adsenanim

Karma: −102

adsenanim Sep 6, 2010, 8:59 AM
0 points
in reply to: jacob_cannell’s comment on: Something’s Wrong
SarahC used it in her (?) argument.

I want to know where and why it was said.

Thomas Paine wrote about atheism during a revolution, Martin Luther nailed his argument to a door of a church.

I voted you up for finding the where, but I still want to know the why.

adsenanim Sep 6, 2010, 6:38 AM
4 points
on: Something’s Wrong
I add this only because it provides a greater context:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/4758.html

I will vote up anyone who can say in what circumstance this was said.

adsenanim Sep 3, 2010, 6:00 AM
−2 points
in reply to: Craig_Heldreth’s comment on: Rationality quotes: September 2010
This brings to mind the idea of correlation vs. casualty.

There is the idea that the mind will recognize the combination of multiple sensations as correlation and from that it will develop conceptional reality.

The process of going from correlation to that of causality is one of the process’ of science.

Conception, which includes science, is part of the learning process, which should be held as one of the most basic principles of not only human, but of evolutionary process’.

Experimentation requires no preconception,it is part of the evolutionary process’ and it happens regardless of the cognitive state.

Preconception is impossible without experimentation.

adsenanim Aug 31, 2010, 4:59 AM
0 points
in reply to: adsenanim’s comment on: Self-fulfilling correlations
R.U.R.)

adsenanim Aug 31, 2010, 12:33 AM
0 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Self-fulfilling correlations
Thanks NancyLebovitz, that’s the one.

| [...]no one considers the possibility that mere variation (less boredom) improves performance.

The reverse possibility may also be true, more boredom decreases performance and may also cause health problems.

adsenanim Aug 29, 2010, 4:23 AM
3 points
in reply to: Nisan’s comment on: Self-fulfilling correlations
The following link lends credence to this line of thought:

http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/grant/Grant_JAP2008b_TaskSignificance.pdf

A note:

There was a study done regarding the cause and effect of employee relationships and how it affected job performance that gave as a result that employees performed better simply because of the attention given them, rather than the validity of any of the techniques introduced.

If anyone can provide a resource for that study, I’ll vote you up because I am having trouble finding it.

If I remember correctly it is used in: O’Hair, Friedrich, Dixon 2008 Strategic Communication: In Business and the Professions, Pearson

adsenanim Aug 27, 2010, 5:01 AM
1 point
on: Burning Man Meetup: Bayes Camp
http://breadandpuppet.org/

I guess the east-coast version.

Heinlein also had a thing for redheads....

adsenanim Aug 27, 2010, 3:40 AM
0 points
in reply to: adsenanim’s comment on: Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Samuel

adsenanim Aug 27, 2010, 2:37 AM
0 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go
The idea is this:

Not only that people can learn as much about a game from losing it as they can from winning it, but that they need to loose in order to learn how to win. The flip-flop acts as a helper in the process of trial and error.

The feedback caused by the wiring of two NOR gates of the flip-flop allow this because the switches are controlled by the true and false sets exclusively; one switch is always associated with the true statements and the other with false.

When we start to learn, all possibilities are indeterminate, they can be either true or false; F == A+A+A is just as valid as F != A+H+C.

The flip-flop becomes sort of an ex post facto method of examining the data of the experience depending on win or loss. With a loss there can be mild sorting of possibilities, but the real sorting comes with comparing wins and losses.

Let me know if how I am representing this idea is to brief, it is still in its infancy, and as I have said elsewhere in my posts, I haven’t read everything.

adsenanim Aug 26, 2010, 8:41 AM
0 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go
Sorry for the delay.

Let’s start a Fire.

The Fire requires 3 things: Air(A), Heat(H) and a Combustible(C) so that:

F == A+H+C.

We know that there are many true statements about F:

F == H+C+A

F == A+H+C

Etc.

Let’s say that these are also true:

F != A+A+A

F != B+A+A

Etc.

We also, because of trial and error, can enumerate the false statements, starting with:

F != A+H+C.

Etc.

Continuing with:

F == A+A+A

Etc.

Now this is where the flip-flop comes in:

The true and false of the basic circuit have an extraordinary amount of combinations for the purposes of making fire.

I came up with this idea not only because people learn games through both negative and positive reinforcement, but that many times we only have a partial picture of the possible combinations for a win.

This is redoubled when we think of thing in terms of arbitrary meanings such as air, heat and combustible.

adsenanim Aug 24, 2010, 4:28 AM
0 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go
This reminds me of the general rules of games...

I was recently playing a game of mastermind with a friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game)

Mastermind is considered a “solved” game, much like Tic Tac Toe, or checkers.

This considered, I was given cause for thought that even though it is “solved” it still presents the ideas of “Learned Rules”, “Intrinsic Rules” and “Trial and Error”.

For learned rules the idea is that the rules are related or taught, how one should act according to circumstance.

Intrinsic rules are those rules that are obviated, that the situation itself causes the desire of a solution.

Trial and error is the process of clarifying the rules, related to Occam’s in the idea of using the simplest rules to solve the game.

The real question is what do we do when a game situation presents us with a flip-flop such as explained in Charles Petzold’s book code? (This is a basic computing concept).

Are games representative of real life or are they viable only as a thought experiment?

Can games be more complicated than physical reality?

adsenanim Aug 19, 2010, 6:47 AM
0 points
in reply to: Dan_Moore’s comment on: Kevin T. Kelly’s Ockham Efficiency Theorem
So, in a true language the results of saying something could be equal to actions?

I’m not sure how to phrase this...

I think say and do: Heat + Air + Fuel and I get Fire?

Hmm...

adsenanim Aug 19, 2010, 5:35 AM
0 points
in reply to: sketerpot’s comment on: Five-minute rationality techniques
I present them (with my critique) because they represent to me attempts at reason as it was before the definition of reason was widely accepted.

I left out any direct quotes out because I thought it may confuse the topic of conversation and that the five minute rule would be violated if I tried to discuss them.

Aesop’s Fables:

http://www.aesopfables.com/aesopsel.html

I Ching:

http://en.calameo.com/read/000039257e56b7faf538d

Judeo-Christi-Islamic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

Maybe not the best resources, but they could be an introduction.

I will add one more, only because I find it fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramids_(novel)

For some reason the above link does not deliver correctly, but you should be able to follow....

Yes the wiki is a challenge, I was thinking of a new graphical interface...

adsenanim Aug 19, 2010, 2:58 AM
1 point
in reply to: DSimon’s comment on: Kevin T. Kelly’s Ockham Efficiency Theorem
I agree,

I’m not sure if I should go with Treehouse or IceTowers...

If I buy IceTowers I could probably play Treehouse, but not the other way round...

:)

adsenanim Aug 18, 2010, 10:02 PM
0 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Kevin T. Kelly’s Ockham Efficiency Theorem
So:
- The order of operations can be variable dependent on the number
- The notation method effects pattern
- The pattern can change if primes are always used
- Etc.
How many ways can we change the rules? How many rules are there?

It is amazing just how much variation in pattern can be achieved just by changing and/or adding/subtracting rules.

There is the general rule of rules:

The fewer the rules, the less variable the pattern, and the inverse, the more rules the more variable the pattern.
- Sorry for the late edit, but, I would also add that the fewer the rules the less adaptable as well...

adsenanim Aug 18, 2010, 8:04 PM
1 point
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Kevin T. Kelly’s Ockham Efficiency Theorem
I think removing the parentheses can affect the overall pattern formation.

12 == (((1+1)^(1+1))*(1+1+1))

12 != +^+*++

Because we are changing the order of operations:

1+1^1+1*1+1+1

2^2*3

2^6

64

Also, I don’t think there is a way to use exponents and make 12 without using parentheses.

So if we simplify the method of notation, then some operations cannot be used for certain numbers. and this changes the pattern, and/or the availability of possible patterns.

This topic is discussed in D. Hofstadter’s book Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.

adsenanim Aug 18, 2010, 5:33 PM
0 points
in reply to: Johnicholas’s comment on: Kevin T. Kelly’s Ockham Efficiency Theorem
An observation about the number sequence:

...

3 == (1+1+1)

4 == (1+1+1+1)

5 == (1+1+1+1+1)

6 == (1+1+1+1+1+1)

7 == (1+1+1+1+1+1+1)

...

I would rewrite this as:

...

3 == (1+1+1)

4 == ((1+1)*(1+1))

5 == (1+1+1+1+1)

6 == ((1+1)*(1+1+1))

7 == (1+1+1+1+1+1+1)

...

Where the first inversion is at 4-5. The reason I do this is because of the relation to primes and to make the pattern seem more consistent. Then of course the next step would be exponent notation:

…

8 == ((1+1)^(1+1+1)

…

So the idea of choosing the correct method of patterning can change dramatically with small changes in rules, such that we can have:

8 == (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)

8 == ((1+1)*(1+1+1+1))

8 == ((1+1)^(1+1+1)

And the places of inversion will change according to method.

A question in an evolutionary context: Say the operators are symbols of evolutionary complexity, increasing from addition to multiplication to exponent, wouldn’t use be situational? Given specific circumstances could one “8” be more valid than another “8″, even though the understanding is that they amount to the same thing? Is the pattern one method will make more valid than the pattern of another?

I can’t help but think that the method is dependent on the amount of space in which we have to create the pattern, that the addition method is ok for a large posting width, and small numbers, but as the numbers increase and/or the posting width decreases, method becomes more important, maybe even requiring the creation (evolution) of more operators for more methods …

adsenanim Aug 16, 2010, 5:58 PM
1 point
in reply to: prase’s comment on: Problems in evolutionary psychology
Yes, there is a very large and very interesting variety found in this process.

If we take the all of the variables into consideration, all of the possible ways X and Y can work:

We have (n1)X and (n2)Y for a population of ((n1)X + (n2)Y), the ratio of (n1)X to (n2)Y, the population can increase or decrease, a gestation variable of (g)X that cooperates with breeding potential of (b)Y…

I could go on, but since this is not an attempt at a full research paper, I think my point in this respect is clear, that the potential for variation in reproductive method is huge.

The question I ask myself is just how important is this to humans?

Look at the basic survival methods of the sexes, X and Y; we eat the same foods, breath the same air, and our physiology is the same for these purposes. The only difference between X and Y is due to the nature of sexual reproduction.

I think that it is of such importance, and so basic, that when examining human culture and society it should be one of the main focal points, of any line of examination.

adsenanim Aug 16, 2010, 10:11 AM
0 points
in reply to: prase’s comment on: Problems in evolutionary psychology
prase,

Thanks.

Maybe I should have made clear that X can only reproduce with Y and Y only with X; the definition of sexual reproduction.

I think I should simplify it...

If X can reproduce 2 times in its life and Y can reproduce 100 times in its life the natural assumption would be that Y will reproduce more.

BUT

Remember that the population consists of equally half of each sex and that X will be in gestation for most of theirs.

This means that X will participate in reproduction only twice in their life time, for any given period. Considering that there are 50 total X in that amount of time, that is 100 possible gestations.

For Y there are 50 times 100 days of possible gestation total, or five thousand possible days of creating gestation.

Y has to choose among X and X has to choose among Y.

Does X or Y have more to chose from?

I hope this clarifies, I will continue if needed, again, thanks.

adsenanim Aug 16, 2010, 6:55 AM
0 points
in reply to: adsenanim’s comment on: Problems in evolutionary psychology
I’m being voted down, still without seeing any evidence for or against....

I know it’s due to a popular vote, but does anyone have any argument, or are we just taking advantage of the voting mechanism?

I’m starting to feel like the availability of stating ones opinion is counteracting the way things actually work...