Yes, I agree. I was going to be cantankerous and respond with something about imperfect closure and the "openness" of all processes. But this article brings me back to a steady irritant:
Are our smartphones afflicting us all with symptoms of ADHD? https://theconversation.com/are-our-smartphones-afflicting-us-all-with-symptoms-of-adhd-58330 The inability to "do analysis" or for deep thought may well simply be a symptom of the larger issue of attention-spreading (for lack of a better term). There seems to be a dichotomy between depth- vs. breadth-first attention at the root of the problem Sussman bemoaned. Us old people (well, geeks anyway) tend toward depth-first ... or at least depth-preferred ... attention, whereas the younger ones tend toward breadth-preference. You don't have to know _about_ the incident things, you only need to know _of_ them. You can have whole conversations simply mentioning various things without discussing any single thing in any depth. There's a deep theme, here somewhere ... oops, my phone just dinged. On 05/09/2016 04:26 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If you have a closure over the whole universe and you are given one knob to > turn, and once doing so out pops a new projection of the world you can see, > then you 1) don't necessarily see the whole universe, but 2) can potentially > be a specialist in the things that are observable in that projection. The > part I don’t like in this picture is that the niche-fillers start to fancy > the idea there are different universes popping out the closure and see no > need to reconcile them. They see N vectors instead of one eigenvector. -- ⛧ glen ============================================================ 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
