 |
| I like how Texas is on this map... |
Thursday, November 10, 2011
And We're Back
Finally.
But this title invokes the question - where were you? And where was I? (I think that is the better question).
Sometimes I feel like certain words or phrases allow for someone to ask interesting questions about their meaning. For example: I remember having a conversation with a friend many years ago. We were examining the word nowhere. No Where - maybe implying a non-place. But my friend ask if you can every be nowhere? He argued that once you are nowhere, then you are inevitably somewhere. I think we decided that nowhere exists, but you can never be there. So phrases like: "I am in the middle of nowhere" is literal nonsense (Obviously, you could argue that it makes sense colloquially).
Are there any phrases you like to think about and explore the multiple issues and questions that arise from such phrases?
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Realistic Science Fiction
The Backstory:
I was using Sparks, a Google+ project, when I came across a survey that asked you to pick your top three favorite Science Fiction books. At first glance, I thought that my choice would be very easy. However, I was wrong and it was so hard to only pick three.
As you can imagine, a conversation developed in response to this Google+ post, where me and my friends discussed which three we chose. One of my friends chose "The Time Traveler" by H.G. Wells; the father of science fiction. I had never read this book, so my friend dutifully brought it over to my house for me to read.
The Middle:
Since H.G. Wells was a knowledgeable scientist, his Science Fiction is infused with scientific facts that reflect scientific theory of his time. For example, in response to evolution, he posited that in the future, humans had evolved into some other sort of species that were different than the time traveler's contemporaries.
I think there is a subtle talent that H.G. Wells is demonstrating that I think is lost in some of the other science fiction. As opposed to just using his imagination, H.G. Wells bases his science in...actual science. Unlike Star Trek (By the way, I am not knocking Star Trek. I am a fan.) where holograms don't reflect the true nature of our current understanding of holographic technology, I think that there is some sort of scientific honesty that H.G. Wells employs that makes his book so much more realistic, despite the fictional dreams.
The Kicker:
There is a subtle difference I am trying to argue here. Its not that Science Fiction writers should not be imaginative. Rather, I think that we should go to life and apply what we know to do new and innovative things, rather than thinking of innovative things and then applying what we know. To explain differently, think of how we use computers. I think that when we use a computer, we should not look for some feature that we think a program should have. Instead, we should understand the program to the best of our abilities and then use it to do what we need to do. My brother and I play this game called Minecraft. In this game, one could say that the laws of physics don't really apply. While we dream big and have that imaginative aspect and want the game to do whatever it is we want (like having cool interactive holodecks as seen in Star Trek), we also take the laws of physics that comes with the game and do some pretty interesting and innovative things.
The Ending:
With H.G. Wells, I feel that he speaks to this impulse in me. That he takes what he knows and applies it to his imaginative world. This process makes his books so much more real despite its fictional nature. Perhaps, we should go through life taking what we know and learning to apply it in different ways, and not just seeing what we don't have and wishing for more.
I was using Sparks, a Google+ project, when I came across a survey that asked you to pick your top three favorite Science Fiction books. At first glance, I thought that my choice would be very easy. However, I was wrong and it was so hard to only pick three.
As you can imagine, a conversation developed in response to this Google+ post, where me and my friends discussed which three we chose. One of my friends chose "The Time Traveler" by H.G. Wells; the father of science fiction. I had never read this book, so my friend dutifully brought it over to my house for me to read.
The Middle:
Since H.G. Wells was a knowledgeable scientist, his Science Fiction is infused with scientific facts that reflect scientific theory of his time. For example, in response to evolution, he posited that in the future, humans had evolved into some other sort of species that were different than the time traveler's contemporaries.
I think there is a subtle talent that H.G. Wells is demonstrating that I think is lost in some of the other science fiction. As opposed to just using his imagination, H.G. Wells bases his science in...actual science. Unlike Star Trek (By the way, I am not knocking Star Trek. I am a fan.) where holograms don't reflect the true nature of our current understanding of holographic technology, I think that there is some sort of scientific honesty that H.G. Wells employs that makes his book so much more realistic, despite the fictional dreams.
The Kicker:
There is a subtle difference I am trying to argue here. Its not that Science Fiction writers should not be imaginative. Rather, I think that we should go to life and apply what we know to do new and innovative things, rather than thinking of innovative things and then applying what we know. To explain differently, think of how we use computers. I think that when we use a computer, we should not look for some feature that we think a program should have. Instead, we should understand the program to the best of our abilities and then use it to do what we need to do. My brother and I play this game called Minecraft. In this game, one could say that the laws of physics don't really apply. While we dream big and have that imaginative aspect and want the game to do whatever it is we want (like having cool interactive holodecks as seen in Star Trek), we also take the laws of physics that comes with the game and do some pretty interesting and innovative things.
The Ending:
With H.G. Wells, I feel that he speaks to this impulse in me. That he takes what he knows and applies it to his imaginative world. This process makes his books so much more real despite its fictional nature. Perhaps, we should go through life taking what we know and learning to apply it in different ways, and not just seeing what we don't have and wishing for more.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
In Defense of Freecell
Sometimes I find myself in places without an internet connection! (Shocking, I know.) Luckily, I am a big fan of FreeCell, and can keep myself occupied playing it for a while. However, since I started playing FreeCell on this computer, I have attempted to keep the win statistics at a perfect 100%.
I think this is an amazing feat. But some of my friends are not that impressed. They argue that it is not impressive to beat every game when you undo all of your moves and play the game from the beginning (which I admit is part of my strategy). Therefore, I have sat down and though long and hard on why it is not only acceptable to start over, but encouraged.
First, I often don't undo the entire game. I just have to choose between two cards, and sometimes (though not regularly) I choose wrong and want to go back to a the alternative choice. Hence the 'ctrl-z'ing. But sometimes that first choice requires you to go back to the beginning...so you go back to the beginning. Rarely do I give up and shake my head, crack my knuckles, and go back to the beginning looking for a clean slate (though again, I admit that is does happen).
This brings me to my second point. The game is designed to undo your moves. Not just the last move (presumably for a misclick), but all your moves. This suggests that they acknowledge that you might want to go back to a previous point and see how different branches play out. Also, if you lose, it asks you if you want to start a new game, or if you want to go back and try again. If that really was a lose, then when you click go back and try again, it should count that in your statistics. It doesn't. This at least means that the makers of FreeCell are on my side with this issue.
My last point is that FreeCell should be seen as a puzzle, not as a lateral game. The losing isn't the fact that you didn't solve it without messing up. Unlike a maze, it is OK to color between the wrong lines. The game begs you to solve the puzzle number and figure out for yourself how to beat the game without giving up. Therefore, since I love puzzles and riddles, I suppose that this is why FreeCell keeps me entertained, and why I feel proud to have the record that I do in the classic Microsoft card game.
I think this is an amazing feat. But some of my friends are not that impressed. They argue that it is not impressive to beat every game when you undo all of your moves and play the game from the beginning (which I admit is part of my strategy). Therefore, I have sat down and though long and hard on why it is not only acceptable to start over, but encouraged.
First, I often don't undo the entire game. I just have to choose between two cards, and sometimes (though not regularly) I choose wrong and want to go back to a the alternative choice. Hence the 'ctrl-z'ing. But sometimes that first choice requires you to go back to the beginning...so you go back to the beginning. Rarely do I give up and shake my head, crack my knuckles, and go back to the beginning looking for a clean slate (though again, I admit that is does happen).
This brings me to my second point. The game is designed to undo your moves. Not just the last move (presumably for a misclick), but all your moves. This suggests that they acknowledge that you might want to go back to a previous point and see how different branches play out. Also, if you lose, it asks you if you want to start a new game, or if you want to go back and try again. If that really was a lose, then when you click go back and try again, it should count that in your statistics. It doesn't. This at least means that the makers of FreeCell are on my side with this issue.
My last point is that FreeCell should be seen as a puzzle, not as a lateral game. The losing isn't the fact that you didn't solve it without messing up. Unlike a maze, it is OK to color between the wrong lines. The game begs you to solve the puzzle number and figure out for yourself how to beat the game without giving up. Therefore, since I love puzzles and riddles, I suppose that this is why FreeCell keeps me entertained, and why I feel proud to have the record that I do in the classic Microsoft card game.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Life Recipes: Extra Computer
So around the same time that I canceled cable television and phone (based on rising prices), I realized that I had a spare computer lying around the house. The cable television I was only moderately upset to give up becuase with the internet, you can watch shows for free (and legally) on network's websites or on sites like Hulu. So it wasn't such a big deal.
But the phone! How could I give up the landline! Now some of my friends will scoff that landline are useless and everyone has cellphones that are more convenient and do the same thing, and I would normally agree. But then again, often in NYC buildings I don't have service, or I leave my phone on vibrate on my bed and there is no chance I will hear it ringing from the living room(unless the heat/AC is off, there is no traffic outside, the neighbors are quiet, and I am superman.) How am I to know that someone has been looking for me for the last half the night while I sat at my computer watching TV on above stated sites, or doing HW in the living room?
Enter spare computer and Google voice. With this free service I was able to always have google voice (really G-chat in Gmail) open for free and always have "landline" (Really a VOIP phone?) that my friends can call when I am MIA on my cell, but they know I am home.
---This Section Contains Numbers and Easy Math and May Appear Scientific---
This is great since I don't pay for electricity usage in my apartment, but it is not great for my economically inclined mind. So I tried to see how much an average laptop uses if left on for 24 hours. I found that the average is 33 Kilowatt hours per month. That's about the same as leaving one 100 watt light-bulb on for 10 hours every day. With the monitor off (or the lid closed in my case) it subtracts about 15 watts from the computers usage. That is the same as the light bulb for 6 hours per day (42 hours per week)
So what is my point? On the one hand, someone might say that we should all switch to CFL bulbs and make a big difference. Which is true. But on the other hand, I am thinking about all the lights we might leave on outside our home as security lights (to deter crime), all our electric ceiling fans we use to cool off rooms, all the pool pumps, water heaters, and TVs that we use all the time. And by we, I don't me me. With an apartment in NY, I don't use any of these things that a homeowner in Florida might have (I only say Florida because of the reference to the pool pump...and I no longer really use my TV since I don't have cable) I feel like we use electricity to make our lives better and quite frankly, I need a phone.
Though I still think we can always cut back on energy we don't need/use...
But this brings me to my last point. As long as my computer is going to be on as a phone, I might as well make it a "server" for my printer to have "networked" printing as well as for my external hard-drive. I will always be looking for more ways to use this computer in order to maximize its time spent being on. Perhaps I can donate some of its idle processor time to something or SETI...
But the phone! How could I give up the landline! Now some of my friends will scoff that landline are useless and everyone has cellphones that are more convenient and do the same thing, and I would normally agree. But then again, often in NYC buildings I don't have service, or I leave my phone on vibrate on my bed and there is no chance I will hear it ringing from the living room(unless the heat/AC is off, there is no traffic outside, the neighbors are quiet, and I am superman.) How am I to know that someone has been looking for me for the last half the night while I sat at my computer watching TV on above stated sites, or doing HW in the living room?
Enter spare computer and Google voice. With this free service I was able to always have google voice (really G-chat in Gmail) open for free and always have "landline" (Really a VOIP phone?) that my friends can call when I am MIA on my cell, but they know I am home.
---This Section Contains Numbers and Easy Math and May Appear Scientific---
This is great since I don't pay for electricity usage in my apartment, but it is not great for my economically inclined mind. So I tried to see how much an average laptop uses if left on for 24 hours. I found that the average is 33 Kilowatt hours per month. That's about the same as leaving one 100 watt light-bulb on for 10 hours every day. With the monitor off (or the lid closed in my case) it subtracts about 15 watts from the computers usage. That is the same as the light bulb for 6 hours per day (42 hours per week)
So what is my point? On the one hand, someone might say that we should all switch to CFL bulbs and make a big difference. Which is true. But on the other hand, I am thinking about all the lights we might leave on outside our home as security lights (to deter crime), all our electric ceiling fans we use to cool off rooms, all the pool pumps, water heaters, and TVs that we use all the time. And by we, I don't me me. With an apartment in NY, I don't use any of these things that a homeowner in Florida might have (I only say Florida because of the reference to the pool pump...and I no longer really use my TV since I don't have cable) I feel like we use electricity to make our lives better and quite frankly, I need a phone.
Though I still think we can always cut back on energy we don't need/use...
But this brings me to my last point. As long as my computer is going to be on as a phone, I might as well make it a "server" for my printer to have "networked" printing as well as for my external hard-drive. I will always be looking for more ways to use this computer in order to maximize its time spent being on. Perhaps I can donate some of its idle processor time to something or SETI...
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Speaking Up
What does it take to get you to raise your voice on a particular issue?
In my Law, Science and Society - Sociology class, we spent a few classes discussing the issues of freedom in the United States and its limits in terms of National Security. The premise of the discussion was: What rights would you give away in the interests of national security?
Many people shared their insights into which rights they would feel comfortable giving up and naturally the conversation turned to the USA Patriot Act. If you take a look at the provisions of the USA Patriot act, you will see many provisions that detract from individuals' liberties in the interests of National Security. [Here is a wikipedia link with quick information about the USA Patriot Act]
Specifically, my professor had us take a closer look at the Surveillance Procedures. Under this provision, the government can observe the communications (Email, telephone, library records...etc) of suspected terrorists. The question then becomes: Who do you trust to decide who determines who is a suspected terrorist or not?
The implications behind this question is that perhaps you are seen as a suspect. Then under these new surveillance rights, the government can look into your communication history. If their suspicions were wrong, they still might uncover information about tax fraud, or some other crime and charge you for that instead.
When I was sitting in class I remember thinking: "If I didn't do anything wrong then of course I would trust the government to sort things out and judge that I have done nothing wrong." But the more I thought about this, the more uncomfortable I felt with giving up my rights to privacy. Do I feel safe checking out books about terrorism from the library because my social grouping is currently not the target of national investigation?
The question then morphed into: So in what ways do you address your concerns? And the answer is: None. I don't take time to lobby my senators. I don't organize rallies in the community to raise awareness on this issue. Maybe I'll write a blog post about it, but how far reaching will that post be? I imagine it wouldn't be so inspirational.
So, what would it take to raise my voice? Would I only raise your voice if the issue effected me directly? Would I only raise my voice if I felt that my voice would be heard?
I think we live in a world where we all shout and nobody listens. Everyone can write a blog and shout as long as they want. But what good does it really do. Does marching in the streets really bring about change? I think that from the Middle East, there is some power in standing up for your beliefs. While the effects of such protests has yet to be fully realized and understood, I applaud those who will raise their voice and make themselves heard.
I think the only way to really live in this democratic society, we not only need to vote for the right representatives, but we must raise our voice, write to those representatives continually, and speak up on issues that we deem important. Individual Freedom vs. National Security was just one example that I personally I should speak out against. But I would hope that others would speak out opposing my beliefs, as well as for other beliefs that they believe in. Ideally, i hope we will invested more time and energy in the social discourse of our society.
I know that from now on, I will invest in a few extra envelopes and stamps in order to at least write to my representatives, and send them emails - all in the interests of making my little dent in the American social experience.
In my Law, Science and Society - Sociology class, we spent a few classes discussing the issues of freedom in the United States and its limits in terms of National Security. The premise of the discussion was: What rights would you give away in the interests of national security?
Many people shared their insights into which rights they would feel comfortable giving up and naturally the conversation turned to the USA Patriot Act. If you take a look at the provisions of the USA Patriot act, you will see many provisions that detract from individuals' liberties in the interests of National Security. [Here is a wikipedia link with quick information about the USA Patriot Act]
Specifically, my professor had us take a closer look at the Surveillance Procedures. Under this provision, the government can observe the communications (Email, telephone, library records...etc) of suspected terrorists. The question then becomes: Who do you trust to decide who determines who is a suspected terrorist or not?
The implications behind this question is that perhaps you are seen as a suspect. Then under these new surveillance rights, the government can look into your communication history. If their suspicions were wrong, they still might uncover information about tax fraud, or some other crime and charge you for that instead.
When I was sitting in class I remember thinking: "If I didn't do anything wrong then of course I would trust the government to sort things out and judge that I have done nothing wrong." But the more I thought about this, the more uncomfortable I felt with giving up my rights to privacy. Do I feel safe checking out books about terrorism from the library because my social grouping is currently not the target of national investigation?
The question then morphed into: So in what ways do you address your concerns? And the answer is: None. I don't take time to lobby my senators. I don't organize rallies in the community to raise awareness on this issue. Maybe I'll write a blog post about it, but how far reaching will that post be? I imagine it wouldn't be so inspirational.
So, what would it take to raise my voice? Would I only raise your voice if the issue effected me directly? Would I only raise my voice if I felt that my voice would be heard?
I think we live in a world where we all shout and nobody listens. Everyone can write a blog and shout as long as they want. But what good does it really do. Does marching in the streets really bring about change? I think that from the Middle East, there is some power in standing up for your beliefs. While the effects of such protests has yet to be fully realized and understood, I applaud those who will raise their voice and make themselves heard.
I think the only way to really live in this democratic society, we not only need to vote for the right representatives, but we must raise our voice, write to those representatives continually, and speak up on issues that we deem important. Individual Freedom vs. National Security was just one example that I personally I should speak out against. But I would hope that others would speak out opposing my beliefs, as well as for other beliefs that they believe in. Ideally, i hope we will invested more time and energy in the social discourse of our society.
I know that from now on, I will invest in a few extra envelopes and stamps in order to at least write to my representatives, and send them emails - all in the interests of making my little dent in the American social experience.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Web Address Vote
It was brought to my attention that the web address of my blog is confusing since there is only one 't' in "whato[thinkabout]".
Thus, the question to my readers is: should I change the web address of my blog to: "whattothinkabout.blogspot.com"?
Let me know what you think. Let your thoughts be counted.
-----------------------Vote Here-----------------------
Thus, the question to my readers is: should I change the web address of my blog to: "whattothinkabout.blogspot.com"?
Let me know what you think. Let your thoughts be counted.
-----------------------Vote Here-----------------------
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Bed Bug Control
So one of the things that is on my mind in New York is Bed Bugs.
From the websites that are designed to scare you and make you purchase expensive anti-bedbug services, here are the more interesting "facts..."
- Bed Bugs can live up to a year without feeding.
- They don't live only in beds, they also can live in outlets, behind picture frames, anywhere really.
- Bed Bugs have been known to be around humans from early points in history, yet they are also known not to transmit blood diseases like other blood-sucking insects.
- Some Bed Bugs are resistant to common insecticides.
That last point is the main one. Since Bed Bugs are a pain to get rid of, homeowners dread getting this infestation. Moreover, since Bed Bugs can hitchhike on people as well as travel between living quarters, there is no way to be 100% protected from Bed Bugs.
Interestingly, one scientist posited that Bed Bugs are so rampant because they are benign. True they bite, and then make you itch and give you psychological fear, but they don't transmit disease. So what is the rush to find a more effective way to kill them? (Perhaps the tourist industry is reason enough, or at least interested in investing to find a viable solution)
So what do I think is a great solution? I think we should import something into our apartments/homes that is even more benign, that eats bed bugs, and is easy to get rid of. My theory is lizards. We all know that lizards eat bugs. So why not get two lizards, let them loose in our rooms, and then collect them at the end of a month or so. (This is not easy for me to imagine becuase I am not a fan of lizards, though I feel I can stomach them more than I would Bed Bugs.) But my premise still stands. Find something natural that eats bed bugs, and then later control for that animal.
Done. Problem solved... (Fine, maybe not solved, but at least entertained.)
From the websites that are designed to scare you and make you purchase expensive anti-bedbug services, here are the more interesting "facts..."
- Bed Bugs can live up to a year without feeding.
- They don't live only in beds, they also can live in outlets, behind picture frames, anywhere really.
- Bed Bugs have been known to be around humans from early points in history, yet they are also known not to transmit blood diseases like other blood-sucking insects.
- Some Bed Bugs are resistant to common insecticides.
That last point is the main one. Since Bed Bugs are a pain to get rid of, homeowners dread getting this infestation. Moreover, since Bed Bugs can hitchhike on people as well as travel between living quarters, there is no way to be 100% protected from Bed Bugs.
Interestingly, one scientist posited that Bed Bugs are so rampant because they are benign. True they bite, and then make you itch and give you psychological fear, but they don't transmit disease. So what is the rush to find a more effective way to kill them? (Perhaps the tourist industry is reason enough, or at least interested in investing to find a viable solution)
So what do I think is a great solution? I think we should import something into our apartments/homes that is even more benign, that eats bed bugs, and is easy to get rid of. My theory is lizards. We all know that lizards eat bugs. So why not get two lizards, let them loose in our rooms, and then collect them at the end of a month or so. (This is not easy for me to imagine becuase I am not a fan of lizards, though I feel I can stomach them more than I would Bed Bugs.) But my premise still stands. Find something natural that eats bed bugs, and then later control for that animal.
Done. Problem solved... (Fine, maybe not solved, but at least entertained.)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
New Sports are Dead
I would argue that there are 4 major sports leagues in the United States: baseball, basketball, football and hockey. While there are other sports leagues that do exist, they are not as prevalent based on the empirical evidence that they don't appear on my facebook newsfeed, nor do they appear on the sports section of most newspapers.
When I think about the origins of these sports, I think about a time where workers would get off of work, either during a lunch break or at the end of the day, and would throw around a ball or something. Ultimately, these pseudo-sports would catch on among other workers, the rules would become standardized, and a sport would be born.
However, that experience of capitalism is gone. The mass production factory assembly lines are a thing of the past that only resurface when reading Karl Marx or "The Grapes of Wrath." The factories of today are automated, and the workday experience of workers today is lived differently than it used to be more than half a century ago.
Moreover, sociologists have observed that in recent years, people are not attending social events as regularly as they once did 30 years ago. I mean think about it. The bowling league to which Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble belong represents a antiquated mode of entertainment that no longer reflects the experiences of the common audience (this was an obvious example based on Sociologist Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone" where he discusses this phenomenon.)
Today, recreation is more individualized then it has ever been. When we want to have fun, we turn on the computer or TV which are made to be enjoyed in small groups. There are many examples of why this is true. (Consider the TV. Most of the time, when we watch a movie or a TV show, we beg for silence from out peers in order to hear the show and enjoy the plot and all subtle details. while it is true that some TV shows can be watched in groups, those groups are usually pretty small, and not as social as the "tea parties" of the earlier decades.)
Therefore, since entertainment today is more individualized, and since our workplace is less social and more automated, I believe that the potential for new sports to develop is very limited since the opportunities to kill time after a mindless days at work with a larger group of friends, no longer exists.
But I suppose I can't tell the future, and "dead" is such a strong word...
When I think about the origins of these sports, I think about a time where workers would get off of work, either during a lunch break or at the end of the day, and would throw around a ball or something. Ultimately, these pseudo-sports would catch on among other workers, the rules would become standardized, and a sport would be born.
However, that experience of capitalism is gone. The mass production factory assembly lines are a thing of the past that only resurface when reading Karl Marx or "The Grapes of Wrath." The factories of today are automated, and the workday experience of workers today is lived differently than it used to be more than half a century ago.
Moreover, sociologists have observed that in recent years, people are not attending social events as regularly as they once did 30 years ago. I mean think about it. The bowling league to which Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble belong represents a antiquated mode of entertainment that no longer reflects the experiences of the common audience (this was an obvious example based on Sociologist Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone" where he discusses this phenomenon.)
Today, recreation is more individualized then it has ever been. When we want to have fun, we turn on the computer or TV which are made to be enjoyed in small groups. There are many examples of why this is true. (Consider the TV. Most of the time, when we watch a movie or a TV show, we beg for silence from out peers in order to hear the show and enjoy the plot and all subtle details. while it is true that some TV shows can be watched in groups, those groups are usually pretty small, and not as social as the "tea parties" of the earlier decades.)
Therefore, since entertainment today is more individualized, and since our workplace is less social and more automated, I believe that the potential for new sports to develop is very limited since the opportunities to kill time after a mindless days at work with a larger group of friends, no longer exists.
But I suppose I can't tell the future, and "dead" is such a strong word...
There are Two Types of People in the World
I know that this is old news to some, but check out this guest post I wrote on Nathan Miller's blog at Nathan-Miller.com
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ability to Memorize
Here is something I often think about.
We all know that many early civilizations relied on Oral Traditions. Since it used to be that books were written in a time consuming manner, books were scarce. As a result, society compensated by transmitting information through an oral tradition that was based on memorization.
Today, such a feat is considered remarkable. Take Judaism for example. How could an individual memorize the entire Bible, as well as the Mishna and even the Talmud? We assume that these people have photographic memories and have a super-ability to memorize things accurately and completely. After all, I can only count on my hands the number of people today who I know who have the bible memorized, and they have a unique skill that other simply don't have.
However, I have a different theory. While it is true that there are some individuals who can do have a more acute sense of memorization, the human mind is more remarkable than we allow. In today's world, we are bombarded with so much information that we are constantly trying to find ways to access and store it. With the creation of the internet and digital storage, we have an even greater capability to access greater amounts of information, and a greater ability to store that information with the possibility to retrieve that information on command. I posit that since we have access to more information about the world, we constantly "forget" specific details since we know we can always "remember" those details at any time by looking them up.
Moreover, I also think that we can remember things when they are repeated to us many times. For example, consider music. When we hear songs over and over again, we begin to memorize the lyrics. I wouldn't be suprised if the amount of lyrics we have memorized would be equal to the amount of information contained in the bible. The melodies help us remember the words (consider how easy it is to sing the alphabet in order to figure out what letter follows another. And if you don't sing it, do you at least keep the same melodic rhythm?). Just as there were devices in oral traditions that helped people remember the stories.
When I was talking this idea over with my sister, she pointed out that memorization is also a skill. The more you train that skill, the better you will be able to memorize things. This goes along with my idea above that if we didn't have the ability to "remember" things by looking them up, then we could actually care to develop this skill more.
Therefore, I am less impressed when I think about Oral Traditions. Yes it is true that there are people with photographic memories that can memorize things after seeing things a few times (or even once), but I think anyone can memorize things, even whole books (or lines for a movie/play). We just have to make a conscious effort to memorize and repeat the information over and over again(which is hard because it is easier and less time consuming to just "forget" it and access it later).
What do you think?
We all know that many early civilizations relied on Oral Traditions. Since it used to be that books were written in a time consuming manner, books were scarce. As a result, society compensated by transmitting information through an oral tradition that was based on memorization.
Today, such a feat is considered remarkable. Take Judaism for example. How could an individual memorize the entire Bible, as well as the Mishna and even the Talmud? We assume that these people have photographic memories and have a super-ability to memorize things accurately and completely. After all, I can only count on my hands the number of people today who I know who have the bible memorized, and they have a unique skill that other simply don't have.
However, I have a different theory. While it is true that there are some individuals who can do have a more acute sense of memorization, the human mind is more remarkable than we allow. In today's world, we are bombarded with so much information that we are constantly trying to find ways to access and store it. With the creation of the internet and digital storage, we have an even greater capability to access greater amounts of information, and a greater ability to store that information with the possibility to retrieve that information on command. I posit that since we have access to more information about the world, we constantly "forget" specific details since we know we can always "remember" those details at any time by looking them up.
Moreover, I also think that we can remember things when they are repeated to us many times. For example, consider music. When we hear songs over and over again, we begin to memorize the lyrics. I wouldn't be suprised if the amount of lyrics we have memorized would be equal to the amount of information contained in the bible. The melodies help us remember the words (consider how easy it is to sing the alphabet in order to figure out what letter follows another. And if you don't sing it, do you at least keep the same melodic rhythm?). Just as there were devices in oral traditions that helped people remember the stories.
When I was talking this idea over with my sister, she pointed out that memorization is also a skill. The more you train that skill, the better you will be able to memorize things. This goes along with my idea above that if we didn't have the ability to "remember" things by looking them up, then we could actually care to develop this skill more.
Therefore, I am less impressed when I think about Oral Traditions. Yes it is true that there are people with photographic memories that can memorize things after seeing things a few times (or even once), but I think anyone can memorize things, even whole books (or lines for a movie/play). We just have to make a conscious effort to memorize and repeat the information over and over again(which is hard because it is easier and less time consuming to just "forget" it and access it later).
What do you think?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Waking Up
Why is waking up so hard?
This morning, I awoke to my backup alarm clock. I am always worried that I will sleep through my alarm clock, or that I will turn it off in my sleep, or fail to set it properly when I go to bed. So I always set two alarms to increase the probability of setting the alarm correctly and not sleeping through it. This morning, I was glad for the extra alarm, since I don't remember turning off my first one (I checked later, it was set correctly...I must have dismissed/snoozed it in my sleep)
This brings me to my second point. When you wake up, you should always snooze your alarm. If you start turning off you alarm first thing when you wake up, then you will develop habits to turn off your alarm more efficiently. You will literally be better able to turn off your alarm with your eyes closed while asleep (The metaphor for really easy things that come second nature to you: “I could [insert action] with my eyes closed/fast asleep”). However, if you always snooze your alarm, then even if you accidently snooze your alarm in your sleep, then you will have more chances to wake up when your alarm goes off again and again.
This brings me to my third point. You should always have a battery powered alarm. Just in case the power goes out and your clock resets. Also, you should change the battery in your alarm clock at some point in your life... (J/k, you should change it more often).
But in all seriousness, I think that the only guaranteed way to wake up is to set two battery powered alarm clocks. Then you will never sleep through your alarms. Unless it is Shabbat, or you are really tired...
This leads me to my fourth point; the gist of this blog post. Why is it so hard to wake up? Ok, there will be some morning people who will respond: "What are you talking about?", so let me rephrase the question: "why is it so hard for some people to get up?"
My thinking is that it starts with going to bed too late in the first place. The logic is that if you aren’t a morning person, you are a night person, which means you are up late (AKA up past 10). Perhaps people have an affinity for doing work at night, or doing some activities in the night time, and therefore prefer to stay up later. With their lack of a good night's sleep, they have trouble waking up in the morning.
However, I think another piece to the puzzle has to do with your mind's alertness. Sometimes I fall asleep and swear to myself that I will wake up and start working on some project. However, when I actually wake up, I no longer feel motivated to work on the project. It’s as if I haven’t thought about that project in hours (har har). Clearly, when I awake, I am not in the mindset to want to do things that I previously thought I would when I was fully awake. I failed to take into account my future mindset and therefore set goals that were unrealistic.
This demonstrates that when I wake up, I must be lazier and less motivated then when I go to sleep. But this doesn't explain why when I have to go to the airport, or do something important; I always wake up on time and urgently. There has to be more psychological factors going on to sleep that I am not considering. Perhaps when we fall asleep when we know we have urgent/exciting things to do, they are always in our minds, and therefore we wake up from a usually less relaxing sleep?
Either way, when I wake up, I usually give myself 5 min before I decide whether to fall back asleep or not. Usually when I wake up, I always default to sleep. But after 5 minutes, I find that the decision becomes more realistic as my mind's gears start turning again.
Any thoughts?
This morning, I awoke to my backup alarm clock. I am always worried that I will sleep through my alarm clock, or that I will turn it off in my sleep, or fail to set it properly when I go to bed. So I always set two alarms to increase the probability of setting the alarm correctly and not sleeping through it. This morning, I was glad for the extra alarm, since I don't remember turning off my first one (I checked later, it was set correctly...I must have dismissed/snoozed it in my sleep)
This brings me to my second point. When you wake up, you should always snooze your alarm. If you start turning off you alarm first thing when you wake up, then you will develop habits to turn off your alarm more efficiently. You will literally be better able to turn off your alarm with your eyes closed while asleep (The metaphor for really easy things that come second nature to you: “I could [insert action] with my eyes closed/fast asleep”). However, if you always snooze your alarm, then even if you accidently snooze your alarm in your sleep, then you will have more chances to wake up when your alarm goes off again and again.
This brings me to my third point. You should always have a battery powered alarm. Just in case the power goes out and your clock resets. Also, you should change the battery in your alarm clock at some point in your life... (J/k, you should change it more often).
But in all seriousness, I think that the only guaranteed way to wake up is to set two battery powered alarm clocks. Then you will never sleep through your alarms. Unless it is Shabbat, or you are really tired...
This leads me to my fourth point; the gist of this blog post. Why is it so hard to wake up? Ok, there will be some morning people who will respond: "What are you talking about?", so let me rephrase the question: "why is it so hard for some people to get up?"
My thinking is that it starts with going to bed too late in the first place. The logic is that if you aren’t a morning person, you are a night person, which means you are up late (AKA up past 10). Perhaps people have an affinity for doing work at night, or doing some activities in the night time, and therefore prefer to stay up later. With their lack of a good night's sleep, they have trouble waking up in the morning.
However, I think another piece to the puzzle has to do with your mind's alertness. Sometimes I fall asleep and swear to myself that I will wake up and start working on some project. However, when I actually wake up, I no longer feel motivated to work on the project. It’s as if I haven’t thought about that project in hours (har har). Clearly, when I awake, I am not in the mindset to want to do things that I previously thought I would when I was fully awake. I failed to take into account my future mindset and therefore set goals that were unrealistic.
This demonstrates that when I wake up, I must be lazier and less motivated then when I go to sleep. But this doesn't explain why when I have to go to the airport, or do something important; I always wake up on time and urgently. There has to be more psychological factors going on to sleep that I am not considering. Perhaps when we fall asleep when we know we have urgent/exciting things to do, they are always in our minds, and therefore we wake up from a usually less relaxing sleep?
Either way, when I wake up, I usually give myself 5 min before I decide whether to fall back asleep or not. Usually when I wake up, I always default to sleep. But after 5 minutes, I find that the decision becomes more realistic as my mind's gears start turning again.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
A Secret Code (Revised)
(Thank you Nathan for your diligence)
Ok, try this.
Embedded in this clever blog entry, you might find a very unique and secret code.
I would challenge you to persevere and continue to keep trying to crack it.
It is definitely something to think about.
I mean, the whole purpose of this blog is to give its readers many things to think about.
Done.
I am doing just that by making you spend the time and sit down to search this post for clues.
I have written an entry that really makes you have to spend some time trying to figure out the secret code.
However, I realize this entry then has little content of specific interest.
Whatever.
I still had a really fun time putting together this complicated riddle, and hiding great clues throughout this blog entry.
But let me know when you figure it out.
Just place a comment to this post with the answer and show others your brilliance.
And then they can stop wasting their precious time with silly codes like this.
And then there would be much rejoicing and celebrating over your great accomplishment today and you'll be forever happy.
Ok, try this.
Embedded in this clever blog entry, you might find a very unique and secret code.
I would challenge you to persevere and continue to keep trying to crack it.
It is definitely something to think about.
I mean, the whole purpose of this blog is to give its readers many things to think about.
Done.
I am doing just that by making you spend the time and sit down to search this post for clues.
I have written an entry that really makes you have to spend some time trying to figure out the secret code.
However, I realize this entry then has little content of specific interest.
Whatever.
I still had a really fun time putting together this complicated riddle, and hiding great clues throughout this blog entry.
But let me know when you figure it out.
Just place a comment to this post with the answer and show others your brilliance.
And then they can stop wasting their precious time with silly codes like this.
And then there would be much rejoicing and celebrating over your great accomplishment today and you'll be forever happy.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Life Recipes: Spice Rack
The other day, I was doing errands with my wife and we had to return some item to a store. We got some store credit for the merchandise and we were trying to figure out what we could buy with that money. After thinking about what we need, we concluded that we wanted to purchase a spice rack.
Before getting a spice rack, all of our spices took up about 3/5 of a shelf in the pantry. However, the shelves were about a foot tall, and as you know, the spices are about 4-5 inches each. Therefore, there was a lot of wasted space. If we were to stack the spices, then when you needed a spice from the bottom of the stack, they would all fall over and it would be a mess. Therefore, a spice rack was in order.
Then we saw that spice racks were selling for around $20. While this is not too expensive, we realized we could make a spice rack for a lot cheaper. Instead of using the in-store credit to buy the spice rack, we went out and spent $2.50 on hair-ties and then came home and attached the hair-ties to individual paperclips. Then we hung the paperclips over the endge of a hanger and nailed the hanger to the wall. Then we placed the necks of the spice bottles through the hair-ties. For the heavier glass spice bottles, we doubled/tripled up on hair-ties per paperclip. In the end, we made a cheap spice rack and saved about $17.5 in the process. (We used the in-store credit to buy a clock)
The purpose of this story is to challenge my readers to think about everyday situations and try to come up with solutions. Since the theme of this blog is: "what to think about", I am hoping to include sections entitled "Life Recipes" that contain "recipes"for everyday situations. Feel free to comment my solution to the current problem or offer an alternative solution to this "life" problem. How would you have made a spice rack that costs less than $20?
Before getting a spice rack, all of our spices took up about 3/5 of a shelf in the pantry. However, the shelves were about a foot tall, and as you know, the spices are about 4-5 inches each. Therefore, there was a lot of wasted space. If we were to stack the spices, then when you needed a spice from the bottom of the stack, they would all fall over and it would be a mess. Therefore, a spice rack was in order.
Then we saw that spice racks were selling for around $20. While this is not too expensive, we realized we could make a spice rack for a lot cheaper. Instead of using the in-store credit to buy the spice rack, we went out and spent $2.50 on hair-ties and then came home and attached the hair-ties to individual paperclips. Then we hung the paperclips over the endge of a hanger and nailed the hanger to the wall. Then we placed the necks of the spice bottles through the hair-ties. For the heavier glass spice bottles, we doubled/tripled up on hair-ties per paperclip. In the end, we made a cheap spice rack and saved about $17.5 in the process. (We used the in-store credit to buy a clock)
The purpose of this story is to challenge my readers to think about everyday situations and try to come up with solutions. Since the theme of this blog is: "what to think about", I am hoping to include sections entitled "Life Recipes" that contain "recipes"for everyday situations. Feel free to comment my solution to the current problem or offer an alternative solution to this "life" problem. How would you have made a spice rack that costs less than $20?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)