| Still from 'Life of Pi' |
"He wants to see the actor's mind in a shot." Actress Tabu said this about Ang Lee who has directed her in 'Life of Pi'.
It was so beautifully put, but what does it really mean? Is the actor's mind reflecting the character or her/himself? Or, is one superimposed on the other?
Can one see a thought? If so, then the actor contemplating the motives and behaviour of the character would be methodical rather than spontaneous. Is thought not instinct?
You might suggest that premeditated thought cannot be instinctual. But, is there no lapse between thought and action?
Say, we play several roles in life; some we 'perform' because we are directed to - by precedent, norms, or for specific reasons. Is our failure to do so adequately a failure of thought or of action?
Think about some disabilities where the mind is hampered by lack of motor movement. These are unfortunate natural or accident-induced circumstances. However, even those of us who are not so restricted find that we cannot always act out our thoughts. Our thoughts are dependent as much on the manner in which they are received as on how they are conveyed. So, do they remain our thoughts anymore?
If the other person could see our 'mind in the shot', going by Ang Lee's expectation, then would we necessarily be understood? How often do we tear our hair in frustration that what we seek to convey has either been misinterpreted or whooshed past without even a moment of being acknowledged?
Can you read my thoughts? Routine question. But are you reading your own thoughts while trying to decipher another's?
Recently, someone sent a message in response to a call I made. It said, "I wanted to thank the thought." Was my act removed from my thought? Or, does the thought hold greater validity? Had I not acted upon the thought, would a person know? Can there be more than one thought for our actions and many ways to act based on one thought?
Recently, someone sent a message in response to a call I made. It said, "I wanted to thank the thought." Was my act removed from my thought? Or, does the thought hold greater validity? Had I not acted upon the thought, would a person know? Can there be more than one thought for our actions and many ways to act based on one thought?
If you can see a mind, then you are probably seeing not just what is but what might have been and can be. Mind or minds?
(c)Farzana Versey
You pose questions - are your questions not reflection of your thoughts? Most thoughts can't find expression and even less that are transformed into actions. The relationship between thought and action isn't one to one. We put a lot of thought in a single action, there is a single thought,though, a seed that germinates into a tree, sometimes a forest and culminates into a single action - the seed need to be acknowledged. Seed's a star.
ReplyDeleteOur idle thoughts are the results of pre-existing thoughts and new input, much like a biological computing machine that has been running non stop since birth. Who are you really? Can you tell? I don't know who I am.
ReplyDelete-Al
Anon:
ReplyDeleteYou are putting as statements what I posed as queries!
So, are your thoughts similar to mine or are they confirming my thoughts for me?
Questions need not be 'thoughts' - they could be subliminal vacant areas that wish to understand thoughts. You might say that thought must have gone into asking those queries. Perhaps not. Perhaps they are thoughtless.
I did suggest that there can be more than one thought to reach an action.
You put it rather well, when you say:
"a seed that germinates into a tree, sometimes a forest and culminates into a single action - the seed need to be acknowledged. Seed's a star"
If one is lost in the woods, does one think about the seed?
(Pardon the obtuseness...but then I was just thinking...)
Al:
ReplyDeleteWhere do the pre-existing thoughts come from? How do they mesh with new input?
Who are you really? Can you tell? I don't know who I am.
The "who am I?" - query that humans have been posing for centuries - is about a metaphysical seeking, not evolution. It is about who we are in the large scheme of the cosmos. (Deepak Chopra makes big bucks on 'answering these questions.)
Based just on thoughts, I can let my imagination run wild!
FV:
ReplyDelete"Where do the pre-existing thoughts come from? How do they mesh with new input? "
What is thought in physical terms as we understand it? A sequence of electrical pulses in the brain that light up different neurons, and these neurons themselves are trained with input from the five senses. It has been established beyond a doubt that the brain a sort of complex biological computer. From this POV, pre-existing thought is just groups of neurons that have been trained by the five senses over the course of the brain's existence.
FV:"Based just on thoughts, I can let my imagination run wild!"
ReplyDeleteImagination is just another name for thoughts that are valuable yet not based on input from the five senses. It is all "thought" even if we give it different names for our own communication purposes.
Al
Anon:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the neuronotic explanation, and lucidly at that.
My query, though, was more metaphysical regarding the 'why' of thinking. And the chain forming.
Your response mentioning the five senses is of some help here. It is probably how we sense things that makes us think. Now, I have a niggling doubt. I might see something, but it smells different from my visual perception. Take an onion. It looks appealing, but when I peel it the scent might be too strong. Here, the tactile too is involved. While touching it my thought was visual, upon peeling it became olfactory.
Eating it would produce a different set of thoughts. And to think the onion remains an onion!
Al:
ReplyDeleteImagination is just another name for thoughts that are valuable yet not based on input from the five senses. It is all "thought" even if we give it different names for our own communication purposes."
Yet the imagination would conjure up the senses. The imagination, even when imagining thought, would use an 'anchor'.
FV, that "Anon" comment was by me...forgot to sign my non-name.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, whether it is imagination, thoughts, or memories, they are just electrical signals in the head that continuously learn from the five senses....what you might call in your head as "experience". Even imagination is largely bounded by what you already know and connecting ideas and concepts learnt at different times. If a few of your senses fail (blindness, deafness etc.) then the brain can still learn from the rest. Nothing divine or magical about all this -- just another sophisticated machine that needs to be understood, and there has been significant progress in the past couple of decades.
Just a matter of time before programs take over the jobs of accountants and auditors and jobs that are considered to be the domain of human intelligence. Programs can be trained to fly planes and drones and helicopters with as much agility as the best of humans. Humans will make themselves obsolete one of these days....probably a good thing given the state of the planet.
-Al
FV: Yet the imagination would conjure up the senses. The imagination, even when imagining thought, would use an 'anchor'.
ReplyDeleteThe "anchor" is, of course, the reality in which the mind that "imagines" is anchored.
The imagination only conjures up a variation or a mix of the input from the five senses from different points in time and space....things that never existed in the reality that conjured up that "imaginary thought".
-Al
Hi Farzana,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me 'instinctual' thoughts are closer to autonomic action, i.e. so-called "fight or flight" sort of thoughts . . . or, rather, a split-second stand-and-fight/freeze or turn-and-run calculation that -- upon the manifestation of a "clear and present danger," as they say -- has no better than a 50-50 chance of a successful outcome either way {e.g. the proverbial 'deer in the headlights'). All other thought is speculative (the 'new' as held against the 'old', or what we already "know" experientially versus some manifested (singly or variously through the senses) "unknown".
I like your 'anchor' suggestion, which, from a biological standpoint, seems to me likely sound or some similar vibration (as distinct from the tactility of 'touch') perceived with some on again off again regularity in the womb (mama's heartbeat, rumblings of her bowels, and, perhaps less distinct, her voice -- and, even less distinct, the voices of others even more remote (daddy; siblings; music, perhaps). It then follows all subsequent sensory inputs would be 'known' -- at least initially (many of us are, after all, given to changing horses mid-stream) -- in *terms* of the 'anchor', i.e. those earliest perceived sounds and/or vibrations, and how they were apprehended/classified/known in the near-to-term infant's mind/database.
What accounts for the *arrangement* there of these early inputs is another matter altogether . . . or so it seems to me. :)
And then there's the mythological account of Narcissus, suggested by some as an allegory for the nature of mental processes . . .
Mark
Mark, Al:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the wonderful discussion...will reply soon )
Al:
ReplyDeleteYou are such a killjoy, but good to see you at it after long. I do understand your scientific theory, but there is something beyond it, and I am certainly not referring to mumbo-jumbo.
**Even imagination is largely bounded by what you already know and connecting ideas and concepts learnt at different times. If a few of your senses fail (blindness, deafness etc.) then the brain can still learn from the rest. Nothing divine or magical about all this**
Of course, the imagination might use prior knowledge, but how that 'comes' to us, and how it is sorted, is imaginative. Serendipity cannot be planned.
The brain learning to cope without certain senses is part of 'thinking'. The blind have to imagine what a sound might look like.
Of course, your suggestion that machines will take over from jobs of 'intelligence' is good news. Auditors and accountants imagine money where it is not there.
More seriously, I don't see thought only in terms of stratified intelligence.
**The "anchor" is, of course, the reality in which the mind that "imagines" is anchored.**
And then comes the mental storm...
Hi Mark:
ReplyDeleteI am a big proponent of instinct as a thoughtful premise. Perhaps, the deer invites those headlights:-)
**All other thought is speculative (the 'new' as held against the 'old', or what we already "know" experientially versus some manifested (singly or variously through the senses) "unknown".**
Isn't speculation itself thought? And isn't the unknown the known unbeknown to us tangibly, i. e. if thoughts can be tangible?
Re. sounds heard in the womb as opposed to touch, would those vibrations not be tactile, the aural touching the ear, and formulating a perception of what it 'feels' like? The unborn child does not make a choice, but later on could get 'tuned in' based on these.
**And then there's the mythological account of Narcissus, suggested by some as an allegory for the nature of mental processes . . .**
And if we start on this, we will get into the territory of looking at, looking into, looking within, looking at how one is looked at, here looking being perception, and perception being thought about thought.
Always such a challenge engaging in this sort of conversation. I've become spoilt by curses!
PS: Please excuse the rambling and typos etc. I was just thinking too much!
FV, Thanks for recognizing my Killjoy skillz. Just to take another wanton stab at the bleeding corpse of Eternal Joy, here is a news article on machine learning program that is better at diagnosing cancer than some of the best human being doctors. :-)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-finally-graduates-medical-sch/240009562
Farzana,
ReplyDeleteCertainly 'instinct' (like 'speculation' -- indeed, like 'thought') comes with its definitional entanglements. Nonetheless, instinct strikes me as more dictated -- tyrannized at certain extremity -- by considerations for time provoked by some perception of imminent danger, the prospect of injury or loss, or, indeed, missed opportunity. That said, certainly one might practice aforehand (aka "play") at certain considered or thought-through response(s) tailored to such prospective circumstances -- and certainly the reaction time might thus approach that of instinct; however, the ultimate inference for 'instinct', as I understand it, is action or reaction *without* thought -- i.e., save for physical debility or a priori conditioning, a pin-prick will prompt an instinctive (unthinking) recoil away from the pin-prick. And, while it then might be argued that *true* instinct is rarely manifested without pain (whether physical or psychical, e.g. terror), couldn't pleasure too be suggested as likewise triggering an instinctive response -- only in the reverse?
>>I am a big proponent of instinct as a thoughtful premise. Perhaps, the deer invites those headlights:-)<<
Doubtless they do; though perhaps unthinkingly. :)
>>Re. sounds heard in the womb as opposed to touch, would those vibrations not be tactile . . .<<
Certainly. "Caressed by the sound of his/her voice," has its literal (as opposed to literary) application in this instance, imv. However, in separating vibration from the "tactility of touch" I was seeking to distinguish between vibrations resonating more internally/auditorially versus surface transferences of sensations of heat, cold, texture, etc.
>>. . . the aural touching the ear, and formulating a perception of what it 'feels' like?<<
Yes.
>>And if we start on [Narcissus], we will get into the territory of looking at, looking into, looking within, looking at how one is looked at, here looking being perception, and perception being thought about thought.<<
Indeed. Fatally retrogressive would seem the inference according to some; however, a suitable 'anchor' may have kept Narcissus from falling in.
A killjoy by any other name . . . ? :)
M.
*looks from one person to the next hairan pareshan*
ReplyDeleteye kaisi baetin ho rahi hain yahan?? sab sar ke oopar se guzar raha hai :/
*bemused*
Mark:
ReplyDeleteInstinct can be seen as pre-thought, sort of thought before it forms fully.
Yes, there could be 'true' instinct as opposed to a thought-out 'plan', where a spontaneous response is leashed and then lashes out. Quite common in places where comments etc are moderated!
A killjoy by any other name . . . ? :)
Perhaps Narcissus himself...
PS: Looks like this exchange has got people to wonder about at least my sanity :)
---
Al:
When you forget to post your name, does a thought go into it, or is it instinctual, or forgetfulness?!
Thanks for the link.
Re Eternal Joy, I'd agree that machines can do their bit...
Meriam :)
ReplyDeleteLet me translate/decode what you are saying:
*looks from one person to the next hairan pareshan*
Looks from one person to the next sweat dripping from face and falling to the ground as thought pearls.
ye kaisi baetin ho rahi hain yahan?? sab sar ke oopar se guzar raha hai :/
And what talk doth indulge in, what sayeth thou? The words flutter over mine head and clouds formeth...ah cloud bubbles. Thoughts...
*bemused*
How might I thank thee, for such amusement and play that keeps me hours away from the mundanity of life and engageth my mind as I look from one to the other, a smile upon thy faces reflecting my smile.
PS: Meriam, of course, I jest. Rest assured, at least one of the three of us engaging in this 'dialogue' is sane!
FV: "When you forget to post your name, does a thought go into it, or is it instinctual, or forgetfulness?!"
ReplyDeleteSometimes the focus on spelling out a thought makes me overlook things like signing the content with a name.
-Al
FV: "Rest assured, at least one of the three of us engaging in this 'dialogue' is sane!"
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you are convinced of my sanity, though I think you are being too harsh on yourself and mstaab....I think the two of you are pretty sane. :-)
-Al
Farzana,
ReplyDelete>>Perhaps Narcissus himself...<<
I was a bit pressed to imagine or formulate an instance of 'instinctive' thought. Not anymore, lol.
It dove-tails quite nicely with your former, instinct as pre-thought. Thank you.
Thanks as well for your translation/decoding of Meriam's bemusement -- quite apt indeed -- and allow me to concur vis-a-vis your plug for machines doing their bit.
And thus, AI's optimistic-albeit-somewhat-qualified confidence as to the sane one(s) notwithstanding, perhaps Watson might be prevailed upon for a second opinion? :)
mstaab:" AI's optimistic-albeit-somewhat-qualified confidence as to the sane one(s) notwithstanding, perhaps Watson might be prevailed upon for a second opinion? :)"
ReplyDelete:) That may well be possible. The day is not far off when one can lie down in the comfort of your own home and talk to one's own psychiatrist Pro V4.0 machine learning program (to help psychoanalyze oneself).
FV:"Yes, there could be 'true' instinct as opposed to a thought-out 'plan', where a spontaneous response is leashed and then lashes out. "
ReplyDeleteFV,mstaab:
Even "spontaneous" reaction is the result of a lifetime of training that forms the basis of a "predictive curve" in neural circuitry which can instantaneously respond to input. Machine learning is basically trying to mathematically fit a curve given a set of training data so that prediction error is minimized, exactly the way humans get better from real-world experiences that allow them build a nuanced view of the world in their head over time.
What you may think is "instananeous response" is the result of a computation sequence in the brain based on previous training. This is the same way machine learning programs can fly complex maneuvers in helicopters and drones after they have been "trained" by a human expert for a few hours -- the human just flies the vehicle and the raw data generated from the sensors and the actuators are fed into the ML program...and voila, 24 hours later the program can do advanced maneuvers once considered the domain of the best human experts.
The rub is that tech adoption is based on increasing efficiency and not necessarily about over well being of society. This means that firms and governments will start replacing humans with programs for their consistent behavior and 24/7 readiness. This means humans need to get better at thinking so that they cannot be replaced by a program, but we all know how difficult it is to train or teach humans to get to expert level unlike programs.
-Al
AI,
ReplyDeleteWith all the back-and-forth grins in Farzana's thread, I do want to say, in all sincerity, that I remain suitably impressed with the sheer ingenuity humankind has shown with respect to the application of code. That said -- and that you conclude your comment by noting certain *continuing* shortcomings the species possesses despite what it hath wrought -- I am willing to entertain the prospect that the 'inspiration' for machine processing originating elsewhere (or perhaps in some little-known or little-understood region of the human psyche) . . .
Who would have thought . . . ? :)
>>Even "spontaneous" reaction is the result of a lifetime of training that forms the basis of a "predictive curve" in neural circuitry which can instantaneously respond to input.<<
For what it's worth, I would preface such a statement with *some* or *certain* observed spontaneous reaction may be predictable -- and some of those directly consequent, shall we say, to a contamination of the study by either observers or the observed (e.g. cctv cameras have proliferated not only as recording devices, but also as behaviour modification tools -- i.e. by and large, folks are not nearly as spontaneous when they know -- or suspect -- they're 'under the eye,' so to speak). Accordingly, while there is some synonymity, certainly, between so-called "instinctive" reactions and "spontaneous" reactions, it seems to me "spontaneous" in the context of your statement above refers to more 'natural,' unaffected or indeed customary behaviours (whether they be practiced/learned or not).
>>What you may think is "instananeous response" is the result of a computation sequence in the brain based on previous training.<<
Ditto my latter (i.e. 'instantaneous' = 'spontaneous' = 'instinctive' in certain contexts).
>>The rub is that tech adoption is based on increasing efficiency and not necessarily about over well being of society.<<
Agreed. Thus -- and I refer you back to the first para above -- "efficient" then for whom? :)
>>This means that firms and governments will start replacing humans with programs for their consistent behavior and 24/7 readiness.<<
"Will start"? Arguably, this has been going on since the so-called Industrial Revolution. And, even before that, the possessors of the coercive instruments of power well understood the value of pliant hard-working 'hands' of unquestioning obedience (i.e. "programmable").
Thus, in that it follows that the more troublesome models were, in effect, "phased-out" over millennia (read: put to the sword in one way or another), Darwinian logic suggests a capacity for truly complicated thought has likewise been phased-out . . .
M.
mstaab:"and that you conclude your comment by noting certain *continuing* shortcomings the species possesses despite what it hath wrought "
ReplyDeleteI am not only talking about human shortcomings -- every animal and insect also processes a brain with similar neural networks, though brain power and capability varies across species. If we accept this, an AI program flying a helicopter is a crude approximation of an insect's brain (which does a lot more than just fly the insect around).
"- I am willing to entertain the prospect that the 'inspiration' for machine processing originating elsewhere (or perhaps in some little-known or little-understood region of the human psyche) . . ."
Like most things, it was figured out over 4 decades by studying the brains of living creatures and the behavior of neural networks, and there is a lot more to learn no doubt.
"Who would have thought . . . ? :)"
:) it wasn't just one person but groups of people spread across the planet figuring out different bits of the whole picture over time.
mstaab:" I would preface such a statement with *some* or *certain* observed spontaneous reaction may be predictable "
Just as an illustrative example, Bruce Lee's spontaneous reaction when confronting a thug compared to most people...the difference in training plays a part in the difference in reaction to the same situation wouldn't you say? when two people react differently to a given situation, it is usually a matter of how the two were trained to deal with such situations. A brain that is more experienced in dealing with a situation will have a "spontaneous reaction" that is timely and effective, compared to one that is not experienced will not be effective.
There is also the completely random/unpredictable thought/action, which is what I think you are trying to point out, where an action has no basis on previous learning or experience. This certainly exists and there is no doubt that AI programs are just crude approximations of a biological brain (of any species) and have a long way to go.
I am not suggesting that SkyNet will be in operation within the decade, or that a robot from the future will land on earth to kill John Connor and harass everyone with a terrible austrian accent. :) Just pointing out that humans will now have to compete with machines in menial tasks that do not require higher order thinking. If a car can drive itself (and we are getting there), then taxi driving will no longer be a viable profession in very short order.
""Will start"? Arguably, this has been going on since the so-called Industrial Revolution. And, even before that, the possessors of the coercive instruments of power well understood the value of pliant hard-working 'hands' of unquestioning obedience "
The only instrument of power is knowledge -- the rest are all derivatives of this one source of power.
It has always been the case that humans had to become skilled that doing things that machines could not do, as the economic logic of replacing a human with a machine is unassailable from the standpoint of an entity that is involved in commerce.
"Darwinian logic suggests a capacity for truly complicated thought has likewise been phased-out . "
I would disagree. In fact, it is quite the opposite. If you pick up a journal paper from 60 years ago in any hard science topic and compare it with a paper in the same domain today, the decades of accumulation of scientific discoveries and theories have resulted in pushing the frontiers of complexity in thinking to new levels.
FV,mstaab, Forgot to sign my name again, but the previous Anon post was by me.
ReplyDelete-Al
AI,
ReplyDelete>>There is also the completely random/unpredictable thought/action, which is what I think you are trying to point out, where an action has no basis on previous learning or experience. This certainly exists and there is no doubt that AI programs are just crude approximations of a biological brain (of any species) and have a long way to go.<<
Your kung-fu is strong nevertheless. Seriously.
>>If you pick up a journal paper from 60 years ago in any hard science topic and compare it with a paper in the same domain today, the decades of accumulation of scientific discoveries and theories have resulted in pushing the frontiers of complexity in thinking to new levels.<<
To be sure, albeit within the confines of a single path. Typically (vis-a-vis Narcissus, perhaps), each "breakthrough" bears this same hallmark -- or so it seems to me.
M.
mstaab:"Your kung-fu is strong nevertheless. Seriously."
ReplyDelete:-) thanks!
"to be sure, albeit within the confines of a single path."
Disagree that the path of discovery of new knowledge is linear -- development in unrelated fields may help improve the methods and practices in any given field in science. Like how computers have helped push the frontiers of technology in fields across the board -- developments that would not have happened if digital computing had not evolved to its current state.
-Al
AI,
ReplyDeleteFarzana must be working on her latest missive to her co-respondents laying-in-wait over at the Express Tribune. :)
>>Disagree that the path of discovery of new knowledge is linear<<
Well, I hadn't suggested anything about its linearity. Now that you mention it, on a quite wide path ("in fields across the board," as you note), some may not even be aware of that linearity. A sine wave may be narrow or broad, but it follows a given trajectory. Minimally, all that's required that we not turn back -- heaven forfend! -- so as to maintain that illusion.
Narcissus again -- or so it seems. :)
Mark
Al, Mark:
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping the flag flying!
Al:
It's not always training that plays a part in different reactions to a situation. Bruce Lee might never have used kung fu in a real threat scenario, and an engineer might draw punches because it is instinctual.
Your point about power is knowledge, I'd say knowledge is power, but not all power uses knowledge.
Mark:
Let us take solace in the fact that man can be machine (mechanical) but robots can't be humanised to think spontaneously :-)
PS: It's usually myself that keeps me busy.
Was laid up with a bad back. Who'd think?!
---
Meriam:
I too have been hairan pareishan with some tech stuff. Now I understand your pain....
mstaab:"Farzana must be working on her latest missive to her co-respondents laying-in-wait over at the Express Tribune. "
ReplyDeleteNo doubt. :-) writing up a storm as always, under pressure of deadlines.
". A sine wave may be narrow or broad, but it follows a given trajectory. Minimally, all that's required that we not turn back -- heaven forfend! -- so as to maintain that illusion."
What seems like a trajectory may just be the natural process of take one step outside the boundaries of knowledge (to create new knowledge) -- the steps are taken across all domains at the same time by different people, and this is happening constantly.
A better way to think of this would be in terms of an ink blot on blotting paper...the ink bleeds to expand the ink blot from one spot until it covers a much larger area. The Ink blot would represent knowledge in this metaphor bleeding into the blotting paper of ignorance.
I think Turning back happens all the time. Turning back only requires a dismissal of the scientific method, and would imply a regression in attitude to reality, i.e., more doctrinal/dogmatic worldview that is not self-correcting by encouraging a skeptical worldview.
On the other hand, the hope is that the number of people that exist in large numbers today to counter such regression is the highest it has been at any point in human history ever.
-Al
FV: Bruce Lee might never have used kung fu in a real threat scenario, and an engineer might draw punches because it is instinctual.
ReplyDeleteBruce Lee's Biography claims he grew in Hong Kong's tough street gangs and faced real-world threats...but then I suppose you can't expect anything less from his biography. :)
FV:"Your point about power is knowledge, I'd say knowledge is power, but not all power uses knowledge. "
Sorry if I mis-stated -- power is not knowledge, but knowledge is the source of power. What I mean is "Power is derived from knowledge". This is a truism and not very interesting, but that is what I meant.
I mean to say that knowing how to build a better mousetrap, a better gun, a better , a better reaction to a provocation, a better way to think, are all means to improve capability towards accruing power (though such capability can be used not to accrue power too, but that more of the exception than the norm).
-Al
FV, meriam,
ReplyDeleteThat Hairan-Pareshan feeling you are experiencing is probably similar to how it feels when I listen to group of poets having a good time reciting verses (in any language). :)
-Al
Farzana, AI, Meriam,
ReplyDeleteRegarding Hairan-Pareshan: I gather this describes a non-computational moment? In certain circles, also referred to as "a blonde moment"? Or does it not necessarily describe a hiccup or glitch in the program, but also a reasonable indication (oftentimes expressed in a look, a glance, a glazing of the eyes) that one is interfacing with a toaster when one should be communing with the blender? :)
And, accordingly, that "not all power uses knowledge" bespeaks a mainframe, somewhere . . .
AI, you wrote:
>>. . . Turning back only requires a dismissal of the scientific method, and would imply a regression in attitude to reality, i.e., more doctrinal/dogmatic worldview that is not self-correcting by encouraging a skeptical worldview.<<
I've seen/heard this argument. In certain *contexts* it may hold true. However, I was referring to certain non-negotiable obstructions on this metaphorical "path" -- a metaphorical bear, precipitous cliff or half-life extending for thousands of years, say. For Narcissus, these were the peculiar properties of water and the evident likelihood he couldn't swim. And, as with Narcissus (or, rather, perhaps as with the on-looking nymph he'd been chasing) certainly the acquisition of knowledge is not without its price. And yet, that said -- a willingness to pay the price (or have others pay for it) aside -- it is not enough to know how to swim at the bottom of a deep well; neither is it enough to know in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Thus it seems to me context -- in a certain sense, *environment* -- is everything . . .
You're certainly welcome, Farzana -- and my sympathies viz your back. If not due to some one-off strain (re-arranging furniture, i.e. wrestling with a hide-a-bed sofa, for example), permit me to suggest writers, programmers, indeed anyone who spends hours behind a desk, really need to exercise. For what it's worth, I've found regular walks alone do wonders for the back.
Thank you AI, Meriam -- Farzana, as always -- it's been . . . stimulating. :)
Mark
Wait, Al, Mark:
ReplyDeleteMark,
How is "hairan pareishan" a "blonde moment"? I started this post, participated in the discussion and sounded so perfectly abstruse. So? I got into this state of 'worriedness' when the conversation turned into technicalities.
And Meriam probably felt something similar by our abstract gupshup.
We are all blonde at some point in time, although it isn't fair. I'm more inclined to be a redhead.
Thanks for the exercise tip. It works. I don't!
Indeed it was a good discussion, will you got in my hair :)Kidding.
Al:
A better version of anything is knowledge magnified. It may still not be imbued with additional power.
That Hairan-Pareshan feeling you are experiencing is probably similar to how it feels when I listen to group of poets having a good time reciting verses (in any language). :)
I am so glad that MY post gave you a good time!
This was close to poetry, free verse.
Meriam:
Why are you now talking to me? Let's have a "good time" :)