The longshoreman philosopher. He is on the list of notable autodidacts (a category to which I would like to belong).
---
This post is going to be put on the three related blogs (Truth Engineering, 7'oops7, FEDaerated [already mentioned in the context of autodidactism]) each post tailored to the context of the blog's theme) indicating a change of tone and of focus. I was in San Francisco during the time (1967-70) when Eric walked the streets, pondering matters, and ran across him from time to time. His most popular book was a nice read but did not resonate with me (those T-issues [Anselm as an example] that cause so many problems; these are best skirted around many times (mind you, did not say ignore entirely)), however I have always respected the guy and his work.
---
This itinerant citizen saw more of the American experience than did 99.999% of his cohorts and those of subsequent times. And, he was 1st generation. It is probably fortunate that he ended up on San Francisco (where the song writer left his heart). I would bet that Eric did not associate much (if at all) with the beat view (which, if you look at it closely, are of the fortunate sons [thanks, CCR] - wait, there I go again [by character, cannot guarantee descending into the mocking stance which has become so prevalent -- why is that?]).
We'll go on about the travels of Eric from time to time. For instance, he spent several years in skid row of Los Angeles. I worked at the Union Rescue Mission (early 1960s; recently, I looked at the website and was saddened to hear that now they're dealing with families - not older, derelict men) for a couple of years.
---
If the USA is going to mean something, it won't be via military might (if I add, not by that alone, will you keep off the reflexive hero worship thing that forces many to rant interminably?). Rather, this country has many ways to continue (or to try to attempt) to be the "city on the hill" (if only John Winthrop knew). People like Eric [and many other types, but not financial pirates] will be key.
Too, his self-learning was important. How does one test the knowledge of such types? Well, truth engineering will deal with that. To boot, the independent view that we all need [the inverse of this view is the politician whose saliva kicks in at the sight of (or the thought of) a buck (or any other money) -- there I go again, except I'm waiting to see how Elizabeth W. pans out [a note arrived today with the subject that she needs a partner])] was one of Eric's many qualities.
---
This is only a start. Let's not forget Eric (Jul 1902 to May 1983) and his kind.
Remarks:
07/09/2013 -- Was there a time when father knew, whether all or most of the time? Many sons railed against that, GEK III, for instance. Some sons had absent fathers, who were no more than some ideal without any material substance. Some sons even followed their fathers. All sorts of positions along an axis. However, there is something new, now. An insidious overlay is threatening us; its origins come from advances in prowess that are less understood than those who practice think is so. Have we left serfdom to a feudal lord behind in order to be wrapped in a more dense veil? The key notion is quasi-empicisism and its being ignored.
05/14/2013 -- Capitalism magazine published, 10 years ago, Thomas Sowell's The Legacy of Eric Hopper. Praise be the Internet!
Modified: 07/09/2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Anselm
I ran across him today while browsing through Wessex history. Anselm was involved with the discussions related to Edith marrying Henry.
You see, Edith, in this case, is the daughter of Malcolm III (King of Scotland) and his wife, St. Margaret. Edith purportedly had taken religious vows (in a convent) earlier. Could she marry without incurring some type of retributive reaction by the Church?
At the time, Anselm was the Archbishop of Canterbury which is a fairly high-ranking position in England, both then and now. So, he had to weigh in.
Well, Edith argued that being in the convent was by her mother's ruse to keep little Edith from falling into the hands of the Normans (those lusty ones from the continent). So, Edith won her argument, changed her name to Matilda and married Henry.
Henry? Yes, Henry I of England who was the son of William I and, thereby, partly Norman.
---
But, that was a little aside (not a Who am I?) and introduction. This post is a start to re-establish Anselm's importance which we'll be looking at more fully. One motivation is the upcoming 1000th anniversary for him. He was born (circa) 1033. So, we have 20 years to get ready for this.
By then, we'll have had a lot of experience with all of the celebrations coming up that are 400th in flavor (numerous American cities and states), 800th (Magna Charta), and more.
Anselm's "ontological" argument has been scorned by some modern intellectuals who, for the most part, use mathematics as their ruse. And, these modern arguments use a sleight-of-hand to direct our attention away from the less-than-solid basis of their argument.
One of our tasks is to illustrate this problem and to discuss what it means to our future. There has already been a slight start: nods to the quasi-empirical views (several posts).
---
Does this post open up the big "T" issues? Not exactly. There is plenty of territory (hint, here) to cover prior to that.
Remarks:
10/13/2015 -- "God" as name or predicate? How about Being?
05/21/2013 -- The big "T" issues can come to fore. By the way, "truh" in the file name? Mis-type, of course. But, interesting enough to not correct. Will have to start using the "Preview" feature more regularly (note the statement that these posts use no fancy editor; iterative write/review/edit steps are the key; just like the old days whey people wrote on paper). The process pops up the page in a fully formatted manner (nice, blogger.com) that allows the necessary pre-edits (some of which I used to do after the fact - incremental improvement, evolution, ... -- it bothers me when someone shows a final product as if it were obtained by magic (or Deus ex machina); let me see the details and intermediate steps, please).
05/03/2013 -- Either/Or.
You see, Edith, in this case, is the daughter of Malcolm III (King of Scotland) and his wife, St. Margaret. Edith purportedly had taken religious vows (in a convent) earlier. Could she marry without incurring some type of retributive reaction by the Church?
 |
| Anselm |
.svg){kind=link}
Well, Edith argued that being in the convent was by her mother's ruse to keep little Edith from falling into the hands of the Normans (those lusty ones from the continent). So, Edith won her argument, changed her name to Matilda and married Henry.
Henry? Yes, Henry I of England who was the son of William I and, thereby, partly Norman.
---
But, that was a little aside (not a Who am I?) and introduction. This post is a start to re-establish Anselm's importance which we'll be looking at more fully. One motivation is the upcoming 1000th anniversary for him. He was born (circa) 1033. So, we have 20 years to get ready for this.
By then, we'll have had a lot of experience with all of the celebrations coming up that are 400th in flavor (numerous American cities and states), 800th (Magna Charta), and more.
Anselm's "ontological" argument has been scorned by some modern intellectuals who, for the most part, use mathematics as their ruse. And, these modern arguments use a sleight-of-hand to direct our attention away from the less-than-solid basis of their argument.
One of our tasks is to illustrate this problem and to discuss what it means to our future. There has already been a slight start: nods to the quasi-empirical views (several posts).
---
Does this post open up the big "T" issues? Not exactly. There is plenty of territory (hint, here) to cover prior to that.
Remarks:
10/13/2015 -- "God" as name or predicate? How about Being?
05/21/2013 -- The big "T" issues can come to fore. By the way, "truh" in the file name? Mis-type, of course. But, interesting enough to not correct. Will have to start using the "Preview" feature more regularly (note the statement that these posts use no fancy editor; iterative write/review/edit steps are the key; just like the old days whey people wrote on paper). The process pops up the page in a fully formatted manner (nice, blogger.com) that allows the necessary pre-edits (some of which I used to do after the fact - incremental improvement, evolution, ... -- it bothers me when someone shows a final product as if it were obtained by magic (or Deus ex machina); let me see the details and intermediate steps, please).
05/03/2013 -- Either/Or.
Modified: 10/13/2015
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Genetics and truth
It's a nice diversion to consider lessons from the past (Zeno from the far past). We all know how involvement with the present seems to erase (or so some think) the past and gives us a better view. Markov (ought to have identified Andrey earlier; his contribution was to allow us to forget the importance of how we got to where we are [all sorts of ways to discuss this] in order to just use current states for making our choices) would be appalled to see how his ideas have been mis-appropriated (can talk to this quite long and far).
---
But, some progress, that has only been alluded to before, needs to be brought to fore in order to receive proper attention. We're talking about biology and computing in all of the possible permutations of such. We have, many times, mentioned that engineers go up against nature which, then, can lesson the hubris leaning tendency we find with humans. Or not.
For now, let's just look at genetics and at how it has motivated computational solutions, has hinted at future trends and uses, and has provided a new way to think of some things, including how to handle massive systems of equations more efficiently. All of this is apropos.
The following are links to material that is relevant and that we'll get to.
To finish this off, let me add a brief comment about something read recently. You see, someone did the math to figure out when life would have begun using known information about state changes. Think of this being in terms of how far in the past. Well, the amount of time was beyond earth's age. The net effect? Thinking of seeding from space as being tied to our selves and more. We'll get back to this, as truth has a biological basis, in part.
Remarks:
05/03/2013 -- Added in link to Andrey's Wiki page, plus a little coloration. Yes, we have much to thank the guy for; but, there are side-effects to consider to. For one? I was reading in the WSJ suppliers bemoaning how some modern thinking has pushed problems upstream (that is the pure truth). Of course, those who are doing the modeling behind this stuff think they're geniuses. Too, all those who suffer (yes, IPad slaves -- need to find the link for this) because we push the bad stuff off to other people (off shoring, okay?).
---
But, some progress, that has only been alluded to before, needs to be brought to fore in order to receive proper attention. We're talking about biology and computing in all of the possible permutations of such. We have, many times, mentioned that engineers go up against nature which, then, can lesson the hubris leaning tendency we find with humans. Or not.
For now, let's just look at genetics and at how it has motivated computational solutions, has hinted at future trends and uses, and has provided a new way to think of some things, including how to handle massive systems of equations more efficiently. All of this is apropos.
The following are links to material that is relevant and that we'll get to.
- Some basics: Genetics, Chromosome, human genome
- Computing put to use: DNA sequencing
- Requirements: abstractions for genomics
- Example: genome to go, the gene machine and me
To finish this off, let me add a brief comment about something read recently. You see, someone did the math to figure out when life would have begun using known information about state changes. Think of this being in terms of how far in the past. Well, the amount of time was beyond earth's age. The net effect? Thinking of seeding from space as being tied to our selves and more. We'll get back to this, as truth has a biological basis, in part.
Remarks:
05/03/2013 -- Added in link to Andrey's Wiki page, plus a little coloration. Yes, we have much to thank the guy for; but, there are side-effects to consider to. For one? I was reading in the WSJ suppliers bemoaning how some modern thinking has pushed problems upstream (that is the pure truth). Of course, those who are doing the modeling behind this stuff think they're geniuses. Too, all those who suffer (yes, IPad slaves -- need to find the link for this) because we push the bad stuff off to other people (off shoring, okay?).
Modified: 05/03/2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Zeno, in the modern context
It's common knowledge that the modern world knows things through computers. This is true from the most recent phenomena, of noses to smart phones parading as intelligent behavior, to the wide expanses of cosmology's modeling of the heavens and exploration of multi-universes as an explanation, of sorts. In between, we have IRS's use plus business computing, such as design, planning, and a number of other things.
So, where does one go to look at issues related to such knowledge? The ACM is a good start. Say, their Communications of the ACM. Then, we have a whole lot of other folks, such as IEEE, IJCAI, and such.
---
The following is motivated by a viewpoint, expressed by Phillip G. Armour, in the ACM. His article is titled: The Business of Software: How We build Things (in paper, slightly different on-line). There are two things to mention here, though the article ought to be read.
He uses Zeno in talking about what I had called Earned Value. I only used Zeno once (Fedaerated) in several posts on three blogs. Why? I had talked about this with my colleagues on many occasions. It seemed that referencing the guy was more useful in person as then one could get off on the peripatetic issues.
Why Zeno? He's the guy of the arrow. Or, as the joke goes, the mathematician who doesn't get the girl. So, Phillip asks: why do people guess that they're 95% (or some such number) complete on a task as if they're monotonically approaching, with no end in sight?
Phillip laughs it off. I don't as it was a regular occurrence as we tried to assess completion of a project with lots of people and oodles of modules. Nowadays, it's not an issue (say, with Zuck's stuff) as they can just push out system changes (with a recovery method, hopefully, to use if things go bad) without regard to testing status. This is not true for other parts of the business world, say like the 787 (even a most-specified test plan will still leave room for judgment calls -- we'll get to that).
---
Phillip's use gets me thinking, again, that I need to bring the topic forward, again.
First, though, a useful exercise would be to gather all of the posts, for each of the blogs, that dealt with the subject of earned value. For each of the blogs, I have a list of posts that include the term. Then, I provide a list of a few of the important posts and the count of posts with the term.
Now, for this blog, all were in 2009 and before. That sort of indicates the shift to looking at finance. Engineering worries about things like this. Finance seems to have this short-term view of the content of the current day's pocket. That is idiotic, pure and simple.
So, we'll bring this subject up to date and relate it, as it ought to be, to fair value.
A sampling of posts follows:
Remarks:
03/03/2014 -- Acknowledgements, including math pedigree, will be expanded. --
So, where does one go to look at issues related to such knowledge? The ACM is a good start. Say, their Communications of the ACM. Then, we have a whole lot of other folks, such as IEEE, IJCAI, and such.
---
The following is motivated by a viewpoint, expressed by Phillip G. Armour, in the ACM. His article is titled: The Business of Software: How We build Things (in paper, slightly different on-line). There are two things to mention here, though the article ought to be read.
He uses Zeno in talking about what I had called Earned Value. I only used Zeno once (Fedaerated) in several posts on three blogs. Why? I had talked about this with my colleagues on many occasions. It seemed that referencing the guy was more useful in person as then one could get off on the peripatetic issues.
 |
| Zeno, Veritas et Falsitas |
Why Zeno? He's the guy of the arrow. Or, as the joke goes, the mathematician who doesn't get the girl. So, Phillip asks: why do people guess that they're 95% (or some such number) complete on a task as if they're monotonically approaching, with no end in sight?
Phillip laughs it off. I don't as it was a regular occurrence as we tried to assess completion of a project with lots of people and oodles of modules. Nowadays, it's not an issue (say, with Zuck's stuff) as they can just push out system changes (with a recovery method, hopefully, to use if things go bad) without regard to testing status. This is not true for other parts of the business world, say like the 787 (even a most-specified test plan will still leave room for judgment calls -- we'll get to that).
---
Phillip's use gets me thinking, again, that I need to bring the topic forward, again.
First, though, a useful exercise would be to gather all of the posts, for each of the blogs, that dealt with the subject of earned value. For each of the blogs, I have a list of posts that include the term. Then, I provide a list of a few of the important posts and the count of posts with the term.
Fedaerated (18) 7'oops7 (41) Truth Engineering (20)
Now, for this blog, all were in 2009 and before. That sort of indicates the shift to looking at finance. Engineering worries about things like this. Finance seems to have this short-term view of the content of the current day's pocket. That is idiotic, pure and simple.
So, we'll bring this subject up to date and relate it, as it ought to be, to fair value.
A sampling of posts follows:
- Minsky anew (Apr 17, 2009) -- There are many types of speculation, including projections of when something might be done. This applies more to fair versus earned, sometimes.
- Value and truth (Jan 12, 2009) -- Value and its determination seems to have been given short attention as if it's a resolved issue (like the downplaying of risk management's complications?).
- Effort and truth (Oct 10, 2007) -- Moving along a value line takes effort; yet, modern bookkeeping and modeling seems to suggest otherwise. That is, cook the books to get what you want to see.
- Measuring progress (Sep 19, 2007) -- The blog started with an engineering focus, but, by the time of this post, there were murmurings of financial idiocy which burst out a little later. So, there is a flavor of both earned and fair in terms of value.
- Complicated or difficult (Sep 3, 2007) -- We have issues of depth and breadth. The former can seem boundless as they are more mathematical than not. The latter seem easy as we throw database technology and computational power at them. Both contribute to the problems.
There are a lot more posts to look. We'll get back to that.
---
Phillip used some mathematics to show the problems related to knowing where you were with a project (the managers, like kids, say: are we there, yet?). Nice article.
---
Phillip used some mathematics to show the problems related to knowing where you were with a project (the managers, like kids, say: are we there, yet?). Nice article.
Remarks:
03/03/2014 -- Acknowledgements, including math pedigree, will be expanded. --
Modified: 03/03/2014
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Science, religion, or spirituality?
Science and religion is one sentence? There, I said it. Ah, that feels good. For awhile now, I've been punting by referring to something called T-issues as the means to subsume all things related to the controversy under a future topic (TBD, in other words). Some see those two as not being sufficient; bringing in spirituality can change the tone of the argument.
---
Today, at last (or, finally), I ran into a site that looks appealing from several senses. We'll ignore some of that discussion, for now, but I can talk about how I got to the site. The WSJ had a review of Neil Shubin's book. WSJ actually referred to Blake's little poem. That Neil presents such a grand sweep that is comprehensible is remarkable. Many who have tried this approach have done so to further some argument. Neil seems to be mainly trying to describe how things unfolded, over the eons, through his understanding. One can always, while reading these things, wonder about the author's underlying belief system (yes, a universal trait, even if it is vehemently denied; science can be as much of a religion as any other such system) and its influence.
So, I went to search (isn't that the modern way?) about Neil and to collect things to read about him or by him. One thing that I notices was that he was going to be talking at a Jewish Community Center. Okay. So, I went to look for statements about his beliefs by others or himself. That led me to this site.
From a quick browse, it looks to have a marvelous mixture of topics. So, then, I decided to make it, for now (let's refer to to the subject as S/R), the center of focus for dealing with T-issues (and t-issues) in the contexts related to truth engineering. For instance, S/R can serve as one of the start-off points for browsing on any of the multitude of subjects related to the topic. If the S/R frameworks (such as this one) have not addressed something, then the search (discussion) can go elsewhere. If that occurs, though, one might wonder why the topic has not come up.
---
Shubin's large view brings up some interesting points about maintaining cohesion under such a task. Surely, throughout the exposition, one would expect to find inconsistencies. Except, that broad views do peanut-butter over things, so that any contradictions would be smoothed. But, then, how to smooth would not be resolved. Yes, in retrospect, we could agree on the harmony within the message; yet, it would be easy to argue, yes, but let's look at it this way.
One cannot find such understanding going the other way. That is, who understands quantum physics? If you say that you do, please be aware of it mathematical basis. von Neumann, himself, said that we cannot get understanding. Rather, we get used to something. Which, by the way, seems like inuring one's mind rather than getting a grasp of the situation.
That little bit there, large/small - sensible/nonsensical - et al, brings up the major topic: to believe or not to believe (albeit, science requires all sorts of beliefs).
So, either/or is the situation'l choice. At some point, perhaps, we'll have an effective way to deal with the subject. Methinks that the computational, our little genie gone awry, will force the issue.
Remarks:
---
Today, at last (or, finally), I ran into a site that looks appealing from several senses. We'll ignore some of that discussion, for now, but I can talk about how I got to the site. The WSJ had a review of Neil Shubin's book. WSJ actually referred to Blake's little poem. That Neil presents such a grand sweep that is comprehensible is remarkable. Many who have tried this approach have done so to further some argument. Neil seems to be mainly trying to describe how things unfolded, over the eons, through his understanding. One can always, while reading these things, wonder about the author's underlying belief system (yes, a universal trait, even if it is vehemently denied; science can be as much of a religion as any other such system) and its influence.
So, I went to search (isn't that the modern way?) about Neil and to collect things to read about him or by him. One thing that I notices was that he was going to be talking at a Jewish Community Center. Okay. So, I went to look for statements about his beliefs by others or himself. That led me to this site.
From a quick browse, it looks to have a marvelous mixture of topics. So, then, I decided to make it, for now (let's refer to to the subject as S/R), the center of focus for dealing with T-issues (and t-issues) in the contexts related to truth engineering. For instance, S/R can serve as one of the start-off points for browsing on any of the multitude of subjects related to the topic. If the S/R frameworks (such as this one) have not addressed something, then the search (discussion) can go elsewhere. If that occurs, though, one might wonder why the topic has not come up.
---
Shubin's large view brings up some interesting points about maintaining cohesion under such a task. Surely, throughout the exposition, one would expect to find inconsistencies. Except, that broad views do peanut-butter over things, so that any contradictions would be smoothed. But, then, how to smooth would not be resolved. Yes, in retrospect, we could agree on the harmony within the message; yet, it would be easy to argue, yes, but let's look at it this way.
One cannot find such understanding going the other way. That is, who understands quantum physics? If you say that you do, please be aware of it mathematical basis. von Neumann, himself, said that we cannot get understanding. Rather, we get used to something. Which, by the way, seems like inuring one's mind rather than getting a grasp of the situation.
That little bit there, large/small - sensible/nonsensical - et al, brings up the major topic: to believe or not to believe (albeit, science requires all sorts of beliefs).
So, either/or is the situation'l choice. At some point, perhaps, we'll have an effective way to deal with the subject. Methinks that the computational, our little genie gone awry, will force the issue.
Remarks:
02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily. The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).
02/09/2013 -- Since front pages change quite a bit with feeds, here are two posts to start with: What Believers and Atheists can teach each other (a rabbi talks to a science writer), Is Atheism increasing at the expense of Theism? (love the comment from Cornell: I can’t see God, as he doesn’t personally wave hello to me when I ask him to, therefore he must not exist).
01/22/2013 -- Put two comments relating to blind or delusional. Both ignored. Ought to have referenced by dreams of Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).
02/09/2013 -- Since front pages change quite a bit with feeds, here are two posts to start with: What Believers and Atheists can teach each other (a rabbi talks to a science writer), Is Atheism increasing at the expense of Theism? (love the comment from Cornell: I can’t see God, as he doesn’t personally wave hello to me when I ask him to, therefore he must not exist).
01/22/2013 -- Put two comments relating to blind or delusional. Both ignored. Ought to have referenced by dreams of Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).
Modified: 02/09/2013
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Summary, 2012
This blog got its start in July of 2007, right before its sister blog (7'oops7). As of today, there have been 183 posts with 16 categories. The most read of the Categories relate to the later theme of Finance as game, with T-issues being a close second.
The image shows the most read for the Past 30 days and for All time.
Remarks:
 |
| Past 30 days All time |
- Of late (Past 30 days) - Baruch refers to Spinoza who has some revelance in today's world. See the reference to work at Stanford in the post.
- Since the beginning (All time) - Leverage and truth II is a fairly early post (March 2008). Remember what was going on then? We seem to be forgetting the lessons as politics forces us into short-term gaming.
The early years were the most active: 2007 (33), 2008 (46), 2009 (43). Later, there were other blogs which took time away from the first two. Of late, these are the counts 2010 (15), 2011 (24), 2012 (21).
The blog is expected to become more active, given the development in markets of more computation which raises up the need for truth engineering.
Remarks:
12/23/2012 --
Modified: 12/23/2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Baruch
Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.
--
Or, later known as Benedict. Spinoza, of course.
Why is he important? As we see neuroscience trying to explain ourselves to us, we can learn from all of the debates over the many years. And, Baruch had a lot to say that is worth considering. His time, by the way, parallels the first entry on this side of the pond that led to the US (to wit, real founders).
I recently saw a reference to a 2003 book on FB which sent me back to my youth (Henry and George) due to its theme being related to Baruch's thoughts. Antonio Damasio, the author, uses our friend (see Stanford's summary of Spinoza's on the physical world) as the basis for arguing the importance of emotions to our cognitive workings. And, that leads right to truth engineering and to the issues related to computation (we'll get there).
---
Aside: Emotions? Well, we have a lot to discuss there. Let's just say that these are involved with mechanisms (operational sense, okay? in terms, too, of the neuropeptidergic'al consciousness (is that all there is?)) that cannot be mechanized (which computation is, folk). What, even with biologically based computers?
Aside: We saw a similar view in the last IJCAI (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence) arguing that biased minds make better inferences (see video on Homo heuristicus). You have to realize that this might seem quite intuitive, yet reasoning (as in applied logics of several sorts) does receive most attention. The Zen awaits further definition.
Aside: That the mathematical framework, so perniciously overlaying ourselves, is right at the core of the current financial mess (still being unwound, folks). A big problem remains with respect to ensuring payments (by that, insure is not in any way meant to imply the gaming by the likes of AIG - or even some pieces of Buffet's organizations - many of the strategies involved stink to high heaven) in the future.
---
We've danced around some necessary points by categorizing them as t-issues and punting them down the road (isn't this what we've done with the national debt?). It might be interesting to re-look at the topic with Baruch's glasses (as in, truth and the senses).
Now, some might complain that thoughts from 400 years ago are not of interest. These arguments have been timelessly debated, not converging, apparently, to anything that would build consensus. As well, the modern world has been very much rewarding of the operational stances. Namely, these are those that do not care with the net effect of turmoils, trampling of the spirit, and much more as a guaranteed fact of life. Perhaps, this might be true for some.
For me, it's nice to run across thoughtful recognition of the musing of earlier thinkers in the context of the up-to-date work that, essentially, is spiraling us toward knowing more and more about less and less in this age of specialization. Too, to have a balanced view like Baruch's brought forward can have several effects; one of these would be an improved overarching worldview. How? We'll get to that.
Finally, a Baruch thought, via SEoP: For measure, both of spatial extent and temporal duration, is a mere aid to the imagination, and not a means of intellectually understanding.
Remarks:
07/09/2013 -- Was there a time when father knew, whether all or most of the time? Many sons railed against that, GEK III, for instance. Some sons had absent fathers, who were no more than some ideal without any material substance. Some sons even followed their fathers. All sorts of positions along an axis. However, there is something new, now. An insidious overlay is threatening us; its origins come from advances in prowess that are less understood than those who practice think is so. Have we left serfdom to a feudal lord behind in order to be wrapped in a more dense veil? The key notion is quasi-empicisism and its being ignored.
01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.
--
Or, later known as Benedict. Spinoza, of course.
Why is he important? As we see neuroscience trying to explain ourselves to us, we can learn from all of the debates over the many years. And, Baruch had a lot to say that is worth considering. His time, by the way, parallels the first entry on this side of the pond that led to the US (to wit, real founders).
I recently saw a reference to a 2003 book on FB which sent me back to my youth (Henry and George) due to its theme being related to Baruch's thoughts. Antonio Damasio, the author, uses our friend (see Stanford's summary of Spinoza's on the physical world) as the basis for arguing the importance of emotions to our cognitive workings. And, that leads right to truth engineering and to the issues related to computation (we'll get there).---
Aside: Emotions? Well, we have a lot to discuss there. Let's just say that these are involved with mechanisms (operational sense, okay? in terms, too, of the neuropeptidergic'al consciousness (is that all there is?)) that cannot be mechanized (which computation is, folk). What, even with biologically based computers?
Aside: We saw a similar view in the last IJCAI (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence) arguing that biased minds make better inferences (see video on Homo heuristicus). You have to realize that this might seem quite intuitive, yet reasoning (as in applied logics of several sorts) does receive most attention. The Zen awaits further definition.
Aside: That the mathematical framework, so perniciously overlaying ourselves, is right at the core of the current financial mess (still being unwound, folks). A big problem remains with respect to ensuring payments (by that, insure is not in any way meant to imply the gaming by the likes of AIG - or even some pieces of Buffet's organizations - many of the strategies involved stink to high heaven) in the future.
---
We've danced around some necessary points by categorizing them as t-issues and punting them down the road (isn't this what we've done with the national debt?). It might be interesting to re-look at the topic with Baruch's glasses (as in, truth and the senses).
Now, some might complain that thoughts from 400 years ago are not of interest. These arguments have been timelessly debated, not converging, apparently, to anything that would build consensus. As well, the modern world has been very much rewarding of the operational stances. Namely, these are those that do not care with the net effect of turmoils, trampling of the spirit, and much more as a guaranteed fact of life. Perhaps, this might be true for some.
For me, it's nice to run across thoughtful recognition of the musing of earlier thinkers in the context of the up-to-date work that, essentially, is spiraling us toward knowing more and more about less and less in this age of specialization. Too, to have a balanced view like Baruch's brought forward can have several effects; one of these would be an improved overarching worldview. How? We'll get to that.
Finally, a Baruch thought, via SEoP: For measure, both of spatial extent and temporal duration, is a mere aid to the imagination, and not a means of intellectually understanding.
Remarks:
07/09/2013 -- Was there a time when father knew, whether all or most of the time? Many sons railed against that, GEK III, for instance. Some sons had absent fathers, who were no more than some ideal without any material substance. Some sons even followed their fathers. All sorts of positions along an axis. However, there is something new, now. An insidious overlay is threatening us; its origins come from advances in prowess that are less understood than those who practice think is so. Have we left serfdom to a feudal lord behind in order to be wrapped in a more dense veil? The key notion is quasi-empicisism and its being ignored.
01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.
Modified: 01/06/2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)