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

Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , May 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 12 , May 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 12 , May 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 12 , May 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 12 , May 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 12 , May 3, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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.