<Bill Cunningham 940601.1730>
<Bill Powers 940601.1220>
Bill,
I have read you long post and actually like it very much. There is
no question we have been talking past each other. There are also
instances where we've misread each other's words or intentions. I
certainly don't have the time to wade through your post and nitpick
who said or meant what. More important, I don't think it matters.
I think both you and Martin have raised the truly central issues, on
which to focus discussion.
I understand your point about the difference between learned behavioral
rules and fundemental system capabilities. Right now I'm pondering on
the following:
IT is inherently Aristotelian, focused on a set of propositions that may or
may not be true. The Aristotelian influence on our culture is absolutely
pervasive, so it is hard to separate what is inate and what is learned by
immersion in our culture.
My first thought is to consider other, primarily Oriental or Mideastern,
problem solving approaches, looking for similarities and differences. The
countering thought is that mathematics seems to be a universal language and
that I have never heard of a counterpart to Shannon arising from another
culture. Doesn't mean there is or is not a counterpart, just that
it would seem a universal human problem to have to deal with matters less
than certain.
A really good discussion of the program level might reveal/clarify the
inate capability, onto which to hang learned approaches. That would
be incredibly valuable.
Best,
Bill C.
PROFS: mon1(cunningb) Internet: cunningb@monroe-emh1.army.mil
Phone (804) 727-3472/DSN 680-3472. FAX ext 3694/2562
*Eschew Obfuscation*