I redesigned my portfolio. Feel free to let me know what you think of the new design.
http://michael.barnathan.name
I redesigned my portfolio. Feel free to let me know what you think of the new design.
http://michael.barnathan.name
My philosophy came up in an online discussion today. I decided to copy the explanation I gave:
Question:
Post #18
1 reply
“So basically, you believe there are ideas out there, and it’s just a matter of time before we discover them…
And so they are not original ideas, or ideas that we “create,” but instead truths that already exist that we simply discover and recombine according to our own principles.
So creativity, then, is making connections.
I wonder if an original idea could ever be “wrong”
Response:
Post #19
Essentially. It’s sort of like Platonic idealism, in that the things in the real world are simply combinations of some set of absolute concepts, such as “has branches”, “is green”, etc. Theoretically, if we had an infinite amount of time to do so, we could describe the entire universe in terms of how these ideas come together. (We don’t have an infinite amount of time, so what we get is “knowledge”: an approximation to the truth that becomes more and more accurate with time. Not just science, either; we’re also part of the universe, so the humanities and arts are just as valid. If you’re familiar with calculus, think integral vs. sum. They’re equivalent in the limit).
However, because we exist within the material world, the ideas also have a subjective component. Even though we can perceive the same ideas differently, our perceptions are still both true; it’s not as if we are seeing different “shadows on the cave wall”.
The example I like to use is a photo of a tree. Say we take two photographs of the same tree with different exposures. They’re going to appear differently, but that does not change the fact that they *are* (in an absolute sense) photos of the same tree. A person may or may not *identify* them as the same tree, however; this is where the subjectivity comes in. However, because the subjective component of an idea is not inferior to the absolute one, whether the response is “this is the same tree” or “this is not the same tree” is irrelevant; they’re both correct.
That’s actually the logical conclusion of this whole philosophy – there’s no such thing as an idea that’s truly wrong. Of course, how useful it is is still up for debate (though most people tend to be very bad at judging how useful an idea is; in general, people tend to underestimate). Even blatantly contradictory ideas such as “the sky is green” are useful because they allow us to refine our approximation of the truth by discarding inconsistencies.
Politicians are already up to some dirty tricks online, including phishing, spam mail with misleading information, and Joe jobs. This indicates to me that the first online election (and one will have to happen sooner or later) will be the end of democracy in this country, to be replaced by a society in which the person most able to hack the election wins.
In effect, a technocracy.
Politicians have been calling our house multiple times daily for the past month (of course, lying about the return phone number, as if this would somehow indicate that the person who is being promoted could be a responsible congressman who makes himself accessible to his constituents). I’m tired of this and at this point I really hate politicians as a group (something about power requires that one leaves one’s sense of decency at the door), so I decided to inject some noise into their survey. Not just random noise, though – noise that was planned to be as inconsistent as possible, thus having the maximum impact upon their model’s variance.
Thus we had “do you consider yourself democratic or republican?” (I don’t consider them opposites, myself) questions which were responded to as “Republican”, only to have questions such as “if you had to vote now, which party would you vote for?” as “democrat!”
I like screwing with politicans’ campaigns, since they invariably begin with interminable lying to the constituents and usually end in vicious mudslinging. One of these days, I’d really love someone who I could respect in power.
“Trends begin when someone does the impossible”.
In other words, you gain a following when you do something that no one else had even considered doing previously, either because it was too much effort, was seen as intractable, or just didn’t make sense to anyone before it was done.
I was looking for the reason trends began in the sciences; what finally allowed me to come to this realization wasn’t science at all, but was watching difficult problem solving trends among players in a game that I run. One player is invariably required to prove that solving a puzzle is possible at all, then the rest follow.
It’s a useful microcosm, and an example of what I like to call the principle of universality: you can derive nearly any idea from any area you choose, so long as you keep an open mind.
Reminiscent of my own reason for switching away from Fedora Linux, the forced separation of packages into repositories for different “versions” of the distribution is causing all sorts of havoc (or rather, preventing us from fixing this havoc) on our server at the lab.
Because I can’t use the official Redhat repositories to get the newest versions of packages, I’m forced to browse sites like rpmforge looking for them (or compile them myself from source). And forget about it if the package has dependencies!
A model like Gentoo’s is really much better, in the sense that there are no versions, just a continuous upgrade cycle which is always capable of supporting the newest packages.
If killing cancer cells off proves too difficult, undoing the process of malignant transformation and turning them back into benign tumor cells would still greatly reduce mortality from the disease.
I find it sort of pathetic that such little attention is being given to alternate immortality pathways in tumor cells. Come on, people! If you can subject the cells to aging, they will not divide indefinitely. If they do not divide indefinitely, they won’t survive very long. If tumors don’t survive very long, cancer no longer becomes a problem. Blocking telomerase is good (though there is some present in the body itself, especially in children, it is probably worth the tradeoff, and it would just be a temporary treatment measure anyway), but you need to block ALL of the ways cells have of circumventing the Hayflick limit.
Plus more telomerase research might dramatically extend the human lifespan, as we begin studying what is likely one major cause of aging. Not that I think we need even more people on the planet. If anything, we have too many already.
So let’s get some more people on it! It has to start with the funding, of course. Everyone follows the funding.
I’d help if I could, but I’m sort of… stuck.
It’s almost all self-study, but I have both a broad and deep knowledge of medicine. It’s an interesting field and one that I tend to absorb like a sponge. I can diagnose most diseases based on symptoms as well as any doctor. I know about protein regulation (it’s actually just a very complicated graph theory problem) and interaction. I can do gene sequencing, though I don’t think that would be a good area to put my skills to use. I can read most biology papers with ease. I easily know more about the diseases we study than any of the other computer scientists on the team, and I’ve occasionally surprised the biologists on our team as well. As a computer scientist in bioinformatics, I have an extensive ability to support my experiments with my own computational models. I have enough experience to read some types of medical images (though not nearly as well as a trained radiologist). And, as readers would see, I come up with all sorts of wacky treatment ideas both routinely and subconsciously, which means I’ll never run out of approaches.
SO SOMEBODY LET ME USE MY TALENT!
What I can’t do is use the equipment or get access to a lab. This is preventing me from doing experiments. I’m trying to find a bio course that will give me such access and enough training that I don’t blow stuff up or contaminate the lab’s cell lines, but this is Temple we’re talking about, not Polymath – I need to jump through more hoops than Shamu to enroll in a course outside of my major (OTOH, Temple is very well known in medicine; even more of a pity).
Maybe I care too much. I just hate being barred from the implementation of my ideas. Especially when I think those ideas are for the good of the very society that shuns them. I’m sometimes tempted to simply leave society on its own and go live the rest of my life on a farm somewhere, but I just can’t do it – I am going to create because I am the type that simply must create. It’s the “compulsion of ideas” that I speak of in my Treatise, but it’s of course a facet of one’s personality rather than the ideas themselves. Of course, I also argue that one’s perception of an idea forms the relative basis (as opposed to the absolute one) of the idea’s reality, so the compulsion is intrinsic to the combination of the idea and a receptive person in a sense.
Working on another classifier right now. This one needs to compare ROIs with individual codebooks. I’m not even sure we can meaningfully compare them, since the codeword indices don’t mean the same thing in different ROIs. I might need to use wavelets, which I had hoped to avoid. Tensor decomposition is the next step (and one I should get familiar with, because I’ll be working with it a lot in my dissertation).
I just keep getting older and the work keeps getting less exciting.
I’m going to continue my math research from where I left off soon as well. Maybe people would shut up about wondering how applicable a pure math result in number theory is if I make an attempt at proving GRH with it (Robin’s theorem lets me do that).
Probably not. Probably only if I solved it, which I probably can’t do with my current results, since my recurrence still fundamentally unrolls in accordance with the distribution of the primes that make up n. That never was the goal, though; I just like doing number theory. A lot.
age++
You’ve done something wrong when one of your variations on the Mister Softee theme ends up being this dark piece in C minor 🙂
The release, as usual, is slated for “when it’s done”, but I anticipate it being done over the next few weeks, depending on how much time I need to do my research, which takes priority.
I’m wondering whether it would be possible to get an organism to “learn” to attack cancer cells. I’m thinking that if we could sensitize a fast-evolving virus (such as an HIV virus that has been stripped of its traditional payload) to tumor antigen, we could create an “evolve or die” environment where the virus would either:
a. Completely die out (then just try it again until it works),
b. Become desensitized to whatever it’s supposed to be sensitive to (likely),
c. Modify its environment to reduce the presence of the target module (could be bad), or
d. Destroy the cells that are emitting it.
Obviously, the fourth choice is what we want. If we could engineer a virus that seeks out and lyses cancer cells like HIV does T-cells, we would have a treatment model whose versatility can match that of the cancer itself.
Obviously, we do not want the immune system interfering in this, so we would perhaps need to tailor the viral capsid to the patient or give the patient immunosuppressants while undergoing treatment.
One day I’ll get the chance to test these hypotheses, but they can only exist as ideas until I have access to biological training and equipment… and I am unbound from other people’s research needs.