Yes [program halt], No [program halt] .. (aka? -- she loves me, she loves me not .. Amaranth you stinker!)
Posted by Eudaemonic Pie on Dec 29, 2001 at 13:35
Re: in case you didn't notice (bobbapink)
Oh yes. I noticed the explanation at the bottom. A great link. And a link dead-center and on-point to my original question too (thanx for playing along). Sorry I botched the original question into near incoherence. But, yes: you did pick up the gist. And yes: your link was dead-center. I agree with the parodist's reply (the non-sense random generator, what a great gig) to po-mo stuff. A mess. That random article illustrates what it criticizes. Aptly. I tried several times to click on one link inside the article itself – a link to the original generator? – but, it wouldn't work. I tried to follow that link because I once found an equally amusing random lyrics generator to the songs of Alanis Morissette (spelling?). A hoot. Have you seen it? If so, is the lyrics generator at the same site? I've lost my link.
I sincerely feel that one reason why the random generator is both amusing and a valid parody which raises deeper questions, scientific ones, is because mathematicians haven't yet completely certified the very meaning of random. All we have are pseudo-random generators. And the article raised, to my mind, the difficulties in the certification of randomness, plus the difficulties too in viewing our human cognitive capacities (conjectures etc.) as min-random generators – have you seen any of the scientific conjectures about our human cognition as a product of our twitching neurons giving birth to "multiple drafts", often contrary drafts, of ideation corresponding to our outward reality? Curious stuff – not really support for the pomo silliness, but a nod to how we work by forming multiple-drafts (random?) of cognition. I'll see if I can find a cite/link for you – a neuroscientist in Washington (name escapes me at the moment).
From an ethological viewpoint, I'm curious and interested as to how we humans invent abstractions to test against whatever it is that we consider trustworthy in our lives. I've read my fair share of pomo silliness; I guess that I put it into my own index under, "Anecdote, Personal Lexical Meanings," and sometimes under the heading, "Psychopathology, Serious and Dangerous Forms," but not much more. I'm a mere mortal, okay Curley? I say we need to put rational program halt-functions, like the above, into the pomo silliness (my wife just slapped me). But really, Bobbapink, a great link, and truly on-point! Maybe spent-thoughts follow laws of non-conservation – just keep coming at us from the random-generators named Lyotard! Really, what's your own take on where they come up with this stuff? – care to take a crack at it?
Now on to Amaranth! And illustrating the above! As far as randomly generated multiple-drafts of cognition – now, now, now, you little mentally ambidextrous Amaranth!!! – let me enjoy my fantasies! :))). Just kidding. Giving you all the HELL you deserve! My wife looks over my shoulder at my posts and slaps me frequently! Harder! Harder! HARDER! Ouch ..... Amaranth, you stinker – I'm not trying to fight with you ... am seriously considering your hard question about handedness! Would you consider handedness a complex trait? – if so, then epigenesis? – no? Where am I lost here? Come out and PLAY! NOW! Before bobbapkink and I bore ourselves silly and we both start drinking beer, see?
- Re: Yes [program halt], No [program halt] .. (aka? -- she loves me, she loves me not .. Amaranth you stinker!) mara 02/1 13:06 (0)
- Re: Yes [program halt], No [program halt] .. (aka? -- she loves me, she loves me not .. Amaranth you stinker!) mara 02/1 12:56 (1)
Post a Followup