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?