Educating Intuition - Notes from the book

Hogarth, Roblin M. Educating Intuition. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 2001.

Intuition is that unconscious decision making process that we all are capable of to some extent or another. The question that the author addresses in this book is whether we are capable of actively refining our intuitions. In order to tackle this concept the author had to delve into many aspects of cognition, especially as it relates to the work of experts. He divides our thought processes into two streams: the deliberate and the tacit. The tacit corresponds to the innate reasoning that we generally consider to be intuition. Although we are not actively conscious of it, the author has positioned the steps involved in tacit reasoning in relation to conscious deliberate reasoning and outlined a process by which we can consciously improve our tacit reasoning. The overall map of this process is diagrammed below (from p.196 of the book). Essentially the process involves becoming conscious of tacit reasoning and then selecting experience and feedback that will allow development of that reasoning while being aware of potential cognitive biases (examples given are the regression to the mean and the gambler's fallacy) through what he calls "circuit breakers". He feels that learning can occur in the tacit system once we have consciously learned to apply the scientific method in reflecting on our intuitions, particularly with respect to the use of falsification.

Since I am interested in the Scientific Method and the relationship that intuition has to it, I found it interesting that the author turned the relationship around so that the Scientific Method becomes a way that we can consciously select experiences that train our intuition. Then our intuition leads us to to new insights which can then also be confirmed by the Scientific Method. Once again, I tend to relate these ideas to the deduction/induction process where the "tacit" reasoning corresponds to induction and the deduction to the "deliberate". This book seems to suggest that there is an element to human cognition whereby we are constantly seeking patterns unconsciously, which then are brought, seemingly unbidden, to the fore when we are consciously attempting to understand something.

The diagram of the model and further quotes follow.

p.158

...experts and novices use different problem-solving strategies. Novices tend first to identify a specific goal and then work backward through the details of the problem to find a way to reach the goal. Experts, however, tend first to take in the details of the problem they face, then determine (through a process of recognizing similarities) the general framework that best fits the data, and, finally, work forward from that framework to explore possible solutions (goals). The process that novices follow (working backward) is more deliberate; the process that experts follow (working forward) is more intuitive.

p. 212

...the strength and weakness of tacit learning is the fact that it is tied to what has been experienced . It is necessarily limited. On the other hand, deliberate processes can produce impressive intellectual achievements.

One such achievement -- known generally as scientific method (i.e., the methods and rules of scientific reasoning) -- allows us to learn more effectively from experience.

On a section regarding the testing of intuitive thought, p236-237:

The key advice for testing can be summarized as follows: When you have what you think is a good hypothesis (or belief or idea), ask yourself what could change your mind. What evidence would you need to see to be convinced that you are mistaken?

p.239 "Exhbit 20" Improving skills of testing

1. Get into the habit of searching for possible disconfirming evidence.

2. Continue to generate alternative ideas -- understanding is rarely complete. Ask yourself what you would expect to see if different ideas were true. How can you check these predictions?

3. Be aware that taking action may prevent you from ever being able to check your idea or hypothesis. That is, taking action may prevent you from seeing the outcome of the action that you didn't take. Act, or don't act, but don't fool yourself.

4. When possible, check your ideas with other people.

5. Don't expect to find "smoking guns" -- except in well-defined situations.

6. To what extent are your beliefs in ideas dependent on particular pieces of evidence? How valid is that evidence? How would your beliefs change if that evidence were less reliable or even missing?

7. What evidence would lead you to change your beliefs?

8. Could what you see be due to chance? In whole, or in part? (Recall regression toward the mean and the gambler's fallacy [see pp. 123-125].)

9. To what extent do you want your specific idea to be true? Does this color your understanding?

10. Remember that, in dealing with people, it is usually possible to check ideas or hypotheses only at the level of actual, observed behaviour. We rarely, if ever, have access to underlying motivations.

11. Seek feedback!

LOST - 4815162342

I recently had a period of time, while convalescing from surgery, that afforded me the opportunity to spend some time just watching movies or t.v. I had undergone hip replacement surgery--my second in six months--which meant a certain lack of physical mobility along with a certain lack of mental motivation, and watching some shows would seem to be just what was required. What to watch? Well, Lost had just finished its run and it seemed to have been successful. It had lots of fans and seemed to wrap up well. I had never seen even a single episode as it is the type of production that frustrates me because of the delay between episodes and the potential to miss an installment altogether.

So I set out to watch all 6 seasons straight through and it took me about three weeks. I probably averaged about 4 hours a day. I have seen many comments on The Internet regarding the complexity of the plot and how it was resolved. Sitting through it in that way kept many of the subtle aspects of the plot fresh in my mind, although I didn't re-watch any episodes to analyze them for fine details.

So here is my take on this series, first the good things. I think the setting was one of the strongest aspects of the production. It was filmed on location in Hawaii and having that consistently beautiful backdrop was a major plus for the show. I thought that the character development, particularly the use of "flashbacks" to help establish the complexity of the characters and their entangled relationships really helped the viewer to "bond" with the characters. I liked the sci-fi aspect of a discovered retro-seventies research project that had gone to seed. Although I didn't mind the fantasy aspects of the spirits on the island and the island itself, ultimately I think it went too far. The pacing of the plot development was very rapid and quite addictive.

On the down side I would have to say that the pace of plot also resulted in many sub-plots dangling. In many ways I would liken this to a Ponzi scheme in the sense that, as a viewer, one is led to believe that elements of the plot would be resolved but they never were, the show simply pushed on trying to keep the viewer on the hook with new twists while resolving outstanding plot issues where they could. The use of flashbacks to flesh out the characters and the plot is a great tool, but I am always wary when the writers start resorting to time travel anomalies or parallel universes because it means that ultimately I have to accept their resolution to the plot whether I find it acceptable or not. It is also a problem when the writers start down the path to the supernatural, often, as it did for Lost, this path leads to an escalation that ultimately undermines the credibility of the plot development. At the end of the day I would also have to say that the program was much more graphically violent than it needed to be.

The resolution of the fate of the main protagonists was satisfying. The resolution of the parallel universe/time anomaly aspects much less so. The supernatural aspects of the island were not really dealt with that well. So while having the Lost experience was enjoyable, and am glad that I watched the entire run, it also left me feeling somewhat cheated -- sort of like I want to re-write major chunks of it on my own.

Second Hip Surgery

I haven't posted since before my hip surgery on May 11th. Things were kind of busy leading up to the surgery and after it was done I didn't feel much like writing. I decided that I would just take six weeks off and relax as much as possible. "Relaxing" this time meant watching videos, reading, sleeping, etc. Although I didn't feel like reading as much this time as I did for the first hip.

This surgery was certainly different than the last in terms of recovery. I did not loose as much blood and therefore felt better and stronger since the first day. The joint itself was also much more stable for walking and other activities. The only real challenge was lifting the knee forward and upward as in going up stairs or getting into a car. Otherwise things went very well. My wound continued to drain as the last time, so I had to stay in the hospital for 5 days and it healed slowly so I had to wait over 3 weeks before I could shower, but otherwise things were good. I did not need to take any drugs, even in the hospital I did not use any of the patient controlled analgesia.

During my recovery it was much more comfortable getting in and out of bed and looking after myself. I could also drive after three weeks, although, as I mentioned, the movements getting into and out of a car were the most uncomfortable. Sitting, as usual, was also uncomfortable, even in a comfy recliner. The best way to relax was semi-reclined in bed.

I suppose my overall fatigue level was somewhat higher. I certainly napped regularly and slept well. Since I was walking better I could go to the gym earlier and start working out. In the beginning it was somewhat uncomfortable using the stationary bike and my cardio and strength have dropped. These did not rebound as quickly as I had expected them to. Perhaps this is because I was so weakened from my first surgery that once I had started to improve things seemed to go more quickly.

I also did not have as much ability to concentrate so I did not read as much. I spent more time watching videos. A movie is actually a little too long so I started watching tv shows. Eventually I decided that it would be interesting to watch "Lost". It seemed to be a popular show and it had just finished while I was in the hospital. So I watching the whole six seasons straight through. I'll post about Lost later.

No major complaints about this surgery at all. I have noticed that my first surgery hip has become more stiff because of inactivity but hopefully it will continue to improve also. I'm starting work today, although it will be for half-days for a little while. By next week I should be back in the groove. I still have some healing to do, bending over to put on shoes still hurts and sitting for any length of time is not so good. It all gets a bit better every day.

Notes on Mental Leaps

A theory on how the mind extends knowledge. p.15

A multiconstraint theory - similarity, structure and purpose guide the formation of analogy through the stages of selection, mapping, evaluation and learning. p.17

"Scientific analogies have at least four purposes: discovery, development, evaluation and exposition." p.189

"A metaphor uses cross domain analogies. It is speaking about one thing to say something about another." p.213

"Allegories are extended metaphorical stories." p.215

"A metaphor always connects two domains in a way that goes beyond the normal category structure." p.217

Samuel Butler once said "Though analogy is often misleading, it is the least misleading thing we have." p.262

Similarity of objects, similarity of relations, similarity of relations of relations.

Why I am not writing

I feel obliged to make excuses because I have not been writing enough. I have, of course, been reading but I should be writing a little bit more. I will try.

Just finished reading "Mental Leaps" by Holyoak and Thagard. This book is all about analogy and creativity and I will be discussing the book and analogy shortly. I have also been working some more on Bayes' Theorem which I will also make an entry about. One thing that is slowing me down at this point is that I wish to embed some images and equations in these posts and I have also been trying out some different equation editors. I am trying out Open Office a little more, hopefully I can get its equation editor to work well. The Word equation editor is ok. The third party editors seem to be a bit of a pain in the butt. I have found an open source version that I may try out.

I am just going to make the diagrams in Powerpoint and try embedding them as html or I will convert them to an image and embed them that way.

Simile, Analogy, Metaphor

I have been grappling with simile, analogy and metaphor because they are an indispensable part of language, and indeed, thought. Yet the distinction between them is fluid, some may say that they are all variations of analogy. In fact you could throw in quite a few more topics if you want, what about allegories or parables? There are even sub-categories of metaphor such as metonymy or synecdoche to deal with.

There are clearly overlaps between all of these but I think that our language has evolved the use of different terms to reflect a different innate process in our minds. For example, I think that simile is used to help us express the process of categorization that we all do very effectively and automatically. To put this process in words we have to say that one thing "is like" another thing so that the persons we are communicating with understand our categorization. For the most part I think that simile is intended to show as much of a direct correspondence or "mapping" as possible. A minimum of abstraction is desirable in a good simile. Yet it is possible to stimulate creative ideas by deliberately attempting to make similes out of things that are obviously not similar. The result is that the receiver of the simile will have to manufacture some type of abstract relationship in order to make the simile work.

I would place analogy at the next level of categorization. A good analogy has concrete similarities between the items being compared, just like a simile. However, it should also have an element of abstraction to it. An analogy can also work because the relationship between the two items being compared can be an abstract characteristic of each item. I think that this partial physical and partial abstract mapping is the key to a good analogy. This helps us to communicate ideas and experiences as well as characteristics. A good analogy also helps us to understand the concept we are trying to work with better because it gives us information about underlying relationships.

A metaphor is a comparison of abstractions, it does not have to have a physical correspondence. It captures underlying properties and relationships that not only explain the thing that we are trying to communicate, but allows for a new synthesis of ideas within the metaphor that map back onto the original subject. It allows us to look at a topic in a new and different way. Mathematics, for example, stands on its own as a consistent form of abstraction and reasoning. However, it becomes a metaphor for science because a scientist can abstract a thing that is being studied into a mathematical model which can then be manipulated to derive new facts and relationships about the original topic which were not known at the time that the metaphor was invoked.

I think that these concepts are hierarchical in nature moving from a greater degree of physical correspondence in the simile to the higher level of correspondence of abstract relationships in the metaphor, with analogy occupying a place in between. I think that the relationship between these ideas forms the basis of how we make sense of the world and how we do more creative things like science. I think it is important to have a model for how these concepts relate to other broader forms of thought such as induction and deduction and what I am trying to do here is outline a consistent framework.

The problem I am having right now is that as I research this topic I am encountering extensive literature on the topic. I am currently reading a book called "Mind Leaps" by Thagard and Holyoak which is on the topic of analogy. I think that they have a slightly different viewpoint but it will be interesting to see. Just another example of how I get diverted from writing about something by feeling the need to read about it.

On being a reader instead of a writer

I consider myself to be a "reader" in the sense that it is an activity that I enjoy and pursue daily. I read very widely but for the last twenty-five years or so I have primarily read non-fiction. Prior to that it was almost exclusively fiction, especially Science Fiction and Fantasy.

The problem that I have with this is that I do feel that there is a cognitive benefit to the process of actually writing down the thoughts and ideas that reading books generates. I think that it helps your brain to organize what you have read and synthesize connections to pre-existing information in your head. I have trouble stopping reading in order to write.

Writing book reviews is sometimes helpful, because it forces you to pause and summarize what you have read. What I find is that, after having read a book, I am sort of still mulling it over in my mind while I am moving on to the next book. I often am reading several...perhaps as many as 8 to 10 books at a time, and often the topics are complimentary so I am waiting to finish one or more books because they generally influence my thoughts one way or another about other books that I have read or actually reading.

One of the reasons for writing this Blog is that I am hoping that I will be able to write about broader themes that may incorporate the thoughts on several books at a time. I am currently exploring broader topics just to get them out of my system and to set some groundwork. Even in this I have troubles. For instance I wanted to write a post regarding scientific models and to do that I needed to write about analogies and metaphors, and so on. While I mull over what I am going to write, I start researching and reading and now I find myself with a new block of reading on these subjects and I can't get to the writing part again.

I think that I have to focus on smaller topics and write my way through them a little more. I have to force myself to write every day on some topic, no matter how small and then let things develop from there. Hopefully I can also develop my "writing muscles" both the ones in my head that have to get working and the ones in my wrist that get fatigued from typing.

Science

I have always considered myself to be a scientist. When I was a child I was always fascinated by technology and things that seemed "scientific". I grew up in the 1960s and I vividly recall the excitement around the Apollo Moon Missions and the general interest in and acceptance of new technologies and science in general. There were transistor radios, color televisions, calculators and so on.

So there was never any doubt in my mind that I wanted to pursue science in university and for some reason I was particularly attracted by chemistry. When I did attend university I indeed majored in chemistry and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree (actually the degree is called a "Four Year" degree, which was considered to be an Honors equivalent, the University of Winnipeg did not have an Honors degree program in Chemistry at that time).

I recall that all during my university years, and even during my working life, I have spent a lot of time reflecting upon "what is science?" or "what exactly is a scientist?". Even though I describe myself as a scientist, what is it about what I do that makes it scientific?

The activity that western society typically refers to as Science began with the Greeks and in their time would have been considered "Natural Philosophy" a description that it was known by until the Scientific Revolution of the 1600's and 1700's. The key distinction between the two modes of thought was that Natural Philosophy was based on Rationalism, the idea that progress was made by thinking through established knowledge and then recombining this knowledge in new ways, and the Scientific Revolution introduced the experimental method as the basis for progress in Science. The word "science" originates from the latin word "scientia" which means "knowledge". It came into general use during the period of the scientific revolution but its exact origin is not known.

This evolution of thought would seem straight-forward but an exact definition of what is scientific has been very dynamic ever since the Scientific Revolution. There have been many schools of thought, none of which seems to be able to capture the concept completely. For example, the experimental method is certainly important and it is desirable to have hypotheses and theories tested experimentally, but this is not always possible and yet this creative aspect of science is an important one. A modern example would be the work on String Theory.

There does appear to be two distinct aspects to Science -- the creative theory and hypothesis forming aspect and the testing and corroborative experimental aspect. This dichotomy in the overall process has spun-off many categories in science. For example there are distinctions such as hard science, soft science, bogus science and categories such as physical science, medical science, forensic science, and so on.

The distinction between what is a hard science and what is a soft science comes down to whether, as in hard sciences, you can obtain testable repeatable data from experimentation. Soft sciences tend to rely on observation and anecdotal evidence. Both types of evidence can then be subjected to further statistical testing and mathematical modeling. There is no generally agreed upon model for science. Most people, whether they realize it or not, think of science as the application of the scientific method. That is, the formation of hypotheses followed by the testing of hypotheses by experiment. Of course there are many ways to design an experiment so the question immediately arises as to the validity of the experiment. Karl Popper devised a criteria known as "falsifiability". According to Popper it may never be possible to show whether a theory or a hypothesis can be proven, but it should be possible to show that it is false if it is indeed false. This is the distinction that is made between certain scientific approaches, such as astronomy, and bogus sciences, such as astrology. The idea is that astrology is not a science because it does not produce results which can be falsified.

Falsification is indeed an important component of scientific thought but it is one of those instances where an idea is necessary, but not sufficient. If science was solely based on this principle it would not allow for how creativity and induction occur in science. In fact, if you look at Popper's idea in a strictly logical way you can see that it is just a variant of the rules for logical deduction. The basic rule of logical inference is called Modus Ponens and it is a syllogism that takes on this form:

A implies B

A

Therefore B

If you know that A implies B then there is also a true relationship between A and B called the "contrapositive", that is:

A implies B

also means that:

not B implies not A

So what Popper is really pointing out is that science, at the very least, must be logical. He is willing to allow that you may never be able to prove A. Therefore the original syllogism of Modus Ponens is incomplete because you can not state "A". However, he is stating that if the theory or hypothesis has any chance of being valid at all, then the contrapositive must be capable of being demonstrated. If the theory or hypothesis can not even accomplish that then it can not be valid.

This illustrates how, for many people, Science is something that has a logical, deductive foundation, but, as I mentioned, this is not general enough because in many instances the scientific reasoning involved is inductive rather than deductive. An example of induction would be a medical diagnosis. The distinction is that deduction moves from general statements to specific statements and since it is logical the conclusion is basically a restatement of known fact in the form of a syllogism. When doing induction the process is reversed because you generally start with some specific data and then generalize to obtain possible explanations for that data. Of course once you have a possible explanation you can then perform experimentation to determine whether your theory/hypothesis/model can make useful predictions or even recreate the original data.

What I am getting at here is that what we consider to be Science is not a static method or algorithm but a dynamic process that involves observing a phenomenon, attempting to create an explanation for the observation using induction and then, when possible, testing the explanation by showing that the model is capable of deducing the the original phenomena as an outcome. The problem in our modern society is that most people think of science as merely the deductive side of the process. They also also equate science with a result, whereas it is a process where the participants continuously challenge the hypothesis, model or theory. In fact, if you want to differentiate science and technology here is a succinct way of doing it: Science is something that must continuously prove itself, technology is its own proof.

I also don't believe that we can separate Science from scientists. Our cognition is the framework by which we evaluate the universe. We can not escape the fact that we perceive the universe as humans, although we can strive to take our perspective into account as we form our theories. For example, as humans it is virtually impossible for us to visualize four dimensions, but we can determine whether a system requires four dimensions to be properly explained and then develop mathematical tools to allow us to work in four dimensions .

At the end of the day I think that it is very important for each scientist to devise their own definition for science and be able to defend it. Here is mine:

Science is the human process of attempting to find pattern in the universe.

When I use the word "pattern" it is in the sense of information. In other words a pattern arises in the universe when there is a signal perceivable above background noise

Mentors

We all have mentors in life, whether we realize it or not. Sometimes it is a coach or a school teacher; sometimes it is a parent or spouse or co-worker. One position that is typically associated with this role is a thesis adviser. When I was in university I would have benefited from a mentor but I did not find one there. Many individuals have supplied small components of what I needed, but no one person acted in that role for me. In reflecting on my intellectual development I have often wondered who would have made a good mentor for me.

There are certainly people in history who I admire greatly, both in their personality and accomplishments, and there would certainly be quite a list of them but I don't think there would have been that resonance between them and me that would be required from a well matched mentor and mentee. Yet when I reflect upon it, there are a couple of people who have indirectly motivated me and stimulated my intellectual development in a way that would be similar to mentor. I can't say that they are role models because it is not their life or personality that really influenced me, but rather their passion for Science.

The three that I would choose would be: Carl Sagan, Douglas Hofstatder and Richard Feynman. I was in university in the late 1970s and early 1980s and one of the most intellectually exciting events during that time was the release of Sagan's tv series Cosmos. That program was a mind expanding revelation to me. It wasn't so much the topic, although Cosmology is certainly one of my interests, but Sagan's manner of delivery that made this show so inspiring to me. Sagan also managed to weave together elements of the History of Science, Philosophy and more technical aspects such as Astronomy and Mathematics in a refreshing way that utilized the medium of television to its best advantage. What particular inspired me was Sagan's passion for his subject and how he could link it to other forms of human creativity such as art and music. There are certainly elements of his style that I found irritating, for example his much lampooned speaking style. Sometimes he seemed to be overly effusive on topics that he was passionate about. I did not always agree with his perspective or theories. However, this program and subsequent writings of his that I read, were a great influence on me. All education should be produced in the same was Cosmos was.

In the early 1980s a book entitled Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid (often referred to as simply GEB) won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction and brought the ideas of its author, Douglas Hofstadter, to the mainstream. Technically this book stemmed out his Computer Science research on Artificial Intelligence but the breadth of the work was so much greater, one again linking Art and Music with Mathematics and Psychology. I would say that at the time the book was written it would have been said to have referred to Artificial Intelligence research but multi-disciplinary nature of his study would more likely be classified as Cognitive Science these days. Once again I did not always like the writing style utilized in GEB. I sometimes found it a little over the top, perhaps baroque would be a good way to describe it. The ideas, however, came through loud and clear and there is no question that this book set the direction for most of my intellectual pursuits since the time I read it. In addition to GEB Hofstadter also wrote an influential column for Scientific American called Metamagical Themas, which continued to stimulate and challenge for several years.

The last person who I would single out as a significant influence would be Richard Feynman. I read about him mostly through some popular books that he authored or co-authored such as "Surely You're Joking My. Feynman" and also from the Feynman Lectures on Physics. It was remarkable that a person who had garnered as many accolades as Feynman spent so much of his time trying to teach physics and pass on his passion for science. Unlike many people who are considered to be geniuses, he seems to have spent a lot of time engaging in meta-cognitive reflection and was able to articulate his thinking processes fairly clearly. His books and his biographical writing indicates that he often clowned around and seemed to not want to take his ability and the whole scientific establishment too seriously. One thing that I did notice about his ability, especially for calculation, is that he would not give up and would work feverishly all night to solve problems.

Anyway, those are my big three. There are many people who I have also studied and admired, but there is no doubt that this group stands out in terms of their overall influence, possibly due to the fact that our lifetimes overlapped. Since I am not a Cosmologist or a Physicist or a Computer Scientist, it is not the topics that they taught that influenced me the most. It was their passion and creativity.

Triples

At this point I will hopefully be able to start writing more about Science and the Philosophy of Science. One thing that I find interesting is that it is useful to define a topic by juxtaposing three related subjects. For example, say I was discussing the History of Science and I chose to discuss the origins of Science by focusing on Classical Greece. I would probably be focusing on Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These three subjects under an umbrella topic I describe as a "triple".

Although using a Triple seems relatively arbitrary, it is not. I developed the idea after reading about the Science of Chaos. The modern study of this Science originated with a meteorologist named Edward Lorenz who was making an early attempt to model weather patterns using three different differential equations on a computer. At that time his results were printed out numerically on long sheets of paper. He noticed that the results he obtained varied quite a bit based on the initial values that were used to seed the differential equations. In fact, due to the computers rounding errors, the model varied even when he attempted to use the same values. This would be very frustrating to most researchers because it was not yielding those nice linear "cause and effect" type of relationships that are so valued in scientific research.

Lorenz had the fundamental insight to take a step back and attempt to understand the overall variation of his model. He found that, although the results from run to run seemed to vary randomly, overall the model converged within some distinct limits. This convergence became known as an "attractor" and eventually it was found that many seemingly chaotic systems actually had attractors.

Dynamic systems that give rise to this complex behavior that became known as "Chaotic" even though there is an underlying order to them. They have certain characteristics that makes it possible to identify them, one is that they have sensitivity to initial conditions. They also appear random but have periods where they appear more regular and they also tend to have at least three interacting properties. Lorenz's initial weather model had a sensitivity to initial conditions that seemed to imply that the movement of a butterfly's wings could cause extreme variation in the weather at some later time at a place far removed from the butterfly. For this reason, it was called the "Butterfly Effect". The attractor formed by the equations which Lorenz studied is formally known as the Lorenz Attractor, but it also has a vague butterfly-like appearance.

It dawned on me from reading this work that many of the complex systems in our lives that we wish to model have often been simplified to one or two variables to keep them tractable. In fact, if we want to discover the richness of many dynamic systems, then it is necessary to open this up to at least three interacting variables. The cost of this opening up is to lose a lot of the determinism that we seem to crave in life but the payback is a system that provides a suitably complex environment from which realistic and lifelike behavior can emerge.

Later on I was concentrating on Artificial Intelligence (AI) research in order to better understand how I made decisions. Once again it occurred to me that any models that we make that will be sufficiently complex to employ in real-world situations will have properties of dynamic systems. Hence they will require at least three interacting variables or concepts. From these interactions new, exciting and unanticipated relationships emerge.

Once I had considered this I began to notice that many books and movies rely on the interplay of at least three subplots in order to create excitement and variety within the main plot. So this is what I am hoping for in employing Triples, creating new and insightful ideas based on the interplay of at least three older and more established concepts.


Wikipedia entry on Chaos Theory

Chaos by James Gleick

Months After Surgery

The first big milestone is going for the six week check-up. This consists of the surgeon reviewing an x-ray to ensure that the new hip is not moving in places that it is not supposed to. Everything looked good for me, but in reviewing the x-ray the surgeon (Dr. Colin Burnell) simply looked up and asked me "when are we going to do that other hip". I knew this was coming and originally I had wanted them both done as soon as possible, but at six weeks I was still feeling weak. We set a tentative date for about 4 months down the road. If I had the surgery at that time then I would be able to get out and walk around during the summer.

I had started back to work the day before my six week assessment with the surgeon. I did feel weak during the day and sitting for long periods at a desk was not comfortable. I sort of worked shorter days for the first week or so and after that I felt relatively normal.

It seems to me that there is also some mental recuperation that has to take place. One of the things I noticed after the surgery was that I was a lot less interested in playing Chess or doing Crosswords than I had been prior to the surgery. I did start playing Chess more but I am still not that interested in Crosswords at this point. I also did not care for watching movies that much, about an hour is the most that I could concentrate on. I did listen to a set of podcasts related to Science from the CBC, but most of the time I would read. It was easier to finish off older books that I had started rather than starting new books and, in general, it was easier to read non-fiction. For some reason or another I find reading fiction to be more effort as I grow older, most of what I read is non-fiction. Activities like writing are also more tedious than usual.

Anyhow, after the six week point I really noticed that I started to have more energy and I started pushing myself a little bit more in the gym. My appetite was also improved and I started to put on weight. In general my cardio improved faster than my physical strength. I bought a heart rate monitor and a data logger in order to monitor my cardio a little closer.

I do not experience pain with the new joint, when I work out the next day I feel a different kind of "stiffness" almost like the joint is pushing outwards against the muscle. What is probably happening is exactly the opposite, as the muscles are strengthening they are tightening around the joint and because it is foreign I perceive it as an internal pressure.

I was also worried that I would develop a limp or peculiar gait but it all disappeared over time. By about three months I was riding my bike outside and taking my dog for a walk! At this point I have about 6 weeks to go before the next surgery so I am really focusing on getting in shape and perhaps losing a little weight. I am also practicing getting out of bed and out of chairs the way I know I will have to after the next surgery.

Weeks After Surgery

Well, once you are home then you can get into a routine of waking, toileting, eating, exercising and napping. It all kind of merges into a blur after a while. It is definitely slow moving though. For 30 days after the surgery the only medication that is required is something called "Fragmin" (a form of heparin) which is something that you take by injection once a day in order to prevent blood clots. That is the hi-light of your day.

There was very little pain, simply discomfort in the leg like a charley horse. I did not use any medication after leaving the hospital, except for some ibuprofen for the occasional head ache. I usually slept well but sometimes I would wake up in the night and be unable to go back to sleep right away. I often woke up with my feet feeling numb which was due to sleeping on my back. I would do bed exercises at this point or get up and walk around a bit. I also did not use the TED stockings once I had left the hospital.

I watched a little t.v. or I read. It would usually be about an hour of activity like this and then I would have to nap. There are two kinds of exercises to do: bed exercises and standing exercises. I also tried to "walk" around on my crutches for at least 15 minutes. I would do my standing exercises and walks three times a day, then I would do the bed exercises intermittently throughout the day.

Everyday I noticed a slight improvement in strength and range of movement, it wasn't much, but it was noticeable. Pretty soon I was experimenting with putting more weight on the operated leg while walking with crutches. Then it was time to try walking with just a cane. It took a little over three weeks to switch over to the cane. This also meant that I felt I had enough mobility to get out and start driving a car. I have a car with a manual transmission and since my left leg had been operated on I decided to rent a full size vehicle with an automatic transmission. This allowed me to start doing some errands and also drive my kids around a bit.

About a week later I was able to go to the gym and start an exercise routine there. I was amazed at how not painful it was to use an arc trainer or even a bike. The physiotherapists recommend using a recumbent bike, but I found them difficult to get into. An upright bike is ok if you set the seat high enough that the angle between your leg and pelvis does not exceed 90 degrees. I also started on some weight machines lightly.

The most rewarding exercise was swimming. I could swim almost normally at about three and a half weeks. A little weak and short of breath but not too bad. The best thing I did was deep water running. That felt absolutely great. I also did some walking in waste deep water which also felt wonderful because I could take normal strides and work on the mechanics of walking.

I would alternate days between the gym and the pool. I would also follow up the exercises with a 15 minute walk around a running track. The work outs were about an hour and then I would head home and have a big nap. This continued for about two weeks, by which time I could walk without a cane most of the time. I would use the cane outside because it was winter and I did not want to slip.