I cannot describe how much I love bread. I just ate some, it was wonderful.
I seriously think I could survive on just bread.
I don't know why I love it so much. I love it in any form.
Twice in my life I have received a loaf of bread instead of a birthday cake.
In my second year of uni, I ate roughly a loaf of bread every day.
I was once challenged to see how many slices I could fit in my mouth without swallowing. I did seven. Ok, so that's not really about my love of bread, but it was funny.
Bread is seriously awesome.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Catan mind games
The Settlers of Catan, and its associated add-ons, is, by a mile, my favourite board game. Without going into much detail, what I love is the luck/skill balance – it’s essentially a skill-based game, but with enough of a luck element to make things interesting (as opposed to chess which is pure skill, or Monopoly which has some skill but is mostly luck). So that’s why I love Catan.
At least, that was my view until recently.
This year (i.e. 2009) I have played about 15-20 games of Catan. I have won 2. In about 3, I have made silly mistakes. In a few, I played well but was outplayed by another player. In several, I simply got unlucky. I don’t intend this as a moan or whinge or excuse, but some games were actually ridiculous in terms of the luck. This has been frustrating. In many games this year, I have played superbly, possibly flawlessly, and not won, because of the luck element (i.e. dice rolls). In these games I have been satisfied with my performance, if not with the result.
Now, many people say that they don’t mind losing a game (of Catan, or football, or anything else) if they are beaten by a better player or team. I have always disagreed with this. I would much rather lose having played poorly, because then I know I can improve and do better next time. I hate losing when there is nothing I can do about it. Therefore, some of these Catan experiences have been quite painful for me!
Why do I keep playing? Because of the joy of the game itself, regardless of the outcome. Recently, I have come to realise what I really love about Catan. It’s not the skill/luck balance (because, as I have found, this is still biased towards the luck too much for my liking). What I love more is the player interaction. Whether it’s as simple as trading, or as aggressive as trying to influence robber placement, or as devious as offering trades before playing a monopoly, the player interaction and game psychology is huge.
Two days ago, myself and a friend devised a new addition to playing Catan. We thought it would be interesting to keep score of the psychological battles (phsych-outs) that occur during a game of Catan. Each player would independently and secretly note down the phsych-out points each player wins and loses through the course of the game. At the end, they would compare notes to see if they agreed on the player who won the most mind-games. It would also be interesting to see if this person won the Catan game as well.
Players might win points for:
Successfully persuading an opponent to place the robber in a certain place.
Successfully stealing a desired card from an opponent against the odds.
Trading away cards and then monopolising them back.
Winning a race for road or settlement placement.
Building a settlement to disrupt the longest road.
Stealing a metropolis.
Many other things, I’m sure…
Of course, the vital skill of tactical complaining would come into play as part of this.
I think this would be a lot of fun to try, as the mind-games and psychological side of the game is massive. The player interaction is unlike any other game I have played. So when I lose, even when I can do nothing about it, I always enjoy trying to phsych people out.
At least, that was my view until recently.
This year (i.e. 2009) I have played about 15-20 games of Catan. I have won 2. In about 3, I have made silly mistakes. In a few, I played well but was outplayed by another player. In several, I simply got unlucky. I don’t intend this as a moan or whinge or excuse, but some games were actually ridiculous in terms of the luck. This has been frustrating. In many games this year, I have played superbly, possibly flawlessly, and not won, because of the luck element (i.e. dice rolls). In these games I have been satisfied with my performance, if not with the result.
Now, many people say that they don’t mind losing a game (of Catan, or football, or anything else) if they are beaten by a better player or team. I have always disagreed with this. I would much rather lose having played poorly, because then I know I can improve and do better next time. I hate losing when there is nothing I can do about it. Therefore, some of these Catan experiences have been quite painful for me!
Why do I keep playing? Because of the joy of the game itself, regardless of the outcome. Recently, I have come to realise what I really love about Catan. It’s not the skill/luck balance (because, as I have found, this is still biased towards the luck too much for my liking). What I love more is the player interaction. Whether it’s as simple as trading, or as aggressive as trying to influence robber placement, or as devious as offering trades before playing a monopoly, the player interaction and game psychology is huge.
Two days ago, myself and a friend devised a new addition to playing Catan. We thought it would be interesting to keep score of the psychological battles (phsych-outs) that occur during a game of Catan. Each player would independently and secretly note down the phsych-out points each player wins and loses through the course of the game. At the end, they would compare notes to see if they agreed on the player who won the most mind-games. It would also be interesting to see if this person won the Catan game as well.
Players might win points for:
Successfully persuading an opponent to place the robber in a certain place.
Successfully stealing a desired card from an opponent against the odds.
Trading away cards and then monopolising them back.
Winning a race for road or settlement placement.
Building a settlement to disrupt the longest road.
Stealing a metropolis.
Many other things, I’m sure…
Of course, the vital skill of tactical complaining would come into play as part of this.
I think this would be a lot of fun to try, as the mind-games and psychological side of the game is massive. The player interaction is unlike any other game I have played. So when I lose, even when I can do nothing about it, I always enjoy trying to phsych people out.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Cyborgs and the Kingdom of God
I went to a Christians in Science conference last weekend. The theme was ‘What does it mean to be human’. Talks covered various topic around this theme, but one in particular was quite…wacky. There’s no other word for it. It was a talk full of ‘ifs’, but nonetheless it sparked all sorts of thoughts. It’s mostly hypothetical at the moment, but probably won’t always be.
Here is a summary.
What makes humans special or unique amongst living organisms?
Self-consciousness? This isn’t unique to us. Dolphins and chimps, at least, can recognise themselves in a mirror.
What makes someone a ‘person'?
Individual substance? Then what about conjoined twins?
The capability of valuing existence? Then what about suicidal tendencies?
Moving on…
We define ‘human’ biologically – the human species, Homo sapiens.
Would clones count as Homo sapiens? Presumably so. What about hybrids?
Going further, what about what we might call ‘Techno sapiens’? Imagine a person receives a bionic eye to restore vision. Surely this wouldn’t discount them from the species. Bionic arms or legs? I think not. Bionic organs?
How far can we go? What if a person received so many technological additions, for whatever reason (obviously hypothetical at this time), that they were mostly machine? We’re basically talking cyborgs here.
Ok then, artificial intelligence. Could that count as human? Biologically, no, but theologically? If a form of AI was sentient and moral, capable o normal human activity and relationships, could it count as human? Could it have a relationship with God? I can’t think of a better example than Kryten from Red Dwarf at this point!
Aliens? Extraterrestrial life, if it exists, and if sufficiently advanced, could surely be capable of a relationship with God.
Or even enhanced animals. If, say, dolphins or chimps were enhanced to make them human-like, would that count?
Some closing thoughts:
Imago Dei, the image of God, is surely beyond the physical.
An embryo is a potential human being, given the right conditions.
A machine (in a possible future) is a potential human being, given the right conditions.
Is this true?
The idea of Techno sapiens, or cyborgs, is so much the Kingdom of God. The lame walk, the blind see…just with the help of technology.
Could a robot (AI) sin? Or be redeemed? Would ‘extra-terrans’ (enhanced chimps) be spiritually aware?
Jesus had relationships outside the norm…Samaritans, lepers etc…should we be embracing these new forms of life?
Here is a summary.
What makes humans special or unique amongst living organisms?
Self-consciousness? This isn’t unique to us. Dolphins and chimps, at least, can recognise themselves in a mirror.
What makes someone a ‘person'?
Individual substance? Then what about conjoined twins?
The capability of valuing existence? Then what about suicidal tendencies?
Moving on…
We define ‘human’ biologically – the human species, Homo sapiens.
Would clones count as Homo sapiens? Presumably so. What about hybrids?
Going further, what about what we might call ‘Techno sapiens’? Imagine a person receives a bionic eye to restore vision. Surely this wouldn’t discount them from the species. Bionic arms or legs? I think not. Bionic organs?
How far can we go? What if a person received so many technological additions, for whatever reason (obviously hypothetical at this time), that they were mostly machine? We’re basically talking cyborgs here.
Ok then, artificial intelligence. Could that count as human? Biologically, no, but theologically? If a form of AI was sentient and moral, capable o normal human activity and relationships, could it count as human? Could it have a relationship with God? I can’t think of a better example than Kryten from Red Dwarf at this point!
Aliens? Extraterrestrial life, if it exists, and if sufficiently advanced, could surely be capable of a relationship with God.
Or even enhanced animals. If, say, dolphins or chimps were enhanced to make them human-like, would that count?
Some closing thoughts:
Imago Dei, the image of God, is surely beyond the physical.
An embryo is a potential human being, given the right conditions.
A machine (in a possible future) is a potential human being, given the right conditions.
Is this true?
The idea of Techno sapiens, or cyborgs, is so much the Kingdom of God. The lame walk, the blind see…just with the help of technology.
Could a robot (AI) sin? Or be redeemed? Would ‘extra-terrans’ (enhanced chimps) be spiritually aware?
Jesus had relationships outside the norm…Samaritans, lepers etc…should we be embracing these new forms of life?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Comic Relief
Some brief thoughts on comic relief:
1. It's a great cause.
2. The show is often funny (though also often lame).
3. The celebrities and hosts generally really annoy me.
4. It's a good thing because it does have an impact on people and it raises a lot of money.
5. But is no-one else quite appalled that it takes something like this to persuade people to take notice of the rest of the world and give some money to help, before forgetting about it all for another year?
1. It's a great cause.
2. The show is often funny (though also often lame).
3. The celebrities and hosts generally really annoy me.
4. It's a good thing because it does have an impact on people and it raises a lot of money.
5. But is no-one else quite appalled that it takes something like this to persuade people to take notice of the rest of the world and give some money to help, before forgetting about it all for another year?
25 pieces of useless information about me
A couple of weeks ago there was a craze on Facebook of writing a list of 25 facts about yourself. This is mine, in no particular order.
1. I love the Harry Potter books. With an equal passion, I hate the films. I even blogged about it once.
2. When I was a teenager, I went to a Christian summer camp called Hebron. Since getting to old for it, I’ve been a leader there. It is the highlight of my year. I cannot describe how important Hebron is to me.
3. I live in a house with ten other people. This is both hard and wonderful.
4. I think teenagers are so much more interesting than adults. That’s part of why I’m a teacher.
5. I really can’t stand overconsiderate drivers. The ones who slow down to let a pedestrian cross the road, and in doing so hold up an entire flow of traffic. I want to scream the meaning and importance of ‘right of way’ in their face.
6. I am very fussy about films. I don’t think most films are very good at all. My most hated film is Ocean’s 12, followed by Love Actually.
7. I blog at http://benbo-baggins.blogspot.com/ and have done so for just over a year. I blog about lots of different things.
8. I am currently studying for a masters in education, focusing on the effects of Christianity, creationism and scientism on pupils’ attitudes towards science.
9. I’m not that skillful at sport. I am able to perform capably in sports because I am very fast, not because I am skillful.
10. My favourite kids TV program, and possibly favourite program of any kind, is The Legend of Prince Valiant.
11. I used to be very into Ancient Egypt, and wanted to be an Egyptologist. At 24 years old, my room at home is still decorated in an Egyptian style.
12. I don’t drink tea or coffee.
13. I like listening to music. Occasionally I get so into music that I burst into, not song, but air drumming. Even while I’m driving, which is interesting.
14. I love the Lord of the Rings film. I think that it is easily the best film ever made – approximately 4 times as good as the nearest contender. I believe that this is a matter of fact, not opinion.
15. One of the best things about sport is watching athletics on the BBC and listening to Michael Johnson as a pundit. If I could be as cool or as wise as him, I would be very happy.
16. I lived in London until I was 10, and have been back many times since. I love it, and think there’s no better city in the world (admittedly I’ve only been to Paris, Rome and Bergen (in Norway)) and I would like to live there someday.
17. I follow a blog at Nailscars.com. I stumbled across it randomly one day, and now read it every couple of days.
18. I used to play the trombone. I got to grade 8 standard. My trombone teacher was the trombonist in Les Mis in the West End.
19. I have no historical figures as heroes, but I currently have 9 pictures above my desk of people to whom I feel indebted in my life. I guess they are my heroes.
20. I once flipped 38 beer mats.
21. I hate iTunes. I hate the way it organises music, both in the player and the files themselves. I also dislike Apple advertising – how people put ‘i’ in front of a product to make it sound cool. Like iPlayer – the main thing I don’t like about the BBC.
22. If dared to do something, I struggle to resist.
23. I can touch the top of my left ear, with my left hand, having wound my left arm all the way over the top of my head and under my chin.
24. I hate small talk. If I try to explain why, I will get angry.
25. Kelly Sotherton breaks my heart every time. If she ever gets a gold, it will be one of the happiest days of my life.
1. I love the Harry Potter books. With an equal passion, I hate the films. I even blogged about it once.
2. When I was a teenager, I went to a Christian summer camp called Hebron. Since getting to old for it, I’ve been a leader there. It is the highlight of my year. I cannot describe how important Hebron is to me.
3. I live in a house with ten other people. This is both hard and wonderful.
4. I think teenagers are so much more interesting than adults. That’s part of why I’m a teacher.
5. I really can’t stand overconsiderate drivers. The ones who slow down to let a pedestrian cross the road, and in doing so hold up an entire flow of traffic. I want to scream the meaning and importance of ‘right of way’ in their face.
6. I am very fussy about films. I don’t think most films are very good at all. My most hated film is Ocean’s 12, followed by Love Actually.
7. I blog at http://benbo-baggins.blogspot.com/ and have done so for just over a year. I blog about lots of different things.
8. I am currently studying for a masters in education, focusing on the effects of Christianity, creationism and scientism on pupils’ attitudes towards science.
9. I’m not that skillful at sport. I am able to perform capably in sports because I am very fast, not because I am skillful.
10. My favourite kids TV program, and possibly favourite program of any kind, is The Legend of Prince Valiant.
11. I used to be very into Ancient Egypt, and wanted to be an Egyptologist. At 24 years old, my room at home is still decorated in an Egyptian style.
12. I don’t drink tea or coffee.
13. I like listening to music. Occasionally I get so into music that I burst into, not song, but air drumming. Even while I’m driving, which is interesting.
14. I love the Lord of the Rings film. I think that it is easily the best film ever made – approximately 4 times as good as the nearest contender. I believe that this is a matter of fact, not opinion.
15. One of the best things about sport is watching athletics on the BBC and listening to Michael Johnson as a pundit. If I could be as cool or as wise as him, I would be very happy.
16. I lived in London until I was 10, and have been back many times since. I love it, and think there’s no better city in the world (admittedly I’ve only been to Paris, Rome and Bergen (in Norway)) and I would like to live there someday.
17. I follow a blog at Nailscars.com. I stumbled across it randomly one day, and now read it every couple of days.
18. I used to play the trombone. I got to grade 8 standard. My trombone teacher was the trombonist in Les Mis in the West End.
19. I have no historical figures as heroes, but I currently have 9 pictures above my desk of people to whom I feel indebted in my life. I guess they are my heroes.
20. I once flipped 38 beer mats.
21. I hate iTunes. I hate the way it organises music, both in the player and the files themselves. I also dislike Apple advertising – how people put ‘i’ in front of a product to make it sound cool. Like iPlayer – the main thing I don’t like about the BBC.
22. If dared to do something, I struggle to resist.
23. I can touch the top of my left ear, with my left hand, having wound my left arm all the way over the top of my head and under my chin.
24. I hate small talk. If I try to explain why, I will get angry.
25. Kelly Sotherton breaks my heart every time. If she ever gets a gold, it will be one of the happiest days of my life.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
An amendment to the law of least love
The law of least love, coined by Willard Waller, says that in any relationship one person will love more than the other, and that this person has the least power in the relationship. Or, the person who loves least has the most power to hurt the other.
I agree with this.
It does imply that love is a quantity that can be measured, which is an interesting concept, but drifting over that...
I think some people are capable of more love than other people. Some people just have more love to give. Let's say that person A has 100 love units while person B has only 10. Person A is a much more loving person than person B. In their relationship, person B contributes all 10 of their love units, while person A only contributes 12 of theirs. Although person A contributes more love when measured in absolute terms, person B contributes more in relative terms (100% compared to A's 12%).
So, in this relationship, who loves more, and who has the more power to hurt?
Even though person A contributes more love in absolute terms, surely they are not really investing that much in this relationship. They are a much more loving person in general than person B, but they don't really love person B that much. Person B, on the other hand is not a very loving person in general, but the love that they do have, they invest in this relationship.
So surely in this relationship, person B loves more, so person A loves least and has the most power to hurt.
My amendment to the law of least love would be this to make it clear that some people love more in general (they are just more loving people), but it is the relative love in the relationship that determines who loves least (and more), and who holds the power.
I agree with this.
It does imply that love is a quantity that can be measured, which is an interesting concept, but drifting over that...
I think some people are capable of more love than other people. Some people just have more love to give. Let's say that person A has 100 love units while person B has only 10. Person A is a much more loving person than person B. In their relationship, person B contributes all 10 of their love units, while person A only contributes 12 of theirs. Although person A contributes more love when measured in absolute terms, person B contributes more in relative terms (100% compared to A's 12%).
So, in this relationship, who loves more, and who has the more power to hurt?
Even though person A contributes more love in absolute terms, surely they are not really investing that much in this relationship. They are a much more loving person in general than person B, but they don't really love person B that much. Person B, on the other hand is not a very loving person in general, but the love that they do have, they invest in this relationship.
So surely in this relationship, person B loves more, so person A loves least and has the most power to hurt.
My amendment to the law of least love would be this to make it clear that some people love more in general (they are just more loving people), but it is the relative love in the relationship that determines who loves least (and more), and who holds the power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)