Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero

Expand Messages
  • Arik Baratz
    Hello Uri, I m afraid I need more clarification. Although you use mathematical language, you are describing abstract concepts. You re anthropomorphizing the
    Message 1 of 12 , May 1, 2007
      Hello Uri,

      I'm afraid I need more clarification.

      Although you use mathematical language, you are describing abstract
      concepts. You're anthropomorphizing the numbers one and zero,
      assigning them moral values and behaviors.

      Then you use statements like:

      "One always remains one, zero always remains zero. They are completely
      separate. Two parallel lines who never meet"

      Which confuse me - are you at any point in this article actually
      referring to the actual numbers, the real numbers 1 and 0?

      And the same goes for logic. You are making extremely subjective,
      stereotypical claims about the numbers one and zero, and then you
      attempt to apply logic to your statements. Is it really logic? You
      write words in a language of logic but I have a feeling you're not
      really following logical rules in your deductions.

      The way that makes most sense to me when I read this article is as a
      "stream of consciousness" free associations following one another.
      This form does not have to adhere to any sort of logic and you can use
      symbols from any language. It also explains the rapid and disconnected
      changes in the subject. If you tell me that neurotoxins were involved
      in the creation of this piece, I will not be surprised. Otherwise it
      is pretty difficult (albeit possible, with some training) to capture
      such an experience long enough to put it into writing.

      And a slight correction: "Google" is a name of a popular search
      engine. "Googol" is the name of the number one followed by a hundred
      zeroes.

      Take care,

      -- Arik


      On 4/27/07, Uri Even-Chen <uri@...> wrote:
      > Hi people,
      >
      > A friend of mine, Omer Zak, recommended me this list. I hope it's OK
      > I'm posting to it.
      >
      > A few days ago I wrote a very emotional article about numbers. I
      > called it "One and zero". If you read it, let me know what you think.
      >
      > http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=23
      >
      > Uri.
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Uri Even-Chen
      Hi Arik, Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it. I will answer your questions below. ... Yes, I know. ... Yes, the whole article is about the
      Message 2 of 12 , May 1, 2007
        Hi Arik,

        Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it. I will answer your
        questions below.

        > I'm afraid I need more clarification.
        >
        > Although you use mathematical language, you are describing abstract
        > concepts. You're anthropomorphizing the numbers one and zero,
        > assigning them moral values and behaviors.

        Yes, I know.

        > Then you use statements like:
        >
        > "One always remains one, zero always remains zero. They are completely
        > separate. Two parallel lines who never meet"
        >
        > Which confuse me - are you at any point in this article actually
        > referring to the actual numbers, the real numbers 1 and 0?

        Yes, the whole article is about the numbers one and zero. For
        example, "One always remains one, zero always remains zero" refers to
        what happens to them when they are multiplied by themselves (or more
        generally speaking, powered by any positive number).

        By the way, one and zero are the only numbers (integer, real or
        complex) who remain the same when multiplied by themselves (or powered
        by a positive number except one):

        x^2 = x <=>
        x^2 - x = 0 <=>
        x * (x-1) = 0

        > And the same goes for logic. You are making extremely subjective,
        > stereotypical claims about the numbers one and zero, and then you
        > attempt to apply logic to your statements. Is it really logic? You
        > write words in a language of logic but I have a feeling you're not
        > really following logical rules in your deductions.

        The whole idea of articles such as this one is that I'm challenging
        deterministic logic, claiming that it is inconsistent.

        But although this article is about numbers, it's not a professional
        mathematical article. It's literature.

        > The way that makes most sense to me when I read this article is as a
        > "stream of consciousness" free associations following one another.
        > This form does not have to adhere to any sort of logic and you can use
        > symbols from any language. It also explains the rapid and disconnected
        > changes in the subject. If you tell me that neurotoxins were involved
        > in the creation of this piece, I will not be surprised. Otherwise it
        > is pretty difficult (albeit possible, with some training) to capture
        > such an experience long enough to put it into writing.

        I didn't write it on drugs, if that's what you mean. I don't take
        drugs. But in the past, there were times I took psychiatric drugs,
        which are neurotoxins. I object to taking neurotoxins, and why I took
        them is a long story. Sometimes they were forced upon me. But at
        least two months before writing this article, I didn't take any. (a
        few months ago I was put in a mental hospital against my will, and
        psychiatric drugs were forced upon me).

        > And a slight correction: "Google" is a name of a popular search
        > engine. "Googol" is the name of the number one followed by a hundred
        > zeroes.

        It's not a mistake. I decided to spell both of them "google". I
        don't make any difference between "google" and "googol". But usually,
        when I refer to the number I spell google, and when I refer to the
        company I spell Google (with a capital G).

        Sometimes people decide to change spellings of words. For example,
        some words in english are spelled in american english differently than
        what they are spelled in the traditional, british english. And since
        I don't like the spelling "googol", I decided to spell it "google"
        instead.

        Actually, Google itself is a "play on the word googol", as they phrase it:
        http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html

        If you want to see another article on a similar subject, read my
        article "The limits of knowledge":
        http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=14

        Uri.
      • Arik Baratz
        ... I think I would have got it on the first go were it explained like you did now. Also you did not cover the part about them being like parallel lines - did
        Message 3 of 12 , May 1, 2007
          On 5/1/07, Uri Even-Chen <uri@...> wrote:

          > > "One always remains one, zero always remains zero. They are completely
          > > separate. Two parallel lines who never meet"
          > >
          > > Which confuse me - are you at any point in this article actually
          > > referring to the actual numbers, the real numbers 1 and 0?
          >
          > Yes, the whole article is about the numbers one and zero. For
          > example, "One always remains one, zero always remains zero" refers to
          > what happens to them when they are multiplied by themselves (or more
          > generally speaking, powered by any positive number).

          I think I would have got it on the first go were it explained like you
          did now. Also you did not cover the part about them being like
          parallel lines - did you mean the two lines f(x)=0 and f(x)=1?

          > By the way, one and zero are the only numbers (integer, real or
          > complex) who remain the same when multiplied by themselves (or powered
          > by a positive number except one):
          >
          > x^2 = x <=>
          > x^2 - x = 0 <=>
          > x * (x-1) = 0

          Well, you can design a 2nd order polynomial for every two numbers,
          like for 2 and 3:

          x^2-5x+6=0

          > The whole idea of articles such as this one is that I'm challenging
          > deterministic logic, claiming that it is inconsistent.

          I'm sorry but I didn't understand how you prove your claim.

          > But although this article is about numbers, it's not a professional
          > mathematical article. It's literature.

          This makes things much clearer; although as someone educated in math
          it confuses me when I see an article using mathematical *language*
          without the math.

          > > The way that makes most sense to me when I read this article is as a
          > > "stream of consciousness" free associations following one another.
          > > This form does not have to adhere to any sort of logic and you can use
          > > symbols from any language. It also explains the rapid and disconnected
          > > changes in the subject. If you tell me that neurotoxins were involved
          > > in the creation of this piece, I will not be surprised. Otherwise it
          > > is pretty difficult (albeit possible, with some training) to capture
          > > such an experience long enough to put it into writing.

          > I didn't write it on drugs, if that's what you mean. I don't take
          > drugs. But in the past, there were times I took psychiatric drugs,
          > which are neurotoxins. I object to taking neurotoxins, and why I took
          > them is a long story. Sometimes they were forced upon me. But at
          > least two months before writing this article, I didn't take any. (a
          > few months ago I was put in a mental hospital against my will, and
          > psychiatric drugs were forced upon me).

          Yes, I meant drugs, but drugs are not the only way to achieve these
          states. You didn't answer my question about the article having the
          stream-of-consciousness quality - is that how you created it?

          What were you in for? Schizophrenia?

          > It's not a mistake. I decided to spell both of them "google". I
          > don't make any difference between "google" and "googol". But usually,
          > when I refer to the number I spell google, and when I refer to the
          > company I spell Google (with a capital G).
          >
          > Sometimes people decide to change spellings of words. For example,
          > some words in english are spelled in american english differently than
          > what they are spelled in the traditional, british english. And since
          > I don't like the spelling "googol", I decided to spell it "google"
          > instead.

          Again the language issue - if you use your own personal language to
          describe the world, expect people to misunderstand you. To interact
          with people you have to share some of their reality, and language
          plays an important role here (I'm an Israeli living in the US, so I'm
          painfully aware of that). If you don't share enough of other people's
          reality, you will be misunderstood. If you don't have enough control
          over yourself to share in enough of other people's reality, you might
          find that people will tend to push you away from society.

          > If you want to see another article on a similar subject, read my
          > article "The limits of knowledge":
          > http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=14

          Ah! That's much more like it. An article about a single subject
          following up on the subject from start to end. I liked that one more
          than the one you wrote your original email about. I've seen this
          argument before - creating a 1:1 transformation between an idea and a
          natural number - and my response to that is: Copyright is not about
          the idea itself. Copyright is about the ability of the author to pick
          the *right* number out of the infinite pile of numbers and say - this
          is it. Because, frankly, most of the pile is garbage.

          -- Arik
        • Uri Even-Chen
          Hi Arik, ... Yes. Or you can define it as f(x,y)= x^y, and only f(0,y) and f(1,y) will be straight, parallel lines. For any other x it will not be a straight
          Message 4 of 12 , May 1, 2007
            Hi Arik,

            > I think I would have got it on the first go were it explained like you
            > did now. Also you did not cover the part about them being like
            > parallel lines - did you mean the two lines f(x)=0 and f(x)=1?

            Yes. Or you can define it as f(x,y)= x^y, and only f(0,y) and f(1,y)
            will be straight, parallel lines. For any other x it will not be a
            straight line.

            > > By the way, one and zero are the only numbers (integer, real or
            > > complex) who remain the same when multiplied by themselves (or powered
            > > by a positive number except one):
            > >
            > > x^2 = x <=>
            > > x^2 - x = 0 <=>
            > > x * (x-1) = 0
            >
            > Well, you can design a 2nd order polynomial for every two numbers,
            > like for 2 and 3:
            >
            > x^2-5x+6=0

            I was referring to numbers who remain the same when multiplied by
            themselves, and therefore x^2 = x.

            > > The whole idea of articles such as this one is that I'm challenging
            > > deterministic logic, claiming that it is inconsistent.
            >
            > I'm sorry but I didn't understand how you prove your claim.

            It's complicated. In short, my claim is that if Godel's
            incompleteness theorem is true, then the theory is not consistent (not
            only incomplete). And Godel's incompleteness theorem is true for any
            deterministic logical theory who is not trivial.
            [http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html%5d

            But it is worth proving in more details. I'll think about it. If you
            want, you can read my view about it in other articles, such as the
            following two:

            http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=20
            http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=22

            I also came to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant,
            and more generally speaking that constants don't exist. I wrote about
            it a few articles:

            http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?cat=3

            > Yes, I meant drugs, but drugs are not the only way to achieve these
            > states. You didn't answer my question about the article having the
            > stream-of-consciousness quality - is that how you created it?

            I read your question again, but I don't understand what you mean by
            "stream of consciousness". Can you explain?

            > What were you in for? Schizophrenia?

            Technically, yes. They call it schizophrenia. But I don't like their
            definitions so much. Let's say I'm different than them, I think
            differently, and I behave differently. I also did things which seem
            illogical to most people, and actually I admit it was a mistake. So
            they decided I'm "sick" and I need "treatment". I don't consider it
            treatment, I consider it punishment for being nonconformist and doing
            "strange" things. I also don't consider myself as sick (not
            physically and not mentally).

            > Again the language issue - if you use your own personal language to
            > describe the world, expect people to misunderstand you. To interact
            > with people you have to share some of their reality, and language
            > plays an important role here (I'm an Israeli living in the US, so I'm
            > painfully aware of that). If you don't share enough of other people's
            > reality, you will be misunderstood. If you don't have enough control
            > over yourself to share in enough of other people's reality, you might
            > find that people will tend to push you away from society.

            I know. But I allow myself to make exceptions once in a while. I
            define my own terms sometimes. If people know me, they will
            understand what I mean when I say google. I don't have to do
            everything like everybody else.

            > Ah! That's much more like it. An article about a single subject
            > following up on the subject from start to end. I liked that one more
            > than the one you wrote your original email about. I've seen this
            > argument before - creating a 1:1 transformation between an idea and a
            > natural number - and my response to that is: Copyright is not about
            > the idea itself. Copyright is about the ability of the author to pick
            > the *right* number out of the infinite pile of numbers and say - this
            > is it. Because, frankly, most of the pile is garbage.

            I know. If you're the first one to discover something and publish it,
            you can be considered sometimes as the one who "invented" it or
            "created" it. Because the chances of two people to publish exactly
            the same book, or melody, is almost zero. That's why our society
            allows copyrights. But to have copyright on a file means having
            copyright on a number. For example, there are prime numbers known as
            "illegal primes".

            Thanks, and I'm glad you liked my article.

            Actually, my articles are written in a logical order. The first one
            is called "The axiom of choice" [http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=1].
            If you read them in the order I wrote them, maybe they will make more
            sense to you. But not all of them are on the same topic, you don't
            have to read all of them if you don't want to. I wrote most of them
            last month (except the first two, which I wrote about two years ago).

            Uri.
          • Arik Baratz
            ... I ll just wait until you formulate a proof. ... Do you mean all constants or physical constants? The speed of light is constant in a particular uniform
            Message 5 of 12 , May 1, 2007
              On 5/1/07, Uri Even-Chen <uri@...> wrote:

              > > > The whole idea of articles such as this one is that I'm challenging
              > > > deterministic logic, claiming that it is inconsistent.
              > >
              > > I'm sorry but I didn't understand how you prove your claim.
              >
              > It's complicated. In short, my claim is that if Godel's
              > incompleteness theorem is true, then the theory is not consistent (not
              > only incomplete). And Godel's incompleteness theorem is true for any
              > deterministic logical theory who is not trivial.
              > [http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html%5d
              >
              > But it is worth proving in more details. I'll think about it. If you
              > want, you can read my view about it in other articles, such as the
              > following two:
              >
              > http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=20
              > http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=22

              I'll just wait until you formulate a proof.

              > I also came to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant,
              > and more generally speaking that constants don't exist. I wrote about
              > it a few articles:
              >
              > http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?cat=3

              Do you mean all constants or physical constants?

              The speed of light is constant in a particular uniform medium. What
              you're claiming in your post is that there can't be a uniform medium,
              it's a different claim.

              > > Yes, I meant drugs, but drugs are not the only way to achieve these
              > > states. You didn't answer my question about the article having the
              > > stream-of-consciousness quality - is that how you created it?
              >
              > I read your question again, but I don't understand what you mean by
              > "stream of consciousness". Can you explain?

              There are states of consciousness where you think random thoughts and
              each thought follows the rest by pure association, for example you may
              think of a stone and then a wall and then of wailing and then of
              ultra-orthodox and then of black coats and then of uniform and then of
              an army and then of wars and then of Iraq and then of Bush and then of
              Anarchists and then of San Francisco. This particular set of objects
              (and I didn't include all of the information about the thoughts
              regarding these objects) was conjured by association from the original
              object, because of the particular associations in my mind and my
              particular makeup. If you managed to link these objects with one
              another it means you have followed my associations. Looking back at
              them I think some of them are rather universal and some are probably
              not easily guessed by anyone.

              My question is - considering the topics you covered in that post -
              were they selected based on associations in your mind?

              > > What were you in for? Schizophrenia?

              > Technically, yes. They call it schizophrenia. But I don't like their
              > definitions so much. Let's say I'm different than them, I think
              > differently, and I behave differently. I also did things which seem
              > illogical to most people, and actually I admit it was a mistake. So
              > they decided I'm "sick" and I need "treatment". I don't consider it
              > treatment, I consider it punishment for being nonconformist and doing
              > "strange" things. I also don't consider myself as sick (not
              > physically and not mentally).

              > I know. But I allow myself to make exceptions once in a while. I
              > define my own terms sometimes. If people know me, they will
              > understand what I mean when I say google. I don't have to do
              > everything like everybody else.

              So, here is my opinion: I don't believe that you are different in the
              way you think. I believe most people think that if people knew what
              goes on in their minds they would think they are mentally ill, but the
              people around them, obviously, think the same thing.

              The behavior part is more difficult to come to term with. Behaving
              differently will, as you have experienced, get you expelled from
              society. Talking about what's in your mind without filtering it to fit
              what people think other people must be thinking is included in such
              behavior.

              My personal, subjective and unsubstantiated opinion is that
              Schizophrenia is the inability to control these behavioral expressions
              to conform to at least some basic shared concept of what's accepted
              (and this concept is shared in a particular society and differs
              between societies).

              Actually it's the second paragraph - the one in which you decide to
              rename googol to google regardless of the mathematical context of the
              discussion, is what prompted me to scroll up to my question "What were
              you in for?" and add "Schizophrenia?" as the guess. In this paragraph
              you demonstrate that regardless of the fact that I don't know you -
              not enough to know about the fact that you use a different word to
              describe the googol or google - you elected to use that word and even
              justify your use.

              > I know. If you're the first one to discover something and publish it,
              > you can be considered sometimes as the one who "invented" it or
              > "created" it. Because the chances of two people to publish exactly
              > the same book, or melody, is almost zero. That's why our society
              > allows copyrights. But to have copyright on a file means having
              > copyright on a number. For example, there are prime numbers known as
              > "illegal primes".

              Again - the copyright is not "on a number" - it's on the work that has
              been performed selecting this number out of the infinity of numbers,
              because unlike most of the numbers in the pile, this one has a meaning
              that is recognizable as having value, at least to the person doing the
              job. I reserve the right to think it's crap, though, but that's
              subjective opinion or critique. Also, I think you'll have to represent
              the number you selected in a different manner (i.e. other than the
              number) because the numbers in their numerical representation are in
              the public domain.

              > Actually, my articles are written in a logical order. The first one
              > is called "The axiom of choice" [http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=1].
              > If you read them in the order I wrote them, maybe they will make more
              > sense to you. But not all of them are on the same topic, you don't
              > have to read all of them if you don't want to. I wrote most of them
              > last month (except the first two, which I wrote about two years ago).

              It will take me a while.

              -- Arik
            • Uri Even-Chen
              Hi Arik, ... All constants, including physical constants, but also mathematical constants. I realized that constants cannot be defined. That s one of the
              Message 6 of 12 , May 2, 2007
                Hi Arik,

                > > I also came to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant,
                > > and more generally speaking that constants don't exist. I wrote about
                > > it a few articles:
                > >
                > > http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?cat=3
                >
                > Do you mean all constants or physical constants?

                All constants, including physical constants, but also mathematical
                constants. I realized that constants cannot be defined. That's one
                of the reasons why I wrote 1=0.

                > The speed of light is constant in a particular uniform medium. What
                > you're claiming in your post is that there can't be a uniform medium,
                > it's a different claim.

                The average speed of light may be constant in a particular uniform
                medium. But the speed of a specific stream of light, such as a
                photon, can never be constant.

                It can only be constant if we define space and time according to the
                speed of light, which I suspect we do. For example, we can define one
                second as "the time is takes light to pass X kilometers". But in
                reality, I think the speed of light is infinite. Light can be at many
                places at the same time. Space and time are illusions, their
                existence is subjective because the way we perceive them, but they
                don't have any objective existence.

                > > > Yes, I meant drugs, but drugs are not the only way to achieve these
                > > > states. You didn't answer my question about the article having the
                > > > stream-of-consciousness quality - is that how you created it?
                > >
                > > I read your question again, but I don't understand what you mean by
                > > "stream of consciousness". Can you explain?
                >
                > There are states of consciousness where you think random thoughts and
                > each thought follows the rest by pure association, for example you may
                > think of a stone and then a wall and then of wailing and then of
                > ultra-orthodox and then of black coats and then of uniform and then of
                > an army and then of wars and then of Iraq and then of Bush and then of
                > Anarchists and then of San Francisco. This particular set of objects
                > (and I didn't include all of the information about the thoughts
                > regarding these objects) was conjured by association from the original
                > object, because of the particular associations in my mind and my
                > particular makeup. If you managed to link these objects with one
                > another it means you have followed my associations. Looking back at
                > them I think some of them are rather universal and some are probably
                > not easily guessed by anyone.
                >
                > My question is - considering the topics you covered in that post -
                > were they selected based on associations in your mind?

                Probably yes. I don't know. I don't completely understand how I
                think. But the topics I covered in that post are also related to
                other posts of mine - I didn't just select topics "out of the blue".

                > > > What were you in for? Schizophrenia?
                >
                > > Technically, yes. They call it schizophrenia. But I don't like their
                > > definitions so much. Let's say I'm different than them, I think
                > > differently, and I behave differently. I also did things which seem
                > > illogical to most people, and actually I admit it was a mistake. So
                > > they decided I'm "sick" and I need "treatment". I don't consider it
                > > treatment, I consider it punishment for being nonconformist and doing
                > > "strange" things. I also don't consider myself as sick (not
                > > physically and not mentally).
                >
                > > I know. But I allow myself to make exceptions once in a while. I
                > > define my own terms sometimes. If people know me, they will
                > > understand what I mean when I say google. I don't have to do
                > > everything like everybody else.
                >
                > So, here is my opinion: I don't believe that you are different in the
                > way you think. I believe most people think that if people knew what
                > goes on in their minds they would think they are mentally ill, but the
                > people around them, obviously, think the same thing.
                >
                > The behavior part is more difficult to come to term with. Behaving
                > differently will, as you have experienced, get you expelled from
                > society. Talking about what's in your mind without filtering it to fit
                > what people think other people must be thinking is included in such
                > behavior.
                >
                > My personal, subjective and unsubstantiated opinion is that
                > Schizophrenia is the inability to control these behavioral expressions
                > to conform to at least some basic shared concept of what's accepted
                > (and this concept is shared in a particular society and differs
                > between societies).
                >
                > Actually it's the second paragraph - the one in which you decide to
                > rename googol to google regardless of the mathematical context of the
                > discussion, is what prompted me to scroll up to my question "What were
                > you in for?" and add "Schizophrenia?" as the guess. In this paragraph
                > you demonstrate that regardless of the fact that I don't know you -
                > not enough to know about the fact that you use a different word to
                > describe the googol or google - you elected to use that word and even
                > justify your use.

                So, respelling googol is an evidence that I have schizophrenia? I
                will not deny it, since I admit both (respelling googol and having
                schizophrenia). Actually, I don't even know how they pronounce
                googol. I checked [http://www.answers.com/googol%5d, and it appears to
                me that there are more than one ways to pronounce googol, and at least
                one of them sounds like Google. If it does sound like Google, I don't
                see any reason to put another o between the g and the l.

                By the way, in the first article I wrote about google, I did explain
                what it is (10^100).

                Anyway, the word schizophrenia is used to specify some stigma
                regarding specific people. There is no objective way to define who
                has schizophrenia and who's not, like there are some ways with real
                diseases (such as cancer or AIDS). Schizophrenia is not a disease,
                it's a stigma. When you have it, you don't feel pain and you don't
                suffer. Therefore, the term "he's suffering from schizophrenia"
                actually means "he's suffering from us diagnosing him with
                schizophrenia". Actually, people diagnosed with schizophrenia do
                suffer emotional pain sometimes, but I believe all of us do.

                My view about schizophrenia is very similar to the view expressed in
                this article:

                Schizophrenia: A Nonexistent Disease
                http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm

                [quote: "The truth is that the label schizophrenia, like the labels
                pornography or mental illness, indicates disapproval of that to which
                the label is applied and nothing more. Like "mental illness" or
                pornography, "schizophrenia" does not exist in the sense that cancer
                and heart disease exist but exists only in the sense that good and bad
                exist. As with all other so-called mental illnesses, a diagnosis of
                "schizophrenia" is a reflection of the speaker's or "diagnostician's"
                values or ideas about how a person "should" be, often coupled with the
                false (or at least unproven) assumption that the disapproved thinking,
                emotions, or behavior results from a biological abnormality.
                Considering the many ways it has been used, it's clear "schizophrenia"
                has no particular meaning other than "I dislike it." Because of this,
                I lose some of my respect for mental health professionals when I hear
                them use the word schizophrenia in a way that indicates they think it
                is a real disease.]

                > Again - the copyright is not "on a number" - it's on the work that has
                > been performed selecting this number out of the infinity of numbers,
                > because unlike most of the numbers in the pile, this one has a meaning
                > that is recognizable as having value, at least to the person doing the
                > job. I reserve the right to think it's crap, though, but that's
                > subjective opinion or critique. Also, I think you'll have to represent
                > the number you selected in a different manner (i.e. other than the
                > number) because the numbers in their numerical representation are in
                > the public domain.

                If the copyright is on a specific file - which is a sequence of bits -
                then it is a number. Even if this file represents a picture (for
                example), in order to see the picture you need a software who is able
                to display pictures from files. The fact is that the file itself is
                not a picture - the picture is just our interpretation of it. The
                file itself is just a sequence of ones and zeros in a specific order.
                But if the picture is copyrighted, the file is copyrighted too, and so
                is the number it represents.

                Uri.
              • Nadav Har'El
                ... And I realized that the notion that constants cannot be defined, cannot be defined. ... Neither do we. This is why writers normally try to think on what
                Message 7 of 12 , May 2, 2007
                  On Wed, May 02, 2007, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero":
                  > I realized that constants cannot be defined.

                  And I realized that the notion that constants cannot be defined, cannot be
                  defined.

                  > Probably yes. I don't know. I don't completely understand how I
                  > think.

                  Neither do we. This is why writers normally try to think on what they're
                  writing, proofread it, and focus on making the essay easy to read and
                  understand by others. Apparently, you forgot all about this, and decided
                  to just go ahead and use your own private terminology, your own logic,
                  your own language, and who cares about the readers.

                  > [quote: "The truth is that the label schizophrenia, like the labels
                  > pornography or mental illness, indicates disapproval of that to which
                  > the label is applied and nothing more.

                  I find this nonsense. Why is, for example, "pornography", a useless label,
                  indicating disapproval and nothing more? Pornography has a very real meaning,
                  which is depictions of sexual situations, through pictures, film, and so on.
                  People who like to watch pornography also call it that (or more usually
                  in the US, "porn"). Most content can easily be classified by everyone as
                  being "porn" or "non-porn" (except, of course, some border cases), and this
                  doesn't mean that you need to disapprove of porn. Any more than anyone can
                  classify a movie as being a "cartoon" or not a cartoon, and it doesn't mean
                  you disapprove of cartoons.

                  Similarly, the symptoms of schizorphrenia can be defined, and people
                  classified whether they show these symptoms or not. It doesn't mean the
                  doctors understand what exactly causes this condition - whether it's some
                  sort of infection, a certain gene, or what, or perhaps there are several
                  different causes. Defining a medical condition, or "illness" or "disease"
                  doesn't make it bad, or people with it outcasts. The "common cold" is a
                  generic name for many types of somewhat similar virus-caused illnesses,
                  and yet when you have the common cold, you can accept that and not say
                  "the common cold doesn't exist" or "it's just a label used to show the
                  speaker's dislike for sneezing people". It doesn't automatically mean that
                  people with this illness should be shuned, jailed, or shot. But there's
                  nothing wrong with using this label.

                  --
                  Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, May 2 2007, 15 Iyyar 5767
                  nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                  Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Ms Piggy's last words: "I'm pink,
                  http://nadav.harel.org.il |therefore I'm ham."
                • Omer Shapira
                  ... Stream of Consciousness, a style of writing in which multiple lines of narrative intersect and form a structure. Joyce (
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 2, 2007
                    On 5/1/07, Uri Even-Chen <uri@...> wrote:

                    Hi Arik,

                    > Yes, I meant drugs, but drugs are not the only way to achieve these
                    > states. You didn't answer my question about the article having the
                    > stream-of-consciousness quality - is that how you created it?

                    I read your question again, but I don't understand what you mean by
                    "stream of consciousness". Can you explain?





                     




                    Stream of Consciousness, a style of writing in which multiple lines of narrative intersect and form a structure. Joyce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce ) is infamous for this style; Meir Shalev uses it sometimes as well.


                    --
                    Sincerely Yours,
                    Omer Shapira
                  • Uri Even-Chen
                    Hi Nadav, ... I would agree to everything you said (almost), but the last remark and who cares about the readers is an insult. Apparently, you forgot all
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 2, 2007
                      Hi Nadav,

                      On 5/2/07, Nadav Har'El <nyh@...> wrote:
                      > > Probably yes. I don't know. I don't completely understand how I
                      > > think.
                      >
                      > Neither do we. This is why writers normally try to think on what they're
                      > writing, proofread it, and focus on making the essay easy to read and
                      > understand by others. Apparently, you forgot all about this, and decided
                      > to just go ahead and use your own private terminology, your own logic,
                      > your own language, and who cares about the readers.

                      I would agree to everything you said (almost), but the last remark
                      "and who cares about the readers" is an insult. Apparently, you
                      forgot all about tact, and decided to just go ahead and use your own
                      criticism, your own disrespect, your own insults, and who cares about
                      your readers who are insulted by you.

                      > > [quote: "The truth is that the label schizophrenia, like the labels
                      > > pornography or mental illness, indicates disapproval of that to which
                      > > the label is applied and nothing more.
                      >
                      > I find this nonsense. Why is, for example, "pornography", a useless label,
                      > indicating disapproval and nothing more? Pornography has a very real meaning,
                      > which is depictions of sexual situations, through pictures, film, and so on.
                      > People who like to watch pornography also call it that (or more usually
                      > in the US, "porn"). Most content can easily be classified by everyone as
                      > being "porn" or "non-porn" (except, of course, some border cases), and this
                      > doesn't mean that you need to disapprove of porn. Any more than anyone can
                      > classify a movie as being a "cartoon" or not a cartoon, and it doesn't mean
                      > you disapprove of cartoons.

                      Not everyone defines pornography the same way. What some people might
                      view as art, others view as pornography. For example, naked people in
                      pictures, movies, theater or in paintings. I don't think everyone
                      agrees whether it is or is not pornography. Is a movie that contains
                      naked people, or half naked people (topless) a pornographic movie? Is
                      a movie that contains sex between men and women, or men and men, or
                      women and women, a pornographic movie? I think it depends whom you're
                      asking. And also, pornography depends on geography. Pornography in
                      Iran is not necessarily the same as pornography in France (just an
                      example).

                      > Similarly, the symptoms of schizorphrenia can be defined, and people
                      > classified whether they show these symptoms or not.

                      I don't think the symptoms of schizophrenia are clearly defined. But
                      you don't have to agree with me. We would probably agree on the fact
                      that we don't agree whether schizophrenia is a real illness or not.

                      Uri.
                    • Nadav Har'El
                      ... This is why I gave the cartoon example. Everyone how to define a 100% cartoon is (e.g., Disney s Bambi ) and a 100% non-cartoon (e.g, the movie Home
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 3, 2007
                        On Wed, May 02, 2007, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero":
                        > > I find this nonsense. Why is, for example, "pornography", a useless label,
                        > > indicating disapproval and nothing more? Pornography has a very real meaning,
                        > > which is depictions of sexual situations, through pictures, film, and so on.
                        > > People who like to watch pornography also call it that (or more usually
                        > > in the US, "porn"). Most content can easily be classified by everyone as
                        > > being "porn" or "non-porn" (except, of course, some border cases), and this
                        > > doesn't mean that you need to disapprove of porn. Any more than anyone can
                        > > classify a movie as being a "cartoon" or not a cartoon, and it doesn't mean
                        > > you disapprove of cartoons.
                        >
                        > Not everyone defines pornography the same way. What some people might
                        > view as art, others view as pornography. For example, naked people in
                        > pictures, movies, theater or in paintings. I don't think everyone
                        > agrees whether it is or is not pornography. Is a movie that contains
                        > naked people, or half naked people (topless) a pornographic movie? Is
                        > a movie that contains sex between men and women, or men and men, or
                        > women and women, a pornographic movie? I think it depends whom you're
                        > asking.

                        This is why I gave the cartoon example. Everyone how to define a 100%
                        cartoon is (e.g., Disney's "Bambi") and a 100% non-cartoon (e.g, the movie
                        "Home Alone"). But what about a movie which is part-cartoon, part-non-
                        cartoon, say, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? What about a movie 99% non-cartoon
                        but with a 1 minute cartoon segment in it? Does it really matter if we
                        can't rigidly call such movies "cartoon" or "non-cartoon"? Does it detract
                        from the validity of using these labels?

                        Similarly, a movie can be 99% family movie, and 1% nude scenes. It's not
                        100% non-porn, it's not 100% porn - it's something in between. Those who
                        for some reason *oppose* porn will not watch such a movie, because they
                        don't want to see even one second of porn. Those who *love* porn will not
                        watch such a movie, because it has too much family stuff and too little of
                        the "good stuff". Again, the fact that for this specific movie is part
                        porn, part non-porn, doesn't mean that porn cannot be defined.

                        > And also, pornography depends on geography. Pornography in
                        > Iran is not necessarily the same as pornography in France (just an
                        > example).

                        You're right that some people define porn different than others. For some,
                        porn includes topless women, or even woman without long sleeves. For others,
                        porn has to include completely naked individuals, and sex scenes. But again,
                        so what? The definition of cartoon is similar. Bambi is obviously a cartoon,
                        but is "Toy Story" (a computer generated movie) called a cartoon? Is a movie
                        made from filming play-dough (plastelina) figures, "a cartoon"? The fact
                        that we can argue about the definition, doesn't mean we can't make one.


                        --
                        Nadav Har'El | Thursday, May 3 2007, 15 Iyyar 5767
                        nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                        Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Experience is what causes a person to
                        http://nadav.harel.org.il |make new mistakes instead of old ones.
                      • Uri Even-Chen
                        Hi Nadav, ... Not everyone would agree with your definition. For some people, such a movie is 100% non-porn. Nudity is not always pornography. It depends
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 3, 2007
                          Hi Nadav,

                          > Similarly, a movie can be 99% family movie, and 1% nude scenes. It's not
                          > 100% non-porn, it's not 100% porn - it's something in between.

                          Not everyone would agree with your definition. For some people, such
                          a movie is 100% non-porn. Nudity is not always pornography. It
                          depends whom you're asking.

                          > You're right that some people define porn different than others. For some,
                          > porn includes topless women, or even woman without long sleeves. For others,
                          > porn has to include completely naked individuals, and sex scenes. But again,
                          > so what? The definition of cartoon is similar. Bambi is obviously a cartoon,
                          > but is "Toy Story" (a computer generated movie) called a cartoon? Is a movie
                          > made from filming play-dough (plastelina) figures, "a cartoon"? The fact
                          > that we can argue about the definition, doesn't mean we can't make one.

                          If each of us can make his own definition, then who says one
                          definition is better than others? You can define schizophrenia
                          however you want to define it, and I can define it however I want to
                          define it or not define it at all. If psychiatry professor Thomas
                          Szasz says "There is, in short, no such thing as schizophrenia"
                          [http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm%5d, who says your definition
                          is better than his? If you agree that there is no objective
                          definition to schizophrenia, so what's wrong with not defining it at
                          all? It's like defining who's pretty and who's not, who's morally
                          good and who's morally bad. There is and will never be any consensus.
                          Of course you can define it, for example some people might be
                          considered ugly by you. But would you agree that your state will
                          define who's ugly, and label those people as ugly people for the rest
                          of their lives? That's what they do when labeling people as mentally
                          ill or schizophrenics. The label is written and saved for the rest of
                          their lives.

                          There are many articles on www.antipsychiatry.org (and other websites)
                          who deal with this issue. For example:

                          Psychiatric Stigma Follows You Everywhere You Go for the Rest of Your Life
                          http://www.antipsychiatry.org/stigma.htm

                          I would recommend to read an entire article before labeling it "nonsense".

                          By the way, that's what they do to prisoners too, by labeling them as
                          "immoral people" for the rest of their lives. But I know very moral
                          people who were in prison. For example, Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson
                          Mandela, Abie Nathan and Tali Fahima, to name just a few. Of course,
                          you might not agree with me about specific people. But I hope you
                          don't think that ANY person who was in prison is immoral.

                          Uri.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.