sneaker: varun, you need to come to Pittsburgh…
sneaker: I’ve yet to find such good food elsewhere
varun_puri: “food” for thought or soul?
sneaker: food for tummy
sneaker: the best kind 
:IM conversation between me and Varun after a great dinner at Pittsburgh’s finest.
The Essence of Academia
You write a paper, and it contributes epsilon to a field. You write another paper on the same exact topic, and it contributes epsilon/2. The next one (on the same exact topic) epsilon/4, etc.
On the one hand, you can add up the total contribution you make, and it’s 2 epsilon.
On the other hand, you can generate an infinite number of papers. . .
:as discussed by Michael Gibson, myself and one of Gibson’s friends @ Stanford.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve made it a point to attend several lectures at Carnegie Mellon by the various guest speakers and faculty candidates that come in to present their research. Today, I intended a talk which talked in which the researcher was talking about using MRI data in order to try and better understand the functioning of language comprehension. Now, before I go any further, please note that I am not in any way trying to knock the research this person was doing. I do not know much at all about it and half of the time had to revert to my newly found principle of “translate the jargon” in order to develop a better understanding of the matter being discussed, since I lacked the benefit of basic familiarity with both the medical and the psychological lingo.
If I understood correctly, basically the research was focused on looking at the amount of bloodflow in certain parts of the brain in order to try and hypothesize what parts of the brain are responsible for certain functions (I am fairly confident that that lay explanation would probably hold its own). Now, I am definitely no expert in neurology or cognitive science, nor do I have much background in psychology. So what I’m about to propose may be downright stupid and possibly offensive to people who do work in the field, in which case, I do not intend any such offence.
I have a fundamental problem with how cognitive scientists and psychologists for that matter are trying to understand the working of the human mind and understand human behavior. It seems to me that most psychology experiments targeted at understanding the functioning of the human mind are using an approach in which the chances of success are so incredibly slim that they would be bordering on being futile (I take part of this back later on in this passage). Let me explain, but giving an example. Lets say I give you a box. This box happens to be a computer (only because it’s the closest thing I can think of to a human brain). Now, lets assume for a moment that you have absolutely no idea about what bits and bytes are, you do not know what a transistor is, you do not know what a logic circuit is, what a chip is. Now, can you, by simply designing experiments in order to exercise this box, determine how it is built. Can you really understand how a computer works - RAM (short-term memory), storage or ROM (long term memory), Arithmetic Logic Unit, caches, buses, and all that stuff that we understand today, because we built is ground up…. is it really possible to design experiments such that we can understand these fundamental building blocks of a computer? So then why should we expect that we can understand the workings of the human mind by conducting experiments on how people react to certain stimuli?
I’m not comfortable with how well I’ve been able to communicate my point above. So let me try and state it again… I feel that the probability of being able to understand the functioning of the human mind based on the type of “experiments” conducting in cognitive psychology today is infinitesimal. And therefore I’m questioning whether it is worthwhile.
Of course, I will also be the first to admit that I do not have any better proposal for trying to solve such problems. If you are given a black box, and you can interact with the black box, or cut it open in order to reverse engineer it — well, then the scientists of today are doing all the different approaches I can think off of the top of my head. So I don’t see a better way. But I think what I’m slowly leaning towards convincing myself is that I may prefer the approach of cutting open the black box and trying to break it down to its fundamental components and work up from there to try and understanding how the mind works as opposed to trying to devise experiments which just work with the black box. But, I guess there is some value in both and so doing both makes sense.
Now generally, whenever I come up with crazy arguments like this one, I like to discuss it with other people who have the capacity both for rational thought and for entertaining wild ideas and critiqing them objectively. I don’t get that opportunity often enough, but this time I was fortunate that in the midst of my composing this blog, I got a call from a good friend who completed his Ph.D. from Caltech. (And yeah, I’ll make his head grow a little bigger by acknowledging that he is amongst one of the smartest people I’ve had the pleasure of working with). And so he gave me a reasoning which I can accept. Basically that though he agrees that the approach being used today is probably not going to lead to any direct answers, all we are doing in research today is making minor advancements. With each lifetime of effort, we gain an epsilon of knowledge, where hopefully epsilon is greater than zero.
So I guess now that I’ve had the chance to dicuss this at length with my friend, I’m not as agitated about it as I was when I first started.
So we established today that I’m certifiably nuts, because at dinner earlier today with two of my apparently single friends when we were talking about asking people out I made the analogy that asking a girl out is like raising money from VCs (and yes, I have had a little bit of experience with both in order to qualify me to make this analogy, fortunately or unfortunately, my track record with VCs is a little better!).
Of course that comment caught the attention of my friends and so they asked why. At dinner I had only a few points. But now at 3:00 AM on the morning, I have a full Letterman-style Top 10 List. And no, I didn’t get this from anywhere, this is a sneaker original! Here goes….
Sneaker’s Top 10 Reasons Why Girls Are Like VCs
OR
Sneaker’s Top 10 Reasons Why VCs Are Like Girls
10. There are always more of us and less of them.
09. Before you try approaching one, you must eat your pride and bury your ego six feet under.
08. You must have a reference for a proper introduction, cold-calls generally do not get a good response.
07. They don’t look at you if someone else isn’t already looking at you.
06. They expect you to do all the work while they just sit there and look pretty.
05. Even when you do approach them, they always play hard to get.
04. You buy the drinks.
03. You never get a straight answer, they always string you along, even when they know there is no chance in hell.
02. When one says yes, all of them say yes.
01. Asking a girl out or trying to raising money from a VC both suck.
P.S. If you decide to forward this around, please send this link with it, since I reserve the right to re-prioritize and update this list!
The fundamental goal of human-centric computing is to allow us to do more by doing less
:Michael Dertouzos, Diector of the MIT Media Lab in The Unfinished Revolution.
“It’s 11:00 PM and I check my email. 98 new messages have arrived since yesterday. At 2-3 minutes per message, I’ll need about 4 hours to handle them. I’d like to grant them my highest security classification - DBR: Delete Before Reading.”
:Michael Detouzos, Director of the MIT Media Lab in The Unifinished Revolution
The Best of Proverbs
If it’s true that we are here to help others,
then, what exactly are the others here for?
Since light travels faster than sound, people
appear bright until you hear them speak.
How come “abbreviated” is such a long word ?
Don’t frown. You never know who is falling in
love with your smile.
Should women have children after 35?
No, 35 children are enough
Living on Earth may be expensive…
but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
Your future depends on your dreams
So go to sleep !
ALCOHOL KILLS SLOWLY So what ?
Who’s in a hurry ?
Love is photogenic;
it needs darkness to develop
A good discussion is like a miniskirt;
Short enough to pertain interest and long enough to cover the subject
Children in backseats cause accidents;
Accidents in backseats cause children!
A drunk was hauled into court.
Mister, the judge began, you’ve been brought here for drinking….
Great, the drunk exclaimed. When do we get started?
Can you do anything that other people can’t?
Sure, I can read my handwriting.
:Sent to me by Devika A.
Human beings are not supposed to be sitting in little cubicles staring at computer screens.
:Office Space - the movie.
That’s 32 days folks, not yards. Anyhow, there’s actually a fair amount of new crap on sneaker.org, except I’ve been remiss in not updating the what’s new blog (this one) as often…. sorry. In fact there is so much new stuff in Eavesdropped that it doesn’t even fit on the index page and you’ll have to dig into the archives to find it all.
New in Thought — caught in the act!* on Saturday, February 2, 2002
New in Rants and Raves* on Saturday, February 2, 2002
New in Eavesdropped!* on Saturday, February 2, 2002
LEASH: A strap which attaches to your collar, enabling
you to lead your person where you want him/her to go.
DOG BED: any soft, clean surface, such as the white
bedspread in the guest room or the newly upholstered
couch in the living room.
DROOL: Is what you do when your persons have food and
you don’t. To do this properly you must sit as close as you
can and look sad and let the drool fall to the floor, or
better yet, on their laps.
SNIFF: A social custom to use when you greet other dogs.
Place your nose as close as you can to the other dog’s rear
end and inhale deeply, repeat several times, or until your
person makes you stop.
GARBAGE CAN: A container which your neighbors put
out once a week to test your ingenuity. You must stand on
your hind legs and try to push the lid off with your nose. If
you do it right you are rewarded with margarine wrappers
to shred, beef bones to consume and moldy crusts of
bread.
BICYCLES: Two-wheeled exercise machines, invented for
dogs to control body fat. To get maximum aerobic benefit,
you must hide behind a bush and dash out, bark loudly
and run alongside for a few yards; the person then
swerves and falls into the bushes, and you prance away.
DEAFNESS: This is a malady which affects dogs when
their person want them in and they want to stay out.
Symptoms include staring blankly at the person, then
running in the opposite direction, or lying down.
THUNDER: This is a signal that the world is coming to
an end. Humans remain amazingly calm during
thunderstorms, so it is necessary to warn them of the
danger by trembling uncontrollably, panting, rolling your
eyes wildly, and following at their heels.
WASTEBASKET: This is a dog toy filled with paper,
envelopes, and old candy wrapper. When you get bored,
turn over the basket and strew the papers all over the
house until your person comes home
SOFAS: Are to dogs like napkins are to people. After
eating it is polite to run up and down the front of the sofa
and wipe your whiskers clean.
BATH: This is a process by which the humans drench the
floor, walls and themselves. You can help by shaking
vigorously and frequently.
LEAN: Every good dogs’s response to the command “sit !”,
especially if your person is dressed for an evening out.
Incredibly effective before black-tie events.
BUMP: The best way to get your human’s attention when
they are drinking a fresh cup of coffee or tea.
GOOSE BUMP: A maneuver to use as a last resort when
the Regular Bump doesn’t get the attention you
require…..especially effective when combined with The
Sniff. See above.
LOVE: Is a feeling of intense affection, given freely and
without restriction. The best way you can show your love
is to wag your tail. If you’re lucky, a human will love you
in return.
- Sent to me by my mom
When I started this section on reviewing things, I said that I would review people too. Well,Ive never done it yet. The first person that I am going to write about is Richard P. Feynman. I’m sure some fo the regulars on sneaker.org have already noticed the barrage of quotes and references to books and things by Feynman on here. But before I get started, I’ll point out that I am writing this not because I think of myself as “Feynman-fan,” but solely because I cannot express well enough how much respect I have for this one individual as a person (even more so than as a physicist) (In fact, you’re invited to check out my recent rant on The Fan Syndrome to see what I think of that…)
Unfortunately, I never had and never will have the chance to meet Richard Feynman in person (he died in 1988) and so my only exposure to his work and his person has been through is books and books about him. Therefore, the opinions I have developed are based on that information.
I think I first read Feynman’s book Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman when I was twelve or so. I don’t have an exact recollection of when it was, but that time sounds about right. I read it again a couple of weeks ago — because I remembered how much I’d enjoyed reading it, but had forgotten a lot of the details. And reading it agan was about as enthralling as the first time. I think what fascinated me about Feynman at that time was how smart this person was and yet at the same time, so down to earth and so cool. So unlike most “smart” people. It is where I first learnt that there is a place called MIT. A place called Princeton. A place called Cornell and a place called Caltech. It is what got me started to think about whether I could one day go to a University of the same calibre.
This time when I read Feynman’s book, I wasn’t as much in awe of the great Universities or the amazing achievements he had (Not because they aren’t amazing, but because I already knew of them) but more so in awe of Feynman as a person. A person who truly had a great mind. A mind which was open, and always thinking. A mind for someone who could talk not only about why things are the way they are at a sub-atomic, heck a sub-neucleic level, but also talk about why things are the way they are in society, religion, culture and life.
Thought I cannot be certian of this now since I don’t remember well enough, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Feynman’s books that I read when I was an adolescent played a significant part in shaping my views on questioning everything and trying to learn as much as possible.
All I can say is for anyone who likes to think, you owe it to your mind to read Feynman. And to Richard Feynman - Thank you.