Difference between revisions of "蒋玉骅"

From PKC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[NEWS::November 23, 2021|A PIECE OF NEWS]]
[[Has date::November 22 2021 10:00:01]]
{{Person
{{Person
|first=玉骅
|first=玉骅
Line 10: Line 13:


<noinclude>
<noinclude>
[[蒋玉骅 认知基础2021年秋 主页]]
[[蒋玉骅“超越学科的认知基础”课程主页]]


{{Template:LogicModel
|name=认知基础2021学习规划_蒋玉骅
}}
{{Template:LogicModel
|name=结题作业
}}
__toc__
=Basic Info=
=Basic Info=
{|class=wikitable
{|class=wikitable
Line 21: Line 31:
|-
|-
|}
|}
=课程感悟=
第一周：
  key-value pair 揭示了复杂网络系统工作原理的本质。用这样的方式去理解范式转换，就会发现科学革命实际就是key-value pair 的扩增与删减；不可通约性来自命名空间的不同。而这样的不可通约正是历代科学家致力于消除的，这就像科学家们企图寻找科学语言的“罗塞塔石碑”一样。以人工智能为例：微软近期就提出了深度学习框架的通用语言——repo1.0，他们希望通过构建这一深度学习框架“罗塞塔石碑”，让研究者们能够在不同框架之间轻松运用专业知识，并且实现不同开源社区之间的合作。<ref>https://link.zhihu.com/?target=https%3A//github.com/ilkarman/DeepLearningFrameworks</ref>如果这能实现，就可以创建一个跨语言对比的常用设置（Python、Julia、R），实现不同开源社区之间的合作。
第二周：
  课上的视频让我想到Paul Nurse的一句话：生命的深层结构指的是细胞或有机体这样的基本单元，它们能够自我繁殖，并允许微小的变异。<ref>Paul Nurse,''What is Life?'',</ref>繁殖与变异共同通过自然选择推动物种的演化，从而形成多样化的生物种群。它们不仅能够在变化的环境中存活，还能够利用新的机会。而那些成功适应环境的单元就能继续繁殖后代。
  类似的机制在不同的尺度上都发挥着作用，构成了众多关键生物过程的基础。胚胎从单细胞发育为成熟有机体的过程中，会经历好几个生长阶段（人类有几十个），每个都与前一个略有不同。最终，受精卵繁衍出各种不同的细胞，包括心脏、肝脏和脑部的细胞。
  这样的原理成为了冯·诺依曼一些设计的出发点。他曾精确地设计了一个被称为“通用复制器”的数学模型。它包括三个基本组成部分 ：机器A是一台可以根据指令整合资源并进行组装的机器 ；程序B能够指挥机器A ；主程序C可以指挥A来制造A+B+C。<ref>John von Neumann, ''Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata'', </ref>从技术上讲，它是一台元胞自动机，可以从周围随机散落的碎片中获取零件。原则上，根据他的设计，我们可以用现代技术造出一个3D打印与计算机的混合系统，它能够收集材料来制作你想要的东西或复制其自身。通过精心设计故意犯错的程序或宽松的质量控制，我们也能解锁生命的另一个秘密——变异。
==References==
<references />
=科学革命的结构的读后感=
Chapter 2：
  Paradigms are theories created by one of the pre-paradigm schools. Though the author gives description rather than explanation of the arduous process of acquiring paradigms, we can conclude that when some theories are universally accepted, and can attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity, paradigms that prove able to guide the whole group’s research emerge all of a sudden.
  The emergence of a paradigm contributes to scientific inquiry in seven aspects. First, it makes both fact collection and theory articulation highly directed activities, so scientists no longer explore nature casually or at random. Second, it suggests which experiments will be worth performing so scientists are confident what they are studying is highly relevant. Third, the end of interschool debate ends the constant reiteration of fundamentals. The confidence that they are on the right track encouraged scientists to undertake more precise, esoteric, and consuming sorts of work. Fourth, it transforms a group previously interested merely in the study of nature into a profession or a discipline. Fifth, it marks the beginning of specific classification. Sixth, it creates advanced systems that improve effectiveness and efficiency, in particular, for esoteric work. Above all, it produces scientific community whose members push on to more concrete and recondite problems, and increasingly they report their results in articles addressed to other electricians.
  Ultimately, the emergence of a paradigm is invariably followed by a truth boom, as truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.
Chapter 3：
  Although paradigms have shown to be particularly revealing of the nature, the match between facts and theories is still imperfect, and scientists have to avoid approximations and obtain satisfactory agreements.
  To do this, they need to answer the following questions. First, how to conduct empirical works to articulate the paradigm? Second, what further explorations relative to theoretical works can they make to classify theoretical problems of normal science? Third, how to use existing theories to predict factual information of intrinsic value?
  All their efforts serve for the reformulation of a paradigm: to articulate the paradigm elegantly and logically in mathematics, which is both theoretical and experimental. The desire for acknowledgement and the ambition for fame ensure scientists to pursue the same goal. Driven by anthropic ultimate curiosity about the nature, they are committed to solve the problems after the acquisition of the paradigm.
  The problems always exist, as a successful paradigm is not, however, to be either completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number.
Chapter 4：
  What are characteristics of normal science?
  Normal science shares paralleled characteristics with puzzle-solving. First, it offers challenging problems as puzzles that can test ingenuity or skill in solution and thus drive scientists on. Second, the criterion of these problems is the assured existence of a solution, but on the contrary, has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of their outcome. Third, these puzzles are invariably so attractive that scientists attack them with remarkable passion and devotion, holding the conviction that, if only they are skillful enough, they will succeed in solving a puzzle that no one before has solved or solved so well. It is very much the same thing as a child is immersed in solving crossword puzzles that may not give him any benefit.
  Above all, like puzzle-solving, normal science has rules. In the same way as all the pieces must be used before you solve a jigsaw puzzle, until certain conditions have been satisfied, no problem can be solved. Rules play the role of established viewpoint or preconception that bound the admissible solutions to theoretical problems. Under the influence of rules, scientists adopt the attitude that the results of their researches must fall into a narrow range that the paradigm restricts. As a child must obey rules in his games without fail, all these rules have undoubtedly held for scientists at all times.
Chapter 5：
  We can account for the priority of paradigms in four aspects. First, rules are abstracted from their more global paradigms and deployed. However, the existence of a paradigm is independent on the existence of rules and need not even imply that any full set of rules exists.
  Second，paradigms can be determined easily, and they can determine normal science directly without the intervention of discoverable rules or assumptions. They are more binding and more complete when it comes to the definitions of basic concepts. Thanks to paradigms, we can understand what makes a particular problem or solution legitimate almost intuitively.
  Third, in the absence of rules, normal science can still proceed under the guidance of paradigms that direct research. As long as paradigms remain secure, however, they can function without agreement over rationalization or without any attempted rationalization at all.
Fourth, Explicit rules, when they exist, are usually common to a very broad scientific group, but paradigms need not be. They are quite irrelevant and related to each other to a very limited extent, so they need not stand or fall tegother.
  In a nutshell, rules cannot exhaust all functions of paradigms and it is flexible and subject to change. While paradigms might be intangible and artificial, they have absolute dominance over rules.

Latest revision as of 02:01, 15 December 2021

A PIECE OF NEWS November 22 2021 10:00:01



蒋玉骅
First Name 玉骅
Last Name 蒋
Wikipedia no entry
wikidata [[wikidata:{{{wikidata}}}|{{{wikidata}}}]]
Gender Male
Birthday 2002-03-28
Still alive TBD


This person's name is 玉骅 蒋.

Short Bio

TEEP 0, Xingjian College, Tsinghua University


蒋玉骅“超越学科的认知基础”课程主页


Logic Model (认知基础2021学习规划_蒋玉骅) Template:LogicModel 12 15, 2021
Abstract Specification
Context 在2021年清华大学的秋季学期，共有15周的清华大学课堂线上活动并且配有类似维基可以自己独立使用的PKC知识容器。
Goal 学习一套独立而正确的认知辩证方法，以求同存异的态度了解为各个学科所共有的认知方法，并学习使用检验与采集辩证过程数据的理论与相关工具
Success Criteria 1.阅读《The Structure of Sientific Revolution》

2.用template和hyperlink进行网页管理 3.搜集资料准备结题作业

Concrete Implementation
Given Inputs When Process is executed... Then, we get Outputs
学习一套独立而正确的认知辩证方法，以求同存异的态度了解为各个学科所共有的认知方法，并学习使用检验与采集辩证过程数据的理论与相关工具
  1. Personal Knowledge Container PKC
  2. PKC Workflow [1]
  3. Lecture Notes on Github Cognitive Foundation
  4. Trustworthy Networks[2]
  5. Reference Material
  6. 偏序集和范畴论的相关教学资料
  7. 香农的博士论文（An Algebra for Theoretical Genetics）
  8. 孟德尔、香农、沃森、克里克的相关资料
 1.遗传学与课上所讲内容相联系的个人主页

2.遗传学再梳理

3.The Structrue of scientific revolution 读后感

Boundary/Safety Conditions of 认知基础2021学习规划_蒋玉骅
1.对维基使用不熟

2.对抽象代数、偏序集了解有限

3.latex语法不太熟

4.和同学们的交流有限

Logic Model (结题作业) Template:LogicModel 12 15, 2021
Abstract Specification
Context 接下来将以遗传学为例探究学科认知的共同性。遗传学是研究生物代际信息传递的学科。遗传学在历史上共发生了三次重大的范式转变。第一次是从前范式时期到孟德尔遗传学；第二次是从孟德尔的颗粒遗传学到经典遗传学；第三次是从经典遗传学发展到与分子生物学、生物化学结合的现代遗传学。
Goal 蒋玉骅“超越学科的认知基础”课程主页

课程感悟

科学革命的结构读后感

Success Criteria 第一：范式所揭示的事物之本质

第二：虽普遍但较少的事实判定（边界条件）

第三：与实证数据相匹配的范式

第四：选择问题的标准（可建模）

第五：规则的抽象化（通用性）

第六：解答谜题所需的空间与时间

Concrete Implementation
Given Inputs When Process is executed... Then, we get Outputs
1、《科学革命的结构》这本书会使我对学科的发展有新的认知；

2、在课程中所学习的新的概念和新的思维方式也将会使我对跨越学科的问题有新的认知。

  1. 遗传学的前范式时代
  2. 孟德尔遗传学
  3. 经典遗传学
  4. 现代遗传学
 1、设计个人主页；

2、Final Project

3、《科学革命的结构》读后感

Boundary/Safety Conditions of 结题作业
1、有时课堂上所学的一些概念难以在短时间内准确理解；

2、有时难以看懂老师提供的英文资料，很难明白想要表达的意思。

Basic Info

Name 蒋玉骅 Class TEEP 0
Date of Birth 2002-03-28 Gender Male
Institution TEEP 0, Xingjian College, Tsinghua Univ. E-mail jiangyh20@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
Retrieved from "https://pkc.pub/index.php?title=蒋玉骅&oldid=19405"