Priorities
Okay, this'll probably bore people to death -- you're warned. I'm trying to figure out how to give myself some direction. One thing that's very clear to me is that FOCUS will be an important aid in getting where I want with this learning thing. There is just SO much one could possibly know, and much of it fascinating to me, that I need some sort of goal to keep in mind, if I'm not going to be distracted by shiny ideas and trivial truths until I wind up spending all my time doing nothing.
I am, after all, studying in order to be able to DO things. My vague intuition puts the focus on life, but what exactly?
1) I want to solve problems. The most satisfaction I can imagine in WORK would come from taking an ailing, wounded, dying, or dead ecosystem and returning it to a growing state. Obviously this precludes an intensive study of any single component, unless it turns out to be key. I don't want to be a bird expert, plant expert, genetics expert, etc... I want to solve problems.
2) This sounds more applied than theoretical, though I like the creativeness of theory. So aiming to test new theories for the purpose of fixing an ecosystem would be cool. That sort of thing would probably only be permitted on systems that really can't get any worse, so there's the element of a challenge as well.
3) Fixed does not necessarily mean returned to its original state. There are funtions that are important to an ecosystem itself -- self-organization, self-preservation, self-replication -- and there are functions important to humans -- raw material production, chemical cycling, genetic diversity... When a system does all of the first three, and as many of the rest as can be managed, it's good, it's working. Most historical biological structures are historical accidents, not ideals to be emulated. What's important is that they worked -- many other things can too, as long as life itself is up and running.
4) I have an intuitive goal -- to find ways to get living systems to do much of what is currently done with machines. Life is a time-tested system that is adaptable, self-replicating, and usually produces collateral benefits. It's only when we start interrupting the function of the world with single-minded, single-purpose processes that we get a huge mess. I want living streetlights, living sidewalks, hell, maybe even living houses. Maybe it's not practical, but it sounds fun to try. It's my goal, entirely Devin and perhaps the one form of artistic expression I'd willingly participate in. Consider everything humanity has ever built until now to be a mock-up, a crude model of what we wish the world to provide for us. Now we might just have the tools to go beyond those models and make the REAL versions.
I feel like I've made a start. Please, if you've had the attention span to reach the end of this mess, feel free to add to this list. Take what you know of life, the world, and this journal's author and suggest how I should build up from my modest base of knowledge toward making something USEFUL happen.
I am, after all, studying in order to be able to DO things. My vague intuition puts the focus on life, but what exactly?
1) I want to solve problems. The most satisfaction I can imagine in WORK would come from taking an ailing, wounded, dying, or dead ecosystem and returning it to a growing state. Obviously this precludes an intensive study of any single component, unless it turns out to be key. I don't want to be a bird expert, plant expert, genetics expert, etc... I want to solve problems.
2) This sounds more applied than theoretical, though I like the creativeness of theory. So aiming to test new theories for the purpose of fixing an ecosystem would be cool. That sort of thing would probably only be permitted on systems that really can't get any worse, so there's the element of a challenge as well.
3) Fixed does not necessarily mean returned to its original state. There are funtions that are important to an ecosystem itself -- self-organization, self-preservation, self-replication -- and there are functions important to humans -- raw material production, chemical cycling, genetic diversity... When a system does all of the first three, and as many of the rest as can be managed, it's good, it's working. Most historical biological structures are historical accidents, not ideals to be emulated. What's important is that they worked -- many other things can too, as long as life itself is up and running.
4) I have an intuitive goal -- to find ways to get living systems to do much of what is currently done with machines. Life is a time-tested system that is adaptable, self-replicating, and usually produces collateral benefits. It's only when we start interrupting the function of the world with single-minded, single-purpose processes that we get a huge mess. I want living streetlights, living sidewalks, hell, maybe even living houses. Maybe it's not practical, but it sounds fun to try. It's my goal, entirely Devin and perhaps the one form of artistic expression I'd willingly participate in. Consider everything humanity has ever built until now to be a mock-up, a crude model of what we wish the world to provide for us. Now we might just have the tools to go beyond those models and make the REAL versions.
I feel like I've made a start. Please, if you've had the attention span to reach the end of this mess, feel free to add to this list. Take what you know of life, the world, and this journal's author and suggest how I should build up from my modest base of knowledge toward making something USEFUL happen.