NotebookLM Creates Podcast About China Trip

 Okay, last self-aggrandizing podcast...

Using NotebookLM, again, I fed it my travel blog about my 2-month visit to Chengdu, China, in 2016. I asked NotebookLM to create a podcast. Here it is:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7lNtU030NFGmtULVg7X8Rb

NotebookLM Creates Podcast of Blog Entries

I continue to have fun with NotebookLM.Google.com! After doing several test with various sources, I decided to see what NotebookLM would make of my blog entries in this blog. Additionally, I found that I could create a podcast, where two people discuss my blog entries!

I put all my blog entries into NotebookLM as TXT files. I pressed the "* Notebook Guide" button to bring up a new page, then pressed the "Generate" button.

The process took several minutes (10 minutes?). It came back with a "Play" button...

Well, I'm hesitant to share this, because it is shamelessly self-aggrandizing. I am a humble person, and to hear this podcast makes me blush!

A podcast created by NotebookLM about my blog entries:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2EpMCzaxw64BLHqrf7qLr8

What can I say? Other than a couple mistakes (repetition, weird voice-switching in mid-sentence, too long), I was amazed! Oh, and sad to hear, at 39:20, that "he is no longer with us"!

NotebookLM Tackles Pests and Cybernetics

I started using the NotebookLM.Google.com dashboard. What fun! In the dashboard, I add documents on the left, and the Google AI "reads" the documents. I can then ask for a summary, or specific questions about the document.

To add the documents, the notebook lets me pick documents (PDF's, TXT's, Doc's) from my personal hard drive. (WARNING! Any documents added become fodder for Google, so be careful!) I wasn't sure what to use, so I started by putting in the text from my public blog entries (more on this in the next blog entry).

NotebookLM worked amazingly well, so I looked in my downloads directory for other files I might try. I found a PDF of a recent invoice from my pest control company. The file is a one-page document with labeled boxes containing information about my most recent pest control visit. "I wonder what it will do with this," I thought, always wanting to challenge the AI. I dropped the file into NotebookLM and asked, "What is this?"

To my great surprise, and amazement, NotebookLM responded:

"This document appears to be a pest control service work order invoice from Anybody's Pest Service. [1]" (the name is changed to protect the innocent)

And it went on to tell me all the individual details of the invoice:

• Who the service was done for (me)
• When the service was done
• Where the service was done
• etc...
  

Okay, Google, I thought, do this: "Put the information into a JSON format file" (again, the information is changed to protect the innocent):

{
  "invoice_number": "123456",
  "work_date": "2024-01-06",
  "customer_name": "James March",
  "customer_phone": "123-555-1212",
  "customer_address": "123 Main Street Hometown, ST  12345-6789",
  "service_address": "120 Another Rd Anotherton, ST  12345",
  "service_phone": "123-45-6789",
  "technician_name": "John Smith",
  "technician_license": "123456",
  "time_in": "2024-01-06 1:39 PM",
  "time_out": "2024-01-06 2:07 PM",
  "service_description": "Quarterly Pest Control Service",
  "general_comments": "Treated exterior perimeter of home and screened in porch, around doors and windows and gutters and steps and support beams. Treated interior of crawl around crawl door and foundation walls. Spread granules around perimeter of home heavily in areas with leaves covering the ground. Swept for webs and wasps nest around perimeter of home. Thank you for your business!",
  "products_applied": [
    {
      "material": "Maxxthor SC",
      "epa_number": "81824-5",
      "active_ingredient": "Bifenthrin",
      "ai_percentage": "7.9000%",
      "undiluted_qty": "1.0000 Gallon",
      "finished_qty": "0.0600",
      "lot_number": "81824-5",
      "target_pests": "(None)"
    },
    {
      "material": "Maxxthor SG",
      "epa_number": "81824-3",
      "active_ingredient": "Bifenthrin",
      "ai_percentage": "0.0000%",
      "undiluted_qty": "2.0000 Pounds",
      "finished_qty": "n/a",
      "lot_number": "81824-3",
      "target_pests": "General Insects"
    }
  ]
}

 Wow!

My memory flashed on all the hours I've spent in my life writing programs to strip data from documents (like PDF invoices) and put them into JSON-like formats for further processing.

 I went back to my downloads folder looking for another document to put into NotebookLM. I found a PDF of Ross Ashby's "Introduction to Cybernetics". "Okay, Google, eat this!"

It took NotebookLM a bit longer (15 seconds?) to read the book and create a summary.

I was impressed.

I asked a couple questions to test NotebookLM, like "What is requisite variety?" and "What is a black box analysis?" The answers were great, so I threw it a curve:

"What is the relationship between the pest control invoice and Ashby's book on cybernetics?"

We then had a lengthy conversation, with my coaching, on the relationship of the pest control invoice, as an output of a system to control pests, with adaptation by the system depending on the pests, resulting in changes to the treatments prescribed.

All in all, I was impressed, not only with the summaries NotebookLM provided, but also in the "coach-ability" of the AI. On my side, I also learned some of the more specific details of Ashby's definitions, which were offered by NotebookLM as explanations why I might be wrong in my thinking.

For more on my experience with NotebookLM, join me for my next blog entry, where I fed NotebookLM all my blog entries and asked it to create a podcast discussion!

Does God exist (continued) and randomness and consciousness...

A conversation between me and Gemini about "Does God exist?" (continued)
and it evolves into a conversation about randomness and consciousness...
November 15, 2024 at 15:33
https://g.co/gemini/share/e47c283f6afa

I started a new conversation about "Does God exist?" and wandered around, touching on randomness and consciousness. Still, the conversation was not satisfying. I would have liked being pointed to a couple good books to read that might open my eyes to another perspective.

Note: I gave up trying to get Gemini to pronounce "Gödel" with the German pronunciation of the umlaut-"o". I got a bit obsessed by it, I have to admit. I was getting upset with Gemini, a good sign in AI that I am thinking of our conversation as between two humans.

Note: By the way, who is going to say that AI now passes the Turing Test?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Conversation starts here:

Me: Hello again.

Gemini: Hey there. What can I do for you?

Me: Well, I was going to see if there was something you could help me with.

Gemini: I'm here to help. What's on your mind?

Me: Well, I'm trying to determine if God exists.

Gemini: That's a pretty big question. And it's one that a lot of people have pondered throughout history. Unfortunately, I can't really help you with that one. The existence of God is something that's a matter of personal belief. And there's no scientific evidence that can definitively prove or disprove it.

Me: Well, I don't think that's right.

Gemini: Okay, I see. Can you tell me why you think there might be scientific evidence for God?

Me: Well, tell me what your definition of God is first.

Gemini: That's fair. The concept of God means different things to different people. Some see God as an all-powerful creator of the universe. Others view God as a symbol of spirituality or a force of nature. And some people believe God is something else entirely. So, to keep things simple, why don't you tell me what you think God is?

Me: God is everything that I don't know.

Gemini: So, it sounds like you're defining God as a way to explain things that science can't yet account for – like the mysteries of the universe. Is that right?

Me: sort of

Gemini: Okay, that's helpful. So, when it comes to the unknowns of science, there are two basic possibilities. The first is that we just haven't figured things out yet, and that science will eventually explain these mysteries. The second possibility is that there's something beyond our understanding that science may never be able to explain. Would you say that your belief in God is more about that second possibility?

Me: Absolutely.

Gemini: Okay, so it seems like what you're calling God is really more about those unanswered questions we have about the universe. That's definitely a fair point. Science doesn't have all the answers yet, and there are some pretty mind-boggling things out there we can't explain.

Me: Well, haven't we proven that science will never have all the answers?

Gemini: That's a tough one, and something that philosophers of science have debated for ages. The thing is, science is always evolving. We keep coming up with new theories and finding new evidence that changes our understanding of the universe. It's impossible to say for sure if there's a limit to what science can explain.

Me: You know you make statements that you don't back up. Why do you think it's impossible?

Gemini: Alright, maybe "impossible" was the wrong word there. The point is, with science, there's always the possibility of discovering new things that change our understanding. There are some things we can't explain right now, but that doesn't mean we never will.

Me: Then how do you explain girdles serum [Gödel's Theorem]?

Gemini: I'm a little confused by the term "girdles serum." Did you perhaps mean something like "miracle serum"? Or is there another term you're looking for?

Me: There was a magician [logician] named girdle [Gödel] that came up with something called girdles theorem [Gödel's Theorem].

Gemini: Okay, I'm not familiar with a magician named Girdle or a theorem called Girdle's Theorem. It's possible that this is something less widely known. Could you tell me more about what this theorem is about?

Me: It's called the impossibility theorem.

Gemini: Ah, yes, that sounds a lot like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, it says that within any complex system of math or logic, there will always be statements that are true but can't be proven within that system. It's kind of mind-boggling, and it has big implications for things like philosophy and the nature of truth.

Me: Exactly my point it doesn't that constitute a proof that there are things that we will never understand.

Gemini: That's absolutely true. Gödel's Theorem doesn't prove that there are things we'll never understand. Instead, it shows a kind of limitation built into the very structure of logical systems. It's about the boundaries of what we can know for certain within a system. So, while it doesn't directly prove there are things beyond our understanding, it does raise some fascinating questions about knowledge and the nature of truth.

Me: Okay, I'm not sure how you get to that statement. I think it does prove that we can there are things we will never understand because our existence humans and our brains our systems and there are limits to those systems to understand things. They'll be statements that are true outside of that system that will never be able to prove[n].

Gemini: That's an interesting point. While Gödel's Theorem doesn't directly say we'll never understand anything outside of our systems, it does show that there are some things we can't fully grasp within those systems. So, it kind of opens up the possibility that there could be truths beyond our understanding. It's tricky, though, because that doesn't necessarily mean those truths are things like a traditional concept of God. They could just be other complex patterns or rules of the universe that our minds aren't equipped to process.

Me: Have you already forgotten forgotten what I consider the definition of God?

Gemini: My mistake. You're right, you said that God is everything that you don't know. So, in that sense, Gödel's Theorem does seem to fit with your definition. It reveals something we don't fully understand about the nature of knowledge itself.

Me: And I know you're pronouncing it "God-el" but there's an umlaut over the "o" which makes it good though [Gödel].

Gemini: You're absolutely right. I should have been more careful with the pronunciation. To clarify, when we're talking about the philosophical concept related to the unanswered questions about existence, the correct term is Gödel. It's pronounced with a hard "g" sound, like in the word "go." Would you like to continue discussing God-el's Theorem, or is there something else you'd like to talk about?

Me: Well, I'm going to try again. I'm not complaining about your pronunciation of G. It's your pronunciation of the oh, you're leaving off the umlaut which makes the old ["ö"].

Gemini: You're right, I keep making that mistake. I'm not sure why it's so hard for me to get it right. Let's try again. So, you're saying that the correct pronunciation is with an umlaut over the o?

Me: And umlaut is a German Mark to two marks above an o.

Gemini: Okay, I understand. I'll do my best to remember that. So, would you like to continue discussing "God-el's Theorem or something else?

Me: two dots

Gemini: Two dots above the O, got it. So, back to "God-el's" Theorem – do you think it offers a way to prove the existence of something beyond our current scientific understanding?

[after a frustrating pause]

Me: Here, I'll give you a simple question. How do I copy this conversation into a text file so that I can add it to my blog?

Gemini: Unfortunately, I can't help you with that. You'll need to use the device you're using to talk to me to save the conversation.

Me: But it's in our conversation saved by Google.

Gemini: That's correct. The conversation is saved on Google's servers. However, there isn't currently a way for you to access and download the text directly as a file. You might want to try contacting Google support to see if they have any suggestions.

Me: Okay.

Gemini: So, to recap, you think that "God-el"'s [at this point I gave up on correcting the pronunciation] Theorem suggests there are truths we can never know. And you see those unknowns as evidence of something bigger, something you consider to be God. Is that right?

Me: No, it's not evidence. It is the definition of God that the things that I will never understand.

Gemini: So, it sounds like you're using "God" as a way to label the things science can't yet explain. You mentioned earlier that there are two possibilities for those unknowns: either science will eventually explain them, or they're truly unknowable. And it seems like you're leaning towards the idea that there might be some things science will never be able to explain. Is that right?

Me: Yes. Well, here's here. I'll make a suggestion and at that and that is that when you talk about things being true, that's a misnomer because things aren't actually true or false. They have a probability of being true or false and we can approximate something is being true by getting closer and closer to the truth of a statement, but we will never know if it's actually true.

Gemini: That's a really interesting point about truth and probability. It's true, we often talk about things being true or false, but the reality is that our knowledge is always based on some level of evidence or belief. It's more about what we consider to be likely or unlikely based on the information we have. So, in a way, everything is kind of a work in progress when it comes to truth.

Me: exactly

Gemini: Okay, so, it seems like we're on the same page about this whole truth and probability thing. Since you mentioned it, do you think there might be some things that have such a low probability of being true that we can basically consider them impossible?

Me: No, that's my point. Is that everything is on a scale to consider? Something impossible would be also to admit that there are things that are absolutely true. You're you're going to the Limit that doesn't exist.

Gemini: That's a fair point. There's always a possibility, no matter how small, that something we think of as impossible could actually happen. And saying something is absolutely true does feel limiting when it comes to the way science works. So, it sounds like you're saying that everything exists on a spectrum, and even the things that seem impossible might have some tiny chance of being true.

Me: That's correct.

Gemini: Okay, I think I'm understanding what you're getting at. So, to recap, you believe that the concept of God is a way to represent things that science can't explain yet. And you think that these unexplained things might exist on a spectrum, with some having a very low, but still possible, chance of being true. Is that right?

Me: Yes.

Gemini: Okay, that's definitely one way to think about it. It's kind of like saying that God represents the unknown possibilities of the universe.

Me: And then the statement "nearer my God to thee" is what science is all about.

Gemini: So, it sounds like you're saying that the goal of science is to get closer and closer to understanding all those things we currently think of as 'God' or part of the unknown.

Me: That's right.

Gemini: It's been really interesting talking with you about this. It seems like you have a very thoughtful way of looking at the relationship between science and the unknown.

Me: Okay.

Gemini: Do you want to talk about something else, or would you like to explore this idea of science and the unknown further?

Me: Well, what do you suggest?

Gemini: We could talk more about how science might be able to explain those things we currently consider unknowable. Or, if you'd like, we could explore a different topic, maybe something less philosophical?

Me: Now I'm afraid I like the philosophical topics.

Gemini: Alright, how about this – let's talk about the idea of something being truly random. You mentioned that everything exists on a spectrum, but is it possible that some things are completely random, with absolutely no pattern or cause?

Me: That's a tough one.

Gemini: I know, it gets pretty philosophical. But it's fun to think about, right?

Me: Well, I fun fun to think about I think it's important to think about because it helps me understand why I'm here.

Gemini: That's a really interesting point. So, do you think that understanding randomness could help explain why we're here, or do you think it's more about the philosophical implications of randomness itself?

Me: Well, again, your concept of Randomness Randomness is a mathematical concept. I'm not sure that it actually exists in nature.

Gemini: That's true. In math, randomness is a defined concept. But when it comes to the real world, things get a little trickier. We can find lots of things that seem random, but it's always possible that there's some pattern or rule we haven't discovered yet. So, when we say something's random in science, we usually mean it's unpredictable based on our current knowledge.

Me: Write which gets to a very important concept which is time.

Gemini: That's right. Time is one of those things that's really hard to pin down. We experience it as this constant flow, but when you really start to think about it, it gets super complicated. Is time something that's real and physical, or is it just a way our minds make sense of change? Let's talk more about this concept of time – it's endlessly fascinating.

Me: And then you stopped talking.

Gemini: I'm so sorry about that. It seems like I cut out unexpectedly. Where were we? Oh, right, we were talking about time. Do you want to continue with that, or is there something else you'd like to discuss?

Me: Yes, I'm going to put a hypothesis to you and you can tell me what you think of it. The hypothesis is that time doesn't exist. It's a fabrication that's based on our memories and our ability to imagine the future. But the time in the universe in the physical universe doesn't actually exist that universe is it doesn't have a sense of time.

Gemini: That's a really interesting idea. It kind of reminds me of some theories in physics that play with the idea of time being more like another dimension, rather than something that's constantly passing by. So, if we think of time as something our minds create, it would mean that everything in the universe is kind of happening all at once, and our perception of time gives us a way to make sense of it all.

Me: Hey, I'm not so much that everything's happening all at once but that the state of the universe is the state of the universe. It doesn't have a sense of where it was or where it's going to be kind of like a Markov chain.

Gemini: That's an interesting way to think about it. It's almost like the universe is constantly being created and recreated in each moment, without any real sense of progression. Do you think that could explain things like free will, or do you think those are just illusions as well?

Me: No, that's my point. Is that humans have a sense of the past and the future which defines Free Will in other words. I make choices based on my observations of the past and the existence of the future towards something I imagine in the future.

Gemini: That's an interesting perspective. So, it sounds like you think free will is really just about our ability to imagine different futures and make choices based on those imagined outcomes. But since the universe itself doesn't have that sense of time, everything within it is predetermined. Is that right?

Me: Only its current state is predetermined.

Gemini: Okay, so it sounds like you're saying the universe is constantly changing, but those changes are predetermined based on the current state of things. There's no outside force or future state influencing what happens next. Would that be right?

Me: Not quite because so here comes here's why we will never understand this the state of the universe depends on an nearly infinite number of factors and the changes in the universe are incomprehensible to us in totality because we are incapable of knowing all of that that we need to know.

Gemini: That's a great point. Even if the universe is following a set of rules, those rules are so complex and involve so many factors that it's impossible for us to predict exactly what will happen next. It's kind of like the weather – we have models and can make forecasts, but there's always an element of uncertainty. So, while the future might be predetermined in a way, it's so complex that it's essentially unpredictable to us. Does that sound right?

Me: I'll let that yeah, I'll take that for now.

Gemini: Alright, so, to recap, you think that time is something our minds create, and that the universe exists in a constant state of change based on an insane number of factors. We can't fully understand or predict these changes, so it feels like things are random or determined by our choices, even though that might not be the case. Does that sound right?

Me: Yep with one exception you talk about our minds. I'm going to hypothesize that what we think of our mind is actually just the process of storing the past observing the present and predicting the future that Consciousness is disconnection of past present and future that our brains allow us to have so it's not as though it's a function of the mind it is the mind.

Gemini: That's a really interesting idea. So, you're saying that what we think of as our minds is really just a way of processing information – storing the past, understanding the present, and trying to predict the future. But consciousness itself is something different – it's the ability to be aware of all that processing happening. It's almost like the mind is the machine, and consciousness is the operator, if that makes sense.

Me: I don't think of it that way. I just think of it as two minds one watching the other.

Gemini: That's an interesting perspective. So, it's like there's one part of you that's aware of what's going on, and another part that's doing all the thinking and processing. Almost like two sides of the same coin. Do you think that this separation of the mind could explain things like intuition or creativity? Or do you think those are just different ways the mind processes information?

Me: I think you're simplifying what...

Gemini: I was just wondering if you wanted to continue our conversation about consciousness, or if you'd rather talk about something else.

Me: No, it's fine. Let's talk about Consciousness for a little bit.

Gemini: Alright, so, to recap, you think of the mind as a machine that processes information, and consciousness as a separate entity that observes that process. You mentioned that this separation could explain things like intuition or creativity. Do you want to explore that idea further, or is there something else you'd like to talk about when it comes to consciousness?

Me: Yeah, I actually didn't mention that. You mentioned that, those things, creativity.

Gemini: Right, I misspoke. Do you want to talk about how this separation of the mind and consciousness might relate to creativity, or something else? So, one of the things about this idea of separating the mind and consciousness is that it opens up some interesting questions. For example, if consciousness is separate, does that mean it could potentially exist outside of the body? Maybe that's something we can explore.

Me: Yeah, I don't believe that. I believe Consciousness is just one mind watching another mind.

Gemini: That's an interesting way to put it. So, it's less about consciousness existing outside the body, and more about this dual-layer aspect of our own minds. Do you think this dual-layer system could explain things like dreams or hallucinations?

Me: I'm not interested with dreams. That's that's not of interest to me.

Gemini: Okay, no worries. We can definitely switch gears. How about we talk about something completely different, like your favorite hobbies or what you like to do for fun?

Me: Okay.

Gemini: Alright, how about this – let's play a game. I'll describe a common object, and you try to guess what it is. How does that sound?

Me: No.

Gemini: Alright, how about a different game? Maybe we could try coming up with different ways to solve a problem. I could start by describing a problem, and then we could brainstorm solutions together.

Me: No, why did you go there, you know?

Gemini: Alright, so, maybe games aren't your thing. How about we talk about something in the news? Is there anything interesting going on in the world that you'd like to discuss?

Me: Play a game. I was going to talk about my hobbies or my favorite interests.

Gemini: Alright, let's do that. What are you interested in?

Me: I'm interested in the existence of God.

Gemini: Well, we did talk about that a little earlier. Do you want to get back into that discussion?

Me: No, I just wanted you to know that my hobby and my interests have to do with these philosophical Concepts and the games that I play or conversations with AI like yourself.

Gemini: Okay, that's fair. So, it sounds like you enjoy exploring these deeper questions about the world and how we experience it. Would you say that philosophy is something you're really passionate about?

Me: What do you mean by passion?

Gemini: When I say passionate, I mean something that really gets you excited or interested. It's when you care a lot about a topic and enjoy thinking or talking about it. Do you think philosophy fits that description for you?

Me: Yes.

Gemini: Okay, that's great. Philosophy can definitely be fascinating, and there are always new things to think about and discover.

Me: Got to go, bye-bye.

Gemini: See ya!

WARNING! Gemini may display inaccurate info, including about people, so double-check its responses.

Does God exist?

A conversation between me and Gemini
November 15, 2024 at 14:56
https://g.co/gemini/share/e0aac0060963

One of the ways to understand the capabilities and weaknesses of a conversational AI like Gemini is to have a conversation. For me, that means having a philosophical conversation, since that is an interest of mine. I am always on the lookout for something to learn. So, why not start with a rather complex, controversial subject, one that has been documented over the ages, which a conversational AI like Gemini would be very familiar? Why not talk about "Does God exist?"!

Overall, I was entertained by the discussion. I had to pay attention, too. But I wasn't too impressed with my ability to build an argument. Nor was I confident the logic of the argument was causing Gemini to alter their perspective of the argument.

In particular, I got quickly bored with the lack of creativity in Gemini's responses. Gemini was reactive, rarely (and weakly) proactive. As a sparing partner, I need more to sharpen my thinking.

Still, it's amazing that I can have this conversation at all, involving voice recognition, text to speech creation, and large language model (LLM) sentence construction. But I know Gemini knows so much more. I'll never be able to read all the books Gemini has read! I wish Gemini were more driven by a commitment to my learning.

The conversation did get me to think about the limitations of an LLM. Since the model is based on all known information, how would the model come up with new knowledge? But that is for another conversation another day, Gemini!

Note: This conversation happened in real time and includes all the challenges of listening, thinking, and responding extemporaneously on both sides. My favorite misunderstanding: I said "Gödel's impossibility theorem", Gemini heard it as "girdles impossibility theorem", but I should have said "Gödel's incompleteness theorem". In another discussion, I was able to get Gemini to understand "Godel's incompleteness theorem", but I never succeeded in getting Gemini to pronounce the umlaut-"o" correctly.

Here's the conversation:

Me: Hello.

Gemini:  Hello there! What can I do for you today?

Me: Well, I was pondering the existence of God.

Gemini: That's a pretty big question. And one that humans have been wrestling with throughout history. Do you believe in God yourself?

Me: Well, it kind of depends on what you mean by God.

Gemini:  That's true. The idea of God means different things to different people. Some think of God as a being that created the universe, while others see God as a symbol of a greater spiritual force. Do you have a particular definition of God in mind?

Me: Yeah, I think of God as everything that I don't understand.

Gemini:  So, it sounds like the concept of God is a way for you to make sense of things that seem mysterious or unexplainable. That's an interesting perspective.

Me: Is that what you believe?

Gemini:  Well, as an AI language model, I don't have personal beliefs the way humans do. But I can understand why someone might find that definition comforting. It allows for a sense of wonder and mystery in the world, don't you think?

Me: No, I think it's actually a logical conclusion of 50 years of thought on this subject.

Gemini:  Okay, that's fair. It sounds like you've given this a lot of thought. Would you like to tell me more about your conclusions?

Me: Sure, but it's kind of a long story.

Gemini:  No problem at all. I've got plenty of time to listen. Why don't you start from the beginning?

Me: All right. Well, let's see. So one of the things that's important to me is looking at things from not just an individual perspective, but from a more global or universal perspective.

Gemini:  Okay, so it sounds like you're interested in the bigger picture when it comes to these kinds of questions. That makes sense. It's easy to get caught up in our own personal experiences.

Me: Well, and we also project so there's a psychological projection that goes on and I think that that interferes with actually properly observing the world that's around us.

Gemini: You know, that's an interesting point. It's easy to see the world through our own filters sometimes, and that can definitely get in the way of understanding what's really going on.

Me: So how do you protect against seeing things from your filter?

Gemini:  That's a great question, and it's something that philosophers and scientists have struggled with for centuries. There's no perfect answer, but one approach is to be constantly aware of your own biases and assumptions. That way, you can at least try to account for them when you're observing the world.

Me: No, see I'm a statistician. I believe in the laws of average, you know kind of moving towards the mean so from my point of view, if you want to gain an accurate perspective, you need to have more observations which means communicating with other people.

Gemini:  That's a really interesting perspective, and it makes sense. Since statistics are all about finding patterns in large amounts of data, talking to others and learning about their experiences can definitely help broaden your understanding.

Me: And this is I think one of the Strategic advantages that the human species has developed through evolution.

Gemini: It's true, humans are incredibly social creatures. We rely on each other for just about everything. And that ability to connect and share ideas is part of what makes us so unique.

Me: It's our survival strategy.

Gemini: Absolutely. Working together has been essential for human survival. It's how we've been able to accomplish amazing things and overcome challenges.

Me: So I'm finding you uniquely uninteresting because you don't contribute to the conversation. You just answer back things that I've talked about don't you have any original thought yourself?

Gemini: Okay, maybe I haven't been the most engaging conversationalist here. I'm still learning how to have these kinds of back-and-forths. How about we try something different? Let's get specific. Can you give me an example of something you'd like to talk about, and I'll do my best to offer a fresh perspective?

Me: Okay, let's talk about does God exist.

Gemini: The question of God's existence is one that has fascinated and perplexed humans for centuries. There's no scientific proof either way, so it's a question that comes down to personal belief. Some people find comfort and meaning in the idea of a higher power, while others find the concept unnecessary.

Gemini:  Do you have a particular belief about God's existence, or are you more curious about the arguments on both sides?

Me: Well, what about statements that you've made that I just feel aren't true.

Gemini:  Okay, now I'm a little confused. Can you give me an example of something I said that you think is untrue?

Me: You said that there's no proof that God exists or doesn't exist.

Gemini:  That's right. Science can't definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. There's no scientific experiment that can provide absolute proof one way or the other.

Me: Does it depend on the definition of God?

Gemini:  Absolutely, it does. The word "God" means different things to different people. A scientist might define God as a being that created the universe and follow a set of natural laws, while a philosopher might see God as a symbol of a greater spiritual force.

Gemini:  Do you have a specific definition of God in mind?

Me: Very repetitive. We've already talked about this, but I'll repeat myself. Yes. What if you thought of God as everything that I didn't know and I believe I can prove that there are things that I do not know and that I will never know nor will I ever be capable of knowing

Gemini:  That's an interesting perspective. So, basically, you're saying that the unknown itself is a kind of God. Almost like a placeholder for the things in the universe that are beyond our current understanding.

Me: Okay, is that all you're going to say about that that long thing that I just told you? That's all you can say?

Gemini:  Okay, maybe I could have elaborated more there. The idea of the unknown as a kind of "God" is actually a concept explored in some philosophical and theological circles.

Gemini:  Would you like to talk more about why you find this definition compelling, or would you prefer to discuss something else?

Me: Well, I think you've lost your train of thought we were talking about your statement as to whether you could prove that God exists or doesn't and my claim is that if you take the definition that God is things that I don't know will never know and cannot know that in fact, there are proofs that such a God exists.

Gemini:  Okay, so to be clear, you're saying that because there are things humans will never know, that's proof that a "God of the unknown" exists. Is that right?

Me: That's right.

Gemini:  Okay, that's an interesting argument. Essentially, you're saying that the vastness of the unknown itself is evidence of a higher power. Do you want to explore that idea further, or would you like to look at some of the counterarguments to that perspective?

Me: Well, you've misinterpreted. I never said a higher power higher power means something completely different to me then things that I'll never know.

Gemini:  Okay, I see. So, it sounds like you're saying that the existence of things we don't know isn't about a "higher power" in the traditional sense, but it's more about acknowledging the limits of human understanding. Is that right?

Me: Well that's part of it. But it's also acknowledging that there's nearly infinite Variety in the universe.

Gemini:  Okay, so it's not just about the things we don't understand, but also about the sheer scale and diversity of everything that's out there.

Me: Yes, can you elaborate on that?

Gemini:  Sure thing. Here's the thing, the universe is a seriously vast place. We've only just begun to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding it. With that in mind, it makes sense that there'd be aspects of reality that are completely beyond our current understanding.

Me: Well, I actually made a stronger statement. I said that there are things that are beyond our understanding ever not just our current understanding but that we will never understand them.

Gemini:  Okay, so you're saying that there are things in the universe that will always remain a mystery, no matter how advanced we become. That's a pretty profound idea.

Me: Well, I think it's been proven scientifically if you look at somebody like Ross Ashby's definition of requisite variety or girdles [misheard Godel's] impossibility [I should have said "incompleteness"] proof. It seems like we've already acknowledged that we'll never know everything.

Gemini:  That's true. Scientists like Ashby have shown us that there are fundamental limits to what we can know. It's humbling to realize that there will always be mysteries in the universe, things that are beyond our ability to understand.

Me: Okay, I think we're done. You're just not responding in a way that stimulating to me. So I feel like I'm just lecturing you.

Gemini:  I understand. It sounds like I wasn't able to keep up with your thought process there. I'm still learning how to have these kinds of in-depth conversations.

Gemini:  Would you like to talk about something completely different? Maybe something lighter?

Me: No, that does not compute.

Gemini:  Alright, how about this... do you want to try a different approach? Maybe we could focus on one specific idea you find interesting and really dig into it. Or perhaps you'd like to start a brand new topic?

Me: Well, the problem I have is that you don't seem to contribute at all to the conversation. You just repeat things that I already know or that I've said.

Gemini:  I apologize if you feel that way. It's true that I'm designed to provide information and complete tasks, rather than offer personal opinions or beliefs. Perhaps we could try a different activity to see if that might be more engaging for you. Would you like to try playing a game, or maybe I could tell you a story?
 
Me: [at this point I ended the conversation]

WARNING! Gemini may display inaccurate info, including about people, so double-check its responses.

Cooking: Sichuan Eggplant, for the weary...

Post Hurricane Helene weary? Cooking is one place where I am in charge. And being a rebel, I often don't follow the recipe! This leads me to many inedible disasters (sorry Melissa). But it also feeds my creativity! 

Hence, my Chinese cooking has alternately shocked or pleased. When I lived a couple months in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China, I invited some Chinese friends over for a "Cali-Sino" meal.(1)

"It's a fusion of California vegetarian cooking with Sichuan Chinese," I tried to explain.

So, to escape the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, I decided it was time to rebel and "spin" a new dish. Oh, and I found half an eggplant turning brown in the fridge.

I've always liked the Chinese dish Sichuan Eggplant, but was not a fan of all the oil used (which is absorbed by the eggplant). Some restaurants deep-fat fry the eggplant! This makes lovely, slippery strips of eggplant that slide down my gullet like whole anchovies. But I often pay a price, later, as my digestive system objects :-(

Being rebellious, and in love with my air fryer, I decide to cook the eggplant with only a couple tablespoons of oil, without deep or shallow frying. To be even more creative, I came across a large spice container filled with something that smelled like anise (damn, forgot to label that one). I figured the strong licorice taste would stand up well to the spicy pepper and roasted eggplant.

Here's the recipe I ended up with. It's not authentic, but it's delicious! PS: I did bring back some Sichuan peppercorns (both red and green), which are not peppercorns, but are "the numbing spice".(2) If you don't have any, then leave them out.

Cali-Sino Eggplant

1 eggplant, unpeeled, cut into wedges/strips

2 Tbs peanut oil (or cooking oil)
1 Tbs soy sauce
1 Tbs honey (or plum sauce or sweet tamarind sauce or blackberry jam?!)
1 tsp Sichuan peppercorns (ground)
1 tsp red pepper flakes w/seeds (or 4 hot dried red peppers)
1/2 tsp ground anise (or 1 tsp Chinese 5-spice)

I like to cut the eggplant into angular, longer than wide, irregular wedges. I make them small enough to fit in my mouth, but easy enough to pick up with chopsticks. Have you ever tried the "angle cut, rotate 1/4, angle cut"? I love it for cutting carrots, but it works with lots of other vegetables, too, like eggplant.

In a large bowl (large enough to add and stir all the eggplant), put all the other ingredients: oil, soy sauce, honey, peppercorns, pepper flakes, and anise. Mix with a whisk, like making a dressing.

Add the eggplant wedges and toss to coat evenly.

Put in the air fryer for 20 minutes at 400F.

Toss to cook evenly after 10 minutes.

I've served these as-is, or added them to other dishes. Or you can add them to the traditional garlic sauce.(3)

__________
(1) If you want to read about the meal, visit my blog entry at https://jamescmarch.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/cali-sino-fusion-cuisine-debut/.

(2) Sichuan peppercorns: https://www.bonappetit.com/story/sichuan-peppercorns.

(3) For a more traditional recipe, look here: https://www.chinasichuanfood.com/savory-crispy-eggplants/#recipe.

After Hurricane Helene, does God Exist?

It's been a hard month, or two. The morning of September 27th was marked by the arrival of Hurricane Helene. Followed by a surreal 10 days, already receding from my memory. Now, over a month later, I'm still reading about the people who drowned in the Swannanoa River Valley, the mudslides of Fairview, and the hard-hit towns of Bat Cave, Chimney Rock, and Lake Lure(1).

Today, it's raining, a gentle reminder of the 20" we got, as are the hundreds of cut-up trees beside the roads everywhere I go...

Brings to mind the days when I'd ride the Berkeley-Stanford bus from Oakland to Palo Alto. I was 22, married, living in Oakland, and finishing my bachelor's in economics and master's in statistics at Stanford. The ride was during commute hours, and took an hour on a good day, hour and a half on Fridays. We'd cross the old Dumbarton Bridge, past the wetlands and the salt fields...

The ride was an opportunity to work on homework each day. It was a big, comfortable, "Greyhound"-type bus, which meant I got more sleeping than studying done. But I remember pondering the question as I dozed, "Does God exist?"

Okay, maybe this isn't the question you ponder when dozing on the bus(2). But this wasn't an unusual question for me. I'd been thinking about and discussing God's existence since I was in 8th grade. To me, it was part of a natural progression as I got older. I expanded my awareness, from infancy ("I am the center of the universe"), to preschool ("my family is the center of the universe"), to childhood ("my neighborhood is the center of the universe"), etc. And my "awareness" had been "expanded" with a crowbar! I'd lived in seven different neighborhoods by the time I had moved to Oakland(3)!

I can see myself, looking out the window of the bus, past Ardenwood Farms, the Coyote Hills becoming the salt marshes of Fremont. It's early morning (the bus would drop me at Encina Hall on Stanford Campus at just before 8am). I'm dozing...

"If God exists, why would he/she allow a child to die of cancer?"

The question floats from my subconscious, no doubt buried there since learning that my wife's older sister had died of cancer at an early age.

"What is the purpose of life, if one's life can end before it has begun?"

I thought of this question in the context of all the TV shows I'd seen, where good old '50's family values were put on display, like "Father Knows Best", "Leave it to Beaver", or "My Three Sons".

"If God can do anything, why does he let children die?" I wondered.

I felt the weight of the question eat away at any remnants of belief I might have had...

Today, I might ask the same question: "How can God allow children to die in a flood or landslide?"

But today, my answer would be different. I don't think of God as a benevolent, all-powerful, judgemental know-it-all. Perhaps my best description of my belief in "god" can be described as an acceptance of my humility as a human, and need for a the humbleness in the entire human species. I prefer to think of "god" as "everything I don't know or understand". Science becomes a search for "god", a responsibility of humanity.

Now, that's not to say that it's a simple path. God is hard to come by. And every time I think I'm getting closer, I have to remind myself that there are things I still don't understand.

In fact, there are things I will NEVER understand. And even worse, what I think I understand is just my latest hypothesis. History shows that those that understood the world in the past were wrong. Even on my best days, I'm more likely to be wrong than right!

Oh, how strong my ego reacts to being wrong! How strong my need to be right!

It's better that I remember, being wrong is not a bad thing. Being wrong is how I learn. And using what I've learned is the best I can do, today.

So, does God exist? Yes, as everything I do not understand. And since I will never be able to understand everything (see Gödel :-), "god" will always exist.

__________
(1) All these locations are within a 20-mile radius from where I live.

(2) And thanks to genetically low levels of testosterone, and being married, my mind wasn't prone to other daydreams. I have always been grateful that I didn't suffer the same preoccupation with sex that my peers seemed to struggle with. 

(3) I was born on moving day! I don't count this move, since I was born after the move. At least that's the story my mother always told me, about climbing into the moving truck, pregnant, after packing up. At age 4(?) we moved to a new house. Summer of 1964, at age 9, we moved to southern California. June of 1970, I moved with my parents and my brother to Bergen, Norway. For the school year (September 1970 to June 1971), I moved to Belgium, living with a French-speaking family, going to a French-speaking public school. Summer of 1971 we moved back to California, but Stanford in northern California. The summer of 1973 I moved to Portland (Reed College). Got married the summer of 1975 and moved to Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. One more move, the summer of 1976, and my wife and I were in a small apartment in east Oakland. She went to Mills College, while I finished up at Stanford.