peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) (10/27/88)
>>In article <439@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes: >>There's something missing from figure 18 on p.71 of >>"Godel, Escher, Bach ..." by Douglas R. Hofstadter. In message <6614@venera.isi.edu> Mr. Smoliar writes: >Since you probably don't mean "a sensible approach to illustration," I would >argue that the Figure doesn't amount to much unless it allocates space to the >rules of inference. (Or do you regard them as involately static as Bach's >greatness?) The rules of inference are important. You can put them just to the right of the diagram. My comment had to do with the diagram in respect to the rest of the book. There is definitely something missing from figure 18 on p.71. And of course it's not "sensible". I haven't been a sensible person lately. For a clue, look at M.C.Escher's "Liberation" or "Reptiles". It's probably a stupid idea anyway. Ignore what I say. Here's another clue: The text you are now reading is a 2 dimensional representation of thoughts from the 3rd and 4th dimension. "Godel, Escher, Bach ..." is damaging to your mental health. Why did Douglas write this book anyway. I feel like my brain imploded. I may never think normal again. I might have to seek professional help. There should be a warning label or something on the book's front cover. I might do some COBOL programming just to get back in touch with reality. Today's mind aerobic: Is there any real difference between the words TIME and INFINITY.
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (10/28/88)
In article <446@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes: > >There is definitely something missing from figure 18 on p.71. And of course >it's not "sensible". I haven't been a sensible person lately. For a clue, >look at M.C.Escher's "Liberation" or "Reptiles". It's probably a stupid >idea anyway. Ignore what I say. > >Here's another clue: The text you are now reading is a 2 dimensional >representation of thoughts from the 3rd and 4th dimension. > Escher may be the only artist to successfully capture the three spatial dimensions and the temporal dimension in a single two-dimensional image. Clearly, time is missing from the illustration. It is also missing from much of what is written about mind, although Gerald Edelman seems to be holding forth as a potentially viable exception. >"Godel, Escher, Bach ..." is damaging to your mental health. Why did Douglas >write this book anyway. I feel like my brain imploded. I may never think >normal again. I might have to seek professional help. There should be a >warning label or something on the book's front cover. > >I might do some COBOL programming just to get back in touch with reality. > Some writers are born clever. Some achieve cleverness. Some have cleverness thrust upon them. The rest of them keep banging away at the word processors like the proverbial million monkeys in the desperate hope that if they string enough words together, eventually something clever will emerge. If such writers are fools, then the committees which award prizes to their products are even greater fools, outdone only by those who admire such accolades and think that there is merit in anything granted such an award. Unfortunately, this situation IS reality. What you really want to do is escape it. Go back to LISP.
peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) (10/28/88)
>>In article <446@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes: >> >>There is definitely something missing from figure 18 on p.71. And of course >>it's not "sensible". I haven't been a sensible person lately. For a clue, >>look at M.C.Escher's "Liberation" or "Reptiles". It's probably a stupid >>idea anyway. Ignore what I say. >> >>Here's another clue: The text you are now reading is a 2 dimensional >>representation of thoughts from the 3rd and 4th dimension. In message <6634@venera.isi.edu> Mr. Smoliar writes: >Escher may be the only artist to successfully capture the three spatial >dimensions and the temporal dimension in a single two-dimensional image. >Clearly, time is missing from the illustration. It is also missing from >much of what is written about mind, although Gerald Edelman seems to be >holding forth as a potentially viable exception. Thank you for responding. However, you are wrong. Time is very much apart of the figure. I believe Time gives definition to every dimension known to people. Even the 2 dimensional piece of paper containing figure 18. Without time, how could you possibly define a point? A point in a sense, is the 0th dimension, and there are points in all dimensions. You can even be bolder and say TIME is the 0th dimension. You are very close to the answer I had in mind. But don't take this too seriously. I don't know who Gerald Edelman is, could you please cite some references. Do you think when you die, someone walks in and says "simulation over, your quarter is up". Like some kind of super video game.
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (10/30/88)
In article <446@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes: > Today's mind aerobic: Is there any real difference between the words > TIME and INFINITY? Time is God's way of seeing to it that everthing doesn't happen at once. Infinity is the smallest convex space containing all possible events. --Barry Kort "This discussion group will either drive you crazy or it will drive you sane. (Your choice.)"
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (10/31/88)
In article <455@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes: > Do you think when you die, someone walks in and says "simulation over, > your quarter is up"? Like some kind of super video game? "This life is a test. It's only a test. If this had been an actual life, you would be given further instructions." "We now return to our regular fantasy world." --Barry Kort
shani@TAURUS.BITNET (11/02/88)
In article <41368@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.BITNET writes: > Time is God's way of seeing to it that everthing doesn't happen at once. Hey Barry! I didn't know you belive in god! :-) Anyway, and also reffering to the subject, I think that it is better to look at things the other way arround (Bach did...) - Time is a result of the fact that not everything is happening at once (and so is the illusion of cause-effect). You see, what we view as time (that is what our watches mausre), is not realy time but the application of some function on time (which is actualy complex)... sounds crazy? well I donno... read Leibniz'es 'Monodelogy' an see for yourself... oh BTW, I missed the original posting... so what the hell does this has to do with AI??? O.S.