FYI RE Atheism / Agnosticism

There are awesome people and idiots in every social group or subculture in the world.  This includes ninjas, and it also includes ones where there’s a correlation between education and likelihood of joining the subculture, e.g. atheism. Just like those poser kids and trend whores in high school, or confused college students trying out bisexuality based solely on getting laid more often and/or because it’s popular, and not out of any real attraction to both genders, atheism, and specifically the “New Atheist movement” is being invaded by people who come to the decision to be atheist not because it’s the most rational one — they join up to be “counterculture”, to piss their parents off, or to build an identity for themselves during their formative years. Let’s call these douchebags “trend-atheists“.

This is very annoying to people like me, who came to atheism after being indoctrinated into Catholicism and who was “confirmed” before he even realized what was going on, finally learning that the universe is a vast and mysterious place, but that it could be comprehended through rational study and scientific endeavour. In all seriousness, I had no idea what was going on with the whole confirmation thing. I remember being incredibly anxious to get home and play Megaman, and honestly didn’t know why everyone was making such a big deal out of me going to church and standing in front of everyone, then eating a cracker handed to me by the old guy in a funny costume who smelled like liniment and maybe a hint of Vaseline and was sooooo boring when he read from that book he always had on his podium, that I thought maybe I could replace with my latest Hardy Boys book one day so we could find out what evildoers Joe and Frank discovered when they entered Pirates’ Cave!

Another thing that bothers me is the lack of understanding of the terms being bandied about. There’s a huge difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist. Again, as with trend-atheism vs rational-atheism, reality favours the latter. First, definitions. Theist obviously means, “believes in God”. Prefix “a-” in Latin means “not”, so atheist therefore means “does not believe in God”. Likewise for gnostic — to be gnostic means you think the existence of God is knowable, e.g. that it’s possible to discover with 100% certainty that God exists. To be agnostic thus means you believe it’s NOT possible to know with 100% certainty that God exists.

This is shamelessly ripped off from <a href=
This is shamelessly ripped off from this site, which is great. You should read it. No, finish my blog first. Yes, the whole thing. Then finish your peas.

As you probably have figured out from my previous rants introspections, I consider the concept of God to be inherently, by its very nature, by necessity, outside of our universe.  Since we cannot know with any certainty what’s going on outside of our universe, since our existence is an abstraction of only three dimensions of it, then God is inherently unknowable.  Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most vocal atheists out there, says he cannot know with 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist, but that he believes that God does not exist, and that the burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim that they can know that God exists with any degree of certainty whatsoever.  Anyway, the only way to prove God exists is for God to do something that tells us he does.  For instance, appear to us humans by making the moon into his head, and talking to all of us in all our languages simultaneously and telling us that he exists.  And do it once a generation, to prove to every generation that he exists, lest we start thinking all our parents and grandparents were just delusional or were making unverifiable stuff up (you know, like with the Bible and the fish thing, or the walking on water thing, or the wine thing…).  And also explain why it is that he must be worshipped or else he’ll damn you to an eternity of torture.  And explain why what might seem like self-serving vanity in any other creature is perfectly acceptable and Supreme Good in him, because torture for eternity just for not believing in a magical universe-creating invisible guy is a pretty douchy thing to do.

So, the only sane, justifiable position to hold in the face of the deafening silence regarding direct evidence of God is simply to act like there isn’t one.  Go ahead and enjoy life, better your fellow human’s lot, and do whatever you can to be a good, moral, and happy person, without worrying about what comes after you shuffle off this mortal coil, because there is no reward or punishment after death, no floating on a cloud, no eternal hellfire, no seventy-two virgins, and no cosmic High Score list on which you get to write your initials in as “FUK”.

tl;dr: I was atheist when atheism was underground, and people who use words wrong should be cock-punched. Or uterus-punched. (Don’t wanna be sexist.)

FYI RE Atheism / Agnosticism
{advertisement}

Python Picture Evolution part 2, finally

So I’ve finally gotten around to working on my picture evolution project. part 1 being here. You can feed it a sample image, tweak a bunch of parameters (at the top of the headers), then sit back and watch as the fitness improves sharply for the first little bit then plateaus out. To recap, my initial hypothesis regarding this computer model is that, given a population of digital “creatures” with undirected mutation, and selection criteria based on how close these “creatures” appear in comparison with a target image or “environment”, it would theoretically take very little time to reach something very closely approximating the original image, even if the environment and selection criteria were more closely modeled to reality.

My first version duplicated the EvoLisa experiment pretty closely, and I found you could get some pretty high-fidelity representations of the target image by only selecting those mutations that were “advantageous”, e.g. only those that produced a marked improvement, always throwing out all the disadvantageous mutations.

And now, coming only a mere four months after the blog fad has faded completely, I’ve come out with my next release. This newer version of my recreation now sports a configurable population size, sexual reproduction, variable mutation rates, and a selection criteria that, while still heavily favoring the better fit ones, allows for any creature, no matter how well selected, to die either by being spotted, as unlikely as that is, or through sheer chance. It also outputs some extremely verbose debugging info if you choose, and even dumps the most relevant stats to a .csv file so you can play with it in OpenOffice Calc (or Excel for you Microsofties).

In my trial runs, I have found that the randomized initial population, bearing absolutely no resemblance to the target picture, will very rapidly select out some fair-to-middling features (the idea being that the really obviously wrong ones would “stick out like a sore thumb” and get eaten by predators nearly immediately), leads to most of the population getting most of the background and foreground colors (mostly) correct but almost none of the shape, and very unlikely to have any of the fine details. Once it reaches this state of equilibrium, it seems to stay roughly at the same average fitness for a while — how long I can’t say, as every test I run on this laptop takes about a second to process each generation, which is absolutely abysmal, and I suspect almost entirely due to my relying on Pygame for my image processing.

I’m curious to see if it’s possible to break out of this equilibrium and start another trend toward improvement after a while under these conditions, given that even the original EvoLisa project took roughly 900,000 generations to come up with its final product, however I suspect that as the natural selection criteria are not terribly ruthless, and because those criteria never vary from generation to generation, that any such breaking of punctuated equilibrium would take far more generations than I’ve managed to get out of this laptop. The highest number of generations I’ve gotten in one run was 6000, and that run ended in my console with “killed”, not by anything I could see and not due to any bug that I could track down (as usually Python’s pretty good about declaring when bugs occur).

I’m planning on moving this onto my desktop for another trial run soon, expect a blog post with more than just talking about this stuff — like actual pictures with actual results and maybe even a graph or two. As for plans for the code itself, very soon I will be implementing command line parameters and a config file (so you don’t have to mess with the code to change certain values), and hopefully finding some way faster alternative to Pygame for actually generating the images — will probably keep using Pygame for the main loop and display, at least initially, but replacing just the generation part. I’m looking at Python Image Library and Cairo currently. Grafting out huge chunks of core code is bound to have deleterious side effects so version 1.0 may be a while longer before it makes it up here. Besides, I’m working on this in my free time between neglecting my blog, neglecting my friends, neglecting my job or neglecting my girlfriend, so if it takes time, just chalk it up to neglect all around!

For now here’s version 0.8. Enjoy.

Python Picture Evolution part 2, finally