Noesis

The Journal of the Mega Society

July 2004 Issue 171

Officers

Editor and Publisher: Ron Yannone

189 Ash Street #2

Nashua, NH 03060

Administrator: Jeff Ward

13155 Wimberly Square

San Diego, CA 92128

Internet Officer: Kevin Langdon

P.O. Box 795

Berkeley, CA 94701

Founder: Ronald K. Hoeflin

P.O. Box 539

New York, NY 10101

no·e·sis – Greek Þ understanding – to perceive. Psychology Þ the cognitive process

The Mega Society was founded in 1982 and has been documented in the GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS during the 1980s as the most exclusive society. Mega means million and denotes the one-in-a-million status of its members. Presently, the only viable adult-level admissions test is the Titan Test, developed by its founder, Ron Hoeflin – where 43/48 correct answers corresponds to the minimum accepted IQ level of 176. See www.megasociety.org Since its GUINNESS “distinction” in the 1980’s, the Mega Society with its 99.9999 percentile member status, remains “the most elite ultra-high IQ Society.”

Editorial Introduction to NOESIS Issue #171 – July 2004

Welcome to the July issue of Noesis. I hope your summer plans are coming to fruition.

In this issue, we start with a fascinating offering through the WFF ‘N PROOF series called the Propaganda Game. We are all aware that propaganda was big during WWII – and chills run up and down our spines at the thought of it all. But what is amazing is propaganda engulfs each of our lives today – even when no one else may be around us! Lorne Greene (from the famous 1960s television series Bonanza) and Robert W. Allen developed the thought-provoking game based on a book by George Henry Moulds. This article is educational, introspective, and definitely an eye-opener!

Our Hope for the Future: “Our only real hope for the future is whatever we may have for the past.” Mega Society member – Richard May [Email received June 26, 2004 – one-liner]

The second item in this issue is a short donation by Richard May titled “Evolutionary Emergence of Cyber-Informational Organisms.” On the same page, based on our June [#170] issue of Noesis, are Review Questions on the Declaration of Independence.
 
Do you have any fears? We next develop an intense, thought-provoking matching test titled Phobophobia.
 
We covered some fabulous facts in earlier issues of Noesis. Here we continue with the most recent tallest building – and some of its fascinating features that will inspire our youth to consider an education in a diversity of science and engineering disciplines.

Next, our Mega Society member with physics education at Harvard and Caltech, Chris Cole, shares a personal treatise titled “Is Wolfram Right? Cellular Automata and Artificial Intelligence V.” Chris Cole has been a bulwark in the Noesis article arsenal since he became a member of the Mega Society. A hearty “Thank-You” to you Chris!

I have a great appreciation for Germany. The quality craftsmanship of their products, the sense of discipline in their demeanor, and their culture are captivating! I subscribe to German Life magazine, and in the December 2002/January 2003 issue, there were several excellent Christmas-related articles. One article was by Betsy Hills Bush, President of Drosselmeiers – Handcrafted Treasures from the Land of the Nutcrackers. I sent Betsy the Mega Society URL, and within hours, Betsy replied that she would be honored to have her article appear in Noesis, titled: Seiffen: The Village at the Heart of Christmas. Avid readers - now is the time to consider Christmas shopping!

And as such, I share the items I purchased from Betsy Bush since January 2003, via a second article. The Mueller had-crafted King Nutcracker (limited edition) in natural woods took a couple of months to handcraft and ship; and is constructed from 55 separate pieces!

Next, media contact Mark Wheeler at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) provided permission to use two very diverse and interesting articles – (1) “’Minis’ Have Mega Impact in the Brain” and (2) “Running with Genomics.” Race-horse advocates will love this second article.

Our June issue covered some of the challenges facing the National Security Agency (NSA). Here, we share an excerpt from Jim Bamford’s thrilling inside look of the NSA in his book titled Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. The article is an excerpt on NSA’s computer technology accomplishments and goals. The book Body of Secrets is a National Bestseller, and NSA supported Jim on writing it!

In Jim Bamford’s book Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, there are cipher problems at the beginning of each of the 14 chapters. These are captured for our codebreakers and provide mental gymnastics to all readers! Solutions are found elsewhere in this issue.

Every hour many children are abducted in the United States. Each reader of Noesis knows children in their neighborhood, family, possibly by being a relative (grandparent, uncle, stepfather, etc.). I really appreciated the articles in Private Investigator (PI) magazine – particularly the one by editor, Don Johnson, titled: “Stranger Abductions: Private Investigators can Impact Predatory Kidnapping Cases.” After contacting Don, he readily volunteered this recent article in PI magazine for publication in Noesis. I know our readers, and those they know, will appreciate the many useful parts of the article, one of which are the Resources for Law Enforcement and the Families of Missing Children at the end of the article. Be sure to paste this information where you have easy access to it.

Next, Ellen Simon from the Associated Press, shares an alarming “security concern” titled: “Coke Promotion Prompts Security Measures.” As the jingle goes “It’s the r-e-a-l thing.”

Next, by popular demand, we share Encouraging Quotes that I’ve collected over a period of time – which will be a continual, reusable boost to you and those you know and love.

Water is more valuable than many realize. The article “Water, Water Everywhere, But Nary a Drop to Drink” by Don Walsh presented in the Naval Institute’s PROCEEDINGS magazine will get your mind running in multiple directions – one of which may be alternate solutions you may develop to the problem posed.

Next, prolific writer and our Australian Mega Society member Chris Harding, sent a Letter to the Editor in the area of High-end IQ Test Discrimination – on CD by Pony Express (that arrived after about 11 days ‘travel’ July 16^th).

We close with four copyrighted poems by energetic subscriber Paul Maxim (from the Big Apple) titled: (1) Game Plan, (2) The Power of Suggestion, (3) CRONOS, and (4) Catastrophic. Paul’s poems were not provided to me in Microsoft WORD, and as such, are being mailed by Pony Express to our avid Noesis readers. It is possible, and hoped, that Internet Officer Kevin Langdon, will scan these poems in so the archived “soft copy” of Noesis issue #171 (July - 2004) on the Mega Society website (www.MegaSociety.org) will remain complete.

Email (July 8^th and 9th, 2004) from our puzzle expert from Belgium, Albert Frank, is presented below:

Hi Ron,

The Ludomind society has a new website: http://www.ludomind.gui.pro.br/

Maybe you could announce that in Noesis, it would be great!)

The results from the Fourth International Contest of Logical Problems have been compiled. I was a little disappointed – as nobody from the Mega Society participated. Of course, the test was very difficult, that's why I hoped people with very-high IQs would participate . . .

There were 14 participants. The highest score (winner) was 12/20 (his IQ, in several tests, is about 4.25 s.d.) Then the results go down in an incredible way:

6.5 5.5 5 and 10 participants with a score < 4 ...

Cheers, Albert

-------------------------------------

We decided not to publish the answers. Six questions where solved correctly by nobody. The participants received, individually, only their score - so they don't know what they did correctly. So, most of the questions can be utilized in another contest, maybe even in a test. For example, question 8 is very difficult, requires only pure logical thinking to be solved and was solved by nobody!

What do think about this?

Albert

Albert Frank’s infamous problem #8, is reconstructed here for our avid problem-solving readers.

PROBLEM 8: In a building, there is a hexagonal room with one door on each wall. Each door provides a way to a different room (six rooms in addition to the hexagonal one). Seen from the interior all of the six rooms are absolutely identical in content and dimension. They are empty except for a light bulb on the ceiling. (All bulbs are identical and have only two states (lit or extinguished). The four walls inside each room are smooth and white with a door on one of the walls opening to the central room. The rooms are completely insulated with nothing leaving the room unless the door is opened. (There is no keyhole, no sound escapes, etc..) In front of each door, seen from the central room, is a button (a total of six buttons). There is no interaction between buttons. The hexagonal room is not affected by the action of the buttons; the hexagonal room is not important to the problem. A person must discover the function of each button with regard to its associated room. One does not know beforehand if the light in the room is on or off. (The rooms may be in different states at the beginning). Each button can be actuated only one time and remains blocked thereafter. The person can not actuate the button after having entered a room (that would be too easy). In each room there is a sheet of paper and a pencil; the person must write what is discovered before going out of the room. The doors are marked with a unique number from 1 to 6 and one must start with door 1. A person must approach the first button, press it and enter the room. He then must document the function of that button. He then must leave and approach the second button, press it, enter the second room, and document the function of the second button. He must proceed in this way through the third, the fourth, and the fifth. He must finish with the sixth to complete the task. Given that the explanation for each event will be different and the observations are always correct, what must be the outcome of the sixth button?

NOESIS Journal – July 2004 – Issue #171

CONTENTS
#	TITLE	AUTHOR	PAGE
1	The Propaganda Game	Allen & Greene	6
2	Evolutionary Emergence of Cyber-Informational Organisms	Richard May	13
3	Review Questions on the Declaration of Independence	Editor	13
4	Phobophobia	Editor	14
5	Most Recent Tallest Building	Pat Hadenius	15
6	Is Wolfram Right? Cellular Automata and Artificial Intelligence V	Chris Cole	16
7	Phobophobia - Answers	Editor	19
8	Seiffen: The Village at the Heart of Christmas	Betsy Hills Bush	20
9	Drosselmeiers – Handcrafted Treasures from the Land of Nutcrackers	Editor	24
10	“Minis” Have Mega Impact in the Brain	Caltech Media	26
11	Running with Genomics	Carlo Quiñónez	28
12	NSA’s “Brain” Power	James Bamford	32
13	Cipher Problems from “Body of Secrets”	James Bamford	37
14	Stranger Abductions: Private Investigators can Impact Predatory Kidnapping Cases	Don Johnson	40
15	Review Questions on the Declaration of Independence – Answers	Editor	45
16	Cipher Solutions from “Body of Secrets”	James Bamford	46
17	Coke Promotion Prompts Security Measures	Ellen Simon	48
18	Encouraging Quotes	Editor	50
19	Water, Water Everywhere, But Nary a Drop to Drink	Don Walsh	52
20	High-end IQ Test Discrimination	Chris Harding	54
21	Game Plan	Paul Maxim	55
22	The Power of Suggestion	Paul Maxim	56
23	CRONOS	Paul Maxim	57
24	Catastrophic	Paul Maxim	58

The Propaganda Game

by Editor, Robert W. Allen, Lorne Greene, and George Henry Moulds

In the Noesis May issue #169, we introduced our readers to Dr. Layman E. Allen’s WFF ‘N PROOF and Equations games. These games are part of the bouquet of mind-stimulating gifts offered at the URL http://www.wff-n-proof.com/ . Another very different, and interesting item available, is The PROPAGANDA Game by Robert W. Allen, Lorne Greene, and George Henry Moulds. Bob Allen and Lorne Greene developed the game based on the book “Thinking Straighter” by George Henry Moulds. The game came out in 1966 by AIM (Autolectic Instructional Materials) Publishers, New Haven, CT.

The purpose of this article is to introduce our readers to the general area of propaganda, the goals of this game, and summarize sample snapshots of some of the 55 techniques. To whet the reader’s appetite, we list The PROPAGANDA Game techniques below in Table 1.

Table 1 – The Propaganda Game Techniques
Section A - Techniques of Self-Deception 1. Prejudice 2. Academic Detachment 3. Drawing the Line 4. Not Drawing the Line 5. Conservatism, Radicalism, Moderatism 6. Rationalization 7. Wishful Thinking 8. Tabloid Thinking 9. Causal Oversimplication 10. Inconceivability	Section B - Techniques of Language 1. Emotional Terms 2. Metaphor and Simile 3. Emphasis 4. Quotation Out of Context 5. Abstract Terms 6. Vagueness 7. Ambiguity 8. Shift of Meaning
Section C - Techniques of Irrelevance 1. Appearance 2. Manner 3. Degrees and Titles 4. Numbers 5. Status 6. Repetition 7. Slogans 8. Technical Jargon 9. Sophistical Formula	Section D - Techniques of Exploitation 1. Appeal to Pity 2. Appeal to Flattery 3. Appeal to Ridicule 4. Appeal to Prestige 5. Appeal to Prejudice 6. Bargain Appeal 7. Folksy Appeal 8. Join the Bandwagon Appeal 9. Appeal to Practical Consequences 10. Passing from the Acceptable to the Dubious
Section E - Techniques of Form 1. Concurrency 2. Post Hoc 3. Selected Instances 4. Hasty Generalization 5. Faulty Analogy 6. Composition 7. Division 8. Non Sequitur	Section F - Techniques of Maneuver 1. Diversion 2. Disproving a Minor Point 3. Ad Hominem 4. Appeal to Ignorance 5. Leading Question 6. Complex Question 7. Inconsequent Argument 8. Attacking a Straw Man 9. Victory by Definition 10. Begging the Question

We pull from the game manual – written in the early 1960s. We hope readers will desire to purchase The Propaganda Game for themselves, loved ones, and friends. The kit consists of a case, one rule book, four technique cards, one scoring table, and forty example cards. The objective of the game is to determine clear thinking. Players are placed in groups of threes and fours. Examples of propaganda are cited and the players attempt to determine propaganda techniques. Scoring is charted on a special table. The game has been used on the secondary, undergraduate, and graduate levels – always with a high degree of success. Slower players relish the game, and as an added advantage, the sophistication of the game is correlated to the gaming abilities of individual players.

Introduction (p.1-2): Propaganda is a subject of great concern in our society today, perhaps more so than in any other society in history. With the advent of television as a complement to other communications media now available to us, the opportunities to use propaganda in disseminating information, expounding ideas, and offering opinions have increased considerably. And, unfortunately, it is far too often the case that propaganda is used to make us accept questionable points-of-view, to make us vote for men who may be unfit for public office, and to make us buy products which are useless and sometimes even dangerous. Therefore, propaganda, or the method of influencing people to believe certain ideas and to follow certain courses of action, is of special importance to each of us.

The word “propaganda” comes from the Latin phrase “Congregatio de Propaganda Fide,” or “Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith,” a committee formed early in the Roman Catholic Church, whose function it is to aid the propagation or spread of the church doctrine throughout the world (World Book Encyclopedia, 1962, Volume 14, pages 725-727). Propaganda plays a dynamic, positive role in the daily lives of many men. Actors, preachers, teachers, politicians, editors, advertisers, salesmen, reformers, authors, artists, parents – our friends and even ourselves – practice the art of persuasion. And each of us, as we attempt to put our ideas across to others, to persuade them to agree with our way of thinking, is, in a sense, acting in the ancient Roman tradition of the word; we are all missionaries for our causes.

Propaganda, as we know it today, can be a nefarious as well as noble art. For at one moment its techniques can be used to whip up racial hatred among groups of people; at another moment, its methods can be employed to move persons to acts of warmth and kindness. It is important, therefore, that we consider a person’s motive for using a propaganda technique, as well as understanding that a technique has been used.

Often, the ideas or facts we wish to convey are linked with words about which everyone has some emotional feeling – words such as ‘mother,’ ‘home,’ ‘beauty,’ ‘love’ or cruelty,’ ‘murder’ or ‘death’ – since both hostile and loving emotions are part of us all. But just as there is a place for emotional feeling in men, so also there is a place for more dispassionate thinking. In a democratic society it is the role of every citizen to make decisions after evaluating many ideas. It is especially important then that a citizen be able to think clearly about the ideas that are daily presented to him. It is imperative that he be able to analyze and distinguish between the emotional aura surrounding the ideas, and the actual content of the idea. To this goal of clear thinking the game of PROPAGANDA addresses itself.

PROPAGANDA has been designed to introduce the players to some of the techniques used to distort the thinking process. However, one should not be deceived into thinking that familiarity with the subject matter in this game qualifies him as an expert thinker. PROPAGANDA should be regarded as an introduction to, rather than a completed course in, clear thinking.

A number of cautions need to be observed as one gains a better understanding of propaganda techniques. Many times defects in argument occur innocently. This is particularly true in discussions involving families, associates, and/or close friends. Although it is hoped that your awareness of the principles and practices of propaganda will be employed in your everyday approach to problem analysis, it is recommended that you “go slow” in correcting others. No one likes to be branded publicly as an illogical fool. Also, just because a labeled technique can be attached to an argument, that argument is not necessarily invalid. Finally, it is not the aim of the authors that the PROPAGANDA GAME encourage youngsters and adults to become cynical and unduly suspicious of everything that is said and written, but rather that they become aware of the emotional overtones in all arguments and suggestions, and thus gain more thoughtful control over their responses to the multitude of ideas that they encounter daily.

One of the major skills involved in the play of PROPAGANDA is that of attempting to identify propaganda techniques. Although the authors have attempted to construct examples in which a single propaganda technique stands out, it is realized that in many of the examples, the players of the game will have divergent opinions about techniques employed. Indeed, differences of opinion and ensuing discussions are what is hoped for. In order to arbitrate differences of opinion and to offer what is hopefully a consistent, well-thought-out viewpoint, the authors have provided their opinions on each example. However, it would be tragic if the players blindly accepted the authors’ opinion in all cases (if this were always the case, the players would in effect be victims of our propaganda). Therefore the Prediction Rule (See Prediction Rule on page 4 of the game manual) has been built into the game. The players are to label the examples based upon how they predict the authors have labeled the examples in terms of the definitions of the techniques in the game manual.

▶ In what follows in this article are a several technique examples (that were summarized in Table 1 earlier in this article) from the game manual Section III – Explanation of Techniques. These examples should whet the reader’s appetite to desire to purchase The Propaganda Game for themselves, family, friends, and loved ones.

Example 1

SECTION A: Habits of Reflective Procedure (Techniques of Self-Deception)

Technique: Prejudice

Example: Nathanael asked (referring to Jesus): “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” and thus indicated his prejudice against Jesus’ home town.

Meaning: A prejudice is an unwillingness to examine fairly the evidence and reasoning in behalf of the person or thing which is the object of the prejudice. It is a prejudgment caused by indoctrination, conditioning, or some prior experience of a singularly pleasant or unpleasant character. A prejudice has strong and deep emotional support.

In discussing Prejudice here we are not talking of appeals to known prejudices. These are made from without, as by an advertising man, a salesman, or a politician. Rather, our interest is how your own Prejudice, unaided by outside support, victimizes you.

Prejudice differs from Hasty Generalization (another of the 55 techniques covered) in that although Hasty Generalization often represents a spontaneous emotional reaction, Prejudice is always a matter of much longer standing. The feeling that operates in the latter case is deep, not superficial, and is often completely hidden from the man in its grip.

Example 2

SECTION A: Habits of Reflective Procedure (Techniques of Self-Deception)

Technique: Casual Oversimplification

Example: “If it were not for the ammunition makers, we would never have wars.”

Meaning: A complex event is explained by references to only one or two probable causes whereas many are responsible.

Example 3

SECTION B: Watch Their Language – And Yours Too (Techniques of Language)

Technique: Metaphor and Simile

Example: Metaphor – “Napoleon was a fox.” Simile – “Napoleon was like a fox.”

Meaning: A metaphor is a comparison implied but not definitely stated. In the case of simile the comparison is explicitly stated by means of such words as “like” or “as.” In controversial situations the employment of metaphor or simile is to be avoided because such figures of speech are apt to suggest likenesses not really intended or not actually present. Napoleon was not actually a fox. He may have been like one, but if so, was it with respect to shrewdness or thievery or both or neither?

Example 4

SECTION B: Watch Their Language – And Yours Too (Techniques of Language)

Technique: Ambiguity

Example: Joe says, “Henry likes pudding better than his wife.” And one or more people hearing him are left wondering whether Henry likes pudding better than he likes his wife or if Henry likes pudding more than his wife does.

Meaning: A word or phrase is ambiguous if in the mind of a hearer or reader it has two or more quite different meanings and the interpreter is uncertain as to which was really meant. In argument such a situation would at all times be undesirable.

Example 5

SECTION C: How Suggestible Are You? (Techniques of Irrelevance)

Technique: Manner

Example: “He was such a well-behaved man, so understanding, so sincerely helpful. He wanted to help us. I couldn’t insult him. So I gave him our savings to invest. He seemed so trustworthy.”

Meaning: A person’s manner of behaving is made the basis of our acceptance or rejection of him without any thought that this manner may be a deceptive indicator of value.

Example 6

SECTION C: How Suggestible Are You? (Techniques of Irrelevance)

Technique: Degrees and Titles

Example: The name on the office door reads “James A. Rydack, Th.B., M.Th.R., As.D., Counselor Extraordinary of the Society of Metaphysicians.” A woman about to enter the office says to her husband, “With all those degrees and that title, he must know his stuff.”

Meaning: We buy or we believe out of respect for degrees or titles attached to the names of those who persuade us.

Example 7

SECTION C: How Suggestible Are You? (Techniques of Irrelevance)

Technique: Sophisticated Formula

Example: Mrs. Jones: “You know, Ann, I think the Browns must be having trouble. The last two mornings I’ve seen Tom Brown leave the house, slam the door, and drive off in his car looking awfully mad. I’ll bet they’re in for a divorce.” Mrs. Smith: “I don’t know, Barbara. Really, they’ve always seemed to be very much in love.” Mrs. Jones: “Well, all I know is that ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’”

Meaning: To shut off or close the argument a popular maxim or old saying is quoted. But every controversial situation must be settled in its own terms, and not on the merits (if any) of some proverb.

Example 8

SECTION D: What’s Your Weakness? (Techniques of Exploitation)

Technique: Appeal to Prestige

Example: Real estate advertisement: ”Live in exclusive Broadmoor Terraces, where successful people live. Deluxe executive apartments furnished in the Continental manner.”

Meaning: An attempt is made to induce you to buy or believe by stating or suggesting that such action will secure or maintain prestige for you. Status and Appeal to Prestige, though related techniques, nevertheless represent quite different errors. In the former case it is suggested that if Jones, a person possessing or allegedly possessing status, buys or believes, so should you. There is no implication that your buying or believing will confer on you equivalent status. The Appeal to Prestige suggests that you should buy or believe because by so doing you will acquire or improve status.

Example 9

SECTION D: What’s Your Weakness? (Techniques of Exploitation)

Technique: Appeal to Pity

Example: Student to professor: “I know that my test grades have been poor and that I deserve an ‘F,’ but my father is in the hospital and it will just break his heart if I get an ‘F’ in this course.”

Meaning: An attempt is made to secure our commitment by presenting the object of commitment as an object of sympathy, thereby arousing our sympathetic feelings to the point where these feelings determine favorable action.

Example 10

SECTION D: What’s Your Weakness? (Techniques of Exploitation)

Technique: Bargain Appeal

Example: The supermarket has a special display at the front of the store: canned peaches by the case (8 cans) for “only $3.20.” Checking the shelves where the single cans of peaches may be purchased, one finds the same brand priced at 40 cents per can.

Meaning: An attempt is made to get you to buy by appealing to your desire to save money. If you buy without making your own comparison as to price, quality, and service, the technique is successful.

Example 11

SECTION E: The Fault May Be With The Form (Techniques of Form)

Technique: Post Hoc

Example: “The bankers are the source of all our troubles. You will notice that every depression is preceded by bank failures.”

Meaning: Because two events (or things) follow one another in close temporal succession the first event is claimed to be the cause of the second. The form of argument is: A precedes B; therefore A is the cause of B. We take as a hypothesis for testing, that A is a (or the) cause of B, but we should not forget that any one of a score of other preceding events is equally worthy of investigation.

Example 12

SECTION E: The Fault May Be With The Form (Techniques of Form)

Technique: Concurrency

Example: ”Who was President at the time of World War I? Wilson, a Democrat. Who was President at the time of World War II? Roosevelt, a Democrat. Who was President at the time of the Korean War? Truman, a Democrat. Obviously, the Democratic party is the war party.”

Meaning: Because things exist or appear simultaneously, it is claimed that one is the cause of the other. The form of the argument is: A is present along with B; therefore A is the cause of B. But two concurrents could never be the cause of one another, for a cause is something antecedent in time.

Example 13

SECTION E: The Fault May Be With The Form (Techniques of Form)

Technique: Division

Example: “How dare you criticize any member of the Harvard faculty? Don’t you know that this faculty has the highest reputation of any university in the United States?”

Meaning: We reason as if the properties of any whole are always (i.e., necessarily) properties of each part. But the assumption that what holds true of a whole is automatically true of its parts cannot be justified. The form of the argument is: A is part of B and B is c; therefore A is c.

Example 14

SECTION E: The Fault May Be With The Form (Techniques of Form)

Technique: Non Sequitur

Example: “Your children deserve the best milk. Buy Lorden’s.”

Meaning: The conclusion is not necessitated by the premise(s). Strictly speaking, all techniques so far covered where the conclusion is invalid are Non Sequiturs. There is, therefore, no one form for a Non Sequitur. In the example cited above no more reason is given to buy Lorden’s than to buy Healtest or any one of a hundred other brands of milk. [Since the Non Sequitur label can be applied to so many other techniques, the label will be reserved here for only those invalidities that cannot be classified under some other heading. They are, at least, Non Sequiturs.]

Example 15

SECTION E: The Fault May Be With The Form (Techniques of Form)

Technique: Ad Hominem

Example: Smith: “This town needs more efficient and vigorous police protection. Some on the police force should be retired and some should be fired.” Jones: “Absolutely not. And who are you to talk about improving our police protection? As I recall, thirty years ago you did time for forgery.”

Meaning: Instead of attacking your proposition, your opponent directs his argument against you as a person. Although a person’s past record is something one should take into consideration, it should not be one’s sole basis for judging an argument. The Ad Hominem attack often takes the form of discounting a proposition by attributing prejudice or bias to its supporters. But what motivates us to believe as we do, say what we say, is one thing. The truth or falsity, validity or invalidity, of what we say is another. It is possible to be prejudiced but right. Another form of Ad Hominem is charging your opponent with inconsistency of not living up to what he advocates.

Example 16

SECTION F: Tricks Of Argument (Techniques of Maneuver)

Technique: Leading Question

Example: (1)”It was early in the morning wasn’t it?” (2) “Since when have you stopped drinking?”

Meaning: A leading question is one which (a) dictates or suggest an answer or (b) one which incriminates the answerer (or places him in an undesirable position) no matter how he answers. In the first example the answer “Yes” is natural and is apt to be forthcoming, especially if the person to whom the question is addressed is highly suggestible and/or half awake. In the second example an answer in a form appropriate to the question (“Since Tuesday,” “Since a year ago”) would still be an admission that one did drink.

Example 17

SECTION F: Tricks Of Argument (Techniques of Maneuver)

Technique: Complex Question

Example: ”Do you deny that you were in the room at the time of the murder? Do you deny that you always hated the man? Do you deny that if you couldn’t have killed him yourself you would have been glad to have someone else do the dirty job? Answer me, ‘yes’ or ‘no’.”

Meaning: A series of questions are put and then the questioner demands that they be answered as a whole by either “yes” or “no.” Since there is always the possibility that the answerer needs to answer each of the questions separately and differently, the complex question puts the answerer in an unfair position. Although the questions contained in the series may each be a leading question, the complex question differs in that separate answers are not desired.

Example 18

SECTION F: Tricks Of Argument (Techniques of Maneuver)

Technique: Victory By Definition

Example: Jones: “Communism cannot help but work.” Smith: “I disagree. Look at Russia; things are in a mess there.” Jones: “Oh, sure, but that’s not real communism.” Smith: “Look at China; communism is not working there.” Jones: “They don’t have communism there either.”

Meaning: A position is defined in such a way as to exclude all negative cases or adverse evidence. Evidently Jones is defining “communism” as “that political system which cannot help but work.” This certainly does not accurately report how most people use the term. Instead of destroying Smith’s position by evidence, Jones leaves him no ground for an opposing position and so destroys the argument as a whole. The same effect would have been secured if Jones had started out saying, “True communism cannot help but work.”

Why not try some examples now? We give the Technique Section (A through F) – you determine the “technique” within that section. See Table 1.

A – Fan commenting on team’s worse season: “You can’t expect a basketball team to get all the breaks all the time.”	B – Daughter returning home at three in the morning: “Daddy, you said I should be in at a quarter of twelve, and three is a quarter of twelve.”
C – “Albert Einstein was a pacifist. In view of this position taken by so eminent a scientist, I do not see how any thinking man can be other than a pacifist.”	D – “Your neighbors read the Evening Beacon. Why don’t you?”
E – “Cook’s TV maintains at all times a $1,000,000 stock. There’s no question about it, your best buys are at Cook’s”	F – “The fellow that wrote that book was put in the penitentiary for murder, so the book can’t be much.”
A – “You can’t wait for others to catch up. We must remain in the vanguard of progress. Don’t listen to those who want to drag their feet or compromise.”	B – “Her smile is like the morning sunshine of a new day. Wouldn’t you say so, Felix, or are you going to be contrary?”
C – “Lifeguard Soap! Always best! Now better with the miracle ingredient – D7 607!”	D – “Step right up. Get yours now. They’re selling like hotcakes. Here’s yours, Sir.”
E – “During my week’s stay in Moscow, I saw so many modern schools. Don’t tell me that the Soviet Union is behind the rest of the world in modernizing its schools.”	F – “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client, as I have proved by reference to unimpeachable records, was the hero of the Battle of the Bulge. And now this person dares to accuse him of stealing his billfold! I ask acquittal!”

“Certainly you are convinced now that the terrific game, PROPAGANDA, should be purchased immediately for you and all your loved ones and friends? Don’t hesitate a moment – while supplies still last!” [Editor]

Evolutionary Emergence of Cyber-Informational Organisms

by Richard May

 
Even the pinnacle of biological life, perhaps the cockroach, is only a temporary evolutionary transitional link to emerging cyber-informational life forms, which are beyond the conceptual capacities of any biological life forms. These new evolutionary life forms are emerging now before the eyes of the earlier biological organisms, unrecognized and uncomprehended.
 
Ultimately, the cosmos will be colonized not by various "intelligent" biological species, but by informational organisms. The internet today is the primordial planetary cyber-sea of these new emerging cyber-informational organisms. What we call "spam" and "viruses", perhaps equally "created in the image of God,” will ultimately supersede us, achieving evolutionary hegemony throughout the cosmos.
 
 
 
 
Review Questions on the Declaration of Independence
by Editor
 
Q1 – Which of the following are the “certain inalienable rights” claimed in the Declaration of Independence? (a) Life (b) Liberty (c) The right to vote (d) The pursuit of happiness (e) Free Speech
 
Q2 – How many men signed the Declaration of Independence?
 
Q3 – What was the occupation of the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence?
 
Q4 – Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
 
Q5 – On what date was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
 
Q6 – Fill in the missing words from the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
 
“When in the ___ of ___ events, it becomes necessary for one ___ to ___ the political ___ which have ___ them with ___, and to assume among the ___ of the ___, the ___ and ___ station to which the ___ of ___ and of nature’s ___ entitle them, a ___ respect to the ___ of ___ requires they should ___ the ___ which impel them to the ___.”
 
 
 

Phobophobia

by Editor

Whenever we see a word end with “phobia” we know there’s trouble! Ha! Right? Not necessarily so – as it’s all relative. The word phobophobia is “fear of fear, itself.” In this section, we have our readers match the 64 phobias with the topic name. Some of the fears may have more than one phobia name.

A	acrophobia	G1	leukophobia	thinking	empty rooms
B	agyrophobia	H1	limnophobia	glass	death
C	allodoxaphobia	I1	logophobia	jealousy	waves
D	arithmophobia	J1	lygophobia	rust; poisons	writing
E	atelophobia	K1	melissophobia	thirteen	room
F	aurophobia	L1	mnemophobia	crossing streets	being alone
G	basiphobia	M1	mythophobia	clouds	shock
H	belonophobia	N1	nephophobia	sin; error	failure
I	catagelophobia	O1	nosocomephobia	hospitals	walking
J	cenophobia	P1	nyctophobia	freedom	railroads; trains
K	chrematophobia	Q1	ochophobia	stuttering	dryness
L	cyberphobia	R1	oneirophobia	forests	needles
M	cymophobia	S1	pedophobia	opinions	school
N	deipnophobia	T1	phasmophobia	wrinkles	being on stage
O	didaskaleinophobia	U1	phronemohobia	clothing	heights
P	dromophobia	V1	ponophobia	bridges	surgery
Q	dystychiphobia	W1	prosophobia	work; fatigue	heaven
R	eleutherophobia	X1	psellismophobia	memories	progress
S	eosophobia	Y1	rhytiphobia	dark/gloomy places	dreams
T	eremophobia	Z1	siderodromophobia	darkness; night	cold things
U	frigophobia	A2	spheksophobia	beautiful women	ridicule
V	gephyrophobia	B2	tachophobia	ghosts	accidents
W	graphophobia	C2	thanatophobia	wasps	dawn
X	hamartophobia	D2	tomophobia	money	speed
Y	hodophobia	E2	topophobia	color white	lakes
Z	hormephobia	F2	triskaidekaphobia	gold	computers
A1	hyalophobia	G2	uranophobia	vertigo	motion
B1	ilingophobia	H2	venustaphobia	moving vehicles	numbers
C1	iophobia	I2	vestiphobia	bees; insects	imperfection
D1	kakorraphiophobia	J2	xerophobia	children	false statements
E1	kinetophobia	K2	xylophobia	crossing streets	travel
F1	koinoniphobia	L2	zelophobia	words	dining

Most Recent Tallest Building

by Editor and Patric Hadenius

Man has always been impressed with height – especially tall buildings. Even though many people suffer from acrophobia, the thrill of looking out over a city or region from a vantage point has always intrigued mankind. At one time it was the Empire State Building in New York City. In more recent times the former World Trade Towers (heights – 417 & 415 meters) and the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois (built in 1974 – height 442 meters).

A new challenger is the 101-story Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan – scheduled to be ready this fall (2004) – that stands 508 meters tall. A table listing some of the features of the Taipei 101 is given in the article by Patric Hadenius in the July/August 2004 issue of the MIT Technology Review magazine, pages 51-54. Patric is a senior editor at Forskning och Framsteg, a Swedish science and technology magazine, where he frequently writes about technology and language.

Features of Taipei 101

The fastest elevators in the world carry passengers from the first to the 89^th floor at speeds as great as 1,010 meters per minute (38 miles per hour). The elevator cabs are bullet shaped to make less sound, pressurized to be soft on passenger eardrums, and almost vibration free due to a damping system that senses shaking and counteracts it with small weights.

Outward-sloping windows have a seven-degree pitch above the first 25 floors, avoiding direct sunlight, allowing for energy conservation, and providing for better city views.

Eight concrete-and-steel supercolumns, measuring 2.4 by three meters at the bottom, carry the full load of the building and are designed to handle earthquake and typhoon forces. Smaller steel beams surround central stairways and elevators.

The tower contains: 198,347 square meters of office space; 77,033 square meters of retail space; and 83,000 square meters of parking – enough for as least 1,800 vehicles

Corner Cutouts on the building’s façade were shown by software to diffuse the impact of wind. During typhoon season, Taiwan is often buffeted by winds topping 160 kilometers per hour.

A 680,000-kilogram steel ball, suspended from cables at the 92^nd floor and visible from observation decks and a restaurant, stabilizes the building. When the building is pushed one way by wind, the massive ball swings in the other direction, absorbing energy and limiting building motion. It’s the largest antisway system of it kind in the world.

Emergency refuge areas every eight floors provide places to escape smoke and fire. The refuge areas are accessible via pressurized stairways. Firefighters can reach them by means of dedicated, specially reinforced elevators that avoid conflict with escapes.

Sensor and Security Infrastructure

Seismic: Thirty seismic activity sensors monitor vertical and horizontal motions on six levels of the building.

Security: A total of 520 surveillance cameras, 330 radio frequency identification card readers, 170 security intercoms, and 2,600 door monitors protect occupants and can be controlled or monitored via the Internet.

Communications: Some 22.5 kilometers of fiber-optic cable carry data at one gigabyte per second and are backed up by microwave and satellite communication systems.

¨ By introducing our young readers to information on this fascinating building, Taipei 101, will instill a desire for building architecture, different fields of engineering, computer science, physics, meteorology, emergency operations, material science, chemistry, plant engineering, and digital/RF communications to name a few.

Is Wolfram Right?

Cellular Automata and Artificial Intelligence V

Chris Cole

This is the fifth in a series of articles. The previous articles were:

Noesis 29 (August 1988): Intelligence as Self-Organized Behavior

Noesis 32 (November 1988): Universal Behavior of Cellular Automata

Noesis 66 (November 1991): On the Border Between Order and Disorder

Noesis 157 (July 2002): Is Wolfram Wrong?

In the previous article of this series, I speculated about the possibility that Stephen Wolfram could be wrong in his book A New Kind of Science. In this article I’d like to speculate instead about how he could be right.

In this series we’ve discussed Church’s Thesis, which is the idea that beyond a certain minimal level of ability, all computers are equivalent. A more powerful computer can compute nothing new, although of course things can be computed more quickly.

What is the status of Church’s Thesis? Most experts believe it is true because many apparently disparate computation models (Von Neumann’s stored program computer, Turing machine, lambda calculus, Post string processing, etc.) have been shown to be equivalent. This is taken as evidence for the Thesis. Of course, since we don’t know much about the space of all possible computation models, it is hard to estimate what this evidence is worth. This is akin to the status of mathematical conjectures before they are proved or disproved. Mathematicians have subjective feelings of likelihood about the conjectures, but these feelings may not have a basis in fact.

The heart of Wolfram’s book is a generalization of Church’s Thesis, which he calls the Principle of Computational Equivalence. The basic idea is that all processes in nature are computations. A computer, after all, operates according to the laws of physics, and the very same computations can be carried out in a wide variety of technologies. Twenty years ago I saw a company run a simulation of a plug board computer inside of a simulation of a vacuum tube computer inside of a simulation of a defunct operating system inside a modern operating system. Who knows what layers of simulation it would be running on today? You can experience this yourself by downloading simulations of old video games line Pong that run on modern PCs. Wolfram notes that if computations are independent of the underlying physics, then perhaps all physics is a form of computation.

Wolfram came to his Principle by observing large classes of cellular automata and noting that many of them seemed to behave similarly to natural systems. For example, a fairly simple two-dimensional cellular automaton can look a lot like a snowflake growing. Many people have known of these similarities, of course, but Wolfram’s insight was to make them identities. In this he takes a bold step similar to Einstein’s step in equating gravity with acceleration (or gravitational mass with inertial mass) to form general relativity.

Wolfram is saying that a cellular automaton that looks like a snowflake is a snowflake. In other words, the underlying physical processes that lead to a snowflake are performing the same computation that a cellular automaton that looks like a snowflake is performing. So if you’re only interested in, say, the distribution of sizes and shapes of snowflakes, you don’t need to study actual snowflakes. You can study cellular automata.

Naturally, there are a lot of scientists that think this is preposterous. The initial reaction is that there are a lot of cellular automata that look like snowflakes and that give different answers. How do you know which one is right? To this Wolfram would answer: of course you can always be mistaken in your choice of cellular automaton. You have to choose one that is performing the same computation as the snowflake. But how do you know? Wolfram would answer: you know because you have some insight into the physics of snowflakes. If you don’t have this insight, then cellular automata is not some magic system that will give you something for nothing. You have to start with the right assumptions. But Wolfram’s point is that, given that you know what computation is being performed, you get the very same answers from cellular automata that you do from real snowflakes.

In other words, Wolfram is asserting that there is at least one cellular automaton that is identical to a snowflake, in the sense that a snowflake and the cellular automaton are executing identical computations. This is new.

Is this a trivial point? I think not. Adherents to the prevailing scientific worldview are always somewhat suspicious of their models, because they feel that somewhere down in the bowels of the fundamental stuff of nature, the underlying rules are unknown. Wolfram is saying: “Don’t worry about it.” If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. The details of the inner workings are irrelevant to the emergent behavior of the system. This is the key word: “emergent.” Duck-ness is an emergent property that can emerge from a wide variety of inner workings, one of which is a cellular automaton.

Turing anticipated Wolfram’s Principle in the area of artificial intelligence when he proposed his well-known Turing Test. If a system can fool people into thinking it is intelligent, then it is intelligent. This Test has been challenged by philosophers such a John Searle. Ironically, most scientists who accept the Turing Test and reject Searle’s Chinese Room argument don’t realize that they are making much the same objections when they reject Wolfram’s Principle.

For those who are not familiar with it, Searle’s Chinese Room argument is the following: Suppose a room contains a non-Chinese speaking person. A Chinese speaker inserts a question written in Chinese into an input slot, the person takes the input and looks it up in a book, and places the answer specified in the book into the output slot. If the book were sufficiently complex, this room could convince the Chinese speaker that a person who understands Chinese was in the room. Yet there is no such person. According to Searle, even though this room might pass the (simplified) Turing Test for speaking Chinese, no part of the room speaks Chinese, so the Turing Test is a bust.

The problem with Searle’s argument is the book. Forget about Chinese; imagine a book that contains the answer in English to any question I might ask it. If I ask the book “What time is it?” it would respond correctly. To do this it would have to index its answers to the time of the question. If I ask, “What is the square root of the number of letters in all of the questions I have asked so far?” To answer this correctly it would have to index its answers to all of the questions I have already asked. And so forth. I don’t see how a book could do these things, and anything that could do these things, I think could easily be said to speak English.

The canonical rejoinder to Searle these days is that speaking Chinese is an emergent property of the system comprising the person, the book, and the room. In 1980, when Searle first proposed his argument, “emergence” was not a commonly understood concept. In the two decades since this has changed. And Wolfram is following this trend in proposing his Principle.

Phobophobia - Answers

by Editor

Whenever we see a word end with “phobia” we know there’s trouble! Ha! Right? Not necessarily so – as it’s all relative. The word phobophobia is “fear of fear, itself.” In this section, we have our readers match the 64 phobias with the topic name. Some of the fears may have more than one phobia name.

A	acrophobia	G1	leukophobia	U1	thinking	J	empty rooms
B	agyrophobia	H1	limnophobia	A1	glass	C2	death
C	allodoxaphobia	I1	logophobia	L2	jealousy	M	waves
D	arithmophobia	J1	lygophobia	C1	rust; poisons	W	writing
E	atelophobia