3nd Thesis Group Meeting 21-09-07

Well this was the first class of project presentations. I was the first to present. this concluded in the decision to not be first anymore (we spent and hour and a half just talking about relating things...although relevant to others, they probably felt kind of bad.

The things that came up regarding my research:
* Claude Shannon - developer of computer and information theory:
transmitter->encoder--medium-->decoder->receiver
the feedback loop has information flowing between the receiver and the transmitter. At any stage there could be a noise interrupting the transmission.
* Artists get to play with noise, creating a whole new message to transmit.
* Charles Saunders Peirce - I can't pretend to fully understand what this American/Scientist meant in his theories. It divides the world to 3 (Triadic Relationship):
Firstness: qualities (colour), possibilities, present. React with no thought, senses.
Secondness: specifics, change, actions (caused by firstness). Forces working in opposite directions.
Thirdness: past, based on experience, generalities, prediction, pattern
This is an evolutionary theory/

* Gregory Bateson - information is a difference that makes a difference (in a world where everything is blue, the concept of blue is meaningless)

* Rupert Sheldrake

* digital::discontinuous / analog::continuous

* Who is the audience? interactive? viewer?
* What's my context? Am I creating art within the discussion of art? What makes it that?

* Bruno Latour and the A.N.T

2nd Thesis Group Meeting 14-09-07

We met with Joe again. Was alarming as usual and very interesting as well.

We went over the timeline, which is scary, but needs to be a motivation! I made my editable version on my documets thingy.

We talked about concept<->Process<->product relationship (hint: non linear :)).
The Final Proposal needs to include:
*What = concept
*Why = motivation - context
*Product = final output
*How = process to achieve output (includes the medium and the method)

Joe showed us Cmap, and we talked a little about concept mapping, to be followed up next week. I tried to download it to work with it, it's not working out so far.

I asked Joe for advice about choosing a Thesis Adviser. I thought of Chomsky, but I doubt that's gonna happen, so I started looking at PHD students in New York, of all Universities. I'll put a separate post with my findings later on. My self-deadline for Emailing someone is Sunday night.

Other things that came up:
Artflex: an online lexicon, recommended by Joe
Next week is the first round of presentation, and the dummy that I am, no project and all that, I volunteered to present. Whatever!

1st Thesis Writing Meeting with Clay Matlin 14-09-07

So this was the first time I had a meeting with Clay, we covered 2 subjects:

* The form of the original proposal (the one written in May). Conclusions drawn:
- My sentences (like every time I write, no matter which language) are too long. Add periods and restructure the sentences.
- Write with double spaces (I like this one)
- Making unclear "statements" only hurts my purpose. Expand on what I really mean when I talk about conceptual things.
- Some parts are just too "fast" of a read..slow them down, make more sense with details.

* Moving towards the Final Proposal. Todo for this weekend (due in a few hours!!):
- Historical, Theoretical and Cultural Context of all the different angles of research. Fill between 2-5 pages.

So that's it. And I'm very stuck with all this. Moving on this weekend took all my energy.

But I'll make it! I must!

1st Thesis Group Meeting 07-09-07

First meeting with Joe's group. We're a large group (14 people) with a lot of ideas between us.
We all presented our ideas briefly, and got some ideas, mainly off of Joe. This is what I got:
*Interface = any point of contact
*check out : "phenomenological"
*Stuart Hall
*Harvard researchers studying animal languages
*and English guy that claimed parrots can speak a language, not just a mimic
*Paul Ryan
*Ratzburger - body language
*Films to watch:
-"strange days"
-"brainstorm"
-"until the end of the world" (Vim Vanders)
*Book:
-"remediation" (Baruchin?)

Interesting things other people got:
- basecamp- calender utility (from wired)
- ong's hat

A relevant forum discussion.. 08-23-07...hebrew mainly

או! הנה מישהו שאפשר לשאול:ו רוקד עם שבלולים ו 18:37 | 23/08/07


אני רוצה הסבר במילים של בני-אדם, כדי להבין אחת ולתמיד:

מה זה "גישות אפיסטמולוגיות"?

כל פעם שאומרים לי משהו עם "אפיסטמולוגיה" בפנים אני מתערפל לגמרי. אםשר לבקש סיוע?

בשמחהו milindapanna ו 19:04 | 23/08/07

המונח אפיטמולוגיה מובנו בעצם תיאוריה של ידע. הוא מצביע על שאלות כגון מהו ידע? אילו סוגי ידע קיימים? מהו ידע תקף ומה מתקף אותו? מה ניתן (אם בכלל) לדעת? וכיצד ניתן לדעת? וכמובן - מי הוא זה שיודע?

מערכות ידע שונות יכולות להיות בהתאמה זו לזו ויכולות גם להתעמת זו עם זו. דוגמא קלה ובולטת יכולה להיות העימות בסוף המאה ה 16 ותחילת ה 17 על מיקום הארץ ביחס לשמש (הליוצנטריזם): בעבור מערכת הידע הדתית הדבר לא היה בגדר האפשר וגרר איסורים ומאסרים. בעבור מי שגרס שידע תקף מגיע מהתבוננות ולא מכתבי הקודש (או שאלה סוגי ידע שונים) - זה היה ידע תקף.

עזר במשהו?

כן! תודה רבה! עכשיו אני יודע!ו רוקד עם שבלולים ו 21:01 | 23/08/07

Gamaniו calimero and friends ו 05:05 | 24/08/07

I got a question about how historically people accept or deny knowledge..
The process you described is a change between "we know cause 'god' told us" to "we know because we see". But it seems to my under educated opinion that the whole relying on senses business isn't the way knowledge is related to anymore.. as if there was an acceptance of the subjectivity of the senses... is that completely off? are there names to those periods of development of perceiving knowledge?

Hope my question isn't too odd.. this is actually relevant to my undeclared research.

הסתייגות קטנהו ק ו ס ם ו 09:00 | 24/08/07


כשמדברים על זה שהחושים שלנו כבר לא משמשים כהוכחה, מתכוונים לרוב שיכול להיות שמה שאנחנו רואים או שומעים לא בהכרח מייצג את המציאו. אבל אלו רק חושים ישירים שלנו. כשאנחנו מסיקים על קיומם של קווארקים או מקבלים את תורת היחסות, אנחנו גם למעשה משתמשים בחושים שלנו, אבל בדרך מתוחכמת יותר. הלוגיקה שלנו והמציאות שאנחנו תופשים מוגבלת לעצם היותנו בני אדם. יתכן שיש מציאות אחרת שאין לנו שום דרך לראות אותה ישירות או להסיק על קיומה אבל היא עדיין שם בחוץ.

How aboutו calimero and friends ו 16:14 | 24/08/07

The relativity of the sensual experience? and the limitation of the use of language to communicate that experience? Do those have an effect on the concept of "know" and the concept of "true" at all?

מכירה פוסטמודרניזם?ו milindapanna ו 18:05 | 24/08/07

well, yeahו calimero and friends ו 18:27 | 24/08/07

But mainly from the art aspect unfortunately
I am curious about how these philosophies change in other fields, that
are maybe a little better defined

I am looking into it lately, but it is interesting to talk about it with people from other fields

וודאיו ק ו ס ם ו 20:36 | 24/08/07


מה שמעבר לחושים האנושיים שלנו יכול להתקיים, רק שאין לנו יכולת להכיר בזה. לכן מציאות מבחינה פילוסופית היא משהו גמיש.

אלוהים לא משחק בקוביות, נכון? ו milindapanna ו 17:56 | 24/08/07

כולנו מכירים את האמרה הזו, והיא מייצגת בדיוק קונפליקט בין שתי מערכות ידע שכאלה: מחד תפיסה שלא מקבלת שהכל אקראי, ומאידך נתונים של ניסויים שמצביעים על כך שהכל אקראי. (אני מקצין בכוונה) לזרוק את הניסוי הקוונטי או לזרוק את אלוהים?

בקוונטים לצופה (או כלי המדידה) השפעה על הניסוי. איך עובדים עם זה? שוב, יש כאן שאלות אפיסטמולוגיות עמוקות מאוד.

בכל מקרה, לא מדובר בתהליך לינארי חד ומובנה שבו אנשים עוברים ממצב ידע אחד לאחר או באיזושהי התקדמות בלתי פוסקת למטרה כלשהי. גם היום אנחנו רואים לצד מדע מאוד חדשני רעיונות דתיים שצוברים תאוצה (באמריקה כמובן).

לגבי החושים - לא בטוח שהבנתי את השאלה מעבר למה שעבר ענו לך כאן... רוצה להסביר/לפרט/לנמק?

a way too long answer about what I mean..ו calimero and friends ו 18:55 | 24/08/07

About the senses and all that

well, like I said before my thoughts come from the direction of art (cause any knowledge I might have, thats where I got it)
So I am interested in the way people communicate what they (for example) see and what that does to them (the experience following the sensual input) and the way the language is mis-representing these senses

anyhow..to do that, a lot had to happen so that people realize that sensual input is not objective and absolute , so I am sort of curious about the epistemological side of this process (on the other directions I am trying to find out how and why language "happened" and maybe also how science and math "happened" ... describing other thing. Epistemology is (I think) the base to all those questions... and I know there are already answers to those, I just am so not an academic person, I need 3 times the amount of time and effort to do this research.

It's all a big mess right now... I hope by the time its do as an actual thesis proposal this will look more coherent.

מעבר למה שענו לך פהו ק ו ס ם ו 08:55 | 24/08/07


מדובר בתורת ההכרה. איך אנשים משתכנעים שמשהו נכון ומכירים בזה כעובדה מדעית? כמובן שהגישות השתנו קיצונית לאורך השנים. פעם, מה שהיית רואה בעיניים נחשב לידע, היום עם התיחכום של המדע, יש הרבה דברים שאנחנו יודעים ומכירים בהם בתור מציאות גם אם לעולם לא נראה אותם בעיניים שלנו. זה יכול להיות אטום בפיסיקה או איזה משתנה לטנטי בפסיכולוגיה. לרוב בכל דיסיפלינה, יש הסכמה פחות או יותר על "החוקים" שבהם משתמשים. הבעיות מתחילות כשאנשים מתחומים שונים מתדיינים ולא מסכימים על איך אוספים את הידע, מה הוא אומר וכו'. ראית דוגמא טובה לזה בימים האחרונים.

עוד משהו לגבי החושים -ו milindapanna ו 18:04 | 24/08/07

החשד בחושים איננו דבר חדש. העניין בחקר הקשר בין החושים לבין הפרשנות שמוענקת בראש לDATA שהם מכניסים אליו גם הוא עתיק. יתר על כן, בחלק מהמקומות, כמו שכולנו יודעים, החוזה החכם ביותר היה העיוור. ראייה טרנסנדנטית נחשבה לעתים יותר מראייה סטנדרטית. רעיונות של חיבור לאלים/אבות וכיוב' אפשרו השגת ידע (כלומר אפשרו לאנשים לחשוב שיש להם ידע תקף) לא פחות מראייה ממש.

התנגשות מעניינת בין מערכות ידע - עבורי כמובן - היא בדיוק כאשר אנשים מתחומים דומים לא מסכימים על הנחות היסוד.

Brain to Brain?

So..subway thoughts.
If a person is looking at a picture, has a microphone aim at his mouth and electrodes (gotta get on to that , it's just about that time) reading the visual input side of his brain.
He is looking at the picture describing it, and at the same time "transmitting" electrical pulses.
Another person is receiving the electrical pulses to the same area of the brain, pronouncing out what words describe what he is (feeling?) (seeing?) (sensing?).

Presenting the 2 lists one next to the other?

hmm?

Meeting with Ze'ev Klorfeld

SO there was saved post, but there isn't anymore.. so let's see what I remember:
So we talked about how the perception of everything, no just art, is switching around along the times from "generic->particular" to "particular->generic" and back. I'm writing all this in a very generic way cause Ze'ev is very hard to follow and it's been over a month!

He talked a lot about the effects it had on genetic research. In his class (hey, 3 years is a long time, and I don't have the notes!) he talked about visual culture effects too.

He mentioned Guy Deutcher's book (which I actually bought that day right before and am finding pretty soon, need to write a post about it) to discuss the origins of language (it's not quite about that, but maybe more towards the end, he'll get there)

Also he recommended reading a guy named Lakoff..I need to get on to that.

I wish I'd recorded that conversation. Party-time advising is the best. And I feel I missed a lot of it.

Meeting with shay'ke :)

Lots of talking, a lot of contradiction and questions, and some interesting exchanges. The one thing I don't know how I didn't consider it, althugh there are pros and cons. Maybe, instead of using the MRI fMRI thing, using electrodes, and getting direct electrical pulses from the brain (functions?!).
The price will be to almost completely give up on the visual step-by-step-ing the MRI thing gave me (visual image, visual dig-scan, visual brain-scan, non-interface processing and cisual output VS. visual image, electrical brain output (and then should have an electrical output from the computer) , non-interface processing and visual output).

I have loads of wikipedia pages to check out and some German and Israeli Brains to pick.

BRAINiac?? updating on todays thoughts

So. In Israel now. No work, nothing to do but think (and, you know..eat. And see some people..). My mom and I were talking "future", which made us eventually talk about school, and then thesis, and that made me make into words some stuff I was thinking about the brain stuff.. it's starting to be sort of cool. I am thinking, if this will end up being my direction- maybe do a good thourough research and a sort of Demo for the actual thesis projects thing and then maybe later on develop this more.

Alors..so far what I havea is this:

Since I already explained about the whole "language as a political communications interface" I won't write abou tit right now, but this is what I was sort of continuing here.

So I want to create a way for man and machine tocommunicate in a non-language based way. I already talked about brain scans vs. binary, so What I thought is to try and creat an experience based communication, for example to show an Image to a person, and do a brain scan (with the whole system of scanning with interavals (LOTS of figuring out left to do here!), and scan in the same image and save it on a machine, and have it translate to binary (figuring..out...wanna make it objective,so might put myself in trouble there). and then basically have a translation of the binary of the computer and the results of the brain scan converted (somehow, don't know, need to research if I go for this) to electrical pulses transmitted to the man/machine..

So we have a unique image interpretation that is language free..?! ugh. confusing. Maybe start just from one of them (man?!), transmit to the other and start a conversation, pulse based, and at the end(?!) of it make out bitmap images from the 01 transcript. Hmm..brain processing.



I'm loosing the political edge. Maybe I need to think about this some more (maybe...fer sure!!). Grrrr!

clarifications about language (rant alert!)

So there was a small jump that I didn't quite explain. Talking (well, typing..) about my ideas to Ms. Why, I realized that and am now here to rectify the situation.

In between all the ideas I was really trying to reach to the reason everything is eventually political. I know it is a lot about money, and that is the most common and contemporary reasons that make people create, well.. anything. But I have a feeling there is more than that..I mean, even before modern technology was around, It's not like politics didn't exist ,and its not like its existence was honest all the time. SO I had to figure out what was that interface..that was making us be political without knowing.

So my conclusion for now is that it's language. Forcing things into pre-thought of templates of verbal communication is a political act. I realize we don't really at this stage have much choice. To be able to communicate concepts like black and white we had to make a "thing" that is common to a large group of people. But maybe if more people were aware of those bounds..maybe it would make it difference. Maybe not every concept is meant to be communicated coherently, maybe the room for mistake is what will create honest communication that is independent of preconceived notions.

wow.. now my brain hurts.

So thats how i ended up thinking about pure b2b (brain to binary) communications. In the original thoughts I had some synesthesia ideas in there, I guess I tracked back a little bit into that, only maybe even bypassing the senses (damn those Germans and their MRI (fMRI??) making me think way way WAY beyond my abilities!)

ok enough for now.

mad mad me

So far I've discovered that the world is lucky I'm not smart enough to actually produce any of my ideas...I'd be the perfect mad scientist!

and today's recent idea

After meeting in Chicago 2 great German boys (aka Blondie and ScwullarFrosch) that do MRI development in levels way way way beyond my comprehension, I looked a little bit online at their stuff and tried to find some brain activities scan infromations, these are the thoughts i got form all this.
I was messing around with the idea of non-verbal communications between man and machine from a couple of ideas ago..sort of sense based or..Interfaceless communication, and I thought how cool it could be if you managed to map out thoughts and through motion detection software translate those into commands (or even simpler- like a button click) and then use something like muscle wire to get the output from the computer back to the human and keep reading those totally "natural" reactions (brain scan based motion detection on the human side and electricity on the machine side) to create a dialogue.

retrospective again...I'm not updating fast enough!

So talking to Genius, I changed the idea again..it was maybe a month ago.
So really, I wanted to make a more obvious stand. I want to show how every choice we make, technological more than others- is political.
Tech companies get funding very often from the government, because their products are being used to support the current administration's budget choices.

anyhow..the way I want to make this come through is by finding out which companies get those kind of fundings (no idea really how im gonna do that...remains to be seen..) and re-creating their products in a way that when a user is turning somehting on (or pushing a button) a certain amount (not too big) of pain will be inflicted on the user (little zaps, blindingish lights, bad sounds, tightning muscle wire..i dont know).

That way- made to put an emphasis on the price someone is paying everytime we push a button.