Monthly Archives: August 2007

Another interesting idea regarding cancer

Carcinoid tumors are malignant tumors (usually of the neuroendocrine system) that only rarely metastasize. Because they do not readily spread, many patients with them have good prognoses, either with surgical treatment or even in absence of treatment, despite the fact that chemotherapy is not usually effective on these tumors.

The intriguing question is why. Neuroendocrine tumors as a class tend to follow the pattern of poor response to chemotherapy and relative indolence, despite what appears to be going on histologically. If we could figure out the conditions that favor such a pattern, we could perhaps design more effective treatments for other types of malignancies as well.

Moon Song

I just did something very interesting as I was writing part of Moon Song, a composition I’ve been procrastinating for far too long on: as I wrote a fully harmonized theme for a section of the song (so the small training I received wasn’t useless after all!), I thought to insert a rather long introductory motif I had used on a whim.

It fit perfectly. No parallel intervals or anything, and it sounded great. Essentially, I had unconsciously (or accidentally, but that’s unlikely) written a counter-melody in the opening to the theme I was about to introduce (or wrote the theme around the opening) and then subconsciously knew exactly where to insert it. There are three remarkable things about this:

a. I’m working with about six harmonic voices in this particular measure.
b. I have no training in counterpoint.
c. This theme is about 10 measures long (at a very slow tempo, meaning this is nearly a minute of music).

Thus, I’m very surprised that this works. Unfortunately, this sets a very high standard for the rest of the piece, and I am now going to need to either put a lot more time into it or end it quickly 🙂

It is good to see progress.

Multiplexing displays on one piece of hardware

Now here’s an interesting idea, which struck me when I observed the reflection of my cursor in the bevel of my display: By combining two polarized sources of light on a display, it is possible for one display to be directly viewable on the screen, and another to be viewable in a reflection (Brewster angles). Arrange the mirrors properly, and we have a method of multiplexing a fully independent second display on one piece of hardware.

NetGear and ATI drivers

There are some hardware companies that can make really good pieces of hardware, but completely ruin any advantage that may give them because they can’t write decent drivers if their lives depended on it. Ok, so there are other companies that can’t figure out how to write Linux drivers for their products. Fine. I don’t like it, but I’ll accept it (and buy other products in the meantime, because I’m in Linux more often than not).

But at least make sure the Windows drivers work!

NetGear and ATI in particular are two “repeat offenders” that I doubt I’ll buy any more hardware from due to the poor quality of their drivers.

Temple University

Well, this is great. A quick search reveals that just about everyone coming out of Temple’s music program is writing atonal, or at best weakly tonal, music, which explains a lot of the pressure I’ve encountered (and resisted) to abandon the concepts of tonality. If I can’t write tonal music, I don’t want to write music at all.

Again, I am getting the feeling that I simply don’t belong in this school. I can’t study algorithms, I can’t study mathematics, and I can’t study tonal music composition. Of course, I could have studied all three at any of the schools I didn’t get into. Unfortunately, apparently only the ivies recognize the value of timeless instruction (more likely they just have enough prestige to get funding in even fields that are not “hot” at the moment). Everyone else just seems to want to chase after fads. The only consolation is that I am interested in biology as well, which is something I can study here for once.

Monmouth opened up possibilities, but all Temple has done is close them thus far.

Originality

Modern classical-style composers seem so focused on carving out an original style for themselves that they tend to leave aesthetics by the wayside. I can’t see the point of this; regardless of how original one’s music is, it will never be heard if people don’t want to listen to it.

I’ve suspected for a while that this is the reason that classical and popular music began to diverge in the early 20th century, smack in the middle of the Modernist period.

Filler

Why do I need to write 2-page (or longer, usually much longer) papers on ideas I can summarize in three words? For example, say I discovered a new Mersenne prime (not something I would waste my time on!) and wanted to publish a paper on it. What would it look like?

Well, the meat of the paper can be summarized in three words: “2^x-1 is prime”. However, you’d get some long treatise on what Mersenne primes are, how they were discovered, the connection with even perfect numbers, the current role of GIMPS, applications to cryptography, and future work (finding even larger primes, duh!) Somewhere about halfway through the paper, I’d mention that I found a new prime using those same three words (only after explaining how I set the software up, conducted the search, etc.) If I wrote another paper up on the same topic, I’d just spit out the same information again, but with different wording.

This is one of the root causes of problems in science today.

Unconscious aptitude is more natural

I’ve already figured out that unconscious aptitude is rarer than focused thought (and thus fortuitous), but not until this point did I realize that it might actually be the innate sort of intelligence!

While walking, I hypothesized that unconscious intelligence, the state I tend to prefer to very focused concentration (except when deeply involved in, say, a particularly fun math proof), is most likely a more natural form of intelligence that most people lose because they are conditioned to specialize (and thus must think – consciously – very hard about very narrow subjects, leaving no time, and eventually little will, for “free” contemplation). After all, most gifted people that I know tended to think that way until they reached college. It follows, then, that I retained my ability to think as I do quite definitely because I was never significantly challenged. That explains why I accomplished my greatest intellectual achievements outside of the context of formal education (with the exception of graduating with the highest GPA in my class, which wasn’t so much an achievement as a reward). The fact that I could achieve such things at such a young age simply served to reinforce the behavior, and thus now I can advance my understanding of many fields in parallel where the others I knew cannot. Their knowledge outside of their specializations ends at whatever proficiency they built it up to at the time they were teenagers, and by the time they revisit it again, it will be too late to master… but mine continues to grow.