Or, "sense of balance" as Wikipedia calls it. I've been doing a little bit of experimentation. I know when I spin my chair around as fast as possible (until I reach a sort of "equilibrium" where I feel no acceleration, then stop, it takes a while for me to stop being dizzy, as would be expected. But I just recently realized that the sense of dizzyness is NOT due to my physical state (kinesthetic sense) because I can tell that I'm not moving. It's purely VISUAL. (And I'm kind of wondering if it's the same for other people.)
In the past, I realized that the feeling of which direction is "up" is not just a feeling but an actual visual perception. When you turn your head and look at a picture frame, you can still tell if it's on the wall crooked, even though your head is tilted. I had always wondered why when I tilted my head, my eyes were at an angle but it didn't seem like the world changed at all. Even when a person's body is at any angle, even upside-down, he or she is still able to tell whether something is upright or not. Clearly the visual is linked directly to the inner ear sense.
Well, when I was spinning on my chair the other day, I realized once I stopped that it seemed everything was at a DIAGONAL angle, and constantly looping visually (probably a result of trying to track the motion of the spinning visually prior to the stop). The angle gradually decreased until it finally looked level again, a process which took 15 seconds. I am guessing that it corresponds to the amount of fluid motion in the inner ear, and that I probably held my head at an angle while spinning. However, I did not get the same result when spinning to the right: instead the lines just seemed wobbly.
Then, strangely on-topic, a safety training presentation was posted on the Civil Air Patrol website about spatial disorientation: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Spatial__Disorientation_1EB70933CA251.ppt Very informative!
There are types of motion that trick your body into thinking it's moving one way and is really not. I'm wondering how that's linked to the visual sense too, and if that's an integral part of making sense of it all.
So now, knowing all of this, I think more experimentation is in order. I want to try spinning left vs. right, head tilted vs. not, and eyes closed vs. eyes open. I'm wondering if the time it took to readjust differs for different people or different physical situations or awareness. If you have any personal experience or information on this, share it in the comments! And let the mad science begin! (Or, if these experiments sound like a bad idea and I might hurt myself, let me know too... I don't think it would do any harm, but I don't know everything.)
Oh and also, check out this cool thing about visual cognition: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7524529047833923429#
12.11.2010
8.27.2010
Seeking and Finding
A few things today. I was thinking about theoretical physics. I'm trying to get some real heroes, people who have influenced me throughout the years. I already made a list of artists (elsewhere) but I noticed quite a few scientists who have also influenced the field of visualization, and/or are personally inspiring to me:
Erwin Schrödinger - I studied him in high school, drew a picture of him too.
Max Planck - one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics, always cool. It turns out I agree with a lot of his philosophy.
Hendrik Lorentz - Lorentz transformations, space and time.
Pierre-Simon Laplace - inventor of our well known Laplace transforms.
Joseph Fourier - Fourier transforms.
Joseph Louis Lagrange - more related to calculus, but anyhow...some of you might recognize the "Lagrange point" idea from sci-fi/aerospace.
Nikola Tesla - because he's awesome.
Roger Penrose - Penrose steps, other impossible geometry, really cool tiling methods. Geometry. Yes.
I feel like I'm like two people, a split consciousness... the technical side and the artistic side. Am I a complete person, since I have the two parts? Is a complete person made of only two parts? We like to divide things up into dualities...but I'm not quite sure it is so.
So I came up with a list of parts that people require to be full people. You can debate these or not. It is not exhaustive. It is only my random thoughts for now.
Physical - lots of parts.. skeleton, flesh, blood. Flesh is divided into muscles (things that move the skeleton) and organs (things that do stuff).
Mental - creativity (artistic), reasoning (technical), senses, memory
Spiritual - Moral, Mystical (6th sense?)
Then I was listening to something about the sense of Curiosity/Interest/Anticipation ... which is apparently what's caused by Dopamine! It's not the "pleasure" sense, it's more the "seeking" sense. Listen here: [link]
I was struck by how I am always seeking things. It's why I play video games. It's why I joined Civil Air Patrol. It's what I'm always doing in my dreams. And it's the most fun thing in the world. I love exploring. I love seeking knowledge, and sharing it so other people can become interested and start seeking for themselves! I realized I always try to understand the way the world works, because I haven't quite figured it all out yet. It's the realm of all the sciences, the arts, and philosophy. And I love exploring realms of fiction too: new universes, vast and amazing. So, here's to seeking! Video games really are drugs.
Erwin Schrödinger - I studied him in high school, drew a picture of him too.
Max Planck - one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics, always cool. It turns out I agree with a lot of his philosophy.
Hendrik Lorentz - Lorentz transformations, space and time.
Pierre-Simon Laplace - inventor of our well known Laplace transforms.
Joseph Fourier - Fourier transforms.
Joseph Louis Lagrange - more related to calculus, but anyhow...some of you might recognize the "Lagrange point" idea from sci-fi/aerospace.
Nikola Tesla - because he's awesome.
Roger Penrose - Penrose steps, other impossible geometry, really cool tiling methods. Geometry. Yes.
I feel like I'm like two people, a split consciousness... the technical side and the artistic side. Am I a complete person, since I have the two parts? Is a complete person made of only two parts? We like to divide things up into dualities...but I'm not quite sure it is so.
So I came up with a list of parts that people require to be full people. You can debate these or not. It is not exhaustive. It is only my random thoughts for now.
Physical - lots of parts.. skeleton, flesh, blood. Flesh is divided into muscles (things that move the skeleton) and organs (things that do stuff).
Mental - creativity (artistic), reasoning (technical), senses, memory
Spiritual - Moral, Mystical (6th sense?)
Then I was listening to something about the sense of Curiosity/Interest/Anticipation ... which is apparently what's caused by Dopamine! It's not the "pleasure" sense, it's more the "seeking" sense. Listen here: [link]
I was struck by how I am always seeking things. It's why I play video games. It's why I joined Civil Air Patrol. It's what I'm always doing in my dreams. And it's the most fun thing in the world. I love exploring. I love seeking knowledge, and sharing it so other people can become interested and start seeking for themselves! I realized I always try to understand the way the world works, because I haven't quite figured it all out yet. It's the realm of all the sciences, the arts, and philosophy. And I love exploring realms of fiction too: new universes, vast and amazing. So, here's to seeking! Video games really are drugs.
1.05.2010
Architectural "Place" in video games
I found this while I was looking through some of my thesis work from last year.
A feeling of "place" in Aquaria is tied to the character interactions and lighting.
- Complicated/simple - affects frustration and disorientation
- Open/closed - affects claustrophobia or freedom
- Obstacles and enemies? - affects tension/frustration
Music/sound also affects this a great deal. Happy music can even make a dark space feel non-threatening. Ominous music can even make a bright space feel spooky. Tense music can add drama even to easy battles.
I thought some of this might be fairly obvious, but it's good to get it all down. I have tried to abstract the rules enough that they apply to other games or other media. But the unique thing for games is the interactions and movement through the space. The important thing is to make the place in the game match the plot. If a place is said to be scary, it should actually be scary to the player.
A feeling of "place" in Aquaria is tied to the character interactions and lighting.
- If a place is dark and full of creatures, it feels hostile.
- If a place is bright and full of creatures, it feels vibrant and full of life.
- If a place is bright and full of non-enemies, it also feels peaceful, joyous.
- If a place is bright and empty, it is lonely but contemplative.
- If a place is dark and empty, it's spooky (ex: the ruins)
- If a place is dark entirely (no light at all), it feels claustrophobic and inspires despair.
- Complicated/simple - affects frustration and disorientation
- Open/closed - affects claustrophobia or freedom
- Obstacles and enemies? - affects tension/frustration
Music/sound also affects this a great deal. Happy music can even make a dark space feel non-threatening. Ominous music can even make a bright space feel spooky. Tense music can add drama even to easy battles.
I thought some of this might be fairly obvious, but it's good to get it all down. I have tried to abstract the rules enough that they apply to other games or other media. But the unique thing for games is the interactions and movement through the space. The important thing is to make the place in the game match the plot. If a place is said to be scary, it should actually be scary to the player.
10.19.2009
Parkour Philosophy
So, I've been looking into Parkour recently and I find I really like the philosophy it presents. Parkour is not really a sport. It's not a game. It's practical gymnastics. It's elegant, efficient motion. It is an art. But it's not a martial art; it's not about fighting. It's about the other aspect of adrenaline: the flight. The only reason it has been labeled a "sport" is to make the powers that be think it's legit. But it's really not about competition, it's about creativity, having fun, making yourself stronger...and most impressively about altruism. The idea is so that you can become strong in order to help others. (See the wikipedia entry for Parkour... it's inspiring! .)
Nevertheless, it seems to be a sort of rebel sport. It goes against conventions in many ways; against the conventional methods of movement, and against architectural conventions themselves. No longer is a wall a wall, but instead a method of reaching higher ground. Clearly an architecture that integrated this kind of motion would be something else than what we have. But I think it would be a lot more interesting. However, despite the fact that it tends to attract rebels and be labeled by authorities as some kind of illegal thing, the philosophy of it is creative, proactive, and altruistic. Revolutionary is, I think, the word I'm looking for. But will society ever accept, even embrace, this revolutionary art form? Some societies have. France for example. But then, they invented it. I'm a bit doubtful at America's ability to accept it, at least here in Texas, but there are beginnings. And it strikes at the heart of some of the major problems Texas culture is facing.
I used to climb all over stuff as a kid, jump between things, and try to do things that looked interesting. I can't do that stuff now. Why did I stop? Because no one wanted to play, and because I wasn't "supposed to" and because they took away recess. For obvious reasons, because by that time, kids aren't really innocent, and the crafty ones would find a way to sneak away and do whatever they wanted. (I think you know what I mean.) By the time I got to 8th grade, I was an indoors type of person, and not by desire. Mental exercise replaced physical exercise. While I think that it's good to improve your mind, you have to keep your body active too. I found my spatial awareness exercised in video games, but they're sedentary so it did nothing for my physical abilities.
I really think the American educational system needs a severe overhaul in this regard. They need to find a way to make PE fun, i.e. let kids do what they want to do, as far as exercise is concerned. It needs to be a lot more laid back, less structure. Like recess! Less sports-oriented, because there's plenty of reasons many of us don't get into sports. I just don't really care about the competition, I care about the problem solving, the creativity and the spatial awareness. Sports tend to weed out the people who are less apt at them, which also discourages those people from playing. The key to fostering a physically fit society is to allow each person to exercise in their own way, and I believe Parkour could be the key to that.
Americans, and especially Texans are plagued by obesity, even childhood obesity. They get their spatial exercise and fun from video games, or entertainment from TV, neglecting the real world and all the adventures they could be having every day. They don't see themselves as the hero, they don't see themselves as proactive and able to do things. On the other hand, you get people who are nearly obsessed with physical fitness. These sad cultural norms are fostered by many things, among which is the way people are raised, the way sports are taught, and even our very infrastructure and architecture. If you're going to exercise, you have to do it in a very focused way by going to a gym; you can't really walk places normally or take a bike because the cities are designed for automotive traffic and nothing is within walking or biking distance. Not only does this take up more land, destroying our environment, but it prevents us from getting the exercise we need to have in our daily routine! Cars are great for long distance travel, but not for the daily commute! I doubt parkour will go so far as to create a revolution in architecture, but we definitely need to change the way we think about buildings and about our daily locomotion. Parkour is a great way to exercise, play, and be creative, all at the same time. I would encourage every active kid not to give up the pursuit of fun.
I'm just glad this Parkour thing has caught on somewhere. Hopefully Americans, and especially Texans, will continue to pick up on this revolutionary new thing =)
Nevertheless, it seems to be a sort of rebel sport. It goes against conventions in many ways; against the conventional methods of movement, and against architectural conventions themselves. No longer is a wall a wall, but instead a method of reaching higher ground. Clearly an architecture that integrated this kind of motion would be something else than what we have. But I think it would be a lot more interesting. However, despite the fact that it tends to attract rebels and be labeled by authorities as some kind of illegal thing, the philosophy of it is creative, proactive, and altruistic. Revolutionary is, I think, the word I'm looking for. But will society ever accept, even embrace, this revolutionary art form? Some societies have. France for example. But then, they invented it. I'm a bit doubtful at America's ability to accept it, at least here in Texas, but there are beginnings. And it strikes at the heart of some of the major problems Texas culture is facing.
I used to climb all over stuff as a kid, jump between things, and try to do things that looked interesting. I can't do that stuff now. Why did I stop? Because no one wanted to play, and because I wasn't "supposed to" and because they took away recess. For obvious reasons, because by that time, kids aren't really innocent, and the crafty ones would find a way to sneak away and do whatever they wanted. (I think you know what I mean.) By the time I got to 8th grade, I was an indoors type of person, and not by desire. Mental exercise replaced physical exercise. While I think that it's good to improve your mind, you have to keep your body active too. I found my spatial awareness exercised in video games, but they're sedentary so it did nothing for my physical abilities.
I really think the American educational system needs a severe overhaul in this regard. They need to find a way to make PE fun, i.e. let kids do what they want to do, as far as exercise is concerned. It needs to be a lot more laid back, less structure. Like recess! Less sports-oriented, because there's plenty of reasons many of us don't get into sports. I just don't really care about the competition, I care about the problem solving, the creativity and the spatial awareness. Sports tend to weed out the people who are less apt at them, which also discourages those people from playing. The key to fostering a physically fit society is to allow each person to exercise in their own way, and I believe Parkour could be the key to that.
Americans, and especially Texans are plagued by obesity, even childhood obesity. They get their spatial exercise and fun from video games, or entertainment from TV, neglecting the real world and all the adventures they could be having every day. They don't see themselves as the hero, they don't see themselves as proactive and able to do things. On the other hand, you get people who are nearly obsessed with physical fitness. These sad cultural norms are fostered by many things, among which is the way people are raised, the way sports are taught, and even our very infrastructure and architecture. If you're going to exercise, you have to do it in a very focused way by going to a gym; you can't really walk places normally or take a bike because the cities are designed for automotive traffic and nothing is within walking or biking distance. Not only does this take up more land, destroying our environment, but it prevents us from getting the exercise we need to have in our daily routine! Cars are great for long distance travel, but not for the daily commute! I doubt parkour will go so far as to create a revolution in architecture, but we definitely need to change the way we think about buildings and about our daily locomotion. Parkour is a great way to exercise, play, and be creative, all at the same time. I would encourage every active kid not to give up the pursuit of fun.
I'm just glad this Parkour thing has caught on somewhere. Hopefully Americans, and especially Texans, will continue to pick up on this revolutionary new thing =)
7.28.2009
Cognition, Analogies, and Games
Today I stumbled upon this most amazing article, written by Douglas R. Hofstadter.
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/hofstadter/analogy.html
This was a wonderful find, truly a gem in the mine of philosophy that I dig every day for things that apply to games. It's about thinking, how we make cognitive decisions, etc. It amazes me just how much this field applies to games. Maybe games have more philosophy in them than anything else? Practical science, not theoretical science, though. That reminds me of something my friend Lars wrote on Game Design: http://fadupinator.com/design111.htm
I haven't read the entire article yet, but here are some conclusions and thoughts I drew from it so far:
-I talk and write because it expands my mental RAM and helps me make connections. Even if I'm talking to someone who's not responding, phrasing it as if I'd talk to a person is important for some reason. Perhaps people share brains to think with, that the human mind is a somewhat distributed thing.
-Changing habits changes your mind. Your worldview is based on your beliefs, which are based on your experience. Your day-to-day experiences shape the way you see everything else. This includes vocabulary and concepts transmitted by others you communicate with. This is why people nowadays see "aliens" and "UFOs" instead of "angels and demons," and why they chalk up sickness to bacteria instead of demonic activity. Language affects the way people think about things.
-Language is a compressed version of thought. To communicate well, you must choose words that will connect with your audience. I've always seen communication as a contract, where both parties seek to find common ground and then build on that. It's really a completely different medium than thought. That's why you can communicate with images also, nonverbally. All things are equally translatable, i.e. they have to be equally translated into text for verbal communication. This gets into semiotics quite a bit, in how the signs we use are different in form than the things they signify. ("This is not a pipe.") This is why I believe a "prototyping" method works well for communication (at least verbal communication), try and see whether it works, then modify it to work better.
It also reinforces the idea that all art is communication. It reinforces my personal belief that my thoughts and inventions are not really my own, but are formed out of the fabric of my own experience. There was this great conversation on the topic I had a while back, I should post that sometime.
That's all I've gotten so far. Perhaps more later.
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/hofstadter/analogy.html
This was a wonderful find, truly a gem in the mine of philosophy that I dig every day for things that apply to games. It's about thinking, how we make cognitive decisions, etc. It amazes me just how much this field applies to games. Maybe games have more philosophy in them than anything else? Practical science, not theoretical science, though. That reminds me of something my friend Lars wrote on Game Design: http://fadupinator.com/design111.htm
I haven't read the entire article yet, but here are some conclusions and thoughts I drew from it so far:
-I talk and write because it expands my mental RAM and helps me make connections. Even if I'm talking to someone who's not responding, phrasing it as if I'd talk to a person is important for some reason. Perhaps people share brains to think with, that the human mind is a somewhat distributed thing.
-Changing habits changes your mind. Your worldview is based on your beliefs, which are based on your experience. Your day-to-day experiences shape the way you see everything else. This includes vocabulary and concepts transmitted by others you communicate with. This is why people nowadays see "aliens" and "UFOs" instead of "angels and demons," and why they chalk up sickness to bacteria instead of demonic activity. Language affects the way people think about things.
-Language is a compressed version of thought. To communicate well, you must choose words that will connect with your audience. I've always seen communication as a contract, where both parties seek to find common ground and then build on that. It's really a completely different medium than thought. That's why you can communicate with images also, nonverbally. All things are equally translatable, i.e. they have to be equally translated into text for verbal communication. This gets into semiotics quite a bit, in how the signs we use are different in form than the things they signify. ("This is not a pipe.") This is why I believe a "prototyping" method works well for communication (at least verbal communication), try and see whether it works, then modify it to work better.
It also reinforces the idea that all art is communication. It reinforces my personal belief that my thoughts and inventions are not really my own, but are formed out of the fabric of my own experience. There was this great conversation on the topic I had a while back, I should post that sometime.
That's all I've gotten so far. Perhaps more later.
4.30.2009
About Respect
I learned something about respect the other day.
I respect many people, and they've all earned it through self-sacrifice. Some of them, I would die for. I think that's a good feeling, knowing that you would follow someone anywhere, and whatever they told you to do, it would be the right thing to do. That kind of trust is hard to earn, at least with me. I have a hard time trusting people.
When someone makes a disparaging remark about someone you respect, it undermines that trust and inspires suspicion and rebellion in you. Worse still, if the person who made that remark is also someone you respect, it's a lose-lose situation. Either the person who said it loses your respect because he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he DOES know what he's talking about, and you lose respect for the other.
How do you respond? Defend the victim but lose a little respect for both? Better had it not been said. This is especially damaging to families where one parent talks badly about the other to their children. Parents, avoid telling your children things that would undermine their trust of the other parent, even if they're true.
The lesson I learned is this: give respect to whom it is due, and avoid talking badly about others, especially to those who rightly respect them. If you have a problem with someone in authority, bring it directly to them or say nothing at all, unless a warning to others is warranted. You be the example. If you don't respect your leaders, people will follow your example and disrespect you in return. This is especially important for me as a Teaching Assistant.
I respect many people, and they've all earned it through self-sacrifice. Some of them, I would die for. I think that's a good feeling, knowing that you would follow someone anywhere, and whatever they told you to do, it would be the right thing to do. That kind of trust is hard to earn, at least with me. I have a hard time trusting people.
When someone makes a disparaging remark about someone you respect, it undermines that trust and inspires suspicion and rebellion in you. Worse still, if the person who made that remark is also someone you respect, it's a lose-lose situation. Either the person who said it loses your respect because he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he DOES know what he's talking about, and you lose respect for the other.
How do you respond? Defend the victim but lose a little respect for both? Better had it not been said. This is especially damaging to families where one parent talks badly about the other to their children. Parents, avoid telling your children things that would undermine their trust of the other parent, even if they're true.
The lesson I learned is this: give respect to whom it is due, and avoid talking badly about others, especially to those who rightly respect them. If you have a problem with someone in authority, bring it directly to them or say nothing at all, unless a warning to others is warranted. You be the example. If you don't respect your leaders, people will follow your example and disrespect you in return. This is especially important for me as a Teaching Assistant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)