Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!nsj
From: nsj@Apple.COM (Neal Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: emergent properties
Keywords: Sparseness_Theory
Message-ID: <45348@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 3 Oct 90 22:54:54 GMT
References: <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct3.183522.17076@riacs.edu> <3549@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 26

In article <3549@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>
>
>In 1990Oct3.183522.17076@riacs.edu, Douglas G. Danforth writes
>
> > Every once in a while we reremember that the blue of the sky is
>truely amazing and not just a consequence of Rayleigh scattering, or that
>the tug of gravity is just as mysterious whether or not affine connections
>play a role.
>
>I don't agree with that.  I don't find the blue sky truly amazing.  I
>do find that it sometimes activates some primitive emotions that I
>don't understand -- and have trained myself to regard this as more
>annoying than amazing.  This leads me to do more experiments and try
>to refine existing theories.
>

_Primitive emotions_? Why "primitive"? Why "annoying"? Why do I find
this response leading to a point of view that is ultimately de-humanizing
since awe, mystery, and the aesthetic experience are human? Why do I feel
that you must live in a pretty barren world full of theories and
intellectualizations but no beauty? What is wrong with being awed by a
blue sky? Why must you reduce it to a better theory? Is it because
beauty can't be quantified, that mystery can't be explained? Are we
just supposed to ignore these things "untouchable" by the scientific
method? What is to be gained by this reductionism?