The question shouldn't be whether models influence our thinking as much as how a priori kernel's of thought come to interpret reality. If anyone has read Kant some interesting ideas come up. One is whether we have a priori knowledge of things, whether models are nothing more than an uncovering of our minds inner workings as applied to an external reality. Models are a product of our mind's introspection to an interpretation of facts. We interpret facts through our senses and in order to interpret we must use our brain to give all this information some coherence. Now this is the part which is troublesome because this interpetation of senses is not logically apodictic to what the object is sans all of it properties. In fact we can say that all objects are simply constructs of the mind that we can't know the true reality but we can know how our interpretaion of reality "works". A model would simply be an explicit elucidation(a kind of rational reinterpretaion of an object subject to the logical explaination of its behavior and correlations of how we interpret it to behave) of a mind construct that does have some explaintory and maybe even logical connection to the actual object. We would further elucidate along this path explaining more and more things until our mind construct is overextending and no longer has a connection to reality. We could even outline a general method to properly think about how to rationally reinterpret the object (reductionism), and hope it works for all phenomena. I think models help to guide our thinking but as to become our thought process is another issue. For if a model is a product of a thought process then the model in and of itself cannot be a thought process, this would be have some connection to Godel's theorem in that a formalized system like a model cannot be more complex than the system producing it, and the way we use it as affecting our thinking implies that it somehow is more complex than the system that produced it.
We are quickly coming to the end of our abilities to use centuries old philosophies to modern phenomena. We relate to things via a correspondance to elements of thought. And these elements have evolved via natural selection to macroscopic phenomena and macroscopic physics. Our minds are intrinsically wired to think from a human scale point of view, our intuitive ability to use mind constructs of human scale physical phenomena to phenomena that has elements that our brains have not evolved to as an intrinsic part of our thinking is failing. Note how not one physicst truly understands Quantum theory, note the abstractness of all concepts. Note how we try to understand these concepts via primitive elements of macroscopic thought, and still we don't truly understand. Many a physicst has implicated that string theory is at the limit of our method of understanding. I for one hope it is simply a matter of "method" rather than a true limit to the types of concepts that we can comprehend using primitive physical mind constructs. I for one am working trying to find a method that doesn't rely upon such primitive physical mind constructs but rather on regular mind constructs used on a formalism that is logical in nature, much like the way we transform RF circuits to a laplacian form to much more easily analyze them. All in all we definitly need new approaches, new ideas, new methods, and a new paradigm.
I find your remark to be quite trite and vengeful, first of all EE is not easier than ME i know from experence and from what most professors would judge as tough. EE is difficult you would know if you had any real classes in EE. Unless you happen to be Tim from one of my classes which i doubt you are. And if you haven't had any upper division classes in EE then I suggest you keep your mouth shut unless you want to lose some teeth. Yes conceptually EE is easier than string theory or relativity but the level of detail and taking into account all of the physical variables is where the difficulties come in. Personally I am in EE for the money, I want to eventually become fluent in string theory but i have to do this to have a stable career. one last thing only the ignorant belittle things in which they don't understand or are not interested in...Give the girls some credit they did get it sent up...
Hello since you obviously think "men are always blasting off" I will try to present a viable rebuttal. Taking an evolutionary biological approach, one may see that we are products of a dimorphic split that occured way before the gene frequency of pheonotypic attributes were tied with race, might account for the differing brain structures of men and women, which are of greater difference than that of the respective genders compared across races. The racial differences (if any) are minimal due to the recent(evolutionary wise)distinction into races, so we may leave the minutia to when an adequete theory of AI comes along. Due to the fundemental and very essential differences between men and women the brain structure difference may be pronounced and been seen as an adaptation to differing enviormental pressures. Men, due to the fact that we have had to sustain and create a viable society, in which the safe and viable propogation of offspring is possible, have had the selection mechanism biased towards linear thinking, creating, planning, sustaining, and logic (think about it men usually hunted for food have had to think and plan how to catch prey, when to act, how to use tools to aid in catching prey etc.). Hence men brain's and thinking tend to follow this evolutionary pattern. One might say that due to the low bandwidth and reletivly low processing power of each indvidual linear command the structures might be simpler and slower, but here is the catch, due to the linear, spatial, and logical nature of the commands one could construct a system which is primarly dedicated to the processing and interaction of linear, spatial, and logical events. Since the events are logical the system implements this logic and hence may be able to extrapolate or construct new events according to logic hence men for a long time have exceled in math and science. From a core level. Women on the other hand as the core of societies exsistence where selected by other criteria, women have had to deal with other women in groups or socieites to adequately survive hence women think more of relationships and how things fit together as a whole rather than individual pieces. But due to the fact that taking in large amounts of information and processing as a whole takes not only more bandwidth but more processing power women developed faster processing centers (for this type of logic) but due to the fact that their brain system is optimized for this method of processing but for detailed and logical calculations it might not be optimum. For instance women may see the relationship between things and the logic is implemented to process and extrapolate new events dealing with relationships. Since math and science have elements of relationships but are much more spatial, linear, and logical the relationship logic is not optimum., but this doesn't mean you can't learn math or even be good at it all it means is that all one has to do is present math and science in a relationship based format. Now due to the fact that both men and women now are not under such a strict enviormental pressures much of the criteria has become lax. You as a hardcore feminst may argue that men have outlived there role as defenders, sustainers, and creators of society and hence are not needed but eliminating an entire gender carries grave moral responsibilites. Now that men have constructed a civilization that depends less on muscle and more on brain power, not to mention one that has advanced so far in science and math that both at a core level are nearly complete the extrapolation of technology is simple, women can now fully and functionally become equals with us due to the loosening of the criteria dimorphism is demphasized both the role of the woman as producer and the role of the man as sustainer have become blurry and will mix into one. Artifical womb technology will really rule out women as bearers of children considering one could implement much better conditions in the womb than any woman could provide. We are heading for asexual beings as a second evolutionary step.
Hello everyone i am currently a student at santa clara university, I met some of the girls who worked on the satellite and i know some of the girls working on the new satellite the emerald and let me just tell you one thing, they aren't geeks!!!!!!!!!!! They party like muther fuckers every weekend and they are anything but nerds they are popular, and somewhat intelligent they have lots of help and not to mention a large group. see all of us at SCU have to do a senior design project for EE especially so they happen to pick the satelite project but in class i would rate them as average i know other girls who are much smarter than most of them combined, yet don't get half the recognition these satellite chicks get.
Slashdot Mirror
The question shouldn't be whether models influence our thinking as much as how a priori kernel's of thought come to interpret reality. If anyone has read Kant some interesting ideas come up. One is whether we have a priori knowledge of things, whether models are nothing more than an uncovering of our minds inner workings as applied to an external reality. Models are a product of our mind's introspection to an interpretation of facts. We interpret facts through our senses and in order to interpret we must use our brain to give all this information some coherence. Now this is the part which is troublesome because this interpetation of senses is not logically apodictic to what the object is sans all of it properties. In fact we can say that all objects are simply constructs of the mind that we can't know the true reality but we can know how our interpretaion of reality "works". A model would simply be an explicit elucidation(a kind of rational reinterpretaion of an object subject to the logical explaination of its behavior and correlations of how we interpret it to behave) of a mind construct that does have some explaintory and maybe even logical connection to the actual object. We would further elucidate along this path explaining more and more things until our mind construct is overextending and no longer has a connection to reality. We could even outline a general method to properly think about how to rationally reinterpret the object (reductionism), and hope it works for all phenomena. I think models help to guide our thinking but as to become our thought process is another issue. For if a model is a product of a thought process then the model in and of itself cannot be a thought process, this would be have some connection to Godel's theorem in that a formalized system like a model cannot be more complex than the system producing it, and the way we use it as affecting our thinking implies that it somehow is more complex than the system that produced it. We are quickly coming to the end of our abilities to use centuries old philosophies to modern phenomena. We relate to things via a correspondance to elements of thought. And these elements have evolved via natural selection to macroscopic phenomena and macroscopic physics. Our minds are intrinsically wired to think from a human scale point of view, our intuitive ability to use mind constructs of human scale physical phenomena to phenomena that has elements that our brains have not evolved to as an intrinsic part of our thinking is failing. Note how not one physicst truly understands Quantum theory, note the abstractness of all concepts. Note how we try to understand these concepts via primitive elements of macroscopic thought, and still we don't truly understand. Many a physicst has implicated that string theory is at the limit of our method of understanding. I for one hope it is simply a matter of "method" rather than a true limit to the types of concepts that we can comprehend using primitive physical mind constructs. I for one am working trying to find a method that doesn't rely upon such primitive physical mind constructs but rather on regular mind constructs used on a formalism that is logical in nature, much like the way we transform RF circuits to a laplacian form to much more easily analyze them. All in all we definitly need new approaches, new ideas, new methods, and a new paradigm.
I find your remark to be quite trite and vengeful, first of all EE is not easier than ME i know from experence and from what most professors would judge as tough. EE is difficult you would know if you had any real classes in EE. Unless you happen to be Tim from one of my classes which i doubt you are. And if you haven't had any upper division classes in EE then I suggest you keep your mouth shut unless you want to lose some teeth. Yes conceptually EE is easier than string theory or relativity but the level of detail and taking into account all of the physical variables is where the difficulties come in. Personally I am in EE for the money, I want to eventually become fluent in string theory but i have to do this to have a stable career. one last thing only the ignorant belittle things in which they don't understand or are not interested in...Give the girls some credit they did get it sent up...
Hello since you obviously think "men are always blasting off" I will try to present a viable rebuttal. Taking an evolutionary biological approach, one may see that we are products of a dimorphic split that occured way before the gene frequency of pheonotypic attributes were tied with race, might account for the differing brain structures of men and women, which are of greater difference than that of the respective genders compared across races. The racial differences (if any) are minimal due to the recent(evolutionary wise)distinction into races, so we may leave the minutia to when an adequete theory of AI comes along. Due to the fundemental and very essential differences between men and women the brain structure difference may be pronounced and been seen as an adaptation to differing enviormental pressures. Men, due to the fact that we have had to sustain and create a viable society, in which the safe and viable propogation of offspring is possible, have had the selection mechanism biased towards linear thinking, creating, planning, sustaining, and logic (think about it men usually hunted for food have had to think and plan how to catch prey, when to act, how to use tools to aid in catching prey etc.). Hence men brain's and thinking tend to follow this evolutionary pattern. One might say that due to the low bandwidth and reletivly low processing power of each indvidual linear command the structures might be simpler and slower, but here is the catch, due to the linear, spatial, and logical nature of the commands one could construct a system which is primarly dedicated to the processing and interaction of linear, spatial, and logical events. Since the events are logical the system implements this logic and hence may be able to extrapolate or construct new events according to logic hence men for a long time have exceled in math and science. From a core level. Women on the other hand as the core of societies exsistence where selected by other criteria, women have had to deal with other women in groups or socieites to adequately survive hence women think more of relationships and how things fit together as a whole rather than individual pieces. But due to the fact that taking in large amounts of information and processing as a whole takes not only more bandwidth but more processing power women developed faster processing centers (for this type of logic) but due to the fact that their brain system is optimized for this method of processing but for detailed and logical calculations it might not be optimum. For instance women may see the relationship between things and the logic is implemented to process and extrapolate new events dealing with relationships. Since math and science have elements of relationships but are much more spatial, linear, and logical the relationship logic is not optimum., but this doesn't mean you can't learn math or even be good at it all it means is that all one has to do is present math and science in a relationship based format. Now due to the fact that both men and women now are not under such a strict enviormental pressures much of the criteria has become lax. You as a hardcore feminst may argue that men have outlived there role as defenders, sustainers, and creators of society and hence are not needed but eliminating an entire gender carries grave moral responsibilites. Now that men have constructed a civilization that depends less on muscle and more on brain power, not to mention one that has advanced so far in science and math that both at a core level are nearly complete the extrapolation of technology is simple, women can now fully and functionally become equals with us due to the loosening of the criteria dimorphism is demphasized both the role of the woman as producer and the role of the man as sustainer have become blurry and will mix into one. Artifical womb technology will really rule out women as bearers of children considering one could implement much better conditions in the womb than any woman could provide. We are heading for asexual beings as a second evolutionary step.
Hello everyone i am currently a student at santa clara university, I met some of the girls who worked on the satellite and i know some of the girls working on the new satellite the emerald and let me just tell you one thing, they aren't geeks!!!!!!!!!!! They party like muther fuckers every weekend and they are anything but nerds they are popular, and somewhat intelligent they have lots of help and not to mention a large group. see all of us at SCU have to do a senior design project for EE especially so they happen to pick the satelite project but in class i would rate them as average i know other girls who are much smarter than most of them combined, yet don't get half the recognition these satellite chicks get.