Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 36, No. 41.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: Dr. Herbert Wender <drwender@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.38: in the dark (7)
[2] From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.38: in the dark (127)
[3] From: Manfred Thaller <manfred.thaller@uni-koeln.de>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.38: in the dark (57)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-05-29 20:47:26+00:00
From: Dr. Herbert Wender <drwender@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.38: in the dark
Paul,
you wrote: "by learning how to use a menu based system, the user’s mental model
of ‘tree’ is developed."
The 'menu' part in the expression 'menu based system' points to a tradition much
older than electronic technologies. I remember f.e. the conten list in Hegel's
Phenomenology as a flattened tree - isn't it? Your example seems to be not
really helpful.Regards, Herbert
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-05-29 17:55:20+00:00
From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.38: in the dark
I completely agree with you, Paul, and thank you for the response. I think
we should always remember that humans create and program the machines that
potentially change our cognition, and that your "tree" example works both
ways: terms like tree, file, folder, net(work), etc., all refer to material
objects or relationships among material objects that existed prior to
computing. Sequential logic, mathematics, and grouping systems all existed
prior to computing, and those in turn exist as human languages used to
describe naturally occurring phenomena.
So I think we have to be careful about claiming that computing produces
"changes" in human cognition -- we'd have to carefully look to see if no
true analog existed prior to computing. I believe those changes exist, but
I don't believe that everything claimed to be an example of such a change
actually is so. I think the biggest changes in human cognition due to
computing might occur from the time we spend staring into a light emitting
screen to do work.
Jim R
>
> --[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: 2022-05-28 13:29:25+00:00
> From: Fishwick, Paul <Paul.Fishwick@utdallas.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.36: in the dark
>
> Jim
>
> ‘Machines use us’ might be a bit provocative. To use any technology, one
> must
> acquire and continually adjust one or more mental models. Upon examination,
> these mental models when elicited are precursors or proxies for formalism
> in
> computer science (for computing technology). For instance by learning how
> to use
> a menu based system, the user’s mental model of ‘tree’ is developed. We
> cannot
> use tech without our cognition changing. We learn computer science when
> this
> technology is used. There is no such thing as ‘only a tool’.
>
> -paul
>
>
> <https://atec.utdallas.edu/content/fishwick-paul/>Paul Fishwick, PhD
> Distinguished University Chair of Arts, Technology, and Emerging
> Communication
> Professor of Computer Science
> Director, Creative Automata Laboratory
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> Arts & Technology
> 800 West Campbell Road, AT10
> Richardson, TX 75080-3021
> Home: https://atec.utdallas.edu/content/fishwick-paul/
> Media: medium.com/@metaphorz
> Modeling: digest.sigsim.org
> Twitter: @PaulFishwick
> ONLINE: Webex,Collaborate, TEAMS, Zoom, Skype, Hangout
>
>
>
> --[4]------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: 2022-05-28 06:57:50+00:00
> From: Manfred Thaller <manfred.thaller@uni-koeln.de>
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.36: in the dark
>
> Dear Jerry,
>
> absolutes have a tendency to defeat themselves. In the sense they are
> either not achievable, or turn into something else. For this "else" we
> need in my opinion not to raise the spectre of Faust. Any nitpicker who
> developed into the world's leading specialist for the first fifteen
> minutes of the thirty years' war will suffice, even if they produce a
> burlesque and not a tragedy. Reality has a way to temper your big designs.
>
> But reality having such a way, getting control over the research process
> to the greatest degree, which you can have in the real world - for me
> under the heading "no hidden assumptions" - does not create the dangers
> you project.
>
> I do not see the attempt to control your model building as closely as
> humanly possible as dangerous. (Always this nagging little "possible".)
> The physics person I quote at the beginning of my posting yesterday, HAD
> at some stage given up to control what he was not able to control any
> longer, the ferrit-cores, e.g.
>
> > One wants control in the first place to set a
> > procedural monitor on what you’re doing, but in the end – perhaps more
> > crucially given the larger framework of scholarly/scientific work -- to
> > bring clarity to the unforeseeable limits of what you are doing.
> Yes, here I totally agree.
>
> > And then I’d want to add: I don’t think computation
> > provides more potential (etc) than any other artful (call it
> > “engineering”) process.
> If your artful process contains a complete explication of all
> assumptions and hypotheses I agree; but find my self a bit bewildered,
> which engineering process outside of computation you would employ?
>
> ###########################################
>
> I am not a literary scholar, so just out of curiosity, and happy to be
> told wrong:
>
> Has Goethe really written Faust II ins response to Manfred? - A radical
> deviation from the struggles of the human focusing on their behavior to
> other individual humans, towards a human in interchange with all of
> society.
> Manfred, much like the Urfaust, is the story of a unmitigated
> catastrophy, one of the last lines being Mephiostopheles "Sie ist
> gerichtet" (She has been judged). In the final version of Faust I after
> the line from heaven a voice proclaims "Sie ist gerichtet" (She has been
> saved). Which in my non-literary mind always has been an extraordinarily
> radical change. And certainly one which removed much of the mordancy.
> (Together with a few internal lines between Urfaust and Faust I.)
>
> I reread Manfred yesterday, but do you really claim, that the
> macrocosmic Faust II, as opposed to the microcosmic Faust I answers Byron?
>
> Kind regards,
> Manfred
--
Dr. James Rovira <http://www.jamesrovira.com/>
Bright Futures Educational Consulting
<http://www.brightfuturesedconsulting.com>
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-05-29 08:52:58+00:00
From: Manfred Thaller <manfred.thaller@uni-koeln.de>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.38: in the dark
Dear Liz,
> We shouldn't put computation and non-formalized research process as opposing
> methods. Computation IMHO is the formalization of research process.
well, I am not a Chomskyan. But I have the feeling that many Chomskyans
would consider their type of grammar as something which is always
formalized, but only occasionally recruited for computation.
But I do not completely understand your argument, that you should not
oppose computation and non-formalized research process. If computation
IS the formalization of a research process, there must have been a
presumably non-formal research process before formalization?
> I would suggest that computation provides the ability to see patterning
(amongst
> other things). Computation provides a manner of replication and recognition
and
> enumeration of patterns as, and within research process.
Absolutely on your side!
What I wanted to emphasize under "control" are things like the
possibility to communicate complete lists of the assumptions underlying
the computation. While in at least certain understandings of
hermeneutics the underlying the "understanding" are hidden and therefore
not communicable.
Best,
Manfred
Am 29.05.22 um 06:43 schrieb Humanist:
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: 2022-05-28 18:38:41+00:00
> From: Liz Walter<eawalter1@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [Humanist] 36.36: in the dark
>
> "For me computation provides a much higher potential degree of control than
any
> non-formalized research process."
>
> We shouldn't put computation and non-formalized research process as opposing
> methods. Computation IMHO is the formalization of research process.
>
> I would suggest that computation provides the ability to see patterning
(amongst
> other things). Computation provides a manner of replication and recognition
and
> enumeration of patterns as, and within research process.
>
> Elizabeth Walter
> Tucson, AZ
--
Prof.em.Dr. Manfred Thaller
formerly University at Cologne /
zuletzt Universität zu Köln
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
