Imagination Part IV

by admin on December 28, 2010 at 10:14 am

Imagine being trapped in a room where you may not exercise or sleep. Food is provided at regular intervals, you have no possessions, and you may only write for two hours a day. Apart from a couple of hours of television and a guard checking you are still alive every five minutes you have no other stimulus.

What do you think about?

This is the current situation for Pfc Bradley Manning, alleged source of the Wikileaks cablegate fiasco. Regardless of your thoughts on the nature of his alleged crime, it is hard to see how a non violent man awaiting trial, can be held in these conditions. If the man isn’t crazy, he soon will be.

Regardless, I have been harking on, recently, about how it is good to have down time to do nothing but think freely and see what happens. What the above case points to is that clearly there is a limit to the amount of time you should spend in this state before there are negative consequences. The important question is then, I suppose, at where this balance lies- at what point is it worth saying no to doing real activities to have down time, and at what point should you get up from an inactive slump to seek some real stimulation?

My guess at an answer would be, it depends. It depends on the nature of your personality, it depends on the nature of the activities you do, it depends on the nature of the relationships you have with people. Since all of these variables shift and slide, so too the need to cast our minds away into a world of make believe.

A better question then would be how do we know when we should take more (or less) time for ourselves to reflect and relax? What are the signs which should make us take that long walk or sit cross legged by a fire? Stress? Exhaustion? Anger? Apathy? These are all negative emotions, and it seems like a good idea to me to find time *before* your mind gets to one of these states. Why live in a reactionary manner? Why not consider what you need to do to maintain a positive mental state and do it *before* it is to late.

If you were balancing a broomstick on your finger tip, as you feel the tip fall you move the base underneath where the tip is falling *to* not to its current position- you predict its path and compensate for the amount of time it will take for the system to adjust. You constantly make tiny adjustments to the position of the base based on the feedback of looking at the tip of the broomstick, and in this way it remains balanced.

I used to write a blog on BlogDrive when I was 16 or so (from which sadly I now have no surviving posts), and I read some posts back a few years ago and remember thinking “I thought that, as a novel concept, last week”. It is surprisingly easy to forget what we think and end up going in circles. Since I want to amass both knowledge and understanding about the world (omniology?), I think it is important to avoid this where possible.

How many of us can honestly say, with regard to our emotions and thoughts, that we look forward and backwards. It is very easy to live solely in the present, missing the patterns of thought which would be obvious to a third party privvy to your thoughts. Since I was 15 I have had spots on my face, and every time I get a new one I still think “when that goes away, I will look OK”, yet whenever one heals, a new one appears. It took me maybe 7 years to realise this. I think by writing down our thoughts we can observe patterns more easily, and thus adapt and change as required.

That is my justification for carping on here anyway!

  Comment

Imagination Part III

by admin on December 26, 2010 at 6:26 pm

Imagine a cube: 3 metres by 3 metres by 3 metres of empty space. Now imagine something within it. Maybe a sculpture of an ostrich made of lightbulbs, maybe a stalagmite of coloured minerals, maybe it is empty except for a layer of paint splatters on the bottom. The possibilities are infinite, there is no limit to the number of distinct things that can occupy any space. I suppose if you assume a subatomic particle (or set of particles) which is the fundamental building block of everything then you could argue that the set of things was in fact bounded (albeit at a ridiculously big number) but that is beside the point.

Given that there are a number of possibilities for filling a three dimensional space, we can map all the possible entities as points along a line (any line has an infinite number of distinct points along it). Along this line we can thus place every item in existence which we know is within the set of things which fit within a 3m cube. If we could think of a way of ordering such as set, a way of giving each item of the set a real value between 0 and 1 where items which are similar scored similarly (a plate and a bowl would be very close values, a mouse and a tennis ball serving machine less so) and drew a point on the line where items lay, we would begin to see how well our discovery and exploration of all possible objects within the 3m by 3m was going. We could see if there were swathes of space which were unoccupied, begging the question “what goes here?”.

Now if we restrict the set of items which fit into a 3m cube to be the subset where the items are functional as a knife or cutting implement, suddenly there are a lot less potential objects. Again we have a line representing all possible knives, with the ones in existence, from kukris to cutlasses to scissors and nail clippers, and knive forms which have not been designed yet.

Sometimes when I pick up an object, such as a knife, I look at it and think “why is this object as it is?”- some person has, from nowhere in particular, filled a space with a design. They could have done anything else, but they chose to design that exact object. The nowhere in particular in question from which the knife design arose, is probably the combination of a specification (“design us a table knife with a floral inset pattern”) and experience (the knowledge that table knifes are a given size and shape, require a given sharpness and must withstand dishwashers etc).

There is something amazing about bringing ideas into existence, not because you are reducing the set of undiscovered items (because you can’t subtract from infinite), but because of the question of how your mind can come up with something novel, something new that it has never experienced before. I think this is an established field of study within psychology and philosophy, but I don’t know as much about it as I would like.

One of the ways I see art is as an exploration of the set of possible things, trying to get as far away from an existing point on the line as possible. Trying to find some space on the line which scores a value far different from any other object. There is no best or worst score, only a distance from other scores. Of all the items which we have not yet discovered, some will be aesthetically pleasing and some will not, some will be functional, some will be offensive. Of course we can also use time to further increase the possibilities- things which change over time, and thus things which make sound, things which smell, things which interact with the viewer.

I find art interesting, at a basic level, just because of all the things that the artist could have created, they created a sculpture of a man made only from plastic toy guns. Why?

  Comment

Imagination Part II

by admin on December 22, 2010 at 7:15 pm

I just saw this article on LifeHacker describing how (in a typically LifeHacker vague way) “daydreaming can actually encourage better thought process”. This kind of corroborates what I was trying to explain in yesterday’s post; that imagination is something valuable, and exercising it is important.

I had a conversation with a colleague today about whether or not imagination is a skill, something you can learn or something you are born with? It seems that like many things such as athletics, that whilst everyone has differing degrees of natural ability, most people fail to reach this limitation, instead being held back by only their personal circumstances, be it lack of desire, motivation, or time. This would indicate that the more one imagines things, the better one gets. This is obvious when you think about it- the more you read and write creatively, the better you will get.

As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I think the ability to think freely without constraints is important, and it is easy to overlook it with so much activity going on around us 24 hours a day. I have been thinking about ways to find time to really work the right side of the brain.

One interesting point that I considered, which links back to yesterdays post, is that when walking I really feel like I can think. I suppose it is just that a small amount of your brain is occupied with the motion and senses preventing boredom or distraction, whilst the majority is still free to do other things. For me, it seems that driving is a little too far the other side of the line, I have to concentrate too much to think completely freely, and conversely sitting quietly is not enough, I generally fall asleep and get sidetracked and procrastinate in some way.

I wonder if the state I am talking about getting into, where your mind is free to explore and imagine, is actually what people call meditation. I know I have this stereotypical image of hippies sitting in the Lotus position for hours humming to themselves, but I’m sure that is completely wrong. From what I know about meditation, there are many different methods and forms for achieving focus, but the point, as far as I can see, is to allow the brain time to do something which it cannot during the rest of the day- to reflect, to explore ideas, and to unwind things that have been experienced.

I imagine that everyone has a different level of activity at which point their brain is free to wander, mine happens to be when I am walking, someone else’s may be when sitting on a train or when climbing a mountain. I wonder whether it is possible to move this point, with practice, so that it is easier to get into this state when required. Going for a walk to have a think is fairly convenient, but I would love to be able to just be able to sit and get into the same state, even if it were just because I would like to be the master of my own brain. Something I think, to work on.

3 Comments

Imagination

by admin on December 21, 2010 at 11:36 pm

I have this romantic idea of writing a novel, no doubt inspired by the TV show Californication amongst other things, and a while ago I thought about how I would proceed. I decided to try and write a short story, just to demonstrate to myself the ability to fabricate a situation, a plot and some characters. It turns out that doing this is far more difficult than it sounds. I’m sure that given some constraints I would be able to proceed much more easily- tell me to write a massively sarcastic tale in the style of Heller about a space pilot in an intergalactic war and I’m I would be able to begin to tackle the problem, albeit, I’m sure, poorly. With a wide open subject matter, writing style and format however, it is incredibly difficult to sit down with a blank page and just write something.

I wonder if I have an imagination at all any more. I used to live in a little dream world. When I worked in manual jobs with plenty of time to think I used to dream up whole life plans and just play them out in my head for hours, seeing where they went, what I wanted, who I would meet etc. I never do that any more. I don’t think it is lack of time, so much as a sensory overload- when you have to be in front of a CNC mill all day, you don’t have the option to go on Facebook. I guess it is one of those things where when you have to do it you complain, but looking back it is great and you miss it, but not enough that you actually choose to do it. An example: when I had a car I missed walking places even though I could obviously still walk whenever I wanted. My motorbike is currently broken and I actually love not having the option to do anything other than walk around or get the train. I miss my amazing life plans, though I’m actually living one of them, conceived years ago, scarily closely.

I was reading part of “The Defence Of The Realm” earlier when I realised that my chronic non-imagination problem has actually hit me deeper than I previously thought. The written words on the page were simply not translating into anything real at all. The particular section I was reading was regarding the vetting of personnel into the Civil Service at the beginning of the Cold War and it talks merrily about various new MI5 responsibilities in defending the nation against Soviet espionage. I realised this evening that whilst I may be taking in the sentences, and may now be capable of spurting off some fact about the 1951 Tripartite Conference on Atomic Energy, but I don’t really understand the situation at all. I am obviously reading the book to gain some degree of understanding (a broad overview), but reading these facts is not really getting me any closer. It is like I just see the “Soviets” and “the bureau” as these entities playing funny games with each other; I’m not able to really understand the nature of the situation because I can’t reconstruct any of it in my head.

I have also been watching the first series of the drama Mad Men, centred on the lives of advertising executives in Manhattan in the 1960′s. I am finding it really fascinating for several reasons. Firstly I love the 1960′s styling and visuals. The men are of course immaculately dressed at all times, with some fantastic haircuts, glasses and suits on show. It is a really good show to look at, and I will be taking some inspiration from it in the future.

Secondly corporate life intrigues me greatly and always has. I have never quite understood what people did in offices and the show kind of perpetuates my intrigue. It seems that the executives sit around in their private offices drinking, smoking and meeting whilst legions of secretaries natter and type things up. I recently saw a photo from a draughtsmen’s office at McDonnel Douglas in the sixties- hundreds of engineers sitting at drawing boards with bezier curve guides and pencils- and was amazed. I suppose I knew that this was how aeroplanes used to be designed, with hundreds of man hours being put into the design of each part, but seeing a photo really brought it home to me the difference which computers have made to that industry. CAD/CAM could probably replace all but a handful of that room of engineers. The same could probably be said for the majority of the women employees of the Mad Men office.

Thirdly, I am very interested by the portrayal of sexism in the show. Now I guess that before watching the show I knew there was a lot of prejudice against women in the workplace in the past, but it had a big impact on me to see it in an every day style setting. Sexism isn’t portrayed as a joke or as a struggle in the show, it is just the status quo. Imagine a show portraying racism as a normal part of life (and there are certainly occasions where this happens in Mad Men) and how shocking that would be and you are there. I think it is easy for people of my generation to pass off racism and sexism as things which happened to people in the past, and are no longer important or relevant. I suppose that the more true the previous statement is the better, but I think it is important that we also understand the changes that have happened within living memory.

So I have this problem. It took a photo of draughtsmen to make me realise how aeroplanes used to be designed and it took a TV drama to show me how sexism actually affected women in real life. Have I become incapable of imagining things? I can barely read a book packed full of information and opinions because I can’t translate the word “Soviet” on the page to anything but either the red team in “C&C: Red Alert” or that picture of Stalin. I can’t write a short story or imagine the future of my life. So why not?

I think I blame sensory overload, and I think I need to detox.

1 Comment

Conference Speaking

by admin on December 4, 2010 at 1:59 pm

I’ve been working quite hard recently to learn new things, Haskell being the obvious example, but I still feel kind of inadequate. I saw Jon Skeet’s talk at Oredev and was very impressed with the depth of knowledge he has of C#. It wasn’t anything specific that he said, but his general handling of every situation through the talk. Jon is clearly a complete expert in the language (just look at his StackOverflow reputation) and it is really impressive to watch such a master of one’s field talk on the subject. Similarly when watching Douglas Crockford’s “The JavaScript programming language” lectures it is clear that a true expert is talking, someone who has been there through the conception, creation and development of the language and someone who isn’t caught up in some hype, but genuinely loves his field.

I’ve been watching some other videos from TED and from RailsConf and such, and I look at the guys up on the stage giving these presentations and I would really like to do that sort of thing. I really like to share knowledge, I like meeting other people with a similar interest in software development, and I think I am a pretty good public speaker. However, my opinion on being a pretty good public speaker is probably from giving presentations at uni or at school- I watch David Heinemeier Hansson giving a talk on why he loves Ruby and I see a self belief in what he is saying that I don’t have at this stage. This gives his talk an amazing depth and captivating spirit which is really powerful. I don’t really agree with a lot of things he says, but the way he says them is very impressive.

I don’t think I could give a presentation like that- I don’t believe strongly in one development methodology or another, I don’t believe that there is one true language, I don’t believe that the MIT license is the only way we should be contributing free software to the community. I don’t feel that I have achieved anything yet which I feel strongly enough to talk about with that amount of passion.

I have ideas about a lot of those things, I love the idea of design for test, I love C# language and the idea of functional/declarative programming style, and I believe strongly in the lesser GPL (although to be fair, it could be more concise), but I don’t feel like I can commit to any of these things as my thing. I don’t feel like I can commit to one technology or methodology or community at this stage in my life as a developer.

The things I do believe in are the culture of continuous learning, the culture of taking pride in what we create, the culture of constantly examining process and considering what we can do better, and the culture of taking a problem and finding the best way to solve it with all constraints considered. I believe in the field of engineering, and I believe firmly that software development belongs in it. I guess I’m still learning a lot about how the different pieces of the puzzle fit together, and hopefully one day I will have arranged enough of them to pass on some of it to others.

Jon Skeet’s talk from Oredev “C#’s biggest mistakes”
Douglas Crockford’s “The JavaScript programming language”
David Heinemeier’s Keynote at RubyConf 2010

  Comment