How do forces work?
Locked
123
123
 
|
Glen, Do you consider how knowledge is recorded? In your view is there any way to record knowledge other than in human (or other animal?) memory? Perhaps a video is another possibility. What about a cartoon video? If that's acceptable, what about the code that generates that cartoon video? If that's ok, then suppose we can factor that code into the (traditional) knowledge part and the part that converts the knowledge to a presentation. You see where this is heading.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote: Steve Smith wrote at 04/22/2013 12:49 PM: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Yes, I think how knowledge is recorded includes the machines that do the recording and the playback. For example, knowledge recorded on a magnetic tape is _not_ really knowledge if we don't have a tape player. Only when the tape is played can we call it knowledge. Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 02:56 PM: > Do you consider how knowledge is recorded? In your view is there any way > to record knowledge other than in human (or other animal?) memory? > Perhaps a video is another possibility. What about a cartoon video? If > that's acceptable, what about the code that generates that cartoon > video? If that's ok, then suppose we can factor that code into the > (traditional) knowledge part and the part that converts the knowledge to > a presentation. You see where this is heading. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella But they won't tell us why ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Russ: I you aware that these words might have been quoted, word for word, from Peirce? Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to (semi)permanently modify our surroundings. Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just me. Engineering is a process of other-modification. I think you might take over the mantle of the Village Pragmatist, here. Nick -----Original Message----- Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM: > The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures > out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses > that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of > mankind). Would you say it differently? Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to (semi)permanently modify our surroundings. Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just me. Engineering is a process of other-modification. Hence, medicine is in an interesting position. It's a little bit science and a little bit engineering. Unfortunately, it's approached as purely engineering. > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to >> manipulate the world. I disagree. I'd say that something like 90% of today's science is something any individual can use to manipulate the world. The trick is that you have to think scientifically. How can you _test_ E=MC^2? Most people don't even think about how they might actually test that, because they're _programmed_ to think it's some high-falutin' idea that they can't use. Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:26 AM: > Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't any > expression of knowledge imply a language? As I said before, the question boils down to the definition of language. Is it "expressing knowledge" to, without writing or talking, bake a cake while another person watches? -- =><= glen e. p. ropella I'm living free because the rent's never due ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen -
Good clarification... and I (think we) agree that a nounless language is an odd thing to consider indeed. I *like* the nonduality that the rheomode (and I believe Navajo?) carries explicitly in it's preference for *not* distinguishing subject from object, but I'm not sure what a process/verb/predicate only language would be? Maybe creatures such as the Cetaceans are more prone to this given their somewhat fluid/flux/gradient environment (compared to our own generally discretized "chunky" environment?) Or advanced Jellyfish-like Gas Bag sentients living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter?Right. I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to "point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root. But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of language is useless. My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of some kind is the definition of life. And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved with language itself? I presume you use the phrase "appendage with which to point" fairly metaphorical as we know plenty of people who can point quite effectively with: their finger (pick any one of several for nuanced implication); their gaze; their shoulder; their head; their chin; their lips... Do Dolphins and Orcas point? I do believe the ones in captivity have no trouble understanding various pointing gestures including gaze and appendage. How much does sharing some basic language (structure?) get involved in empathic understanding?Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the neurological structure that allows us to empathize. I've had pointing breeds and *their* pointer in my experience is really their gaze, with which their posture follows. I did not train them in this regard, just observed their instinctual nature.That's critical. E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point. But not very often. For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger. Do cats have "language" ... well, it all depends on your definition. I would say No, because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at least mine don't seem to. ;-) I'd be interested in the neural mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds. I've never had a dog that actually understood *my* pointing. I could drop a bit of food in the kitchen and when asking for help cleaning it up, no amount of pointing would help right up to moving the pointing finger they were staring at all the way down to the actual object. I would do better to just avoid stepping on the bit of food for a few moments and let the dog find it with their nose. But silly me, I always try to engage as I would with a human. My 1 year old granddaughter seemed to understand pointing soon after her eyes began to focus and she seemed to recognize discrete objects. In her case (and all babies?) pointing started with reaching, a reach that intrinsically exceeds it's grasp? Perhaps *this* is what identifies humans and/or sentience... a reach that exceeds the grasp? I've had dogs which understand (quite clearly) the gesture of throwing. In this case, pretending to *throw* something would give he hint to look or even *run* in the direction where my (pointing) appendage ended up pointing. I had an Irish Setter who also understood (halfway) that a thrown object had a shadow (often) and instead of trying to track the object, would chase the shadow. He was as fast and he obsessive. When the sun was low, his chase would trace a long arc, ending with the (tennis ball usually) bouncing off of his snout which he would then snatch from the air or after another short chase. I think this might be a rederivation of Fermat's Principle of Least Time in Optics, by Irish Setter? Oh yeh, he also only had three legs. My current dog (a strange mix of chocolate lab and doberman or viszla?) has a total jones for a laser pointer which has grown to include flashlight beams. Walking at night with her is totally strange, you have to be careful where you point the flashlight because she is *always* aware of where the beam is and will try to pounce on it as she does laser pointers (just like a cat?!). Pointing the flashlight in the path for your guests on the way to their car leads to them tripping over a very eager and focused dog instead. She even seems to correlate the pointing with the (first it was my Infrared Thermometer, then a conventional laser pointer, then accidentally the flashlight) pointing device. A conventional (telescoping or not) "pointer" means nothing to her except that I might either throw it for her to chase or *whack* her. Maybe if I affixed a laser pointer to it? Nope... it is a phrase intended (coined, adopted, grown?) to mean one thing very precisely. The Wikipedia entry might broaden it a bit (note that the W entry is in dispute at the moment), but the central spirit of this concept remains. The OED's description is naturally about it's etymology and historical use, but again, still remains true to the central concept:*Science:* I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the Scientific Method?Perhaps. But "scientific method" is a hoity-toity word intended (or accidentally) used to intimidate people. "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." OED It might get used for what you say (intimidation and dismissal?), but that is not what it was coined for nor is that what it means (ok... argue that what it is used for is what it means... but I'm not sure when that isn't a specious and semicurcular argument?). But we've been discussing what fairly well defined words mean already, so I grant you that there can be an issue among common discourse. And while many people may *be* intimidated by it's use, I think it is still a very legitimate (motivated as well as useful) way to classify a very specific approach to obtaining and building knowledge. I have great sympathy for other approaches (intuitive in particular), and don't dismiss them lightly if or when I do. I understand that there is a large body of people who might use "the Scientific Method" in roughly the same way as others might use "The One True Path" or "The Holy Gospel" or "The Chosen People", to intimidate and dismiss. What I think we are both talking about is: 1) Taking a(n educated?) guess that involves causal relations; 2) Formulating a way to test this guess by *doing something*; 3) Doing something; 4) Observing the results; 5) Recording the results; 6) repeat any/all of 1,2,3,4,5 until 5 matches 1 (excluding the obvious cheat of simply adjusting 5 to match 1, also practiced for the purpose of gaining future funding but generally frowned upon) Hypothesis generation and testing combined with repeatability (by others) is all I mean by "the Scientific Method". I think you do too? And yes, within that high level description, there are a multitude of methodS for every aspect. The engineering approaches used to set up and execute experiments, different styles of diagramming and of notating data as it is acquired. And even different branches of mathematics and schools of thought on statistics/evidence/error (e.g. frequentist, bayesian, fuzziest)... etc.There really is no Grand Unified Scientific Method. There are methodS, emphasis on the S. There are people who log what they do and people who don't. A scientist is a person who logs what they do in such a way that others can repeat what they've done. So, a) you have to do stuff, not just think. And b) you have to do it in such a way so that others can also do it. Blatheringly, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Nick, Those were Glen's words, not mine. -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 04/22/2013 06:53 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved > with language itself? [...] How much does sharing some > basic language (structure?) get involved in empathic understanding? Yes, it's entirely possible that they happened to evolve together. But it may not be necessary that they will/would always evolve together. Personally, I think sharing basic language _requires_ the ability to empathize, to put yourself in another's position. Without that ability, we devolve into silly arguments like the Chinese room or the existence of consciousness-less zombies. > What I think we are both talking about is: 1) Taking a(n educated?) > guess that involves causal relations; 2) Formulating a way to test this > guess by *doing something*; 3) Doing something; 4) Observing the > results; 5) Recording the results; 6) repeat any/all of 1,2,3,4,5 > until 5 matches 1 (excluding the obvious cheat of simply adjusting 5 to > match 1, also practiced for the purpose of gaining future funding but > generally frowned upon) > [...] > Hypothesis generation and testing combined with repeatability (by > others) is all I mean by "the Scientific Method". I think you do too? I don't include hypothesis generation. We could classify scientists into different types, at least "minimal" vs. "sophisticated". And if we did that, then the sophisticated ones would develop clear hypotheses and then test them with a reality-bifurcating experiment. But I think there are "street scientists" who spend their lives bifurcating reality without ever pausing to yap about what they've demonstrated. And to keep the conversation simple, it is my intention to focus on these "minimal" scientists. Well, the point of the conversation I wanted to have was about science WITHOUT language, if such is possible. If you have a way to show me how a hypothesis can be an _action_ as opposed to a thought or something that's is primarily represented in written or spoken form, then we can talk about a "science" that includes non-lingual hypotheses and, of course, non-lingual experimentation. -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Splitting? was Re: How do forces work?
|
|
In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)
[Week-old draft]
But subgroups require me to know what I want and what I don't want so I can absolutely have or not have them, respectively. This does not reflect real mail, where I am not sure whether I think Phunny Stuph is amusing or crass and have to see it first. The best way to do this would be to have all the mail delivered, but in separate bins, so that I can see each pertinent part of the whole at a time without having to work my way through all the rest, mixed in. This would require some mechanism in the email system to do this, though, like the mail program remotely implementing Gmail's "filters" (auto-applied "labels", which are just non-exclusive categories [tags, in other words]) - probably a security problem, and just hypothetical anyway. I suppose you could consider separate mailing lists to be Better Binning like that, and then if so we have the machinery for a solution (since many [but importantly not all] members are shared between FriAm, WedTech, and Discuss, so it is basically the same general community binned by topic type), we just need to keep the definitions in the lists clearer in our minds.
So...what are they? As I understand it, the WedTech list is for planning WedTech and discussing topics that would be discussed at a WedTech event, and in the same manner: so, an instance of technology and what it means for the world? I guess the only WedTech event that I have actually attended is the one where my Supercomputing Challenge team presented our project, mostly involving an explanation of Dijkstra's algorithm. Then Discuss is discussing news items (including those local to Santa Fe, but maybe in not a predominant enough volume for that distinction to be significant) relating to the list's interests, namely technology, world affairs, and social trends. And then there is FriAm...which also has physical meetings, so presumably some of it is organising that, though from the time I have been subscribed it has been discussions ranging all over tech, science, philosophy, and social issues, incorporating both news and olds, with a good dose of interpersonal flavouring.
I guess long story short, organising discussion is nontrivial. -Arlo ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |