>> >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.
>>>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.
really funny, i'm currently working on this in reallife, fleetmanagement
it's one of the areas where AI is needed and i will incorporate
artificial intelligence, One of the combinatorial problems is
that the path-finder module can not examine the complete
digital road map every time a route is to be generated.
Human like approaches are needed. Optimization parameters
may include path distance/cost , path time, priority. Some
of the parameters are contradicting each other. Presents
a bit of a challenge to the scenario. Including
limited packet numbers, weight and space + dynamical
task booking doesn't make the solution simpler.
if you were implying that the 'future' sales success is
to be a parameter to the salesmans path, then we
need, not only strong ai, but magical ai.
Or maybe not, statistics including area/customer/salesman
might be valid, interesting thought...
>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.
ok, i get your point, but some 'facts' seems to be independent of
>I've learned more in other countries observing similarities and
>differences than I possibly could from a book on sociology or
so true, many so called therapeuts, have really messed up the minds
of some people i know, often giving 'advice' to a couple
of individuals having relation probs. One of the more horrific
advice a friend got was
'do not communicate about this at home'
they are now separated ... i wonder if he was trying
to make another buck or plain ole dumb.
In my experience 'advice' must be suggested with great
care, including knowledge about the individual.
There are 'objective' common pattern between human
behaviour, that can be used, but the subjective variance
seems to be equally important.
>> 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.
mmm.. something like that, yes, the theoretical physicians are
now using 'words' like 'god' and 'consciousness' .. things
are melting together.
>> 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.
yes, stupid of me, if one beleives in the 'natural selection' thing
it's obvious, intelligence, including creativity has been favoured
and selected, we might be a living proof of that.
>> 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. :-(
ok, sounds interesting, if we should take south america / peru
as an example of a society with strong 'family values'
, i personally have noticed the same separation rebellion. in
western countries it might be a more obvious behaviour, in
'poor' countries, the family values seems stronger in the purpose
of 'helping each other out'
>'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.
ok, sounds energy consuming, do you experience a lot of 'heat'
when questioning management?
we might disagree a bit on this one, my motto, in a wider sense
is to 'get along', with a high degree of sensibility for 'evil'