Songs without Words

There were lots of things I wanted to write about but I just … didn’t … ahaha! It’s like that sometimes, isn’t it? Today was the first time in a long while that I worked 9 hours. Hmm, it’s not really that much, but considering how I am so used to the thought of getting work done outside of lab, it’s a lot. Dinner will always take around 2 1/2 hours now taking cooking, eating, talking, and washing into account; however, I feel like it’s going to be a really enriching experience, and it’s definitely good for the soul to enjoy dinner at an actual dinnertable. I think I’m left with something like 3 hours in the evening to myself, plus whatever down time there is during lab. Today, I actually had very minimal downtime, and that which I did have, I spent trying to learn how to make GUIs in MATLAB. Hmm, it’s easy to make something visually appealing, but it’s not intuitive how to me how they want me to assign the functions …

Tomorrow, I hope to switch my volunteering time out from Tuesday so that I can finally enjoy a normal, uninterrupted work schedule. I’m trying to adjust to summer, but it seems harder than before to do so. I finally sent out my first e-mail as MIT’s blood drive volunteer coordinator. It’s .. not exactly a taxing position, but it’s important to be timely and organized. I am planning on adding an extra task to my job, which is to keep track of how many hours everyone is volunteering. I always wanted to know, but no one kept track at all, which made me sad.

A very generous labmate is willing to give me one of her many comforters ~ I was telling her this morning how I somehow get so cold at night because my blankets are so thin, and it’s keeping me from waking up since I just keep huddling in. I’ll probably be doing my laundry tonight, anyway, so it’ll be no problem to throw a comforter in for the ride as well.

I straightened out my desktop yesterday, so now it boots more quickly and has more programs working on it.  I just have to somehow transfer my listening music there so that I don’t have to listen to the same songs over and over again :).

Mm, I was thinking, and this is sort of back to the first topic again (ahaha, this post isn’t very organized, is it?  Well …), sometimes I feel a little sad at the lack of tutorial help I get from teachers/peers/TAs.  Hmm, maybe I just don’t ask that often?  Nevertheless … .  I really appreciate great manuals, but honestly most manuals suck.  MATLAB’s help included.  It’d be nice to actually have someone teach MATLAB (and no, 10.10 and 20.320’s weak attempts at doing this don’t count – actually, by oversimplifying things, they did a lot of damage).
You see, the fastest way for me to learn how to make GUIs is not to stare at their metric to U.S. units / density converter code which is just sitting there with incomprehensible comments.  There are exactly 2 things I need to know: (1) what is the proper syntax for referring to variables and storing them (including which property in the endless list of properties is actually its “name” rather than its display name), and (2) how I make the output of one action/object affect other items on the screen.  I feel like whenever I ask people (teachers, friends) for things like this, they either cite an elementary example or direct me to a help page or something.  I suppose that’s why I’m reluctant to ask in the first place.

Is it that hard to make a *general* statement?  If I were to explain the particular for loop in matlab to someone (assuming they know what a for loop is), I’d say  “for (your counting variable)=minimum value:maximum value (jumping by 1’s, or min:max:num to jump by num) [next line] whatever you want to do, which may utilize your counting variable [last line] end.”  That way, you can always construct a new for loop and not lose track of what everything means, and you don’t end up making every for loop iterate over i or go from 1 through 10.

And also, when I was taught the plot function, I was told to do plot(x,y,’b-‘,x2,y2,’c-‘).  No one ever told me you could edit a plot in the figure window.  No one ever told me that plot has THOUSANDS of alterable options.  So for years I was doing the stupid plots that you can barely see and that can only have 8 lines ’cause there are “only 8 colors.”  After chucking all that BS into the trash, I’ve relearned how to plot and I can cycle through visually appealing colors using simple colormaps and the ‘Color’ property.  Who the heck wants to look at cyan, yellow, or magenta lines on white background?!  I sure don’t, and I cringe every time I see a graph that has those invisible lines on them.
One entry in my memory is one entry.  plot(x,y,’b-‘) and plot(vector1, vector2 (equal length to vector 1),’Color’,[R G B (0 to 1)],’MarkerType’,’name’, etc. etc.) take essentially the same time to learn (actually, the ‘b.-‘ business was confusing as HECK for me because they use the same symbols for markers and line type, so I got the orders mixed up).  I’m not living in some RPG, where I have to use a paper towel roll, then a stick, then a pipe, then a bokken, then a sword.  I’d rather start with a small sword, then go to a larger one, then a larger one still.  That is, I need to perceive the essence first, then the details are filled in.  If I’m not going to use paper towel roll techniques when I become more experienced, I have no interest in wasting my memory learning about them.

KNOWING that I can put in ANY property into the plot function is *most important* to me.  Knowing that ‘Color’ is one of them is secondary – I can look those up in help at any time, but if I’m ignorant that the properties exist in the first place, why would I even look in help for them?

One of the greatest pains for me in learning anything is the fact that so many teaching approaches want you to start within the first floor.  Then you go to the second.  Then the third.

What I want to do is start outside, see the whole building, go to the front door, learn which floors have the same layout, know where all the bathrooms are, and then start going floor-to-floor.  Doesn’t that make sense?  I’ve wasted three years learning in MATLAB what should have taken only a month.  Why?  Because they told me to open the program and start typing math equations, line by line.

This is what I *wish* they had said.

“MATLAB, which stands for matrix laboratory because of its strength at handling very large matrices (in any number of dimensions), is a program consisting of many built-in mathematical and analytical functions such as curve-fitting, image analysis, statistics, etc.  To take advantage of these capabilities, the user has the option of using command line interface, programming scripts and functions, viewing and tweaking graphs and figures, and using GUIs.  All of the latter can be created through a simple text editor.  There are three main types of files, .m files (MATLAB programming language text files), .fig files (figures, graphics, and GUI layouts), and .mat files (matrices).  MATLAB can be used in conjunction with external devices with which it exchanges data, such as robotics or atomic force microscopes.”

I’m sure some of you could write better, but you know what, I would’ve been happy with that.  More than happy.  I would have LIKED MATLAB instead of avoiding it like the plague.  What I got instead was basically: “MATLAB is a program that lets you approximate the integrals of ODEs to compute how much chemical comes out of a reaction over time.  You can also plot things kind of like how you plot them on a graphing calculator.  Oh, and you can do 2-D matrix algebra, too.”

I should not have been shocked to see 3-D and 4-D matrices.  I should not have been shocked to learn that MATLAB could be applicable to biology.  I should not have been shocked to learn that strings can be part of a matrix.

But I was.

Good teaching is putting together everything conceptually so that you can present a finished painting to a student and not just a corner of a pencil sketch.

The final MITSO concert with visiting conductor Paul Biss passed last evening.  Taking all things into account – Albert and I’s sore/trembling arms (for different reasons – I was carrying stuff and he was pipetting all day) – it went rather well.  The turnout was one of the best I’ve ever seen, and most of the pieces were conveyed rather decently (basically everything was at its best except the Sibelius, which was nerve-wracking). Matthew did a wonderful job, as expected, and he really just tore up the stage like no one’s business in the last movement. I’m still bitter that I couldn’t play with matching clarity, partially waving my fist in C.P.E. Bach’s general direction for not giving any slurs. I think that Matthew was also a lot more comfortable playing the other movements, and especially the gorgeous, lyrical second movement came across with affectionate charm. Congratulations, Matthew! I would have bought you flowers, but I don’t feel right giving you a pink-and-purple bouquet reading “Rockin’ Momma” (with rock CD included)~~~ dang commercial holidays ;).

Schubert went brilliantly – well, brilliantly for us, anyway. A lot of parts came out nicely, although I think we sacrificed some expression for speed (I’m not really sure I approve). We were shocked that Schubert got us enough applause that Paul had to go in and out – that’s usually saved for the last piece! Smetana was the closer for our hour-and-ten-minutes-long first half, and that was definitely the crowd-pleaser of the night. The horn part in the Mondschein section was just “AHHHHH” – it’s loud and horn-like, but it rests below the strings in just that way to sound so subtle and moving. And I didn’t miss any of the arpeggios at the end!

As another fellow violinist said, in the Sibelius, we forgot that orchestras are supposed to play together. It’s sort of the idea of “sym – phony.” Anyway, it was alllllmost there ……. but no cigar. Nosiree~~. It was bizarre and probably partially due to fatigue and to the fact that we had not played it full-orchestra often enough (because we don’t have any oboists or tuba players, and we lack basses except Fan, who’s awesome and practices, but who simply can’t ground the entire orchestra). Sigh.

Steph got Matt and Paul flowers ^^. It was a really sweet gesture – not many people remember that conductors need a bit of love, too. I was very much amused when she walked by him and said, “Good luck!” Ahahahaha, but it’s nice to have a conductor you can josh around with like that.

I had an interesting conversation with Helen on the way back from the “MITSO after-party” thing (yay, food … but I was already kind of full). It started out sort of about careers and the way people think at MIT, and it drifted until we were talking about dreams and rationality and the like. I showed her the deceiving restroom placard in the lit but closed Quizno’s Sub at Tech Square – it appears to indicate that bathrooms are just inside, but it actually leads to a whole other corridor which then has the actual doors to the bathrooms. It was intriguing, and I said I wished I could open a bizarre restaurant where the corridors just kept leading to other corridors, perhaps similar-looking but with different background music playing as clues. And at a certain point of achievement, you could get a free sandwich coupon or something! Of course, it’d be boring if it were the same every time you came, so I would lock and unlock doors to configure new puzzles! I was worried no one would actually be interested, but Helen reassured me that she’d come every day =).

And then I shifted the topic to magic and having something unexpected happen in this world, and how these laws of reality may not actually constitute the true reality. Helen summed it up in that famous quote, “What if I’m really a butterfly dreaming that I’m a man?” (paraphrased). In any case, we talked about alternate universes and perceptions – see “The Sun Is Always There” for the gist of it.

And then I felt my body slip out of control. I was dancing, but the music was all in my mind.

Sometimes, I am suddenly stricken with this powerful, enveloping, dominating gale of sound and noise, a sharp, uncontrollable impetus to create something. No, create is not the word – dictate. There is some source, some 5.1 surround sound system perched up on a cloud somewhere, blasting down its gospel of cacophony. Sometimes the noise is syllables – gibberish as far as I know and understand. Sometimes it is notes. The notes are usually in 12 tones, although sometimes not. I write down the sequence of notes as soon as I behold them; sometimes I even write them down more quickly than they are to be performed.

I look back upon the syllables and the notes, and I ask myself: what does this mean? What are these notes? Why are they in this sequence?

And there is a pattern. I can just barely grasp that there is one. And I know that the source must be equally myself as some outside source.

And therefore the pattern is a reflection of something in the human experience. Maybe it is even a reflection of humanity. The answer to the questions that I think about when I read the newspapers: it is right here. In this, somewhere, is what I am looking for, but it is so distant and enigmatic. It haunts me, teases me.

What is it?

And will I ever understand it?

Piece that I heard today

1.  I have to choose right now between studying for my exam or preparing things to help someone else study.  I might not have enough time to finish both.  Hmm, what should I do?  I suppose I shall ask Nisuna.

Nisunie!  What do you think?

2.  Ideally you finish both … but the priority goes to the latter, of course!
3.  Aw, is that really so?

4.  Hey, if you didn’t want to listen to me, why’d you ask in the first place ……
5.  Well, dunno?  I just think the last time, it might not have turned out so hot.  And last night …
6.  Hrm, well, that just goes to show that you haven’t memorized your lessons well enough.

7.  No, I remember it well enough!  “There is no reward in this world, nor in the next.  The pure heart desires only peace with its self.”

8.  Well then, there’s your answer, right?

9.  Indeed, it is.

I really want to write chapters 24 and 25 of the Aizuna (fictitious religion of my imaginary world’s holy book).  These are the climactic chapters that deal with the holy-human wars that I’m sure I’ve already discussed in gory detail.  I want to write them specifically because it gives me a chance to write down proverb after tenet after platitude after commandment =) I love writing such things.

Every line of dialogue has to stand alone as a statement, and as something someone might quote as a lesson.

” ‘Aizifa know no currency but kindness.’ ”
“Holding and letting go, the eternal ebb and flow; the fool thinks love is only about holding on, when it is, like the tide, equally about letting go.”
“They who cried, ‘Heretic!’ at the drop of the hat claimed to worship the Gods, but in truth they only worshiped themselves.

For to enslave the will is to block it from communion with the Heavens, and so to bow in fear of Heaven is to reject It.  For to leave the Soul rife with ignorance is to block it from the principle of Aisei (understanding), and so to divert one’s gaze from the Gods is to not understand Their faces.

And these fools who rejected Heaven and who did not know the Faces of the Gods could not recognize the girl before them, and they cried out to Nisuna, the Heavenly Messenger, that they would have her hung for witchcraft!”

etc. etc. etc.

One thing I’ve been wondering for awhile is this: in “orderly” music, each part is always contained in the same tempo; there are rarely cases when the different parts have different metronome markings. Nevertheless, you could have a bassline moving in whole notes and a soprano line moving in 16th notes, and from the point of view of the bassline, the piece is slow, while the soprano really wishes that the pace would slow down.

So if this is the case in music, is it possible that this is the case with people? That people exist on different “time scales,” so to speak, as if they were different RC circuits or something? This is not to say that people are created unequal; that is against my central beliefs. But rather, that each “velocity” of time that one acquires has particular strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe it’s not that some people cannot stand waiting while others have no problem with it. Maybe that can be reframed in this scenario: all people hate waiting the same amount, but because time passes at different speeds, some people reach their threshold of impatience more quickly than others. The differences between the various tempi normally do not come into play, because everyday tasks can be completed in any fashion, and their completeness is what matters, and the ability to produce such completeness may function entirely independently of the time-scales. However, in situations that require a certain amount of time – a particular commute, a particular speed for playing a piece, a particular exam – this is when there can be clashes, because the standardized timing of the world is being forced upon all people uniformly.

I cannot think of a way to prove that the perception of time is something constant in the same way I cannot think of a way to prove that all people see the same colors. However, one might say, “The eye as 3 (or 4) types of cones, therefore people should see the same colors.” In a similar vein, I think it’s valid to say that since people type at about the same speeds and their hearts beat at about the same speeds and they breathe at about the same speeds, they probably perceive of time in the same manner.

It is most likely true that physically, people exist on the same time scales. That is why we can have sports in the first place without having to worry about some people moving orders of magnitude faster than others. But what about mentally? Based on the cone analogy, one could probably reason that since the number of usable neurons is approximately constant, it’s probably the case that the maximum mental capacity, at least for highest-type functions, should also be the same. There remains one area, though, that could be different, and that is the “input rate.” While the flow rate of usable knowledge from processing center to memory (output) is constant, the flow rate of raw data into the processing center (input) does not have to be.

This means that there are two groups of equally intelligent people: first, those who take in a lot of input, but retain very little; and second, those who can only take in so much at once, but retain a lot. I know that I definitely fall into the first category, as I tend to multitask, multithink, and on the whole forget 99.9% of that tasking and thinking. I can read very quickly, but while the cramming remains in my memory for the exam, it vanishes shortly thereafter. True retention is only achieved by repeatedly reading materials over and over again, and the net amount of time spent reading for the purpose of truly learning or memorizing something should be the same as a person who reads through things once, but at a much slower pace (eg, my brother or my mom).

I also know a lot of people who are part of the second category. They tend to like to focus on one thing at once, do it well, and then move onto the next thing. One major point of contrast is the manner of “nucleation.” For instance, there are two ways one could form a protein: throwing a whole lot of amino acids together and then sealing them together, vs. the way nature does it, by making a long chain first, then letting it fold. The former uses many nucleation points while the latter requires only one. In analogous fashion, some people require multiple nucleation points and skip from one to the next, while others stick to one point and grow everything around it.

In conclusion, it may be said that people do indeed live at different tempi, but that is generally a superficial difference pertaining primarily to the rate of noticing things, while the internal clockwork remains a constant. The rate of amassing knowledge cannot be modulated simply by drenching oneself with a hose; that rate, if it is even possible to change it, requires a good deal of cultivation and sacrifice. As with any true diet, becoming a more powerful learner is not about quick fixes (skimming, cramming, speeding on the highway) – it’s about patient restructuring and reconceiving. At the same time, the superficial differences in time perception can lead to certain moments of misunderstanding or confusion, because one speaks of time as though it were a linear, simple procession, while in reality it is a much more complicated, nuanced dimension. Although this can make life more difficult to deal with, perhaps confronting the question directly can provide more insight than mere mental speculation.

[933/(1:26 – 0:57) = Written at 32 words/min. You’re probably thinking “wait, this was all for the sake of determining your rate of writing?” Hmm, I’m not sure I have a satisfactory answer for that. Because honestly, I can’t really remember what I wrote ^^;;]

[Further investigation: My maximum typing speed seems to be, as of a few minutes ago, 77 wpm.  And a comfortable typing speed is probably some amount less than that.  I had expected that thinking would be the rate-limiting step, which it is, to a degree – but certainly not to the degree that I would have expected.  I really thought that the upper bound of typing speed would play no role in the actual speed of writing, but perhaps it does matter after all.  I notice myself unable, at this point, to actually type the words at the same rate that I see them flash across my mind (words and music that are part of thought scroll across a field of view in my head, and my job is merely to write down exactly what I see in there – does that seem odd?).  Perhaps blogging so much, and talking on AIM so much, has permitted me to unify my thought and typing rates?]

I had a rather interesting conversation today with my girlfriend’s mother, which was rather unexpected but quite exciting nonetheless. I’ve always liked talking to adults because they have at least twice as many experiences as I do, and I feel like there are pearls of wisdom to be gotten from conversing with them.

For the most part, I agreed with what was said, but there is actually one interesting point of disagreement that I think is worth touching on. It’s the question of whether or not such a thing as “talent” exists to the degree to which it can make or break a person’s endeavors, in a sense. In a way, this has been a point of contention between me and .. just about everyone else, ever since I was younger. It sort of begins, in its origins, with my mother saying things such as God creating us for some purpose and reason. But I cannot believe this because I have searched and searched and not found any purpose to my life but those select few that I know that I determined through will alone. That is not to say that there is not a God, or that there is no Heavenly vision of a perfect world. But my participation in life is voluntary, with no penalty for withdrawal. It is my decision and choice of responsibilities that determines my purpose.

And regarding talent, if it is of the body, then yes – people are born with bodies of different strength; but if it is of the mind, then no – I cannot recognize that the neurons of a person may inherently reject a particular wiring if it is installed into him or her. I believe in the boundlessness of human ingenuity and creativity. The path and constitution of the mind only coalesces through the amalgamation of countless inputs, the earliest ones counting the most. Hatred, destruction, selfishness – these are responses, as are love, creation, and generosity. Genes define hair color, body shape, singing range, and predisposition for body odor. But the child behaves like the parent because the child is raised by the parent, because the child is responding to the parent, because the child’s prejudices are instilled by the parent.

I do not think I can tell any person honestly, “I don’t think you have the talent for this.” It is not the talent that is lacking, it is practice, training, and upbringing that is. Which is not to say that this is an optimistic viewpoint: although I can always say, “I know that you can do this,” the mentality merely shifts responsibility from DNA to the soul, to the part the decides how to spend its time, how to use its body and mind, how to define itself.

I admit that I am going a bit on faith here – or perhaps a lot. I do not deny that the idea of pre-determined talent, of “God-given” talent, if you will – is highly lucrative, and probably a valid conclusion from a rational set of thoughts. At the same time, I feel that this is a replay of Pascal’s Wager in a different setting, for the assumption of the existence of talent entails the apprehension of a “ceiling” to human capability.

There is no difference between the person who sees the ceilings and says, “I will not give up” and the person who is blind to the ceiling: I think that both are equally capable. And I believe that the former category probably characterizes most of those who I have met, especially recently, so I am by no means critical of those with whom I have spoken.

On the other hand, I have seen those who see the ceiling and say, “It is not worth it” or tell others that they are not cut out for doing this or that. Suppose that there is a ceiling after all: the one who gives up is right and nothing happens; the one who doesn’t give up is a fool who is wasting his energy. But now suppose the ceiling does not exist: then, the one who gives up has forsaken something precious while the one who doesn’t give up is able to effect change.

This means to me that, in the absence of strong evidence for or against the ceiling, one ought not to give up. I would rather be comforted by regret and self-dislike for failing at something that I could do than to be told I could never have done it at all. Because I want to believe that this world can progress and find its balance faster than this oppressively sluggish pace that brings suffering to people. I have many flaws and there are many things that I cannot do. But I do not believe that accepting will over talent is one of those flaws.

Take a look at this graph.

What does it mean to you?

If you’re in 7.06 (cell biology) right now, perhaps you will recognize this as the pattern of population growth of mammalian cells in culture: they expand and grow, but after awhile, they reach senescence.  And then crisis occurs, and a lot of cell death occurs since the cells have sustained accumulated damage.  A few rare cells, however, will not die and instead gain the ability to divide indefinitely due to activation of telomerase and perhaps other factors.

But long before humankind knew anything of cells, it already painted a portrait of this graph.  It all begins with Ymir, the ice giant carved by fire, and the gigantic cow that fed him.  And from Ymir arose the rest of the giants (this will be discussed more later); from the cow’s licking came forth the Aesir.  And the story continues on, the populations of the Aesir and Vanir (gods) and giants and humans fluorishing.  At some point towards the present, of course, the fluorishing slows down (inferred from the fact that gods were not born in present day, and observing the saturation of populations.

All along, the gods know about something dreadful: that one day, an inevitable war will break out after three winters arrive in a row with no summers in between.  This event, called “Ragnarok,” is an amoral battle between the gods and giants, in which the worlds (there are nine) burn and all but a handful of gods survive.  And only two humans emerge, Lif and Lifthrasir.  In a world without suffering and peaceful coexistence, the gods and humans fluorish once again forever.

Isn’t the graph of the populations of Asgard and Midgard and all the other worlds taken together just like that?  When I saw the graph on the board yesterday, I could only feel this divine welling in my heart.  I knew about it already, and yet I couldn’t help but be moved by the painful beauty of what I saw.

As a side note, there are some interesting implications of the parallel.  Lif and Lifthransir survive Ragnarok by drinking dew – this is not a normal human capability; they probably possess some sort of anomalous power.  And thus the offspring that become the whole of the human race would share these anomalies.  This predicts a common problem with immortalized cell lines: their homogeneous phenotypic quirks that result from the massive population bottleneck.  It’s not just telomerase that sets cell lines apart from their original cultures.

But now let’s return to Ymir, the bizarre giant.  Although there is discrepancy as to exactly what he does and how he does it, there is agreement that generally he just sits there, drinking milk from the very large cow (possibly with four mouths) and procreates.  But this procreation is bizarre.  His armpit sweat produces a man and woman (presumably Frost giants) .. and then his feet mate with each other to create a six-headed Rime Giant.  (I’m not pulling this out of my ass – somebody else centuries ago beat me to it http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/history/032005-990465/).  Other accounts have Ymir continually procreating as a hermaphrodite, in order to produce the various races of giants.

Genetic common sense says that children will look kind of like you.  And so one laughs at the ridiculousness of having a six-headed offspring arise from a one-headed parent.

But it is generally accepted today that stem cells behave in this manner: they produce daughter cells that differentiate down various paths: neurons, the smooth muscle, the bone – all these completely different types of cells can arise from mesenchymal stem cells.  And the division is asymmetric: the original parent cell is left unchanged, just like Ymir.

It takes a good deal of imagination to escape common sense and enter the world of cell biology.

For those unfamiliar with Norse mythology, which is sadly not taught alongside Greek and Roman mythology for whatever reason, Wikipedia isn’t a bad starting place (I used it as a refresher for this entry), but it’s generally quite lacking in details.  This site provides one-line descriptions of everything: http://www.akasha.demon.co.uk/norse.htm.  Unfortunately, the site I read long ago no longer has working links.  It’s worth reading, if only because Norse mythology  seems to be defining proof that humans have been getting high since the early days – it’s just that messed up, especially the creation story.  My feeling is that Christians such as J.R.R. Tolkien were able to incorporate Norse mythology into their stories without feeling much internal conflict just because it’s just so ridiculous that no one could ever possibly believe it.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

I have known for some time that certain melodies can be played forward and backward with each being a viable melody. But only the genius of Pixel Comic revealed to me that in fact, certain dialogues may be read forward and backward with equal validity, but such different effect.

I refer you to this:

http://www.pixelcomic.net/257.shtml

And this opens a whole set of interesting prospects ..

http://www.pixelcomic.net/232.shtml