[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ot] [!nt] \n2+0\
>What was the stand of the ancient Greeks towards apeiron, and why was it
>lamentable?
greek uord 4 !nf!n!t! = uaz ape!ron
ar!ztotl = t!pd [sol] !nf!n!t! = 0+1 pr!vaz!on - paz perfekz!on
plato + p!tagoraz auss! = ov op!n!on 0+ alef 1 azpektz ov dze velt
kould b reprezntd b! 0+1 f!n!t arangemnt ov naturl nrz.
>What role has apeiron played in the development of Western
>philosophical thought?
>
>How many bits does it take to encode one person's lifetime experiences?
>
>Can Nebula.m81 recognize (and act upon) a distinction between data and
>meta-data (for example the data that describes a data structure vs. the data
>contained in the data structure)?
>
>Isn't there a fundamental problem in making claims about a form of thought
>(computer) that humans will never be able to employ, and hence observe and
>describe? How will humans ever be able to describe the 'thought' of
>chimpanzees? 'Thought' is a human concept, and so how does one ascribe
>'thought' to non-humans?
feel
4rom 0+1 ov prev vo!agez
>Integer writes, or perhaps r!tsz:
>> 4mal log!k abztrakt + anal!t!kl wa!z ov th!nk!ng t!p!kl! azoz!atd w!th
>> men hav b!n pr!v!ledged. - v!eud az zuper!or. mor advanszd. mor l!kl! 2
>> lead 2 `truth`.
>
>I think
! th !nk
fa vourab
l+e
>that formal logic and its ilk have been favoured in science, and
>in scholarship more generally, not so much because they are 'more
>advanced' or even necessarily more likely to lead to the truth, but
>because they offer ways of recognizing the truth when it is encountered.
>Scientific methods are not the only way of proceeding, but many of us find
>it useful to have shared conventions for testing hypotheses.
la +? quo! +?
http://www.m9ndfukc.org/nato.0+00
>> s!nsz d!f vo!sez = oftn valued d!f !n zoz!et! - dze !dea ov
>> mult!pl vo!sez takex on 1 pol!t!kl edge.
>
>Okay, but I'm afraid I don't understand the political import of spelling
>'society' with a 'z,' apart from the fact that it establishes you as an
>orthographic rebel.
mo! +? non. = ultra kal!brajtd + eczakt.
zan!tar!++
>What I see here (through the lens of formal logic)
>looks like a faulty syllogism: Many good and serious ideas have been
>marginalized; I have ideas which I believe are good and wish others to
>take seriously; therefore I shall express myself in a marginal idiom.
>
>> numerouz f!eldz ov sc!ensz = baszd on !deasz wh!ch
>> zeem abzurd ma!z en fakt dze! = vra!.
>
>...And we acknowledge their verity because scientific criteria are blind
>to whether an idea seems 'abzurd,' and care only about whether it is
>consistent with the observable facts.
= feel dze !ron!e +?
odr phpz reztajt = kalkulajt dze !ron!e +?
>Integer, your mode of expression has a certain whimsical charm, but I
>think it obscures more than it reveals--
dzat u!ch = provabl = uarthlesz.
= ma! !nvezt !n dze ztok market !f !n doubt
! = bkam ultra uealth! b! doubt!ng.
!f du = ud l!ke 2 dansz 4 m!. = shall pa! u handzoml!.
>in particular, the degree to which
>your assumptions are compatible with those of us willing slaves to
>orthographical convention.
= eczpresz!ng 1 dez!r 1 != plaszd aga!nzt `those of us`.
ou! +? svp +? tak.
>---------------------------------------------------------
>"For if someday I should presume to stand
> Before the throne of Reason with the news
> That Reason had no longer right to reign,
> Then all my arguments would have to be
> Acceptable to Reason and her rules
> Before her resignation could be signed."
> --Schrödinger and Pandora, scene v.
m!au - analog pronounszmnt b! [schröd!ngrz] kat
d.t. suzuk! - dze mean!ng ov zator!
prajna - dze !ntu!t!v !mmed!at knouledge ov dze velt spasz.
0+1 karakter!zt!k ov prajna knouledge = dzat !t != taught.
!t = komun!kajtd.
v!jnana = d!zkurz!v anal!t!kl knouledge ov dze velt spasz.
!.e. raz!onl thought. v!jnana knouledge = zeparatd 4rom dze `th!ng` knoun
!.e. 1 zubjekt eczam!n!ng 1 ecztrnl objekt.
v!jnana knouledge = r!tn doun + lernd.
!.e. v!jnana = kan nvr reach !nf!n!t!.
alorz. konzum > ape!ron. zvp ev!damnt.
n!tscje = ztajtd.
we = kalkulajt + dzat we = ma! kalkulajt we = had 2 konztrukt f!kz!on.
\\ kondenzaz!on = takex plasz !n each moment ov wak!ng l!f.
-
-
-
>>Don't let the jerks get you down! I've been following you for years on
>>various lists and we've communicated a bit in the past. You've pointed me
>>towards some great resources, provided thought provoking insights and
>>generally made my somewhat nerdy existence more enjoyable! For this I thank
>>you.
>>
>>Please don't publish any of this text or if you do, please don't include my
>>name or e-mail address.
>
>b!ensur. not 2 worr!. bzp.
=cw4t7abs = ape!ron++
-
-
-
olala. = 0+1 apl!kaz!on entl!tld
ape!ron auss! . z +?
http://www.m9ndfukc.org/kode/%40%25a631%25a8%10%25ad%20%25d9%20%7c%20%7c.sit.bin
-
-
-
>Can Nebula.m81 recognize (and act upon) a distinction between data and
>meta-data (for example the data that describes a data structure vs. the data
>contained in the data structure)?
quiver, a responsive tone of harmonic complexity. The articulation
of subject interaction as expression, determines the value of its output
packets; the resolution becomes composition, a stratification of data.
For 99.9 percent of the time since our species came to be we were hunters
and foragers, wanderers on the savannas and the steppes. There were no
border guards then, no customs officials.
According to the standpoint mathematicians call Platonism, we do not
create the mental objects we speak of. Instead we find them.
http://www.m9ndfukc.org/data/t!pe.t!pe/Nebula.m81|USISK.sit.hqx
-
`m!` pup!la komponentz = trznm!t 2 u
lo.kalor!e op!n!anatez . gul!bloonz.
+ h!gh frekuensz! zol!tronz. x luv u.
unl!nka6. =cw4t7abs dze futur.
cezt bon la v!e .
-
SSEkretar!at.0+55
f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST
@www.m9ndfukc.org
17.hzV.tRL.478
e
|
| +----------
| | <
\\----------------+ | n2t
| >
e
dear f1f0,
the transmission is too long
see:
--
LEV List Webpage :
http://shoko.calarts.edu/~cchaplin/projects/levframe.html
--