In retrospect, Theme 3 - Oh bugger that, It is just a theory anyway

An interesting seminar to say the least. On one hand a discussion bogged down in a semantic mire where our spirits rose and fell alternately, akin to a roller-coaster, when we tried to define mere words. On the other hand, we managed to exchange understandings which, although simple in nature, managed to untangle the soggiest of puzzles.

We discussed what a theory is, what a hypothesis is, their relation to each other and whether a pen is to be considered blue at all. We went on, taking a quick detour to Kant, refreshed our knowledge of basic mechanics (i.e. physics), and finally we got to discuss various form of theory.

Oh, and we did mention our individually selected papers aswell.

What did I learn then? Well, I learned that my, in my mind, clear definition of what a scientific theory is, might not be so obvious after all. Now, reviewing the reviews of my earlier retrospects, in retrospect, it should not really come as a surprise that I find my own views, initially very solid, rather altered after one of these seminars. But at least I was not the only one who had to rethink a few things.

Another thing that I gathered, an this is more of a specific detail then a general revelation, is that a (scientific) theory apparently does not have to relate to the natural world. Although I still have a hard time accepting this fact, seeing as science is usually dependent on empirical observations. The teacher cleverly pointed out that mathematics for instance, you know the main theories behind the paper I choose, does not inherently belong to the natural world.

I also learned that some of my grander ideas fly, in much the same way that bricks do not.

Theme 4 - Quantity has a quality all its own

The paper I have chosen this time around, now realising that this is the second out of three, is also a study related to digital video. It is called:

"A Quantitative Study of Video Duplicate Levels in YouTube"

About the paper

Now I could go on explaining, indeed in great detail, all the magnificent aspects and splendid particular solutions they come up with. I wont however, since I think it is far more beneficial to explain the overall idea and more importantly the possible outcome of the results.

But before I begin, let me give you a quick summary on the background, in an attempt to persuade you of the importance of this papers like the one above. As I mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, one of the great challenges, within the field of information technology, in the future is he increasing usage of bandwidth. The amount of data being sent through our various forms of tele-communicative infrastructure is increasing a lot faster than we are able to physically expand the latter.  

As a bunch of students on the way to becoming engineers, with a mastery of media technology none the less, I do hope that the above statement creates an uncontrollable knee-jerk reaction for each and everyone of you, in the form of a simple question; What can we do about it? How do we solve the problem?

And this is where it gets interesting, of course we could always throw another 400 miles of TCCs (Transatlantic Communication Cable), or create some other similar increase in physical capacity, but there is also another way. By finding new ways of handling the data, both in transit and on site, we are able to increase the efficiency, rather than the productivity, of the data we hare managing.

This particular paper proposes one such efficiency measure, by creating ways for similar (or even duplicate) youtube-videos to share the same actual information. Instead of storing four similar video, you only store three, while the fourth can be put together using the other three.

I do not know about you, but to me such an idea sounds amazing, it is indeed a fascinating testament of just how far we have reached in fields such as image-handling and signal processing.  

To quantify a set of qualities

Upon reading the text

I thought that the idea behind the paper was brilliant, how we are affected by things we perceive and how "good" or "bad" is related to circumstances is always fascinating. Do I "become" a better drummer when I "am" a certain character? Does the environment influence me at all? Or the various forms of feedback? And although I thought that the paper focused on the wrong things, illusion of body rather than immersion of place, I think it really goes along well with classical psychology.

What did shock me however, was the fact that the "choice of body", when successfully applying a strong illusion of body ownership, made a significant difference. I would have thought that such prejudice (black man being the better drummer) was long gone. 

Question 1

The main benefit of a quantitative study is, and this might come across as obvious, the strength in numbers. While such an answer is somewhat simplified, and definitely in need of some elaboration, it is still very much the truth of the matter.

The general idea is that by quantifying data, in some field or of some population, the study is able to measure (often in the form of statistics) a specified set of events in order to come up with a recommended course of action. In other words, a quantitative study aims to determined the probability of what is, or in some situations what is not, through the help of structured techniques.

Question 2

A qualitative study on the other hand, aims to gain an understanding of various facets or fields with a minimum amount of statistical data. Such a study can also be used to provide the foundation in order to generate new ideas and hypothesises.

The most important distinction however, is the fact that qualitative research is often employed when one is aiming for new, ground breaking, exploratory studies. It is used when we have little to no idea what to expect, in order to both define a problem and figure out what needs to be done about it.

In some sense I also think it is correct to say that most qualitative studies are based on field research and personal experience.


Conclusion
As I understand it, in a broad set of terms, a quantitative study will measure some event in a population or sample, by means of gathering and observing some sort of statistical data. In this way, the knowledge is gained through analysing what can be observed, whilst qualitative studies instead tries to catch or generate knowledge from the actual participants.

In retrospect, Theme 2 - The critical part of this study

Within the margin of error

If there is one thing I have learned this week, it is that I was wrong, ohh yes so very wrong in so many ways.

Not only did I answer the questions in the wrong order, I somehow completely missed the point of two questions, namely putting them into context. Thankfully, these are things I have learned during the seminar and the error of my ways are in that way corrected.

First off, I never really gathered, from the text that is, that Adorno and Horkheimer saw some culture (film specifiably) as an instrument of oppression. By showing the "ideal" society, a film could cement the way thing were, the nominalism was the conservative argument against change.

Secondly, and by now maybe even obviously, I missed the main point about the function of the term "myth". Myth is, much as I gathered in my first post, the umbrella term for all "truths" that neither falsifiable or rational, but in the wider context of the text it is also something else. During the seminar, I learned that (according to the authors) the term is referring to the fact that our Enlightenment did not only erase old myths, it also gave birth to new ones within the confines of perceived knowledge.


It is indeed clear, that due to my historically determined perception (and in this instance completely absent mind) I managed to read through a whole text without really understanding the major point. This particular point being, in a somewhat summarized form, that;

Enlightment itself is becoming a Myth, falling into its own mythology, due to the rise of fascism in the wake of the failed liberal states.

The whole argument seems to revolve around the fact that reason is slowly falling into a regressive state, instead being replaced by superstition and docile passivity.


Next up was Benjamin's text, where I also failed to grasp the finer details of his major points. Culture is indeed revolutionary, simply by giving the masses the power to indulge in and practise art. Film, for instance, can show the common man, and photography lets that same common man capture and copy photos.

Another interesting fact that I was made aware of was that he actually refrains from giving distinct answers to any of the posed questions, rather, he seems to be satisfied just having raised the thought.

Ahh well, I'd far rather be happy than right any day!

Theme 3 - Is a Theory just a theory? Or is the predictive power of a falsifiable test the explanation?

Scientific Paper
The paper I have chosen for this week’s blogpost is “Video network traffic and quality comparison of VP8 and H.264 SVC”, which was published by AMC 2010. While the paper is quite old, at least in the world of media technology, the problem that they aim to solve is becoming more and more relevant.

In short, the authors are looking for methods to increase the compression of digital video, when it is streamed over the internet. Seeing as about 65-70% of all internet traffic today is video, compared with the fact that general internet usage is increasing ever day, this is indeed a very important matter.


Question 1
A scientific theory, as opposed to a general theory, is a combination of definitions and statements which, usually together with some assumptions, fuses into an explanation of something in the natural world. Moreover this union of rational inductive thinking has been thoroughly tested to the point where it’s explanatory capabilities has a certain degree of predictive power, achieved through scientific method, without having been proven wrong as of yet.

The last part is by far the most important aspect of a scientific theory, and usually the property which separates it from other methods of explaining the world, such as superstition and mythology. To reach the level of scientific, a theory must be testable and be able to make falsifiable predictions of future events. Before a scientific theory has been tested, using the above stated scientific method, it is just a hypothesis, or a guess.

It is important to note however, that there is no such thing is a hierarchy system at play here, a hypothesis does not "become" a theory once it has been "proven" empirically. This is an important distinction because it is often said that a working hypothesis the basis, or origin, for any scientific theory.

So, if the above text states what (scientific) theory is, let us define what theory is not. First of, a theory is not just a guess. This might seem obvious at this point, but it is important since the word has clearly has another meaning in within daily speech. Likewise, a theory is not the same thing as a fact, the truth or an ultimate proof. The reason being that within those words lies the property of absolution, something which the scientific method by definition can never, apart from perhaps within mathematics, achieve.

Question 2
In the paper which I have chosen, the major theories are Probability theory (random variables, probability measuring, conditional probability), Transform and Spectral theory (choice of basis and space) and Theoretical computer science (algorithms, coding theory and computational complexity). Minor theory entries that are mentioned or implicitly used are Intromission theory (visual perception and cognition) and Mechanosensation (in this case auditory perception).

As you can see, the major theories used in this paper are all based on mathematics, and in some sense such theories are even more certain than the most well-established and sustained equals in other fields, simply because their mathematical proofs are based on theorems and to an extent axioms. Furthermore, trying to describe which category the these theories fall into is a bit difficult. Although it is quite clear that the mathematics used, together with the highly advanced signal processing, is analytical in nature (i.e. only describes what is), they are also an example of design and action.

Let me explain my trail of thoughts; The paper discusses video compression, codecs to be precise, which is an umbrella term of a series of computational operations aimed at stripping, rearranging and changing information without the loss of quality. None of these operations, such as Huffman coding and DCT-transformation, let alone mathematical methods, such as division and R2 -> R1 transforms, extend beyond the analysis or description. There is no relation or explanatory property between them, and in this way they are most certainly analytical.

The result however, and indeed the point of the whole paper, is a description. The two codecs that are discussed in depth within said paper both have their unique set of operations, which at that overall level sort of becomes a theory of it's own. Of course one could always make the argument that these codecs are simply the products of utilizing and applying a set of theories in a certain order. But I for one would still claim that such an argument would hold true for almost any scientific theory that we have today, or work is built on the shoulders of giants, wouldn't you agree?        

Question 3
Once again, the major theories in my paper are based on mathematics. One could argue that the limitations are quite clear, since these theories are locked with the world of math. At the same time however, the paper is very practical in nature and revolves around solving a very specific set of problems using rational thinking and empirical observations. So while their tools might have limitations, the possibilities are almost infinite and thus their theories are in a way limitless.


And with that, I leave you to your thoughts!

Time is not currently one of my problems

In retrospect, Theme 1 - The reason, for critical pureness

Equipped with the critical (no pun intended) advantage of actually having read the book prior to this course, preparing for the seminar felt quite easy. Instead of trying to understand the general strokes of Kant's philosophy, I used the opportunity to discuss more particular details (such as his view on time and space) in order to find a better understanding that way.

The conclusion? Well actually I don't think I learned anything new, instead I found my previous thoughts even more cemented.

Did this contribute to the seminar? Well I certainly hope so, especially since the other students had to achieve a fair greater level of understanding, in a shorter amount of time nonetheless, than I did. Although the group itself was far to big to allow for everyone to really participate, once we divided into smaller groups I think my previous knowledge came in handy within our discussion.

  

Theme 2 - Media studies that are critical, in order to study media critically

Question 1

The idea behind Enlightenment (often referred to as an era in human history) is to seek knowledge about everything in all its various forms. The mankind is supposed to cast of all mind-clouding garments of superstition and handle the world through the capabilities of the human mind.

The incentive was to use reasoning, analytics, and the power of observation to deduce the way the world works.

Question 2

- Dialectics is a method of argumentation, a tool if you like, which has been used since the mid-antiquity in order to resolve disputes or settle disagreements. The goal is reach the truth in all things, usually within, or in between, one or more points of view originating from the participants in question. This goal in turn, is achieved by using reason, and to an extension rational thought, to define concepts in their most basic form.

Question 3

- Nominalism, as opposed to realism, is the concept that universals (standing over particulars) does not exist in our world. In other words that universal concepts such as green, or fluffy, are not actually existing in our reality, rather the objects claiming these properties are instances of various universal concepts residing within each such object.

Nominalism, for Adorno and Horkheimer, is an important concept because of it's relation to culture and facism.

Question 4

- According to Adorno and Horkheimer, the whole era of enlightenment laboured to dispel myths, i.e. "disenchanting the world". By gaining knowledge of how said world, and all its sub-parts, function, man would be able to erase all "knowledge" that was not based on "truth".

So in their argument, myth is the umbrella term for all truths that are either not falsifiable or not rational.  

To technically reproduce art, in the age of Work

Question 1

The TL:DR-version of the first question is: 

Unless you are into ideology, they are meaningless concepts since there really is no point in analysing cultural production from a Marxist perspective.

The more in depth, and some might argue fair, answer is that superstructures are the means from which society is shaped overall. Good examples are ideologies, values, norms or similar general spheres of abstract influence. Whilst substructures, as the name implies, revolve around the various relations within each superstructure, usually in more concrete of a form. Marx himself would have used a classical example such as "workers versus the owners of the means of production".

Substructures are in constant flux, whilst superstructures generally takes a lot longer to develop and settle. 

Question 2

Absolutely, one can almost sense an underlying tone in that very regard. Art, and especially the technical art of film, is a superb instrument to change society. With the help of that particular medium, albeit disguised as a work of art, a population can be shown the error of their ways and changed because of it. 

To quote Benjamin on this matter:

"We do not deny that in some cases today's films can also promote revolutionary criticism of social conditions, even of the distribution of property"

Although he does go on about how art in general inherit this property, and that film is nothing he is specifically concerned about in his study,  I think it is quite clear that films to him does not reach the same uniqueness of classical art, while he does admit the fact that movie-companies do set the form and fashion for their specific message.

Benjamin argues that culture has a revolutionary potential in the sense that it can show us alternatives to our current state of affairs. For instance, the films referred to above could be used to show a story were people are more equal, and in what way that makes the happier.

In any case, I do not fully agree with him on this subject, as I feel he reads to much into the cult of a persona, fostered by large corporations.

Question 3

This one of the few points where I seem to really agree with Benjamin. I believe that the way we perceive the world is very much influenced by our historical context, or rather the way we perceive history, as well as the natural state of things. I can look at a rock, state its colour and general appearance, but then remember how the  previous ice-age supposedly shaped this particular rock and thus see it from another perspective.

Question 4

The easy, and short, answer is: Yes, no, or maybe. The "aura" of a natural object is perceived differently than the equivalent of art. In this sense, they are not inherent within the same realm of perception. They do however, invoke the same sensation, which is why the same name, or concept, is used for the two. In this sense, of course they are similar. I think the conclusion is that the “aura” of an object lies within the apprehension of the perceiver.


Would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up an went mad now?

Theme 1 - Reasoning around the reason why a resonable critique is reasoned to be resonably pure.

Kant's Critical Critique, and his Reasoning

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a fantastic read, I had the privilege of reading through the whole book, some 850-ish pages, as part of a course during my last year at upper secondary high. So naturally I was thrilled when I learned that our first assignment would include this particular book.

Though the actual question at hand, how are we to understand Kant’s preface, has a rather simple answer. Namely, that Kant seeks to understand if it is possible to gain synthetic knowledge, A Priori, and if so how one would go about achieving that. It is in some sense far more interesting to think about his reasoning up until that point, in other words, why the answer is simple?

A bastardised summary of Kant’s work is, as was referred to in the lecture, usually presented through the “Metaphor of spectacles”. If a person is always wearing a pair of spectacles, without knowing it, the things that person can perceive is limited by the properties of the spectacles. Simply put, if the glass is tinted green then everything that person could see would look green.

In order to understand Kant’s mind, one has to grasp the idea of Pure Reason, and specifically Kant’s definition of what that is and also what it inherits.

Pure reason is, which might seem obvious at first, reason unaffected by experience and empirical observations. Kant himself uses a phrase which roughly translates into “stripped of experience”, although considering the rest of his work, I think that it is fairer to use the former.

This notion is important, since it creates the fundamental keystone for Kant’s own form of knowledge that is called, as the lecture reminded me, “Synthetic A Priori”. This new type of knowledge is a middle ground between classical (trivial) analytical knowledge and synthetic knowledge. The perfect example of Synthetic A Priori knowledge, fitting for engineering students, is math. Math is in many ways a tool which utilizes Synthetic A Priori knowledge in order to enable empirical observations. We can derive explicit knowledge, such as 1+1=2 and 5*3=15, but also other fundamental truths such as the fact that an effect is always preceded by a cause. These truths are affirmed via reason and then proven by empiricism. To make this example even clearer one can simply state the following:

“The knowledge is not synthetic, because no observation is needed and so it is universal, neither is it analytical knowledge since a cause does not contain the concept of an effect”

Also, in order to fully comprehend the idea of Synthetic A Priori knowledge, the notion of transcendental idealism has to be explained. Transcendental idealism (sometimes referred to transcendental aesthetic) is about the conditions necessary for any thought or experience at all. In order to organize these A Priori - thinking conditions in any perspicuous form, Kant sorts them into roughly twelve categorizes. The idea is that these categorizes merges the empirical observations into a unified object or thing.

There is only one way to represent space, any other space is confined within that space. This conclusion in itself is mind boggling simply because it feels intuitive. The concept of anything is also confined within this space, thus space is an intuition and not a concept, and so transcendental. Taking this on step further, one can ponder on the notion of infinity. Space is for all we know infinite and even more importantly infinitely divisible, which means that this infinity resides within the space itself, and is not a property inherent to its various sections.

To me this is a fantastic way of thinking, since it clearly goes deep enough to "hit the bottom". Kant manages to not only convice the reader that the given conditions are really necessaties to observe the world, but also that these conditions provide the limit for how we can even conceive knowledge. 

The book is not flawless however, and there are a few problems which become evident after awhile. Although one has to consider that under the circumstances, these flaws may only be semantic mistakes, from time to time, within Kant’s assertions. Anyway, sometimes I find it hard to understand exactly “where” he draws line, or rather the boundary, between noumenal and phenomal reality. For instance, when discussing the previously mention transcendental aesthetic he can’t seem to decide whether or not space and time is something real. He implicitly attempts to prove the Euclidian view of space, whilst later claiming that any such view is irrelevant since his system, this time explicitly, is based upon the intuition of space.  To be specific, time and space is the structure, the vessel if you like, of empirical observation or experience, and not something which we “gain” from experience. He even goes on to prove the latter several times. Once again, it is important to emphasize that Kant has his own definition of what intuition really is, but we should all know that by now.

Likewise when he defines his categories for an ultimate truth, I have a hard time following his line of thought all the way, especially regarding what a concept is. Kant states that a concept can exist without the help of intuition, somehow creating a thought or form. Having read the structure and reasoning behind Kant’s categories, one finds it hard to understand his conclusion on that matter. Intuition, through the said categories of observation, enables perception which is in turn required to even form the basis of a concept, since otherwise there would be no content to “fill” it with.       

Regardless of that however, Kant has still been able to form a masterpiece of philosophy. By using epistemology he creates a foundation for intuition, from which one can “properly” observe empirical knowledge, which in some sense is the most practical form of knowledge. 

Socrates, justifying his bad manners by recklessly abusing the fact that he is right

Alright, in the instance of Theaetetus, I have to say that for once it is not fair to say that Socrates is behaving badly. Throughout the dialogue he is actually polite, articulate and consistent, even though that is not his usual way handling an argument. Anyway, the dialogue itself is about defining what knowledge really is, and in a way strive to achieve that goal through active philosophy.

By asking a question, defining the following answer through a set of sub-questions and statements and finally thoroughly dismantling that very answer, Socrates tries to “extract” segments of the truth from Theaetetus. The general concept is that Theaetetus knows more the actually understands that he knows, and by actively engaging him in dialogue this can be proven.

During the dialogue the two men manage to go through three possible definitions of knowledge, which are all eventually proven false. The conclusion from Socrates seems to be that it is far easier to approach knowledge by stating what things are not, rather than trying to prove what they are. Still, the question remains, and since Socrates does not give us a final definition, we have to make do with what we can learn from his reasoning.

Although I was not able to find the specific part where Socrates claims that we do not see “with” our eyes, but rather “through” our eyes, I assume it is somewhat paraphrased and supposed to be placed into perspective

  

To me it is evident that Socrates is a rationalist in the sense that he suggests that empirical observations can never be proven to be real. A hallucinated mind can be deceived and there is no way of proving whether you are awake or asleep. You can however, using reason, handle the empirical input given to you through your senses and then “decide” how the world relates to you in that instant. Examples of this are the three statements Socrates provides to prove that without reason, attributes for a certain object can never be defined as they would always be relative to something else. A rock is both larger and smaller the other objects, so is it large or small?

Obviously one has to include the context of time when reading this dialogue, since the empirical observations back then where very much limited compared the possibilities these days. Likewise, nowadays the answer for such a questions is usually referred to as trivial, since “everything is relative”.

Even though I cannot help but think that half of the dialogue is a dance of semantics (as in half of all the “premise -> statement -> answer -> retort -> understanding -> conclusion”-sets feels like a play on words), I am also baffled by the thorough method with which Socrates dissects all Theaetetus answers. Socrates consistently explains why previous experience, in itself, is neither universal nor applicable as a proof for all cases.

During the lecture, we learned that Socrates (Plato) in some sense predicted Kant’s work, and after reading the Theaetetus I wholly agree. I do believe that it is safe to say that Socrates central argument, i.e. reason is the basis for synthesising experience into knowledge, is directed at the modern view of empiricism.

And with those words, I leave you to your thoughts, for now.

So long, and thanks for all the fish