Are you trying to tell me something, boy?

Today I discovered this message in my laptop's Notepad. It is possible that my roommate's friend left it there when she borrowed it to type a paper the other day, but I prefer to believe that my computer has gained self awareness and started wondering about the world around it, as all beings do. Specifically, wondering about pies.

In having to think about the last thing that I learned from scratch, I

actually had a hard time recognizing what that meant.To learn
something from scratch, is that simply learning something without having
any prior knowledge of it? Or is it learning something from the very
beginning, or with absolutely no help(a type of self-teaching?) I
am going to explore something that I learned on my own, without having
any serios prior knowledge of the subject.I believe that the
last thing that I truly learned from scratch was how to make a pie.

this last Thanksgiving I decided to attempt making Hannah's pumpkin
pie recipe. Most attempts I had made in the past to bake things usually
involved some sort of serious mishap, but in this learning process I
actually managed to succeed in my attempts and learn a lot in the
process. I didn't actually have anyone helping me in my attempts, and
the only aid I had was a basic pie recipe.Having never made a pie before
, I had no idea what to expect.I feel like this is an important factor
in learning anything new. The fact that you have no idea what to expect
from each step in the process, or with the finished product, kind of
makes it difficult to gauge your progress and to know if you're on
the "right track".

Especially in the instance of making a pie, this factor proved to be
one of the biggest challenges in the learning process. For example,
as I created the crust for the pie, I followed the recipe step-by-step
, putting the correct amount of each ingredient in the mix. Once I began
to mix everything together, the consistency of the mix became more apparent.
Since I didn't know what the expected consistency should be,I was constantly
questioning whether I had done everything correctly.The questioning put
me in a position where I wanted to try to add more to try to make the
consistency "correct". When I created the filling for the pie I went through
a very similar thing. Once I made the filling it was very runny and kind of
like a orange soup more than a pie filling. I got pretty bummed out
when I noticed how soupy it was and had decided that the pie was
probably going to be a bust. I asked my mom for advice and she had no
clue, so I went with my instinct and decided to bake the pie anyways,
adding just enough extra to make the mix a bit less soupy,but not too much
to make it be overly thickened by the cooking process. I didn't
really have any idea how much it would thicken in the baking process, but
I decided to just go with my instinct and assume that it would really
thicken up in the baking and cooling process.

As it turns out, my instincts were correct. The pie turned out really well.
In fact, it was pretty delicious. In this learning process I found
that having confidence in your decisions and in the directions you were
given was key to having success. I also found that having confidence
in your intuition can make the difference between the project turning
out perfect, slightly less than perfect or a total disaster. If I had
told myself that the pie was completely done for when it turned out
soupy and decided to scrap it I would have been so out of luck because
the pie turned out wonderfully. the other thing that I learned that when
it comes to following directions, you should trust in certain things, like
the amounts of basic ingredients such as flour, sugar, etc. In contrast, I allowed
myself enough freedom to play a bit with other ingredients such as
spices, ginger and other special ingredients.As a result, the pie turned out
stable and "correct", but it also was unique and exactly as spicy, sweet and "gingery"
as I wanted it to be

Curtchweilder's Scavenger Hunt (Cont.)

"Scavenger Hunt," it said, in ornate, golden text. Confused, he scratched more. As he scratched, more text began to take shape. "Go to the library. There you will find the next clue." What library? Before he could ponder further, his door was thrown open. Mr. Fountaindrink burst into the office in a flurry of hair and loose paperwork. He plopped a large pile of folders on Curtchweilder's desk and was halfway down the hall before shouting back "sue all these people!" Exhaling, Fenton swept the unnoticed pile of white debris into the waste-paper basket, pocketed the photo and went to work.

Day 11 (continuing from day 10)

(I thought this was shortly before the crash? Didn't Syt or Salvatore mentions something about the Assigners before his speech? Or am I just making that up...)

"And that is where you come in, Gene. What the Bearers failed to take advantage of is the assignment of knowledge. My brother (my whole family, for that matter) understands well the power associated with information. When the internet was first created, we realised it's potential for hoarding the collected knowledge. 'Bearing,' if you will. We also realised the potential for power this created. Anyone who wanted to know anything would have come to us. Governments, corporations, powerful people the world over would be beholden to us! Where my family and I disagreed is in the applicaion of knowledge. The Bearers locked it away, but then what? Does a sword in the sheath have any power? Yes, it can intimidate, pacify, that is true. But a sword to the throat can dominate, enslave, cower the strongest of foes. Gene, what they failed to understand is that knowledge is a weapon. I intend to use it."

Day... 10? I think?

Picking up from day 6 on this blog. Are we doing this first person or third? I'll start in first and we can change it later.

"Go get em!" Yells Hank with a sudden laugh. The green light stays a few doors ahead of me as the hallway gradually curves to the right and down. I pick up speed, hurtling downhill as the angle of the floor increases. If I can just go a little faster... but no, the light keeps pace with me, remaining a door or two beyond my reach. I glance back over my shoulder for a second to see how far I've come, and immediately run full speed into a door at the end of the hall. How the hell did that get there? There was nothing but hallway a second ago, and yet here it is, solid, a bright green light above it. I pick myself up off the floor and reach for the handle.

Day 6

I don't have time to start this off right now. Have at it.

Day 5

(Continued from day 1)

I'm lost in thought when the message comes through. The buzzer above the antiquated com screen set in the pod's ceiling rattles annoyingly. I hit a small green button, more to make the sound stop than to hear whatever it is whoever is calling has to say. AG's face snaps into view, elongated and fuzzy, his voice broken. 

"H llo? H   o?" I slap the monitor a few times and he pops into focus. Old piece of shit.

"Is that better? There. Good morning, Charles!"

"Yup. What can I do for you?"

Final-Part 3

3.  The difference between animal and machine has long been debated. What makes a machine? We tend to think of them as something artificial, manmade, like a hammer or a car. The definition seems to be somewhat less clear-cut though: “A machine is any device that uses energy to perform some activity. In common usage, the meaning is that of a device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work.” 
What then prevents an organism from being a machine? Don’t they use energy to perform an activity? The definition of organism is: “A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.” Cannot a machine can act or function independently? It seems the only thing preventing a machine from being classified as an organism is the quality of being alive. How do we define life? It seems the official definition is simply: “A characteristic state or mode of living.” Such a simple definition of something so complicated implies that life is such a basic concept that all beings can understand it. I have also heard life defined as the quality of having metabolism. This definition, however, excludes viruses, which do not metabolize and are therefore not technically alive. If they are not alive, what are they? And how do they differ from a machine?
   Life Extreme raises more questions. If a machine is to be defined as manmade and designed to use energy for a purpose, how is something classified that has those characteristics and is also alive? An animal that is created by humans seems to blur the line between living and mechanical. The Semi-Living Worry Dolls on page 90 are an example of this. Are they alive? Can something be “semi-living?” What would a machine constructed out of living parts be referred to as? E-coli can be engineered to produce beneficial drugs, in essence becoming a machine. Does that mean it is not alive?
   The splices of Ribofunk force us to look at how comfortable we are with referring to ourselves as animals. If something is partially animal, partially human, and all manufactured, what is it? Human? Animal? Machine? Is there a distinction between animal and human? They are treated as machines, trained and bred to have certain core responses to external stimuli, but it is clear that they have very human emotions; anger, fear, betrayal. Postsingular seeks to ask the question from a different angle; is it possible for a machine to become alive? Does the quality of being conscious mean that something is alive? Does the quality of being conscious make something human? Obviously, all that is sentient is not literally human, which suggests that, if animals other than humans were self-aware, we would cease to be unique. Therefore, humans are simply animals that happen to be self aware.
   I read an article a while ago about how there is no structural or molecular difference between a dead body and a living body. One is simply alive and the other is simply not. Both are constructed entirely of non-living parts, of atoms no different from the atoms inhabiting non-living matter. In essence, an animal is a construct of non-living particles organized in such a way as to be alive. If all there is to life is the order in which non-living parts are assembled, then how is a machine any different from a living creature? A sentient or semi-sentient computer would be made out of non-living parts that would make it capable of autonomous action and thought. 
   Is the manner of a creature’s creation what determines if it is alive? Does it matter that it was manmade as opposed to evolved? Of course not. It is arrogant to assume that the quality of being made by human hands creates an entirely different class of matter. Artificial and alive are not mutually exclusive. A mechanical animal/human is a very real possibility.