patrik bagge <patrik-b at online.no> wrote in message
news:WW%Z3.15553$1C4.147079 at news1.online.no...
> >Truth is elusive in an universe that is combinatorially intractible.
> >Perhaps "a view" that is driven by current desire or need is the best
> >that we can do. But, this is, again, a situated view, not one that
> >presumes that facts represent things in themselves.
>>> due to my poor english (i hope) ,i have a little difficulty parsing
> , could you reiterate & rephrase?
In Artificial Intelligence there are certain problems that are
intractible because there is an inexhaustible set of solution paths to a
general goal state. For example, take the problem of optimizing all of
the routes of travelling salesmen to minimize the driving mileage. One
is never sure when the best solution has been reached.
>From a philosophical viewpoint I am saying that the universe presents us
with something similar, an infinity of relationships that we take
something simpler from. We end up making a model or a view of some of
our sensory patterns--and we do this because it has become extremely
important to understand things like physics and chemistry. We create the
view, in other words, it is not out there, but is what we need to find
to solve a problem that is "situated" in our practices and in our needs.
Believers in "facts," assume that induction is universally the force
that leads towards constructing a common reality. I find that the world
was really flat (in effect) at one time; this was a fact, and not
because of poor measurement. It sufficed within the dominant paradigm.
It may be that physics is fairly well bound by whatever phenomena
can be observed, but this is not true for psychological "facts," for
example. In either case, it is not the facts that induce reality--it is
the current model or paradigm that allows the facts "to be measured."
It's a chicken and egg type of question--which really comes first?
I'm putting my money on pardigm before fact. If our needs vary over
time, the facts will change to meet the changed paradigm.
> >I really hate classification--I suppose I didn't take to biology in
> >school. More seriously, it is part of the mystical nature of
> >intelligence to avoid neat categories and bounding names. If I
> >categorize myself, then, I become a liar the next time I violate
> >whatever "ism" it is that was supposed to define me. This is the
> >with trying to find the center and using holistic techniques to do
> >There are damned few of us--I hope I have found some company.
>>> seems that way .. here are 2 of my favoritue ways of obtaining
> an open mind, big picture, creativity, greater sense of less
>> 1) when visiting a pub, do not always try to attract the opposite
> engage occasionally in communication with a sailor and listen.
> The sailor might have crossed the ocean of life a couple of times...
The most interesting people have often led "common lives."
> 2) travel, not always in the purpose of getting a different skincolor
> , but to communicate with fellow human beings.
I've learned more in other countries observing similarities and
differences than I possibly could from a book on sociology or
> anyway, one of the massmurders of all times is 'classification'
> in an attempt to be really deep i will put to public
> display one of mine new, in the creation process, beliefs.
> humans in different classes might be communicating about
> EXACTLY the same things. the religious 'god' =
> darwins 'survive&reproduce' = laws of physics
> etc etc
I have wondered if anything that is abstract has any meaning outside of
the system that it uses--it also seems that many systems are analogous,
regardless of the major paradigms. Angels=ghosts= minds in a parallel
universes=disconnected egos in the causal plane, etc. They can be seen
as comparable parts of similarly constructed systems. I think this is
what you mean--it's a mystical view of reality that develops from
intuition, I think. It is the relationships that are common, not the
designators, once outside the purely observable.
>> huu, now we begin to swim in dangerous waters, when relating
> genetic origins to behaviour .... actually i agree.
> what i meant to ask was, do you consider the stoneage
> human less creative than present human, in any greater degree?
I would suspect that the discipline to maintain a group during the Stone
Age was higher than now. Regimentation to fight off dangerous animals
could easily squelch creativity, which always seems to have
individualistic elements associated with it. So, yes, I would expect the
cavemen to be less creative, on average, than we are today. And the
outliers in creativity would have either ended up being the leader or
dead at an early age.
> >> allow me to introduce another fellow that i consider interesting
> >> , but haven't deared to hire yet, the Rebel.
> >> His 'purpose' in existance is to put a questionmark
> >> after every new and old truth. he is really time consuming
> >> , most of the truths are still true, But occasionally
> >> he helps us detect that true=false
> > I still don't understand "the management" I suppose.
>>> aren't we all 'rebels' in the separation process from our parents.
> if i understand you correctly,
I don't believe this is true in every culture--I did look at this in my
graduate work a little. Some cultures don't individuate through
rebellion--they tend to be the "older civilizations." But I think the
"management" may have discovered additional tricks to keep their
offspring under control in these cultures. :-(
'management' might be old verified
> truths, that enables society as a whole to function better, of course
> these truths must be subject to the rebels questionmark occasionally.
In my case, they are questioned on a daily basis--it is not appreciated
where just "getting along" is the goal.
> i have this 'sleeping' flaw in my personality, nighty nighty
I was thinking just yesterday that sleep is so much a burden. But I
can't get less than my needed time without dire consequences after a few
days. Sleep well. I shall be doing the same thing shortly.
Oh, and good morning--since you won't see this until tomorrow.