Introduction to Cynicism

According to Wikipedia, cynicism is an attitude which is the result of social problems. The reason why Wikipedia argues in such a way is because this is explained in the mainstream literature of what a pessimistic philosophy is. In reality, cynicism can explained with gametheory. Here are the details.

At first, it has nothing to do with an individual or the society, instead cynicism is part of certain types of games which have a high probability to getting lost. At first we suppose a game which is the opposite, that means the game is easy. The task is to run the 100 meter in under 20 seconds. That task can be done by most of the people, i would guess at least by 90% or more. That means, the runner is confident that he will reach the goal. He suppose this because he knows the average time of his colleagues, and also his own result from the last trial. Perhaps, he has done the 100 meter in the last exercise in 15 seconds, and if not a serious problem will happen, he can do this again, and again.

In such a game, no cynicism is happening. That means, there is no doubt, that the goal is reachable. And now I want to describe the opposite kind of games. That are games, which are not possible to win, or which are very difficult to win. For example, if somebody not only wants to run the 100 meter in 20 seconds, but in 14 seconds, because otherwise he will get a bad mark in his sport diploma. The problem is, that the 14 seconds are not reachable for that person. He has tried it before, but he failed. His best run was done with 15 seconds, and he isn’t able to run faster. Or I want to give an anther example. If somebody is playing chess, has lost his queen, and also two bishops. .Than it is no longer possible to win the game. That means, the game is lost or it is very difficult to win against the superior opponent. That are all example, which are resulting into cynicism. That means, if the person who plays the game is trying to express his feelings and describe rational the situation, then a sarcastic mood is normal.

Perhaps an example. Which option has the chess player, which lost his queen to predict the future? The first option would be, to give a positive outlook. He can say “I will win the game, I’m confident, I’m strong”. That would be a non-sarcastic description. The only problem is, that this description is not reachable. If somebody from outside will analyse the situation rational, he would recognize, that the game is lost. So the optimistic description to win the game, in case of the bad situation is wrong. That means, it has nothing to do with the real situation. The better description would be a negative description, because it has a higher probability. This description is called cynicism.

Avoiding cynicism is easy. The only thing what a person has to do is playing only games, which he can win. He will never be in the situation to give a negative outlook. In contrast, if a user is playing games, which are too hard for him, and which will get lost all the time, he will start describing the world cynical. The best novel so far is “House of God” from Samuel Shem which plays in a hospital. It is a massive example in cynicism. But the negative mood has nothing to do with the author itself, or the characters which he describes, instead the tone is given by the setting. “House of god” describes the reality in a medical hospital. The basic assumption is, that most of these games are lost. Because there is no therapy available for the diseases. That is not only the perception of the protagonist, but a reality which is written in every textbook about medicine.

In theory it would be possible to describe the working in a hospital with a more positive outlook. But the problem is the same, like in the chess game. If somebody from outside looks at the description, he would recognize, that it is wrong.


Reading loud for fighting dogs

Have you seen an old lady which walks on the street and she talks to her dog? Yes, that’s normal. The problem is only that the lady doesn’t understand anything about animals, she believes that her dog likes his voice, but it’s not possible. Dogs are dogs, and humans are humans, so the communication will fail. Why the old lady talks to her dog?

But we have made a mistake. The problem is not, that the lady talks to her animal friend, the problem is, that she not talks enough. The joke is, that indeed a dog can not understand simple words like yes or no. And dogs also not understand their own name. Interestingly, dogs can understand the language if it is more complicated. I’ve found recently in the internet some remarkable examples under the searchterm “therapy dog reading aloud”. The setting is always the same. A human is taking a book with a long story. sitting next to the dog and starts to reading the book. After 1 minute, the dog will be calm, after 5 minutes he lays down, and after 30 minutes his eyes are closed. That is not a joke, that is the normal behaviour. It happens to all dogs, and many youtube videos proof it.

From this point of view, our old lady from the introduction should talk more with their dog, if she wants to communicate with him. Not only a half sentence and every time the same words, but she could talk longer stories and every evening she can read another book loud to him. It seems, that dogs are indeed very good in listening.

The most remarkable aspect is, that this is true not only for small and nice dogs but also for big fighting dogs, which are normally extreme aggressive and barking all the time. Reading loud books to him works the same. Unfortunately, only few videos on youtube are dedicated to reading books to pitbull, but a google image search gives enough results to proof that the phenomena is more than a placebo effect. It seems, that also fighting dogs listening carefully, especially to books which were written to humans.

The reason why is until now unclear. Normally it makes no sense, that a dog understand the writings of Wilhelm Hauff, Jack London or Astrid Lindgren. It makes absolutely no sense, because at first dogs can not understand English and second, they do not need such stories in their normal life. Perhaps it has something to do with social interaction, that the dogs likes it if his owner reads to him? The open question is, if this magic effects needs in every case a human reader or if the dog are also starts to sleeping if the bedtime story is played from an iphone? The only thing which is relatively clear is, that a dog wouldn’t start to read for his own. Even if a book is available he would never open it and start to research it in detail.


According to youtube it is possible to train dogs that they even can read. Normally up to 5 words are used which are painted in big letters on a paper. If the dog reads one command, he makes a certain action. Often, animal experts believe, that there is a trick behind it. But perhaps, the human-owner has read many times a bedtime story to her pet, so that the dog really is able to understand words. Perhaps it is possible to improve the communication between human and animal with a computerized translator. That is a device, which converts the barking of a dog into human language, so it is easier for the dog to talk. At least for dolphins there are papers available which are analysing the animal language with neural network. Perhaps it is possible to do the same for dogs for recognizing their dialects?

Typewriter in office

On the internet are some funny videos out there in which a comedian is using an old typewriter in the library. These clips are humorous, because it is so different and so oldschool. Mostly, the other people in the library are first laughing about the joke and after 5 minutes they asking for stop it because the typewriter is too noisy. Also the repetition of the experiment in a different country with a different typewriter produces the same result so it is not really a good idea to do so.

What is the right innovative but accepted behaviour inside a library? It was discussed in an earlier posting, The answer is to use a dog inside the library. Like the experiment with a typewriter in the first 5 minutes it is very unusual if somebody bring his Bull Terrier into the library, because this is total forbidden. Most library have a sign at the entrance to not bring dogs within. But in contrast to bringing in a typewriter, after 5 minutes the dog is accepted widely. And even more, some libraries have dedicated “library dogs” which are living there and their only task is to listening what the people are reading to them.

Somebody may argue, that dogs are not his favourite thing, instead he wants to use a typewriter. But if the library is the wrong place, where is the right place for an old-school manual typewriter? I’ve found the answer in the following video:

It is called “typewriter in office”. But this time the office is on the street. So it is an outdoor office. What is the difference between a dog, a typewriter, an office and a library? It has something to do with loudness. Typewriters are loud, and office is also loud. Library is quiet, and dogs are quiet. It is not possible to use a typewriter with small noise, so it can only be used in office like environment. It has to do with working man. On the other hand, libraries and dogs have something to do with relaxing and homes.

What can be seen in the above video? It is a loud street in India. There are two tables out there, behind them are sitting older man. They doing business, which means, one is the customer and the other types in for him a document on the machine. Both typewriting machine are working at the same time. It is very loud on the street. If somebody would join the scene, with a bigger typewriting machine which is more loud, nobody would ask him to leave. It is a normal behaviour, which is socially accepted. So the prediction is, that anywhere in the world, if a man with a typewriter sits direct on the street and typing in letters, it would be accepted.

The question which remains open is, what happens if some really crazy guy brings a typewriter and a Pit Bull Terrier into a library. Is it ok or not?

According to the following video, at least cats doesn’t like typewriters:

Also in another youtube clip is a cat shown, which runs away after typing in a letter.

Perhaps, you as my reader thought it was a joke to imagine that somebody brings a pitpull into the library. No it is not. I found a clip which shows that pitbull terrier are very good listeners. They love stories about cowboys and the pony-express in the wild west.

It is remarkable that “therapy reading dogs” can also be fighting dogs. A fighting dog eats normally raw meats and it is a good idea to stay away from them, especially if they are barking. But, there are many pictures out there, which are showing clearly, that reading a book lout in front of him, activates some kind of relaxing mode. The scientific background is not clearly researched, but it happens to often to be called a placebo effect.

From an animal psychologist perspective it would be interesting to research what would happen if we take the most aggressive pitbull dog ever and reading to him all the stories of the library, and if we done, then we switch to the science-books. After some years or so the dog would get perhaps an diploma and speaks to us? In the movie “dawn of the planet of the apes” is a scene where an ape tries to read a book. That will not work, dogs and apes can not read. But they can listening to a human who reads. And they understand the text.


Interestingly not only noise making typewriter are hated by cats but also normal ink-jet printers. There are some videos on youtube which shows clearly that a printer makes the cat aggressive. And perhaps the same is true for dogs. So what does it means for our library dog? To get a relaxed atmosphere it is important to ban old-fashioned typewriter machines but also modern laserprinters which makes no noise. So in the library only the reading of books is allowed but the not making of new one. This is done outside at the street.

There is another video out there which is remarkable clearly. A very modern office printer which makes absolutely no noise is activated. Only the paper feed motor is working sometimes and the printer works great. So normally no man or animal is hurt in any matter. But, the cat who is sitting next to the printer is in alert mode. Every time the paper is pushed out, she gets nervous. So even a non-expert can see, that the cat doesn’t like it. So from a logical point of view, it is not possible that the cat understand the internal working of a printer, but it seems, that she understand it totally.

It seems, that dogs and human can clearly separate between relaxing and alert. Relaxing is, when a book is read out loud. And alert is, when a book is printed. In another “cat vs. printer” video the cat even tries to eat the paper. She is attacking the machine, and punch the sheet with his teeth. Why? There is no danger for the cat, and the printer is very quiet. The same is true for dogs. A super-silent printer is attacked by a dog, he barks and jumps onto it.

So let us bring this in comparison to the intro, where a man brings an old-typewriter into a library. The first idea was, that because of the noise the other guest are angry, but that it’s not true. :The same effect happens, if the man brings a supersilent modern typewriter into the library, which makes absolutely no noise. This would also ends in a disaster. No the physical loudness is important but the acting of printing.

It is not true, that a dog in alert mode is automatically wrong. Aggressive behaviour can be necessary in certain conditions. But there is a clear difference between relaxing and attack. My prediction is, that a pitbull near a laserprinter is not a good idea if the aim is relaxing. Perhaps, the pitbull thinks that he must defend against something. And this normally means to fight with maximum energy until the enemy is finished. If we search for “Dog attacking printer” more youtube-clips are shown, which are more than clear. A printing machineis the enemy number one. The typical reaction is barking and attacking.

Burning snowman

I’ve found a weird tradition called “buring snowman”.

It is done at least at the Lake Superior State University in Michigan US, but also in Zurich Switzerland is the same yearly event known. What the aim exactly is, is hard to guess, possible the people don’t like the cold temperature and burn the snowman down like a witch. Another explanation would be, that the citizen don’t understand the needs of a snowman, and so they react with violence. I would suggest, that they hate the snowman because he symbolize to dark, and cold temperatures.

Here is another video. This time the sculpture is bigger, so the fire too. What is the biggest snowman who was ever burned down?

How much is real from “Second Soldier” conspiracy?

In the Youtube-Video you can see a nice conspiracy theory which shows a secret robotics project which have the same capabilities of “Chapie” movie. The video itself is produced as a high-quality entertainment product which can easily be consumed and narrates the story as a documentary. But is the story real or fake?

The main problem with the video is, that the typical aspects of science-fiction (like projection of the current time to future) is missing. Nearly all cited technology are ready today. But in detail:

– algae battery: yes, it works. Tesla plans to use it in their cars

– robotic torso, yes it is here. See the petman-videos of boston dynamics. They have invented such a torso.

– neuro-interface for connecting human with robot, yes, it is also ready and works.

– the cited “RE-NET” project which is in the video described as “second soldier”, it is also no hoax, see

– the cooperation “RKS Dynamics” exists also, and their website contains absolute no information about whats going on inside

– the human-like walking/running/jumping behaviour of the robot: it is also possible with a technology like neuralnetworks. For demonstration see the youtube video about ubot-5 (associative skill memory).

– brainscan of dreams: also no problem with current technology,

So the logical consequence is, that the “Second Soldier project” which is described in the youtube-video is not only real, but is also OpenSource. That means, you need no “abovetopsecret” security clearance to get access to the details, its enough to consult Google Scholar Website.

Unfriedlicher Disney Roboter vorgestellt

Seit April 2017 sind die ersten Youtube Video aufgetaucht die einen neuen Disney Roboter im Themenpark Tomorrowland zeigen. Wenn ich mich recht entsinne wurde eine ähnliche Konstruktion bereits auf Technikmessen gezeigt, ohne jedoch die Interaktion mit dem Publikum auf Video festzuhalten. Der Disney Roboter trägt die Bezeichnung “iCan” und verhält sich menschenecht, das heißt er besteht den Turing-Test. Er ist so gut darin, dass die Vermutung nahe liegt es wäre keine Maschine sondern entweder ist direkt ein Schauspieler in dem Kostüm, oder aber es handelt sich um ein Telepräsenzsystem. Was iCan nun genau ist bleibt unklar, wie alle Attraktionen von Disney ist das ganze als Zaubertrick ausgelegt, das heißt es wird offen gelassen wie die technische Realisierung stattfindet.

Dennoch kann man iCan in einen Kontext setzen mit ähnlichen Attraktionen und vielleicht sogar versuchen ein wenig mehr die technischen Hintergründe zu beleuchten. Zunächst einmal zur Geschichte der Animatronics die von Disney selber eingesetzt werden. Relativ bekannt und schon länger verfügbar sind die Audio-Animatronics Figuren, es handelt sich dabei um lebensgroße Nachbildungen von amerikanischen Präsidenten und Aschenputtelfiguren die sprechen können. Eine Stufe weiter geht die “Lucky the Dinosaur” Darbietung bei dem ein Dinosaurier mit einem Wagen herumläuft und den Kopf bewegt. Ebenfalls bekannt ist die “Muppet Mobile Lab” Show, sie ist deshalb bemerkenswert weil rein von der Mechanik dort kein Mensch verborgen sein kann sondern zur Stabilisierung der Plattform zwingend Algorithmen eingesetzt werden müssen. Doch kommen wir jetzt zu iCan. Im Grunde gibt es zwei Möglichkeiten: entweder es handelt sich um einen hochentwickelten Roboter, oder es ist kein Roboter. Unterstellen wir mal es wäre ein Roboter. Der Fachbegriff der in der wissenschaftlichen Literatur verwendet wird lautet Animabotics. Es handelt sich um eine weiterentwickelte Form eines Talking-Head. Also eine Mischung aus Mechanik, KÜnstlicher Intelligenz Software mit dem Zweck des Entertainment. Unter der Bezeichnung “Philips iCat Robot” gibt es mehrere wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen die einen Talking-Head zeigen. Von “icat” steht zweifelsfrei fest, dass er nicht ferngesteuert ist und ein richtiger Roboter ist. Sein Geheimnis liegt in der hochentwickelten Software. Es handelt sich um ein integriertes System aus Umgebungserkennung, Motion Planner und Chatbot. Unter der Bezeichnung JAST wurde der icat Talking Head auf einen Robotertorso draufgeschraubt und mit Manipulativen Fähigkeiten ausgestattet.

Ob aus dem JAST Projekt das Disney ican Projekt hervorging ist unklar, Literatur gibt es dazu nicht. Aus dem Jahr 2007 gibt es ein Paper was das JAST System näher erläutert: “Integrating Language, Vision and Action for Human Robot Dialog Systems, 2007” Als Projektziel wird nur lapidar auf ein “integratives System” referenziert. Damit ist eine Softwarearchitektur gemeint, die sehr unterschiedliche Dinge wie Sprache, Dialogmanagement, Vision, Motion Planner, Objektmanipulation, Animatronics, Emotion miteinander kombiniert. Zumindest einige technische Details werden in dem Paper erläutert. Als Middleware wird “Internet Communications Engine (Ice)” verwendet, eine CORBA ähnliche Plattform mit der man unterschiedliche Programmiersprachen koppeln kann, für die Spracherkennung wird bei JAST Dragon NaturallySpeaking genutzt, weiterhin gibt es einen Facetracker, und für das Natural Language Parsing kommt OpenCCG zum Einsatz. Zur Sprachsynthese kommt eine Software von AT&T zum Einsatz. Insgesamt beschreibt der Begriff “integrativ” das System ganz gut. Unklar ist aus wieviel Lines of Code das ganze besteht und wie üblich — leider — fehlt der Sourcecode vollständig.

Über das Führen von Gottesbeweisen

Einen Gottesbeweis zu führen ist simpel. Zuerst einmal benötigt man Fakten die sich zugetragen haben. Das kann die persönliche Schildung eines Erlebnisses sein wie z.B. das jemand berichtet er habe einen Engel gesehen oder es sind Messergebnisse, oder vielleicht Fotos von übernatürlichen Ereignissen. Auch ein Gewitter, Lichterscheinungen oder eine merkwürdige Reise können dazu zählen. Im zweiten Schritt werden diese Fakten interpretiert, und hier kommt der eigentliche Gottesbeweis ins Spiel. Er funktioniert so, dass man willkührlich ausschließt dass Gott damit auf gar keinen Fall etwas zu tun haben kann und das andere Ursachen existieren müssen. Das heißt, wenn jemand einen Engel gesehen hat, redet man ihm ein, dass es auf keinen Fall der Engel aus der Bibel gewesen sein kann und das man jetzt gemeinsam nach einer anderen Erklärung sucht. Und wenn ein Gewitter stattfand, es auf gar keinen Fall die Rache eines erzürnten Gottes gewesein sein kann (auch wenn man das vielleicht vermutet), sondern dass es zwingend wissenschaftliche Ursachen geben muss. Kennt man diese noch nicht umso besser, dann hat man ein interessantes Forschungsgebiet wo man seiner Fantasie freien lauf lassen kann. Man kann ruhig die Messergebnisse fälschen oder sich eine komplette Unsinnserklärung ausdenken, es darf nur nichts mit Gott oder der Bibel zu tun haben.

Natürlich sind derartige Gottesbeweise umstritten. Weil sie eben mit einer Grundhaltung geführt werden und nicht ergebnisoffen jede Erklärung gelten lassen. Stattdessen wird vor der eigentlichen Untersuchung schonmal übernatürliche Deutungsmuster zurückgewiesen. Wie kann man sich sicher sein, dass nicht doch Gott hinter dem Gewitter steckt? Die Antwort lautet: man ist sich nicht sicher. Deshalb muss man ja die Nichtexistenz von Gott explizit beweisen. Es ist wirklich schwer, die Wahrheit zu leugnen und wissenschaftliche Deutungsmuster zu bemühen, aber langfristig zwahlt es sich aus, weil man darüber lernt, andere Menschen zu manipulieren. Die komplette Wissenschaften wurdenn erfunden um Menschen zu betrügen. Schon die ersten Gravitationsexperimente von Newton waren gefakt. Sie wurden mit einer vorgefassten Grundhaltung durchgeführt, nähmlich dass auf gar keinen Fall der Hergott dahinter steckt wenn ein Stein zu Boden plumpst. Das heißt, Newton und alle die seine Theorien weitererzählen haben sich der Häresie schuldig gemacht. Newton wusste, dass er nur Unsinn erzählt, dass seine Theorie es nicht mit der Wahrheit der Bibel aufnehmen konnte. Er wusste dass er ein Zauberer und Betrüger ist. ABer er war verdammt gut darin.

In dem Gedicht “Faust” von Goethe gibt es eine Stelle wo Mephistopheles beschrieben wird, als ein Geist der stets verneint. Damit ist gemeint, dass der Teufel nicht Klarheit in die Welt bringt sondern er Verwirrung stiftet. Das ist das Äquivalent zu einer Beweisführung wo das offensichtliche von Anfang an und ganz bewusst ausgeschlossen wird. Obwohl alle Wissen, was die wirkliche Erklärung für ein Naturphänomen ist, entschließt man sich das nicht zu verwenden. Man gibt freiwillig seine Trumpfkarte aus der Hand und spielt mit den restlichen Karten weiter obwohl diese weniger mächtig sind. Um jetzt noch zu gewinnen muss man zu Tricks greifen, also das typische Falschspiel betreiben. Welche Alternative hätte man denn sonst? Ohne die Trumpfkarte ist man in einer schlechteren Ausgangsposition, die Erklärungen die man liefert passen nicht mehr zu den Beobachtungen, also muss man ausschweifende Erklärungen erfinden und wenn die nicht überzeugen noch weitere Wissenschaftler hinzuziehen die ebenfalls ein diabolische Grundhaltung mitbringen.

Der Ansatz das offensichtliche auszuschließen und zwar ohne Not hat sich bis heute als wissenschaftliche Methoden halten können. Wenn immer ein Augenzeuge berichtet, er habe ein UFO am Himmel gesehen, kommen selbsternannte Skeptiker die nach möglichen Alternativen Erklärungen suchen. Damit ist gemeint, dass sie als erstes einmal die Wahrheit als Lüge bezeichnen und dann mit konstruierten Beweisen eine gegenteilige Weltsicht produzieren. So definieren sie die Ufo-Sichtung um in eine Wettererscheinung. Das ist zwar kompletter Unsinn, weil es nicht mit den meterologischen Daten übereinstimmt, aber zumindest ist es jetzt keine Ufo-Sichtung mehr. Die Kunst besteht darin, den “Elephant in the room” zuzudecken. Also davon abzulenken dass er existiert und den leuten einzureden, dass sie etwas anderes sehen als eigentlich da ist. Alle guten Wissenschaftler gehen nach dieser Methode vor, es gehört zum 1×1 der Schwarzmagier, Teufelsanbeter und Scharlatane.