For four years, I photographed, indexed and classified my entire house(katalog-barbaraiweins.com)
katalog-barbaraiweins.com
For four years, I photographed, indexed and classified my entire house
https://www.katalog-barbaraiweins.com
74 comments
This is pretty much Van Inwagen's argument in Material Beings -- recommended if you haven't read it!
Copied from wiki:
"Every composite material object is made up of elementary particles, and the only such composite objects are living organisms. A consequence of this view is that everyday objects such as tables, chairs, cars, buildings, and clouds do not exist. While there seem to be such things, this is only because there are elementary particles arranged in specific ways. For example, where it seems that there is a chair, Van Inwagen says that there are only elementary particles arranged chairwise."
Copied from wiki:
"Every composite material object is made up of elementary particles, and the only such composite objects are living organisms. A consequence of this view is that everyday objects such as tables, chairs, cars, buildings, and clouds do not exist. While there seem to be such things, this is only because there are elementary particles arranged in specific ways. For example, where it seems that there is a chair, Van Inwagen says that there are only elementary particles arranged chairwise."
Something I read, not sure if it's true, that the language of a certain Native American tribe (Navaho?) has no nouns. Instead verbs are used to describe things like tables and chairs, as table-ing and chair-ing.
That makes sense since a chair is only a temporary arrangement of elements that used to be (doing) something else, like tree-ing, and will inevitably fall apart and cease to be chair-ing in the future.
It made me think of how names, nouns, and objects are a kind of illusion, a mental convenience of freezing things into place as we talk about them, when in fact everything is in constant flux of coming into being and disintegrating back into that nameless movement.
That makes sense since a chair is only a temporary arrangement of elements that used to be (doing) something else, like tree-ing, and will inevitably fall apart and cease to be chair-ing in the future.
It made me think of how names, nouns, and objects are a kind of illusion, a mental convenience of freezing things into place as we talk about them, when in fact everything is in constant flux of coming into being and disintegrating back into that nameless movement.
That makes the way the Navajo Code Talkers described things make a lot more sense.
Vsauce has a great video on that if he’s your style - https://youtu.be/fXW-QjBsruE?si=Ul6FLtlffINuKLrT
> I now try to stop believing in things. It's mostly just molecules that happen to be in a certain configuration for some time.
And so are we.
Interesting thought on the books vs pins, made me think. A sheet of paper is a thing. So maybe the book is the bag rather than the shelf.
And so are we.
Interesting thought on the books vs pins, made me think. A sheet of paper is a thing. So maybe the book is the bag rather than the shelf.
I considered stuff that I could manipulate freely to be a separate thing. This meant that sheets of paper (being glued to the book) were not separate things. I don't recall checking for loose leaves that I stuck in books, though. I wasn't as critical back then as I'm now :)
Oh, and the idea breaks down entirely for fluid or gaseous things.
Oh, and the idea breaks down entirely for fluid or gaseous things.
You don't actually act or behave in accordance with that "belief". You would be incapable of perceiving anything, taking any action, or making this post.
> I now try to stop believing in things. It's mostly just molecules that happen to be in a certain configuration for some time.
This is the way. The real and/or important things have a tendency to impinge upon your perceptions in such a way as to render your belief in them or lack thereof moot and/or meaningless.
This is the way. The real and/or important things have a tendency to impinge upon your perceptions in such a way as to render your belief in them or lack thereof moot and/or meaningless.
The things are real, they are emergent patterns. Both each individual pin as well as the whole bag are real. See also https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23307/1/wallace_rp%20for%20....
Thank you for that link, that is a fascinating read! I have to study the text and its references some more before I can say something sensible.
For now, it seems that I feel most comfortable with the "instrumentalist" view, even though Wallace seems to reject this quite easily. To me it seems clear that most abstractions only exist in the mind, and the recent successes with large language models suggest that the underlying mechanisms for that are not even very complex. Insisting that a fluid must exist somewhere simply because we observe it, does not strike me as a good argument. Centuries of looking for God did not help much to find that entity either.
The anecdote about the person who is shown a university, but who still insists on asking "But where is the university?" also comes to mind. I think most of this is simply a categorical mistake.
So, sure, the things are real, but "real" has a different meaning depending on who you ask.
For now, it seems that I feel most comfortable with the "instrumentalist" view, even though Wallace seems to reject this quite easily. To me it seems clear that most abstractions only exist in the mind, and the recent successes with large language models suggest that the underlying mechanisms for that are not even very complex. Insisting that a fluid must exist somewhere simply because we observe it, does not strike me as a good argument. Centuries of looking for God did not help much to find that entity either.
The anecdote about the person who is shown a university, but who still insists on asking "But where is the university?" also comes to mind. I think most of this is simply a categorical mistake.
So, sure, the things are real, but "real" has a different meaning depending on who you ask.
A fluid, or an object like a chair, is not an arbitrary or imaginary structure. The way they behave is factually real, and necessarily so. They are not structures that are invented, they are discovered. This fact of the matter is an objective reality. They are real in that sense. Given the underlying reality (substrate, particle and/or fields or whatever), these patterns couldn’t have been any different. They are real in their nature as structures formed by the underlying substrate. It’s not that a fluid exists “somewhere” (that sounds like a misunderstanding, or a category error as you say), it’s that it’s an observable pattern that emerges as a necessary logical consequence of the underlying substrate. You couldn’t have the latter and not also have the former.
As an analogy, if you take the natural numbers to be real (I’m not saying that you do), then for example the fact that there are prime numbers, and which exact numbers those are, (or in other words, the pattern of prime numbers within the natural numbers) is just as real.
As an analogy, if you take the natural numbers to be real (I’m not saying that you do), then for example the fact that there are prime numbers, and which exact numbers those are, (or in other words, the pattern of prime numbers within the natural numbers) is just as real.
Hm, I think we are discussing different topics here.
I doubt that we use the same definition for something being "real". I'd like to avoid that discussion, and talk about what constitutes a thing.
To me, _things_ merely exist in someone's brain, and their corresponding physical representation sure is real, it exists there in reality. But the physical "thing" does not have any relevant meaning other than to us observers. For all the universe could care, the chair is just a bunch of atoms, similar in value to a chunk of space on the left of it.
Consider also some problems, such as the chair not being in an absolute position in time. It is constantly moving with the earth, and with the solar system, at an incredible speed. Also, the chair will probably not be here anymore in 1 billion years. Also, if you zoom in, all the atoms are moving like crazy. It just works fairly well as a chair to us human observers, but it seems irrelevant to aliens with different life spans.
I doubt that we use the same definition for something being "real". I'd like to avoid that discussion, and talk about what constitutes a thing.
To me, _things_ merely exist in someone's brain, and their corresponding physical representation sure is real, it exists there in reality. But the physical "thing" does not have any relevant meaning other than to us observers. For all the universe could care, the chair is just a bunch of atoms, similar in value to a chunk of space on the left of it.
Consider also some problems, such as the chair not being in an absolute position in time. It is constantly moving with the earth, and with the solar system, at an incredible speed. Also, the chair will probably not be here anymore in 1 billion years. Also, if you zoom in, all the atoms are moving like crazy. It just works fairly well as a chair to us human observers, but it seems irrelevant to aliens with different life spans.
I believe that the properties that give a “thing” meaning to observers are by and large independent of the observers. They are properties of the thing more than they are properties of the observer. That’s why I believe they are real in their own right, and not (just) as a function of observers (which may or may not be present).
With regard to “meaning”, I would agree that meaning only exists in our heads. But that is true concerning the fundamental description of reality just as with regard to emergent “things”. Reality doesn’t have any inherent meaning. Meaning is something that only exists in our psychology.
With regard to “meaning”, I would agree that meaning only exists in our heads. But that is true concerning the fundamental description of reality just as with regard to emergent “things”. Reality doesn’t have any inherent meaning. Meaning is something that only exists in our psychology.
Great read, thanks.
(The link did not work for me. Archive did: https://web.archive.org/web/20240426090908/https://philsci-a...)
(The link did not work for me. Archive did: https://web.archive.org/web/20240426090908/https://philsci-a...)
> I now try to stop believing in things. It's mostly just molecules that happen to be in a certain configuration for some time.
That is some hardcore disassociation right there. Interesting that you use the word 'try' which implies that it requires effort to overcome the faith in the meaning of things.
That is some hardcore disassociation right there. Interesting that you use the word 'try' which implies that it requires effort to overcome the faith in the meaning of things.
I love this idea. You could generate a 3d world like that so that you can zoom in and out combining the objects like pins in a map.
You could also run the drawing by an image generator and get a livingroom both like and unlike your own.
You could also run the drawing by an image generator and get a livingroom both like and unlike your own.
There is for sure a difference between things in language, and things in fact. Cool project.
Some constructive feedback to the site owner: Instead of having the webpage spend several minutes slowly loading thousands of barely-compressed 500x500 JPG images, please consider this advice:
1. Convert the images to WEBP or AVIF or at least run them through something like TinyPNG to compress them better.
2. Save two versions of each images; a 75x75 version that gets used for the 75px thumbnails shown on the page, and a 500x500 version that appears in the lightbox after a thumbnail is clicked.
3. Only load a few dozen thumbnails at first and then load more after the user scrolls down or clicks a "show more" type button.
1. Convert the images to WEBP or AVIF or at least run them through something like TinyPNG to compress them better.
2. Save two versions of each images; a 75x75 version that gets used for the 75px thumbnails shown on the page, and a 500x500 version that appears in the lightbox after a thumbnail is clicked.
3. Only load a few dozen thumbnails at first and then load more after the user scrolls down or clicks a "show more" type button.
I'm still dreaming of an image file format where the file begins with the, say, 75x75px image, and then continues with higher and higher resolutions, where the browser can decide when to stop downloading. Ideally they wouldn't be redundant either, e.g. the 2nd block would contain just the data to upscale the 1st block to twice the resolution.. so the "75x75" thumbnail in a hidpi display would just need blocks 1 and 2..
Dream no longer. You just described a progressive JPEG.
The future was 30 years ago.
Check out DZI (Deep Zoom Images), IIIF API and Zoomify.
I'm not sure optimization is her goal. If you just load the page and let it sit without scrolling down, it slowly counts the number of photos she has taken. That is not the design choice of someone seeking speed. So she might be deliberately allowing it to be slow. That would track with her other works, one of which specifically says she finds beauty in imperfection.
[deleted]
For points 1 and 2:
I recommend and use Cloudinary. Cloudinary can take care of all that for you!
For point 3:
You can add laoding="lazy" to the image tag, and get lazy loading for free, supported by the browser:
* https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Performance/Laz...
I recommend and use Cloudinary. Cloudinary can take care of all that for you!
For point 3:
You can add laoding="lazy" to the image tag, and get lazy loading for free, supported by the browser:
* https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Performance/Laz...
Oof, just loading this page caused my browser to download 170 MB of content. I hope she has a good CDN.
Trying it now for the first time, and getting an HTTP Basic Auth pop-up. They caught on.
Looks like it's all on yourhosting.nl. "Unlimited" traffic. Of course until we hug it to death...
That's more than three times my daily data allowance on my cellphone connection!
So... a typical node.js page size then?
One doesn’t typically write a webpage in node
node is used extensively on frontend. Massive bundles of js libraries. That is indeed part of the webpage.
And it doesn't matter how typical or not, I'm referencing the case in point.
And it doesn't matter how typical or not, I'm referencing the case in point.
I think you're confusing js with node. node typically doesn't run on the frontend, but can be used when developing the front but it won't be running on the users browser.
No confusion here. Node.js is an entire ecosystem, and npm is a child of that mess. It is absolutely famous for the massive gobs of absolutely junk it pulls in to satisfy dependencies a frontend dev could manage with 4 lines of native js.
You may rail on about how npm != node, but everyone considers npm to be 'node package manager', no matter what the initialism actually stands for.
You may rail on about how npm != node, but everyone considers npm to be 'node package manager', no matter what the initialism actually stands for.
Node.js is a server runtime, it does not run clientside at all. NPM can be used to download server OR client JS packages. A frontend bundler tool (e.g. webpack) can analyze a dependency graph of your client-side entrypoint and bundle all the NPM deps used, which will then be sent and executed on the client. No Node.js components or code are run client-side at any point (caveat - some packages can work server- and client-side).
HTH
HTH
Node.js is an ecosystem. The server is a component.
Node is a platform for running JS on the server; it's a non sequitur to talk about node page size whether in this case or any other
I've thought of doing something similar. Add a barcode to everything, designate a "home" and then create a catalogue. I even found an app that supports this.
No more "where does this go" or "where do I find X"..
No more "where does this go" or "where do I find X"..
Maybe a phone camera could be trained to recognize the objects and locations.
Yeah that would work too. I ended up creating a table in org mode for a limited subset of my gear — camping gear specifically.
Using the phone is just too much friction. I print out a checklist and check items off.
This is not the flying car future I was hoping for, but it works well enough.
Using the phone is just too much friction. I print out a checklist and check items off.
This is not the flying car future I was hoping for, but it works well enough.
Flying cars, when they come, will probably depend on bash scripts on some level.
There was once a startup product for that. Came in a box "Now you can barcode everything in your house". Saw it at Fry's Electronics in the DOS era.
There's a modern version.[1]
This is a bit much for a house, unless you have way too much house, or several houses.
[1] https://www.intelliscanner.com/products/scanabout-home/
There's a modern version.[1]
This is a bit much for a house, unless you have way too much house, or several houses.
[1] https://www.intelliscanner.com/products/scanabout-home/
I was expecting to see detailed photos of the house itself, but this is even cooler!
I teach art and over the years I have come to understand that many people use art to subsume their neurosis (well duh I hear you say). What TFA describes is familiar to me as a typical form of this phenomenon - the cataloguer: artists who feel the need to give a home to that which is homeless, to elevate that which is humble. A highbrow example of this would be the work of Mark Dion.
Interestingly, by her own admission Barbara Iweins (the artist whose work TFA features) self describes this project as being rooted in neurosis, specifically one that seems to be a response to lack of stability in her life.
Similar projects seem always to have an unbound quality... like the labors of Sisyphus. So I guess my question to her would be "how would you know that this project is complete?" Is it complete now? According to TFA it is, yet I suspect that even with all the effort she has put into it, the itch is not yet scratched.
Interestingly, by her own admission Barbara Iweins (the artist whose work TFA features) self describes this project as being rooted in neurosis, specifically one that seems to be a response to lack of stability in her life.
Similar projects seem always to have an unbound quality... like the labors of Sisyphus. So I guess my question to her would be "how would you know that this project is complete?" Is it complete now? According to TFA it is, yet I suspect that even with all the effort she has put into it, the itch is not yet scratched.
The site is down right now, but there's a nice behind the scenes video hidden in the background: https://katalog-barbaraiweins.com/BEHINDTHESCENES/marbles.mp....
(or archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240624140531/http://katalog-ba...)
(or archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240624140531/http://katalog-ba...)
On Firefox on macOS, I get a pop-up module saying "This site is asking you to sign in." and then Username and Password field, on top of a blank page...
I noticed there is a gray dress in twice with the "same" image (separate files but clearly generated from the same photo). I went to go do an automatic search to get some fun stats on things like that but the site is inaccessible for now :) commenting as a self reminder.
Imagine the dread when he realizes he should've taken short videos of each object from different angles, so that an AI could create 3D models to go along with a photogrammetry/gaussian splat/NeRF recreation of his home.
reminds me of Michael Landy's similar work called Break Down--he not only cataloged all of his possessions, he also destroyed them all using an industrial shredder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hYUnkW4sNA
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jan/27/like-wi...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hYUnkW4sNA
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jan/27/like-wi...
This isn't a "house", this is the contents of a house.
This would be great motivation to buy less useless crap
If she ever decides to get into learning/flashcards, this would make a helluva setup for an incredibly detailed memory palace.
That really touches the comic and book collector inside of me. Very nice site.
szundi(1)
Each word depicted a "thing" at the position I found it. It taught me a lot about what things are. A chair is obviously a separate entity and easy to list, but what about the floor and the separate floorboards? I listed the wall, but I didn't list the paint on the wall.
The bookcase took a lot of effort, because I found that each book in it was a thing by itself and should get listed separately. However, when I was nearly finished, I found a bag in a cabinet, holding ~200 pins. I just counted them and noted down "207 pins"; I didn't feel that each pin was unique enough to warrant separate entries.
I now try to stop believing in things. It's mostly just molecules that happen to be in a certain configuration for some time.