So the quarter finally ended, and I can get back to having a social life over the holidays!

The compiler that I wrote was, in my personal opinion, a pathetic failure. Though we were able to generate some x86_64 code that actually ran (given a bootstrapping program), it would crash on certain valid inputs. We were also unable to handle arrays properly; our calling convention was a nightmare (I now heartily recommend going with proven standards, rather than trying to come up with one yourself); and our register allocator was basically non-existent (it just spilled everything, assigning all ssa values to their own slot, and never re-using slots). On the positive side, it was able to do factorial, and towers of hanoi, so we nailed recursion!

The TA’ing gig was wonderful. I had great fun teaching the kids concepts, tricks, ways of thinking. It was my first time, so I occasionally gave away answers in my eagerness to explain, but overall I think I did a reasonable job. Some of the kids regularly came to my office hours, and thanked me for helping them pass the class (which felt really wonderful, I made a difference!) I ended up loving the TA work so much that I even let it take time from some of my other obligations (research, and my own classwork).

Given my experience, there’s one big thing that I’d change in the current system: I’d make discussion sections mandatory, and limit their size to about 10. This would make discussion an actual discussion, rather than just another lecture. I think the discussion sections should encourage the design aspects of the homework/projects. That is, we all gather round the table, and whiteboard a design. One of the things that I noticed in grading the programming assignments was that our students are sometimes really creative in their solutions (and not always in a good way). I think that we probably do a poor job of teaching design, because there isn’t really a quantitative scale that can be used to measure how good a design is. So, they need to practice for an hour each week, offer each other design options, constructively criticize by identifying holes in each other’s attempts (with guidance from the TA), until a satisfactory solution is converged upon. I don’t think our current system quite has the resources to do this though.

I still don’t get too much of a break though: I’d like to re-do the compiler, this time with a better design; I need to catch up on some neglected research; and I want to play around with Google’s new language Go.

Today I stumbled across a somewhat recent post by Luskin of the infamous Discovery Institute. Luskin observes some comments made by Eugenie Scott, in regard to how scientists should portray their results, so as not to be pounced upon by the creationists. He accuses Scott of instructing scientists to “spin it [changes in science] positively and never acknowledge they were wrong”. Worse, he concludes with:

When scientists in a field are instructed to avoid publicly admiting when they’re wrong, and are advised that improving the public’s perception of science is not best served by doing better science, then you know that field is steeped in intolerance towards dissent, and political pressure to give assent to orthodoxy. These are not the signs of a healthy science.

Which, while technically an accurate statement, is very misleading in this context. When we look at what Scott actually said, she’s effectively counseling scientists to be careful about their phrasing. Importantly, those working in evolution should avoid hyperbole about their discoveries. She wants scientists to be aware of the following problem:

So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?

Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.

So, Luskin (and other creationists) are actually responsible for Eugenie’s reaction! They’ve been pouncing all over science, politicizing evolution with a “Teach the controversy” campaign and continuous whining about “being blacklisted from the journals”. They’ve been rejected from journals because they have no falsifiable claims, nor associated experiments; they then tried to push the creationism into schools, but were thrown out in the Scope’s Monkey Trial and again in Dover, Pennsylvania; and now they’ve jumped on an “equal-time in science classrooms” even though the comparison is akin to astrology vs astronomy.

This has really gone on for long enough that Eugenie feels she must remind scientists that:

What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?

Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it.

What should scientists and people who care about science do?

I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change … you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will … accept the science.

Though Luskin takes warps these comments to imply that science itself isn’t healthy, he should be reminded that the whole political situation is the fault of the creationists! They’ve got a strategic attack with the Wedge Document that’s mostly taken the scientific community by surprise. Then, when scientists make outrageous claims (like when New Scientist had a cover proclaiming Darwin was Wrong) the creationists blow it all out of proportion. That’s why Eugenie is recommending that scientists not try for these kinds of claims; it’s inaccurate and the distortion is too easily inflated by creationist cohorts.

So, Luskin, like all creationists before him, has once again reversed cause and effect and confused his premise and conclusion. It’s not that science is dogmatic because Scott has to encourage carefully worded discoveries; It’s that the political climate surrounding evolution has become so highly charged that it can no longer tolerate the hyperbole that scientists naturally inject into their claims to sell their importance to other scientists. And the entire problem was manufactured by the creationists! And Luskin continues to flame the distortion in his post that prompted this whole rant.

Oh, and one more thing: Any time that a creationist claims the Earth was created in 6,000 years, point them over to Yes, Millions of Years! and then ask who’s rejecting what evidence!

I recently watched this really nice video of a talk given by Andy Thomson at the American Atheists conference that briefly goes over some of the reasons Why We Belive in Gods.

If you don’t wish to watch the video, I’ve recorded the primary arguments below (or skip right to the last bullet for the big conclusion):

• Darwin gives us the only naturalistic explanation of how we’ve become who we are. Together with genetics, his theory can explain religion. Our brains have evolved, with piecemeal mechanisms, to solve problems of social interaction.
• We are risen apes, not fallen angels. As part of our collective development, our frontal lobes have rapidly expanded. Once the development of language and tools allowed us to conquer our physical environment, the most challenging aspect left, and what probably drove the expansion of our brains, was dealing each other.
• Religious ideas are the extraordinary use of everyday cognitions. They hijack the systems responsible for social cognition, agency detection, and precautionary reasoning. They are a by-product of mechanisms developed for other purposes. They can be characterized by ordinary constructs with slight alterations, and are an artifact of our ability to imagine alternative social worlds. They hijack these systems with super-normal stimuli.
• Decoupled cognition. We are able to think of conversations with others (past and future) while conducting one at the moment. We can imagine having a conversation with people we’ve never met, such as The President. In this way we can interact with unseen others. It’s but one step to continue talking to a loved one recently deceased, and one further small step to talking with a god.
• Hyperactive agency detection. All of us with mistake a shadow for a burglar, but never mistake a burglar for a shadow. We defaultly assume that agency is involved, filling in any gaps with intuitive reasoning.
• This leads us to Minimally counterintuitive world, which optimally compromise between the interesting and the expected, creating stories that are attention arresting and memorable. Jousha Trees can walk around, but only under a full moon. God is just a guy, he understands my language, etc. but he’s omni-present. These counterintuitive properties can be physical (omni-presense), biological (virgin birth), psychological (pray and talk to him even though he’s omnipotent). There is also the attribution of mental states: God feels angry, he’s a jealous god.
• We can see this in children, 5-mo old is startled when a box is able to move by itself. They know the difference between inanimate objects and people, they know about intelligent agency. They can also think about people’s mind without having to observe that person’s body. About 1/2 of 4 yr olds have imaginary friends. A story of a mouse eaten by an alligator results in negative responses about the mouse’s physical attributes: eating, drinking, etc. but positive responses for mental state: wanting, desiring, hoping, etc.
• So the Belief in some form of life apart from the body is the default setting of the human brain.
• Causal determinism and Purpose. We are also prone to attribute purpose and design where there is none: rivers are for floating boats. The easy way in which we find ourselves thinking of evolution as an intentional agent.
• All this means that we will naturally invent a god.
• Social Attachment. Distressed persons turn to a caretaker, this is absolutely necessary for early childhood development. We naturally take care of each other. This results in the assignment of God as the parental figure in our life is very, very difficult for a believer to give up, esp when encouraged to have “a personal relationship with Jesus”. We also fear loosing the love of those who share the belief, our parents, friends, community.
• Theory of Mind. We each read into others intentions and desires. We have dedicated systems to read and monitor eye gaze, and can reason about 212 complex and sophisticated emotional states from black and white pictures of only eyes. We can also reason about the state of knowledge of others. I think you think that I think that… to I believe, I believe that God wants… The use and appeal to God can help to keep us in social control: We both know that God wants…
• Neuroimaging. fMRI’s of brains taken while people are given statement about religion (God controls the world. God has views about marriage. etc..) All participants shared common regions of the brain for questions about religion. These were coincident with regions that process Theory of Mind, and Abstract Semantics and Imagery. The components of religious belief are served by well-known neural circuits which mediate evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions: Religiosity is integrated in the brain, and arises from the ordinary mechanisms used for social interaction.
• Death. Theory of Mind conflicts with the physical evidence that our loved one is dead, so we continue talking to them. This gives us Souls and continued life in heaven.
• Transference. We base new relationships on old ones, God replaces our natural father.
• Childhood credulity. Children naturally absorb all information from their environment, and don’t have appropriate bullshit filters. They cannot disbelieve what religious ideas they are fed.
• Deference to Authority. Stanly Miller showed that we are all capable of actions we wouldn’t ordinarily take if we are instructed to do so by an authority.
• Reciprocal Altruism. We all keep a ledger in our heads about who owes us and who we owe. Religion uses this: sacrifice now for a nice mansion in the afterlife.
• Romantic Love; natural Moral Feeling Systems recruited to ‘prove’ the existence of God; Altruistic punishment the willingness to punish social cheats at a cost to ourselves
• Empathy When we observe someone take an action, the corresponding neurons in our own mind activate in a mirror image. Religion hijacks this with images of Jesus’ suffering, to guilt us into belief and obligation.
• Rituals Demonstrate hard-to-fake signals of commitment, communicate our intentions, tie us together as part of a greater whole.
• Kin psychology priests=brothers, nuns=sisters, pope=holy father.
• He ends the talk with a discussion of the atheist agenda. Reviewing the Scopes and Dover trial, reminding the audience that our position in all court cases thus far has been that there is no conflict between Religion and Science. We now have enough evidence that we know this to be false. Our understanding of evolutionary cognitive neuroscience demonstrates this conflict. It won’t be long before this knowledge is important enough that it finds its way into a High School Textbook; resulting in litigation. Bring it on!

All of this really shows why it is so difficult for people to move from a position of religious belief to one of atheism. It also shows why logically dissecting the Biblical inconsistencies, and pouring over the mistakes in the ‘proofs’ of god’s existence is mostly futile. I hope that it also gives powerfully compelling evidence for Richard Dawkins’ assertion that ‘Religion is child abuse’. Fortunately, though, some of us, such as Dan Barker, grow to have doubts, and slowly drift away from religious belief. So the best strategy for atheists is to promote secular culture, continue to publicize our existence and to welcome converts from religion with open hearts.

In the end Religion will lose out because: Science can explain Religion, but Religion cannot explain Science.

I did an earlier post about finding a decentralized solution to the Cascade Failure problem. I was fortunate enough to explore this topic a bit more in depth by proposing it as my term project for the Distributed Systems class. It took between two and three weeks of work to write a paper and hack together a small simulator to test out some of my ideas.

Since this marks my first attempt at a paper, and I think the results came out rather weak, I’ll make some brief comments about the process. Because it was a class paper, I spent substantial space and time condensing the other papers on the topic. Studies on the topic are quite sparse, there were really only four such papers, all published later than 2000. So about half of my paper is devoted to repeating their models and observations, followed by an all-too-brief comparative analysis.

The next section introduces some arguments about why the decentralized approach might be doomed to failure. I actually set out with the complete opposite goal, I wanted to find a solution to the problem. But, after many shot-in-the-dark attempts at finding one, I went after an impossibility proof instead. It isn’t what I would really call a rigorous proof though, it’s much more intuitive and informal. But I hadn’t seen the argument made in any other papers, so if I claim a small contribution to the field, this would have to be it.

I actually did follow up the proof, with a section on the methodology for my simulation. I think I was much more detailed about the setup than any of the other researchers were about theirs. I tried, and failed, to repeat the observations of others; so I can’t claim any guarantees about the accuracy of my model and simulation. I tested several off-the-cuff first-shot attempts at what protocols might help alleviate or stall a cascade, with spectacularly poor results. Every protocol I tried was worse than doing nothing! In fact, far worse than doing nothing! Worse by a factor of 50–200! So after all that work, I just figured out some stuff that doesn’t solve the problem, and had to explain why.

I think the best part, though, is the suggestions for Future Work. I’ll probably always enjoy writing this part, because it’s nearly impossible for me to get through my work without thinking of other ways to do stuff, or more things to try out.

Basically, it takes forever to write a paper. And as far as the sciences go, the paper really is really only the tip of the iceberg in terms of effort. It summarizes and represents a substantial amount of effort in data, simulation, code, research, analysis, etc…

My specific gripes about what could be made easier:
• LaTeX gives pretty results, and is the de-facto standard for scientific publication, but it’s kludgy, hard to use, and has a high learning curve.
• There’s no decent and easy graphing/charting programs. So, it’s best to invest time into learning one. I had to write python scripts to parse and reduce my data anyway, so I used matplotlib.
• And there’s no such thing as a vector drawing package that beats drawing sketches on napkins. So conventional artists have nothing to fear. It took hours to find, learn to use, and finally produce, a silly little, nearly superfluous, 7-node graph.
• Network/Graph visualization tools are also scarce, so I had to write my own, just to double check that the simulation behaved properly. I didn’t mention any of this kind of effort in the paper though.

Anyway, go ahead and have a look at my paper: Cascade Failure in Distributed Networks

Today I decided to send the following email. Usually, when I do such things it doesn’t make any difference. But it still never hurts to try. We’ll see what becomes of my efforts this time.

Dear PZ Myers and richarddawkins.net,

I wanted the following to go personally to Richard Dawkins, but could not find his personal email through websearching (likely with very good reason). I’m uncertain wether he has the opportunity to read every mail sent to richarddawkins.net; So I humbly ask you to forward this (at your own discretion) to the Eminent Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Oh and feel welcome to post this communication publicly, in part or in full. (Comment feedback from either or both of Pharyngula and richarddawkins.net readers would likely be rather informative)

——-
Dear Darwin’s Rottweiler,

On several occasions I’ve heard you mention that you’d like to, or were considering writing a children’s book. I think that this is an astounding idea. I share your views that the uncritical acceptance of religion, and the assumed authority it has over moral issues poisons our culture, and threatens our social progress. I currently think that the primary reason for the perniciousness of religious belief is that it is crammed into the skulls of children before they’ve developed the capacity for critical thinking or other tools of intellectual defense. Children’s books that promulgate the values of the Enlightenment could very well be the best weaponry against religion that we have at our disposal. And it doesn’t even have to appear as an attack!

I would like very much to see a series of children’s books that propagate some of the allegorical tales in science. The stories could cover Newton’s Apple, Galileo and the Tower of Pisa, Friedrich Kekule and the Benzene Ouroboros, Eratosthenes and the Round Earth, Copernicus and Geo-Centrism, Archimedes and the Bathtub, Watson and Crick and their puzzle pieces, Einstein and the light-train, Alexander Fleming and his dirty dishes. Science is replete with heroes that should be celebrated for their hard and tireless brain-work; heroes that used their mind and reason to solve real-world problems; heroes that stood up against dogmatic authority. These stories should celebrate such individual efforts, acknowledge their personal sacrifices, and encourage children to become active participants in growing our collective knowledge. (We should also celebrate supporting roles, not exclusively heroes; since, realistically, that’s where most of us are positioned.)

In my mind many of these stories would be ideal for bedtime. I think it is more important to instill in children the values of science rather than its teachings. If society were to completely lose its scientific knowledge, a social structure that encourages well-thought-out dissent, evidence-based critique, and the importance of experimental repeatability, logic, reason, precision in communication, would be vitally important to regaining that knowledge. The methods of science are more important than the results of science; and children’s stories should draw upon this phenomenon, instilling values rather than dry facts. The very notion that by reason alone we can come to know more about the world and our position in it, is, to me, much more inspiring than anything religion has to offer. And I feel it is a moral obligation to communicate this innately human desire to our children, such that they might learn our methods early and be ably equipped to build upon our work as early as possible. To demonstrate through stories that the best, prooven and reliable method for getting ahead in life, is to use your mind for understanding what you observe around you.

There are so many children’s story books that focus on tales from the bible, that it’s time we created some competition. Most of these books tend to have an overtly moral tone to them; please make every effort to avoid that. Even children can tell when they are being preached to, and they grow to resent such condescension.

I’ve also noticed a wild cry among the populace that science education is faltering in America. I have personal experience that tells me technically minded parents are quite concerned about the current state of affairs, and already make efforts outside of the curriculum to inspire their children in the ways of science and math. Help give these families some tools to teach their children what the education system ignores. I eagerly look forward to any effort you make in this direction, and I’m sure that geek parents everywhere will rejoice in the marketplace once such materials appear.

Inspire them while they’re young!

PS. Thank you (both) for speaking your opinions about issues of religion, and raising our collective consciousness about its uncritical acceptance in our society.

Last week I had to attend an all day course for new TA’s (even though I won’t become a TA until at least next year). For lack of a better spot to record the notes I took during the class, I’ve decided to post them here. I actually really liked our instructor, David Kay.

• Encourage Participation

There are many ways to do this: throw out candy, or grade points for those who answer questions. Stare down the class until somebody pipes up. Complimenting those who ask questions. Using friendly body language to encourage interaction. Incorporating kinesthetic aspects into some lectures. Provide extra-credit assignments.

• Make Expectations Clear

Mechanize the way grades are calculated. Be precise in your communication, and try not to change the rules as you go along.

• Be Consistent in what you say and do

Don’t say one thing and do another. If you set out rules, stick to them.

• Respect Rules, but Don’t Worship Them

Sometimes rules need to be broken. For example: In a class that Kay had taken in high school the teacher removed 2 points if you forgot to put your name on any tests or assignments. He’d forgotten to do this once, and then found himself 1 point away from an A in the class. He argued that his letter grade in the class should not be dependent on something as trivial as remembering to put his name on some paper. The teacher agreed and bent the rules in his favor.

• Respect your Students

Respect their time and money, don’t read from the book (or slides) in class. Prepare your material and lessons. Don’t mock them when they ask questions.

• Mix it up, change pace and atmosphere

Pay attention to the audience, don’t let the fall asleep. There’s more than one way to communicate an idea, make use of alternative presentations. But be careful not to let lose sight of the instructional goal.

• Stay in touch with the audience

Don’t lecture at the blackboard, Don’t lecture in monotone. Keep eye contact with the audience.

• Pay attention to speaking time

Don’t hold your students after their scheduled allotment, they have busy lives.

• Share Enthusiasm

Attitude is contagious.

• Keep personal contact

Learn to pronounce your students names. Pay attention to their individual performance on assignments/projects/participation.

• Prepare

Check out the room a day or two before class. Make sure that any projectors or media equipment works as it should. Bring Dry-Erase markers. Show up early enough to clean the blackboard from the previous lecture.

• Make material Accessible

Illustrate stuff using real-world examples. Remember the Wason Selection Task which shows that some examples are better than others.

• Consider letting students lead the class

This encourages participation.

• Don’t Lie

If you don’t know the answer to a question, admit it. People can tell when they are being deceived, it hurts your credibility as an instructor, and undermines your authority.

• Follow-Up, Follow-Through

If a students asks a question, and you say you’ll look up the answer. Make sure to report your findings to the class next time. Stick to your promises.

• Feedback

Provide comments on assignments. Quizzes to check mastery of material. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.

• Evaluation

Look at alternative methods of evaluating results and responses. There’s a trade-off between the value of responses and the rate/number of them.

• Make use of instructional tools provided by your institution

Maintain a class website/forum. Provide handouts/lecture slides online. If you can record yourself lecturing, do it, and critique your use of “Umm… Uhh…” and other communication impediments.

• There are several learning styles/modalities, make use of them

Auditory vs Visual vs Kinesthetic. People remember 20% of what the see, 40% of what the see + hear, 75% of what they see + hear + do.

Remember that Kay has some tips on his website.

From Reasonable Deviations:
MIT has done a course titled Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey. Video lectures are available through OCW.

I’ve been ruminating on the subject of personal liberation/gratification/independence that comes as a result of the do-it-yourself attitude. With sites such as Instructables, magazines like MAKE, radical changes in class structure occurring at major universities and development in the third (rural) world, together with the ready availability of raw materials, all a person really needs to join in the hobby fun is a) the knowledge and b) the machines, oh and a healthy dose of time and commitment. But, because enthusiasm and creativity hinge on the network effect (the lone inventor is a myth), what’s really needed is a local Maker Shop/Hobby Shop/Fab Lab in which you can get everyone together.

Once you have such a gathering, how then do you generate a self-sustaining profit?

1. Provide education.
2. Provide a community-oriented repair/manufacture shop for one-off and custom items.
3. Host an online service for the fabrication of hobbiest stuff (custom pcb etching, machine mech parts, etc..)

Here, I’m going to address the Education aspect, because I think they’d be the easiest to convince as investors (esp. considering the proven success of Gershenfeld’s class). Besides, vocational training is an area in which the American Educational system is very weak.

Argument from Education:
• student must provide a short document sketching:
  • the general idea/product
  • step-by-step plan for construction
  • the list of materials/equipment
  • estimated amount of time needed and will be graded on the accuracy of said documents
    ( why this is a good thing: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html )
• student will build/construct/implement above project
• student will document the process and revise original documents accordingly
  (ex: note material substitutions and any schedule/procedure changes that occurred)
• student will produce a final document that contains:
  • actual list of materials used
  • actual procedure followed, with commentary about why (some results, and time spent on each step)
    (ex: we found that hard drive magnet were really difficult to remove from their backing because they were so brittle. In our experience, it was best to put one end of the backing in a vice, and bend the magnet assembly using a sturdy wrench. This causes the magnet to pop off into a cloth waiting to catch it. Only about 1 out of every 5 magnets broke using this method. <photo of magnet mounted in vice with cloth catch> )
  • other people should be able to follow the final document and reproduce the work (further examples of this kind of documentation can be seen on the instructables website)
  • most of the grade should center around the completeness of the final work, rather than the inaccuracy of initial docs some of the discrepancies will even be good: improv use of new methods based of materials available at the time
• there should also be a grading system for when student chooses to build something that another student had done, or something that the found instructions for online
• should probably also make it a policy that a mini training course needs to be completed for each machine (lathe, mill, cutter, …). The course can consist of a set of small projects that demonstrate how each part of the machine works ( should be completeable in less than a day (full day max) )

When I was in college, I once had this crazy notion of a half-derivative. We’d been taking nth-derivatives in physics, and I wondered “why stick to integers?”. Well, as it turned out, others had been there before me. At the time it looked like complete non-sense, and even now, if I had to start from scratch, I doubt I’d be able to generate a formal and operational definition from which you could actually calculate the thing. Last weekend I mentioned this this to my dad’s buddy Captain Smiley during my trip to San Diego for his change of command ceremony.

Also, during that trip I visited Wahrenbrocks Book House (a delightful 3 story used book store (that smells great!) with little piles of books on the old wooden staircase), and purchased a whole box of books (cost $180). Among the many books I purchased was Feynman’s Rainbow, which had this funny tale:

Feynman is answering Mlodinow’s question “Is it foolish to become mature?”

I’m not sure. But an important part of the creative process is play. At least for some scientists. It is hard to maintain as you get older. You get less playful. But you shouldn’t, of course.

I have a large number of entertaining mathematical type of problems, little worlds of this kind that I play in and that I work in from time to time. For example, I first heard about calculus when I was in high school and I saw the formula for the derivative of a function. And the second derivative, and the third… Then I noticed a pattern that worked for the nth derivative, no matter what the integer n was — one, two, three, and so forth.

But then I asked, what about a “half” derivative? I wanted an operation that when you do it to a function gives you a new function, and if you do it twice you get the ordinary first derivative of the function. Do you know that operation? I invented it when I was in high school. But I didn’t know how to calculate it in those days. I was only in high school, so I could only define it. I couldn’t compute anything. And I didn’t know how to do anything to check it or anything. I just defined it. Only later, when I was in the university, did I start over again. And I had a lot of fun with it. And found out that my original definition that I thought up in high school was right. It would work.

Then when I was in Los Alamos working on the atomic bomb, I saw some people doing a complicated equation. And I realized that the form they had corresponded to my half derivative. Well, I had invented a numerical operation for solving it, so I did it, and it worked. We checked it by doing it twice, which is just the ordinary derivative. So I did a nifty numerical method for solving their equation. Everything, well, not everything, but lots of fun stuff turns out to be useful. You just play it out.

So, alright, I’m no Feynman. Though I remember considering nth derivatives in high school (during my calculus class), I never actually performed them until we did it during physics class in college. And it was only then that I thought of the “half” derivative in the same definitional sense that Feynman did when he was in high school. I was never actually (still do not consider myself) capable of independently coming up with a useful operational definition that can actually be calculated.

Once a long time ago (2003) I took an English course to satisfy UCLA’s bureaucratic notions that I should have a ‘well-rounded’ education. As part of this course we read short stories, and were required to write a mini-essay each week about those readings. The grading system was arranged such that 1 of the grades on those essays was to be dropped, essentially we were given 1 freebie. About the middle of the course, I became rather tired of writing essays about short stories, and thought it would be more instructive to write a short story myself, and hand that in instead. (I was also feeling rebellious, and curiously wondered about how the graders would respond to this ‘daring creativity’). It was customary to receive last weeks graded essay in the TA session when we turn in this weeks homework. To my great amusement my paper was marked “see me after class”, whereupon I had a small discussion, and stated my reasons for rebellion, and ultimately caved in by agreeing that this was how I chose to use the freebie. My grade didn’t really suffer, but I was disappointed that the TA and teacher didn’t really seem to care that I’d tried my hand in creativity rather than analysis. So much for English majors caring about creativity.

During this process, I also learned that I’m not especially good at creative acts, my talents lie more in analysis, picking apart logical deductions and revealing the fallacies, or in applying work that others have already done to solve problem. This is why I’m a programmer, It’s a relatively well-defined task, and offers the constraints that I need to bounce off of during algorithmic construction. When presented with the much freer realm of linguistic expression of pure Ideas, I feel presented with too many choices and not enough of a formalism to help guide me towards the ‘optimal’ choice. I can construct when my world is made of Legos but not when made of clay.

Fortune is Fated.

Fusilli was painting a portion of the New Jersey coast, grand and with a truly beautiful sunrise; a masterpiece of Meaning, Purpose, and Form. Thousands used these docks everyday, loading and unloading ton after ton of raw cargo with giant skeletal cranes, while millions more depended on the efforts of this monotonous labor. None of this was reflected in the painting. In place of a fish carcass was rendered a glint of sunlight, the cargo ships were transformed into pastoral dinghies holding fisherman bronzed from the sun, the entirety of the docks were sunk into a deep blue ocean, rich with aquatic life. The New Jersey coast was replaced by something resembling the Ideal.

At the pinnacle of his career as an artiste, Fusilli’s work was compared to the grandmasters of the business, Da Vinci, Raphael, Rembrandt. He produced works of Beauty owned by financial tycoons but held in museums and frequented by the public. Through his renditions patrons caught a glimpse of Truth. The hidden meaning of their experience was communicated by still shape and color alone, an utterance beyond words.

As the sun made its slow path toward midmorning Fusilli realized that further painting would have to wait for another day, he had to prepare himself. Tonight he must make an appearance at an exhibition of his work hosted by the Guggenheim. Many fabulously wealthy capitalists and persuasively powerful art critics would be in attendance. His personal servant washed his brushes and stowed the canvas in the trunk, while he entered the limousine and reflected on the Beauty he had so far recorded.

As expected, the museum was populated by batty intellectuals, accompanied by their silenced mistresses adorned in the most expensive jewelery and precious gowns, in fervid discussion over the artwork. There were grand and eloquent speeches together with diminutive cocktail weenies. The artwork supported the walls and was gazed at in awe. When Fusilli finally arrived, having planned a fashionable entrance, he was much praised and fawned over. With people lauding him as he traversed the halls he waded to his favorite piece, The Grandure of New York.

He stood to gaze and appreciate the majestic power he had captured in this piece. So absorbed was his admiration that he became immune to all around him, without sound or movement he stared. It was a gigantic work, 10 feet high, it caught the Empire State as cleanly as an architectural landscape. With lofty cotton clouds and royal blue sky the building stood as a monument to mans constructive power. The windows, like mirrors, sublimely reflected the surround structures as if they were made of Oriental porcelain.

Slowly, Fusilli came back to reality, and in so doing became aware of snappy conversation near him. An elderly man, bedecked in ordinary tuxedo, enhanced with a crimson rose that was mirrored by impeccably shined pearl black shoes. His aged face held noble austerity with twinkling eyes framed behind gold rimmed glass, which spoke more of his vast wealth that the old fashioned silk top hat. He was nonetheless enjoying himself in heated conversation with some creature left vilely garbed in a raincoat. Though young, his eyes lacked the sparkle of the old mans, and were kept hidden as he refused to speak in any forthright manner. His shoes were beaten and ragged, his hat an ordinary bowler. Indeed, having dressed minimally for the occasion, his entire demeanor seemed to subversively seek out and destroy all the pretensions of fashion.

“But don’t you see what is behind the painting?” cried the gentleman.

Curtly, and with no attempt to look deeper, the truant replied, “Impossible, the painting covers it up.”

Fusilli had to put a stop to this conversation. This man’s view was dangerous. Ideas like that could infect the entire art community. They’d stop funding his work, he’d be destitute once again. Oh! How hard it was to appreciate Form and Beauty when only he could see it. Bitterly, he remembered the hunger that ate him alive as he sacrificed food for canvas and paint. He must stop this foreigner.

“But the Beauty, It is real!! I captured it for you to look at,” Fusilli tried in vain to tell the man.

“All you did was put some color on some matte, and not very well at that.”

Pleading hopefully, “You see the Form, though, behind the work. Its Meaning and Purpose?”

“If by form you mean the blobs of color, yes. But meaning and purpose, there is none. Not in anything. You haven’t even painted the real thing. We’re in New York, it looks nothing like that.”

This man was obviously stubborn. He wouldn’t be swayed by visual appeals to the idealistic, nor would he listen to statements of the Divine. Fusilli needed desperately to convince this critic. “I was on an observation deck when I painted this, And this is what I saw. I painted Life: the Air that gives it breath, the Water that quenches its thirst, the Fire that ignites passion, and the Earth that supports us all. Can’t you see the Divine?”

Cold-heartedly, came the crushing response. “You painted a fantasy, a delusion in your mind, though shared by many. You have painted the Maya. That is no skill; to paint what you think you see.” The cloaked man turned and left. Walked slowly away with the burdened footsteps of Atlas.

Fusilli with tears in his eyes, on bent knees, his World being taken away called out “I painted Beauty!! I painted Beauty!!” while other critics and investors eyed each other knowingly.