9/29/12
9/28/12
8/14/12
I told you so
I was analyzing a nightmare, and asking, why did it frighten me? I think the root fear was people telling me "I told you so". For instance, I'm afraid of my mom being right about religion.
Why am I afraid of people telling me "I told you so"? I think because I want to be respected, and free. I fear that if someone tells me I should do X, and I do Y instead, and X turns out to be better, then they'll feel self-justified in their view, and they'll be able to hold it over me the next time they tell me to do something. If I go against them again, I'll lose their respect, if I haven't already; but if I obey them rather than myself, then I won't be free.
Why am I afraid of people telling me "I told you so"? I think because I want to be respected, and free. I fear that if someone tells me I should do X, and I do Y instead, and X turns out to be better, then they'll feel self-justified in their view, and they'll be able to hold it over me the next time they tell me to do something. If I go against them again, I'll lose their respect, if I haven't already; but if I obey them rather than myself, then I won't be free.
8/13/12
Logicomix
I finished Logicomix. It's great. I agree with Russell's portrayed "answer" to whether America should join World War II, which is "think about it". I also like Gödel -- which I knew already.
I'm not sure I like the attitude of the writers, oddly enough. I feel myself sympathizing with Christos, the computer scientist they brought in to make sure all their math was right, though I don't completely agree with him either. I feel like Christos thinks that math has been "solved" with computer science. But I don't think it has (though I have held that belief in the past).
But I feel like the writers really think logic is madnesses. There's this notion that we can't just think logically, at which point I feel like the author's are thinking "we also need emotions and a sense of humanity". But that's not what Gödel's proof shows. It shows that logic is incomplete. But it leaves no reason to believe that human thought is somehow more powerful than logic.
I'm not sure I like the attitude of the writers, oddly enough. I feel myself sympathizing with Christos, the computer scientist they brought in to make sure all their math was right, though I don't completely agree with him either. I feel like Christos thinks that math has been "solved" with computer science. But I don't think it has (though I have held that belief in the past).
But I feel like the writers really think logic is madnesses. There's this notion that we can't just think logically, at which point I feel like the author's are thinking "we also need emotions and a sense of humanity". But that's not what Gödel's proof shows. It shows that logic is incomplete. But it leaves no reason to believe that human thought is somehow more powerful than logic.
8/12/12
connection
Both Watchmen and Logicomix reference Alexander "untying" the Gordian Knot with a sword. The character in Watchmen interprets this "solution" as genuinely innovative. The character in Logicomix takes the solution as not really a solution. I lean in that direction myself. The goal of untying the Gordian Knot is not to unlock some box, in which case opening the box is the real goal, and cutting the knot is as good as untying it. However, in the case of the Gordian Knot, the goal is to untie the knot. The goal is not even to make the knot disappear or cease to exist. The goal is to untie it.
8/11/12
thinker's resort
I guess I mainly want lots of possible places to walk and think or sit and think or lie down and think, whilst having interesting natural beauty and art to look at, and easy access to food. The closest I've seen is a college campus, though they need to make lying down easier. Couches outside, perhaps?
line upon line
Idea 1: I recall this phrase from the Book of Mormon: line upon line, precept upon precept. I forget the original context. My original interpretation of it was that we learn things one bit at a time, like learning to add before learning to multiply.
Idea 2: I often have ideas come to mind, and I think "yes! that's it! that's solves everything! I need to integrate that into my world view!" And then I think about it more, and the idea turns out to be a bit half-baked or not quite as earth-shattering as I thought, and even if it's good, I don't always succeed in remembering it day to day. But, I'll often see good ideas resurface after I've forgotten them.
Combined idea: I thought line upon line was learning to add before learning to multiply, but now I'm thinking that a more useful and accurate interpretation is learning to add many times, again and again, before it truly sinks in. So when I get an idea and think "yes! that's it!" it is good to acknowledge it, but I shouldn't stress about integrating it into my world view right away, because my brain doesn't work that way -- I'll need to see the idea many times as good before it "sinks in" -- and this is not so bad since good ideas tend to resurface anyway.
Idea 2: I often have ideas come to mind, and I think "yes! that's it! that's solves everything! I need to integrate that into my world view!" And then I think about it more, and the idea turns out to be a bit half-baked or not quite as earth-shattering as I thought, and even if it's good, I don't always succeed in remembering it day to day. But, I'll often see good ideas resurface after I've forgotten them.
Combined idea: I thought line upon line was learning to add before learning to multiply, but now I'm thinking that a more useful and accurate interpretation is learning to add many times, again and again, before it truly sinks in. So when I get an idea and think "yes! that's it!" it is good to acknowledge it, but I shouldn't stress about integrating it into my world view right away, because my brain doesn't work that way -- I'll need to see the idea many times as good before it "sinks in" -- and this is not so bad since good ideas tend to resurface anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)