Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
JS> In the play Le Médecin malgré lui, Molière
satirized the claim
that opium puts people to sleep because it has
But Peirce made the point that postulating some yet
substance, such as dormitive virtue, is a useful first
It focuses attention on the search for some component ...
that has that effect. That component was morphine.
The next step was to determine why morphine has
the effects, ... scientists later discovered that it
similar to internal ... "endorphins"...
There is a missing "is" in the
above last block of text. That's an example of what I mean by "category
Catching every error is impossible because
they multiply faster than you can catch them, if software engineering experiences
turn out to be similar to ontogenic experiences. In the end, every Individual
has one recursive ontogeny and always will. It’s the patterns, detector
functions (sensors, suckers...), that have value. That ontogeny can be cloned,
but it's sterile, like every donkey, some albinos ... .
An ontogeny that CAN be cloned, like the
Universe we discussed, is perfect, but sterile, until it recurses, iteratively,
like the recursive function I sent you. Then it becomes complete.
I work with many lawyers who are
engineers, chemists, physicists, materialists (my fond word for them) and other
hard science -tists. When I deal with the liberal arts trained ones, they
place less focus on proper selection of detail and convergence, and more
adherences to scripted procedure. But then I'm an engineer who moved into
expert witnessing, and haven't had one day of law school or liberal arts (just
reading, writing and math, religion, politics, philosophy and that other boring
school course stuff we got when we were young instead of getting experience),
so my personal experiential sample isn't wide enough to be even remotely
conclusive. I work hard to keep an open mind. They’re all Hypercubes in
my Universe. Every one is a terminal node. Shake stir and open. See
I certainly agree with the concept that
liberal arts should be more deeply formalized, debated, analyzing observables
among nonobservables, and less distracted by randomized emotional expressions.
That’s entertaining, but we don't know how to properly capture,
interpret, represent and store emotions yet, much less apply them, supposedly
to manage ontogenic progress. That's the path ontologies took in large
software systems, though of course they weren't recognized as such then. Also
the axioms were often un- or underspecified.
But that could change soon. There's some
neat new technology coming, I think, from Microsoft, called Natal. Google it up if you wish. Just being
able to represent your own actions and the roles you play, orthogonally from
(conditioned or modulated by, predicated or interpreted on…) the set of
situations you find yourself in, could be enabled by that technology IMHO. But
that’s why I made the 7,209,923 technologies, implemented as an
application class thereof. I nearly completed a reference model and licensed
the technology to anyone who wants to build it so long as I get my slice.
I’m not a greedy man. Just ask my friends. Say “why should I
trust u” or some such ting………
But to begin with, Natal will use avatars to mimic your actions
in the display so you can learn your deepest goals, yearnings and desires.
Then it will help you choose which avatar is a good one for each one of your
particular desires, specifications, goals, or yearnings (recursive, huh!). So
you can watch yourself in action in the real world and analyze yourself and
understand that in the real (theoretical) world.
Gotta go. My dog’s in heat.