golem1

Actually "critcal mass" is an acknowledged misnomer even in the source domain, i.e. nuclear physics. What is critical is, roughly speaking, the ratio of mass to surface area, such that neutrons emitted from fission events strike other fissionable nuclei, rather than escaping through the surface of the reaction volume, just sufficiently often to sustain a chain reaction. "Critical" in such a context is more or less synonymous with "criterial", i.e. being a value just sufficient to change a system from one behavioral mode to another. It is erroneous to speak of having "enough critical mass", for example; "enough" and "critical" are synonyms in such a context. Abstracting from the domain of nuclear physics to that of control theory, the concept is having amplification factor around a feedback loop exactly equal to one. Any larger and the signal increases exponentially every time around the loop. Any smaller and it decays exponentially. (I'm assuming the reader understands what "exponentially" means. It doesn't mean "extremely" or "rapidly".)

Have a little more time to reply now. My history with respect to art has some similarity to yours. I dabbled in art in elementary and high school. My first work of any note was a tempera painting of a tree, which appeared, not entirely accidentally, as background in a photo in the highschool yearbook. My mother wanted it, so I took it home to her. But idiot that I was, I folded it in half for convenience in carrying it, which of course ruined it. I wouldn't say engineering is essential to art. What I would say (and believe I did say, more or less) is that an artist must understand the world in much the same way that an engineer does -- i.e. intuitively, not just by way of mathematics, though math is a big help, and essential to get above a certain level of quality. In studying electrical engineering, I found that I absolutely had to reach a stage where I had a "feel" for how a circuit would behave. People outside the profession of engineering may not understand what is meant by an engineering intuition, they may be surprised that it would even be mentioned, but in fact it is essential. I know I'm not alone in that. I was told, as a freshman studying elementary chemistry, that I had to acquire a "feel" for chemistry. I was puzzled by that, and I went to my professor to ask what could possibly be meant by that, and he couldn't tell me. Now I think I know. I count M. C. Escher as my favorite artist. I also like Salvador Dali, for the very careful way he represented objects, though I doubt that I understand the "meaning" of his surrealist works.

If you googled "golem1" you probably found golem1.deviantart.com near the top of the listing. That is the only one that has anything to do with me. I've been contributing to that account for about 12 years, so there is a lot of material there, some of which may interest you.

Wow, lots of stuff there to reply to. Got some things to do today. Maybe the easiest thing to do, for now, is introduce you to other things I've done. Strong hint: google golem1. You may or may not like the opinions I've expressed in journals elsewhere. I'll take that chance... BTW : why golem1, not just golem? The idea, way back when, was that I should reserve "golem" for the final account I would use forever when I got around to replacing myself with software. Silly idea, "golem" turns out to be a very popular word, which other people will have grabbed long before I get around to it. But that was early days for the World Wide Web, had no idea how popular it would become.

Thanks, glad you like it You're on the right track, the Golem is a figure in Jewish folklore -- an artificial man, constructed to serve and protect the Jews. Those who thought up the idea greatly underestimated the amount of information (software) it would take to animate the Golem. For background you could google "golem of prague". (I'm not Jewish myself, but, trite as it may be to say it, some of my best friends are Jews, and public figures I greatly admire very often turn out to be Jewish.) I've used that name, or a variant of it, for years in various forums. Mainly the idea is that the persona I present online should be, not my real self, but a construct, driven by software. I have yet to write the software, but still hope to. A lot of people confuse it with Gollum, a fictional character invented by Tolkein, I believe. I've always taken grammar very seriously, which for me is very useful -- essential for a professional programmer. In instructing a computer, correct grammar is absolutely critical. *** One thing I forgot to mention is the other half of me, my interest in graphic arts, music, etc. I claim to be a professional artist because I have sold a few paintings. Some people might think that's strange, but I don't. Leonardo da Vinci is world renowned as both an artist and an engineer. My opinion (though I can't prove it) is that, to be a good artist, you have to have an engineer's understanding of things. I hope to combine the two interests in computer graphics. Exactly how? More about that later. Incidentally, "inspiration" means literally to "inhale", to breathe in. The modern term would be "input". Again, thanks for your interest

Will introduce myself by saying how I would have responded to several of Stef's videos. Much to say, will try to be terse. Atheist -- a footnote, not an identity. Like Sam Harris, don't go around calling myself an "atheist", and certainly don't go around debating people on the subject. Lifetime Mensa member, non-participant. Joined only at urging of family. Probably a bit over-qualified. Retired computer programmer/analyst. Engineering degrees (summa cum laude at baccalaureate level) never practiced professionally. Like many with such background, have Asperger-like personality, though never diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. Ears perked up when I heard Stef use Randian buzzword "initiation of force". Glad to learn from him much more than I knew about Ayn Rand. Glad to see that he doesn't ape Rand's rhetorical style, and differs from her on several points, as I do. Read _Atlas Shrugged_ summer 1964. Subsequently read other novels, newsletters etc. Many years ago, asked myself what is worth seeking in life. Only answer that popped up was "information". I dismissed that, but many years later decided my "instinct" was right -- Information is how life differs from inorganic chemistry. Three forms of information are basic: DNA, engrams in brain, and external media (print, audio/video etc) That summarizes what life is about, what life "means". Not a mystic, no use for the supernatural, but noticed long ago that software has most or all properties traditionally ascribed to supernatural entities e.g. soul, demons, gods, ghosts, etc. Software is non-material, has no physical properties (mass, weight, energy, temperature, location etc) though must have some physical substrate (hardware) to have any effect in reality. Is potentially immortal, doesn't wear out, needs debugging, etc. In particular, computer "viruses" correspond to old ideas about demonic possession.