2005-10-18

Why I started this blog

I'm using this to organize my ideas to be able to better write a book.

I want to do that because I find myself frequently being misunderstood and I wish to give a better idea on what I really think about "it" (whatever it is).

That misunderstanding basically happens because of the lack on resources our human protocol languages have on transmitting thoughts.

Unfortunately, I can find no better way to be able to do it than writing. But writing is actually even worst than talking. Why, then, write a book? Because we still don't have the technology to create "books that talk", within the context on this post. So this seems to me like the best way to achieve my "transmission of thoughts" to more than one person.

I know that we actually have technology on computers to read texts, but that's reading, not talking. In that sense, it's not any better than writing. Also, I can't talk to the computer so the computer will understand what I want to reproduce it. So I can't really "create a book that talk", all I can do is write something so a computer can read it for blind people, basically.

Fortunately, I do enjoy organizing my ideas through writing. Although writing wouldn't be needed, at all, if we had more evolved computers. And I would definitely like it better. I know it's really hard to imagine. We've being reading and writing almost all our lives. But there are people who can't read and make their living, although I still would love to get to personally meet one.

Just try to imagine if you could talk to a computer connected to the internet who can google around any information better than any googler, the same way you talk to an old man, but it is actually acting the age you want it to act. When would you really need to read something in a situation like that? Or even write. The computer can draw pictures and symbols that you choose to organize information, in a big piece of bio cybernetic nano-technological place. Bigger than any paper that you could write. Faster than anyone could draw. And we're just talking about "talking to the computer"...

This isn't a new idea, it's among some places, even some movies, but with different points of view and aspects. Anyway, it is still just another sci-fi dream of a possible future.

About the book I want to write...
I was amazed when I was surfing in wikipedia until I fell into the Game Theory. I've seen this for first time while watching A Beautiful Mind and that's how I got there. This specific introduction alone includes every subject I ever wanted to study:


Although the underlying methodology is mathematical, game theory is widely used in many different fields including biology, computer science, economics, philosophy, and political science.


Those 3 fields are completely related to another subject I'm deeply interested into: statistics. Although I'm not sure if there's too much to learn about statistics concept itself, but the field gets wide when you start studying how to apply it or getting into probability (which I don't find very attractive so far).

It says in the first line: "Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics"... Well, I think that actually, "Game theory is a branch of statistics, which is a branch of applied mathematics.", and it's still amazing how being a branch of a branch it is so widely spread among so different fields (that are not actually that different after all). And I know that, although statistics could be considered a branch of applied mathematics, it's actually separated branches, at least in universities courses.

Well, anyone can co-relate game theory with open source? Be careful, it's not the limited "new concept" of open source applied for softwares. opensource.org gives a good while brief idea of open source, even though it's actually talking about softwares.

Getting to study all of this would be just the beginning of the book.


-- cacumer@gmail.com

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

19 October, 2005 00:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Books that talk? How about interactive CD-ROMs? Or even audiobooks? Cid Moreira seems to have done a good work doing it for the Bible, hehehe! :D You know what I mean!

Oh, so the next step is to start trying to apply the "open source" way of thinking to things other than software, huh? I can't help it but to think, once again, that you're sounding like your father, hahaha! I just hope you can manage to keep your feet more close to the ground than he use to!

Anyway, talking about statistics, I'm sure you're gonna love this. have you heard of it? They also have an interesting blog, why don't you take some time to check it out? Tell me about it later, I'm sure you're gonna love it. :)

Still eager to read your book! ;)

See ya!

20 October, 2005 08:13  
Blogger Caue C M Rego said...

trotta, to me it looks like you haven't even read it. I'll quote it for you:
-----quoting
I know that we actually have technology on computers to read texts, but that's reading, not talking. In that sense, it's not any better than writing. Also, I can't talk to the computer so the computer will understand what I want to reproduce it. So I can't really "create a book that talk", all I can do is write something so a computer can read it for blind people, basically.
end quoting-------
Interactive CD-ROMs don't talk. "audiobooks" are what I've called "reading for blind people", cause that's their best use. I'm [talking] about talking! Not only pronouncing words and making sounds. You can't talk to a CD-ROM because it's not intelligent. You can, at best, make a research by hearing instead of reading.

And "trying to apply the open source" is not the next step, that's a challenge. I've applied it already. And I'm not the only one. Maybe the best way to define the book is like a "organized information center", which is basically me, or the closest to me that I can write in a book. My father is way too crazy or way too advanced. Literally. And I'm not even close to get in any of those two sides. You can't help to see similarities because they exist, I've being living with him for years, part of what he were is on me. Same thing between us two. And the list goes on.

And yeah, I actually can learn from other people mistakes. Just my body can't. Weird thought, huh? Somethings we have to learn ourselves. I believe this is basically because of my first problem: human communication protocol, any language, is really really bad.

I don't think I have heard about that link, I'll have to mark a star in this here and check it out later on... But thanks for linking me to something. =) Probably tomorrow I'll take a look.

21 October, 2005 01:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see what you mean, you wanted an interactive conversation. Well, the closest thing I can think of is Steve Jackson's Livro-Jogos, know what I mean? ;)

You could use the same kind of pace, with questions and choices to the user, on an interactive CD-ROM. Of course, I don't mean using text, but multimedia and, therefore, sound. It's not talking, but would be fun. :)

21 October, 2005 14:14  
Blogger Caue C M Rego said...

You're basically talking about games. Those have the best interfaces.

And, well, yeah, I'm talking about an interactive conversation. But the point is not being just interactive and it's not limited to a conversation. Something can be interactive but not informative, although it would require you to not want to, because we actually grab information just for the fact that we're alive, even if we didn't want to. And conversations usually have a development of an idea. Talking could be just "what time is it?", and getting an interactive and informative answer.

Anyway, let's just forget word definitions for now. The fact is, a computer can not act as good as a human been to provide an interface to information yet. By information I don't mean just news. Neither just data. Maybe I'm trying to define "information" here as anything that can be linked without physical boundaries.

Of course you can interact with a computer. But imagine being able to talk to a computer. You don't need to sit in front a keyboard, you don't need to look at a screen, you don't need to prepare yourself to grab information from a computer. You just get to contact the computer just like when you want to talk to someone, and just talk to it.

We, computer people, are so used to those things that they are natural to us. But, just think how much easier it would actually be after 1 week of getting used on not needing all of that to interact with a computer. Forget even writing and reading. There would be no need for that. It is a possible future, it may happen soon enough for us to see it, but it's certainly not happening today.

And this is going waaaaay off the post. :P

22 October, 2005 00:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I better just sit back and wait for the next post, for now, hehehe!

26 October, 2005 11:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe this blog can inspire you to update yours. :) I think you'll like it.

04 November, 2005 12:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or maybe your next post could be titled "How I ENDED this blog"!

16 November, 2005 11:36  
Blogger Caue C M Rego said...

I'm still not sure if I'm going to end it. I do like wikimedia a whole
lot more than this blog, but I know I'm using a lot of wikimedia
bandwidth, specially wikipedia, and I'm not sure if they like that.

I do believe it is relevant to my contributions in wikipedia, but I
still haven't got any second opinion.

If something on wikipedia is not relevant to it, or encyclopedic as
they like to say, then it shouldn't be there.

So my point is, if wikimedia get me off, I'll find another wikiplace
to keep posting new stuff and I'll be using this blog to update.

If I get a good confirmation on wikipedia / wikibooks / wikisource
(wikimedia) then I'll just move to there and close here.

I also need to know better about wikimedia servers, since I don't
trust too much servers centered in just one city or just one place...

18 November, 2005 02:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home