Glacial Erratics

A couple of things I read today deserve some more thought, perhaps mostly to get past my initial reaction: well, yeah, isn't that actually kind of obvious?    (0001FY)

That kind of reaction with these kinds of things is probably a bad sign.    (0001FZ)

Logic and Meaning    (0001G0)

First off, Erik Benson's been reading some Hofstadter, making him think about the difference between logic and meaning:    (0001G1)

This made me perk up; it resonates with some thoughts I've had about the differences between what can be accomplished with the psuedo-intelligence of computers and what comes from the complexity of human thought. I've always traced those differences back to my feeling that there is a fundamental difference in the way that computers and people do grouping:    (0001G3)

• Computers follow rules, they create classes, they are doing classification.    (0001G4)
• People mess around with associative meanings, make comparisons, create categories (in this context I mean something with open or changing intension and extension).    (0001G5)

Erik suggests ways to create meaning in computational environments by allowing pieces to interact in complex ways that will allow emergence. That makes some good sense.    (0001G6)

No Now Now    (0001G7)

Browsing Teledyn led me to a press release about a scholar presenting a new understanding of time. Basic summary is that other models work with time as something that can have an instant. Lynds, the author of the paper, shoots this down arguing that no matter the interval of time described, that which is moving in time is still moving.    (0001G8)

If you read the article you'll see why this might be relevant.    (0001G9)

I liked it because it reminded me of my endless grumpiness with calculus and the notion of a limit.    (0001GA)