Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Brilliant stuff. Postmodernism has kept many a professor supplied with topics until tenure. Still, one can stand back and bracket much of what they are saying with qualifiers of how humans think and communicate, and keep the baby. My eyes also glaze over at the "no dead atoms" ideas even if they are spiritually appealing. Our problem is that we think we are teaching machines to think when all they can do is compute, and we make an even more hideous mistake when we take that thought to the press and the public and get them to believe us. I liked Djkstra's reply when asked, "Can computers think? Can submarine's swim?" If the thing being modeled is human, we don't model a machine. His reply cuts both ways. len -----Original Message----- From: Jon Noring [mailto:noring@o...] >>"I'm attempting to approach knowledge science by first >>"red-shifting" the operating system. That shift in >>systemic approach is first realized by conjectively >>shifting all data when received immediately into a >>convolution of the data against a sense-of-conjecture, and >>in so doing, literally create a scale of meaning along the >>one dimension of sense as a memory retrieval mechanism via >>ordinal position along this scale of sense. >Sounds like a bunch of BS dressed up in $10 words ("conjectively"!?!?). >This is the kind of stuff that has given KR a bad name. To me it sounded like it was generated using the Postmodernism Generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ (Just keep hitting 'refresh' in your browser and read the resulting documents. They're hilarious. I could probably take one of these documents and submit it to certain humanities journals and get it accepted.)
|
