Monthly Archives: September 2009

You Just Lost The Game

The Game seems like such a downer. You never win, you can only lose. You could describe the state of not losing as “winning”, but you never get to enjoy winning, and if you do, you lose.

That said, it’s a cool mind game. It’s a self-meta-game. Awesome.

Link: Wikipedia


Evolution Argument

EDIT: Since the original writing, I read of the scientific definition of “theory” (which I didn’t know to be distinct) and all this has been cleared up.  But I leave the post unchanged.  I’m not doing Winston Smith’s work.

Watching an interview between Richard Dawkins and Bill O’Reilly, I was intrigued by O’Reilly’s argument (paraphrased) that because evolution is a theory and so is creationism in whole or in part, that science classes should present each.

In those words, fair enough. If they’re still both theories, widely regarded ones at that, what’s to say they shouldn’t present multiple theories. It’s clear to me that one argument, with proven evidence toward it, is the better option. Consider it a victory for science in countries like ours that science has defended its evolution argument well enough that it’s presented as “the way”. In no way do I believe in creationism, so I wonder when theories graduate to ‘accepted fact’. What happened with gravity?

I wonder if it’s a good enough argument that in the past, human theories were strongly disproved (see Galileo), so without conclusive evidence, something will stay a theory. Could you argue that almost anything from the past must be a theory, because we don’t know for certain what happened? Even in human history, errors and intentional misrepresentations must have occurred taken place.

Do we as people need to accept theories as reality, just in order to have a basic grip on reality?

Link: Wikipedia


A while back, I watched a couple movies in one night: “Tank Girl” and “Happiness”.

Tank Girl was an obvious B-movie. Or maybe a C-movie. I didn’t like it much, so I started getting philosophical, if you can call it that, about the movie. For starters, was this movie an intentional B-movie? Or was it just poorly made? If it’s poorly made, but “works” as a B-movie, does that make it any less bad? Is that worse than intentionally being a B-movie? I know there are people who really enjoy B-movies, so it’s possible that filmmakers write low-budget films with this audience in mind. And maybe bad movies are rescued by B-movie likers, to some extent.

Back to Tank Girl, I thought in-depth about the individual scenes, directing decisions, and so on. If I’d had a pen at the time, I might have considered writing down more of these specific thoughts. I kind of enjoyed the metamovie.

Happiness was a movie about sexual dysfunction. It was kind of unsettling at parts, like when the pedophile father tries to slip his son’s friend a sedative. I don’t get uncomfortable by much, but this hit a “wrongness” level that made me not want to watch. There were some metamovie moments here, too, like when the father gives his son the sex talk, I thought about how awkward it would be, as an actor, to give the sex talk.