[Fis] Ada Lovelace inspires a question: why are so few women in FIS list?
Hi, Bob Thank you for presenting Ada Lovelace to the list. It was great the link you did with previous discussions. Hi, all. Have we ever had a discussion about why are so few women in FIS list? I was yesterday in a seminar that shows that it is a general problem in Science, especially in "hard" disciplines. But there are many women in Mathematics and Information Science fields, so I expected more women in FIS. This makes me remember the great speak of Neil Degrasse Tyson (3 min) on being Black and Women in Science (https://youtu.be/z7ihNLEDiuM). What do you think about it? All the best, -- Moisés André Nisenbaum Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc. Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ Campus Maracanã moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
Thanks to Moises Andre Nisenbaum I became acquainted with the very first person to write a computer program, namely Ada Lovelace. Her opinion which I also hold and seems to represent Bruno's opinion as well can be found in a quote of hers which can be found in the Wikipedia article about her. Here is an excerpt from that Wikipedia article, which I share for your edification and amusement. All the best - Bob The notes are longer than the memoir itself and include (in Section G[57]), in complete detail, a method for calculating a sequence of Bernoulli numbers with the Engine, which would have run correctly had the Analytical Engine been built (only his Difference Engine has been built, completed in London in 2002).[58] Based on this work, Lovelace is now widely considered the first computer programmer[1] and her method is recognised as the world's first computer program.[59] Section G also contains Ada Lovelace's famous dismissal of artificial intelligence. She wrote that "The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths." __ Robert K. Logan Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications On 2015-06-24, at 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 23 Jun 2015, at 07:13, Emanuel Diamant wrote: > >> My dear FIS-friends, >> >> I apologize for not withstanding the pace of our discussion – you are >> already busy with the problem of “meaning” (Steven) and I am still preparing >> to answer Howard’s letter about linguistic biology… >> >> Dear Howard, >> >> Thank you for your suggestion to “add yet one more approach to the list: >> linguistic biology”. Unfortunately, I cannot accept it – because it is >> redundant and tautological. >> >> My definition of information is Information is a linguistic description of >> structures observable in a given data set. (I apologize for non-providing >> any arguments for justifying this statement. Interested people have to go to >> my old papers in arXiv, Research Gate or on my web site >> http://www.vidia-mant.info ). >> >> For the reasons provided just above (and elsewhere), any use of the term >> “Cognitive” implies the use of the term “information” (information >> processing) and, thus, already contains linguistic descriptions of data >> structures in a given data set (in a given object). Therefore, strengthening >> Cognitive biology with Linguistic biology is simply a tautology. >> >> I also cannot accept the allusion to the Guenther Witzany’s work (as an >> attempt to justify the backup of Linguistic biology). Meanwhile, Witzany >> himself illuminate the issue in his response to Jerry Chandler (20.06.2015). >> I myself was enlightened about the subject by a 2004 paper of Eshel >> Ben-Jacob (et al) “Bacterial linguistic communication and social >> intelligence”, Trends in Microbiology, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 366-372, August >> 2004. I have cited it in my 2009 paper “Some considerations on how the human >> brain must be arranged in order to make its replication in a thinking >> machine possible”, (.arXiv:1002.0184 [pdf]). I do not want to spend much >> more time on this issue and to draw our discussion farther in this direction. >> >> Finally, I do not agree either with your statement that “each approach uses >> a helpful metaphor”. Brain as a computer metaphor (dominating in the past >> century) has exhausted its life cycle, “Computational” approach today is a >> harmful and a dangerous relict. It would be wise not to galvanize it again. > > > People should not confuse the computationalist thesis in cognitive science, > and the use of this or that type of machine as a metaphor to understand the > brain functioning. > > In fact those two things oppose themselves. It can be shown that IF we are > machine, then we cannot know for sure which machine we are, nor which > computations support us. Information arise from our statistical distribution > in the infinitely many computations (already present in a tiny segment of > arithmetic). The math shows that he quantum appearances are justified from > that computationalist hypothesis. > > In fact computationalism appears to be a vaccine against all reductionistic > metaphors. The ideally correct machine, like Peano Arithmetic or > Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, already know that their soul is not a machine, > when translating Theaetetus definition of the soul (the knower) with Gödel > technic (as I did). > > To believe in the negation of computationalism means to believe in some magic > or in some special actual infinities playing some rôle in the brain. > > Many people still believe that mechanism and materiali
Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
On 23 Jun 2015, at 07:13, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
My dear FIS-friends,
I apologize for not withstanding the pace of our discussion – you
are already busy with the problem of “meaning” (Steven) and I am
still preparing to answer Howard’s letter about linguistic biology…
Dear Howard,
Thank you for your suggestion to “add yet one more approach to the
list: linguistic biology”. Unfortunately, I cannot accept it –
because it is redundant and tautological.
My definition of information is Information is a linguistic
description of structures observable in a given data set. (I
apologize for non-providing any arguments for justifying this
statement. Interested people have to go to my old papers in arXiv,
Research Gate or on my web site http://www.vidia-mant.info ).
For the reasons provided just above (and elsewhere), any use of the
term “Cognitive” implies the use of the term
“information” (information processing) and, thus, already contains
linguistic descriptions of data structures in a given data set (in a
given object). Therefore, strengthening Cognitive biology with
Linguistic biology is simply a tautology.
I also cannot accept the allusion to the Guenther Witzany’s work (as
an attempt to justify the backup of Linguistic biology). Meanwhile,
Witzany himself illuminate the issue in his response to Jerry
Chandler (20.06.2015). I myself was enlightened about the subject by
a 2004 paper of Eshel Ben-Jacob (et al) “Bacterial linguistic
communication and social intelligence”, Trends in Microbiology, vol.
12, no. 8, pp. 366-372, August 2004. I have cited it in my 2009
paper “Some considerations on how the human brain must be arranged
in order to make its replication in a thinking machine possible”,
(.arXiv:1002.0184 [pdf]). I do not want to spend much more time on
this issue and to draw our discussion farther in this direction.
Finally, I do not agree either with your statement that “each
approach uses a helpful metaphor”. Brain as a computer metaphor
(dominating in the past century) has exhausted its life cycle,
“Computational” approach today is a harmful and a dangerous relict.
It would be wise not to galvanize it again.
People should not confuse the computationalist thesis in cognitive
science, and the use of this or that type of machine as a metaphor to
understand the brain functioning.
In fact those two things oppose themselves. It can be shown that IF we
are machine, then we cannot know for sure which machine we are, nor
which computations support us. Information arise from our statistical
distribution in the infinitely many computations (already present in a
tiny segment of arithmetic). The math shows that he quantum
appearances are justified from that computationalist hypothesis.
In fact computationalism appears to be a vaccine against all
reductionistic metaphors. The ideally correct machine, like Peano
Arithmetic or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, already know that their
soul is not a machine, when translating Theaetetus definition of the
soul (the knower) with Gödel technic (as I did).
To believe in the negation of computationalism means to believe in
some magic or in some special actual infinities playing some rôle in
the brain.
Many people still believe that mechanism and materialism are
compatible, but there are not.
Choose your favorite poison, but it seems to me that the evidences we
have support much more mechanism than materialism.
Bruno
I apologize for the delayed response.
Best regards,
Emanuel.
From: howlbl...@aol.com [mailto:howlbl...@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
To: emanl@gmail.com; jerry_lr_chand...@me.com; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es; witz...@sbg.at
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list:
linguistic biology. per the work of Guenther Witzany. also
reflected in my book The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
each approach uses a helpful metaphor. no one approach sees the
elephant in its entirety. so please let us use all three.
with oomph--howard
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the
Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the
21st Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent,
The Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates("Bloom's argument will
rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild!
Wonderful!” Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on
Islam.” David Swindle, PJ Media).
Former Core Faculty Memb
