Truth Engineering

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.

Past 30 days All time

The image shows the most read for the Past 30 days and for 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.

Modified: 01/06/2015

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Content management

I'm at the point where I need to find a CMS to use, and the related search is of interest here. So, I'll use posts to track the effort and to document the results.

So, what is CMS and how does it relate to truth? Well, you're reading a post that is handled by a blog system that is run by a company that know[s] how to offer material via the web [and so forth]. Ever look at the details [especially, how they have evolved over the decades]?

Well, I'm an old guy who has been computing for decades and who has watched the evolution of the [pre-web], the web and ~~its~~ [their] toys. This year Microsoft knocked me off of their little system [OfficeLive, actually a whole lot of people who had come to depend, albeit wrongly, on it]; I recorded the event but need to update matters as far as significance and what's been what since then. Essentially, I went over to a web service provider who offers [several approaches], ~~something~~ [such as one] for the typical user which I didn't like. Then, it offers some modern day approaches that seemed, at first, to be idiotic [judgmental comment about pushing features further than needed for functionality -- an open pit for discussion].

Why would I say that? Experience. But, then so many people are going that way. Lemmings? But, to back up, it's using the database far beyond its capability [or intent, considering its evolution, that is, of the DBMS]. But, the rich Oracle guy (who bought Sun and Java) probably loves this [except, there is are free SQL offerings].

So, I'll have to capitulate, somewhat [to the crowd, only to the extent necessary]. Before making the decision, I'll have to catch up on what's what (how many times have I done that in my career? Nowadays, though, it's the techies driving the thing as they push out features that are not necessary, nor desirable in some cases) [in the CMS and related worlds].

---

So, I found a nice little site that seem[ed] useful. The guy is looking at Drupal and Joomla. Perhaps, Wordpress would be interesting, too. [Any others?]

---

But, let's go back to the Microsoft boot [to the rear] thing. After I recoiled from the modern approach[es that were offered], I went back to about 2000, in timeframe. After a bit of search and testing, I settled on using Sea Monkey and its Composer. I can edit somewhat [in the] WYSIWYG [style] and then hack HTML as I need to (yes, started this type of thing way back with Mosaic). Now, I need to do a couple of things: allow better interaction (all types) and improve content management.

---

So, content management has to do with truth? Yes, the underlying systems are important, but then the thing expressed by the system has to have foundation'l support, to boot. There are the pragmatic issues, such as we see with another CMS (change management system), that relate to what was changed, perhaps why, and by whom. There is more, though, which brings in 'truth' which we'll get to[, at some point].

--- Notes ---

This section will collect comments about the search. At some point, it'll split to another post.

in the theme

Remarks

Joomla 3.1.1

Ice Theme

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Remarks:

07/09/2019 -- The context (another 'c' in the computer world ;>) changes with mention (by Steven Huggard, Full-Stack developer) of a newer wave example: trello.com. Of course, Joomla, WorkPress, et al, are still around, with updates. However, cyberspace has been flooded of late with new stuff, thanks to relaxations (yes) brought by the 'cloud' (muddy as it is). More coming.

03/11/2019 -- To now, our focus has been the establishment of presence and informational content covering the period of fifteen generations of the American dream. Next step is more interactive with membership facilities as well as ecommerce, in the large. So, we're back to looking at options, where the focus is extending upon our portal to truth. A central post: thomasgardnersociety.org.

01/21/2019 -- If you look at Content Management or CMS at this blog and the one for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (CMS or Configuration), you will see lots of posts. We have a new site where we prove our work: TGSoc.org. Its role is portal but, for now, we introduce changes there, first. See the Discussion page with a link to our devlog. Based upon the direction I hear that Google is going, working this approach for our portal is right on. So, technical will be visible rather than not.

06/20/2016 -- Concrete5 example removed. Broken link in one library (at the ISP) mentioned by http://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/php/.

08/02/2014 -- Bit the bullet and updated the site (looks, behavior) using HTML/CSS. Of course, things are still pending, such as membership functions, business, ... We'll get there.

07/11/2013 -- Tom Rogers provides a nice look at the difference between static and not (there are all sorts of things to discuss here; frankly, I thought that the database use was overdone - for instance, why put a PDF (especially, if it's a published thing) in a database?). I ran across Tom's site as I was considering Concrete5 which was motivated to help developers, according to some. So, I've started a little demo that may (or may not) be improved. You see, I ran across another video that said do a Joomla website in one hour or less (on youtube). I did the same example as the guy doing the demo, using my own images and words. This is an example of teaching by example (a great way for an autodidact to learn - let me see you do it, step back, and let me do my own variations -- I know, variations before the basis is set can be troublesome, but they can lead to interesting situations). As soon as I finished the video's example, I started this example which seems to be processing (see What's New, this date). ... Drupal (see comments on the three)? Concrete5 provides more editing support. I'm too old to hack (52+ languages (not counting all of the environments), over several decades and all types of platforms). If the content is code, then CMS has a different interpretation. But, "content" in this sense is not improved using CMS (oh, it'll make you more creative?).

07/10/2013 -- Did not want another few months to go by so that the year's anniversary of this post would find the problem still open. So, renewed the study. Didn't want to continue doing straight HTML (like this site which moved from OfficeLive - the site will be upgraded once the CMS approach is finalized.). Too, did not want to pay exorbitantly for a CMS. So, looking at freeware CMS boiled down to three: Wordpress, Drupal, and Joomla, looked at in that order. Might use Wordpress for the blog. Drupal is too code-oriented, for this old guy. Joomla? Well, with release 3.11 and the template from Ice Theme, this looks to be a good way to go. It's straightforward. And, one can hack in code. I'll get use to having the database in the background; maintenance, then, will be more than just doing backups.

01/12/2013 -- Involved with other stuff but got back to this. The requirement was for a bb/forum type of thing. So, found out the latest approaches. Looked at the ratings and picked a couple. Turned out that I liked one that I had not seen on the first pass, SMF. Here is the result after a little tweaking of the configuration. Doing that allowed me to see CMS approaches using similar development methods. So, reviewing those ought to be an interesting little task.

11/09/2012 -- Perhaps, there's a meme here: of local interest, Engineering memes.

Modified: 07/09/2019

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Truth and the senses

We'll start a new series and dedicate it to the three dudes who will feature in posts from time to time. The theme? Well, don't you just get spitting mad at the intellectuals (and, the best-and-brightest are not they, necessarily) who think of truth as some dis-embodied thing, an abstraction if you would, when, everyone, with any sense, knows that it's something related to being (all sorts of things to discuss there)? Wait, what exactly is truth? People have been hung up on that for eons. Making the issue to be mostly abstract'd flimflam was a modern technique meant to keep the waters muddied.

And, these abstract notions lead to pain and suffering on the part of the many. A modern case in point, which is really the epitome of crap (when looked at properly -- to wit, near-zero), is the 'smart' device which has been handed to the user by the suffering of myriads of hapless folks. So what that they might be on foreign soil or under some flag other than ours. We cannot have a sustainable economy for this tiny planet without systems taking a multitude of factors into their scope that have conveniently been left out. Unfortunately, the john-gault wannabes don't want this type of thing to come to the fore.

So, we'll suppress it for now and take another tact. However, before we do so, we state that the above rant relates directly to computationally driven systems in which the supposed elite run things, with their numbers (ah, mathematical interloping), in a manner that causes unrealistic demands upon those who have to see things to fruition. In particular, we'll have to, eventually, address some growing issue where we'll claim that anyone who is going to make a decision about how something ought to be done by another better be able to do that very thing him (or her) self (the essence of the military way of building leadership, if you look closely).

In other words, expecting cannon fodder'ish modes from others means that you get your butt out there in harm's way, to boot.

---

Now, let's look at how closely truth is tied to your senses. We'll start with vision, but thinking about the nose is fun. Ever know by smell when someone is being more of an arse than not. Judgmental? Yes. Remember, we're homo heuristicus, in essence (arguable point). Biases keep us healthily involved in maintaining a future for ourselves and our loved ones. We'll look at this, from all sides.

But, if we go back to vision, truth processing is very much tied to what glasses we are wearing. Consider that you have many pairs at your disposal. And, how you see things, react, and more relate directly to what you have on. I know. Some claim that we need to always be rosy viewing. Or, some will argue what glasses you need for any type of situation.

Guess what? It's an individual's choice, within reason. And, here we'll need to stop a minute and give a nod to John Stuart Mill (did Google forget their pledge?). We don't infringe upon others, unless it's self-defense (or ordered by someone with appropriate authority and the right to do such ordering and so forth).

Still, the individual has the ability to process truth as he/her wishes. Now, for those who are literally minded, this is a metaphoric approach (actually, we'll get to allegory, later). Some of us have been four-eye'd since childhood, yet everyone has been so bespectacled even if they are not aware of the fact. Too, if you're seeing things as another wants you to see things, you're using an adopted pair (yes, groups can share visionary biases).

---

So, what's the point? Several points that have been alluded to in posts here over the past few years. Some might say that truth is in the details somewhat arguing against those who expect that their elevated views are what is what. Joel Orr said that he learned that truth was not at some limit of abstraction, rather it's in reality. We do have to consider map-territory issues. Why? Orientations toward the detail'd view get into a relativistic trap with shifting sands of time always blowing in the wind (tee hee).

Our basic humanness will allow some structuring, via patterns and what not. Look, we made it this far in the long eons of the Darwin'd environment. Too,the common framework advances with technology. Look at the arguments offered by Flynn.

---

What I think that we ought to discuss, with the superpositioning of the computational on ourselves, is not loss of soul but a subtle entrapment from which we'll not be able to disentangle. That old bifurcating discussion of continuous versus discrete has not been laid to bed, despite the protestations of some. Analog/digital? We can think of several of these type of dichotomies.

You know, folks. A large part of the problem is that the commercial element took over the internet (yes, Google) for its own purposes. They funded the advancements. The side effect is that we're being glued into glasses that are very much limiting. Why? Ah, we'll have to look at that fully.

Of course, there have been many who haven't allowed themselves to be pulled into the pit. You know, the most aggravating thing to me is that mathematical insights have been used to force people into situations where universal categories are being trashed for the sake of bowing to Bayes (gosh, he must be rolling over in his grave - again and again).

---

Our whole imaginative apparatus has been disheveled, raked over the coals, and just downright raped and pillaged. It's not too late to back up and look at the matter, again and again. One motivation is the importance to the future of the open-minded pursuit of happiness and the other benefits that we know are given us by right (Divinely and self-defined).

Remarks:

10/31/2012 -- There are many other things of interest to TE. For instance, I picked up the Proof of Heaven book and gave it a scan. It's a matter of glasses how one interprets the experience. Makes me think of Sagan's book (remember, a wonderful journey, then find out that the thing never left the area -- so, one then has to wonder about subjective versus not -- experience, except for the limiting view of science, is more subjective than not - unfortunately, it's that way for a purpose). Not scoffing, as we'll eventually get around to the topic of the dream and truth. But, it'll take moving into the t-issues which had to happen sooner or later. For now, I want to see how long it is before Dr. Eban capitulates to the materialistic view.

10/31/2012 -- When I first read about the Koch (see San Luis Obispo Tribune) interview, I responded with a comment that same day and then deleted the thing the next day. The idea was to write Koch-colored glasses as a post. Well, I never got around to doing that, but, perhaps, I will no matter who wins the election.

10/13/2012 -- Having mentioned Mill, now by necessity, a legal view must be considered.

Modified: 10/31/2012

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Zen of computing (in part)

This is a companion post to the Entitlement (Message to Google) post on 7oops7. We'll have more of these pairs.

---

Zen? Yes, several senses, but we're going back to the original motivation and come forward. 'enlightenment' will an operative concept; those who paid attention in school know that the western world went through a pseudo-phase (with this as the name), about the same time as westerners started to flood over to these parts (as in, across the big pond).

Aside: And, ..., the muck-quamire'd next few weeks are a direct result of wandering down perdition-laden'd paths, but that's another subject.

---

We have a message for Google, but there'll be some bit about Mr. Jobs. Plenty in China do not honor his name. You see, folks, all sorts of insights from the eastern minds came here and were bastardized. Yoga's downfall? One example. There are plenty. Mind you. The message is not that the eastern way is better, just different. And, we see that conflicts continue due to lack of understanding, especially on the part of the master races (???, kidding, of course) in the western way.

Which way of life, by the way, was saved from the eastern flood by those on the east side of Europe. Kudos to the Poles (yes), Slavs, Croats, and more. Ever thank (or even think of) those who kept the western civilization alive. Looks like we might try to kill it from within, if the newest generation doesn't move the forward-looking vector somewhat (how? why? -- ah, we'll get there).

---

Essentially, whatever superior state a computer can achieve, it cannot best the human's grasp. What? Note, we're not talking about the computer's ability to derive knotted states (hell, we were doing that long before our artificial friends arrived). We're talking wisdom. Who demonstrates that nowadays? Surely, we cannot look to the politicians. Nor, can we look to the money'd crowd chasing after their dreams of dominance.

---

The issue, though, is whether a human can have an elevated level, using the artificial, that is beyond that which is naturally attainable. We'll get into that, and more. An example would be joint exploration of some type of hyperspace (for the most part, this would only be a map --- please, see map-territory issues as being important to the discussion). In practice, any computer-assisted discipline (of which there are myriads, CAX, computational mathematics, visualization, and much more) is an example, including robotics (which is how we get to Google, in part).

---

The minds in power, notwithstanding, we need to up the ante in this regard (this old guy states the challenge, mostly, for the younger, and emerging, crowds). How? To be discussed. Why? It is necessary in order to pull ourselves away from the domination that some seem to desire. The human spirit is too strong to allow this emergence; yet, it's probably implicit in many sci fi views and reinforced in games built upon those views.

---

So, back to the subject. The 'idiot boxes' that pull peoples' minds into some zoned state in which they, then, ignore their reality into which they are embedded (and its inhabitants) and act in other than desirable manners (zombies are only one way to describe the effect) do so since those encumbered essentially gave up their control. Did they ever have any? Do we know how to teach self-control? Do we know what it is exactly that we're trying to teach (ah, is there a pill that will help?)? ..., So many questions abound.

That notion, that there is an attracting force behind the mindlessness, was the motivation for saying that FB is a metaphor (somewhat facetiously) for something that demands attention. There are many ways to approach the necessary analysis.

But, calling attention to Zen (whatever it is) and its mindfulness pursuit seemed to offer one starting point. We'll see how this goes. Another reason is the huge amount of psychic energy, and human liveliness, that has gone into that thing on which we can hang a three-lettered label.

---

That all leads to questions, such as this one: do computers contribute to, or detract from, mindfulness?

---

Of course, other questions are around, such as: why mindfulness?

Remarks:

10/05/2012 -- IJCAI has a newer flavor. It, at one time, had a theoretic thrust, mainly. Need to re-acquaint myself with the conference (attended 1987 Milan, Italy 1991 Sydney, Australia 1993 Chambery, France 1995 Montreal, Canada). This talk from IJCAI-2011 relates to the theme of these posts: Homo heuristicus. Note that the real Zen would include development. In other words, "God grows his own" (Steve would have known what that means)! Again, we need to re-look at heuristics.

10/05/2012 -- Pause, for a moment, to remember Steve and his contributions. In hindsight, Mr. Jobs' foresight looks pretty good (if only we could understand 'reality distortion' a little better -- and its effects).

10/04/2012 -- Learned a new one: gamify. Seems that the market-leaning folks have already adopted this, albeit with games that have real (and largely negative) impact upon the lives of us all.

10/04/2012 -- 1B users, give or take.

Modified: 10/05/2012

Friday, September 28, 2012

Hint, heuristic, algorithm

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

---

We were wallowing in the muck (it's an election year, so give us a break) wondering what could pull us out of the morass (we do need to get our tops up and spinning). Well, those with oodles of bucks, unless they are extremely careless (read: stupid), find it easier to remove themselves (not exactly, but that's a big T 'truth' issue) from the mess (they leave the crap to others). And, big bucks now are wandering after 'apps' which are oriented, for the most part, toward personal devices (mobile ubiquity).

Aside: Most don't enjoy that opportunity. Someone used baseball to characterize those with large pockets, in the following sense. They categorized the person's success by their starting position. Ellison, of the relational thing, was from the batter's box. Some start from first base. Others already had a home run at birth. You know, most are not even in the ball park. Z of FB was on one of the bases.

So, big bucks HOPE to make more by chasing after dreams (illusions -- as in, chimera). There may be technical aspects to the process that brings things forth, yet one would think that appealing features are more the focus than outright computational prowess. Calling something an algorithm does not make it so (below).

Sidebar: another issues that we'll discuss: A. 3 years with Vista and no BSOD -- only 2 weeks with this newer thing - Windows 7 - and I already have one; B. using the recent version of a program from a famous company, I kept seeing the thing go back to the initial screen. Well, it turns out that this is the default error mode (more friendly than the BSOD?), but it does the unwind without leaving any hint (see below) of what was wrong. It's like going back to square one and starting over (ever heard of Sisyphus?). But, getting a top to spin is not trivial. C. ...

---

So, let's look at this by using the three concepts from the subject line. They can be thought to have a progressive association somewhat like the following describes.

hint -- We can view this several ways but consider a math problem. Many times, there may be a hint about how to approach a solution. One could say that a hint is sufficient to the wise. Unfortunately, computers are not wise and need explicit instructions. That, folks, is both the boon and the bane. It's the former since we can (try to) know what went into some computation (only under certain restrictive assumptions dealing with things like side-effects, black-boxes, etc.). Another way to think of a hint is that it lays down markers, within a landscape, whose presence helps keep things moving toward an end. Let's face it. Smart folks do not like to follow explicit instructions more than once (why then do we put people into the position where they are, for the most part, automatons? --- stupid, from several sides). You know what? We cannot give a hint to a computer in the same way that we can smart folks (forget the so-called smart devices - dumb-ass'd things, people). Except, if a person is in-the-loop during a computational event of complicated nature, the person can nudge the system away from divergent tendencies (yes, we'll expand at large about this being one way out of the quagmire -- suggesting, of course, human talents not yet developed).
heuristic - We could say rule-of-thumb, but it's to mean more than that limiting view. A heuristic view can be fairly powerful approaching, somewhat, the 'nudge' mentioned in the prior bullet. Why don't we hear people talking this, rather than the loud pronouncements about their algorithms? If anything, any decision logic would need to be heuristically based (using real data and analysis thereof) in a real world situation. Developments after Hilbert's question about a program to do all mathematics (Mathematica, and its ilk, notwithstanding) suggest such.
algorithm -- There is no agreed-upon definition. But, one strong notion is that an algorithm has (ought to have) more rigor behind it than not. Now, looking at the various characterizations (thanks to Wikipedia editors) can be interesting. Knuth's view probably best fits my experience. Namely, we have this: finiteness, definiteness, input, output, effectiveness. Let's look at those. Finiteness. Some argue that we have this by the vary nature of our domains. Not so. I've seen too many things loop (everyday, operators get lost, for various reasons on the web, which requires redo). Combinations of non-finite spaces can look extremely large from certain viewpoints. Definiteness. Unless there are explicit user requirements, there'll always be a problem here. Convergence, through interest and use, may be the modus operandi, yet it approximates only. Input: thankfully, menu interfaces inhibit problem emergence. But, just a few days ago, someone was trying to show off his new device. And, he started his dialog as if a 'smart' person was on the other side of his Shannon experience. Hah! The thing barf'd. I've seen this too many times, folks. Output: Crap, just look at mangled messages out of supposed smart fixup and fat fingering. It's almost epochal. I've seen too much effort by people to demonstrate that their smart device is such. We dumb ourselves down, folks, in order for this to happen (many, many ways). Effectiveness: As measured by what? Showing off to others? I'll be impressed when we see some type of verification process in places (no, not just testing). However, this is a hard thing to do.

---

Reminder. See my remarks about Mr. Jobs' little demos from the earlier days. My thought still stands, despite IBM's success on Jeopardy.

Aside: Don't get me wrong. I love that the software frameworks have evolved immensely. It's nice to open the covers and see the progressive build upon what one hopes is a sound foundation. But, it took oodles of time, effort, and caring work to get here. How do we try to show the extreme tedium, and angst, that has been the case from the beginning? You know what happened, folks? The tide was turned so that computation can be faulty without any user kickback except for not buying. Or complaining? And, the vendor saying: sorry. HOW many millions (billions) of dollars of work has been lost through errors that might be of an egregious type if we could get under the kimono to know for sure? Well, losses are not finite for several reasons (cannot be counted, or accounted for, and the secondary effects are not measurable).

---

Oh, who with money (yeah, venture people, you) is even interested in the longer term problems?

Remarks:

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

01/05/2015 -- See header.

03/23/2014 -- SAT solvers as an example of large class of heuristics.

02/25/2014 -- Put in a context link, up top.

07/20/2013 -- So, today, found out that a new handle for algorithms is algos. Okay.

06/14/2013 -- Moshe's editorial at the Communications of the ACM discusses algorithms. Comments, and subsequent letters responding, to Moshe's thoughts indicate the wide range of opinion in the matter.

05/02/2013 -- This has been a popular post (second most popular), of late. Perhaps, it's the growing awareness of the ever-increasing gap between what we think that we know and what we actually know. Well, the theme of the blog is to look at these types of problems. Perhaps, we can bring something forward from the past (such as, we not learning Anselm's message). I mentioned it somewhere (I'll track it down), but the motivation for this post was in part hearing young guys brag about their algorithms in a public place (of course, weekend situation, so some latitude is allowed). That concept is bandied about these days without people giving the notion its proper respect.

10/05/2012 -- Related posts: Zen of computing (in part), Avoiding oops.

10/05/2012 -- IJCAI has a newer flavor. It, at one time, had a theoretic thrust, mainly. Need to re-acquaint myself with the conference (attended 1987 Milan, Italy 1991 Sydney, Australia 1993 Chambery, France 1995 Montreal, Canada). This talk from IJCAI-2011 relates to the theme of this post: Homo heuristicus.

Modified: 01/23/2015

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Celebrating our frailties

In another context, while discussing Ben's largess to business (gamblers) but not to labor (or savers) - though, he claims his rolling out the dough is to create jobs, the notion of someone being perfect came about. Essentially, to err is human. The corollary is true, too: to be human is to err (even for those high-falutin' types that claim to be divine, et al).

To try to be perfect is not human; it's machinations in action. As in, someone doing something 'perfectly' does not mean that the person is perfect. No, that sort of thing is not much different from equating the map with the territory (a real problem nowadays, with ubiquitous computationally motivated intrusions in our lives).

So, does this mean that we cannot be better, etc. (or strive to be so?)? As in, practice makes perfect? No, as systems (and role playing - with effects, of course) are the things that we can have approach perfection. People, while in a system, can get better, to the extent to which they can overcome human limitations. As in, roles and essence are two different things.

But, do we expect that systems are perfect? Well, we do trust them a whole lot more than we ought to. See the comment on the main page about computablity, and problems thereof.

However, we can change the context to that dealing with expectations and realizations. As in, we can get close to fault-tolerant states, even if that comes about from error-fixup techniques that are, undoubtedly, clever.

---

Why do you think that the borg (to wit, Star Trek's type, et al) idea is so strong? People sense that we can have a symbiotic relationship (with what?) that is uplifting. But, too, we can descent into slavery (ah, financial indebtedness is just that).

---

The corollary thought is that 'labor' pertains to a class of people. Whereas, our progress rests upon us seeing that 'labor' relates to roles which are attempted (or fulfilled) by people. No matter that most who descend to this type of activity do so with little choice. Not all people who work with their hands are incapable of more advanced challenges. For some, it's a matter of choice.

Perhaps, that choice is seldom made nowadays. Not true, though, from my experience. One has to listen with the right ear to hear intelligence covered with the detritus from having mostly gross experiences from life. Some never get to shine themselves up. Yet, their potential is there.

---

As an aside, to the young mucks. The thing of having succeeding waves of people entering the market with the latest knowledge running things is part of our problem. Actually, a very large part. That sort of thing is a recent phenomenon, brought on by advances in technology and computation. So, its analysis can be done now since we have had several downturns over the recent times for people to recognize the problem, if it is expressed so as to be obvious (the stench goes all the way to heaven).

Expect some more attention to this theme; too, proposed ways to handle things better will be in the offering. Why not?

Remarks:

09/28/2012 -- One type of hope.

09/21/2012 -- This discussion ties into 7oops7's bailiwick (see Remarks 09/21/2012). We know that we cannot, too much, celebrate our faults. Why? Descent into the quagmire. Oh, wait! Being concerned with the faults of others has the same downward spiral. I have to admit that we need to find a way out of the mess (will it happen in the U.S. any time soon given how screwed up election dynamics have become (partly due to the Court's claiming the fiction that a corporation is a person and that its money is free speech?). Virtues come to mind as essential. Yet, many argue not. From whence, then, we have to ask them, come the motivators (lifters)? Hope is one of the virtues. We hope that we not get pulled into some type of downturn. We just went through one that was caused by those (see prior Remarks) who could run amok yet have not learned their lessons. Ben saw to that with his largess. Well, it's Friday; we'll get back to this later.

09/20/2012 -- It's imperative that I mention the best and brightest. Yes, we've talked of them before. Here is another definition. They might be considered as those whose arrogance causes them to see themselves as perfect. The real tragedy is that these types have always mucked up, and seem to continue to trash, the common world shared by all of us (now, and our progeny in the future). Too, those whose attributes are less stellar (by what is their ascendancy measured anyway? ..., very short term looks? ...) have to clean up after these type whose crap falls on the world from leaks in their diapers.

09/19/2012 -- Rick starts out: perfect memory.

09/19/2012 Let's say, for now, that perfection, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder (Wiki has a nice historical view of the concept's breadth of use). See, 09/19/2012 Remark (Fedaerated).

09/19/2012 -- Any sense of 'perfection' would require some way to judge whether something has attained the state, or just is such. All sorts of issues lurk about. So, let's look at the role aspect, for now. We'll get back to the need for 'ídeals' in this matter. That, too, raises considerations for us to look at. In terms of sensors and actions, one might think about adaptability as being an indicator. Yet. we all know about the pejoratives cast'd at the person who is good at playing the chameleon. Thinking of faults, are they not abundantly clear? Oh wait. Much effort goes to covering these up, not unlike our clothes hiding all sorts of imperfections (for the most). So, we're not far from the core issue of truth engineering. How do we know? Even if we can (are allowed to) see under the kimonos, do we know what exactly we're expected to see or even how to do other than react? One approach might be to look at what is considered perfect by category. And, then identify things that are almost perfect in that case, to wit ballplayer, surgeon, and much more. Some might even be 'perfect' in several roles. Others may have few such qualities. Ah, that is nudging up against an important subject, to be discussed later (per usual).

Modified: 09/28/2012