I just heard a great quote from one of my Aikido teachers; I hope he doesn't mind if I reproduce it here. He said that "Iaido is the tea ceremony for boys." Funny, because it's true. But let me explain.
Iaido is a Japanese martial art where you draw your sword, slice up your imaginary opponent, shake the blood off and then sheathe the sword again in one fluid motion. Well, maybe several fluid motions. But fluidly, either way. The name "iaido" literally breaks down into 'i' - being, 'ai' - harmony, and of course 'do' - way. Kind of like "the way of harmonious awareness" or something like that. It's a good name.
Anyway, so similarly to the tea ceremony, it's all about everything being precise and in its place. I just realized that the reason you train, or at least work up to training with, a live blade is that it really makes you extremely aware of how exactly you're moving with the sword! Otherwise you're just waving a stick around. But if you are holding an extremely sharp piece of metal, you have to be precise, unless you are tired of having fingers that are still attached to your body. It's a tangible mental change.
The tea ceremony basically does the same thing, but let's face it: tea is girly. What kind of boy would want to spend his time perfecting his tea-serving abilities? Swords are obviously much cooler. Thus, "Iaido is the tea ceremony for boys."
2006/10/29
Metastability
I just posted a new deviantID for my deviantART profile. It has a pretty interesting story behind it, so you might want to check it out. Here's the description:
I just looked it up, and "metastability" is an actual word. So I'm using it. :) According to Wikipedia, it is "the ability of a non-equilibrium state to persist for some period of time." Wow, that's perfect for this picture! You'll see why later.
See, this is a picture I took of this tower of rocks I built by a river bed. I made it to draw attention to the cool sculpted rock that serves as the base. That's one rock, smoothed and shaped by the river. So people would see the tower, and think "hey, that's a cool rock there."
The nifty thing about the tower is that for every rock I placed, I attempted to enhance the stability of the tower, instead of making it more tippy. So each rock has its own unique shape and balance, and there's kind of one spot where if you press down on it, it locks into place as the force gets distributed down. It's a lot like Aikido. So I tried to build the tower up so that each rock's weight pushes down on just the right spot on the one below, so it becomes more stable. If you press on the top rock the tower just settles into place better. Of course that big base rock helped a lot, since it acted kind of as an anchor for the other rocks to lean against. The rocks above were not so stable, of course. But the idea is still there.
So that's where the "stability" part comes in.
Then I thought it would make a good portrait or ID, since yes, that's my shadow there, and it's all kind of self-referential and "meta" and all that. I mean, I never really see myself except from the inside, so why should you? Here you see me by my influence, by my little piece of order on the entropy of the stream bed, and by my shadow. You can tell a lot about my personality from this situation.
And this really is a metastable situation, this tower. The equilibrium state would be for all the rocks to be in an even layer on the ground. It's the state of greater entropy. But the way I've set this up, the system will not just fall into that state right away. To move any one rock would take more energy, because you would be moving it up and off its center. But once you knock it over, that gravitational potential energy, that tension is reduced, and the system is in equilibrium. Metastability.
Deep, huh? :p
I just looked it up, and "metastability" is an actual word. So I'm using it. :) According to Wikipedia, it is "the ability of a non-equilibrium state to persist for some period of time." Wow, that's perfect for this picture! You'll see why later.
See, this is a picture I took of this tower of rocks I built by a river bed. I made it to draw attention to the cool sculpted rock that serves as the base. That's one rock, smoothed and shaped by the river. So people would see the tower, and think "hey, that's a cool rock there."
The nifty thing about the tower is that for every rock I placed, I attempted to enhance the stability of the tower, instead of making it more tippy. So each rock has its own unique shape and balance, and there's kind of one spot where if you press down on it, it locks into place as the force gets distributed down. It's a lot like Aikido. So I tried to build the tower up so that each rock's weight pushes down on just the right spot on the one below, so it becomes more stable. If you press on the top rock the tower just settles into place better. Of course that big base rock helped a lot, since it acted kind of as an anchor for the other rocks to lean against. The rocks above were not so stable, of course. But the idea is still there.
So that's where the "stability" part comes in.
Then I thought it would make a good portrait or ID, since yes, that's my shadow there, and it's all kind of self-referential and "meta" and all that. I mean, I never really see myself except from the inside, so why should you? Here you see me by my influence, by my little piece of order on the entropy of the stream bed, and by my shadow. You can tell a lot about my personality from this situation.
And this really is a metastable situation, this tower. The equilibrium state would be for all the rocks to be in an even layer on the ground. It's the state of greater entropy. But the way I've set this up, the system will not just fall into that state right away. To move any one rock would take more energy, because you would be moving it up and off its center. But once you knock it over, that gravitational potential energy, that tension is reduced, and the system is in equilibrium. Metastability.
Deep, huh? :p
Origami Hydralisk Instructions
Update:
I've just finished a narrated tutorial video in eight parts, for your folding pleasure. Step 11 is finally yours to master:
Update:
I've since created a better set of instructions, with photos of every step - and even in between. It's all compiled into a nice Flash package: How to make an origami hydralisk
new and improved...
I finally went ahead and posted the instructions for an origami Hydralisk I designed years ago. Here's a good picture of what a Hydralisk is supposed to look like. My origami model looks quite similar, if I may so myself.
The diagrams are all drawn in pencil, without a ruler or anything, so they are somewhat messy. You kind of have to be familiar with reading origami diagrams in order to understand them. At the least you should know the universal origami symbols and be able to make some simple models from memory, like the crane for example.
Anyway, it's pretty cool, and I finally finished! Yay! :D
I've just finished a narrated tutorial video in eight parts, for your folding pleasure. Step 11 is finally yours to master:
Update:
I've since created a better set of instructions, with photos of every step - and even in between. It's all compiled into a nice Flash package: How to make an origami hydralisk
new and improved...I finally went ahead and posted the instructions for an origami Hydralisk I designed years ago. Here's a good picture of what a Hydralisk is supposed to look like. My origami model looks quite similar, if I may so myself.
The diagrams are all drawn in pencil, without a ruler or anything, so they are somewhat messy. You kind of have to be familiar with reading origami diagrams in order to understand them. At the least you should know the universal origami symbols and be able to make some simple models from memory, like the crane for example.
Anyway, it's pretty cool, and I finally finished! Yay! :D
2006/10/26
Flow
I'm reading a book called Flow
, by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, which is kind of required reading for game designers. It's about the experience of being perfectly immersed in an activity, where your abilities are just enough to match the challenges coming at you - not too easy or too hard. This is one of those books that every page or so I just want to jump around with excitement because it's so good. True Names was another one of those. So was Emotional Design
, which I plan to write about here eventually.
The most interesting part about the book I think is the connection to society. From page 76:
"In fact, flow and religion have been intimately connected from earliest times. Many of the optimal experiences of mankind have taken place in the context of religious rituals. Not only art but drama, music, and dance had their origins in what we now would call 'religious' settings; that is, activities aimed at connecting people with supernatural powers and entities. The same is true of games. One of the earliest ball games, a form of basketball played by the Maya, was part of their religious celebrations, and so were the original Olympic games. This connection is not surprising, because what we call religion is actually the oldest and most ambitious attempt to create order in consciousness. It therefore makes sense that religious rituals would be a profound source of enjoyment."
It continues on the next page:
"In modern times art, play, and life in general have lost their supernatural moorings. The cosmic order that in the past helped interpret and give meaning to human history has broken down into disconnected fragments."
After describing a few ideologies, such as sociobiology, it goes on:
"These are some of the modern 'religions' rooted in the social sciences. None of them - with the partial exception of historical materialism, itself a dwindling creed - commands great popular support, and none has inspired the aesthetic visions or enjoyable rituals that previous models of cosmic order had spawned."
Modern 'religions' just aren't as fun as they used to be! How about that?
, by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, which is kind of required reading for game designers. It's about the experience of being perfectly immersed in an activity, where your abilities are just enough to match the challenges coming at you - not too easy or too hard. This is one of those books that every page or so I just want to jump around with excitement because it's so good. True Names was another one of those. So was Emotional Design, which I plan to write about here eventually.The most interesting part about the book I think is the connection to society. From page 76:
"In fact, flow and religion have been intimately connected from earliest times. Many of the optimal experiences of mankind have taken place in the context of religious rituals. Not only art but drama, music, and dance had their origins in what we now would call 'religious' settings; that is, activities aimed at connecting people with supernatural powers and entities. The same is true of games. One of the earliest ball games, a form of basketball played by the Maya, was part of their religious celebrations, and so were the original Olympic games. This connection is not surprising, because what we call religion is actually the oldest and most ambitious attempt to create order in consciousness. It therefore makes sense that religious rituals would be a profound source of enjoyment."
It continues on the next page:
"In modern times art, play, and life in general have lost their supernatural moorings. The cosmic order that in the past helped interpret and give meaning to human history has broken down into disconnected fragments."
After describing a few ideologies, such as sociobiology, it goes on:
"These are some of the modern 'religions' rooted in the social sciences. None of them - with the partial exception of historical materialism, itself a dwindling creed - commands great popular support, and none has inspired the aesthetic visions or enjoyable rituals that previous models of cosmic order had spawned."
Modern 'religions' just aren't as fun as they used to be! How about that?
2006/10/17
Tale of Tales
(continued from The Endless Forest)
I have to admit, I still have not yet tried playing The Endless Forest. I will eventually. But I'm writing now to talk about the authors, a team called Tale of Tales.
The Endless Forest is not their only project. They have started several other very interesting game art interactive things that are on hold at the moment. One, Drama Princess, is more of a research project into how to make AI characters that interact to create interesting stories, rather than realistic simulations.
When I found out about Drama Princess, I was really excited (and still am) because what they are doing is quite in line with my thoughts and interest in interactive stories. Probably because of my history in calculator games, I really like the idea of simplifying a complicated model so it's practical to make, by taking advantage of the brain's tendency to fill in detail. Like with graphics. Why render a whole scene pixel-by-pixel when your brain only sees a little bit of it each frame? Most of that detail is ignored anyway. Stuff like that.
So with Drama Princess, here's a quote from the About page:
"Don’t build an A.I. system when randomness is just as good.
People want to believe. They want to make sense of what they see. They automatically make up stories. We want to use this inclination in order to avoid building complex systems that will always only half-work anyway. Richness in behaviour will add more to credibility than consistency in logic."
I forget where, but somewhere on the site I seem to remember reading that they were influenced by Aristotle or someone. Because I was just reading part of Brenda Laurel's book Computers as Theatre, where she applies Aristotle's framework for understanding drama to computer applications. And in it I found this quote:
"Computer-based agents, like dramatic characters, do not have to think (in fact, there are many ways in which they cannot); they simply have to provide a representation from which thought may be inferred."
That's a great quote. And it describes exactly what Tale of Tales is trying to do with Drama Princess. Or something like it anyway. :p
I am also looking forward to participating in their forums, particularly the game design forums. It looks more promising than the GameDev boards. :D Smaller, but a lot of interesting ideas. Here's a nice thread on interactive storytelling I just read. Cool!
And if you need something to read, you could check out their Realtime Art Manifesto. I haven't finished reading it yet, but it looks good so far.
I have to admit, I still have not yet tried playing The Endless Forest. I will eventually. But I'm writing now to talk about the authors, a team called Tale of Tales.
The Endless Forest is not their only project. They have started several other very interesting game art interactive things that are on hold at the moment. One, Drama Princess, is more of a research project into how to make AI characters that interact to create interesting stories, rather than realistic simulations.
When I found out about Drama Princess, I was really excited (and still am) because what they are doing is quite in line with my thoughts and interest in interactive stories. Probably because of my history in calculator games, I really like the idea of simplifying a complicated model so it's practical to make, by taking advantage of the brain's tendency to fill in detail. Like with graphics. Why render a whole scene pixel-by-pixel when your brain only sees a little bit of it each frame? Most of that detail is ignored anyway. Stuff like that.
So with Drama Princess, here's a quote from the About page:
"Don’t build an A.I. system when randomness is just as good.
People want to believe. They want to make sense of what they see. They automatically make up stories. We want to use this inclination in order to avoid building complex systems that will always only half-work anyway. Richness in behaviour will add more to credibility than consistency in logic."
I forget where, but somewhere on the site I seem to remember reading that they were influenced by Aristotle or someone. Because I was just reading part of Brenda Laurel's book Computers as Theatre, where she applies Aristotle's framework for understanding drama to computer applications. And in it I found this quote:
"Computer-based agents, like dramatic characters, do not have to think (in fact, there are many ways in which they cannot); they simply have to provide a representation from which thought may be inferred."
That's a great quote. And it describes exactly what Tale of Tales is trying to do with Drama Princess. Or something like it anyway. :p
I am also looking forward to participating in their forums, particularly the game design forums. It looks more promising than the GameDev boards. :D Smaller, but a lot of interesting ideas. Here's a nice thread on interactive storytelling I just read. Cool!
And if you need something to read, you could check out their Realtime Art Manifesto. I haven't finished reading it yet, but it looks good so far.
2006/10/12
Game Collaboration Criteria
If you answer yes to a lot of these questions, that means I'd probably enjoy making a game with you! Or at least you might have some chance of understanding my ideas...
- Do you find inspiration and ideas in almost everything?
- Do you maintain a child-like sense of wonder at the world?
- Do you like to appreciate the beauty of nature?
- Are you interested in artificial life and intelligence?
- Do you practice a martial art or other movement art like dance?
- Do you like stick animations or another minimalist art form?
- Have you created any kind of art by your own initiative?
- Have you made any games?
- Have you been touched emotionally by a game?
- Do you like to read books and articles about game development?
- Do you keep up with the state of independent game development?
Reaction to True Names
I recently read a short story by Vernor Vinge called True Names. Apparently this book was the first to introduce the concept of virtual reality! There are some better-known books inspired by this one, like Neuromancer and Snow Crash, but I have to say that I liked True Names much more.
I found the book to be very engaging and inspiring. My favorite part I think would be the description of what the book calls the "Other Plane" which is better known as the Metaverse or the Matrix, basically a big virtual world that people connect to. I love how it compares the sensation to that of reading a book - it made me reflect back on my own experience as I read it:
"A typical Portal link was around fifty thousand baud, far narrower than even a flat video channel. Mr. Slippery could feel the damp seeping through his leather boots, could feel the sweat starting on his skin even in the cold air, but this was the response of Mr. Slippery's imagination and subconscious to the cues that were actually being presented through the Portal's electrodes. The interpretation could not be arbitrary or he would be dumped back to reality and could never find the Coven; to the traveler on the Other Plane, the detail was there as long as the cues were there. And there is nothing new about this situation. Even a poor writer - if he has a sympathetic reader and an engaging plot - can evoke complete internal imagery with a few dozen words of description. The difference now is that the imagery has interactive significance, just as sensations in the real world do. Ultimately, the magic jargon was perhaps the closest fit in the vocabulary of millenium Man."
There were a few other little enjoyable descriptions:
"Pollack...could make it simply by staring out into the trees and listening to the wind-surf that swept through their upper branches. And just as a day dreamer forgets his actual surroundings and sees other realities, so Pollack drifted, detached..."
Isn't that a nice visualization?
I also liked how it was similar to my own idea of using music to represent an extrasensory perception of magical fields in a game. Now from reading True Names I can imagine it would be so cool to be able to stimulate such daydream-like experiences with only sound. Then my eyes wouldn't get tired by staring at a screen! And I just love this line, "The difference now is that the imagery has interactive significance, just as sensations in the real world do." Wow, trying to daydream as from a book, yet also interact with the world you are constructing? That would be an amazing experience.
And of course it was nice that this story used fantasy and magic as the environment for its "Other Plane" instead of the cyberpunk of Neuromancer and Snow Crash. I guess I just find it a little more inspiring. I'm not really into gritty, dark settings.
The story also felt so much more epic than the other books; I thought it was more like The Matrix in its feel. Maybe that's because of the god-like powers the protagonists experience in both, while at the same time you are aware of the frailty of their bodies in the physical world. Plus the "bad guys" were a little more direct and personified, once you find out who they are. :p (plus I'd bet that the Oracle scene in The Matrix was based on the end of True Names)
Another reason why it felt epic was how the ending kind of put the story onto a timescale of thousands of years, as a special moment in humanity's history. It reminded me of the ending of Ender's Game in its vague pointing towards the future.
So, basically, go and read it!
I found the book to be very engaging and inspiring. My favorite part I think would be the description of what the book calls the "Other Plane" which is better known as the Metaverse or the Matrix, basically a big virtual world that people connect to. I love how it compares the sensation to that of reading a book - it made me reflect back on my own experience as I read it:
"A typical Portal link was around fifty thousand baud, far narrower than even a flat video channel. Mr. Slippery could feel the damp seeping through his leather boots, could feel the sweat starting on his skin even in the cold air, but this was the response of Mr. Slippery's imagination and subconscious to the cues that were actually being presented through the Portal's electrodes. The interpretation could not be arbitrary or he would be dumped back to reality and could never find the Coven; to the traveler on the Other Plane, the detail was there as long as the cues were there. And there is nothing new about this situation. Even a poor writer - if he has a sympathetic reader and an engaging plot - can evoke complete internal imagery with a few dozen words of description. The difference now is that the imagery has interactive significance, just as sensations in the real world do. Ultimately, the magic jargon was perhaps the closest fit in the vocabulary of millenium Man."
There were a few other little enjoyable descriptions:
"Pollack...could make it simply by staring out into the trees and listening to the wind-surf that swept through their upper branches. And just as a day dreamer forgets his actual surroundings and sees other realities, so Pollack drifted, detached..."
Isn't that a nice visualization?
I also liked how it was similar to my own idea of using music to represent an extrasensory perception of magical fields in a game. Now from reading True Names I can imagine it would be so cool to be able to stimulate such daydream-like experiences with only sound. Then my eyes wouldn't get tired by staring at a screen! And I just love this line, "The difference now is that the imagery has interactive significance, just as sensations in the real world do." Wow, trying to daydream as from a book, yet also interact with the world you are constructing? That would be an amazing experience.
And of course it was nice that this story used fantasy and magic as the environment for its "Other Plane" instead of the cyberpunk of Neuromancer and Snow Crash. I guess I just find it a little more inspiring. I'm not really into gritty, dark settings.
The story also felt so much more epic than the other books; I thought it was more like The Matrix in its feel. Maybe that's because of the god-like powers the protagonists experience in both, while at the same time you are aware of the frailty of their bodies in the physical world. Plus the "bad guys" were a little more direct and personified, once you find out who they are. :p (plus I'd bet that the Oracle scene in The Matrix was based on the end of True Names)
Another reason why it felt epic was how the ending kind of put the story onto a timescale of thousands of years, as a special moment in humanity's history. It reminded me of the ending of Ender's Game in its vague pointing towards the future.
So, basically, go and read it!
2006/09/18
The Endless Forest
One IGF entrant I was surprised to see on the list was an experimental MMO called The Endless Forest. I first found out about it last year, but it was too weird for me. But now it seems to have acquired a stable following of seemingly sane fans, so I am giving it a second chance.
Basically it's a game where you are a magical stag with a human-ish face, with a glowy pictogram between your antlers that serves to differentiate you from the other players. You walk around in a mysterious forest, where you may find other deer to play with. There is no chat though - all communication must be done with body language.
There's some weirder stuff too. Apparently there exist "pagan souls" that you can convert to Christianity by touching them. At the end of the day pagan souls turn into pagan idols while Christian souls turn into gravestones with crosses on them. Not only that but there are plans to add computer-controlled female deer with which you must mate.
So naturally I suspected that it was part of an evil plan to brainwash players into joining some sort of strange and dangerous cult. :p However, after reading through the forums, which are full of innocent discussion among players, as well as friendly and sane responses by the developers, some of my initial suspicion has been lifted. I have even downloaded the game and created an account!
(to be continued...)
Basically it's a game where you are a magical stag with a human-ish face, with a glowy pictogram between your antlers that serves to differentiate you from the other players. You walk around in a mysterious forest, where you may find other deer to play with. There is no chat though - all communication must be done with body language.
There's some weirder stuff too. Apparently there exist "pagan souls" that you can convert to Christianity by touching them. At the end of the day pagan souls turn into pagan idols while Christian souls turn into gravestones with crosses on them. Not only that but there are plans to add computer-controlled female deer with which you must mate.
So naturally I suspected that it was part of an evil plan to brainwash players into joining some sort of strange and dangerous cult. :p However, after reading through the forums, which are full of innocent discussion among players, as well as friendly and sane responses by the developers, some of my initial suspicion has been lifted. I have even downloaded the game and created an account!
(to be continued...)
Independent Games Festival
I'd heard of the Independent Games Festival before, but I didn't give much thought to it until today. I had never really entertained the possibility of myself being a contestant. But I came across the list of entrants, and was surprised to see so many familiar names. Plasma Pong? Ragdoll Masters? Even Stick Arena? They're fun games, but they're not epic. If they can enter, well so can I!
Unfortunately, I discovered that the main competition deadline was September 8th (which is presumably why the list of entrants was up in the first place). But there is also a student competition (free to enter!) with a November 10th deadline. Since I happen to be a student, that sounds like a good opportunity for me to potentially win $2,500 or at least get to attend the GDC for free.
So I have about two months to make a good game! I'll probably just submit Braids or make a special version of it. Though it would be cool to make a completely new game for the contest! :D
Unfortunately, I discovered that the main competition deadline was September 8th (which is presumably why the list of entrants was up in the first place). But there is also a student competition (free to enter!) with a November 10th deadline. Since I happen to be a student, that sounds like a good opportunity for me to potentially win $2,500 or at least get to attend the GDC for free.
So I have about two months to make a good game! I'll probably just submit Braids or make a special version of it. Though it would be cool to make a completely new game for the contest! :D
I'm back!
It's been almost a year since I started this blog. Now I am finally going to use it for something!
The reason for this sudden reappearance is that I'm nearing the final stages of my first full Flash game, Braids! I need a website to link to in order to take advantage of the tremendous popularity ;) that will no doubt surround the game, so I figured I might as well turn this blog into my central base on the Internet. I will post my thoughts and responses to various books and findings, as well as use this as a sort of development blog for my games.
I have already put links to most of my online identities on the side bar here, as well as linked back to this site in each of my profiles. I also intend to replace the links on the side with links that better reflect my current online identity and activities.
Thanks to all of my nonexistent fans! :D Hope to see more of you around here soon!
The reason for this sudden reappearance is that I'm nearing the final stages of my first full Flash game, Braids! I need a website to link to in order to take advantage of the tremendous popularity ;) that will no doubt surround the game, so I figured I might as well turn this blog into my central base on the Internet. I will post my thoughts and responses to various books and findings, as well as use this as a sort of development blog for my games.
I have already put links to most of my online identities on the side bar here, as well as linked back to this site in each of my profiles. I also intend to replace the links on the side with links that better reflect my current online identity and activities.
Thanks to all of my nonexistent fans! :D Hope to see more of you around here soon!
2005/11/30
Distributed Knowledge Networks
What is a "distributed knowledge network?" It is a network, of knowledge, that is distributed. A network is a collection of nodes that are linked together. Knowledge consists of the mechanisms that allow a system to interact with its environment. It is the embodiment of the knowledge of relationships between various patterns, which is extracted from the information coming into the system. A knowledge network is not the same as a learning machine, it is what is constructed by a learning machine. However, the knowledge network can be used by the learning machine to construct more knowledge, of course, since knowledge usually builds on previous knowledge. I think of a knowledge network as an artifact rather than a process, the product of knowledge production. Distributed knowledge networks are those built up by the actions of many separate agents, as well as stored in a diffuse set of agents.
2005/11/22
Wittgenstein and Language
Commentary on Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations
First off, I find Wittgenstein's use of multiple voices easy to read because I myself use multiple voices all the time when I am thinking. I may think a thought, then respond to it from another perspective. It is like hearing two people talk, except you identify as both of them at the same time. And that is what passes for my stream of consciousness. Actually, I do have voices that I consider to be myself, and those which I consider to be my impressions of other people. And of course not all my thought is verbal!
Wittgenstein seemed to be saying that language (and by extension, logic and thought) are all very relative. The meaning of language depends on the context. There always must be a context. For example, wondering what the parts are of some object only makes sense if you have some context within which to ask the question. The fundamental parts of, say, a tree, are different depending on what kind of answer you want. You might say that the basic parts are the branches, or maybe the cells, or the atoms that constitute the tree. Another situation where meaning depends on context is in the case of metaphors and words with multiple meanings. You can only know what the word refers to from the context. There is not a special essence for each word to refer to. So there is no perfectly exact language which is free from the necessity of an arbitrary environment to give it meaning.
The implication of this is that language is not so special as is commonly believed. Language can not be understood as a perfectly exact mathematical manipulation of symbols. Instead it is rather chaotically interpreted based on preconceptions and context, obeying no particular law. In this way it is similar to the other activities of the brain - chaotic and messy, but also creative. Another interesting point is that the brain can learn a language without having any prior understanding of it. What Wittgenstein tries to show in the beginning of his Philosophical Investigations is that it is not possible to explain in a purely algorithmic way how language is learned. Discussing language requires understanding of self-organizing and evolving systems, and not of sequential, logical systems. So then language becomes not the vehicle for an ultimate truth, or something with which to distinguish between rational and irrational beings, but just another technique of evolutionary systems. Language has a role to play, but it does not live separately from a natural understanding of the world.
First off, I find Wittgenstein's use of multiple voices easy to read because I myself use multiple voices all the time when I am thinking. I may think a thought, then respond to it from another perspective. It is like hearing two people talk, except you identify as both of them at the same time. And that is what passes for my stream of consciousness. Actually, I do have voices that I consider to be myself, and those which I consider to be my impressions of other people. And of course not all my thought is verbal!
Wittgenstein seemed to be saying that language (and by extension, logic and thought) are all very relative. The meaning of language depends on the context. There always must be a context. For example, wondering what the parts are of some object only makes sense if you have some context within which to ask the question. The fundamental parts of, say, a tree, are different depending on what kind of answer you want. You might say that the basic parts are the branches, or maybe the cells, or the atoms that constitute the tree. Another situation where meaning depends on context is in the case of metaphors and words with multiple meanings. You can only know what the word refers to from the context. There is not a special essence for each word to refer to. So there is no perfectly exact language which is free from the necessity of an arbitrary environment to give it meaning.
The implication of this is that language is not so special as is commonly believed. Language can not be understood as a perfectly exact mathematical manipulation of symbols. Instead it is rather chaotically interpreted based on preconceptions and context, obeying no particular law. In this way it is similar to the other activities of the brain - chaotic and messy, but also creative. Another interesting point is that the brain can learn a language without having any prior understanding of it. What Wittgenstein tries to show in the beginning of his Philosophical Investigations is that it is not possible to explain in a purely algorithmic way how language is learned. Discussing language requires understanding of self-organizing and evolving systems, and not of sequential, logical systems. So then language becomes not the vehicle for an ultimate truth, or something with which to distinguish between rational and irrational beings, but just another technique of evolutionary systems. Language has a role to play, but it does not live separately from a natural understanding of the world.
2005/11/16
Analysis of Electric Sheep
The final chapter of Laboratory Life by Latour and Woolgar, presents a framework for understanding the construction of scientific facts. I will use this framework to analyze the knowledge production in Electric Sheep. This knowledge concerns the location of aesthetically pleasing fractal flames in the space of all possible fractal flames. Each fractal flame is an image produced from a seed of 84 real numbers. Essentially, each one may be defined as a point in an 84-dimensional space.
Using the framework in Laboratory Life, I can describe the Electric Sheep project as moving from chance to necessity. In the beginning, there is no way for you to know where the interesting fractal flames may be hiding, so all locations are equally probable. If you were to choose one to look at, you would have to make a random guess, only informed by chance. But as you build up knowledge of where the nice fractal flames may live, certain places are more probable than others. Eventually certain positions in this space become necessary to look at, as the probability of it containing interesting fractal flames becomes very high. This movement, from equal probability and chance to unequal probability and necessity, is the essence of knowledge production.
Latour and Woolgar's book describes six elements which work together to create this movement. First off there is construction, which is the slow, evolutionary process of accumulating facts. These facts are created through an agonistic process where hypotheses and their scientists compete to show that they are the best one. Once these facts are accepted they are embodied in laboratory equipment or skills and then taken for granted - materialization. This influences the fact's credibility, which refers to the cost in rejecting an established fact because of the time and energy invested in it. It is also important to recognize the role of individual circumstances in the production of knowledge, as knowledge is not so much about finding the universal truth as it is an idiosyncratic approximation to it. Finally, noise is a description of the initial state where all possibilities are equally probable, which facts try to limit into necessities.
In Electric Sheep, construction is the creation of a family tree of the best fractal flame images, or 'sheep.' Each one represents the knowledge that interesting sheep are more likely to be found nearby in 84-dimensional fractal flame space. Sheep are voted on for this privilege, which is agonistic in that it is competitive. Materialization takes place when the popular ones are saved as part of the family tree, to be used as the basis for later variations. Participants can not communicate to convince each other to vote for one sheep or another, so credibility does not play a noticeable role. People may submit their own fractal flames as stock for new sheep, and the direction the family tree branches from it is highly dependent on individual circumstances. It is extremely unlikely to chance upon the same fractal flame more than once, and the space of possibilities is so large that any knowledge network can only map a small portion of it. The end result is that in one corner of this fractal flame possibility space, the noise has been decreased so that some spots may be known to hold pretty fractal flames.
Using the framework in Laboratory Life, I can describe the Electric Sheep project as moving from chance to necessity. In the beginning, there is no way for you to know where the interesting fractal flames may be hiding, so all locations are equally probable. If you were to choose one to look at, you would have to make a random guess, only informed by chance. But as you build up knowledge of where the nice fractal flames may live, certain places are more probable than others. Eventually certain positions in this space become necessary to look at, as the probability of it containing interesting fractal flames becomes very high. This movement, from equal probability and chance to unequal probability and necessity, is the essence of knowledge production.
Latour and Woolgar's book describes six elements which work together to create this movement. First off there is construction, which is the slow, evolutionary process of accumulating facts. These facts are created through an agonistic process where hypotheses and their scientists compete to show that they are the best one. Once these facts are accepted they are embodied in laboratory equipment or skills and then taken for granted - materialization. This influences the fact's credibility, which refers to the cost in rejecting an established fact because of the time and energy invested in it. It is also important to recognize the role of individual circumstances in the production of knowledge, as knowledge is not so much about finding the universal truth as it is an idiosyncratic approximation to it. Finally, noise is a description of the initial state where all possibilities are equally probable, which facts try to limit into necessities.
In Electric Sheep, construction is the creation of a family tree of the best fractal flame images, or 'sheep.' Each one represents the knowledge that interesting sheep are more likely to be found nearby in 84-dimensional fractal flame space. Sheep are voted on for this privilege, which is agonistic in that it is competitive. Materialization takes place when the popular ones are saved as part of the family tree, to be used as the basis for later variations. Participants can not communicate to convince each other to vote for one sheep or another, so credibility does not play a noticeable role. People may submit their own fractal flames as stock for new sheep, and the direction the family tree branches from it is highly dependent on individual circumstances. It is extremely unlikely to chance upon the same fractal flame more than once, and the space of possibilities is so large that any knowledge network can only map a small portion of it. The end result is that in one corner of this fractal flame possibility space, the noise has been decreased so that some spots may be known to hold pretty fractal flames.
2005/11/08
A Distributed Knowledge Network
Electric Sheep
Electric Sheep is a distributed computing project which allows users to view fractal flames and vote for ones they like. To use it, you download a screensaver that will help generate the fractal flames and display them on the screen. Fractal flames are computer-generated animations which take a lot of processing power to produce, so each computer running the Electric Sheep screensaver does a little bit. A new fractal flame, or 'sheep,' is displayed on each participating computer about every ten minutes. While that sheep is on the screen, pressing the up arrow key will give it a vote. Only a few sheep are stored on the server at one time, so the sheep with more votes get to live longer. New sheep are variations on sheep still living on the server, so a sheep that got a lot of votes would have a lot of children that are similar to it. This means that Electric Sheep can explore the space of possible fractal flames to find pretty ones.
This project produces some very simple knowedge - collective knowledge of which fractal flames are interesting. Each saved sheep is a label that marks all similar sheep as potentially interesting forms. Electric Sheep takes the information of user's votes and embodies it as knowledge by using popular sheep as a basis for the next samples. I consider knowledge to be the structure of a system which is influenced by incoming information and then produces some action from it. In the case of Electric Sheep, its structure consists of the currently saved sheep along with the method by which it explores new fractal flames. The system uses this knowledge to make pretty pictures and to further develop its knowledge.
Electric Sheep is a distributed computing project which allows users to view fractal flames and vote for ones they like. To use it, you download a screensaver that will help generate the fractal flames and display them on the screen. Fractal flames are computer-generated animations which take a lot of processing power to produce, so each computer running the Electric Sheep screensaver does a little bit. A new fractal flame, or 'sheep,' is displayed on each participating computer about every ten minutes. While that sheep is on the screen, pressing the up arrow key will give it a vote. Only a few sheep are stored on the server at one time, so the sheep with more votes get to live longer. New sheep are variations on sheep still living on the server, so a sheep that got a lot of votes would have a lot of children that are similar to it. This means that Electric Sheep can explore the space of possible fractal flames to find pretty ones.
This project produces some very simple knowedge - collective knowledge of which fractal flames are interesting. Each saved sheep is a label that marks all similar sheep as potentially interesting forms. Electric Sheep takes the information of user's votes and embodies it as knowledge by using popular sheep as a basis for the next samples. I consider knowledge to be the structure of a system which is influenced by incoming information and then produces some action from it. In the case of Electric Sheep, its structure consists of the currently saved sheep along with the method by which it explores new fractal flames. The system uses this knowledge to make pretty pictures and to further develop its knowledge.
2005/11/01
Reaction to The Order of Things
This author, Foucault, describes a painting chronologically as a viewer's eye moves around the image. It is not a static image but a dynamic picture unfolding in a moment of numerous saccades. Foucault, describes the discovery of a window in contrast with a mirror:
"But the window operates by the continuous movement of an effusion which, flowing from right to left, unites the attentive figures, the painter, and the canvas, with the spectacle they are observing; whereas the mirror, on the other hand, by means of violent, instantaneous movement, a movement of pure surprise, leaps out from the picture in order to reach that which is observed yet invisible in front of it, and then, at the far end of its fictitious depth, to render it visible yet indifferent to every gaze."
This reminds me of my own idea of making a display which only shows the part of the scene where the eye is looking. It would be useful in a raytracing graphics engine in order to greatly reduce the number of rays cast each frame and thus make it feasible for use in a game. The difficulty is in determining where the eye is looking. This is usually accomplished by tracking the position of the eyeball with video cameras. It may be possible to infer the most likely paths for the eye to travel and only display a limited number of these areas. However, the user would probably have to practice in order to match the expectations of the system.
I am also interested in other alternative graphics techniques than the traditional polygon method. Looking at the color script for The Incredibles was very inspiring; I really liked its abstract depiction of the scenes which also showed the feeling with color and shapes. I thought that graphics like that would be very nice in a computer game, as a sort of vector graphics for 3D. Later, I thought of using a neural network of lines filled with color between them to make a display by rearranging themselves according to the scene. It would be like a living, dynamic, stained glass window.
An similar idea may be found in The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett.
"But the window operates by the continuous movement of an effusion which, flowing from right to left, unites the attentive figures, the painter, and the canvas, with the spectacle they are observing; whereas the mirror, on the other hand, by means of violent, instantaneous movement, a movement of pure surprise, leaps out from the picture in order to reach that which is observed yet invisible in front of it, and then, at the far end of its fictitious depth, to render it visible yet indifferent to every gaze."
This reminds me of my own idea of making a display which only shows the part of the scene where the eye is looking. It would be useful in a raytracing graphics engine in order to greatly reduce the number of rays cast each frame and thus make it feasible for use in a game. The difficulty is in determining where the eye is looking. This is usually accomplished by tracking the position of the eyeball with video cameras. It may be possible to infer the most likely paths for the eye to travel and only display a limited number of these areas. However, the user would probably have to practice in order to match the expectations of the system.
I am also interested in other alternative graphics techniques than the traditional polygon method. Looking at the color script for The Incredibles was very inspiring; I really liked its abstract depiction of the scenes which also showed the feeling with color and shapes. I thought that graphics like that would be very nice in a computer game, as a sort of vector graphics for 3D. Later, I thought of using a neural network of lines filled with color between them to make a display by rearranging themselves according to the scene. It would be like a living, dynamic, stained glass window.
An similar idea may be found in The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett.
2005/10/20
Reaction to Zen TV article
Zen TV Experiment
I've taken the advice of the article and tried observing my own computer use. I notice the sounds of people around me and my spatial position in the room, as well as the sensations of my body. It is difficult to maintain this state of awareness, though, like trying to stay conscious while falling asleep. In other words, I can't do it. Yet.
The part about relaxation and renewal resonated with my experience. I find that being in front of a computer jams my ability to think. I come up with ideas whenever I'm free to be by myself, whether I'm walking around or just getting a snack. Well, maybe writing on the computer is different, but the kind of web browsing that is similar to TV creates a mental state that inhibits my creativity and understanding. It's like the computer presses down and holds my mind, and once I escape to the outside I can see myself and think again. Even observing myself use the Internet gives only a limited context. I know that once I get up and go outside my mind will be much more free.
I have thought about this before. I remember noticing how draining an electronic screen can be. I contrasted this with sound, which is all around and more relaxing for me. My idea was to make a game of only sound, which would incorporate the sounds occurring naturally in the player's environment, and to increase the player's appreciation for the sound that always surrounds us. Here's how I described it in my journal on 2005/01/03:
A game or experience that widens perception rather than focusing on a small screen. Sound is a good example of expanding perception. Focusing is tiring, gives headache, etc., expanding is relaxing.
Sound is all around you and inside you. (You can focus your perceptions on particular sounds though.) Sight is restricted to your field of vision in front, and is often focused - on a page, or a screen. It is also more difficult to produce expanded sight perceptions (VR helmet) than sound (headphones). So sound is a better medium.
It should make people want to find new sounds and take the game to different places to explore new worlds (Pokemon effect). Then they would think differently about sound and all places they go, because they have that extra layer of meaning or pattern recognition attached to different soundscapes (one of the learning principles).
Also, see this essay for elaboration on that last point.
"We no longer do, we watch, and reality is someone else's creation."
I have also noticed a feeling that I am not in control of my own actions, that I am watching my senses, my feelings and thoughts. Especially my voice is something which can seem foreign to me at times. For me, writing is a much more faithful transcription of my thoughts. So you're getting the real deal here! This is a common idea for me, playing with the idea of free will and personality. I don't think this was due to TV or the Internet, as I rarely watch TV, and I never really used the Internet much then.
I've taken the advice of the article and tried observing my own computer use. I notice the sounds of people around me and my spatial position in the room, as well as the sensations of my body. It is difficult to maintain this state of awareness, though, like trying to stay conscious while falling asleep. In other words, I can't do it. Yet.
The part about relaxation and renewal resonated with my experience. I find that being in front of a computer jams my ability to think. I come up with ideas whenever I'm free to be by myself, whether I'm walking around or just getting a snack. Well, maybe writing on the computer is different, but the kind of web browsing that is similar to TV creates a mental state that inhibits my creativity and understanding. It's like the computer presses down and holds my mind, and once I escape to the outside I can see myself and think again. Even observing myself use the Internet gives only a limited context. I know that once I get up and go outside my mind will be much more free.
I have thought about this before. I remember noticing how draining an electronic screen can be. I contrasted this with sound, which is all around and more relaxing for me. My idea was to make a game of only sound, which would incorporate the sounds occurring naturally in the player's environment, and to increase the player's appreciation for the sound that always surrounds us. Here's how I described it in my journal on 2005/01/03:
A game or experience that widens perception rather than focusing on a small screen. Sound is a good example of expanding perception. Focusing is tiring, gives headache, etc., expanding is relaxing.
Sound is all around you and inside you. (You can focus your perceptions on particular sounds though.) Sight is restricted to your field of vision in front, and is often focused - on a page, or a screen. It is also more difficult to produce expanded sight perceptions (VR helmet) than sound (headphones). So sound is a better medium.
It should make people want to find new sounds and take the game to different places to explore new worlds (Pokemon effect). Then they would think differently about sound and all places they go, because they have that extra layer of meaning or pattern recognition attached to different soundscapes (one of the learning principles).
Also, see this essay for elaboration on that last point.
"We no longer do, we watch, and reality is someone else's creation."
I have also noticed a feeling that I am not in control of my own actions, that I am watching my senses, my feelings and thoughts. Especially my voice is something which can seem foreign to me at times. For me, writing is a much more faithful transcription of my thoughts. So you're getting the real deal here! This is a common idea for me, playing with the idea of free will and personality. I don't think this was due to TV or the Internet, as I rarely watch TV, and I never really used the Internet much then.
2005/10/18
Reaction to Online Credibility paper
The main idea of this paper is that the old ways of determining credibility, by checking sources, is becoming obsolete with the rise of the Internet and particularly collaborative sites such as Wikipedia. Instead, users find various cues on the site which give an overall impression of credibility. For example, on Wikipedia there is recent information, many images to complement articles, and external links, all of which make the site seem more credible. The perceived credibility of a site like Wikipedia also depends on the users' view of the process by which its content is created. A user who does not believe that a collaborative encyclopedia is feasible is not likely to give much credibility to the information in Wikipedia.
I think that source credibility actually can become an important factor though. A distinguished website or the author of a popular blog can hold credibility on their own. People may think an article on Wikipedia is credible simply because it is on Wikipedia. Basing the credibility of some information on its source is a way to avoid the work of analyzing it. I think it makes as much sense to attach source credibility to a website like Wikipedia as to a person. Both are, in a sense, distributed knowledge networks. One is made of webpages, while the other is made of neurons. Actually the distinction is fuzzier than that, as people rely on the external memory of papers and websites, while human contributors are integral to the knowledge network of Wikipedia.
I think that source credibility actually can become an important factor though. A distinguished website or the author of a popular blog can hold credibility on their own. People may think an article on Wikipedia is credible simply because it is on Wikipedia. Basing the credibility of some information on its source is a way to avoid the work of analyzing it. I think it makes as much sense to attach source credibility to a website like Wikipedia as to a person. Both are, in a sense, distributed knowledge networks. One is made of webpages, while the other is made of neurons. Actually the distinction is fuzzier than that, as people rely on the external memory of papers and websites, while human contributors are integral to the knowledge network of Wikipedia.
2005/10/11
Wikipedia Case Study
Evolutionary creationism
This is a Wikipedia article about the belief that evolution is compatible with creationism. It was first created as a stub on 2003/09/27 and has been edited by roughly thirty people so far.
Here are some frequent contributors to the page:
Duncharris
A contributor to a wiki on evolutionary biology who has Google bombing links suggesting an anti-Bush and anti-Christian viewpoint.
PhilVaz
A computer programmer who also maintains a Catholic website.
Johnstone
A person who seems to be interested in the possibilities for group intelligence, of which Wikipedia is an example.
Grutter
A youth worker for an Anglican church, who also has a Ph.D. in archaeology and geochemistry.
The main source of debate in editing this topic has been the distinction between evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution. Currently the consensus is to redirect the theistic evolution links to the evolutionary creationism page. Apparently they are not different enough to warrant separate articles for each.
The way discussion seems to work is that someone brings up a suggested change, and then people respond to it or ignore it. When they respond to it, they may either discourage the action or add their own suggestions. If a suggestion is ignored, its originator is free to carry it out. Most disagreements build up until one side accepts defeat and stops posting.
In general, many changes are carried out by a few people who are regular Wikipedia users and also have an interest in the subject. These people often act as editors who maintain the quality of the article. But both small changes and new additions are made by people passing by.
This is a Wikipedia article about the belief that evolution is compatible with creationism. It was first created as a stub on 2003/09/27 and has been edited by roughly thirty people so far.
Here are some frequent contributors to the page:
Duncharris
A contributor to a wiki on evolutionary biology who has Google bombing links suggesting an anti-Bush and anti-Christian viewpoint.
PhilVaz
A computer programmer who also maintains a Catholic website.
Johnstone
A person who seems to be interested in the possibilities for group intelligence, of which Wikipedia is an example.
Grutter
A youth worker for an Anglican church, who also has a Ph.D. in archaeology and geochemistry.
The main source of debate in editing this topic has been the distinction between evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution. Currently the consensus is to redirect the theistic evolution links to the evolutionary creationism page. Apparently they are not different enough to warrant separate articles for each.
The way discussion seems to work is that someone brings up a suggested change, and then people respond to it or ignore it. When they respond to it, they may either discourage the action or add their own suggestions. If a suggestion is ignored, its originator is free to carry it out. Most disagreements build up until one side accepts defeat and stops posting.
In general, many changes are carried out by a few people who are regular Wikipedia users and also have an interest in the subject. These people often act as editors who maintain the quality of the article. But both small changes and new additions are made by people passing by.
2005/10/10
Reaction to Google Bomb Paper
Deconstructing Google Bombs
Google bombing is a cool idea that I would like to try once I think of a worthy subject. But the purpose of this paper is to determine whether Google bombing can be considered a "social movement." Apparently some cases are social movements, but some are not. The miserable failure Google bomb is not a social movement because it arose from a general dissatisfaction and not specifically to put Bush's biography at the top of a search for "miserable failure." But the Jew Google bomb was specifically organized in response to the appearance of an anti-Semitic website as the first result of a search for "Jew." I'm not sure if the distinction is so clear-cut though. Is "miserable failure" not a social movement because it reflects an existing state of mind, while "Jew" is because it was a new creation?
The issue of who controls media and reality reminded me of The Third Wave, a book which predicts and describes the fall of industrial society and the rise of a new, decentralized society. One interesting topic in the book is the distinction between producer and consumer that industrialism created, which the third wave is supposed to reunite. The Internet is part of that change. Instead of monolithic television stations controlling our representations of reality, media is splitting up into a more democratic form.
Blogs are a relatively new way to bring production back to the people. And Google bombing is a way for groups of loosely connected people to influence the Internet's equivalent of monolithic media producers. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The danger lies in tipping the balance too far from conformity to the side of diversity, where search engines are no longer trusted to provide objective results. Google bombing is an agent of diversity because it increases the number of viewpoints in what makes an objective result. When Google is upholding the objectivity of their search, this underlying conformity enhances the effectiveness of communication; it is a common language. Hopefully Google will remain balanced.
A similar concept is Douglas Adams' idea about communication and the fourth "age of sand" from his speech Is there an Artificial God? There is the conversational one-to-one communication, the hierarchical one-to-many, the democratic many-to-one, and finally the chaotic many-to-many. This many-to-many flavor of communication is now being made possible on a large scale by the Internet. We are still dominated by an industrial one-to-many format by newspapers, television and public education. This separation of production and consumption is unhealthy and stressful. We can't easily do much about the disasters we hear about or the policies of our centralized government. Fixing this problem is the promise of the third wave and the fourth age of sand.
Google bombing is a cool idea that I would like to try once I think of a worthy subject. But the purpose of this paper is to determine whether Google bombing can be considered a "social movement." Apparently some cases are social movements, but some are not. The miserable failure Google bomb is not a social movement because it arose from a general dissatisfaction and not specifically to put Bush's biography at the top of a search for "miserable failure." But the Jew Google bomb was specifically organized in response to the appearance of an anti-Semitic website as the first result of a search for "Jew." I'm not sure if the distinction is so clear-cut though. Is "miserable failure" not a social movement because it reflects an existing state of mind, while "Jew" is because it was a new creation?
The issue of who controls media and reality reminded me of The Third Wave, a book which predicts and describes the fall of industrial society and the rise of a new, decentralized society. One interesting topic in the book is the distinction between producer and consumer that industrialism created, which the third wave is supposed to reunite. The Internet is part of that change. Instead of monolithic television stations controlling our representations of reality, media is splitting up into a more democratic form.
Blogs are a relatively new way to bring production back to the people. And Google bombing is a way for groups of loosely connected people to influence the Internet's equivalent of monolithic media producers. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The danger lies in tipping the balance too far from conformity to the side of diversity, where search engines are no longer trusted to provide objective results. Google bombing is an agent of diversity because it increases the number of viewpoints in what makes an objective result. When Google is upholding the objectivity of their search, this underlying conformity enhances the effectiveness of communication; it is a common language. Hopefully Google will remain balanced.
A similar concept is Douglas Adams' idea about communication and the fourth "age of sand" from his speech Is there an Artificial God? There is the conversational one-to-one communication, the hierarchical one-to-many, the democratic many-to-one, and finally the chaotic many-to-many. This many-to-many flavor of communication is now being made possible on a large scale by the Internet. We are still dominated by an industrial one-to-many format by newspapers, television and public education. This separation of production and consumption is unhealthy and stressful. We can't easily do much about the disasters we hear about or the policies of our centralized government. Fixing this problem is the promise of the third wave and the fourth age of sand.
2005/10/06
Kevin Kelly Quote on Thinking and Evolution
Tunneling through randomness
"Some students of the human mind make a strong argument that thinking is a type of evolution of ideas within the brain. According to this argument, all created things are evolved. As I write these words, I have to agree. I began this book not with a sentence formed in my mind but with an arbitrarily chosen phrase, "I am." Then in unconsciously rapid succession I evaluated a headful of possible next words. I picked one that seemed esthetically fit, "sealed." After "I am sealed," I went on to the next word, choosing from among 100,000s of possible ones. Each selected word bred the choices for the next until I had evolved almost a sentence of words. Toward the end of the sentence my choices were constrained somewhat by the words I had already chosen at the beginning, so learning helped the breeding go more quickly."
Exactly.
"What will the next words be that I write in this chapter? In a real sense I don't know. There are probably billions of possibilities of what they might be, even taking into account the restriction that they must logically follow from the last sentence. Did you guess this sentence as the next one? I didn't either. But that's the sentence I found at the end of the sentence."
You can't know exactly what you are going to think next in your head, because if you did you would have already thought it. But you still think; the thoughts make sense and you know that you made them yourself.
"Some students of the human mind make a strong argument that thinking is a type of evolution of ideas within the brain. According to this argument, all created things are evolved. As I write these words, I have to agree. I began this book not with a sentence formed in my mind but with an arbitrarily chosen phrase, "I am." Then in unconsciously rapid succession I evaluated a headful of possible next words. I picked one that seemed esthetically fit, "sealed." After "I am sealed," I went on to the next word, choosing from among 100,000s of possible ones. Each selected word bred the choices for the next until I had evolved almost a sentence of words. Toward the end of the sentence my choices were constrained somewhat by the words I had already chosen at the beginning, so learning helped the breeding go more quickly."
Exactly.
"What will the next words be that I write in this chapter? In a real sense I don't know. There are probably billions of possibilities of what they might be, even taking into account the restriction that they must logically follow from the last sentence. Did you guess this sentence as the next one? I didn't either. But that's the sentence I found at the end of the sentence."
You can't know exactly what you are going to think next in your head, because if you did you would have already thought it. But you still think; the thoughts make sense and you know that you made them yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
