Auf unserer neuen accu:rate Webseite habe ich einen Blogpost mit ein paar Gedanken über Simulationen geschrieben:
Uh, hello there blog. No post in over a year! However, 5 drafts are waiting in the admin dashboard as I noted to my amusement. None of which shall be completed today. Although, todays topic does have to do with those drafts, on a meta level. Obviously a meta level. Continuing in the tradition of this blog I shall seek to elevate snippets of self-observations into writing. Both to sharpen my thoughts by means of the burning glass that the process of writing is, and to hopefully share some thought provoking, well, thoughts…
I like making lists. And maps. And more lists. In recent years I grew into the habit of emailing todos and thoughts to myself right away (tried all the productivity tools and always returned to email). To avoid forgetting it and to release mental storage space. The latter feels almost as cleansing and satisfying as ensuring all updates are installed on my operating systems, emptying the virtual bin or knowing that nothing of value is stored only local. When I assume things are valuable to others I have an urge to share it, make it accessible and enable others to build on it. All of which turn out to be useful traits sometimes.
Occasionally though, I encounter estrangement or even opposition with regards to my desire to collect and share stuff. One such situation was, when I asked a friend for recommendations of nice cafès in Munich. Happy about the locations I received, I put them into a google map and shared that back to her. The reaction was not positive at all. Dragging these privately shared tips into public daylight seem to feel similar to revealing secrets to an unauthorized audience. Back then I assigned that reaction more to her character than to wrongdoing on my part. Now, months later I understand its meaning better…
Lists can also make one feel overwhelmed and unable to pick the right thing to start with. Their entries can appear cold and lifeless. The ideas I email to myself might lose their spark if I let them hang in the inbox for too long. I might repeatedly look at them, not quite knowing what to do with it. In that sense, listing things can indeed also drain them of their energy.
See, if I can’t pick from some list of nice cafès to meet a friend, I would ask my competent local friends beforehand. And now it becomes a story. Later in the cafè I can share from who and why I got the recommendation for this location. And in future references back to this event, the recommender will be woven into the narrative. It was not just a pick from a map, it was a personal tip, contextualized by a relationship and a timing. Same with listing ideas. I could also just trust that the good ones come back by themselves, without having to nail them to some list. Some will be lost, but others get a chance to rearise from an experience or from some trail of thought. They will be soaked in the motivation, energy and story of now. Instead of being a frozen item that looks a lot like any other todo. The trajectory of the experience starts deeper and gains more momentum by being woven into the contextual and emotional narrative of the moment.
Remembering someone by a random stimulus and then writing them, can feel more authentic than to use the occasion of facebooks birthday reminder to say hi once per year. The story of how I came to remember you becomes a lively thread to start an encounter with. I guess the difference is, if a stimulus originated in some automated system, in some infrastructure – or if it was born in the moment, tied to some story or some symbol. The latter we are much more likely to pour our heart in. Nevertheless, listing stuff, deploying automated infrastructure very much has its place.
A thought experiment on that note. What would it look like, to take the drive to list stuff and create shared infrastructure to an extreme? In the very moment someone in your shared flat WhatsApp-Group writes that we are out of toilet paper, you set up a special app-thingy that manages basic shared flat requirements from now on. No more communication about it will be necessary. In the moment someone asks about who might want to join going to the cinema, you set up a super convenient system for planning cinema visits. No more communication about it will be necessary. And so on: in the moment someone shares their sorrows with you, you recommend a psychologist. No more need to talk about personal problems with each other. Sounds efficient but horrible? Yes, it does indeed. Over time it would strip away anything we like to talk about when we “talk to each other”. Would we find yet new topics to converse about that can’t (yet) be optimized away? I sure think so. Human conversations over the millennia always took place on top of the current infrastructure and in the field of tension towards the next level of infrastructure, no? And of course, conversation only to a small degree is meant to convey pure information. It is a means to build trust, spend time, build models of each other in ourselves and so on. It could be a thrilling inquiry to scan human conversations over the millenia for topics that have something timeless that can’t be optimized away.
The other day Dav shared an article that referenced this brilliant TED talk by Chris Milk: How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine. Here two short excerpts:
It’s a machine, but inside of it, it feels like real life, it feels like truth. And you feel present in the world that you’re inside and you feel present with the people that you’re inside of it with. […] And that’s where I think we just start to scratch the surface of the true power of virtual reality. It’s not a video game peripheral. It connects humans to other humans in a profound way that I’ve never seen before in any other form of media.
I was hesitant so far to jump on the VR excitement train, but now I am definitely on board! Also because this semester at Uni we will be coding around with 3D pedestrian simulations viewed with a google cardboard, yay!
One thing I remembered while sitting inspired by Chris’ talk, were my synthetic synesthesia ideas from spring 2012. Two threads came together back then: learning about synesthesia and being super fascinated by it – and the other one was visiting Olafur Eliasson’s installation Your atmospheric colour atlas in Aarhus, Denmark. The installation was a room full of dense fog with light coming in different intense colors from the ceiling. You were intensely immersed in colors as you walked through it – other people with you in the room appeared only as vague outlines as they emerge from and vanish into their realm of colors.
It thought about the following addition I would make to the installation: wireless wristbands that send position and current emotion (measured by skin conductivity and heartbeat) to a computer that controls the colors of the lights in such a way that you are at all times soaked in colored light that represents your current emotional state. Let’s say red for anxious, light blue for relaxed or some scheme like that. As you encounter other people the emotional state of everyone is fully transparent by the colored aura surrounding them. Emotions, and therefore colors, might change when you meet someone. Which might turn out to be amusing, embarrassing or something else – but likely an impressive and novel experience.
This extended version of the atmospheric colour atlas, let’s call it “emotional colour atlas”, fits under the self-invented term synthetic synesthesia: temporarily faking synesthesia-like perceptional abilities by technical means with the purpose to deepen “situational awareness” and “creative presence”. So a visitor of the emotional colour atlas might feel inspired to develop a higher awareness of people’s emotions he interacts with in his life as an effect of being confronted with them in the form of intense colors. And so on… more thoughts about it with more ideas for “installations” here. Be warned though, it might be a laborious read, for it was merely a compilation for myself back then.
Besides empathy and sensitivity, could this approach serve in other fields as well? As some of my previous posts indicate, I am increasingly interested in education with the focus on elegant teaching concepts. Meaning not the circumstances of teaching but the pure point of “transmitting content” as to construct a “maximal useful and sustainable new neuronal structure” in the students brain :)
Let me reference once again Alan Kay‘s excellent TED talk from 2007: A powerful idea about ideas. THE most meaningful TED talk ever for me personally. In previous posts I referred to the excellent example he uses about the qualitatively different approaches to teach the pythagorean theorem. Now I like to show screenshots from a demo he gives using the software that he developed for the $100 Laptop with the Viewpoints Research Institute and others:
What you see there is the recording of a ball thrown from a roof, split into frames. Despite equal time between frames, you see how the distance the ball travels increases from frame to frame: acceleration. But what kind of acceleration?
To find out, Alan stacks the rectangles together that he inserted to measure the distance between the ball positions. Now it becomes visually obvious that the acceleration is constant, because the height of the rectangles increases linear! Finally he uses those insights to code a tiny program that models a ball falling down. And now comes the part where the teaching loop closes – he uses the video recording to show that the virtual model is accurately reproducing what physical reality does! Here a snapshot of the real and the virtual ball falling down side by side:
Now we come to the point of this post. In that sprit… how about using VR to augment a students vision with “Iron Man features” like tracking objects, velocities, trajectories and alike in real-time? The software could learn about object properties and help assemble experimental setups. For instance to countdown the moment to kick off the ball from a slide so that it’ll land exactly on the Lego train’s chimney that will pass by a few seconds later. Maybe the physics engine wouldn’t be parametrized correctly to begin with… maybe the student has to find the correct formula first or the right constant to put into the formula? In that way the “tangible reward” of getting the formula right are overlays of the physical world that are actually correct! Imagine a setup where a whole class has to find a set of formulas in that way in order to assemble a grand experiment where the digital model predicts accurately the physical experiment – awesome! Or a spellchecker of your handwriting? A fact-checker of what the teacher says… ?
So analog to “synthetic synesthesia”, the basic idea is: using technological augmentation of senses and perception temporarily in order to stimulate an inherent desire to expand ones own abilities and knowledge.
It stands to reason that cool, immersive and highly experiental stuff with much wow-factor is being tried out in the VR market because stakeholders want to grab their portion of the public attention. However, I think in the context of schools and universities it is also advisable to stay close close to the curriculum with VR experiments as to not further the gap of “exciting new stuff” and “boring school stuff”. Also the tool must step out of the way as soon as possible! This thought has to be living at the very base. Students should not become dependent on the VR tools, but get excited about learning the underlying knowledge themselves. Having it solidly anchored in your own brain must be the desire they should feel when using edu-augmenting technology.
Last weekend I was visiting my dad in his hometown Waal, a lovely little village in Bavaria. He told me he walked pass the church (here is a neat fullmoon-shoot of its pinnacle we took 4 years ago) earlier, where construction work is taking place. There he saw a skeleton being excavated by an archeologist. Of course I wanted to go there! Unfortunately the skeleton was already gone. It was however still visible where it was located for the past decades or centuries – until maybe just a few hours ago. Then we discovered next to the containers with demolition waste a tub filled with human bones, including skulls! Kind of creepy but also kind of cool! And probably normal routine for workers that move earth on sites were graveyards used to be?
Well, the remains of 100 billion humans have to go somewhere. I subtracted the current 7 from the 107, which is the estimated number of homo sapiens who have ever lived since 50.000 BC as shown here.
I do seem to have a little bit of a morbid side – at least I am weirdly fascinated by seeing pictures of excavations of skeletons! Two famous recent providers of which are the Homo Naledi in the Dinaledi Chamber (here the full paper), and in 2012 King Richard III of England. See a time lapse of the archaeological dig at the burial site in this article. At some point I would like to join a summer school in Archeology. “Ask a Mortician” is an entertaining and informative youtube channel on the topic by the way.
As a child I had terrifying fantasies (likely infused by the depiction of time travelling Terminator and alike) of beaming going wrong and subjects ending up in walls, under the surface or just deep enough under water so that they can’t make it back up in time.
Two primal fears/fascinations come together here. One more general that most people will resonate with: the reminder about ones mortality and the irreversible progression of time. And one that I might share with fewer people? Namely this (obvious) insight how intensely compressed and dense the 6×1024 kg mass is below our feet! And that grotesque shift in density from below the surface to the above-surface world. Again, obvious all the way, but mind-blowing to me nevertheless every time I drift into it during day or night dreams.
Did you know that “most of the known volcanic hotspots are linked to plumes of hot rock rising from two spots on the boundary between the metal core and rocky mantle 1800 miles below Earth’s surface”? More here, so cool!
And then there is deep water of course! Look at this picture, it fearscinates me so much! It exudes this silent void that is terrifyingly empty and promises complete freedom at the same time…
Not sure about the original source, probably here.
To conclude this blog post I want to share Derek Muller’s brilliant video “Our Greatest Delusion” from his absolutely subscribe-worthy channel Veritasium.
As a teenager (not anymore) I would occasionally lock myself into my room and smoke weed all by myself. While I was enjoying the giggly effects it had on social dynamics, I was more fascinated by the “psychonautic” journeys it enables one to go on. One of my self-imposed stoned mental task was simply to remember the start of a thought-trail. Which, as some of you might know, turns out to be an almost impossible task unless one gets very creative with mnemonics to a degree that the thought-trail itself contains hardly anything besides crutches to remember the thought of just seconds ago.
Another mental dynamic that both enchanted and irritated me fundamentally were recursive loops in the style of: “What am I thinking about what I am thinking. How might I think about in the future what I am thinking right now. How much of what I am thinking now could I have anticipated in the past. How much of all possible thoughts can I possibly think of now”. Deep enough into this rabbit hole I would again and again “feel” a quite tangible mental barrier which is not “transcendable”! As much meta as I am trying to climb, I will always only be able to think about me from inside me, no complete outsider perspective possible… obviously.
Wanting to challenge this kind of barrier might very well have played a role in my bygone venturing into spirituality and terminology like collective intelligence, awakening and alike. Of which older posts (before 2012ish) on this blog are vivid and amusing products of.
I returned to the path of science and programming. But also here, and especially here, I am confronted with my mental limitations constantly. In the context of my bachelor thesis I am currently investigating which design pattern in software architecture makes most sense for our challenge. A pattern here means a conceptual structure that has proofed useful in various contexts. It does take time to understand such a pattern and I am definitely the type of learner who needs to see and ideally rebuild little examples to comprehend a concept. I guess I need to rebuild the design pattern literally as neuronal structure in my brain to be able to use it in my active thinking? Obviously not “one to one” and the functioning of the ridiculously massive knowledge graph that makes up ones brain is beyond current scientific comprehension, but to some degree this simple transfer-analogy holds true I like to believe. Having useful structural concepts, categorization schemes, readily available in one’s mind can be worth the world – and that’s what expertise in general is all about, isn’t it? It does change your brain, physically. Learning is never of additive nature but it reworks the knowledge graph and therefore changes what can possibly be thought of by this brain.
Anyways, I admit to be really bad at comprehending new abstract concepts at times! I get annoyed with not being able to grasp it. If motivation trumps over quitting I try to work my way in from various angles. Taking breaks helps, going running or sleeping over it. I have seen people on my educational level being much better than me at incorporating new stuff into their thinking. I don’t see it as reason to be ashamed though, it only means I must continuously find crutches and creative highways for my tenacious brain to digest stuff. Or ways how to outsource or blackblox complex parts. Or, yeah, ignoring them long enough until someone else has to deal with it might be an option too.
Paradoxically I am drawn to the very abstract concepts that I seem to comprehend often so slow and troublesome. (Well, it seems often that way, doesn’t it? People get professional at what they were once bad in or vulnerable about.) It might very well be a driver for my interest in well composed and thought through educational content – wanting to reduce the mental pain of fighting through bad and inelegant materials. And I don’t mean (only) aesthetically bad, bad are also and especially subtle choices of introducing concepts for instance in ways that might please the educators mind, but are likely to confuse learners systematically.
I am extremely curious about the mental capabilities people have and are developing. I find it so very beautiful if one is honest and playful about theirs. I love imagining what people could do together just looking at the union of their bare mental toolkits and temporarily ignoring social and cultural swamps that might weaken or hinder them to bounce off each other.
Here is a great piece about mental capability in Rich Hickey’s talk “Simple Made Easy“:
Then we have this other part though, which is the mental capability part. And that’s the part that’s always hard to talk about, the mental capability part because, the fact is, we can learn more things. We actually can’t get much smarter. We’re not going to move; we’re not going to move our brain closer to the complexity. We have to make things near by simplifying them. But the truth here is not that they’re these super, bright people who can do these amazing things and everybody else is stuck because the juggling analogy is pretty close. Right? The average juggler can do three balls. The most amazing juggler in the world can do, like, 9 balls or 12 or something like that. They can’t do 20 or 100. We’re all very limited. Compared to the complexity we can create, we’re all statistically at the same point in our ability to understand it, which is not very good. So we’re going to have to bring things towards us.
After all that talk about limited mental capabilities I’d like to highlight this section from Dr Sean Holden in this video [7:40 to 8:48] about our grand advantage over current AI. That is “knowing” what to ignore and doing so immediately and effortless:
[…] our ability to have a focus of interest. By which I mean: in our heads we have huge quantities of information and almost every single bit of it is completely irrelevant right now. I could be the worlds biggest expert on the mating habits of the Patagonian fruit bat. But the fact is, I am sitting here talking to you on a particular subject. Now I am immediately excluding what I know about Patagonian fruit bats without having to consciously think what bits do I need to exclude. […] Everything is unconsciously and immediately filtered out. And that’s a big problem for AI software because it doesn’t have the ability to do that in the way in which your brain does that.
To conclude this blog post I want to quote Randall Lee Reetz from this post:
[…] what ends up mattering, isn’t how fast your computer, all computers are and always will be, limited by the locality wall, what matters is knowing what to compute and what not to compute. That is what evolution seeks. That is what intelligence is.
The prelude of this weekend brought me to remember some earlier musings about the workings of graph layout algorithms. Namely how a graph might behave, if its edges have target-lengths assigned. Deviation from that value cause expanding or contracting forces onto the two nodes it is incident with.
Then, for the rest of the weekend (quite literally) I implemented said algorithm. And… as it always happens, some little extra features around that core functionality found its way in. I am very happy about the result. Despite the lack of applicability I find it quite enjoyable to play around. To see how different setups behave and create strange structures or beatiful ones, symmetric and balanced like a diamond.
Go try it yourself if you wish, here it is.