Forms and functions

Biological forms, 
are they angels or are they not?
their designs and geometries -
are these the nature's best creation
or are these not?

Countless questions like these exist,
but what's most profound to me is
how form and function exist together -
since
no form exists without a function, 
and no function exists without a cause.

It is often the case that
"why" questions in biology are hard,
much harder than black holes or quantum gravity,
or the most notorious unsolved conjecture in maths -
not because they are harder to address
but rather that
myriad of answers can exist
and yet remain incomplete.

For example,
why are two budding lovers attracted to one another?
how do these life forms flex and mold in each other's ways?
The function is obvious but what drives the attraction?
Does physiological synchrony drives the "gut feeling" or the other way round?
The answer can be convoluted and complex, or even inaccessible.

Consider the case of a white-spotted male pufferfish
which carves complex and perfect geometric circles on a seabed 
to attract female fish as part of courtship rituals.
How has this genius mathematical ability evolved to its current form -
never would the greatest artist of the sea tell us -
perhaps it's futile to ask an artist about root of their creations.

Many questions of growth (function) and forms
dazzled Darcy Thompson, the pioneer of mathematical biology,
who took diverse living forms - tissues, trees, animals, plants,
and expressed their beauty in geometry conforming to their forms,
and explained their function with physics - just Newtonian physics.

And yet we are nowhere near understanding nature's intelligent design -
perhaps we never will be, because of confines of our cognition -
similar to how we can't "orchestrate" a feeling for a person,
maybe we can't "orchestrate" (enhance) our intelligence.
All we can do is live within our cognitive confines,
and instead of duplicating or engineering artificial forms,
just revel in nature's magnificent and geometrical perfections -
as to why elegant equations exist atop an abstract arena - no one would ever know.

Emotions and social dynamics - part 1

It's about how emotions drive humans,
romantic feelings bring two bodies together -
a tug of war, push and pull, push and pull.
What's in control? What's not in control?
No one is sure.
But such a transcendental feeling drives humans -
marriages, kids, families do happen.
Networks form, of friends and of families -
all arising from this 2-body feeling problem,
if you want to call this a problem.

It surely is a problem, 
if it connects to the bigger picture
and presents one the whole picture.

Some propositions on movies as arts+philosophy medium

1. Movie is a medium for author to express an emotion intensely.

2. Minimilastically, one intense emotion throughout movie is enough to convey its wholeness.

3. The medium itself poses challenge in communicating author's emotion to the viewer, because of  inherent gap between the two. 

4. Such an inherent gap can be fulfilled through using movie to convey an emotion very rich artistically, and also deep down with philosophical troubles.

5. A modern movie narrative has a forced, non-linear combination of images with a logical connection in between the jumbled up parts.

6. Tarkovsky's technique is one step ahead, to reduce the logical context of image, add a metaphorical element, heighten that element with background sound and long-takes where the focus on poetic element becomes apparent and loosely coming out of the image. 

7. While this technique is close to a poetry, and this movie can become most closest to a philosophical poetry as the poetic artistic element is very strong, the philsophical element is confounded because of the characters or symbols raising questions in the mind of viewers.

8. While raising questions is required, using characters and symbols both have problems. 

9. The character is bounded to the limits of time/generation when the art is created rendering it less effective in another time scale, place, once the character doesn't resonate superficially with people. 

9.1 The symbols itself create a range of metaphorical meanings which are used to link different frames - a technique employed by Tarkovsky's movies. 

Transitions to adulthood

What stable and consistent life is?
I don't know.

I know there is something which it is
but I don't know.

Is it when things around you -
as in ideas, beliefs, wisdom -
around you don't change much?

Is it when experiences just enhance
what you already know and understand well?

Is it when a new idea is difficult
to cognitively assimilate with your old hypotheses?

Well, the truth is that your hypotheses are merely situational.
It's just that they happened to be like this and not something else.
They became part of you before adulthood -
when some random events created some belief structures.

Now, why it becomes difficult to create another structure again?
It's because a brain is limited to hop in between different structures.
Every structure has its own network of life.
And living multiple lives is an insanely mentally difficult task.

Hence, adulthood doesn't mean a point
where one is stable, rigid, and informed.
But just that one's capability
to life multiple lives,
to imagine new worlds,
to create new networks,
to see the unseen,
to yearn for something new,
to unlearn and relearn,
to forget and think afresh,
is gone forever.

My proposed solution to film as a medium of art/Phil debate

A while ago, I asked a question to myself as to whether films can be seen as consistent art forms which can also be self-consistent in portraying certain philosophy. In the sense that, while books are traditionally favorite medium to talk about different Philosophical systems, the current changing waves ask for videos/movies as a way of portraying philosophy. However, it is also important for me to choose and create something that will survive the test of times, and not get deluded as a movies of old generation, to not meant for future generation. It has to be philosophically solid, artistically relevant in future, and consciously relevant to all humans of past, current, and future generation. It seems like a big thing to ask for or a big dream to imagine - however, the solution that is propping in my mind is rather quite simple in visual, atleast. 

It seems to be inspired from: my fascination with movies of Richard Linklater, novels/writing of David Foster Wallace, post-structuralism, Godel's incompleteness theorem, my own Philosophy of decision-making, geometrical aspects of evolution (how certain nonphysical mutations aren't carried forward and branching proceeds), cinematic expereince of watching "In the mood for love", my own lifelong love for combing emotional elements with abstract mathematical elements, and my lifelong quest to ascribe various aspects of mental reality onto a canvas.

Solution:

A white background as a metaphor of absolute mental reality - a black circle that represents the frame in which you will watch the story of the movie - black circle is of variable shape - black circle itself resembles the state-of-mind (mindspace) occupied by the central character of the movie - when the character is about to make a decision (as in the black circle is about to pinch towards the right), the whole movie wishes to trace back the past neurons/decisions/mental-spaces invoked internally while the character makes the decision - which means that the black circle moves leftwards and again protrudes in another direction but travels in left direction to another space which represents the decision before it landed up to the current mind space - the cycle keeps on repeating leftwards - the protrusions become more and more bigger and clearer, as some past decisions which were not taken become more and more clearer to see - the tracing back process continues to happen. 

A basic structure might be inspired from this:

I know how to visually show the black frame. It will involve some graphic designing, but it shouldn't be a difficult process. What's most important is the story to consider inside the frame?

Task 1: I can try to write down a short-story of my own decision-yet-to-be-taken (in DFW style) by tracing back to the past decision, then to the past decision and so on..where the diversions become bigger and bigger in their description and possiblities of being undertaken.   

Task 2: To think of a similar decision-making story, but from a biology perspective. Maybe ideas from  lab experience (biophysics and connection to evolution) would help.

New ideas

What is the absolute mental reality? 
The question troubles me -
not because of emotional reasons,
but because it's a conundrum.
Something that doesn't seem to have fixed definition, and fixed answer.

Every question has its own answer.

"But it all starts with a statement, which means that statements are fundamental".

But how is it fundamental? Is there any proof of it? What's fundamental is how your mental reality is like? But it could be just your unique mental reality. Someone might have another mental reality - which means that Someone else might think that statements are not fundamental. And someone else might consider these two previous set of people to be contradictory, and someone not (if they do not believe in law of third middle). It means that behind some seemingly logically developed connections, there might be some possible generalisations of them, an another man's land built on the pillar of precise clarity, indepth detail. 

Seeing world through numbers/labels/precise meanings is different than finding connections between vaguely described but turned into abstract elements. Both methods seems important in different aspects - thought currently, the first one is considered more fundamental, less useful.

Knowing another brain is to make a story of how their brain is operating. Knowing more stories/dreams/ideas of a person reveals what's in his head for most time, that's how two brains/people get close to each other-- pattern, past and future projections.

 

Can afford to not be shallow: Part 2

The world that pulls me 
is somewhere between: 
predictability and unpredictability,
rigid and loose,
defined and undefined,
right and wrong.

I am inconsistent with myself,
hence the inconsistency pulls me;
the dilemma of what's right and what's not.

Is the solution consistent or not?
Is the solution absurd or not?

When Turing machine halts, it amazes me.
Because one can embed an equation into it, 
and the equation stops yielding anything.

When Constantin proves finite-time singularity
of 4th order PDE, it amazes me.
Because it was numerically shown,
but never before rigorously proved.

The world between YES and NO, is fascinating
as it keeps me ON,
it keeps me going.

Imagine everything being solvable,
everything being predictable,
everything just a next-step you need to do,
without thrill, without sense of awe,
without depression, without thought of suicide,
without angst, without ounces of self-hate and self-love,
how insipid that world would be?

My world should never be predictable,
it should be chaotic as like ocean waves -
you can never predict
what I will say,
what I will behave like,
what I will offer,
what I will decline -
a love that's fulfiled is a burden for ages to come.
Mansions, travels, vacations and perks - 
they are just means, not necessary,
a way to reach those places where I can dare to not be shallow.

All I want is an empty place,
where I can afford to not be shallow.
Where I settle some issues (or create new ones).
Where I create a thought that opens a series of bewilderments.
Where the shaky ground that I stand in, 
doesn't become solid or too loose,
instead just allow me to create new grounds
where people come and visit me -
talk to me and leave me,
visit the place when I am not there,
feel shaky in that ground and feel the same
that I feel now, here...
wish to do the same,
that I wish to do now, here...
and the process keeps on repeating...
forever

Can afford to be shallow - Part 1

There was a time
when flowing water meant million things to me -
fluids, neural circuits, poetry, love and what not!

But now, I am shallow. I see it as nothing but "flowing water".

There was a time

when layers of clouds meant million things to me -

diffraction, stories, faces and what not!

But now, I am shallow. I see it as nothing but "just clouds".

At that time, I had nothing, so I was living my true self.
A philosophically-troubled thinker who is deep into things.
Sleepless nights, countless dreams, infinite plans and no fears.
No setbacks, no expectations and no burden.
I was true. I was into myself.

As I deal more with real world - grants, funds, jobs and "reaching out".
I lose my inner self.
I do remember vestiges of my inner self -
it comes out once in a while and lays dormant for rest of the time.

I don't live in my abstract world anymore. 

On top of all that, I can afford to be shallow.
But how long this will last?

A time will come, when world will challenge me.
Punch me into my face and ask me to face it upfront.
I still might work hard and continue to afford to be shallow.
But is this what I want?

Not really.

There is no "great" idea

Some ideas are "great",
but just culturally great -
not great in a pure sense.

Every mind is unique,
for every life trajectory is unique,
but there are less puzzles in this world
than the number of minds,
so can't we say that most of the ideas
will emerge out together, culturally -
in a friendly fashion ?

Small ideas together might make a big story,
only that is something very important.
Because everyone learns in the process,
every new creation is the product of many minds.

There is no great person,
there is no great mind,
there is no great idea,
there is no great science.

Every learning endeavour 
is a collaborative task,
that amuses everyone,
and makes the task 
fun and fulfilling.

This world is different

This world is different.
Not consonant to one
I imagined to be like:
where Wittgenstein is losing his mind
over the origins of mind and language;
where Ramanujan is writing equations
that appeared magically in his dreams;
where Turing created computers
only to answer Hilbert's decision problem;

Instead, this world is the result of all of this.

Starting with Turing,
turing machines led to logic,
logic of computations,
machines, simple and complex machines,
machines which we call "computers" now.
Computers which were just an experiment,
a new way to see the world -
a simple and effective way to seek reality,
for reality was and will remain complex,
so why not accept a new way to see it?

But a long-tail of snake,
in that snake-ladder game you played in 90s
could be devastating,
same is I believe the case is with
science now.

With enormous magnification level in experiments,
loads of data and plenty of hi-tech machines,
reality is posing less challenges to machines.
Even if it poses some,
a black-box model,
neural networks -
the thrill of today,
is solving problems no could have imagined before.

But science cares about how you solve them,
every step matter more than the end result.

Science was built on pillars of progressiveness,
problems were left unsolved, for they were really difficult.
Difficult to grasp both visually and mathematically.

But now, visual part is handled by hi-tech cameras,
and mathematical part by neural networks,
and what not!

Science was an enterprise of riches before -
who devoted on intellectual pursuits, for it was noble and niche.

Now science is next door - everyone can learn it, use it and do it.

There still are lot of problems to solve, in science,
but there is competition, so quality is going down.

Philosophy of science is long-lost in the heaps of data.
Future of science is shadowed with the dark carbon clouds that machines emit.
Spirit of science is sold to funders and companies for loads of money.
 
Seeing all this, makes me question:

Is there any limit to this bloating bubble?
And if it bursts one day,
how will the new world be like?

What is love?

Defining or labeling something
means restraining it
or not allowing it to express itself.

You call a cat, a "cat",
which creates a boundary:
a cat can never be you
and you can never be cat;
the cat might express itself freely,
but for you, it's the "cat" who is doing it,
not someone like you or not even a part of you.

Love transcends these boundaries - 
boundaries of labels, boundaries of naming,
syntaxes of rules and humor of blaming.

Love sets myself out from the current context 
where I am supposed to act on rules - 
love allows myself to be, to be creative 
and to feel free.
On top of that, love sets myself on a journey:
on a boat without a roar,
sailing on an ocean - warm yet rough.
Each second brings me more warmth,
and more struggle to feel more warmth.
This warmth comforts me 
yet asks me something in return -
myself, my whole self 
to submerge into the moment that is now,
to know tricks, details, concepts, knowns
of the equation that I love more than anything else;
an unknown is what is hidden there in the ocean,
it's there but hidden. I am not an discoverer but a hunter.
Maths is not a discovery, but an invention.
You hunt for the tools while feeling warmth.
You use them then to invent something, 
only to realise that that invention might mean
something else to someone,
but for you it doesn't mean anything -
it lies there, open, alone and afresh,
waiting for someone to come by and just see it.

Discrete or continuum

 Is the reality discrete or continuum?

This question troubles everyone,
everyday, every moment
for it depends on the mood and the brain
how one perceives reality
and how one deals with it?

Calculus operates on continuum 
so physicists try best possible ways
to maintain this assumption -
be like through Planck's length scale
or through continuum limit in fluids.

Below such limits, nature is discrete
randomness of atoms creave havoc,
complecity of tiny particles mess things up.

Even the mathematics describing continuum world fails.
At one point, the equations yield bizzare solutions
or simply fail to yield or tell anything.

Computers come to rescue as they work discretely, discreetly.
On numbers, on bits and bytes, on flips and flops.
They can treat this enormous world with their enormous potential.
Aid our brains to quantify, solve, and simulate everything.

But computers are engineered neurons which work on some rules,
those rules which are built on the fabric of mathematics -
of axioms, lemmas, theorems, and their proofs.
Mathematics encompass everything and anything,
it can be made discrete or be made continuum.

Minds which delve into mathematical world
are not escaping out of reality, 
for reality can be mathematics - who knows?
Reality can be your hands, my hands - who knows?
Reality can be your experiences, my experiences - who knows?
It can be all of these three or maybe even more.
No one knows.

  

 

Immortality

Does it bother you, 
what will you be left with,
when you die?

Do you want something to leave here,
or to take away to heavens with you,
or you simply don't care?

Some of us want something to leave
as evolution designed us to do so.
Some leave babies, some leave ideas,
some leave assets, some leave books.
Many of us want to give something to this world,
in generous and kind way -
for life was an unexpected gift to us,
so why not return the favour to nature,
why not remain alive in the hearts of others?

Some of us want to take things to heavens,
those who believe in heavens,
in good deeds and bad deeds,
in a world before and after life,
in a single cosmos of souls -
they want to take good vibes to heavens
and be born again with a better life.

There are, but, a few people
who don't care about their mortal nature,
in that they are detached from pleasures and pains,
from material and immaterial,
from emotions and objects.
A mind that's detached yet penetrating
the fabric of reality as is,
asking about its whereabouts and
still knowing that there is no answer,
yet asking this question repeatedly, throughout life,
feeding itself through simple pleasures -
pleasures of science, pleasures of poetry,
pleasures of arts, pleasures of philosophy,
that mind is liable to explode when exhausted,
just stop functioning or get damaged at one stage,
that mind will probably be 
the most closest mirror
to the fabric of reality -
this is what I'd call immortality.

Scientific mind

 A mind so sharp like an edge of a sword,
it pierces the fabric of reality 
and opens it, like a door to heaven.

What's heaven or what's hell?
Nothing matters to it, 
for it has nowhere to go
and nowhere it belongs.

It belongs to the place
where it breathes now,
where it senses now
and where it meditates now.

It finds mathematical underpinnings
and simple postulates 
that defies all criticisms.
Any experiments which disproves it,
just disembellishes the whole theory.

There is no fundamental truth that mind knows,
theories do work, but work under restraints.
You relax restraints, the theory falls apart
like a machine collapses when its bolts loosen,
or a body falls down when its joints lose their grip.

Hence, what's more mighty is the reality, not the mind.
Impossible is the mind which conquers or mimics reality.
A mind is bound to provide abstractions,
imaginations that feel close to reality.
It might work really well or not at all -
it doesn't matter. 
What matters the most
is a never-ending quest
of a limited mind
to appreciated the reality as is.
To stay open and get surprised
every second
of this only life that you've got.

Privileges

Being born was never a choice,
so we lament over it,
we curse over it:
wish my parents were more rich,
my parents were more educated,
and what not!

Indeed, our actions are constrained
by the things we experience 
and the things we can imagine.

But whatever you have 
is a privilege to someone else.
So one can assume that everyone of us,
I repeat, all of us, are privileged in some sense.
Some have got cars, which many can't afford.
Some can buy books, which many can't afford.
Not only individuals, but organisations as well..
Some exploit daily workers by paying less,
ads make money by hackings our brains,
cigarettes kill people, but are everywhere,
newly 18 turned enter sex industry out of despair,
yet we hide behind our curtains and watch them.
Countries looted centuries ago, now are looked down upon-
their poverty is a classroom problem to someone else.

Shutting eyes is easy, as even privileged ones suffer.
Someone is more privileged than us, so we all suffer.
What's important is to act and not just lament,
do something instead of writing a poem (like me) -
small acts that remind you of how privileged are you,
to not support companies which exploit their workers,
to not buy products whose sources are morally corrupt,
to donate more than you save; if you're financially secure,
to act rather than sit; if you're free enough.

An emotion is something, that can make you socially conscious.
An emotion of forgetting your suffering for once,
and hate your privilege can do much good for humanity.
Don't feel coward to be emotional about such things.

It still is a privilege to be emotional about your romantic feelings,
and feel rock solid, stolid, for other things.
To afford a partner sticking around you is a privilege.
To be emotionless, as you walk by and see someone shivering in cold,
is a privilege!

Origami

Are we two sides of the same page

folding into one another?

No tapes, no glues.

Filling the voids along the creases,

effortlessly; 

drawing one another,

closer and closer...

Until we broke each other apart,

by tearing the page into pieces

just like ending our bodies.

With a tactful strategy,

we join the ends of pieces

to form the Möbius strip

which brings us on the same page -

though after death,

when we no longer have breath