Computer Games

Back in 1998, before I'd even got my very first computer, I borrowed a PlayStation off someone together with a couple of games, "Resident Evil" and "Tomb Raider".  I hadn't played any computer games since the early 80's when I used to play space invaders, asteroids, pacman etc, both in the arcades and in a simpler form on my Atari 2600 console.



Anyway, I used to love playing those games, although they did get tedious after a while.  I got ridiculously good at all of them e.g watch me play the first Space Invaders here, or Space Invaders 2 here. And then I started playing Resident Evil . .wow . . just wow!  Really it bore absolutely no relationship to the computer games I had hitherto played.  I was in a 3D environment controlling a person called Jill being attacked by zombies and solving puzzles.  I was entranced!  7/03/22 Edited to add.  I've managed to get hold of this original 1996 version!  Played it live as Jill using no saves and just using a knife.  Go here. 



Then I played Tomb Raider, and I was even more blown away!  The haunting music, the satisfaction of figuring out the puzzles, completely exploring a level, only to then start a brand new level with more puzzles and exploring to do.  I loved it!



Those two games, the first two 3D games I ever played, have remained unsurpassed. Tomb Raider 2, Half Life (the 1st one) and Far Cry (the 1st one) were all excellent too, but not as good as those first 2 games.



Now I'm trying to play games such as Far Cry 3 etc (see me play Far Cry 3 here), but these more modern games just don't hold the same magic, and I get sick of playing them.  I don't know why, maybe because I'm older, but I suspect not so much thought has been put into these games to make them so entrancing.

How successful are people with high IQ's?

Reading the following article it says:

[M]any Termites failed to become highly successful in any intellectual capacity. These comparative failures were far less likely to graduate from college or to attain professional or graduate degrees, and far more likely to enter occupations that required no higher education whatsoever.

Termites = those with average IQ's of 151 at 11 years of age



Being successful in a capitalistic sense will presumable involve all sorts of factors of which IQ is only one small part. Equally essential is working hard at school, being ambitious, being able to get on with other people, being good looking, being gregarious and social. Most important of all is expressing views consonant with the prevailing consensus (i.e not rocking the boat). Otherwise you won't get promoted, or even land a prestigious job in the first place.



Also I'm not sure how far IQ reflects actual intelligence.



I have no idea why the author and so many others considers this to be remotely surprising.  Moreover, I do not get the impression that rich people and those with Ph.D's, tend, on average, to be particularly intelligent.  Regular readers of my 2 blogs (if there are any) will understand why I hold this view.

25/04/2020 Edited to add:  Another link that supports my contention here.

More on Stephen Hawking

I'm sick of hearing in the past few days that Hawking said that there's no role for God since the Universe can be explained by physical laws alone. How is his reasoning different from the following.


Let's suppose there were an experiment where a wad of £20 notes was placed on the ground outside.  We observe that every single person who see the notes stoop quickly down, put them in their pocket, and furtively look around.  So we can formulate a natural law that all human beings act this way.  There are certain patterns to their behaviour which always pertain.


Then a Hawking comes along and says we understand completely why £20 notes, initially lying on the ground, end up in peoples' pockets.  It's because of a law which says that when people see a wad of notes they will stoop down and place them in their pockets.  There is no need to appeal to any supernatural explanations -- that is there is no need to appeal to peoples' intentions, desires, motivations.


Obviously this reasoning is utterly asinine.  But it's *EXACTLY* the same as Hawking's reasoning! (as well as most scientists). 

More to Reality than what it seems?

I see no reason why there couldn't be something behind it all, some ultimate reason. That, after death, our existence might continue to adventures anew into new realities where everything comes right at the end and our hearts are filled with joy and happiness. Maybe, or maybe not, but I believe there's a damn sight more to reality than appears on the surface.

Stephen Hawking's last book

In his last book Brief Answers to the Big Questions Stephen Hawking said:

"No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in the afterlife is just wishful thinking.

It flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust".

So his "profound realisation" wasn't some sort of mystical insight, or moment of enlightenment, but rather because science tells us there's no God or an afterlife.



It might be convenient here to repeat what I've said in other blog posts on this science rules out an afterlife and God contention (in this blog see relevant posts here, here, here, here, here esp part 7, here and in my other blog see here, here).  Science deals exclusively with the quantifiable or measurable (at least currently). Consciousness cannot be quantified or measured. Hence consciousness, at least as science is currently conceived, escapes the purview of science. This is regardless of whether consciousness is embodied or whether there is any possible disembodied consciousness. As it stands science simply has nothing to say about whether consciousness could survive the death of our bodies. To contend otherwise is rather like somebody operating a metal detector making proclamations regarding the existence or non-existence of plastic, wood and rubber.



As for a "God", clearly it depends on one's conception of God. However, the regularities ("physical laws") describing the Universe could not possibly explain the existence of the Universe. This is simply to misunderstand what science does. How so?



Think of a computer game. In order to play a 3D game proficiently, we need to know how the game environment changes when the character moves and behaves in particular ways. The character you control who presses buttons in the game environment will cause certain things to happen in that environment. Shooting at certain spots will cause other things, such as "killing" a bot. And so on and so forth.



One can become extremely proficient at a game. Yet, at the same time, one might know absolutely nothing about what makes the game possible to exist in the first place, and why the game environment changes in the characteristic way it does. In other words, one might know nothing about the computer software, CPU's, RAM, or anything else about the underlying machinery of the computer, even though one might be better at the game than anyone else.



I submit that our science, together with the technology it has spawned, is analogous to playing a computer game proficiently. I submit, that is, that science deals exclusively with the patterns discerned in reality and how the world changes with particular actions on our parts. Similar to the game, science tells us absolutely nothing about the underlying machinery of reality. Science tells us nothing about how or why the world exists at all and why it has the particular physical laws it does. That is what metaphysics deals with. In particular, science could not possibly shed any light on a suitably sophisticated God.

Free trial of "Amazon Prime"

I was offered a free trial period of Amazon prime for 28 days. After that period they take money out of my account every month.



So I took up the offer, then immediately cancelled, so I simply get the 28 days for free then it ends. However, they don't like that!



I clicked the cancel prime link and it took me to a page saying "Ian, we'd hate for you to miss out on your unlimited one-day deliver". Then gave me 4 options -- keep membership, extend trial, decide later, cancel membership. So I clicked the cancel membership, to get another screen imploring me to extend my membership for 7 days for 99p. Another 4 options exactly the same. I click cancel my membership for a 3rd time. Took me to another page wanting me to confirm my cancellation offering me 3 options, again keep membership, remind me later, cancel membership. Eh?? Already clicked it 3 times! So I click cancel for the 4th time.



At last success! I get a yellow triangle with an exclamation mark alerting me that my prime will end on the 9th November (doesn't that give me 29.5 days rather than 28 . .not complaining, or perhaps I should, they might give me another 28 days for free).