16 posts tagged “personal”

I've been trying to find good free music recently to bulk up my collection. I can find some half way decent industrial metal and the likes but am struggling with one area.

Part of the problem is I'm not entirely sure how to classify it. The closest I can come is "dark ambient", but whenever I try and find dark ambient music I come across a lot of electronic stuff which isn't really what I want. What I like is something with a deep sense of emotion and strength, usually bought out through strings. Below are some good examples, if you have a better name for the genre, or know of any good free music that is similar please link me.

Justin Lassen
The McCarricks
American McGee's Alice Soundtrack

I've been trying to spec out my new computer. The constraints are that it should cost around £500 and be able to play Team Fortress 2 (estimated recommended settings of 2.4 GHz, 1gig RAM).

You can see my current musings on what it should be on this Google Docs Spreadsheet [spreadsheet.google.com]. If you have any comments on it they would be most appreciated.

I read this in the TV mag today:

9.00 Anatomy of Crime Documentary
       series. In tonight's edition, a newly
       qualified driver hits a woman (S) 4451

I immediately pictured a man being handed his licence. To celebrate, he turns to the woman standing on his left and hits her.

It filled my little heart with job this morning to hear two people, complete strangers to each other, striking up a conversation on the bus seats behind me as I travelled to college. I didn't have my music on me, and was trying to concentrate on something else so inevitably ended up hearing most of their conversations (distracting me from what I was thinking about).

It turned out that one was from somewhere in Africa and the other from India. I guess British people wouldn't be that friendly.

Amir over at amix [amix.dk] has released a new task management site called Todoist [todoist.com].

It's not without it's quirks, but it is quite usable. Very usable in fact. The emphasis is on a clean, easy to use but feature full interface. It uses a lot of AJAX to make it all shiny and Web 2.0, much like our own Vox here. It is a pleasure to use, making it easy to maintain lists of things to do without any heavy calanders and clutter to get in your way.

It's still in the early stages, so if find any bugs post them on his blog [amix.dk], or just drop him a comment to let him know you like it.

By a strange coincidence one of my friends has recently been harping on about free will shortly after I had been thinking about the very same subject. Perhaps it was something in the water, or subliminal messages via the TV. Come to think of it, it was actually a few months apart and not really that surprising. Never mind.

But despite coming up a few times, no one yet has been able to answer my question or even come close. If free will does exist, how does it work? If I make the decision to turn left or right, and that decision is not determined by a product of my current state and the environment, where did that decision come from?

If you’re confused, perhaps you will permit me to humour you with a more detailed, hopefully simplified explanation. I’ll go through it quite slowly just to make sure we are all on the same page and using the same definitions.

Removing yourself from the context for a moment, consider being given the following list of numbers and asked to find a pattern:

55, 15, 54, 30, 86, 75, 82, 34, 18, 41

You would probably come to the conclusion that they were random. They are, however, derived from the following formula:

floor((tan i² - floor(tan i²)) * 100)

Where floor returns the integer value of the input (10.54 = 10, 9.3 = 9 etc.) and i is the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}

The numbers appear random at first because you do not know the underlying mechanism as to how they were created. Yet however often you put the set through the algorithm you will always get the same series of results.

This can be represented pictorially thusly:

Now choose a series of random numbers for yourself. Don’t try and be clever, just pluck them out of the air. Here’s mine that I’ll use in my illustrations, but you can replace these with your own whenever you read them:

10, 15, 26, 91, 14, 62, 25, 78, 43, 56

We can adapt the diagram we used above to represent this new situation:

 

We are concerned for now only with what is in that box with the question mark. Not why, or any other philosophical style arguments. Simply, for now, with what.

In order to do this we have to make the assumption that it can indeed be represented by a function. This function may include elements of free will, it may be filled completely with free will, but even the uncertainty of free will can be incorporated into this broad concept of a function – an input produces an output, a question prompts an answer, a snide comment triggers a retort, a predicament produces a choice etc.

The deterministic theory, as is my understanding of it, states that this middle box is a function of the current state of the person and the environment.

“Current state” isn’t a technical term, but it is one that I feel adequately sums up what I mean. “Current state” is the personality of the person, the mood they are in at the time, whether they are in pain etc. It incorporates their brain, their personality, aspects of their soul (if it is split from the mind), how they are likely to react to situations, all of that.

The environment represents all the external influences, such as temperature, a fork in the road, who is present etc.

If you are still slightly unsure, let me clarify with an example. The environment consists of my friend. It also consists of the fact he has just insulted me. My current state is that I am a person prone to violence¹, I am in a bad mood because I’ve had a bad day and that my friend has been annoying me muchly of late. These two factors, the environment and my current state, leads me to hit my friend.

The determinist philosophy can be extended further though. How does the current state arise? What determines the current state? Ignoring questions about the origins of the universe, let’s go back to when I was born. My current state started when I was conceived, when my genetics were determined. Shortly after that factors such as the environment in my mother’s womb start to affect how I develop. There has been much medical research to suggest what your mother does while she was pregnant with you has a large effect on how you develop. Exactly how these environmental factors effects me is again determined by my current state, traceable ultimately back to genetics.

Fast-forward back to the violent encounter with my friend. The fact that I punch him has an effect on his environment, and will affect what he does next. Most likely deal with the pain then get back at me somehow, verbally or physically. But of course, how he reacts is defined not only by the fact I punched him (his environment), but by his current state (what he thinks about me, is he a violent person etc.). In this way you can see how our actions affect the environment, and ultimately the decisions of others.

But it doesn’t just have an effect on him. It also has an effect on me. It may lead to me feeling relieved, it may justify the outburst in my head and condition me to react violently more often, or it may make me feel guilty and thus begin to apologise. Again, just how it affects me is determined by my personality, or more generally my current state.

We can, then, extend our diagram to include this concept along with the feedback loop:

The outcome of the decision effects both the environment and the current state of the person, meaning that even if the same input was given, i.e. “Chose some random numbers”, the output wouldn’t necessarily be the same.

The determinist theory extends this rather obvious higher level of determinism down to the base level of biochemistry. Our neurons follow physical laws, and thus can be turned into a function that will always give the same output for a given input.

Now to come back to my question. If free will is involved somewhere in the process, the idea that the function will not always give the same output for a given input, what determines what the output actually is? If it is the personality, or the soul, how is that personality or soul developed? Surely going down that road drags us back to determinism?

As far as I can see it, the only other explanation is that there is an element of complete randomness, perhaps derived from quantum physics or some other element. But then, is free will not just the gods throwing dice to determine our fate? This certainly isn’t the same definition of free will as used by many, I am still in no more control over the outcome of my decisions than in determinism, indeed it would seem even less.

All this has possibly interesting implications in accountability and law. If what I do is not my choice, but is determined by the environment, why should I be punished? It’s not my fault. However, as I see it, it should not change how we punish people, only how we perceive them.

If a person does something wrong we should pity them because society, their parents, their friends and their genetics made them that way. But should we punish them for their ills? Of course we should. How else would we keep order within society? It is the deterrent of punishment, of the repercussions that keeps me on the straight and narrow. I don’t actually punch my friends (that was just an illustration) because I would get into trouble and because they would retaliate.

Prison isn’t a punishment; it hasn’t been for a long time (or at least shouldn’t have been). It is a deterrent and a correction centre. It is a mechanism for us to keep society on track and not running amok.

One area that it does have serious implications, however, is religion. Take, for instance, the Christian faith. In order to get eternal life in heaven rather than in hell I must make the decision to accept that Jesus is my saviour and that he died for my sins. Some arrive at this decision by careful deliberation; some have grown up in an environment that teaches this, while others have had miraculous experiences. But what about all those people who haven’t had that extra bit of push that leads to that epiphany? Is it fair that just because the environment hasn’t yielded the right conditions for them to be able to make that step of faith that they must be condemned to a Godless life? I know I’m placing human ideas of fairness onto a spiritual idea, but it’s certainly one to think about.

 

1 I don’t consider myself a violent person, and I very rarely hit people. This is just for the purpose of the illustration.

It’s struck me of late that, glorious as it is, the English language fails when it comes to love, or more precisely love’s different forms. There have been many times recently when I’ve needed to say “I really care for you”, or even “I care more deeply for you than anyone else, ever”, but I’ve not wanted to say love because of the slightly deeper connotations of “the perfect partner” and “the one I’m sure I want to spend the rest of my life with”.

But then, if I can’t use the word love what can I use? When they are upset and crying and I want to reassure them how do I tell them that they are the most special person in the world to me? How do I show my affection in our parting greeting? I can’t say loudly “I love you”, so what can I say? By the time I’ve yelled “I really care for you, more than anyone else, you are so special to me!” I’d be hopping down the road after the bus.

I remember a children’s TV program, I forget what it is called. I think it was on ITV and featured a family in their kitchen that had been jettisoned into space. Anyway, it featured a family and some humanoid aliens who obviously weren’t entirely up to speed on human culture. One of the male aliens had decided he had fallen for one of the family’s eldest daughters. He knew it wasn’t love, it was merely a passing crush, but he didn’t know what to call it. He realised that he “quite liked” her, and thus he had “fallen in quite like” with her. As humorous as it is, it highlights the lack of facilities our language provides for describing our feelings for someone.

And then there are friends. There are a lot of friends I can safely say that I love without getting into a tricky situation. It is understood love is meant in a platonic manner and just symbolises my care and connection to them as a friend. However, there are, perhaps unfairly, a few friends I wouldn’t say that too. Again, it may be unfair to say so but I do worry about how they may perceive such a statement. I know for a lot of people if they said it to me it would play in my mind when it was a perfectly innocent comment, so why should I allow it to play on their mind? But then, the problem comes again with how to express my platonic feelings for them.

Of course, I am also worried that if I continually spout the word love around when talking to my friends it will begin to lose meaning. The more I say I love my friend the less special the word is when I wake up next to my wife in years to come.

There are other languages, perhaps with roots more passionate than ours some people may say, that do have different words for different kinds of love. Loving cheese is not the same as loving a friend, and loving a friend is not the same as loving a partner, and indeed loving a partner is not the same as loving a spouse. I’d like to be able to have different words when talking about them, just so that my girlfriend doesn’t think she is on a par with a lump of cheese.

I predict a few people will be asking me what I got for Christmas, so in true lazy fashion I am going to put it all in a post and then link people to it.

So, what did I get? In no particular order:

• I got Paint Shop Pro X, so now I'm fairly certain everything other than the music on my PC is legal. I used PSP a lot for general image editing. Thanks Mum and Dad.

• All 4 Series of A Bit of Fry and Laurie, which is just fantastic. Now to find a time to watch it all. Thanks Nan, Grandad, Aunty Dee, Uncle Mark, Matthew and Michaela.

• The Book of General Ignorance [amazon.co.uk], which has proved to be most fascinating. Thanks Aunty Sarah, Andy, Poppy and Rosie.

• The Sound of Laughter and a very funky scarf. The middle are grey stripes, but the ends are rainbow stripes. I've not read any of the book yet. Thanks Granny and Grandad.

• Series 3 of Spooks to append to my current collection. Thanks Chris and Sian. Which is funny, because I got them Series 1.

• Alice in Wonderland [amazon.co.uk] illustrated by Greg Hilderbrandt. Beautiful illustrations. I saw it in Brighton and promptly noted down the ISBN. Thanks Aunty Mary, Uncle Neil, Nathan and Fay.

• Money for The Ship. A great game. Thank you Nanny and Grandad.

• A very cool mug with a chicken on it. My parents got mugs too, but we keep forgetting to use them. Thanks Uncle Alan, Aunty Alison, Oliver, Alex and Verity.

• The IT Crowd on DVD. Thanks Julian.

• A very cool Dot-to-dot book. I've already completed and coloured one in. It was a boat. Thanks Emily.

If you're interested in how the actual day was, then ask me in person (or I.M. Feel free to add me). Experiences are better done in person. Besides, I want to know how yours went.

All in all, a pretty good haul.

So I’m back and very tired after a 4½ hour car journey to York each way. Why? For an interview at the university no less.

My father and I arose at 5am to begin the long journey, which was about an hour shorter than expected on account of low traffic at such a ridiculous hour. I enjoy travelling with my father; we got to talk about all sorts, especially on the way home.

The university itself is very nice, a bit bare in the winter but by no means ugly. The department and course seem very impressive, receiving a 5/6* rating for research and “Excellent” rating for teaching. Even the graffiti in the toilets were maths based:

I’d really love to go there, if I get in. If I get in.

Part of the day was dedicated to interviews. As you can guess from my negativity, I don’t think it went terribly well.

First off, from my limited knowledge of names I was expecting a middle aged Asian woman, only to be confronted with an eastern European man. The accent barrier proved to be less pervasive than I had initially expected, however.

He asked me some questions, why I wanted to go to York, why Computer Science, which I answered...adequately. He then proceeded to ask what sort of programs I had previously written. I naively started from the beginning and listed the odd example as I went through. However, he stopped me before I had a chance to get to the more interesting projects I’m working on at the moment, which resemble much more the sort of things I will be doing at university.

He then gave me a couple of tasks to try and solve. The first was to swap around two numerical variables. My initial reaction, being the only way I have been taught and have ever known, was to use a temp variable. In fact, with numerical values, it is possible to do it without a temp variable. After a quick prompt I figured out the answer in about a minute or so (my nervousness making me doubt my answer, so spending about half that time double checking).

The second was a well known problem. In a theoretical situation, if you tie a piece of rope around the earth, and then slacken off about 3m and stretch the noose taught, will a person be able to walk underneath it?

If you’re interested, below is the solution. As you can see, you can eventually factor it out so you don’t actually need to know the radius of the earth. However, I completely blanked at this point and couldn’t remember, despite several hints, what you were meant to do next.

Still, it could be all right. I’ve got okay predicted grades, and I suppose the interview wasn’t that bad. One can only hope.