For people who haven't seen it, this flash animation is highly enjoyable:
The End of the World
I sometimes randomly go into "Hokay, here's the earth..." or "but I'm le tired," and now you know where I got that from.
One thing I noticed several weeks ago while watching it is that, near the when when California "breaks away from the US to go hang with Hawaii... Alaska can come too," there are actually two Alaskas and Hawaiis. The map which California breaks from already includes those two states, in the left bottom corner. I wonder if the animator ever noticed that.
Information Tags
Anonymous, 2007-10-30
I'm working on two big projects this quarter (and hopefully the quarter to come), both of which requires understanding a large amount of information, and one of which requires gathering information and generating ideas. The way I organize all this knowledge right now is purely chronological: I have a directory titled "notes", and it in goes all my stuff, each in a file for that day (say, "20071030"). Obviously, this method doesn't help with organizing my notes in a semantic way. I did have a small habit of writing "idea" on one line if what follows in an idea worth exploring, so I can
The idea I had is to organize it the same way GMail organizes emails: tags. Each piece of information, besides having the date that I found it, the source, and so on, would have one or more labels of what that information relates to. Then I can see everything that's related to, say, Linux, on one page, and everything about Windows in another. Obviously, using simple text files would not suffice, unless I have some syntax. I am however too lazy to write a command line script to read and/or add syntax, so I've just let it slide for now.
I was thinking about this today, and suddenly realized how similar this is to the categories on Wikipedia. It serves the same purpose: to classify documents or information into different categories, so one can retrieve all related articles in one click. So I looked up what different wiki software exists, and I discovered (or rediscovered - I think I've seen it before) TiddlyWiki. It's a HTML/JavaScript based wiki, using a single HTML page to store everything. It does some magic to ask for write privileges, so each time you save you're overwriting the original file. From what I've been experimenting with so far, it seems to work quite well as an information organizer. I mean, it sells itself as a "reusable non-linear personal web notebook," which is what I need.
Later tonight I might import some of my notes into a TiddlyWiki, and see how well it actually works.
grep the entire folder and find all my ideas. This doesn't do much for everything else though.The idea I had is to organize it the same way GMail organizes emails: tags. Each piece of information, besides having the date that I found it, the source, and so on, would have one or more labels of what that information relates to. Then I can see everything that's related to, say, Linux, on one page, and everything about Windows in another. Obviously, using simple text files would not suffice, unless I have some syntax. I am however too lazy to write a command line script to read and/or add syntax, so I've just let it slide for now.
I was thinking about this today, and suddenly realized how similar this is to the categories on Wikipedia. It serves the same purpose: to classify documents or information into different categories, so one can retrieve all related articles in one click. So I looked up what different wiki software exists, and I discovered (or rediscovered - I think I've seen it before) TiddlyWiki. It's a HTML/JavaScript based wiki, using a single HTML page to store everything. It does some magic to ask for write privileges, so each time you save you're overwriting the original file. From what I've been experimenting with so far, it seems to work quite well as an information organizer. I mean, it sells itself as a "reusable non-linear personal web notebook," which is what I need.
Later tonight I might import some of my notes into a TiddlyWiki, and see how well it actually works.
Cased-Based Reasoning
Anonymous, 2007-10-29
There are a lot of theories in artificial intelligence, attempting to explain a plethora of phenomenon. I guess I am relatively easily persuaded every time I hear a new theory. This time it's one of my professor's spiel on case-based reasoning (CBR).
CBR is a model of how humans can adapt to so many different situations. We can survive in an unfamiliar city perfectly well, we can write essays on different topics without too much pain. Some people will argue that we have different knowledge (say, a set of rules) for writing essays, and for navigating cities. CBR argues that there's a more abstract meta-theory behind it all: that we learn from experience.
Put it this way, it seems really obvious. Of course we learn from experience! The theory goes on to say that we don't do logical inference and reasoning on all possible choices in a given situation, but only change what we have done before to suit the situation. So when we face a problem, we have to find a similar situation that we have solved before, then look at the plan and reason with that plan to see what should be changed.
If you are still totally un-convinced (or at least want some evidence), consider what you do in school. When you learn math, or physics or any science, you do exercises. Why? So you get practice. How does that translate to CBR? You're broadening the number of cases you can reason from. The more previous plans you have to approach a problem, the less actual thinking (reasoning with the plan) you actually have to do, until it becomes "automatic." Business schools and law schools teach cases, which serve the same purpose as textbook exercises in math. When teaching we give different examples of the same abstract idea, and what do we hope the students do? Eventually abstract out the idea from all these cases.
I'm not saying that's a definite proof of humans are case-based reasoners at its base, but it's strong evidence for it.
One interesting side effect of building a system that does CBR is the seemingly simple, "find a similar situation." If CBR is to work, that would imply a highly abstract mechanism for making analogies. It's not that if you've looked for keys before you use the same plan to look for keys again, but it will also apply if you look for your wallet, your credit card, and any number of other things. Without this systematic (and highly efficient) find and match system, CBR would fail.
One of the things this reminds me of is a program I learned about last year, called the Structure Mapping Engine, or SME for short. This time it's a model of analogy making. It assumes that analogies are made on the relationships between objects, but not on the objects itself, and that the deeper and more numerous these relationships are, the stronger the analogy. The mapping from lost keys to lost wallets is a shallow analogy, but something like applying the traffic network to a computer network is a deep analogy. Of for that matter, how we use "shallow" and "deep" to describe analogies, as though it was an ocean of thought.
Whether these examples of linguistic metaphors provide evidence that all learning is based on metaphors is another issue entirely. Interested readers can start with George Lakoff.
Besides having the ability to make analogies, there is another brain function required for CBR to function: memories. The way CBR relies on structural similarities between the present and the past reminds me of something else: schemas, a model of how we make memories. The schema theory is really a sort of case-based reasoning for memory. We have memories of a general event - say, what it means to eat at a restaurant - and then when ever we visit an actual restaurant, we have new episodic memory. The schema theory says that we don't remember each and every restaurant visit individually, but instead use the general event to help reduce the number of things we remember. We don't need to remember that the waiter came to us at this restaurant, because that happens no matter which restaurant we're at. In other words, we only remember what is different about this new memory.
The trade off for remember less things is of course that we remember less details. If you go to a restaurant too often, you'll eventually mix up what happened on which trip. Schema theory accounts for this by saying that some of the details were generalized, and lost its connection to the individual event.
Now here's something I'm interested in. For CBR and schemas, there remains one big problem. How do we learn the "original" case or memory? It can't be that we were born with a schema of how restaurants work, or a plan for what to do if we lose stuff. There has to be something which made the first case or schema, a meta-meta-theory of learning if you will. And I'm curious what that is.
CBR is a model of how humans can adapt to so many different situations. We can survive in an unfamiliar city perfectly well, we can write essays on different topics without too much pain. Some people will argue that we have different knowledge (say, a set of rules) for writing essays, and for navigating cities. CBR argues that there's a more abstract meta-theory behind it all: that we learn from experience.
Put it this way, it seems really obvious. Of course we learn from experience! The theory goes on to say that we don't do logical inference and reasoning on all possible choices in a given situation, but only change what we have done before to suit the situation. So when we face a problem, we have to find a similar situation that we have solved before, then look at the plan and reason with that plan to see what should be changed.
If you are still totally un-convinced (or at least want some evidence), consider what you do in school. When you learn math, or physics or any science, you do exercises. Why? So you get practice. How does that translate to CBR? You're broadening the number of cases you can reason from. The more previous plans you have to approach a problem, the less actual thinking (reasoning with the plan) you actually have to do, until it becomes "automatic." Business schools and law schools teach cases, which serve the same purpose as textbook exercises in math. When teaching we give different examples of the same abstract idea, and what do we hope the students do? Eventually abstract out the idea from all these cases.
I'm not saying that's a definite proof of humans are case-based reasoners at its base, but it's strong evidence for it.
One interesting side effect of building a system that does CBR is the seemingly simple, "find a similar situation." If CBR is to work, that would imply a highly abstract mechanism for making analogies. It's not that if you've looked for keys before you use the same plan to look for keys again, but it will also apply if you look for your wallet, your credit card, and any number of other things. Without this systematic (and highly efficient) find and match system, CBR would fail.
One of the things this reminds me of is a program I learned about last year, called the Structure Mapping Engine, or SME for short. This time it's a model of analogy making. It assumes that analogies are made on the relationships between objects, but not on the objects itself, and that the deeper and more numerous these relationships are, the stronger the analogy. The mapping from lost keys to lost wallets is a shallow analogy, but something like applying the traffic network to a computer network is a deep analogy. Of for that matter, how we use "shallow" and "deep" to describe analogies, as though it was an ocean of thought.
Whether these examples of linguistic metaphors provide evidence that all learning is based on metaphors is another issue entirely. Interested readers can start with George Lakoff.
Besides having the ability to make analogies, there is another brain function required for CBR to function: memories. The way CBR relies on structural similarities between the present and the past reminds me of something else: schemas, a model of how we make memories. The schema theory is really a sort of case-based reasoning for memory. We have memories of a general event - say, what it means to eat at a restaurant - and then when ever we visit an actual restaurant, we have new episodic memory. The schema theory says that we don't remember each and every restaurant visit individually, but instead use the general event to help reduce the number of things we remember. We don't need to remember that the waiter came to us at this restaurant, because that happens no matter which restaurant we're at. In other words, we only remember what is different about this new memory.
The trade off for remember less things is of course that we remember less details. If you go to a restaurant too often, you'll eventually mix up what happened on which trip. Schema theory accounts for this by saying that some of the details were generalized, and lost its connection to the individual event.
Now here's something I'm interested in. For CBR and schemas, there remains one big problem. How do we learn the "original" case or memory? It can't be that we were born with a schema of how restaurants work, or a plan for what to do if we lose stuff. There has to be something which made the first case or schema, a meta-meta-theory of learning if you will. And I'm curious what that is.
Quelle heure est-il?
Anonymous,
I don't own a watch, and don't have a clock in my room. If I'm out and about, I could either look at clocks (found in classrooms, banks, on top of towers, etc.), look at other people's watches (which requires a little skill in mental rotation), or look at something I have which has a clock (laptop, camera, etc.).
Although I usually leave my laptop on when I sleep, I blank the screen so it doesn't brighten the room at night. If I wake up but don't feel like getting out of bed yet, I can't really tell from my laptop what time it is.
Instead, I've sort of trained myself to get a rough idea of the time by looking at what color the ceiling is, and how big a difference in brightness there is between the window "shadow" and the rest of the ceiling. If it's dark all round, it's probably before 6:00. 7:00 or so is a little lighter, but the contrast is not that big, as the sun is not up yet. The largest contrast is about 7:30 to 8:00, when there are actual lines delineating the window "shadow". Past that, the room keeps getting brighter, while the contrast disappears, until past 9:30 or so when the room is comfortably well lit through the curtains.
An alarm clock would probably be less work, but this works too.
Although I usually leave my laptop on when I sleep, I blank the screen so it doesn't brighten the room at night. If I wake up but don't feel like getting out of bed yet, I can't really tell from my laptop what time it is.
Instead, I've sort of trained myself to get a rough idea of the time by looking at what color the ceiling is, and how big a difference in brightness there is between the window "shadow" and the rest of the ceiling. If it's dark all round, it's probably before 6:00. 7:00 or so is a little lighter, but the contrast is not that big, as the sun is not up yet. The largest contrast is about 7:30 to 8:00, when there are actual lines delineating the window "shadow". Past that, the room keeps getting brighter, while the contrast disappears, until past 9:30 or so when the room is comfortably well lit through the curtains.
An alarm clock would probably be less work, but this works too.
Chicago Botanical Gardens
Anonymous, 2007-10-28
A day cycling trip to the Chicago Botanical Gardens. Again, the weather was really nice, and the gardens were actually quite interesting. I guess I had envisioned rows and rows of greenhouses, so the islands of bonsai trees and rose gardens were a pleasant surprise.
Pictures
Pictures
Religion as a Mind Body Paradox
Anonymous, 2007-10-25
I've never believed in a religion, even when I was younger and (I think) there was daily prayer in school. I have written in my journal before about being "rationally and logically agnostic but practically atheist." I am rationally agnostic because we cannot prove a negative; we cannot prove that God doesn't exist unless we search the entire universe (and that's under the assumption that there's physical evidence for God). The other main problem which I admit natural philosophy has trouble explaining is the beginning of the universe. It's hard to imagine someone spring out of nothing; although of course, if you say God is eternal, that's just begging the question of how God came to be.
A recent thought I had, however, is more an argument against religion or philosophy in general than against the existence of God. I'm not particularly well read in the debate between atheism and religion, but I do believe this has been mentioned somewhere before. Some people argue that religion (and God) should not be put under scientific scrutiny, since there are things which science could not explain. Therefore, God does not require a reason for existence, and people cannot ask for "proof" of His existence.
My new thought was that this is a version of the mind body problem. Under Cartesian dualism, the mind is a completely non-physical entity, on a utterly different realm than the body, which is entirely physical. This famous problem in philosophy tries to find the answer to the question: if the mind has not relation to the body at all, how can we move our body simply when our mind wants to? By setting up a dichotomy between the mind and the body, which seems logical, we lose the mechanism through the mental is tied to the physical.
How does this relate to religion? Well, some people say God is not a physical being. I've never heard of people saying He's completely non-physical, but since if he is physical there would be evidence, let's assume for now that He is entirely on a different plane of existence. This sets God up in the same position as the mind, completely dissociated from the physical world.
Well, not completely, or we wouldn't have any problems. The mind-body dilemma arises when we hear stories of God creating the world, or parting the Red Sea, or setting a bush on fire. Science, as a discipline and a philosophy, studies what happens in the physical world. Clearly, parting the Red Sea is a physical phenomenon, and therefore should be subject to the same scrutiny as we give to say, the Newtonian physics of two pool balls. Physical phenomenon, therefore, is the analogical body of a person.
The question is clear: how does God, as a non-physical entity, influence the physical world? Hence we have the religious analog of the mind-body problem, which has been around for several hundred years without resolution.
There is another problem, unique to religion, if God has the power to influence the world. By changing objects in the world, God is essentially opening Himself up to scientific scrutiny. After all, if the water in the Red Sea parted, there must have been some force which prevented the water coming down. Given the amount of water, the water level of the sea would have risen, flooding some coastal areas. I don't suppose Moses's staff is a force field generator.
In the same way that the scientific method has been extended to study the mind (also known as the field of psychology), God, by interacting with the world, is open to scientific study. Of course, this would be a lot easier if the Red Sea parted every day, so we could do experiments. But God has refused to do anything in the last 2000 years or so, since his son came down, so it has been kind of hard for us to collect experimental data.
I apologize if that sounded sarcastic. Going back to religion, there is one way in which God is closed to scientific inquiry: if He does not affect the physical world at all. The problem facing religion then is not science, but of practicality. If God cannot affect the world, well, why do you even believe in God? I can believe that a chain of keys will help me get through life, but if that believe can't change anything, then the belief is unfounded. Similarly, a religion believing in a God who has no influence in the world means nothing.
Which brings us back to the mind-body problem. Some people would argue that God cannot influence the world, but can influence people's minds. With a belief in God, people are more confident, optimistic, kind, etc. These are all great things, and it is through the power of the people which God acts in the world. Which is great, but hidden there is the question, how does being "optimistic," a state of mind, create physical changes in the body? And we're back to square one.
What I just wrote is based on several assumptions, which I will state here explicitly. It is my believe that God will not hold up to scientific scrutiny, and hence religions will attempt to bar such investigations from extending to God. The point of this piece is to show that such an attempt is without grounds.
A recent thought I had, however, is more an argument against religion or philosophy in general than against the existence of God. I'm not particularly well read in the debate between atheism and religion, but I do believe this has been mentioned somewhere before. Some people argue that religion (and God) should not be put under scientific scrutiny, since there are things which science could not explain. Therefore, God does not require a reason for existence, and people cannot ask for "proof" of His existence.
My new thought was that this is a version of the mind body problem. Under Cartesian dualism, the mind is a completely non-physical entity, on a utterly different realm than the body, which is entirely physical. This famous problem in philosophy tries to find the answer to the question: if the mind has not relation to the body at all, how can we move our body simply when our mind wants to? By setting up a dichotomy between the mind and the body, which seems logical, we lose the mechanism through the mental is tied to the physical.
How does this relate to religion? Well, some people say God is not a physical being. I've never heard of people saying He's completely non-physical, but since if he is physical there would be evidence, let's assume for now that He is entirely on a different plane of existence. This sets God up in the same position as the mind, completely dissociated from the physical world.
Well, not completely, or we wouldn't have any problems. The mind-body dilemma arises when we hear stories of God creating the world, or parting the Red Sea, or setting a bush on fire. Science, as a discipline and a philosophy, studies what happens in the physical world. Clearly, parting the Red Sea is a physical phenomenon, and therefore should be subject to the same scrutiny as we give to say, the Newtonian physics of two pool balls. Physical phenomenon, therefore, is the analogical body of a person.
The question is clear: how does God, as a non-physical entity, influence the physical world? Hence we have the religious analog of the mind-body problem, which has been around for several hundred years without resolution.
There is another problem, unique to religion, if God has the power to influence the world. By changing objects in the world, God is essentially opening Himself up to scientific scrutiny. After all, if the water in the Red Sea parted, there must have been some force which prevented the water coming down. Given the amount of water, the water level of the sea would have risen, flooding some coastal areas. I don't suppose Moses's staff is a force field generator.
In the same way that the scientific method has been extended to study the mind (also known as the field of psychology), God, by interacting with the world, is open to scientific study. Of course, this would be a lot easier if the Red Sea parted every day, so we could do experiments. But God has refused to do anything in the last 2000 years or so, since his son came down, so it has been kind of hard for us to collect experimental data.
I apologize if that sounded sarcastic. Going back to religion, there is one way in which God is closed to scientific inquiry: if He does not affect the physical world at all. The problem facing religion then is not science, but of practicality. If God cannot affect the world, well, why do you even believe in God? I can believe that a chain of keys will help me get through life, but if that believe can't change anything, then the belief is unfounded. Similarly, a religion believing in a God who has no influence in the world means nothing.
Which brings us back to the mind-body problem. Some people would argue that God cannot influence the world, but can influence people's minds. With a belief in God, people are more confident, optimistic, kind, etc. These are all great things, and it is through the power of the people which God acts in the world. Which is great, but hidden there is the question, how does being "optimistic," a state of mind, create physical changes in the body? And we're back to square one.
What I just wrote is based on several assumptions, which I will state here explicitly. It is my believe that God will not hold up to scientific scrutiny, and hence religions will attempt to bar such investigations from extending to God. The point of this piece is to show that such an attempt is without grounds.
Change is Good
Anonymous,
Apparently all my other drafts require lots of writing, and since I have a midterm in... an hour or so, my contribution today will be short.
When I go around every day, I keep a small bag of change with me. I don't really buy stuff that often, but it has come in handy before. The problem I face is that I don't want to carry too much change, but want enough so I don't get coins in return. I found a website several weeks ago (probably during new student week) talking about what's the minimum number of coins you need to give exact change, and I thought I should share that.
When I go around every day, I keep a small bag of change with me. I don't really buy stuff that often, but it has come in handy before. The problem I face is that I don't want to carry too much change, but want enough so I don't get coins in return. I found a website several weeks ago (probably during new student week) talking about what's the minimum number of coins you need to give exact change, and I thought I should share that.
- 3 quarters
- 1 dime
- 2 nickels
- 4 pennies
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)