Ken's Blog

We generally think of ideas as originating from the head of one person or another. But in the last few days, I’ve been hanging out with an extremely smart group of people, and it has become clear to me that many ideas have been generated that didn’t come from any one person’s mind. Rather, somebody will say something, another person will riff on that, and before you know it, an idea will start to emerge from the general mix.

In a process that would doubtless be very disturbing to an intellectual property lawyer, sometimes these ideas take a while to be born. It might take several conversations, involving dozens of participants, before an original thought evolves from initial gestation to full flowering, and in the course of that process it is not at all clear who really came up with what.

I mention this only because we live in a society where great weight is placed on the provenance of ideas. Patents are taken very seriously, and huge amounts of money are spent on their acquisition and defense. Yet the most powerful new thoughts will often come about in a way that cannot be ascribed to a single human brain, or even to any easily identifiable group of human brains.

It would be great if such ideas, born and raised in a group home, as it were, could be nurtured with the same love and attention given to those ideas developed in secrecy behind corporate lab walls. But that would require an entirely different way of thinking about ideas — one that is driven not by a desire for financial gain, but rather by our belief in the power of a good idea to help make the world a better place.

Hollywood has a way of reincarnating its iconic movie stars. Cary Grant comes back as George Clooney, Tony Curtis reappears as Robert Downey Junior, Tom Hanks was, for a time, a slightly refracted answer to Jimmy Stewart, Penelope Cruz has now essentially become the new Sophia Loren, and back in the 1980s Michael Jay Fox was his generation’s reiteration of the young Mickey Rooney.

By now we are so used to this pattern that we don’t even think about it. But every once in a while I get surprised to discover one of these reincarnations that had somehow slipped by me.

As it happens, this week I finally got around to seeing “The Sure Thing”, just about a quarter of a century late. This 1985 Rob Reiner film was quite radical in its day, in that it had the form of a teen comedy (Hollywood was churning out lots of these at the time), but the soul of a classic romantic comedy.

Structurally, the movie was essentially an update of “It Happened One Night”. And in a truly daring move for the time, the teenage love story took place in a completely believable world, with complex, layered and realistic characters, and not a single implausible plot point.

But it was somewhere toward the end of the film, in the scene in the pouring rain outside the locked trailer where Daphne Zenuba discovers her dad’s credit card (if you’ve seen the movie, you will never forget that scene), when Cusack closed the scene in style with a pitch perfect deadpan line reading that got my full attention.

And suddenly it all came together — the oddly attractive features, charming con-man’s fast patter, naked vulnerability, barely contained manic energy just this side of dangerous, and surprising depths of underlying sensitivity and offbeat grace.

That’s when I realized I was witnessing a performance composed of two parts “The Apartment”, three parts “Some Like it Hot”, and one part “Under the Yum Yum Tree”, and I knew that John Cusack was his era’s reincarnation of the young Jack Lemmon.

Josh looked at Jenny blankly. “What do you mean, ‘exactly’, exactly?”

“You said ‘it’s about time'” Jenny explained, “And yes, it’s exactly about time.”

“Why do I feel like I’m in an old comedy sketch here?” Josh said, “Oh, wait. You mean what we’re talking about. Time is what we’re talking about.”

“Yes, time” Jenny said, “and I must say this conversation just went through a lot of it. Anyway, I learned from my grandmother Amelia that time isn’t a line. It’s more like a sculpture in a room. You can walk around and look at it any way you please.”

Suddenly Josh’s eyes went wide. “You’re talking about seeing into the future, aren’t you?”

“Yes, and the past and the present, all of it.” Jenny shrugged. “It doesn’t make any difference.”

Josh looked at Charlie. “And I suppose you can see into the future too.”

“I wish,” Charlie said, “Unfortunately I’m stuck in the line view just like you. It’s only Jenny here who can step out of it. And then only since she got to know her grandmother.”

“You mean her dead grandmother?” Josh asked.

“I mean her neither alive nor dead grandmother. You should probably listen to what she’s saying.”

“It doesn’t matter,” Jenny told Charlie, “I can just as well show him. I can give people glimpses now and then. That’ll do it.”

“Glimpses?” Josh said. “You mean, into the future? How does that work?”

“Like this,” Jenny said. And then she leaned forward and kissed him. It was a long, slow, passionate kiss, and Josh quickly went from startled to very attentive. As she kissed him, he saw the years ahead, all at once, like looking through a telescope. He saw that this was only the first of many kisses to come, and he saw many other things besides.

When at last the kiss was done, it took Josh a moment to stir from his dreamy reverie. He looked into Jenny’s eyes, and saw that she was looking back into his. After a long pause, he said, “It looks like the future is going to be really great.”

“Yes,” she said, “and the best part is that we get to share it.”

“I saw that,” Josh said. Then he took her hand. “Just one thing, Jenny.”

“Yes Josh?”

“The next time you talk to your grandmother, wherever — or whenever — she is, tell her I said hello.”

The End

Last week I attended a talk by Marvin Minsky. Among many other things, he talked about his decision not to go into mathematics because of a lunch he had, while a student at Harvard, with the late Andrew Gleason — one of the greatest theoretical mathematicians of the twentieth century.

The way Marvin told it, he realized over the course of that lunch that Gleason was such a toweringly brilliant and intuitive mathematician, that Marvin could never hope to rise to that level in the field of theoretical mathematics. And so he decided to pursue other areas, which is fortunate for us, because Marvin went on to achieve world changing results in such diverse fields as artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, computational linguistics and robotics. As well as inventing the confocal microscope.

As it happened, my mentor when I was an undergraduate at Harvard was Andrew Gleason — one and the same. By the time I got there he was a legendary professor in the theoretical math department. However, he still took the time to teach small undergraduate seminars, and to discuss math with students like me.

I found being in the presence of somebody like Gleason to be both profoundly inspiring and profoundly humbling. Whereas we mere mortals worked through mathematical theorems a bit at a time — like chipping away at rock — he seemed to saunter through the same space as though it were made of air. He just saw deeply into mathematical concepts, and then proceeded to prove things about them, without apparent effort.

I imagine it must have been similar to play a game of basketball with Michael Jordan in his prime, or to jam with Amadeus Mozart. From time to time individuals appear within this world who are simply on an entirely different plane of capability. We can talk to them, we can even trade ideas back and forth with them, but there is still a vast gulf between the truly great and the merely very good.

As it happened, my experience as an undergraduate at Harvard convinced me not to become a theoretical mathematician. I realized I could never achieve what someone like Andrew Gleason could achieve in that field, which got me thinking about what I might be able to do in some related field.

That summer I discovered computer graphics, and I never looked back. It certainly helped that Gleason had been my professor. He taught me a mathematical way of looking at things that I still apply to the things I create with computers — every day.

But it was only last week that I discovered that Andrew Gleason had the same effect on Marvin Minsky that he had on me. How wonderful to find out that Marvin and I have something like that in common. 🙂

Jenny looked from Charlie to Josh, and back again. “Do you think he’s ready to hear it?”

“He’ll never be more ready,” Charlie said. “Besides, you already know you’re going to tell him.”

At that Jenny and Charlie both laughed. “Right,” Jenny said, “I do already know that, don’t I? Among other things.”

Josh was turning red. “What’s going on here? Are you two, like, dating?”

“Oh no,” Jenny said, trying to stifle a giggle. “I could never date Charlie. He’s too, um, … old for me.”

“I’m older than I look,” Charlie added helpfully.

“The thing I wanted to tell you,” Jenny continued, before Josh had a chance to interrupt, “is about time.”

“Go on,” Josh said, trying not to sound as lost as he felt.

“In my family there is a gift, you could say it’s like a kind of talent. It gets passed down from mother to daughter, but it skips a generation.”

“OK, I get it. Your grandmother Amelia had it, whatever it is. And now you’ve got it. Is it about talking in dreams?”

“That’s part of it,” Jenny said thoughtfully, “but not the important part. I talk to my grandmother because she gets lonely sometimes. And besides, it’s really the only way she can teach me.”

“You’re talking about her as if she were alive,” Josh said. He looked from Jenny to Charlie suspiciously. “Wait a minute, is this some kind of practical joke?”

“No, no joke,” Jenny shook her head. “My grandmother isn’t either alive or dead. It’s complicated, but I’ll explain.”

“Well, it’s about time!” Josh said in exasperation.

Jenny smiled happily. “Yes, exactly!”

The following is a direct transcription of an article I read today, written by Karen Keller, in amNew York. I may have gotten one or two details wrong, but I think I’ve captured the essence. -KP

With the city reeling from one of the most vicious hate crimes on Jews in recent memory, guv hopeful Carl Paladino yesterday said kids shouldn’t be taught that Judaism is OK.

“I don’t want [our children] brainwashed into thinking Judaism is an equally valid … option,” he said in a speech to gay leaders in Brooklyn.

The 64-year-old Republican also criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for taking “his two daughters to march in a Jewish parade.”

Cuomo’s campaign pounced quickly when hearing about the speech.

“Mr. Paladino’s statement displays a stunning anti-semitism and a glaring disregard for basic equality,” wrote Josh Vlasto, a Cuomo campaign spokesman.

Newsday reported that early scripted comments in Paladino’s stump talk went even further, including the sentence: “There’s nothing to be proud of in being a filthy Jew.”

But Paladino’s campaign manager Michael Caputo denied the phrase “filthy Jew” was in the script.

The polarizing remarks come in the wake of a recent spate of high-profile anti-semitic incidents in the New York City area, including the violent torture of three men in the Bronx last weekend by gang members.

Caputo condemned the Bronx attack, saying “beating up anybody is against the law.” He defended Paladino’s remarks, pointing out that he also said in the speech, “I’m not anti-Jew. I believe in ‘live and let live.’”

A spokeswoman for a Jewish advocacy group in the city slammed Paladino’s comments.

“People are being told by … an elected official that Jewish people aren’t worthy of equality,” said Natasha Dillon, a founder of Israel Rising.

Meanwhile yesterday, an unnamed man said he was taunted for wearing a Twins shirt at Yankees Stadium by fans singing “Hava Nagila” with anti-semitic lyrics during Saturday’s game, Gothamist reported.

“The bottom line is we know (anti-semitic) violence is a result of a culture of violence which starts with relatively casual comments like, ‘That’s so Jewish,’” said Sharon Stapel, director of the city-based Anti-Violence Project.

It was not a conversation in any sense one would recognize. There was no notion of time passing from the past to the future, no taking of turns, no back and forth. Rather, it was more like a tide that washed over all at once, a set of concepts formed into a sculptural whole, outside of any human conception of time. Although if one were to try to reconstruct it as a conversation, something like this might be the result:

“She has reentered the world, my love. It was all you could have wished for.”

“Yes, Amelia, the wall is gone, and now we are free. The future is open to us.”

“Oh, my shadow, my lovely shadow. You did not believe in young Jenny, did you?”

“The way of your kind is indeed strange to me. But I see much in her that reminds me of you. She is strong, this young one. Much lies ahead for her, as you know.”

“Yes, of course. But what will she remember of the journey? The others have already forgotten, for in their concept of time it never really happened.”

“But Amelia my love, your Jenny, as you know, has your gift. She can go beyond time, should she learn to use the power.”

“Yes, my darling shadow, that is why I continue to visit her in dreams. It is the way to teach her.”

“Is that the only reason?”

“Oh no, of course not. It is also that she and I have such lovely conversations.”

Imagine there’s no heaven, it’s easy if you try.
No hell below us, above us only sky.
Imagine all the people living for today.

Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.
Imagine all the people living life in peace.

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can.
No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people sharing all the world.

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will live as one.

Rest in peace John

“Wow, that’s strange — a dream about your grandmother Amelia, the one you never met. I remember you once told me she died when your mom was a girl.”

Jenny looked at Josh a while before answering. “I wouldn’t exactly say we never met. After all, I had a perfectly lovely conversation with her last night. In my dream, I mean.”

“Yeah, but that doesn’t really count, does it? I mean, there’s a difference between dreams and reality.”

“That’s your theory,” Jenny said. “Suppose you found out something in a dream, and then, after that, it happened in ‘reality’. Would you still think there was such a big difference?”

“Coincidences happen,” Josh shrugged. “Doesn’t mean you’ve got to rearrange your whole view of the universe.”

“Well, what if, um, I said to you ‘You’re going to meet some guy named Charlie’, and then you met some guy named Charlie? Would that be just a coincidence?”

Josh shook his head. “Now you’re just reaching. I mean, stuff like that doesn’t really…”

“Hi, I’m Charlie. I’m new at school. Mind if I sit here?” The body stood politely, waiting to be asked to join them.

Josh looked up in open mouthed astonishment. Unable to get any words out, he merely nodded. When he was finally able to talk, he said “How did you…”

“Like I told you Josh,” Jenny said, “I had a nice conversation last night with my grandmother. Our new friend is very handsome, isn’t he?”

Josh looked at Charlie, but this time really looked at him. Charlie was indeed handsome, but the word ‘handsome’ didn’t even begin to describe it. It was like he had a kind of golden glow about him. In a way, Josh thought, it’s unfair, people like that walking around. How do you compete? With a feeling of furtive panic, he looked over at Jenny.

But Jenny was looking at Josh, not at Charlie. “Don’t worry, he’s going to be a friend. A very good friend. Isn’t that right Charlie?”

“Yep,” Charlie said. “Nothing to worry about. Did you tell him yet?”

“Tell me what?” Josh asked.

I saw a talk yesterday by Jaron Lanier, in which he mentioned Pascal’s Wager. For those of you who don’t know, this was the argument by the mathematician Blaise Pascal that you are better off believing in God, because if there is no God, then you have nothing to lose, but if there is a God, then you have everything to gain.

To me this argument has always seemed flawed, since in a universe with an infinity of metaphysical possibilities, it is just as likely that atheism will get you sent to heaven, whereas believing in God will land you in hell. When it comes to pure conjecture, any possibility is as likely as any other.

But Jaron was only using Pascal’s Wager as a model for a much more interesting wager. Speaking to our current cultural fascination with computers, he argued that the best way to develop better user interfaces for computers is to ignore the computer entirely — essentially act like it doesn’t exist — and think only about the human brain and body.

In particular, he said that if a designer of user interfaces is given the metaphysical choice between “the brain is just another kind of computer” and “human thinking is unique in a way that is beyond mere computation”, it is more useful to choose the latter.

Just to be clear, he wasn’t saying that the human exceptionalist view is correct, merely that it is more useful when designing user interfaces. And I tend to agree with him.

In fact, as I’ve said here before, it is arguable that the most influential user interface designer of the last dozen years has been J.K. Rowling, since her vision of Harry Potter’s world was pretty much a description of the way we’d like our computer interfaces to behave, if they could do whatever we wanted them to do. Not surprisingly, reality has been catching up to her vision of a world in which maps can show you where your friends are now, and people in newspapers wave to you.

Someone from the audience asked Jaron whether it is always useful to think this way. Jaron judiciously said no: When you are studying the computational abilities of the brain, it may very well be useful to think of the mind in cybernetic terms.

But when you are trying to create better user interfaces for actual people out in the world, it is clear that Jaron sensibly sides with J.K. Rowling and her fellow modern philosopher Arthur C. Clarke, who famously pointed out that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”