TTHE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
08/19/11 -- Vol. 30, No. 8, Whole Number 1663
Frick: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Frack: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The latest issue is at http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm.
Topics:
Excerpt from "Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil Travelog"
(Part 1) (by Mark R. Leeper)
Seven Things We Assume Without Even Thinking about Them
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
Inter-Discipline Answer (letter of comments
by David Goldfarb)
This Week's Reading (THE SATURDAY BIG TENT WEDDING PARTY and
WAR OF THE WORLDS) (book and film comments by Evelyn
C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Excerpt from "Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil Travelog"
(Part 1) (by Mark R. Leeper)
[Steven Silver asked me to write a travel log to a place that
existed only in science fiction or fantasy for his fanzine
ARGENTUS. I thought this might be fun.]
Excerpt from "Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil Travelog" Part 1
By Mark Leeper
2/17/01 Roxton Camp, Maple White Plateau
I woke up early as usual. I have had a hard time sleeping since
we got to Brazil. I guess I like it cool at night and it is hot
and humid. Back at the lodge they have air conditioning, but of
course you cannot air condition a tent. Evelyn was still
sleeping and I heard something that must have come to the river
to drink in the morning. It sounded big and heavy. I pulled on
my shirt, pants, and sandals and grabbed by camera but by the
time I got to the water there was nothing to film. I am not
sure what kind of animals we would get coming to drink. The
Orinoco is slow and particularly muddy on this stretch and I am
a little surprised that any animal can drink from it.
The Plateau is still about two hour's drive by jeep over what
they call roads here. It probably would have taken the
Challenger expedition something like three days to travel the
distance, but they were on foot for this last part. Even so it
is going to take a while. And the trip through the jungle on
that road, though not really boring, is lacking in a lot of
variety. Any animal who hears the jeep engine is long gone by
the time we drive by so the best we can hope for is seeing a few
birds, and then we have to look really quick. I imagine back in
Challenger's time there was a lot more to see.
A lot of nasty things come out of this jungle. We are just a
little way east of the Rio Negro. Ever read "Leiningen versus
the Ants" by Carl Stephenson? I haven't seen any big ants,
actually, but you do see smaller ones swarming over trees. I
don't know if they ever really get army ant swarms like the ones
Stephenson wrote about. Also the mosquitoes can be pretty bad.
Breakfast was scrambled eggs and fruit. There were a few pieces
of toast, but they were burnt. They eggs were watery. Even the
fruit which was good the last few days seemed a little overripe
and mushy. But still I was looking forward to the day. I mean
this is really the centerpiece of the whole trip. It doesn't
matter how many times you have seen pictures and films of live
dinosaurs, it is nothing like seeing the real things in front of
you. And we get only one day. Actually with the jeep ride to
and from the plateau and the cable ride up and down half the day
is taken up with that. Evelyn was saying that the Brazilian
government was going to build a small dormitory for travelers on
the top of the plateau, but the conservation people decided to
protest and the plans were quickly cancelled. Probably for the
best. There is only one Maple White Plateau. Only one place
that we can really see dinosaurs in their natural habitat left
alive. I don't want to see anything happen to them. We were
done and ready to go at 8:00, but the jeeps were late. Gil
won't be going with us. I guess he has seen the top and he
doesn't want to pay the ticket for a ride up and down. We pay
only one fee for the whole trip so do not see how much of it
goes for the trip up the plateau, but I take it the Brazilian
government gets a hefty chunk of change for everyone who goes up
to the plateau.
At about 8:20 the two jeeps pulled up and Gil packed three of us
in the back of each. There is a seat next to the driver, but I
guess they don't want to share the front with a tourist. Evelyn
and I got one jeep and Jim joined us. One of the couples has to
be split up for the trip. I guess Jim doesn't mind. Actually
since I will be working on my log it wouldn't bother me too much
to be split up from Evelyn. You might wonder how I can write in
my log on these--I hate to use the word "road"--wet sand traps.
With a palmtop the shaking doesn't stop my typing.
Anyway, I we have an Indian driving. We sit in the back. It is
not really comfortable, but we didn't come to Brazil for
comfort. I am going to see dinosaurs. Jeez. Just the thought
of it. Actually it shouldn't be so hard to see them. I mean if
the Brazil government would cooperate, they could clone them or
something. Of course that would end their monopoly. I guess
when you discover something like the Maple White Plateau in your
own country you want to milk as much from it as you can. Brazil
does not have that many big moneymaker industries. I guess let
them benefit as much as they can from the one thing they have
that nobody else in the world has.
The drive through the jungle was long and hot and dull. It was
about 10:15 when Evelyn tapped my leg. Just over the trees you
could see the Maple White Plateau. It looked like a lot of rock
and not much green at he top. I was hoping to see a pterodactyl
or two flying over. No such luck. It just looked like a lot of
rock. I have to try and find out why this rock is like this. I
mean geologically. It all looked like it was one piece from
here. Actually it was all one piece at one time in its past.
The Summerlee Column broke off as cleavage at one point. It
looks like the only place that the rock was climbable and it
broke off. That was how Challenger got up. He climbed
Summerlee Column and used a tree to cross over to the main part
of the plateau. That was also how he got stuck up there. I
guess it is kind of pointless looking for where the tree fell.
Everything is just so big.
I asked the driver if we would be seeing "Curupuri." He thought
that it was very funny that I used that word and he didn't tell
me anything. Everybody back home knows the dinosaurs are called
Curupuri and that is what the Indians call them. This guy had
never even heard of the name. If the Indians don't call them
Curupuri, who does? Where did we get that name for them? It is
hard to know how much of this is publicity and how much is real.
Anyway now the driver thinks that I am some sort of a jerk.
Honestly, Curupuri is supposed to be the Indian name for the
dinosaurs. I don't think the drivers think very much of the
tourists.
There is a road around the base of the plateau. The jungle ends
as you get near the plateau and then it is sandy up to the rock.
There is a road around the base of the plateau. None of this is
paved, you understand, but it is marginally easier to drive on
than to go straight across country. We got on the road and
drove around. I got a better look at the Summerlee column.
Somehow from a distance I could not get a good picture because
the jungle was in the way. Now if I take a picture, I cannot
get enough in the frame to make it look interesting. We pass a
marker for James Colver Point. I don't know what it is or why
they labeled it. Nobody is telling us about it, but somebody
thought it was worth labeling. Evelyn says Colver doesn't sound
like a Portuguese or Indian name.
As we drove around the base we start to see a little camp.
Actually it looks like one tent and one shack. And there is a
wooden structure that is the base of the cable car. The jeeps
go around to the wooden structure. The drivers get out and talk
to someone from the shack. Evelyn, Jim and I get out to stretch
our legs. Jim goes over to talk to Ellen. The two Toms seem to
have come through the trip OK. Now the six of us are standing
around talking. I am writing some notes into my palmtop. Okay,
now I am caught up to where we are. It is now just a minute
after 11.
TO BE CONTINUED NEXT WEEK
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Seven Things We Assume Without Even Thinking about Them
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Here are seven things that will keep you awake at night wondering
what you can believe and what you cannot:
1. Induction: We assume the world will continue to behave in the
future as it has in the past. If the air in your kitchen has been
breathable every day in the past, you don't test it before
breathing it today. But there is no rational reason to believe in
induction. The most-often proffered argument seems to be that it
has worked well in the past--but that is a circular argument!
Still, it is not something we can give up easily--or perhaps at
all.
Actually, there are two forms of induction, each with its own
problems. There is the one I just described, which Hume called the
Principle of Uniformity of Nature. And there is induction in the
form of making a general rule on the basis of specific instances.
The latter is what is used when we observe a hundred swans, all
white, and decide all swans are white. Future swans that we see
which are also white theoretically support this rule. The problem
is with this type of induction is as follows: "All swans are white"
is logically equivalent to "All non-white things are not swans."
Anything that supports the latter must support the former. We see
something green. On closer examination we see it is a tree, that
is, not a swan. So this is evidence for "all swans are white."
But consider the statement "all swans are black." This is the same
as "all non-black things are not swans." The green tree supports
this as well, so it also provides evidence for "all swans are
black." How can this be?
It gets worse. Nelson Goodman found yet another problem, which I
will describe in terms of our swans. Assume it is 1999. A swan is
whack if it is white in the 20th century, and black in the 21st; it
is blite if it is black in the 20th century and white in the 21st.
Now, every swan we have seen is so far both white and whack; why do
we believe they are white, but not whack? The argument that these
definitions are artificial and too difficult to understand does not
really hold up. Consider that if we define "valid suffix" as "th"
in the 20th century and "st" in the 21st, and "invalid suffix" as
the reverse, that seems to be a perfectly reasonable definition
that is not too complex to understand.
W. V. O. Quine suggested that only descriptions that that identify
a real property of real things should be used in this sort of
statement. This just pushes the question back to what "real
properties" and "real things" are.
So where does this leave us? Well, we have to live in the world
and make decisions based on imperfect information. Humans (and
other animals) who spent an inordinate amount of time re-
establishing the drinkability of water, the breathability of air,
the firmness of the ground, and so on, did not survive long to have
descendents. It would appear that induction is an evolutionary
necessity, even if there is no rational justification for it.
2. Occam's Razor: We assume the simplest explanation is the best.
We invoke this all the time, as though there were some reason to
believe it. But this is not always the case. Circles are simpler
than ellipses, but planetary orbits are ellipses. Newtonian
physics is simpler than Einsteinian physics, but it appears that
Einsteinian physics is correct.
That is what is wrong with those number sequence problems where you
are given several numbers and asked what the next number should be.
Consider the sequence 1, 4, 7, 11, 15, ... What is the next
number? Is it 20? Or is it 18? Or is it something else entirely?
One can justify almost any answer with some rule or other. But
what a problem like this is asking for is the simplest rule.
(Of course, it also assumes induction is valid, in the sense that
it assumes the rest of the sequence follows the same rule as the
part given. If the sequence is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., we assume the
rule is that the n-th entry is n. We do not consider a rule such
as "the first 5 entries have the n-th entry equal to n, but every
entry after that is 0" to be a reasonable answer.)
But again the answer may be evolutionary. If there are several
possible explanations for something, the simplest explanation that
is not obviously false is the one worth choosing, because it takes
less resources to remember it and to use it.
3. The Existence of Other Minds: We assume other people have minds.
Each of us knows she has a mind, because of Descartes' famous proof
("Cogito ergo sum"). But we have no proof that other minds exist.
We just believe they do. (At least most people do; there seem to
be very few solipsists these days.)
4. The Validity of Sensory Evidence: We assume that, within a small
range for error, our senses transmit true information about the
external world. If we see a bridge across a river, we step onto it
without wondering if it is just an illusion.
5. Free Will: We assume we have free will. That is, we make
decisions. As John Searle said, even supposed determinists do not,
when presented with a restaurant menu, say, "Oh, I think I will
just wait and see what turns up." A determinist might say that all
that he does is fore-ordained, but he will still admit that when he
takes a second cup of coffee, he feels as though he could have
decided not to. (A philosopher once related lecturing on free
will, and having someone ask him, "If determinism could be proved
to be true, would you accept it?" The philosopher pointed out that
the very phrasing of the question implied a belief in free will.)
6. Personal Identity: We assume we are the same person throughout
our lives. Oh, we learn some things, forget others, change our
opinions on some issues, but we believe there is a continuity to
our identity. But why? All the molecules in our body get changed
every seven years, but that does not make us a new person, so we
must think identity is in the mind. (And indeed, if you ask people
what would happen if science could swap the brains of two people,
most would say that identity follows the brain. But it is not
consciousness that forms the identity, because when you woke up
this morning, you believed you were the same person as the one who
went to sleep last night. Even if a person is unconscious from an
accident, we believe his identity remains. But even if a person
suffers from "total" amnesia, we feel they are the same person.
But it's even more complicated than that. A friend was talking
about misunderstandings about the Singularity, and said that one
was the idea that uploading one's personality/memory/identity is
the answer is just wrong. As he said, "Just because some computer
thinks it is me does not make the prospect of my death more
appealing." Or for that matter, cloning: "Just because other body
has been brainwashed to think it is me does not make the prospect
of my death more appealing."
7. Causality: We assume that events have causes. If we see a leaf
fall, we assume that something caused that leaf to come off a tree,
and that gravity causes it to fall. We do not think that it was
instantly created falling to earth. For that matter, we said that
gravity caused it to fall, but we really have no idea what gravity
is. We observe that bodies attract; we call this attraction
gravity, and say that gravity causes bodies to attract. This is no
explanation at all. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (film review by Mark
R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The new "Apes" film is not into intelligent or even
credible social comment but rather the digital spectacle of a
battle between humans and apes. Human dominance of apes turns
into violent rebellion when ape intelligence becomes widespread.
The digital art for the apes' faces is, if anything, too
expressive. But the film has a hackneyed "the-bad-guys-are-us"
plot on which to hang some interesting special effects. Rating:
+2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Back from 1968 to 1973 Fox Film did very nicely with their five-
film series based on THE PLANET OF THE APES by Pierre Boulle. In
addition to the films, there was a live-action and an animated TV
series based on the films. After that, the series fell silent
until 2001 when Tim Burton did his take on adapting the original
novel to the screen. Now Rupert Wyatt directs for the screen a
new film, ostensibly another chapter in the original series,
though it is really inconsistent with the series and is more as a
new millennium tribute to the old series.
Will Rodman (played by James Franco) does research for a large
pharmaceutical firm working on a failing project that is looking
for a possible cure for Alzheimer's. He is using a drug he is
developing on a chimpanzee. His drug has the unexpected side-
effect of raising the IQ of the subject. This drug also turns a
female chimpanzee savage and she is killed. Franco discovers that
she had been pregnant and had a baby chimp. From guilt he agrees
to adopt the baby chimp Caesar (Andy Serkis with motion capture).
He discovers that Caesar inherited his mother's high intelligence.
So while Rodman studies the possible intelligence drug, Caesar
develops with the mind of an ape and of a human. The young ape
has the intellect of a human, but is treated like an animal. As a
result he develops a hatred for human society that gets him in
trouble but also puts him in contact with other discontented apes.
There is no mystery where all this is going. One merely has to
see the title of the film to know the destination of the plot.
The interest value is in the route it will take.
There are some notable problems. The film takes place in and
around San Francisco but was shot in large part in British
Columbia. Somebody should have noticed the radio mentions Tim
Horton (the Canadian equivalent of Dunkin Doughnuts). There are
some basic problems in the shooting and the script. At one point
we are told in a title card that five years have gone by and
Caesar looks older yet Franco looks exactly the same. His
character Rodman does not know the difference between a monkey and
an ape. He is working very closely with a chimp and yet does not
know the chimp is pregnant. Later somehow Caesar finds more apes
in the San Francisco area than I would have thought possible.
Although there are two good veteran actors, Brian Cox does not
have much chance to make his character interesting and John
Lithgow has only little more depth in his character, though his
character is a little reminiscent of Charley Gordon from FLOWERS
FOR ALGERNON.
The original PLANET OF THE APES was a big step forward in fantasy
makeup. Rather than looking like a stiff mask like the faces of
gorilla suits in the 1940s, the new makeup let the actor actually
show some human expression. In the new film the visual effect of
the apes is, if anything, too good. Caesar's face is not only
expressive, it goes all the way to hammy and in a style that would
have been welcome in silent films. And the face is more detailed
than the rest of the ape's body giving a bizarre feeling. The
face also is closer to human-complected than that of a real chimp.
The facial expression is provided via motion-capture by Andy
Serkis. Serkis performed a similar function as the title
character of KING KONG (2005) as well as Gollum in THE LORD OF THE
RINGS. By now he must be the most experienced motion caption
actor in the film industry.
The script has whimsically worked in several allusions to the
original film. The names Caesar and Cornelia (like Cornelius)
show up. An orangutan is named Maurice for actor Maurice Evans.
A drug project head is named Jacobs for Arthur Jacobs, producer of
the original film.
Patrick Doyle delivers an effective score without making it
reminiscent of his score for MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
The idea of another venture into the "Planet of the Apes" with
digital effects did not sound promising, particularly after the
2001 Tim Burton remake fiasco. In spite--or perhaps because of--
that one cannot help but feel the virtues of this film outweigh
the problems. I rate RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES a +2 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Two notes: 1) Sit through the credits. A
very important point about the plot occurs during the closing
credits. 2) I rarely get a chance to use my mathematical knowledge
in a film review, but nineteen is a very unlikely number of steps
in the Four Disk Towers of Hanoi puzzle. The solution comes down
to remembering and practicing two simple rules. They determine
every move. Caesar would have to follow the two rules for almost
the entire solution and still deviate from them in minor ways once
or twice. If one knows the solution it should take only fifteen
steps, and if not it would probably take a good deal more than
nineteen steps.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318514/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Inter-Discipline Answer (letter of comments by David
Goldfarb)
In response to Mark's answer in the 08/12/11 issue to the geometry
problem in the 08/05/11 issue, David Goldfarb writes:
I have to admit I didn't think about the properties of 30-60-90
triangles--and indeed my first reaction to your " ... whose
hypotenuse has to be of length 2r" was "how does he know that?"
After a minute or so I realized that a 30-60-90 triangle is half of
an equilateral triangle, and it became clear. If I'd realized that
I'd have saved myself a great deal of algebra. [-dg]
Mark responds:
That is one way of thinking about it. Equivalently, you could use
the fact that sin(30) = 1/2 or that a 30-60-90 triangle has sides
in proportion to 1-2-sqrt(3). But your way is good. Thanks for
working on it.
(When I teach I use just your approach when I want the student to
understand why sin(30) = 1/2.) [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book and film comments by Evelyn
C. Leeper)
THE SATURDAY BIG TENT WEDDING PARTY by Alexander McCall Smith (ISBN
978-0-307-37839-2) is the twelfth book in the "No. 1 Ladies
Detective Agency" series. McCall Smith has moved away from
mysteries and detection, and into more philosophizing (and
preaching). All the crises work out conveniently (although the
election results seem left for the next book). As many others have
noted, the children that Mma Ramotswe and Mr. J. L. B. Matekoni had
adopted seem to have disappeared, to the extent that they never
have any effect on Mma Ramotswe's schedule. I wish McCall Smith
would return to the detection aspect that began this series.
We recently watched WAR OF THE WORLDS for the umpteenth time, and I
noticed yet more new things. For example, the scene of the Martian
war machine coming down the street at about 33 minutes into the
film is the same scene as the one at the end when the ship crashes.
That is, it was shot as a single scene, and then cut so the first
half was used in the early scene and the rest at the end.
There are scenes in the middle of the film of animals fleeing in
terror: wild horses, deer, and birds. But in the horse scene you
can see wranglers along the ridge driving the horse down the side
of the hill.
At the end, all of the Martian war machines in Los Angeles go
silent at the same instant--a very unlikely scenario.
And while there are a few Hispanic characters, there is only one
Asian (other than visiting dignitaries) and no African-Americans.
This hardly reflects the composition of Los Angeles at the time.
[-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
It is always the best policy to speak the truth--
unless, of course, you are an exceptionally good liar.
--Jerome K. Jerome