The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The last, for me, is the most misunderstood. Using the standard analogy, to get a computer to "do" something the requirements are usually given as:
The hardware comprises more than physical objects, e.g., microcode. The software depends on programming language, compilers, & etc. as well as the exact hardware environment since part of that is user defined, e.g., which port the printer is hooked up to. Once the program is running how it affects the system depends on how the user uses the program, e.g. computer viruses.
And, of course, to make things even more fun the hardware is constantly changing in and from subtle to gross ways. The software ditto, the hardware plus software ditto, and the current running program can self-modify.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
I am happy enough if they would recall a little the basic sociological aspects of the pshychology-effect in the pattern of learning which modifies the physical driving. Not that most of the people there understand any of it.. most of them fear a computer if it does not use Exce or the statistics universal program (not named here to avoid a publicity stunt).
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
In a sense the hardware, software analogy is only true at the extremes, that is, basic brain architecture is hardware, and basic structural mythology is software..
I'm not sure what you mean by "structural mythology." Could you please point me to a definition?
Sapolsky at Stanford seems to get "the basic sociological aspects of the psychology-effect in the pattern of learning which modifies the physical driving." He's been studying the Forest Troop and has come-up with some interesting findings.
...but the living reality, as you say, is the messy middle when everything modifies everything.
This reminds me of the John Nash response when someone asked him, after his paranoid schizophrenia was overcome, why a man who had accomplished so much intellectually got to a point where he thought "there was an organization chasing him, in which all men wore red ties." [From the link] His response was, "That idea came to me in the same way as my previous ideas."
Heh. Indeed they do. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Regarding structural mythologies, most antrhopologists just call them myths we live by.. but I do not like to use the word myth in non-scientific enviros given the wrong connotation it has.
A more proper name are structural narratives... I did a diary once.. oh my God I found it.. and it was more than a year ago...
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/8/27/103113/865
there are no links in the diary.. but any symbolic anthropology textbook is full of examples.
most antrhopologists just call them myths we live by.. but I do not like to use the word myth in non-scientific enviros given the wrong connotation it has
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 7 1 comment
by Oui - Feb 4 34 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 63 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Oui - Feb 7
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 71 comment
by Oui - Feb 434 comments
by Oui - Feb 314 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 2111 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2735 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2563 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments