when interacting with another human being, i think a useful guiding principle is: "do that which maximizes the expected connection between oneself and the other." i do not mean here immediate connection, but rather long term. if one analogizes with dynamics or kinetics equations, we are interested in maximizing the expected value of the steady-state of the system. in game-theoretic terms, this may be akin to the pareto optimal solution (but i don't understand that stuff well enough just yet). in buddhist thought, this may be related to the idea of searching to unify oneself with the other, to the point that one does not even consider oneself different from another (again, i'm not sure i get this stuff yet). bob marley may have referred to this idea as "one love. one heart. let's get together and feel alright," again referring to breaking down the barriers between us and just coming together. so, clearly, this is not a novel or unique idea. nonetheless, it does not seem to be central to many contemporary moral or ethical systems (at least western ones). i came to this thought because i used to act according to a very similar principle: "do that which maximizes the immediate connection between oneself and the other." sadly, this often leads to suffering, as immediate gains often come at the cost of long term suffering.
i find that i am able to act according to this new principle in a way that is not at all paternalistic. this is somewhat in contrast to: "do unto others that which you would like done unto you." i think the appropriate way to understand this thought lies in considering *psychological impact*, not actions. if i like eating cake, but you don't, then i shouldn't get you cake. if i only consider actions, then i would want cake, so i should get cake for others. instead, the important point is i would want things that *i* like, so when getting presents for others i should get them things that they like. however, acting according to this principle, even upon the interpretation that i prefer (a psychological impact emphasis rather then the "act" itself emphasis), leads me to paternalistic behavior or controversy. for instance, a woman wants to sleep with me. she says she'll like it and feels good about the decision. assuming i want to as well, i could go with it, and hope everything would be cool. or i could not go with it, the rationale being that i don't believe it is what she really wants deep down, or i think it would be better for her not to in the long run. either one of those rationales is somewhat dissatisfactory. however, if i consider our long term connection, i would concur only if i believed that it was beneficial for our relationship. this thought process somehow side steps the issue of considering her, or myself, of being paternalistic or selfish. the point is our interaction (which is really the thing at stake).
so, i'm pretty happy with this approach so far. if anybody has some qualms about it, i'd love to hear it. of course, it is not a complete theory of ethical behavior (eg, how might i consider interactions with people i've never met, such as sudanese refugees), nor does it solve all interpersonal relationship problems, but i think its a pretty good place to start.
Friday, April 4, 2008
MIND08
so, while in nyc, i decided to take advantage of the scene, and attend a day long conference called "mind08: the design and elastic mind symposium." here are the highlights, and my reflections:
chuck hoberman: this dude invented the ball that can expand and contract. he is an architect using that idea to build dynamic spaces. turns out, dynamic spaces mostly means motorized blinds with weird shapes. they have a certain aesthetic appeal, but it is not clear whether there is any other practical advantage.
paul steinhardt: this dude has a theory about the universe. essentially, our universe lies on a membrane (or brane for short). apparently, some of the dilemmas posed by string theory can be solved by postulating the existence of another brane, orthogonal to ours. according to his theory, our brane and the other brane lie out the boundary of a dimension, and the branes cyclically collide and then spread apart again, repeating infinitely many times. thus, no single big bang, but rather many big collisions. seemed like a smart and nice dude, and he wrote some contemporary popular science books, the cool thing is that this theory actually makes predictions that should be testable within a few years (we gotta wait for technological developments).
janna levin: she's totally cool. she tackles the question of whether the universe is infinite in size, and if not, does it have boundaries. consider earth: it is both finite and boundaryless. potentially, the universe could be like that too. on earth, if one looks straight ahead, and light bends around the earth, then one would see one's own back side. similarly, if one looked backward, one would see oneself looking backward. if the universe had the same property of finiteness yet boundarylessness, then when we looked at the stars, we might be looking at the same stars at different points in time. it would be difficult to determine whether the different things we saw were actually the same thing in different times or not. that's cool.
kevin slavin: this dude makes games. turns out, games historically have taken place in "somewhere else." typically, some fantastical place that lacks any ties to our material world. he made some games that do not ascribe to that convention. in particular, shark-runners is a game about chasing sharks. you pretend to be on a boat trying to intersect shark paths. you are playing against sharks - real sharks. they implanted sharks with a little GPS, so they are actually playing against you in their real space. Crossroads: a 2 player game, played on one's cell phone. the goal is to run to as many intersections in lower manhattan as possible, in a 30 minute period. this requires actually passing through the intersections. a bad guy may be chasing you as well, so people apparently run away from a virtual villain, but they are running in real space. Plundr is a pirate game, where you live in a virutal world, and can steal or sell or trade goods. however, you can only do things in the place that you currently occupy in real space. if you go to a place on earth that nobody has played from yet, you can create your own island there, make taxes, etc.
henry markram: he is doing something called the "blue brain project" in collaboration with IBM. they want to simulate a human brain, a feat they claim to be able to accomplish in 10 years. besides the fact that it takes 200 PB to even store all the info one would need to simulate, it is not clear to me that the parameters are identifiable, given current experimental constraints. as such, they are limited to finding an equivalence class of parameters for the small stimulus space they are able to explore, and therefore probably lack the ability to simulate anything novel to make useful predictions. time will tell.
overall, it seems as if some people were literally trying to transform the way we understand reality, and others were simply making things that look cool. in general, while i was impressed with many of the designers' grasp of science, it did not seem as if they were able to make a useful contribution to science or understanding, but rather just something pretty that abstractly connected to a cool new scientific idea. also, calling this conference "mind08" seems like a misnomer, as almost nothing was actually about the mind. maybe something like "real design" would have been more appropriate. nonetheless, i'm glad i went.
chuck hoberman: this dude invented the ball that can expand and contract. he is an architect using that idea to build dynamic spaces. turns out, dynamic spaces mostly means motorized blinds with weird shapes. they have a certain aesthetic appeal, but it is not clear whether there is any other practical advantage.
paul steinhardt: this dude has a theory about the universe. essentially, our universe lies on a membrane (or brane for short). apparently, some of the dilemmas posed by string theory can be solved by postulating the existence of another brane, orthogonal to ours. according to his theory, our brane and the other brane lie out the boundary of a dimension, and the branes cyclically collide and then spread apart again, repeating infinitely many times. thus, no single big bang, but rather many big collisions. seemed like a smart and nice dude, and he wrote some contemporary popular science books, the cool thing is that this theory actually makes predictions that should be testable within a few years (we gotta wait for technological developments).
janna levin: she's totally cool. she tackles the question of whether the universe is infinite in size, and if not, does it have boundaries. consider earth: it is both finite and boundaryless. potentially, the universe could be like that too. on earth, if one looks straight ahead, and light bends around the earth, then one would see one's own back side. similarly, if one looked backward, one would see oneself looking backward. if the universe had the same property of finiteness yet boundarylessness, then when we looked at the stars, we might be looking at the same stars at different points in time. it would be difficult to determine whether the different things we saw were actually the same thing in different times or not. that's cool.
kevin slavin: this dude makes games. turns out, games historically have taken place in "somewhere else." typically, some fantastical place that lacks any ties to our material world. he made some games that do not ascribe to that convention. in particular, shark-runners is a game about chasing sharks. you pretend to be on a boat trying to intersect shark paths. you are playing against sharks - real sharks. they implanted sharks with a little GPS, so they are actually playing against you in their real space. Crossroads: a 2 player game, played on one's cell phone. the goal is to run to as many intersections in lower manhattan as possible, in a 30 minute period. this requires actually passing through the intersections. a bad guy may be chasing you as well, so people apparently run away from a virtual villain, but they are running in real space. Plundr is a pirate game, where you live in a virutal world, and can steal or sell or trade goods. however, you can only do things in the place that you currently occupy in real space. if you go to a place on earth that nobody has played from yet, you can create your own island there, make taxes, etc.
henry markram: he is doing something called the "blue brain project" in collaboration with IBM. they want to simulate a human brain, a feat they claim to be able to accomplish in 10 years. besides the fact that it takes 200 PB to even store all the info one would need to simulate, it is not clear to me that the parameters are identifiable, given current experimental constraints. as such, they are limited to finding an equivalence class of parameters for the small stimulus space they are able to explore, and therefore probably lack the ability to simulate anything novel to make useful predictions. time will tell.
overall, it seems as if some people were literally trying to transform the way we understand reality, and others were simply making things that look cool. in general, while i was impressed with many of the designers' grasp of science, it did not seem as if they were able to make a useful contribution to science or understanding, but rather just something pretty that abstractly connected to a cool new scientific idea. also, calling this conference "mind08" seems like a misnomer, as almost nothing was actually about the mind. maybe something like "real design" would have been more appropriate. nonetheless, i'm glad i went.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
so, it occurred to me after sleeping in different spots/cities all the time, that i'd be nice if there were some mechanism in place for me to update you about my whereabouts in an efficient manner. enter "twitter". to start receiving regular updates on my goings and comings to your mobile phone, send follow+jovo to 40404 in a text message. If you decide you don't want updates on your phone anymore, send leave+username.
To get the updates on your in your IM, send follow+jovo in a chat message to Twitter@twitter.com. Send leave+jovo to stop getting updates.
To get the updates on your in your IM, send follow+jovo in a chat message to Twitter@twitter.com. Send leave+jovo to stop getting updates.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
skiing
so, i used to have a policy of no skiing in this country. it often seemed to me like something that rich white people did, but not others. turns out, that is not true in other parts of the world (eg, europe). its probably not true in other parts of this country (eg, many colored people ski on mountains i've never been to). anyway, when i was in utah, everybody was skiing. i felt a little left out, much like i did when all my friends were getting drunk and smoking pot in high school and college. not because i really wanted to partake, but rather, because i was missing out on a bonding experience, which seems to have merit in its own right. as such, i've decided that for next time, i'm going skiing. i needn't feel privilege guilt when it comes to skiing. rather, i think it would be more beneficial to everyone involved if i enjoyed myself, skied with my friends, and recognized and appreciated my privilege. we'll see what happens
Monday, March 10, 2008
matisyahu shabbat tent at langerado 2008
friday night between 6-9PM, at any given time, there were well over 100 people in the tent, and another 50 people standing right outside the tent, because they couldn't fit in! kabbalat shabbat lasted about 1.5 hours just because people were so excited. dancing kept spilling out of the tent and encircling onlookers. i spent most of the time outside the tent telling people as they walked by what was going on. quite often, the response would be something like, "really? ok, i'm going to run in and stay. [to his/her friends] meet me back here in a couple hours."
between 10PM and 4AM is was fairly chill, maybe about 10-20 people in it, mostly just talking. a few guys stayed learning from some judaic books. at about 4AM, it started pooring, so about 50 more people sought shelter in the tent. it was beautiful, as you could hear people yelling, "quick, everybody into the shabbat tent." people who were already in the tent accurately responded, "everybody is welcome, come, stay as long as you want." it seemed as if everybody at the festival (about 50 thousand) knew that the shabbat tent was a safe place where anybody was comfortable. a few people in particular had to say kaddish or yahrtzeit, and were incredibly grateful that the shabbat tent was there for that. other kids told me that they only attended the festival because of the shabbat tent! about 10 kids brought tallis and tefillin, as they knew about the shabbat tent and wanted to daven shacharit sunday morning.
shabbat morning, we had services for a couple hours with over 60 people the entire time, then lunch. at about 2PM, it was so windy, that the entire tent broke and fell down. so, people's lunch moved outside the shabbat tent, and ended at around 3PM. at 5PM, about 30 people came back for mincha, dinner, and maariv. at about 7, another 30 showed up for havdalah. matisyahu played in front of about 25 thousand fans at 8. afterwards, a number of people came back looking for the guys who were teaching the whole time. several of them are planning on going to visit one another to spend shabbat together. many people asked us to have the shabbat tent at the next festival.
all in all, it was pretty awesome. we seemed to have effectively conveyed the idea that everyone was welcome, and this was a safe spiritual place on the festival grounds. many requested our presence at future festivals
between 10PM and 4AM is was fairly chill, maybe about 10-20 people in it, mostly just talking. a few guys stayed learning from some judaic books. at about 4AM, it started pooring, so about 50 more people sought shelter in the tent. it was beautiful, as you could hear people yelling, "quick, everybody into the shabbat tent." people who were already in the tent accurately responded, "everybody is welcome, come, stay as long as you want." it seemed as if everybody at the festival (about 50 thousand) knew that the shabbat tent was a safe place where anybody was comfortable. a few people in particular had to say kaddish or yahrtzeit, and were incredibly grateful that the shabbat tent was there for that. other kids told me that they only attended the festival because of the shabbat tent! about 10 kids brought tallis and tefillin, as they knew about the shabbat tent and wanted to daven shacharit sunday morning.
shabbat morning, we had services for a couple hours with over 60 people the entire time, then lunch. at about 2PM, it was so windy, that the entire tent broke and fell down. so, people's lunch moved outside the shabbat tent, and ended at around 3PM. at 5PM, about 30 people came back for mincha, dinner, and maariv. at about 7, another 30 showed up for havdalah. matisyahu played in front of about 25 thousand fans at 8. afterwards, a number of people came back looking for the guys who were teaching the whole time. several of them are planning on going to visit one another to spend shabbat together. many people asked us to have the shabbat tent at the next festival.
all in all, it was pretty awesome. we seemed to have effectively conveyed the idea that everyone was welcome, and this was a safe spiritual place on the festival grounds. many requested our presence at future festivals
Sunday, March 2, 2008
cosyne poster
in my poster session, many people came over to tell me how great my spotlight talk was, which was very nice. also, many people who do not work on anything related came over to hear about our work because apparently i presented it as an interesting signal processing problem. all the feedback i got was that it was very nice work, which was really comforting. a number of people asked for the manuscript and/or code which was also nice.
cosyne spotlight talk
so, yesterday i gave a 4 minute presentation before about 500 people. i guess that is the largest number of people i have ever spoken in front of. i presented our work in comparison with the others, clearly demonstrating how much betters ours was :-) upon finishing my "prepared" remarks (which i had literally not prepared at all), i asked the moderator if i had any time left, to which he replied, "10 seconds." so, i turned back to the crowd and said, "thaaaannnnkkkkk yoooooouuuuuuuuu." needless to say, everyone erupted in laughter.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)