我和假扮的朋友(組員)不知怎樣的去到一間全自動的養豬場,這裏的自動化是全由物理機械控制,每走一步,前前後後都觸動不同的裝置而作出不同的反應,早已完全考慮你所有可能想做的事,當然它主人最主要是考慮豬隻逃走、有人偷豬、殺豬等等﹐如果嘗試它一定以機關搶伺侯,而這一機關搶也就考慮了一般人會想到的它有一定的軌跡,可以依此來逃避的問題,所以既是一上一下,又有隨機的成份,你所有可能走的方向設計者都考慮了,所以令人避無可避,必死無疑。
它以對豬的方式來對待所有人,就是參觀者也別想輕舉妄動,例如有人嘗試到地下室闖一闖,結果自然是被機關閉住了,系統絕對沒有人情可言。不過,它卻不是全無人性的機械,為了令它靈活一點而且有幾塊人面示給公衆,所以我看一位肥員正在一邊笑臉迎人,一邊操控,他好像在玩類似立體併圖的東西,又似在織巾,而系統就讀四邊的突出及陷入而做決定下一步行為的策略,意思是它下一步不是完全早被決定的,而是由幾個員工半隨機的想法去決定系統下一步如何對這裏的物件的反應而反應,當然它不單是反應式而且會主動做一些動作,有時是觸發反應,有時只是為了預備未來的反應,或者是一種令它預設的目的佔優的策略,它的設計者會想像豬或者是人的行為都有一定的方向性,所以可以一步步將豬或人推向預定的跡軌。而且豬當然不會覺悶,人也可以用某種隨機的方式來給予自由及靈活的假像,於是人人豬豬都樂在其中,是一個快樂而獨立的國家。
可惜,外面的自由社會容不下這樣的創意及生活方式,它堅持如果人沒有完全的自由去選擇自己的路,這就是異端,不能容於它的地方,而我和朋友表面上是被招待入來,盛情難卻,但這一切都是一個局,自由社會是請我們來做內應,我幾乎完全被它的設計的周密、和它設計時所包含的人道關懷考慮說服了,所以當外面的人設下天羅地網時,把橫的一條和直的一條密密佈在周圍時,我內心很羞愧自己竟然相信外面這種盲目、無方向的自由主義而出賣了當中的一班理想主義者及一個快樂天堂。我們之中有男有女,有一位似乎有點像白兔(我的Animus?它常常出現在夢中的。)
2010年5月9日 星期日
夢: 心靈合一
標籤:
心理分析,
心靈合一,
冰漓,
解夢,
夢,
認知心理學,
Cognitive Psychology,
dream,
oneirocriticism,
Psychoanalysis
2009年10月12日 星期一
Why reality must be stranger than fiction?
This is an excellent example to demonstrate the difference inherent in the cognition of Physical reality and cognition of reality as constructed by novel. Generally speaking, former is determine by interaction of bottom up process and top bottom process as stated in Cognitive Psychology; while the later is determine singly by utilize only the top bottom process. The discrepancy between two would result in the sense of ridiculous or funny, so either process would have to adjust to the result of another to eliminate the cognitive dissonance. Therefore, Physical reality must necessarily more complex than fiction.
Bottom up process refer to how our mind construct the abstract representation of reality by using the information gather from basic sense like lightness, tone, shape and movement of stimulus. For instance, to see the sum total of all basic components of letter A as the A in the alaphbeta. Top Bottom process refer to the process of inferring the stimulus should have present by using one's understanding and theories/hypothesis of how Physical reality operate.
Bottom up process refer to how our mind construct the abstract representation of reality by using the information gather from basic sense like lightness, tone, shape and movement of stimulus. For instance, to see the sum total of all basic components of letter A as the A in the alaphbeta. Top Bottom process refer to the process of inferring the stimulus should have present by using one's understanding and theories/hypothesis of how Physical reality operate.
標籤:
小說,
心理學,
心理學假說,
假說,
認知心理學,
Cognitive Psychology,
hypothesis,
novel,
psychological hypothesis,
Psychology
何以現實一定比小說更離奇?
這個其實是活生生的例子去說明在認知過程中的「由底層向上層過程」及「由上層向下層過程」的分別,所謂前者是指人腦如何由最基本的感覺資料,如光暗、長度、角度、移動的方向、形狀等有系統地組織成意識上的慨念如杯、碟、碗等,又或者由A字母的形狀推出「這是代表英文字母的 A」;相反,後者指的是完全相反的過程,就是由抽象的意念出發,如字詞、語義來推導出最基本應該存在的基本的感覺資料,例如在 A_ple就用蘋果這慨念把遺漏的p加上去。一般來說,現實的感知通常是由「由底層向上層過程」而產生,也就是說觀察者是不可能事先知道這些資料是什麼,而且當這些感知而得資料和「由上層向下層過程」不符時,他/她就會有一種荒謬的感覺,小說則基本上是「由上層向下層過程」來產生,所有的一切都一定合乎作者的邏緝。
小說和現實的分別,因此在於前者只利用了也「由上層向下層過程」而後者卻同時是「由上層向下層過程」和「由下層向上層過程」的交流而成。
小說和現實的分別,因此在於前者只利用了也「由上層向下層過程」而後者卻同時是「由上層向下層過程」和「由下層向上層過程」的交流而成。
標籤:
小說,
心理學,
心理學假說,
假說,
認知心理學,
Cognitive Psychology,
hypothesis,
novel,
psychological hypothesis,
Psychology
2009年5月2日 星期六
由製錶人證神法而想出的一個心理學假說
我在用製錶人證明基督教的神存在的方法得到一個政治不正確的想法,以為相信基督教一般較無神論者愚蠢,特別是當他們製錶人的比擬而證明有神時,因為他們看到地球彷彿一切都是為人類而預備,而動物看來沒有主動創造自己的生活環境的能力,所以得出地球的一切都必然需要另一位比人更大能力的創造者產生出來,而牠必然就是基督教所說的神了。何解他們忘記了是自己在思考,而最大的前提是人類已經存在呢?
所謂無神論者較聰明也就只在這一點,當他們思考同一問題時,他們看穿了人的思考如人的眼睛,表面上看來很中立公正,事實卻不然,眼睛一看不到眼睫毛、血管,二不知自己的眼界既有限,而且一定是由自己的角度去看;同理,當人思考時,人是用思考的器官透過心理的結構而去思考分析問題,在認知心理學中是由下(具體)而上(抽象)的過程而不是由上而下,當然是有所偏頗,人當然只會從人的角度去思考,因為人是創造者,所以自然傾向把一切事物「人類中心化」, 把大自然的一切看成是人工而成,彷彿宇宙萬物都是為人度身訂做,而忘記坐在圓桌旁誰都以為自己在人中心。如此的思考是看不到自己視角的局限,凡自己看到的都彷彿是宇宙的全相/全局,是無知卻當自己是全知,既然自己在心理世界中是全知/全能/無惡的,所以自然而然把是種心態投射在外來之物,其中一位正是基督教的神。
所謂無神論者較聰明也就只在這一點,當他們思考同一問題時,他們看穿了人的思考如人的眼睛,表面上看來很中立公正,事實卻不然,眼睛一看不到眼睫毛、血管,二不知自己的眼界既有限,而且一定是由自己的角度去看;同理,當人思考時,人是用思考的器官透過心理的結構而去思考分析問題,在認知心理學中是由下(具體)而上(抽象)的過程而不是由上而下,當然是有所偏頗,人當然只會從人的角度去思考,因為人是創造者,所以自然傾向把一切事物「人類中心化」, 把大自然的一切看成是人工而成,彷彿宇宙萬物都是為人度身訂做,而忘記坐在圓桌旁誰都以為自己在人中心。如此的思考是看不到自己視角的局限,凡自己看到的都彷彿是宇宙的全相/全局,是無知卻當自己是全知,既然自己在心理世界中是全知/全能/無惡的,所以自然而然把是種心態投射在外來之物,其中一位正是基督教的神。
2009年5月1日 星期五
心理學的一個小小想法
記得以前曾經學習過某認知心理學實驗的結果,它以為人類似乎天生可以在極糢糊的視覺訊息下分辦出活動的性別甚至身體狀態,要是說人類演化出如此的功能也不是天荒死潭,因為人是群居動物,人愈可以從不足或被歪曲了的視覺訊息了解另一個人的精神及生理狀態,他/她愈有生存的優勢。我不能釋疑的只是他們作的實驗可不可以排除另一最有可能的假說: 其實實驗者是因為由小至大看慣了在不同情況下的人面孔,所以其神經系統慢慢學習了如何修正在極糢糊或被歪曲了的視覺訊息;而不是直接由極糢糊或被歪曲了的視覺訊息去推斷出產生該訊息的人的精神/生理狀態?如何去設計一個認知心理學實驗實驗去判斷前者還是後者更接近事實呢?
A not so big idea of Psychology
It is also a question I had in mind for very long time on a discovery of Psychology: That human eyesight is very apt at identify blurred images of human figure. Certainly that confer those with this trait an evolutionary advantage since human is, by and large. a social animal. But what is hanging in my mind is how could be the researcher certain about the sequence of learning. i.e. Are those subject learned how to figure out human face because they had enough exposure of human face when they are young, instead of being an innate ability? Can those experiments which led to this conclusion rule out this alternative chain of causality? Can we design experiments to differentiate whether human first learn the crucial features of human face then infer the human face in blurred image, or human is capable deduce the crucial features of human face from blurred image without learning?
2009年4月30日 星期四
找一個數的所有因子的方法
這是我中一時遇到而解決不了的問題,解決不了不是因為我不懂寫電腦程式,也不是因為這問題本身很困難,而是自己的思想陷入了一個無窮遞歸的循環中跑不出來,因此令我對電腦最初設計者Newman提出的「停止問題(Halting problem)」印象深刻,人腦真的不同電腦。
我當時用的是Dbase作業系統,所以當學到有速算法可立刻分出哪一個數是某數的倍數時,立刻蠢蠢欲動,想寫一個可以分解一個數的所有因子的程式,我的思路是既然一個數最高的因子是它的平方根,因此只要由2開始逐個用速算法測試,直到它最接近它的平方根的整數為止,但是如此一來,數值大小便和要測試的時間成指數比例,8個位的數字是4個位的100部,如何縮短它的所需時間呢?
其中一個思路就是利用遞歸的慨念,在測試某一數字是否它的因子之前,先去測此因子是不是之前已測試的因子之部數,例如要測試101是否為4的部數,只要再測試一下4是不是之前曾測試過的因子2的部數,另外再用邏緝去推斷,既然101不可以被2整除,則它當然不可能被2的部數4來整除;倒過來說,如果它可以被2去整除,則一定要先測試才知道它可不可以被4去整除。
所以最初想的程式的大致結構如下:
輸入1N位的數字,用它的平方根來產生1陣列,以陣列的1來表達可被整除
由2開始到它的平方根(否則會進死迴圈不能停止),
{當陣列對應的值不是1時,
用存在資料庫的樣式來比較輸入之數字是不是可被整除,
如果可以的話把陣列對應的值改成1}
,好像是忘記了什麼?忘記了節省時間的因子再被之前的因子去測試的「偉大發現」!
再補充一下,但如何加上去呢?因為測試數字的次數是定值,而測試因子的次數卻跟因子值而變,我當時不懂如何用Dbase寫出來,因此問題被擱置了!
現在當然是想通了,
輸入1N位的數字,用它的平方根來產生1陣列,以陣列的1來表達可被整除
K由2開始到它的平方根(否則會進死迴圈不能停止),
{
N由2開始直到K的正整數平方根
(當陣列K的值不是1時,
用存在資料庫的樣式來比較輸入之數字是不是可被N整除,
如果可以的話,則:
假如陣列K的值是0,即之前已測試的因子不可以整除輸入的數字,改陣列N的值為0;
並把K加1)
當陣列K的值不是1時,
用存在資料庫的樣式來比較輸入之數字是不是可被整除,
如果可以的話把陣列對應的值改成1;}
不過我當時想的還有更深的一步,有沒有辦法去令電腦自己懂得尋找速算法而不見程式人員輸入呢?我當然懂2,3,4,5,6,9的速算法,但要是其他未知的呢?可不可以寫一個程式去讓電腦先去自己生產一個速算法,然後再利用自己生產的速算法來檢測因子呢?可不可以再推前幾步呢?
(以當時的技術是決沒有可能,但現在可以利用程式天演算法(evolutionary computing)來自己生產程式,所以是絕對可能,但是它可能到再前哪一步呢?相信再進步的電腦也不懂自己找問題來研究吧!)
我當時用的是Dbase作業系統,所以當學到有速算法可立刻分出哪一個數是某數的倍數時,立刻蠢蠢欲動,想寫一個可以分解一個數的所有因子的程式,我的思路是既然一個數最高的因子是它的平方根,因此只要由2開始逐個用速算法測試,直到它最接近它的平方根的整數為止,但是如此一來,數值大小便和要測試的時間成指數比例,8個位的數字是4個位的100部,如何縮短它的所需時間呢?
其中一個思路就是利用遞歸的慨念,在測試某一數字是否它的因子之前,先去測此因子是不是之前已測試的因子之部數,例如要測試101是否為4的部數,只要再測試一下4是不是之前曾測試過的因子2的部數,另外再用邏緝去推斷,既然101不可以被2整除,則它當然不可能被2的部數4來整除;倒過來說,如果它可以被2去整除,則一定要先測試才知道它可不可以被4去整除。
所以最初想的程式的大致結構如下:
輸入1N位的數字,用它的平方根來產生1陣列,以陣列的1來表達可被整除
由2開始到它的平方根(否則會進死迴圈不能停止),
{當陣列對應的值不是1時,
用存在資料庫的樣式來比較輸入之數字是不是可被整除,
如果可以的話把陣列對應的值改成1}
,好像是忘記了什麼?忘記了節省時間的因子再被之前的因子去測試的「偉大發現」!
再補充一下,但如何加上去呢?因為測試數字的次數是定值,而測試因子的次數卻跟因子值而變,我當時不懂如何用Dbase寫出來,因此問題被擱置了!
現在當然是想通了,
輸入1N位的數字,用它的平方根來產生1陣列,以陣列的1來表達可被整除
K由2開始到它的平方根(否則會進死迴圈不能停止),
{
N由2開始直到K的正整數平方根
(當陣列K的值不是1時,
用存在資料庫的樣式來比較輸入之數字是不是可被N整除,
如果可以的話,則:
假如陣列K的值是0,即之前已測試的因子不可以整除輸入的數字,改陣列N的值為0;
並把K加1)
當陣列K的值不是1時,
用存在資料庫的樣式來比較輸入之數字是不是可被整除,
如果可以的話把陣列對應的值改成1;}
不過我當時想的還有更深的一步,有沒有辦法去令電腦自己懂得尋找速算法而不見程式人員輸入呢?我當然懂2,3,4,5,6,9的速算法,但要是其他未知的呢?可不可以寫一個程式去讓電腦先去自己生產一個速算法,然後再利用自己生產的速算法來檢測因子呢?可不可以再推前幾步呢?
(以當時的技術是決沒有可能,但現在可以利用程式天演算法(evolutionary computing)來自己生產程式,所以是絕對可能,但是它可能到再前哪一步呢?相信再進步的電腦也不懂自己找問題來研究吧!)
2009年4月22日 星期三
From the watchmaker's argument to the notion of Atheistic Intelligence
Surely, one of the familiar proof of the existence of Christian God is the Watchmaker's argument, namely when we look at the surrounding then any layperson should realize it must be a product of divine intelligence.
Evidently it has skipped one step:
Since human being is a biological entity, therefore we would infer with anthropocentric basis. We would identify 'evidence of God's work' using same criteria as we identify the product of human labor, which subtly equating human with Christian God(since both are active in shaping the environment.) Just like when we look out from our eye and forgot the eyesight of us is bounded by the structure and mechanism of the components of the eye; the proponent of this line of argument has forgotten we are thinking with a built-in bias: Our own existence. We are thinking from the structures of our brain using mechanisms of our mind. Much like eyelid bound our eyesight but we tend to think what we see is the whole world without boundary, when we are thinking we assume that our thinking is as unbounded as our eyesight. We naturally and easily forgot there is a framework which our thinking take place. The realization of this boundary and framework of our thinking, i.e. when we are thinking we know it is 'we as human being' are thinking. So we are more than ready to attribute any human characteristic to the natural world, much like we characterize storm with human emotion like angry, furor, rages.
I believe the realization of the boundary of one's thought is an remarkable intellectual achievement. I think it could be use as a reliable measurement of intelligence, and as a sign of intellectual maturity. What I am arriving at is a politically incorrect notion that Atheist are more intelligent than religious.
Evidently it has skipped one step:
Since human being is a biological entity, therefore we would infer with anthropocentric basis. We would identify 'evidence of God's work' using same criteria as we identify the product of human labor, which subtly equating human with Christian God(since both are active in shaping the environment.) Just like when we look out from our eye and forgot the eyesight of us is bounded by the structure and mechanism of the components of the eye; the proponent of this line of argument has forgotten we are thinking with a built-in bias: Our own existence. We are thinking from the structures of our brain using mechanisms of our mind. Much like eyelid bound our eyesight but we tend to think what we see is the whole world without boundary, when we are thinking we assume that our thinking is as unbounded as our eyesight. We naturally and easily forgot there is a framework which our thinking take place. The realization of this boundary and framework of our thinking, i.e. when we are thinking we know it is 'we as human being' are thinking. So we are more than ready to attribute any human characteristic to the natural world, much like we characterize storm with human emotion like angry, furor, rages.
I believe the realization of the boundary of one's thought is an remarkable intellectual achievement. I think it could be use as a reliable measurement of intelligence, and as a sign of intellectual maturity. What I am arriving at is a politically incorrect notion that Atheist are more intelligent than religious.
標籤:
神的證明,
基督教,
無神論,
認知心理學,
Atheism,
Christian God,
Cognitive Psychology,
watchmaker
2009年4月21日 星期二
A program to find all the factors of a number(II)
Last time when I was writing to complete my childhood wish to write a (BASIC) program to find all the factors of a number using heuristic learn from Primary School. However, when I was doing so I has forgotten the true difficult of the program: To shorten the test time, the program would limit to test only the prime factors of the number without knowing which factor are prime. In order to do so, the program will have to test the factor recursively, but I fail to find a way to such write a recursive loop.
Now, I just thought of another method to shorten the search of all factors of a number.
Given a number N,
Define the lower limit of √N as K,
Make an array of K item,
Starting from K,
Check if the K-th element of the Array is zero, otherwise reduce K by 1.
Test if N is divisible by K,
If not reduce K by 1, otherwise:
1.Mark the K as divisible by making the value of K-th item of the array to be 1
2. start the Test for Prime Factor with K as the input.
Test For Prime Factor:
(Define the lower limit of √N as K,
Make an array of K item,
Starting from K,
Test if N is divisible by K,
If not reduce K by 1, otherwise Mark the K as divisible by making the value of K-th item of the array to be 1.)
So, in according to this procedure, if it discover a factor of the N, for instance, 40 is a factor for 1600. Then it would proceed to look up for the factor of 40, which it would arrive at the results: 1,2,4,5,8,10,20. Since 40 is a factor of 1600, and we can logically conclude that the factor of the factor 40 is also a factor of 1600, i.e. 1,2,4,5,8,10,20 are also factors for 1600, which will be skipped for checking in the bigger loop.
Notice the similarity between checking for factor of the number and the checking for factor of the factor. A usual way to save time when writing program is to re-use what is already developed, therefore my first intention is to re-use the same algorithm for checking for factor of the number to check for factor of the factor. Now, wouldn't we able to apply the same logic so we should also checking for factor of the factor of the number to further shorten the process? Should we should also checking for factor of the factor of the factor of the number to further shorten the process?
So in my mind there is no built it mechanism to prevent me from infinite recursion, but when programming in whatever programming language, I need to explicitly state when I need to re-use a sub-procedure. That is the difference between computer and human mind.
Now, I just thought of another method to shorten the search of all factors of a number.
Given a number N,
Define the lower limit of √N as K,
Make an array of K item,
Starting from K,
Check if the K-th element of the Array is zero, otherwise reduce K by 1.
Test if N is divisible by K,
If not reduce K by 1, otherwise:
1.Mark the K as divisible by making the value of K-th item of the array to be 1
2. start the Test for Prime Factor with K as the input.
Test For Prime Factor:
(Define the lower limit of √N as K,
Make an array of K item,
Starting from K,
Test if N is divisible by K,
If not reduce K by 1, otherwise Mark the K as divisible by making the value of K-th item of the array to be 1.)
So, in according to this procedure, if it discover a factor of the N, for instance, 40 is a factor for 1600. Then it would proceed to look up for the factor of 40, which it would arrive at the results: 1,2,4,5,8,10,20. Since 40 is a factor of 1600, and we can logically conclude that the factor of the factor 40 is also a factor of 1600, i.e. 1,2,4,5,8,10,20 are also factors for 1600, which will be skipped for checking in the bigger loop.
Notice the similarity between checking for factor of the number and the checking for factor of the factor. A usual way to save time when writing program is to re-use what is already developed, therefore my first intention is to re-use the same algorithm for checking for factor of the number to check for factor of the factor. Now, wouldn't we able to apply the same logic so we should also checking for factor of the factor of the number to further shorten the process? Should we should also checking for factor of the factor of the factor of the number to further shorten the process?
So in my mind there is no built it mechanism to prevent me from infinite recursion, but when programming in whatever programming language, I need to explicitly state when I need to re-use a sub-procedure. That is the difference between computer and human mind.
2009年4月15日 星期三
中文輸入法的另一個主意
上次我談及改良中文輸入法的方向是減低使用者對某一輸入法的依賴,強迫使用者每次使用同一輸入法時要留神螢幕,因為每次出現的中文字順序不同;(我還未想到有什麼方式可以取替目前以字形或筆劃為本的中文輸入法。)而今次的方向則相當正路,就是如何改善使用者輸入中文的效率?
而本慨念發明有四個組成部份:
A.可動態由D修改的中文字碼對應表,該種中文輸入法的中文字輸出由此提供;
B.利用數據庫來記錄使用者使用某一種中文輸入法的習慣,主要以字碼輸入的組合為索引值;
C.使用習慣數據分析器,分析使用者使用該種中文輸入法時的習慣,用同一組字碼輸入中這些字最常用,這些字通常不用,當然,這是最簡單的方法,可以用更複雜的方法如Bayesian分析法來分析使用者使用某一中文輸入法中某一組字碼的習慣;
D.執行者用一早設定好的內建條件,利用C的方法來比較,計算某一組字碼輸入法中各中文字的最佳順序,以此來更新A的中文字碼對應表,令使用者打中文字的效率提高。
而本慨念發明有四個組成部份:
A.可動態由D修改的中文字碼對應表,該種中文輸入法的中文字輸出由此提供;
B.利用數據庫來記錄使用者使用某一種中文輸入法的習慣,主要以字碼輸入的組合為索引值;
C.使用習慣數據分析器,分析使用者使用該種中文輸入法時的習慣,用同一組字碼輸入中這些字最常用,這些字通常不用,當然,這是最簡單的方法,可以用更複雜的方法如Bayesian分析法來分析使用者使用某一中文輸入法中某一組字碼的習慣;
D.執行者用一早設定好的內建條件,利用C的方法來比較,計算某一組字碼輸入法中各中文字的最佳順序,以此來更新A的中文字碼對應表,令使用者打中文字的效率提高。
Yet another Idea on Chinese input method
Now this idea is truly about how to increase the efficiency and the speed of inputing Chinese character. Not that I am going to suggest a new paradigm to input Chinese without using keystrokes which each keystroke is associated with certain aspect of the Chinese character, I am thinking in the direction which the program can dynamically alter the correspondence table which the Chinese input method rely on. For instance, much like search engine would provide search suggestion while the user is entering the inquiry using statistically method, this new paradigm of Chinese input method would 'learn from the experience' of the pattern of how this Chinese input is used by this user, then dynamically place the most frequent choice in the front as priority choice in order to save user's time to look for the Chinese character which s/he is typing.(Or to learn more complex pattern of the input given all of us have enough computing cycle that we waste.)
This innovation require three components:
A. A correspondence table that can be dynamical updated by D each time it is loaded;
B. A recorder and counter program to run in the background whatever this Chinese input method is called. It would record the frequency of the user's choice of Chinese character everytime and keep a database with various variables.
C. A statistic program to analyze the data collected in B. It could be ranged from simplest implementation like taking the most frequent choice as the preferred choice by moving it to the front or more difficult implementation involve Bayesian statistical method.
D. By applying the result gathered from A to compare against the fixed criteria provided by programmer, this module update the content inside A so A would be optimized for this user.
This innovation require three components:
A. A correspondence table that can be dynamical updated by D each time it is loaded;
B. A recorder and counter program to run in the background whatever this Chinese input method is called. It would record the frequency of the user's choice of Chinese character everytime and keep a database with various variables.
C. A statistic program to analyze the data collected in B. It could be ranged from simplest implementation like taking the most frequent choice as the preferred choice by moving it to the front or more difficult implementation involve Bayesian statistical method.
D. By applying the result gathered from A to compare against the fixed criteria provided by programmer, this module update the content inside A so A would be optimized for this user.
一個古怪的中文輸入法主意
說古怪這主意真的很古怪,因為一般分析/設計/改良中文輸入法的人都會向如何增加輸入中文的速度及準誠度去想,決不會像我一樣把問題的方法倒轉去想的,因為我想解決的問題不在於中文輸入法是否好用實用,我意會的問題在於當一個人太熟悉一種中文輸入法時,他/她輸入中文便成了反射反應,他/她根本不用看鍵盤甚至是螢幕便知道自己打了什麼字,理論上可以令他/她的腦神經有更多的資源去進行更高階的運算如遣詞用字、文章組織及思想內涵等,但缺點就是打中文字的機械化,他/她失去了認知心理學中最低層反應的靈活性;要是一天有一種更新更好的輸入法時,他/她就失去了適應的能力,所以本文章的思路就是如何令使用者保持打中文字的靈活性?
要解決這問題很簡單,相信要實現也會太複雜,就是把目前的固定的中文編碼表改為可動態更新的,而每一次使用者使用完的時侯,就會把當中的中文順序更新,例如本來今次用某輸入法打ABCD得出來的是Q,W,E,R,T,Y;而下一次用同一種輸入法再打ABCD得出來的可能是W,E,R,T,Y,Q又或者是R,T,Y,Q,W,E...等等,因為每次出現的中文字順序不同,因此使用者不可能依賴習慣,看都不用看螢幕便打完一篇文章,否則一定會錯漏百出, 如此便強迫使用者每次用同一輸入法更新一下使用者的神經網絡,令使用者保持頭腦靈活!
要解決這問題很簡單,相信要實現也會太複雜,就是把目前的固定的中文編碼表改為可動態更新的,而每一次使用者使用完的時侯,就會把當中的中文順序更新,例如本來今次用某輸入法打ABCD得出來的是Q,W,E,R,T,Y;而下一次用同一種輸入法再打ABCD得出來的可能是W,E,R,T,Y,Q又或者是R,T,Y,Q,W,E...等等,因為每次出現的中文字順序不同,因此使用者不可能依賴習慣,看都不用看螢幕便打完一篇文章,否則一定會錯漏百出, 如此便強迫使用者每次用同一輸入法更新一下使用者的神經網絡,令使用者保持頭腦靈活!
2009年4月6日 星期一
A strange idea on Chinese input method
This is indeed an very odd idea, because this idea is not about simplify the input of Chinese character, rather it has an the opposite effect of lengthen the process. Why is it necessary?
My thought is that when we have been input Chinese using certain method for too long, we essentially programmed our neurons much like reflex action. Just like we have forgotten how to type in keyboard, the process has become largely unconscious automation.
The advantage of this mechanization of Chinese input free us from the repeating routine which involve little intelligence, and theoretically we thus have more neurological-computational resource to handle the higher level processing like think what to write, the effect and intend of the writing, the philosophy of writing... etc. However, on the other end, it may create an effect which one is essentially forgetting what s/he type, thus may result in unable to write Chinese without computer keyboard.
My solution is to make a dynamic realignment of the Chinese character everytime the user utilize this method for the same set of input. Thus s/he can't rely on rote memory of the location of the Chinese character, the user pay attention to the character s/he pick since it would appear in different location each time. So the user at least are trained to recognize the Chinese character, strengthen existing neurological representation of the particular Chinese character. Then when the user is face with the situation which s/he have to user another Chinese input method, s/he will adapt to it more readily compare to those who only memorize the associated keystroke of that Chinese character.
Who can implement such a strange idea?
My thought is that when we have been input Chinese using certain method for too long, we essentially programmed our neurons much like reflex action. Just like we have forgotten how to type in keyboard, the process has become largely unconscious automation.
The advantage of this mechanization of Chinese input free us from the repeating routine which involve little intelligence, and theoretically we thus have more neurological-computational resource to handle the higher level processing like think what to write, the effect and intend of the writing, the philosophy of writing... etc. However, on the other end, it may create an effect which one is essentially forgetting what s/he type, thus may result in unable to write Chinese without computer keyboard.
My solution is to make a dynamic realignment of the Chinese character everytime the user utilize this method for the same set of input. Thus s/he can't rely on rote memory of the location of the Chinese character, the user pay attention to the character s/he pick since it would appear in different location each time. So the user at least are trained to recognize the Chinese character, strengthen existing neurological representation of the particular Chinese character. Then when the user is face with the situation which s/he have to user another Chinese input method, s/he will adapt to it more readily compare to those who only memorize the associated keystroke of that Chinese character.
Who can implement such a strange idea?
標籤:
中文輸入法,
主意,
新主意,
電腦主意,
認知心理學,
chinese input method,
Cognitive Psychology,
computer,
computer idea,
Idea
2008年10月13日 星期一
Emotional Memory hypothesis
I just thought of a relationship between emotion and memory: Since all memory are seem to be colored by affects, I suppose they are there precisely because they are emotional in nature. Emotion is not just a part of encoding process, it is also active in maintaining the content there. So when Psychoanalysis talk about Unconscious and Complex as some kind of mysterious psychological process, now I would suggest that Complex maybe simply a neurological mechanism evolved to preserve the memory, it has to be actively interfere with the present in order for that memory content to exist. Memory, therefore, I suppose could NOT be emotionally neutral. Unconscious process maybe simply a neurological mechanism that operated since the beginning of human race. Memory maybe a by-product derived later to serve the emotional system. We could thus now trying to see Psychoanalytic theory in light of its neurological correlate.
標籤:
心理分析,
心理學,
神經心理學,
記憶,
假說,
認知心理學,
潛意識,
Cognitive Psychology,
emotion,
hypothesis,
memory,
neurology,
Psychoanalysis,
Psychology,
science,
unconscious
2008年10月6日 星期一
An issue of Causality in Psychology
I remember one time I was introduced to an experiment finding that human prepection process is very good at distinguishing action and facial expression in low definition picture. i.e. We could easily identify a hostile face from a blurred pictures. My question from that time till now is: Do we develop this capability after experience of exposing to real human facial expression? Or that is an inherent capability even before we are exposed to real human facial expression?
In the case of former, then we can deduced that logically, our Cognitive faculty through comparison with original template, thus is able to accurately guess from inadequate information presented. So that is a learned capability. On the other end, if we can recognize facial expression before we are exposed to them, that means the Cognitive faculty is prepared by evolution, it is especially adapted to recognize certain set of stimulates. Thus not all of the facial expression recognization capability is coming from learning.
That remain to be answered by psychology research.
In the case of former, then we can deduced that logically, our Cognitive faculty through comparison with original template, thus is able to accurately guess from inadequate information presented. So that is a learned capability. On the other end, if we can recognize facial expression before we are exposed to them, that means the Cognitive faculty is prepared by evolution, it is especially adapted to recognize certain set of stimulates. Thus not all of the facial expression recognization capability is coming from learning.
That remain to be answered by psychology research.
2008年9月11日 星期四
What is the internal validity of Philosophy?
I remember one line of the philosophical inquiry into the perception process like this: By the logic that a perceiver must be separated from perceived, therefore there must exist ‘little man’ who observe what we observe in our brain. But then how does these ‘little man’ know what they observing? Then it require a little man inside another little man’s brain. We can easily see how this lead to an absurd conclusion. So the conclusion is either perception is logically impossible or there is something wrong with this picture, likely its hidden assumption.
I prefer the later since there are obvious logically error with the picture: Why must perceiver must be separated from perceived? Why can’t perceiver also perceiving itself? Where does this notion that perceiver must be separated from perceived, which sounds so natural to us, come from?
I am not interested to dwell into the actual psychological history of this idea. I only think it is very likely it is coming from the logical rule of our mind rather than fact of physical reality. It has everything to do with the habit of our mind to separate the perceiver and separated in our Cognitive process. Thus it is natural to infer from this logic that there must be some mechanism to observe what is observed, since it is assumed that the observer itself has no explanatory power. Observation is obviously different from the process of understanding, therefore we habitually separate them into two categories. It thus follows that there must be two set of brain cells devoted to two different neurological process, since in our mind it is ‘natural’ to place one category in one slot.(Against the Pigeonhole Principle in Discrete Mathematics.) When one set of brain cell is responsible for observation, then another set of brain cell must be responsible for analyze it. How logical is it to infer the process in Physical space from the bias inherent in our Cognitive Process in Psychological Space?
This, I see it as the example of the issue in Philosophical reasoning. If only we can obliterate all assumption then we can arrive at the best understanding of the world, otherwise we may think we are analyzing the world objectively while we are subtly biased in one way or another.
I prefer the later since there are obvious logically error with the picture: Why must perceiver must be separated from perceived? Why can’t perceiver also perceiving itself? Where does this notion that perceiver must be separated from perceived, which sounds so natural to us, come from?
I am not interested to dwell into the actual psychological history of this idea. I only think it is very likely it is coming from the logical rule of our mind rather than fact of physical reality. It has everything to do with the habit of our mind to separate the perceiver and separated in our Cognitive process. Thus it is natural to infer from this logic that there must be some mechanism to observe what is observed, since it is assumed that the observer itself has no explanatory power. Observation is obviously different from the process of understanding, therefore we habitually separate them into two categories. It thus follows that there must be two set of brain cells devoted to two different neurological process, since in our mind it is ‘natural’ to place one category in one slot.(Against the Pigeonhole Principle in Discrete Mathematics.) When one set of brain cell is responsible for observation, then another set of brain cell must be responsible for analyze it. How logical is it to infer the process in Physical space from the bias inherent in our Cognitive Process in Psychological Space?
This, I see it as the example of the issue in Philosophical reasoning. If only we can obliterate all assumption then we can arrive at the best understanding of the world, otherwise we may think we are analyzing the world objectively while we are subtly biased in one way or another.
2008年8月31日 星期日
Schizophrenia and the naive hypothesis
Schizophrenia is the only class I ever missed in my study of Psychology, that has deprive me the question that I harbor in my mind since I meet this term: How is hallucination different from dreaming? How could we define clearly and precisely that schizophrenics are indeed making up/distorting the physical reality in their mind, since it is commonly understood it as ‘hear voice/sounds’?
Only until recently I found a better expression of my speculation which is against the naive hypothesis in neurology. Naive hypothesis assume that the brain just interpret the neuron signal triggered by outside stimulates, so the process of perception could be seen under a ‘coding and decoding’ framework. However, other than lack of research support, it also suffer a serious bout in face of phenomena like False arm and Somatization disorder. In the former case. the brain create sensation in the body parts that no longer exists; while in the latter case, the brain create sensation which couldn’t be traced back to any known physical and biological cause. Thus, it appears that the brain doesn’t just interpret like what most Cognitive Psychology textbook would tell, it is actively and continuously formulate hypothesis about the environment and situation the human body is in. Schizophrenia, just like False arm and Somatization disorder, is where the case which this hypothesizing process fail to provide an ‘adaptive’ response as seen by the general public. It maybe more a mystery as to why our brain is capable of capture the essence of what it take to adapt to the life so well, and why the hypothesis we formulate as different individual looks so similar to each other?
At that time, I am about to push the envelop further as to whether there exists a reality that is common to all of us, or is that illusion create by the adaptive needs of our brains? How is the reality of non-Schizophrenics more real than Schizophrenics? Can anyone prove that?
Only until recently I found a better expression of my speculation which is against the naive hypothesis in neurology. Naive hypothesis assume that the brain just interpret the neuron signal triggered by outside stimulates, so the process of perception could be seen under a ‘coding and decoding’ framework. However, other than lack of research support, it also suffer a serious bout in face of phenomena like False arm and Somatization disorder. In the former case. the brain create sensation in the body parts that no longer exists; while in the latter case, the brain create sensation which couldn’t be traced back to any known physical and biological cause. Thus, it appears that the brain doesn’t just interpret like what most Cognitive Psychology textbook would tell, it is actively and continuously formulate hypothesis about the environment and situation the human body is in. Schizophrenia, just like False arm and Somatization disorder, is where the case which this hypothesizing process fail to provide an ‘adaptive’ response as seen by the general public. It maybe more a mystery as to why our brain is capable of capture the essence of what it take to adapt to the life so well, and why the hypothesis we formulate as different individual looks so similar to each other?
At that time, I am about to push the envelop further as to whether there exists a reality that is common to all of us, or is that illusion create by the adaptive needs of our brains? How is the reality of non-Schizophrenics more real than Schizophrenics? Can anyone prove that?
2008年6月28日 星期六
網上言論審查及香港的「民主」選舉
中共的網上言論審查,臭名昭箸,一來可以避免一般網民不滿社會的意見在網上匯集,形成民意,對施政構成壓力,另一方面可以創做一個政府的政策受網民支持的 假象,獨裁有理,無需民主,因政府總是能「急人民所急,想人民所想」。這是相當精細的心理戰策略:民意如果不同官意,民意就會「自動失踪」,愚蠢而信以為 真的人可以安全地生活下去,聰明或頭腦正常的人會被國家用不同形式「放逐」在外。這是所有專制國家的共通點。
有香港特色的「民主」選舉制度,其實亦收異曲同工之效,用意就是歪曲民意,一來使原本有6成支持的泛民主派,永遠不可能在立法會中佔6成議席,因而對香港政 府的施政不會構成實際阻礙;二來,就是欺騙所有投票者及香港社會,無論實際得票如何,因為泛民主派得在立法會議席永遠不會遠大於非泛民主派,所以泛民主派 不是社會主流意見,亦即香港社會永遠沒有主流意見。
香港選民和中共國的網民一樣,都是制度性的欺騙對象,因為投票者本身除了由選舉結果外,是不可能知道其他投票者的意向的,而一般人都會假設選舉結果是真實 反映民意的,所以佔多數的支持泛民主派者會以為自己只是代表一半的民意,佔小數的反對泛民主派者亦會以為自己佔社會一半之多,久而久之,一部份相對天真的 泛民主派支持者會因為「民意」的壓力而改變投票取向,而達成制度設計者的原意。如果當有一天民意真的轉向反對泛民主派時,中共又會「順應民意」,修改「多 議席單票制」為原本的「單議席單票制」,因為此策略奏效需時,所以中共一直對香港普選採取拖延策略。
在1997年中共接收香港時,亦不打算一統治香港就立刻反其道而行,去民主化或把民主制度空洞化只可以慢慢來,不可以一蹴而就。後來因為彭定康的政治改革 就是用實打虛,製做既定事實,形成了強烈的香港公民意識、身份自覺及對港人治港的期望,結果董建華就成了兩方的心理戰策略的第一個犧牲者;香港特區政府亦 註定是先天不足。
有香港特色的「民主」選舉制度,其實亦收異曲同工之效,用意就是歪曲民意,一來使原本有6成支持的泛民主派,永遠不可能在立法會中佔6成議席,因而對香港政 府的施政不會構成實際阻礙;二來,就是欺騙所有投票者及香港社會,無論實際得票如何,因為泛民主派得在立法會議席永遠不會遠大於非泛民主派,所以泛民主派 不是社會主流意見,亦即香港社會永遠沒有主流意見。
香港選民和中共國的網民一樣,都是制度性的欺騙對象,因為投票者本身除了由選舉結果外,是不可能知道其他投票者的意向的,而一般人都會假設選舉結果是真實 反映民意的,所以佔多數的支持泛民主派者會以為自己只是代表一半的民意,佔小數的反對泛民主派者亦會以為自己佔社會一半之多,久而久之,一部份相對天真的 泛民主派支持者會因為「民意」的壓力而改變投票取向,而達成制度設計者的原意。如果當有一天民意真的轉向反對泛民主派時,中共又會「順應民意」,修改「多 議席單票制」為原本的「單議席單票制」,因為此策略奏效需時,所以中共一直對香港普選採取拖延策略。
在1997年中共接收香港時,亦不打算一統治香港就立刻反其道而行,去民主化或把民主制度空洞化只可以慢慢來,不可以一蹴而就。後來因為彭定康的政治改革 就是用實打虛,製做既定事實,形成了強烈的香港公民意識、身份自覺及對港人治港的期望,結果董建華就成了兩方的心理戰策略的第一個犧牲者;香港特區政府亦 註定是先天不足。
2008年6月21日 星期六
一個心理學的原理
記得以前有一次逗着女孩子玩的時侯,她隨便問了我幾條女性特有的生理問題,一向自詡知識豐富 的我竟然不懂如何回答,真是令人困窘。我卻因此有意外的得着,因為她令我想到一個心理學的基礎問題,為什麼這是她的身體,她自己卻不知道呢?為什麼自己的 身體自己不會理所當然的知道身體的一切?為什麼每人都要從身體以外的間接途徑去學習自己的身體?如果每個人天生心中都遺傳一套自己身體的藍圖不是很理想 嗎?換句話說,人的心靈是獨立於身體以外發展的,不是青春期的男性,就自然就會進入青春期的心態,中間要一個可以出錯的認知過程,明白什麼叫青春期;因為 人的身體藍圖和其他事物如社會、世界都是用認知過程去慢慢建立的。換句話說,人出生後的感覺是彷如一個人忽然處身於不停地收到一大堆由身體發出的訊號的地 方,他/她先要理解它們代表的是什麼事,再一步步建立它們的因果關係,最後再形成自我是一個整體的慨念,自己是從認識世界的同一方法來理解自己。
2008年5月27日 星期二
Mathematical Psychology: 10% tips
How much does a 10% tips affected the amount of the bill in a restaurant? I am not referring this question in the sense of the psychological impression of the effect, as people often observed to be confused. I am referring to the Mathematical effect of 10% tips applied to the total cost of food in a restaurant. If we all use a calculator then we would all agreed that the effect of 10% tip depending on the original total of the cost of food. However, it has been observed, at least in the setting of Chinese restaurant in Hong Kong, people has a tendency to overestimate the effect of that in the totality of the cost of food, thus opening the opportunity for waiter/waitress to make few extra bucks. It is interesting to observed that the psychological impression of the effect of that is different from the actual effect, and people most likely confuse one with another. The majority of Chinese in Hong Kong would replace the effect in Mathematical realm by their psychological impression of the effect. I am almost certain that only few of Hong Kong Chinese observe this phenomena. It definitely take an unusual personality to observe this effect.
The impression I had on how people made this mistake is the impression the effect of 10% tip as independent of the original total of the cost of food. That is Mathematically wrong and Psychologically right. (Does the impression of the calculation has replaced the process of calculation?) Mathematically, the 10% tip can’t be consider independent from the total amount; it is only in the cognitive process of the mind which people make this estimation. This again, prove the assertion that human being is not a logical being, and our mind is better not modeled by pure computational process as some A.I. researcher claim. It is also revealing of the cognitive process of how human brain do computation, we often treat the 10% tip as an entity in and of itself. Remember that, even logic itself is not derived through logical process and Mathematics are not logical in-of-itself. It thus an interesting question of how does logic arise out of the illogical human mind, is that a necessity arise out of evolution?
The impression I had on how people made this mistake is the impression the effect of 10% tip as independent of the original total of the cost of food. That is Mathematically wrong and Psychologically right. (Does the impression of the calculation has replaced the process of calculation?) Mathematically, the 10% tip can’t be consider independent from the total amount; it is only in the cognitive process of the mind which people make this estimation. This again, prove the assertion that human being is not a logical being, and our mind is better not modeled by pure computational process as some A.I. researcher claim. It is also revealing of the cognitive process of how human brain do computation, we often treat the 10% tip as an entity in and of itself. Remember that, even logic itself is not derived through logical process and Mathematics are not logical in-of-itself. It thus an interesting question of how does logic arise out of the illogical human mind, is that a necessity arise out of evolution?
標籤:
人工智能,
心理學,
文化,
社會心理學,
香港,
貼士,
認知心理學,
數學,
數學心理學,
A.I.,
Cognitive Psychology,
hong kong,
Mathematics,
Psychology,
Social Psychology,
tips
訂閱:
文章 (Atom)