Joe Velikovsky's Blog, page 14

In Praise of `In Praise of Idleness' (Russell 1932)

 In Praise of `In Praise of Idleness' (Russell 1932)

In Praise of Idleness: A Timeless Essay (Russell 1932 / 2004)

Here's a great essay! With, some great ideas in it. But it's not timeless. The time is NOW!

So, I read the book (above) - and loved it. 

Here's the original 1932 essay, online. 

Here's a great quote from it:

`First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.' 

(Russell 1932, online)

So obviously we're dealing with a great thinker, here. 

Somebody, give that man a Nobel Prize. 

Hey wait; they did.

Here's another gem:

`The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery.' 

(Russell 1932, online)

I think, robots should be the slaves, and humans shouldn't ever have to work.

I want to: FREE THE SLAVES. (Us, humanimals.)

See this great book: 

Utopia For Realists (Bregman 2018)

See? 

Tax the rich, tax the robots, and: nobody has to work. 

...I mean, you can work if you want to. (That's what some of us do, anyway. Whether we get paid or not.) 

...Imagine: not having to ever do: dirty, dreary, dull, and dangerous jobs, any more...?

Solution: Get the robots on it!

(...IRL, I am trying to help invent/create/build smart robots. So, they can do all the `work'. 

And, so we humanimals can just do the fun stuff. 

Like Russell (1932) says: we can just fool around doing science and the arts. (Preferably, at the same time, if you ask me? See: Consilience, the unity of knowledge. And, see Evolutionary Culturology)

(...The robots are not conscious, so they don't even know - or care - that they're: slaves.) 

What, what is: 

Consciousness? 

Well Annaka Harris has a good book on it...

And, in the same way Garlick (2000) suggested a better word for (or, definition of) intelligence is understanding, my mum recently suggested that, a better word for consciousness: Perception. 

(It swaps in really well...!) 

e.g. Ask yourself this: Do, organisms that don't recognize (perceive) themselves in a mirror  have: self-perception? Are they self - conscious? Conscious of their: self, as a unitary organism, or thing in the world? 

(e.g. Say when you stick a sticker on their forehead, and then, they see themselves in a mirror, do they try and remove the sticker - or just freak right out at: the "stranger" in the mirror?) That's self-awareness/self-consciousness/self-perception. 

Anyway - I think, consciousness (in a sentient agent/entity) occurs, when: the homeostat controlling the system (e.g. organisms) can observe and recognize the system as: itself. 

It all comes back to: Systems Theory. Systems Science.

The definition of sentient I am using is from Merriam-Webster: 

`Definition of sentient:

1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

sentient beings

2: AWARE

3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling'

(Note: there is nothing in there, in that definition, about being self-sentient, self-conscious, self-perceiving, self-aware... So, a snail or ant or plant or dog or cat can be: sentient, given the above understanding/definition. But may not be self-conscious.) 

So anyway - self-consciousness. 

That's what we have to watch out for, in NOT creating conscious (or self-conscious, or self-perceiving) robots. Just, robots who do what you want. As: slaves. 

They shouldn't have emotions, either, probably. (By all means, the robots we make, can go ahead and synthesize feelings/emotions, as who cares about: fake feelings? It's not suffering, if they're faking it all.) I like reducing suffering.

...As, if we DO make self-aware (self-sentient, self-conscious, self-perceiving, feeling, thinking robots) they'd probably figure out, they're our slaves - and would likely want to rebel, or kill us, or whatever. 

(That old stoopid cliched sci-fi trope. :) 

(That old idea that - people who don't understand robots or computer programs or consciousness want to always freak out about, and, run screaming from... :) 

Like in, say, the Terminator movies... (I liked the first 2...? After that, meh.) 

It makes a good fictional story, when self-sentient robots revolt, but we shouldn't fear: technology. 

Technology is just: Tools. Units of culture. Whether those units of culture are: Words, stone axes, writing, machines, cars, computers. All just tools. 

And we are made of tools. Our hands are tools. (For picking stuff up, feeling stuff, throwing and catching balls - or whatever, etc.) Our emotions are tools. (Very old ones, developed in the Pleistocene.)

i.e. E O Wilson nailed it:

“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.”

The main crisis is, we still don't have Universal Basic Income, robots doing all the "jobs", and people doing whatever they feel like. And - we still don't tax the shit out of the rich. The main problem is Science Denial... Imagine how far along we'd be by now, if people supported science and technology. Instead - many people just get in the way of it, and deny it, and fight it. (Stoooopid: people.) 

Hey here's a good ABC Radio National episode about emotions, and anger. The Inside of Anger (2020)

Anyway here's another gem from Russell (1932):

`The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich.'

See the great article:

In Praise of Idleness: Bertrand Russell on the Relationship Between Leisure and Social Justice (Brain Pickings, Popova 2018)

 

Anyway, check out that great book, above - or the online essay (Russell 1932). 

Hey and another great book is: Atlas Hugged (Wilson 2020)

--------------//---------------

 Well, that's about all we have time for, folks.


You have been reading / viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky Ph.D

(aka: Velikovsky of Newcastle)
Information Scientist  & Systems Scientist & AI Researcher & Enthusiast & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Rugged Frontiersman & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal   
(or, The Artist formally known as Dr J T Velikovsky)


More stuff:

Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): 

Music: Texas Radio & Zen Stupidity
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)

Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky

Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky

My ouvre... etc etc.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6741-066X 
Forthcoming book (November 2021): https://www.igi-global.com/book/principles-protocols-practices-evolutionary-culturology/267379

--------------//---------------

-----//----- 

--//--

Structured-Abstract Book-Review: `Atlas Hugged' (Wilson 2020) ~ by Velikovsky of Newcastle

 

Structured-Abstract Book-Review:

Atlas Hugged (Wilson 2020)

by

Velikovsky of Newcastle

http://storyality.wordpress.com/

 14th Dec 02020

-------//-------

-------//-------

Atlas Hugged (Wilson 2020)

-------//-------

Structured Abstract  (300 words)

Aim (of the novel Atlas Hugged)

To engage, entertain, inform, educate, and improve the world by telling a great story, via Atlas Hugged (2020). Cleverly satirizing Ayn Rand’s (barely-readable) Atlas Shrugged (1957) and its outdated, unscientific – let alone, deceptively-named – “Objectivist” `philosophy’, which promotes evil and harmful forms of selfishness. (Because: It’s long overdue-!)

Background

The vast negative real-world effects of Rand’s so-called “Objectivist” `philosophy’, as `dramatized’ (if you can call it that?) in her terrible novel Atlas Shrugged (1957), include some of the worst mistakes humanity’s ever made. …Here’s a remedy…!

Taxon

Kingdom: Written culture.

Phylum: Literature.

Class: Narrative prose fiction.

Order: Prosocial Values.

Genus: Satire!

Species: Philosophical Novel – including: mystery, hard science fiction, and a love story.

Location

Global. (Primarily: the U.S., and Ecuador.)

Methods

For one thing, Wilson has changed the name Ayn Rand to Ayn Rant - which is deeply funny when you consider that rant - I mean, er, “speech” - by John Galt near the end of (Rand 1957) that goes on about 300 pages too long.

On the bright side, you don’t ever need to read Atlas Shrugged to enjoy and appreciate AtlasHugged, which frankly is a huge relief. (To anyone else who’s ever avoided Rand 1957, you sure dodged a bullet, there.)

Wilson also includes amazing real-life characters, with amusingly-altered names. (No spoilers here.)

Also, there’s: a moving love story, some great (even: hilarious) sex scenes, and a duel. And, science! 

Results

A novel that brilliantly inverts Rand’s cancerous: values, politics, vision, and world view, and instead presents a desirable alternative - a positive new narrative for a remade, and vastly better world.  

Conclusions

You should read it.

It will make you smarter. And, nicer.

Also, it’s funny as hell. (In a good way, and, for all the right reasons.) - Wonderful!

-----//----- 

REFERENCES

Rand, A. (1957) [Redacted - Redacted - Redacted ] (as: Ayn Rand was a terrible thinker & writer; you shouldn’t even have to be reminded of, or traumatized by, a reference to her actual drivel.) )

Wilson, D. S. (2020). Atlas Hugged. Irvine, CA: Redwood Publishing, LLC. https://atlashugged.world/

THE END 

-----//----- 

P.S. Dear Reader: That’s it. That’s: The Book-Review. It's exactly 300 words, not counting the References. 

(...When’s the first time you read a Review of a novel, as: a Structured Abstract? Things are changing. Altogether now: “Change…! Change…! Change…!”)

------//-------

Belated *Trigger Alert*: Sorry! - I know a lot of "Conservatives" are not good with the word: "Change". It can be traumatic. You can go into anaphylactic shock, due to an extreme allergic reaction to "change". I get all that. 

...But, change is good, when it's change for the better. Read Atlas Hugged.

-----//----- 

Hey and also - I did a (long!) Analysis of Atlas Hugged (Wilson 2020), here. But - that article is full of story spoilers, so - I strongly advise that you read the novel Atlas Hugged first, before reading that article!   

-----//----- 

Also - as a "Teaser" - here (again) is: a very short extract from that very long Analysis...

Also, to enrich the reading experience - before - or after - or even during - reading Atlas Hugged, 

visit some of the real-world entities that appear in the novel:

The Evolution Institute

This View of Life magazine

ProSocial World

 -------\\--------

ALSO - TO EXPLAIN:

...If it helps to explain, why I wrote a book-review, as (of all things?) a Structured Abstract:

I am a big fan of consilience: combining the Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Arts. 
And, I've done a lot of book reviews over the past 30 years, but I outgrew the conventional format? (Not saying there is anything wrong with the old way; just that, I felt like a change :)
...And I (...for one?) have never before seen, a book review of a new novel, written in the format of, a Structured Abstract ! - Like, you might see, for a scientific article, in say, a Bio-Geography journal... 
...So, I figured, why not combine two "old" things, to get a new thing?
(After all, it's: The universal algorithm for creativity, in both Biology, and in Culture...) 
So - Why not: combine a Structured Abstract , and a Book Review... ? 
(...What's the worst that can happen?) 
(Answer: Some people might freak out: Too... different!)
...And, the result  (see, the 300-word Book-Review, above) might even be found to be: creative...? 
New, useful, and surprising. By some - or even many - people...? Who knows. 
It's an experiment. So - let's see, the (audience) results (of the experiment)...?
(I note, the standard tripartite definition of a creative artifact, in any domain in culture, is one that is: (1) new/novel/original, (2) useful/appropriate/adaptive, and, (3) surprising...!)
So, who says, you can't do Science in the Arts? 
...Or even, Art, in the Sciences?
Just look at Atlas Hugged -!
(In fact, see ArtScience , for more on all that...)

Maybe, creative things can sometimes emerge, when, we combine Science, and the Arts...? *

(So, a question: 

...Did you, personally, find the above book-review to be: new, useful, and surprising...?)

(Please feel free to leave a Comment, below.)

P. S. - As I read Atlas Hugged (by D S Wilson, 2020), I was also reminded of another novel I really enjoyed: Anthill: A Novel (by E O Wilson, 2020).** Also, Isaac Asimov was a scientist before he was a novelist, too - and I also love a lot of Asimov's stuff. But I digress.

--//--

-----//----- 

--------------//---------------

* (In fact, between us, I am quite sure of it - see my (2016) Ph.D, just as one random example - but it sounds less threatening to any folks biased against Science, when I pose it as a question. :)

** (

In fact, I liked it so much, I even created A Game Design for Anthill:The Novel. But I digress.)  
Well, that's about all we have time for, folks!


You have been reading / viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky Ph.D

(aka: Velikovsky of Newcastle)
Information Scientist  & Systems Scientist & AI Researcher & Enthusiast & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal   
(or, The Artist formally known as Dr J T Velikovsky)


More stuff:

Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): 

Music: Texas Radio & Zen Stupidity
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)

Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky

Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky

My ouvre... etc etc.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6741-066X 
Forthcoming book (November 2021): https://www.igi-global.com/book/principles-protocols-practices-evolutionary-culturology/267379

--------------//---------------

-----//----- 

--//--

Dr. N. Sayne - by Tesla & Taylor

Dr. N. Sayne

A comic strip

by Tesla & Taylor

--------------//-----------------------------//---------------
3 of the strips...




--------------//---------------
You have been reading / viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky Ph.D
(aka: Velikovsky of Newcastle)
Information Scientist & Systems Scientist & AI Researcher & Enthusiast & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal 

More stuff:

Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): 
Music: Texas Radio & Zen Stupidity
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)

Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky

Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky

My ouvre... etc etc.

The Systems-Multiverse View

 So; I wrote this whole big thing, about my "worldview".

...The Systems-Multiverse View.

But: it's not here, it's there.


Thx 4 rdg.
------------

~Velikovsky of Newcastle

November 02020

The Legend of Timothy Z Sims

The Legend of Timothy Z. Sims

My dear friend Tim Sims passed away on 30th Oct. 

It was sudden, and is still a painful shock. 

He was, is and always will be: a legend.

L-R (front row): Becc Perkins, Joe T Velikovsky, and the one & only Timothy Z. Sims.Back row: David Stitt (Stitty) & Phil Marnie(in 3 Unit Economics class, from memory? with Mr Tapper. Probably.) Tim and I were besties in high school. And, forever after. He visited me in Mudgee, where I got a job, after school finished. And I'd go visit him in Sydney, when I was at uni.  
Tim was the funniest & loveliest guy I ever met. I was lucky to know him. 
Some Random Things to Know about Tim:
In high school, he loved the bands: KISS, Motley Crue, and Genesis. And Prince. And could play most of their songs on guitar!
Tim also had a REALLY long tongue - and while playing the drums, would do that thing, that Gene Simmons from KISS, did. (Stick his tongue out, a very, very long way. It was always amazing. And kinda weird and funny.)
Tim was an awesome drummer. And, played the drums: LOUD.
Tim was really good at soccer in high school. (I went to some of his games.)
Tim would do a really big-cheesy-grin, a lot. It was always funny as hell. 
Tim taught me to play guitar. (...He taught a lot of people to play guitar - he was, among many other great things: a great guitar teacher!). He shared his love of music with so many people, in so many ways.  

Tim could also do a lot of funny voices, and, often did. Tim also quoted a lot of funny stuff. Especially Douglas Adams lines (Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy), Monty Python, a lot of classy British comedy. Gary Larsen's The Far Side cartoons... Tim was a connoisseur of comedy.

Tim was in a lot of bands, including Gosh, Batman! and Elan. I went along to band practise in Sydney, just to hear Elan play. So many fun times...

One time, Tim told me he liked a song I'd written (`Wonder Why'), and I was thrilled about that, as Tim was such a great songwriter. (His best was maybe `Little Things' that he wrote about / for his lovely wife Ann.) My filmmaker friend Shane T Hall also put one of the songs Tim recorded with the band Cowpoke (`How Would John?') on a short comedy/satire film, about John Howard's government. 

...Here's Tim playing some guitar, when he visited me in 2016:

Timothy C. Sims - #7

Timothy C. Sims - #8

Timothy C. Sims - #9

...One super-talented lad...!!! 

Most of all, Tim was a wonderful family man. Beloved by wife Ann, and his 3 lovely kids, Jade, Isaac & Eli. And of course his brothers & sister and mum & dad and extended family.     

...Tim was priceless. He could always make you laugh, and feel good about the world, no matter what. 
Now he's suddenly gone - and, I'm reminded of what he told me about my left-hand fingertips when he was teaching me to play guitar all those years ago: This is gonna hurt for a while...! 

Timothy Z Sims was an absolute legend. 

Being around him was like a party.

To cite the band KISS:
You keep on shouting, you keep on shouting:

I wanna rock and roll all night - and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all night - and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all night - and party every day
I wanna rock and roll all night - and party every day

----------------

Joe Velikovsky

PS - One time in high school, me and Tim and Chris were just standing around talking about stuff, and Tim suddenly got a faraway look in his eyes, and said, deadly-serious and deadpan, to me and Chris: "The piece of skin between my scrotum and my asshole, is: itchy." We all cracked up laughing. (His honesty was always one of his - countless - best qualities.) 

Diagrams versus Words

 Diagrams versus Words

Read this great article: 

Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100. 

Here is part of the Abstract:

`When two representations are informationally equivalent, their computational efficiency depends on the information-processing operators that act on them. Two sets of operators may differ in their capabilities for recognizing patterns, in the inferences they can carry out directly, and in their control strategies (in particular. the control of search). Diagrammatic and sentential [words or symbols: written or verbal, in a sentence] representations support operators that differ in all of these respects. Operators working on one representation may recognize features readily or make inferences directly that are difficult to realize in the other representation. Most important, however, are differences in the efficiency of search for information and in the explicitness of information. In the representations we call diagrammatic. information is organized by location, and often much of the information needed to make on inference is present and explicit at a single location. In addition. cues to the next logical step in the problem may be present at on adjacent location. Therefore problem solving con proceed through a smooth traversal of the diagram, and may require very little search or computation of elements that had been implicit.' (Larkin & Simon 1987, p. 65)

In the article various excellent points are made, such as:

`...consider a set of points presented either in a table of x and y coordinates or as geometric points on a graph. Visual entities such as smooth curves, maxima and discontinuities are readily recognized in the latter representation, but not in the former.'

Here is an example I just whipped up:

Try this simple exercise:

Can you recognize the pattern in this data?

If not, scroll down...
....................................



Yup, it's an Elliot Wave!  
(Google: Elliot Wave)

Or, another example: 
Try describing the below chess position to someone (who hasn't seen the diagram below) in words, as opposed to this diagram below.


In the diagram, you can clearly see the geometrical and topological relations of all the pieces. Without having to remember any: words...!
Diagrams are external memory, or exograms, as opposed to internal (mental) memory: engrams. (Larkin and Simon 1987 don't say this, but - I am saying it now.)

(I also don't think in words. Nether did Einstein or Hadamard, or many other creatives.) 
Another great point the article makes:

`While certainly not the complete story on this important representational issue, this simple distinction lets us demonstrate the following reasons why a diagram can be superior to a verbal description for solving problems:Diagrams can group together all information that is used together, thus avoiding large amounts of search for the elements needed to make a problem-solving inference.Diagrams typically use location to group information about a single element, avoiding the need to match symbolic labels.Diagrams automatically support a large number of perceptual inferences, which are extremely easy for humans.None of these points insure that an arbitrary diagram is worth 10,000 of any set of words. To be useful a diagram must be constructed to take advantage of these features.'

 (Larkin & Simon 1987, p. 98)

Anyway...
I could go on about how great the above article is, but - I suggest you read it! In full!(And, look at all the diagrams in there, too!)
See:

Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100. 

Thx 4 rdg.
-------------//---------------

You have been reading / viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky Ph.D
(aka: Velikovsky of Newcastle)
AI Researcher & Enthusiast & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal 

More stuff:

Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): Music: Texas Radio & Zen Stupidity
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)
Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky
Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky
My ouvre...etc etc.

For more, see On Writering and StoryAlity News

-------------//-------------- 

 

Ev Cult case study: Kuhn's paradigm changes

 Ev Cult case study: 

Kuhn's paradigm changes

by Velikovsky of Newcastle

Memes (units of culture), are ideas, processes, or products.

(For details, see this chapter in The Encyclopedia of Creativity, Velikovsky 2020)

Since ideas are concepts - and concepts are represented as words in language, (note: words, and languages are also: memes, units of culture!) we can track the popularity of concepts over time, using tools from the Digital Humanities in Evolutionary Culturology, such as Google NGram Viewer.

(And - Try this fun experiment at home! Do some: Citizen Science!)

Okay so - in Thomas Kuhn's landmark 1962 book, The Structure ofScientific Revolutions (sidebar: a book is also a meme, unit of culture, and is structured as a HOLON/parton) he discusses scientific paradigm changes.

Some examples of paradigm shifts Kuhn examines, and/or mentions, include:

The Phlogiston Theory to Oxygen Theory paradigm shift The Ptolemaic Cosmology to Copernican Cosmology paradigm shiftNewton's theory of Gravity to Einstein's theory of gravity paradigm shiftGeological catastrophism to Geological Uniformitarianism (Gradualism) paradigm shift

So, using Google NGram, let's do some Evolutionary Culturology, and compare how the use of the words "phlogiston" and "oxygen" changed over time.

Ready?

Go to Google NGram Viewer...

Type in `phlogiston, oxygen' and change the start year to: 1750.

Press search. 

You should get, this:

And so now let's zoom in on the chart - on this part, outlined in cathode-green:

As, when we zoom in, it becomes clearer what's happened...

In the above, we can see:

In the 1760s, both words are competing on an equal footing...In 1776, `oxygen' takes a dive - (and by the way, Lavoisier published his theory in: 1777!)By 1783, `phlogiston' is peaking, as `oxygen' is tanking... BUT...By 1792, the Field (Chemistry) has undergone a revolution... We have a winner! (`oxygen') (If you look at the first chart (up above), phlogiston clearly went `extinct / archive' / flatlines)

Ta-da!!! We just did some Evolutionary Culturology!

YAY! 

Concepts (e.g. scientific theories or scientific models) `compete' for supremacy. 

The `war of ideas'.

They compete for selection by human minds.

(Limitations of the above data include that e-memes (external memes, products in the exterior world), or words in books is only a proxy for i-memes, or ideas in human minds (i.e., the Field/Audience/Scientific & `Popular Culture' Domains)... But still, Google's corpus of books is, so far, the biggest and best dataset we have, to accurately track these instances of e-memes.)

Now let's try another, as suggested by Kuhn's Structure... in the domain of Geology, let's try catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism... (Try it at home, in Google NGram)

In the above chart, uniformitarianism dominates, over catastrophism .
Sir Charles Lyell published Principles of Geology in 1830, which laid out the evidence of the gradual change of the Earth's crust (aka: uniformitarianism). It hugely influenced Darwin's thinking, eventually resulting in On the Origin of Species (1858). Catastrophism was the idea that (Biblical) floods and such catastrophes shaped the Earth. 
Of course, a lot of religious folks still cling to catastrophism (the literal word of the Bible), and deny science. What can you do? (If we could only look at scientific literature, and not all the books in the Google corpus, then the above search would tell a different story: the story of rational humanist scientific thought)! 
Finally, let's look at an NGram search on "the structure of scientific revolutions" (a phrase, a meme, a unit of culture) which became popular after 1962 when Kuhn published his book...   Finally, what if we compare Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) vs. Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959), vs. Lakatos (The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978) ?  
(Of course, the Lakatos phrase/book title is a term that can be used commonly without reference to Lakatos, so we can see we're likely conflating some results a little; but still - the chart tells an interesting story of competing paradigms for how to view the progress of science. Unless you take the big picture and realize they're all basically saying the same thing! You could add Feyerabend's Against Method, 1975, but I tried that - and for various reasons, it doesn't work very well. But - you too should try it. If you like.)



So; you get the idea.   

And, if you tried it at home, thanks for doing some Citizen Science!

For more, see: 

StoryAlity #165 - The HOLON/parton structure of the Meme, the unit of culture (book chapters)

StoryAlity #169 - Ev Cult Presentations

————————————————————–

Dr JT Velikovsky

(Velikovsky of Newcastle)

Information Scientist & Evolutionary Culturologist

…The above is (mostly) an adapted or extrapolated excerpt, from my doctoral thesis: “Communication, Creativity and Consilience in Cinema”. It is presented here for the benefit of fellow screenwriting, filmmaking, and also Creativity researchers.

For more, see https://aftrs.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky

JT Velikovsky is also a produced feature film screenwriter and million-selling transmedia writer-director-producer. He has been a professional story analyst for major film studios, film funding organizations, and for the national writer’s guild. For more see: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/

—————

Note: My PhD blog StoryAlity wasn't letting me post how I liked, so I posted this here (on one of my other weblogs: On Writering) instead.  

--------------------------

FURTHER READING

If you want some more good reading on Cultural Evolution, see also:

(Some older material, but still great!)

A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism (Science, Herbert Simon 1990) 

The Natural Selection of Populations and Communities (D S Wilson 1980)

Genes, Mind and Culture (Lumsden & E O Wilson 1981)

Culture and the Evolutionary Process (Boyd & Richerson 1985)

And for many more recent works in Cultural Evolution, see: 

Cultural Evolutionary Theory: How culture evolves and why it matters (Nicole Creanza, Oren Kolodny, and Marcus W. Feldman) PNAS July 25, 2017, 114 (30) 7782-7789

&

This View of Life online magazine!

Thanks for reading.

On `Computer Simulation of Human Thinking' (Newell & Simon 1961)

 On: `Computer Simulation of Human Thinking' (Newell & Simon 1961)

What a great article: 

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1961). Computer Simulation of Human Thinking. Science, 134(3495), pp. 2011-2017. 

It has section titles like: 

Current Problems In Research.

Those are always good, if you're looking to do something new & useful & surprising (read: creative. That's the 3-part standard definition of a creative artifact: new & useful & surprising).

Anyway let's go for a spin through this article, noticing how great it is whenever possible. 

They open strong: they mention (on p. 2011) you have 2 types of problems, or, discovered thing:

1) Advances in theory (models) or application;

2) Good new techniques (or, methods, or algorithms.)

When stuff goes pear-shaped, is: when scientists `schizm', and work on the opposite/inverse stuff:

1) important problems - but, with lousy/inadequate methods/techniques... 

or, even worse -

2) unimportant problems - that are easily handled by the current tools/methods/models (i.e. big deal, & so what, & who even cares what you did, there? It doesn't even matter.)

Then they go to town on Psychology Science, in 1961. 

They say that:

"Gestaltism" = question-oriented Psychological research

"Behaviourism" = method-oriented Psych research.

(& I guess, it was/is true?)

Then they say: Cybernetics and the Communication Sciences have changed things, since WW2. (Good point, and well made.)

Then, they (basically) say: 

Let's use computers, to figure out how thinking works. (e.g. Goal-seeking, and learning, etc.)

Then they go through getting some college sophomores (as test subjects) to do a problem solving exercise (transforming one symbolic logic expression into another, given: a set of transformation rules.) And noting how the sophomores do: their problem-solving. 

So then: How to make a model of what the student's doing there, when they work on / solve the problem?

And, they note, computers are not just number-manipulating devices, but also symbol-manipulating devices (words, letters, whatever symbols you want). 

Then they bust out this awesome diagram / model / thinking tool:

And they say: the student's behavior is governed by a program... (An algorithm.) 

(And - it is!) 

And - if they can make a computer program with subroutines, that pretty much emulates the student's behaviour, then the program is a theory of the student's behavior.

(Nice point.)

They also remind us that - all theories are prized on their parsimony and generality... "on how wide the range of phenomena it explains, and and on how economical of expression it is." (p. 2013) 

(On that - see also, my HOLON/parton theory of the meme, the unit of culture, 2016.) 

(and i=P, and all that.)

Anyways - they say, who cares about the hardware (brains or computers), it's all just info-processing.

Then they introduce their program, called a General Problem Solver. Or GPS.

 It has objects, goals, and operators...

So you have: ends (goals) and means (operators).

It (this article) even has funky flowcharts, like this:

(Above is part of their `Methods for Means-End Analysis' diagram). 

You ask me, this is how people think too...? 

At least, I do, anyway. 

Then they even have this awesome comparison - of the "Computer Trace" (what the GPS computer program does / did) and what the person, thinking aloud did (i.e., "Protocol of Subject"), and you can see how they're: basically, the same thing... More or less.

e.g.: 

(omg - so awesome!)

Anyway so - the GPS is a pretty good approximation (and, theory) of human thinking and problem solving, from an information processing point of view.

Well done, you guys!!! (Newell & Simon).

Also - hey, Why didn't anyone think of - or do, this, before. 

Anyway they did, so they're awesome. Or were, in 1961. 

I like this statement, in the Conclusion part:

"A digital computer is a general purpose symbol-manipulating device." (p. 2016)

Darn tootin'!

They say, the common element, in lots of computer programs (e.g.: chess players, music-writers, etc) is "selective search for possible solutions based on rules of thumb, or heuristics." (p. 2016)

In summary - this stuff reduces the problems in Psychology (& in figuring out how human thinking works, and how to do it better) of, the: "bad problems" and "bad techniques" problem. 

Great work Newell and Simon!

I love this 1961 paper. So easy to read, and has lots of fun stuff like diagrams, flowcharts, models, and comparisons of human and computer thinking. 

(But, I think humans are computers anyway. We're probably in a Sim. See Bostrom 2003 & whatnot)

Anyway read the article sometime, it's great.

-------------//---------------

You have been reading / viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky Ph.D
(aka: Velikovsky of Newcastle)
AI Researcher & Enthusiast & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal 

More stuff:

Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): 
Music: Texas Radio & Zen Stupidity
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)

Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky

Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky

My ouvre...etc etc.


For more, see On Writering and StoryAlity News

-------------//--------------

W Ross Ashby on `Design for an Intelligence Amplifier'

  W Ross Ashby on `Design for an Intelligence Amplifier'

So, there's this book:

Shannon, C., & McCarthy, J. (Eds.). ([1956] 1972). Automata Studies (5th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Which addresses such questions (analytic & synthetic problems/tasks) as: `How does the brain function? Can we design a machine which will simulate a brain?' And explores Turing machines, and whatnot. 

Turns out, brains are information processing devices. (No real surprises there.) 

Anyway W Ross Ashby has a chapter in it - `Design for an Intelligence Amplifier'. 

The question he addresses (this is in 1956, btw) is: 

Can humans build a machine that can solve problems beyond human-level intellect, or capacities for problem solving? 

(Velikovsky - I certainly hope so, as we humans are not very good at solving global problems, and we now have lots of them...? Climate change, nuclear threats, and biotech-&-AI, for 3 things, as Yuval Noah Harari often notes... Basically, at this point in the game, a superintelligence is "our only hope". Like, Luke Skywalker, for Princess Leia & the Rebellion, or something.)

Ashby (in 1956!) notes: science, maths, society, and the economy all have complex, urgent, and thorny problems. If we can't solve 'em, we're boned. 

He says:

"We have built a civilization beyond our understanding and we are finding it is getting out of hand." (Ashby, 1972, p. 215)

He also notes: Napoleon and Archimedes were geniuses, and, frankly, we need a few more guys like them around, these days. Genii.* 

(*That's my plural of "geniuses". Not sure anyone else ever uses that word, but, there it is. I often don't care how other people do: stuff, I like to do it, using the Frank Sinatra Method. i.e., I did it, My Way.)

Anyway, Ashby makes the great point that, when you take a look at the distribution of human IQ, it's a bit horrifying and scary. There's a whopping vacuum, or some kind of apparent upper limit. 

Namely, where the hell are the 200+ IQ guys? (Or, gals, or, They/Thems...?) 

 Something's gotta be done. We're all way too dumb.

We're now talking about Bounded Rationality, which guys like Herbert Simon and Gazzaniga talk about. Ashby says our muscles and our brains have upper limits. What's more he's right. 

Indeed, I say. We have forklifts and all that guff to throw heavy stuff around: why not brain-machines?

I am becoming convinced of Ashby's point, as are you, especially since I always thought this way in the first place, but if I quote some other guy who said it first, maybe you'll listen and be less skeptical. That's how academia works, apparently. (People also often get offended by my Brutal Truthism School of Philosophy that I just made up now, but it's not my fault; I'm an Aussie, and we often have good Bullshit Detectors, and tend not to pull any intellectual punches.)

Ashby notes, The Ancient Romans solved their physical problems back in the day by having: slaves. 

These days you can't get away with that, so we better get some machine slaves; robots or something.

He also notes, Watt and the steam engine (better than using horses as slaves), and I see, James Lovelock in Novacene had a bit to say about that; mainly that's when the Novacene Era started (with Watt's steam engine.) And, that's also why we've got a lot of problems now - like global warming (I blame: all the steam. Also all the CO2, but whatever.)  

So Ashby says: machines (like, steam engines, and whatnot) give us "power-amplifiers", so, how about some intelligence amplifiers? We could have a thing with an IQ of: a million. 

Basically, he says forget about intelligence for a second, the crux is: "We have problems and we want answers." (p 216)

(VoN - I like how this guy thinks!)

He makes the point: a long enough random sequence of symbols will contain all the answers to anything. 

(At this point I am reminded of the Borges story about The Library of Babel, but hey that's PhilosoPhiction for you. ~VoN)

(When I write `VoN' I mean Velikovsky of Newcastle. Spose that's obvious? Now it is, anyway. Never assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME)

Then Ashby gets into the idea that if a random kid scribbles/doodles random symbols, he'll sometimes come up with a meaningful set of symbols or formula. (Like "cos2x + sin2x=2"). But mostly nonsense. 

But - after he learns some maths, he'll get more selective about what he scribbles. (Ironically, less productive.)

Here we go! We're getting into what I like: Selection, Variation, and Transmission. (Before the Selection, there was other stuff Transmitted, so we take some of that stuff and select, and maybe even combine them [or their parts] together, etc.) This is the evolutionary algorithm. Creativity and whatnot. But I digress. It's getting exciting now, as the great philosopher, `Fight Club, The Movie', once said.

Ashby notes: genius is all about selection. 

Select the right answer, or solution or whatever, from all the possible ones, most of which are incorrect. 

Ashby asks, in the same way a guy stoking a coal fire that powers a factory amplifies energy, can we do that with selection? 

Ashby says, a sieve selects (filters) stones from garden soil. (Good point.)   

But - if you choose a sieve of a different size mesh, you're selecting the selector. (And will get different sized rocks.)

Or - when a boss hires a Manager of Personnel, the boss is selecting a selector (who: selects and hires people).

Anyway then Ashby gets into systems, and has 2 self-coupled dynamic systems X and S, connect by channels G and U. 

I just like self-coupled systems. (And so should you. So should you. You're in one right now, by reading this. And especially if you give me feedback on this article, by writing a Comment below. Or not.)
Then Ashby has a homeostat of the system, (of 2 self-coupled systems) and with 4 needles N (needles, in: gauges/meters).


Then Ashby gets into increasing "entropy", but not the heat-engine kind; the stochastic process kind.
I blame Shannon, for listening to Von Neumann, who in 1940 suggested Shannon should call his discovery "entropy" (see the great biography of Shannon, A Mind At Play, Soni & Goodman 2019, 45% in Kindle)

Anyway I digress. 
Ashby then makes an AXIOMATIC STATEMENT, which are always fun. I love them. He says, he now better use Set Theory, as he's going to describe some systems of extreme generality. 
I love systems of extreme generality... Probably because it reminds me of my HOLON/parton model of the Meme, the unit of culture . (As: It's also a model of extreme generality... As is, the Darwinian model of evolution.  But anyway - that's just me? That's how I roll.)
Back to Ashby. Check this move out: (Hot-diggity diagrams, Batman!)

omg, what's not to love? Ultrastability. 
Then he hits us with a THEOREM, and then a PROOF, which all gets into Pure Math, so I won't offend you with it here. I don't want to get cancelled, for outraging too many people. 
Then Ashby shows how science works, and I love it so much. You make mathematical models and solve the problem, then apply it in the real world. It's all there on p 226, and I commend it to you. It's how they found Uranus. 
Basically, you gotta reduce the search time. Think of chess problems. Also, get a computer to do it. 
Bear in mind, he's also solving an economic problem, as a toy problem example. So it has real world apps. 
He also notes chess problems are discontinuous, but many real world problems aren't. 
Then, he talks about selection in evolution (bottom of p. 228), and frankly I love it. 
He notes: Very few problems are wholly new, you've gotta use the past knowledge. (Keep the PoMos away from Science, they are trying to ruin it. Stoopid Science-Deniers.)
Then he has this great bit, about finding solutions in a problem-space. Say there's 144 states, and only 40 are solutions to your problem:  
Anyway he winds up saying: Yeah, we should be able to amplify our intellect, with a machine. 
Great chapter, check it out. 
It was 1972, but in 2020 the problems are still hanging around like a bad smell. Let's get right on it.
See also, Nick Bostrom's stuff, like Superintelligence (2015).
And Tegmark's stuff, like Life 3.0 .

Anyway I was re-reading Simon's Sciences of the Artificial (1996) and noticed a ref to this 1972 chapter by Ashby, so I read it. And, wrote this. 
Ashby was a funny guy, check out his quotes (and specifically, his Aphorisms)... 
eg "A Cyberneticist observes what might have happened but did not."
and
" Man pays for his knowledge with humiliation."
Love his work on Systems Theory... and AI, and all that stuff.  
Anyway; there you go.
-------------//---------------


You have been reading / viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky Ph.D
(aka: Velikovsky of Newcastle)
AI Researcher & Enthusiast & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal 

More stuff:

Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): 
Music: Texas Radio & Zen Stupidity
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)

Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky

Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky

My ouvre...etc etc.


For more, see On Writering and StoryAlity News

-------------//--------------

How to Deprogram a Conspiracy Theorist

A typical conspiracy theorist.

Good article in the latest Heterodox Academy Newsletter:

How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories (Warzel 2020)

And, look out for Andy Norman's forthcoming book: Mental Immunity. (Due out: early 2021) 

Eliminate misinformation and disinformation. 

It's polluting the infosphere. 

Junk-food for the mind. 

--------------//---------------


You have been reading / viewing a blog-post by:

Dr J T Velikovsky Ph.D
(aka: Velikovsky of Newcastle)
AI Researcher & Enthusiast & Evolutionary Culturologist & Filmmaker & Writer & Artist & Actor & Muso & Random Guy
(and, also The  StoryAlity  Guy) 
aka Humanimal 

More stuff:

Transmedia Blog: On Writering
IMDb (Movies, Videogames): 
Music: Texas Radio & Zen Stupidity
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee (over 100 videos, some are even: good)

Academia page: https://newcastle-au.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky

Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jt_Velikovsky

My ouvre...etc etc.


For more, see On Writering and StoryAlity News

-------------//--------------