform a simple task that is surprisingly difficult.  So, pay close attention, follow the instructions, and enjoy.






Now, let's suppose that you had decided to stop watching video at around the 0:44 second mark and you just said, "Forget it.  Forget Bryan and his stupid blog, and his stupid video.  Screw him and the horse he rode in on.", and you just walked away and never watched the rest of the video.  I'll give you one hint what you would have dreaming about tonight.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Predictive Dreaming

The other day I wrote a post about a shared dream experience I had when I was a kid.  In the comments for the post, the subject came up of another familiar yet mysterious type of dream, dreams of future events.  As I pointed out then, I've had a few minor brushes with this.  I've never had a dream which directly featured an event exactly as it was going to happen, but I have had a few times where a dream was oddly related to a subsequent event in a way that seems to go beyond simple coincidence.  Once I dreamt that I was trying to fix a gas fireplace in my bedroom, only to wake up and discover the next day that my gas furnace wasn't working.  Another time I dreamt that I was in a crumbling, abandoned house trying to retrieve one of my cats that had fallen through a hole in the floor, only the wake up and discover that this same cat had run away again (don't worry; he came back.)  I had a few other instances as well that don't come to mind at the moment.

Now, I think I might have a possible, and I stress the word possible, explanation for this.  If I can't explain how two people can share a dream, an imaginary event supposedly taking place solely in one of the dreamer's minds, then I can hardly hope to reach any solid conclusions regarding predictive dreaming.  However, I tend to be of the opinion that things have reasonable, scientific explanations, elusive though those explanations may sometimes be.  Just because I lack a reasonable explanation for shared dreaming, doesn't mean I'm completely ready to throw in the towel of logic and embrace the world of black magic and wizardly incantations quite yet.

To begin with, we need to visualize the conscious mind's relation to the sub-conscious mind.   First, imagine your memory is a cramped room crammed full of filing cabinets.  The cabinets are stuffed to over flowing with files.  They're spilling out of the drawers onto the floor.  They're piled up onto of the cabinets for lack of space, wedged in tight against the ceiling.  It's a complete pandemonium.  In the middle of the room is the little desk of the over-worked filing clerk.  He's surrounded by mountains of files on all sides.  They tower over him and barely provide room for him to fit in his own filing room.  This clerk is your conscious mind.  Although he is surrounded by these towering archives, he only has room on his little desk for three or four files at a time.  If he wants to look at a different file, he has to put one of the ones on his desk back and retrieve another.  His access to the files is limited to the finite space he has to work with.  The subconscious mind has no such limitations.  It has access to the entire archive at all times.  You might say it's the room and the cabinets themselves.  Except, in this case the files are no mere pieces of paper.  They are a living, breathing thing, organizing and cross-referencing themselves behind the clerk's back.  

Now, that's inside the mind.  When it comes to looking out and perceiving the world and processing new sensory data coming in, the subconscious again has the advantage.  Imagine you're out in the dark at night and you have a flashlight with you.  Your field of vision is limited to what can be illuminated in the narrow beam of the flashlight.  It's useful to light your way, but it hardly provides you with a complete picture of the world around you.  This flashlight is once again our friend the conscious mind.  We carry this flashlight with us constantly, even on the brightest, sunniest day.  It is the focus of our attention.  Like the desk of our file clerk, this focus is extremely limited, and the more intense the focus, the more limited it's range.  Returning to our flashlight analogy, notice how the beam intensifies and yet narrows at the same time as we approach an object.  This how our attention works.  

Our subconscious, on the other hand, is like a cat with night vision.  It sees everything, all the time.  Even the most insignificant piece of sensory information that crosses our path gets received, processed, and filed.  This leads us right back to our filing clerk.  Every minute of every day, new files arrive in the filing room.  Most of it comes from beyond the beam of our flashlight, so it wasn't noticed on the way in.  And the filing clerk, he's far too busy to sort through all this junk, so it just ends up getting stuffed into a cabinet.  That's when that behind the scenes, organic process of cross-referencing and automatic filing sets in without the clerk's knowledge.  

An interesting thing happens when we dream.  It's like the filing clerk has fallen asleep, dozing at his desk with his grey nose hairs fluttering as he snores, and we have an open run at the files.  We have a broader, more liberal access, but it's also a very haphazard and unstructured access because we don't have the clerk to sort through it all for us.  We just start tossing out files left and right, without rhyme or reason.  We put two files together because they both happen to be in red folders, or they both have pizza stains on them, or they both have three Q's on the first page.  In short, we make a complete mess.  In making this mess though, we're liable to stumble across connections that the file clerk might never have noticed.

An experiment was conducted once upon a time, where the subjects were shown composite pictures that featured dozens of different random elements.  They were shown these pictures very briefly, then they were asked to write down what elements they remembered from the pictures.  Then, after they had slept that night, they were asked to write down their dreams.  In almost all cases, their dreams featured elements from the composite picture that they had not written down.  In other words, they dreamt of elements that escaped the beam of the flashlight and the attention of the file clerk, but the information had been processed and stored nevertheless.  

This is where predictive dreaming comes in.  I think, perhaps, that somewhere in this incalculable pile of processed information lies clues to forth-coming events that the conscious mind has failed to pick up on.  If a dream forewarns of this event, and then it happens, the result seems miraculous.  But the only thing miraculous happening here is the conscious mind's failure to pay attention.  Consider this, let's say that you notice, consciously notice, that your hot water heater is leaking a tiny amount of water from it.  You take this as a sign of the water heater's impending failure, and when the tank finally does give out, you're hardly impressed by your psychic prognostication.  Simple logic warned you.  But what if you didn't consciously notice the leak?  You were in the basement.  The leak was in your field of vision, but the beam of your flashlight never honed in on it.  The information still gets processed, and as the experiment above shows, it's even more likely to show up in a dream precisely because it wasn't consciously noticed.  The results could certainly leave anyone mystified and thinking that they had had a genuine premonition.

This is not to say that your subconscious mind is a secret Maytag repairman, diagnosing bad furnaces and worn-out water heaters.  In the case of my furnace dream, it would have been enough for my subconscious to pick up on the fact that something was subtly off or different in the operation of the appliance.  In the case of my cat, he probably slipped out the door without my consciously taking note of it, but I did see him briefly zip by.  He is pretty damn fast, after all.  A fleeting look on a friend's face that should have warned you they weren't quite telling you the truth if you had noticed it, a neighbor's door standing open when it should have been closed passing through your peripheral field of vision as you drive by, a subtle and imperceptible difference in the amount of pressure you need to apply to your brakes, these are the things that premonitions are made of.  Your subconscious might not know what to make of these things.  In fact, your subconscious doesn't make anything out of anything at all.  That kind of deduction is a job for your conscious mind.  Your subconscious just tags, processes, and stores the information.  It does conduct the organic cross-referencing process I mentioned, but it's up to the dreaming mind to stumble across these loose connections.

So that's my two cents on the subject, at least.  As I started out by saying, my own experience with predictive dreaming is limited to dreams of startling coincidence and association.  Maybe my idea breaks down when considering dreams where someone actually sees and experience the event exactly as it's going to happen.  I don't know.  This is just one humble blogger's attempt to tackle the problem.  My resources are limited, and my references are sketchy.  I know I can sleep soundly on my explanation.  Good night.  Sweet dreams.                            
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...