Wednesday, April 28, 2010

On brain prosenses

You know how times flies by when you're having fun? Because it literally is. When you're enjoying yourself, your brain is "sucking in stimuli" faster than when you're in a shitty mood. You're brain "opens up". You "allow" yourself to be more vulnerable to everything around you. You've slowed down all brain receptors, allowed things to just "happen", let time flow without processing.

On the contrary, when you're mood is down, things tend to drag on. Time seems to move much more slowly. In your head, you're blocking the surrounding stiumli to an extent. You're disallowing time to move on by speeding up your brain receptors, processing ever more stimuli around you. At this point, for all intensive purposes, your brain is traveling "closer" to the speed of time. Relatively, time slows down.

What receptors are we using? Humans have 5 senses: smell, hearing, touch, taste, and sight. These senses are used to process the outside world. All living things have some type of receptor to process the outside world: starfish have feelers, dogs have ears, koala have tongues. Each of these senses is used to maintain a balance in the animal's world without having to consistently process the outside world.

That koala eats eucalyptus leaves. How does it know that the tree it eats is eucalyptus? Why doesn't he eat other tree types? The first time he ate the leaves, his genetic code was satiated: the taste, texture, hunger subsided. It was an epigenetically familiar flavor. He learns the location of that tree. The way it looks. Smells. Feels. He no longer has to "process" that tree anymore. He "automatically knows" eucalyptus when he sees it.

This is what senses allow us to do - relinquish our brain's struggle with the crazy little world in which we live. By struggle, I mean, constant processing. Senses automate the things that would otherwise slow down our processing, thus allowing us to concentrate in higher level tasks.

Soon we'll get there.
Artificial senses.

Posted via email from bryanized

Sunday, February 7, 2010

NFL 2009-2010 Summary Rank of "Toughness" by Division and Conference

Before the Super Bowl, I decided to run some numbers on the NFC/AFC rankings from the 2009 season. If anyone has any questions about how I got the numbers, feel free to ask.

Points are 'rank' of each team per conference/divison:

Offense
NFC (270 pts)
AFC (258 pts)

Defense
AFC (270 pts)
NFC (258 pts)

Summary about conferences: offenses in the NFC seem to edge the AFc, and vice versa with defense. 

Note: One of my columns of data was Points scored per game, and points allowed per game. There are 8 defenses that are considered 'outliers', and 13 offenses considered 'outliers' in the NFL in 2009. I did not remove outliers from my rankings below.


Division rankings notable divisions: according to the same ranking system applied, the NFL divisions rank like this (in order of best to worst):

offense

NFCE (89 pts)
AFCS (89 pts)
NFCN (72 pts)
NFCS (68 pts)
AFCE (62 pts)
AFCN (56 pts)
AFCW (51 pts)
NFCW (41 pts)

defense

AFCN (89 pts)
NFCE (88 pts)
AFCE (79 pts)
NFCN (75 pts)
AFCW (53 pts)
NFCS (52 pts)
AFCS (49 pts)
NFCW (43 pts)

notes: According to the ranks, the NFC East totals 177 pts, the toughest division this year. The NFC West totals 84 pts, making it the worst division this year. Bolded divisions are IND and NO divisions.

Overall rank in "toughness":

1. NFC East
2. NFC North
3. AFC North
4. AFC South
5. AFC East
6. NFC South
7. AFC West
8. NFC West

Posted via email from bryanized

Friday, February 5, 2010

On embryonic and adult stem cells. An analogy.

Let us take a long journey down an analogous path:

Consider embryonic stem cells to be baby human, and adult stem cells are an adult human.
And let's say the human body (where the stem cell transplant will take place) is analogous to dictatorship-run society.

I choose a dictatorship because has its own strict set of current ideals and cultures, under the control of "the man", and may allow immigration but expectedly, they must perform under the rules and regulations provided to them.

A) As a baby transplanted, he will assimilate into the country very easily, and likely develop similar cultures to his surroundings, such as whatever rap music, weed, and Kennedy Fried Chicken is available. He will go to whatever school is available to him. If there isn't one, he likely will not. Basically, he will grow up like you and I grew up - if you were born in America. For example, if it was Venezuela, he will likely idolize Hugo Chavez and listen to him talk on the TV every Friday night.

As he grows up, he may change his ideals to match those of his ancestors. He may start to learn about his family. His past, his history, the history before him. He may start to dislike everything about himself and his surroundings. He may become a little irate. He may become a cancer to his current society. He may become cancer.

B)As an adult transplanted to this dictator-ship (and for argument's sake, the adult is from India), he will not easily accept change in his life. He will likely bring over his current and past set of ideals. His past memories. If it were Venezuela, he will likely be less willing to listen to Hugo Chavez on TV, or if it were America, less interested in watching American Idol, or if it were France, may want to work more than 35 hours per week.

And in each instance, the adult will be viewed upon as 'different' in society. He may be rejected by the society of a dictatorship. He may be rejected.

Posted via email from bryanized

Monday, February 1, 2010

On the opposite of the English prefix "meta-"

Analogies and metaphors are two of my favorite things in writing and conversation. There are times when I lose myself trying to think up funny and witty statements that contradict themselves and make me think twice. I figure that I'll have an entire collection of things to bring up at lunchtime to crack a joke with the daily crew, but I digress.

As an unprofessional writer, I learned a new word today: catachresis. It is what you write when you combine an analogy with a metaphor; as if, your goal is to deliberately misuse a word in order to create a metaphor with a little wit. When overused, a catachresis can become a replacement for the regular word used to describe a scenario, as seen in slang or with nicknames.

Examples:

    - My illness is so chronic that my doctor's mediations did jack and shit.
    - Last night, it was a bloated moon.
    - Shirley eats so much junk that I've started calling her Surly.

So, here I am, thinking of synonyms, antonyms, similes, metaphors, etc.; and I started with the figure of speech words themselves for wordplay. Metaphor can be changed around as a catechresis, but I couldn't think of a funny change to the prefix 'meta-' to worth my while.

'Meta-', it turns out, is defined as 'all encompassing', 'ambient', 'higher level', so as to have some underlying meaning. The word metaphor could be played off with 'ur-'aphor, as in the 'aboriginal', 'original' (coincidentally), 'first level' ... '-aphor'.

Now, we're talking geek speak.

What is the opposite of meta?

When you describe an idea as 'meta-something', as in metadata or metaphysical, you're saying that it is a part of that stem-word.

If we want to say that something isn't a part of the stem-word, do we say "protophysical"? "Urdata"? "Non-metaphysical"? Sounds too weird.

In slang, being 'meta' is 'being cool', like you're 'with the in crowd'. We could go by that... and say it's uncool to be physical. But that wouldn't be right.

I'm stumped, that's all.

</thoughts>

Posted via email from bryanized

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Picturing the Past 10 Years (via Phillip Niemeyer)

Posted via email from bryanized

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

NHL Suspension Flow Chart

Posted via email from bryanized

Monday, December 7, 2009

How important is your Twitter avatar? A personal experiment.

Note: I apologize for any likenesses to any current public Twitter accounts now. If I misrepresent you, it is FOR EFFECT.

With that said: 

 

How important is your Twitter avatar? You know... that picture next to your account name? It is how people remember you. It is how you are representing yourself to the world. It is your online image. 

I like to experiment. I asked myself, "What if we took the same tweet and changed the avatar and name of the account from where it was said?"

Let's try it:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

This gives me a hint of honesty, appreciation, and a hint of sexuality. It depends on who you are, but I like a girl who can eat a hot dog like a champ. *Ahem* #OK, moving on.

 

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

God. I just want to punch this fat guy. Stop eating. I hope you choke on the damn dog, even though I know you won't because you've probably become an expert at swallowing things whole. Fat shit.

 

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

I do love me some ballpark hotdogs. Boy, I could eat one right now. Hmm. Where can I get some mustard? OH! @wildmountain has some good stuff! I'M BUYING SOME NOW.

 

Results:

Your avatar has a surprising control over your followers' reaction to your tweets. I don't know why. I'm no psychological expert. I do know that I made assumptions about every person based on their avatar before I even took into account what they were saying.

Beauty is only Tweet Deep.

Posted via web from bryanized