Glen, Do you consider how knowledge is recorded? In your view is there any way to record knowledge other than in human (or other animal?) memory? Perhaps a video is another possibility. What about a cartoon video? If that's acceptable, what about the code that generates that cartoon video? If that's ok, then suppose we can factor that code into the (traditional) knowledge part and the part that converts the knowledge to a presentation. You see where this is heading.
*-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach *_____________________________________________* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, glen <g...@ropella.name> wrote: > Steve Smith wrote at 04/22/2013 12:49 PM: > > *Language:* > > I *think* you (Glen) made the point that what *most of us* call language > > would be the spoken/written tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that you > > would claim that language is much more than that. I think using the > > notion of "pointing at" only barely opens the can of language worms by > > essentially coining "nouns" or "subject" and/or "object" symbols. > > Right. I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to > "point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root. > But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living > organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of > language is useless. My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively > ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of > some kind is the definition of life. > > Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the > neurological structure that allows us to empathize. That's critical. > E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point. But not very often. > For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger. Do cats have > "language" ... well, it all depends on your definition. I would say No, > because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at > least mine don't seem to. ;-) I'd be interested in the neural > mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds. > > > *Science:* > > I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the > > Scientific Method? > > Perhaps. But "scientific method" is a hoity-toity word intended (or > accidentally) used to intimidate people. There really is no Grand > Unified Scientific Method. There are methodS, emphasis on the S. There > are people who log what they do and people who don't. A scientist is a > person who logs what they do in such a way that others can repeat what > they've done. > > So, a) you have to do stuff, not just think. And b) you have to do it > in such a way so that others can also do it. > > -- > =><= glen e. p. ropella > Instead of dragging your swamp for your lost love > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
