Posted by
Marcus G. Daniels on
Aug 21, 2013; 1:38am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/How-Laura-Poitras-Helped-Snowden-Spill-His-Secrets-NYTimes-com-tp7583618p7583706.html
On 8/20/13 2:36 PM, glen wrote:
> You've given us a nice set of bounding concepts from which we might
> define a Truth {clever, consistent, elegant, purposeful/non-clumsy,
> appropriate-to-context}. The question is whether or not this set of
> ascriptors can lead to something transpersonal.
Rather than the software diffs example, judicial opinions might be a
better example. How all of contemporary U.S. law unfolds from the
Constitution is a big pill to swallow. It's less opaque to read an
opinion and identify the concepts it appeals to and ensure that at least
the logic is sound, and that the scope of the interpolations /
extrapolations are evident. I can learn to trust the person making the
legal opinion on the basis of the content of his or her opinions, but
not have to trust that all of the original premises are also sound.
The delta from the configuration that was given can often be found to be
the right delta, even if the starting configuration is arbitrary.
Marcus
============================================================
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