Scratchpad

He Said, She Said

(, , , , , — )

18 Feb. 2008

I've been doing a little research project recently on the origin of a particular quotation, and I've found that most sources out there are maddeningly terrible for this particular effort. I mean, truly, truly maddening. In my crankier moments, I ask myself how we as humans can expect to solve any of our problems if we can't even remember our own history. Theoretically easy history. Like who said what when. In my more charitable moments I remind myself that identifying the reality of a situation is actually damn hard, even if it doesn't make it any less frustrating. Sigh.

To take an example, I came across an unrelated quote today and Googled it out of curiosity. I ended up with the following ridiculous hodgepodge of crap attributions:

Think wrongly, if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.
- Doris Lessing
- Just Lessing , not Doris (and another, from 1886)
- Louisa May Alcott
- La Bruyère
- Charles Seymour
- Dorris Tessing (yes, I'm serious)
- Jean Toomer

Doris Lessing is the most popular choice, but the quote was attributed to la Bruyère in a publication printed before Doris Lessing was even born. That, of course, doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the la Bruyère attribution - around the same time period, the quote was attributed to a Lessing, just not the Lessing. Basically, in this entire list, the only three possibilities that fit the time frame of the earliest quote I found are "Lessing," Alcott, and la Bruyère. "Lessing" could apply to Gotthold Lessing, Karl Lessing, or Otto Lessing, but I'm putting my money on Gotthold, based on the subject of most of his work. In an irony of ironies, the quote is attributed to Doris in a book right next to other quotes attributed to Gotthold.

And people ask why I question everything. An apt quote, indeed.

All Recent Thoughts on AI, Translation, Flexibility, Truth, Understanding

(, , , , , , , , , , — )

31 Aug. 2007

Agh, 50 things going on in mind at once, don't want to lose them. Sorry for incomprehensible shorthand:

Boundary objects & boundary spanners as tools for Understanding. Acts of Translation. Data v. information, meaning & importance & relevance v. facts.

Why are we so stuck on "truth" anyway? Notion of truth. Useful or not so much? Conversation at UChi, re permanence of truth, & Chang's Inventing Temperature - is a more reasonable and useful (and attainable) goal progress instead of truth? How is progress related to learning, understanding, or knowledge?

Flaws in western logical system.

Above ties in with other thoughts on why current AI will never work, see Picard, Affective Computing, but expand beyond merely being emotional to being flexible - computers, and humans, can't learn if they can't make free associations on existing/growing knowledge base, and if one can't learn, one can't be intelligent...learning also requires ability to make mistakes and be creative, and creativity requires ability to resolve (accept) contradiction

Above all, flexibility in understanding. Creativity, adaptability. Lose rigidity. Allow to be wrong, change mind, make new connections.

Rigidity result of lack of play. "Speaking of faith" NPR week of August 27.