About 1.6 (short).

I am insane. It is important that at this juncture you understand that while I can rationalize my insanity and understand its existence, I do not believe myself to be insane (or any less sane than you the reader). I am told this is nothing more than a symptom of my insanity, as one can not both be insane and believe that they are. But I digress.

In Aronofsky's 1998 cult classic PI, the protagonist Maximillian Cohen (played by Sean Gullette) suffers from a psychological disorder resulting from a childhood trauma. His disorder manifests itself in two particular ways. First, he has chronic uncontrollable headaches, and second, his obsession with the number 216. Actually he believes he is searching for a two hundred sixteen digit number, but as such a number is beyond actual observation or repetition here, we can substitute the number 216 for it. The movie explore a number of possible explanations for this number, the true name of god, the consciousness of a main frame computer, the controlling intelligence of the stock market, all leading Max to believe that this number is naturally occurring and thus its consistently repetition is itself explained. What's more, rational thought cannot easily dismiss his obsession as the insanity we later realize it is.

But he isn't the first man to be obsessed a number. For years mathematicians have been obsessed with the number pi (3.14159...). A number which represents the ratio between a straight line and the circle that encompasses it. Its infinitely long non-repeating decimal progression defies reason. There must be a pattern there somewhere right? But Pi isn't the only number to exhibit this behavior, it has a sister number labeled e (probably after the economists that desire it so, 2.71828). The mathematical progression of compounding interest over time. Normally because compounding exhibits linear interpolation you have to compute each time step before the next. Often it is done in years, but sometimes quarterly, or even days, and possibly seconds. However these graphs converge asomtotically to a number: e. E there for is the value for compounding continuously.

My own personal obsession revolves around a different number, sometimes called the golden ratio. Often times personified as a spiral or an exceptionally pleasing rectangle, phi is the limit of the ratio of two consecutive terms of a Fibonacci series; best though of in bunnies. Suppose we have two baby bunnies (a guy and a girl) and lets assume they never die (which while impractical, death will only matter so late in the series that it does not bear discussion), and finally assume it takes them a month to grow up. At the end of the first month there is only one pair. At the end of the second month, two. By the third month the new pair from the second month hasn't grown up yet, so only the first pair reproduces, giving us 3. By the fifth month the second pair has grown up enough to reproduce so we have 5. The sixth month brings us 8. The seventh, 13. Then 21, 34, 55, etc. After ten years we're looking at 5358359254990966640871840 rabbits. Which tells you why rabbit populations can be such a bother. For reference 5358359254990966640871840/ its proceding number (3311648143516982017180081) ~= phi. But Fibonacci doesn't happen to just bunnies, it happens to plants, and cells. Its easy to see why this number starts to appear everywhere.

The bigger wings on a butter fly compared to the smaller ones. The bones in your fingers. The facade on most buildings. The seeds in a sun flower. The branches on a tree.

It is very clear I remind you that I don't think I'm insane, that my obsession is based purely on the frequency of the number. I can see it everywhere, in everyone, because it is there. When I'm sitting alone, when I close my eye, in my dreams, on the ceiling and the walls, its wrapping itself around me it is trying to devour me.

cue the techno music

one point six
eighteen nine zerothreethreenine3988749894848204586834365638117720309179805762862135 448622705260462818902449707207204189391137484754088075386891752126633862223536931793 180060766726354433389086595939582905638322661319928290267880675208766892501711696207 032221043216269548626296313614438149758701220340805887954454749246185695364864449241 044320771344947049565846788509874339442212544877066478091588460749988712400765217057 517978834166256249407589069704000281210427621771117778053153171410117046665991466979 873176135600670874807101317952368942752194843530567830022878569978297783478458782289 110976250030269615617002504643382437764861028383126833037242926752631165339247316711 121158818638513316203840052221657912866752946549068113171599343235973494985090409476 213222981017261070596116456299098162905552085247903524060201727997471753427775927786 256194320827505131218156285512224809394712341451702237358057727861600868838295230459 264787801788992199027077690389532196819861514378031499741106926088674296226757560523 172777520353613936210767389376455606060592165894667595519004005559089502295309423124 823552122124154440064703405657347976639723949499465845788730396230903750339938562102 423690251386804145779956981224457471780341731264532204163972321340444494873023154176 768937521030687378803441700939544096279558986787232095124268935573097045095956844017 555198819218020640529055189349475926007348522821010881946445442223188913192946896220 023014437702699230078030852611807545192887705021096842493627135925187607778846658361 502389134933331223105339232136243192637289106705033992822652635562090297986424727597 725655086154875435748264718141451270006023890162077732244994353088999095016803281121 943204819643876758633147985719113978153978074761507722117508269458639320456520989698 555678141069683728840587461033781054443909436835835813811311689938555769754841491445 341509129540700501947754861630754226417293946803673198058618339183285991303960720144 559504497792120761247856459161608370594987860069701894098864007644361709334172709191 433650137157660114803814306262380514321173481510055901345610118007905063814215270930 858809287570345050780814545881990633612982798141174533927312080928972792221329806429 468782427487401745055406778757083237310975915117762978443284747908176518097787268416 117632503861211291436834376702350371116330725869883258710336322238109809012110198991 7684149175

taken from: About One Point Six by Jim Tzenes

Face your fears.


Smoking is a conditioned behavior. Now I'm not saying that Nicotine isn't addictive (it is), but if that was the only reason people smoked things like "the patch" or Nicorette would help them quit with a much higher success rate. Where as both products show very low success rates.

Before I get more into why these are conditioned behaviors, let’s talk a little about what a conditioned behavior is. Conditioning comes with a couple of attributes: there are classical and operant conditioning, there are positive and negative conditioning, and there are continuous and variable conditioning. Let’s go in order.

Classical conditioning was first written about by Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov trained a number of dogs to associate the sound of a bell, with the coming of dinner. As a result the dogs began to salivate at the sound of the bell, a behavior normally reserved for the presence of dinner. Pavlov also noticed that if he rang the bell and didn't give them dinner, over time they would salivate less and less till they stopped (a process known as extinction). Operant conditioning is what your mom does when you act bad, or she wants you to do your homework. Personified by reward and punishment. If you want the behavior repeated, you reward, if not you punish. Now as mentioned before you can have positive or negative conditioning. Positive means the stimulus should cause the response; negative means stopping the stimulus should stop the response. These terms are unrelated to reward and punishment (i.e. you have positive punishment and negative reward). Finally, there is continual and variable conditioning. Continual means you condition every time the stimulus happens, variable means sometimes you do some times you don't.

Here is a good example: There are two parents. One who coddles her child every time it cries and one who only occasionally does (but mostly doesn't). Clearly the first is conditioning the child to cry where as the second is trying to condition the child not to. The fact of the matter is both children end up being conditioned to cry (as the one you occasionally does is exhibiting variable conditioning). This goes on for a while till the mothers learn about conditioning and both decide to cut the child off, cold turkey as it were (and actually succeed this time). So which one learns not to cry faster? If you said the one with variable conditioning, you are wrong. Yeah, strangely enough the mother that used to coddle her child EVERY TIME actually gets better results when she stops. This is because the mother who has been variable conditioning her child has taught the child that "sometimes I'll coddle sometimes I won't, but keep trying and eventually I will".

So back to cigarettes. What do you do what you smoke? If you're like me (and I've quit smoking more times than I want to count), you talk to other people, maybe you grab a beer, sometimes you do it after sex or when flirting, or maybe just after a really good meal. Notice anything? All of these are generally enjoyable behaviors. Now, not every time I do these behaviors do I have a cig, and not every time I have a cig do I do one of these things. Beginning to see where I am going with this? That's right, this is an example of variable conditioning. I have conditioning myself to believe the cigarette smoking is related to the good feeling I have with the associated behavior, and what's worse, I have conditioned myself to believe that this doesn't hold true every time but eventually will. Like the gambling junky, I believe that if I keep doing it, eventually I will feel good again.

So what's the best way to quit then? Well obviously conditioning myself by associating smoking with things that make me feel bad, but also by not smoking when I'm doing something enjoyable. The second one is allot like facing your fears, and is a product of extinction. Like Pavlov's dogs, if you face your fears and you don't die (or whatever it is that you fear doesn't happen) the conditioned response will slowly wane over time.

Of course this is assuming that your fears are conditioned responses, and that they won't happen when you face them.

taken from: Gone Fishing, a Look at Modern Culture by Jim Tzenes

My soap box

As this is the Intellectual Elite I think it is perfectly within our mandate to educate those which do not fall into this category. You may think this is slightly arrogant, but what did you expect from a group with the word elite in the name? So here is my short lecture on the difference between symbols and signs.

I first realized that not everyone understands the difference while browsing through wikipedia. As wikipedia is a collaborative effort (read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, wikipedia is clearly the latter) it is generally a decent sampling of the opinions prevalent in our culture. If you look under the discussion section for symbols you'll notice a lengthy debate on whether or not symbols and signs are synonyms. Obviously here is where I weigh in.
I was first explained the difference by Leslie A White (an anthropologist) in her work "Symbol: The Basic Element of Culture" (part of her '49 book The Science of Culture). At this point I'd like to apologize to clockwork for once again not being original, his thoughts on originality can be found here and here. White, clearly attributes symbols as being a purely Human trait. She goes on to say no "chimpanzee or lab rat can appreciate the difference between Holy water and distilled water, or grasp the meaning of Tuesday, 3, or sin." And to a varying degree this represents some of the arguments made in the recent debate on vegetarianism. Even Darwin tells us "That which distinguishes man from the lower animals is not the understanding of articulate sounds." So what is so special about symbols that make them a human product?

"A symbol may be defined as a thing the value or meaning of which is bestowed upon it by those who use it." Obviously thing can refer to any sort of object, gesture, action, or physical form, but what does it all mean. To really understand that, we have to look at signs. I'm sure someone has read this and said, well you can teach a dog to sit. And that is true, but the command sit is not a symbol, it is a sign. Here in lies the crux of the problem. A symbol is given meaning by its user, a sign is a symbol who's meaning was given by some one else. A name, by example, is a sign. The gesture "thumbs up" is a symbol, and changes from country to country.

White also makes reference to Helen Keller. Sullivan describes Helen Keller as acting at first like an animal, and even after she teaches Helen her first word, Sullivan was disturbed by a lack of understanding. To Helen, these first words were signs not symbols. It is not until Sullivan is able to make the connection between the word water, and free flowing water, that Helen reports in her autobiography that she finally understands the mystery of language. The cross over from symbols to signs.

And there it is in a nut shell. White's work was done in the mid 40's and is fairly out of date on the subject of animals (so don't treat it as a first hand source on any animal intelligence debates), but none-the-less, it does pick up some of the fundamentals that make the difference between symbols and signs.

taken from: wikipedia, The Science of Culture by Leslie White, Seeing Ourselves by Macionis and Benokraitis and of course, The Intellectual Elite.


In other exciting news:

• Adkenar watches economics in video games and the ability for people to debate. Please prove him wrong on the latter.
• Dem0critus deals with infinity.


• Dr. Dolphin thinks Intelligent Design is full of crap.


• Jessica Rabbit quotes one of my favorite poems. Apparently we aren't the only ones who like it either.


• Philosopical Rambler has a number of really good piece on constitutional law and abortion. Give his last five or so posts a good read over, they're worth it.


• Soup4Brains laments both public school and home schooling.

And stop by our forum and chat and debate with us. We're always looking for a new perspective.

this was originally published on the intellectual elite webring found at www.intellectualelite.com and was removed when the site crashed. I republished it here to preserve the statements made.

A short Coke vs Pepsi.

I had a bit of a revelation the other day. It turns out I avoid soda about as much as I avoid beer. Don't take this to mean I'm either an alcoholic or a moron, but rather that I seek to do both in moderation (say one every one or two days, and then once in a while I splurge). This seemed a grave hypocrisy, the more I thought about it the more I seemed to make sense. But let's do a quick comparison.

12 oz of coke has 160 calories (100% carbs) compared to our local beer Busch which only has 140 (only a third of which are carbs). Neither of them have any useful vitamins or minerals. Both are diuretics. Excess beer leads to being drunk and vomiting (as a preventative for alcohol poisoning), where as excess soda can lead to burping. Over the long term, beer can strengthen heart and liver if used in moderation, soda will rot your teeth and give you diabetes.

Now I'm not advocating you switch your coke for a bud, because both of these drinks pale in comparison to a much stronger poison you probably drink every day: DHMO

I highly suggest you check out more about it at DHMO.org. But here are a few facts you should be made aware of.

"DHMO is a colorless and odorless chemical compound. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on DHMO. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding DHMO. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.

A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of DHMO in the United States.

Some of the known perils of DHMO are:

* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

Some of the well-known uses of DHMO are:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant,
* in nuclear power plants,
* by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
* by elite athletes to improve performance,
* in the production of Styrofoam,
* in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
* as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
* in abortion clinics,
* as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
* as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
* in cult rituals,
* by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
* by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
* by pedophiles and pornographers (for uses we'd rather not say here),
* by the clientele at a number of homosexual bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
* historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
* in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
* by the Serbian military as authorized by Slobodan Milosevic in their ethnic cleansing campaign,
* by many terrorist organizations,
* in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
* by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software SDKs,
* in animal research laboratories, and
* in pesticide production and distribution.

A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, DHMO was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways.

What can I do to minimize the risks?
Fortunately, there is much you can do to minimize your dangers due to DHMO exposure. First, use common sense. Whenever you are dealing with any product or food that you feel may be contaminated with DHMO, evaluate the relative danger to you and your family, and act accordingly. Keep in mind that in many instances, low-levels of DHMO contamination are not dangerous, and in fact, are virtually unavoidable. Remember, the responsibility for your safety and the safety of your family lies with you.

Second, exercise caution when there is the potential for accidental inhalation or ingestion of DHMO. If you feel uncomfortable, remove yourself from a dangerous situation. Better safe than sorry.

Third, don't panic. Although the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are very real, by exercising caution and common sense, you can rest assured knowing that you are doing everything possible to keep you and your family safe."


From: DHMO.org and various DHMO support groups and They Took Gullible out of the Dictionary by Jim Tzenes