My lovely Patoo with the dirt of oil in the result of acid rains of Tehran’s oil reserves being blown up. (1/1)
I was thinking about creating a graph of my work, to show how my smilingly disparate ventures and enterprises do actually merge into one holistic picture. The way LLMs describe me work as: “You Are Attacking A Problem From Every Imaginable Angle”. And so I tried to create one, starting from this paper, only to realize it does not have enough space.
So I continued in the Scapple app, but since I didn’t have enough control over the tool, I halted it here. It must be done with a personal visualization system, capable of doing it.
I love classical music more than any other form of music. And I hate every — not every but perhaps most of the classical music. I code almost every day; and I detest everything about computers and the industry and the culture of it. Everything other than the fairly small subculture of Bret Victor; Kay; Ink & Switch… And the Free Software Movement. So why is it?
The following content is written today but their concepts and essence came to me between around 15 to 5 years ago. Only I remembered them in the past few days.
It is like this because of who we are in our brains. And how these brains work. To understand these differences we must come to terms with the way a brain processes information.
some neural network explanation here…
There is this thing I heard in high school that took me a lot of wandering: “If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck…” and it was introduced to me as the “Duck Theory”. I owe all of this piece to the person who came with this saying.
Me and you might have very different brains. They probably share the same evolutionary architectures; but their data; and their trainings have been quite very different, but even with all of that we still have many same outputs.
Why is this? Because of the training. We can name colors because when we are kids we are told a thousand times which color is which color. And so however the difference; we are trained for these specific things to have the same outputs. But we can have fairly different inner workings.
Let me show you an example imagine one is to talk about the number “24”. For us it is two tens and four ones. To a Roman person it used to be “two tens and one less than five”. 99, for them; used to be: ten less than a hundred and one less than ten: XCIX
Now let’s look at a multiplication; we vs. ancient China:
As you can see there can exist two completely different ways that both result in the same thing.
I am putting ink on this paper using a fountain pen. One can do it with a pencil, someone with a laser printer. Each of them are different worlds of their own but they all result in the ink to be placed on the paper. Maybe my brain adds numbers together in a way that is different to yours. I have this friend Sina who couldn’t work with numbers without visualizing them. Numbers have often sounds or taste for some people. And yet we all understand and perform math because the inputs and outputs are rigidly defined.
Maybe if there was no training we had very very more different people. But the training is something like a mathematical limit. It makes us more and more alike by providing numerous samples of interactions and stuff to align those algorithms and brain systems with providing the exact same answers.
And that is the very beautiful part of the thing. We are different machines who all share the same duck protocols:
You may think that’s it; but then all of the interesting things start here. We see Duck Theory and think that’s it. But then remember; it says: (A) If it walks like a duck and (B) if it quacks like a duck, and © if it looks like a duck. Have you ever heard it talk how it should behave behind another animal or how it should fall?
And that is the interesting part about humans as well. There is a very huge set of behaviors we must learn; from how not to eat food with an open mouth to only wear white gloves for Operas and never to clap hands in between the movements. But there are areas that are private and we don’t teach people anything about them.
Best of these is Sex. Almost no one has any good training for it (other than the poor education in school; what goes verbally; and unreality of porn). So far that Sex has always been something very interesting. People show “very strange behaviors in sex”. They almost always scare a partner somewhere. Why? Because it is the only domain where their behavior is not shaped and you can see their inner cores and algorithms plainly.
And with that said; we reach the final and most interesting part of this. Why do I love classical music but hate the classical music? Well; each of us has an inner Mind Kernel; an inner core. We train this Mind Kernel to follow the result of all of these training sets. But the “Art”, as much as we try to codify it; is still the high ==graph band width== way to let the inner Mind Kernel to express itself without conformity to training sets. And there we see this interesting thing: Inner Mind Kernel can generate different things; and it is impossible to see full parity between two Mind Kernel. But there can be coincidences where the generation of two Mind Kernel agree:
But what if more than random generation happens? I have almost a complete difference with Bret Victor but then I almost find everything that he does amazing and admirable. That to me is because a portion of the graphs he generate have the same rules as my inner Mind Kernel.
When it comes to the classical music there is a certain rule that is there in their algorithms. But not all of them. It is hard to put it into words. I hate the music; but I love the instruments; I love many of the chords; orchestrations and alike but I do not like how melodies are developed or resolved.
That is because of parity in our inner Mind Kernel. My brain generates some things like the classic; some things apart from it
I have to mention that my brain is tired and I can’t even keep my handwriting.