New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

cantabb - 11:46am Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14290 of 14292)

rshow55 - 05:00am Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14285 of 14287)

The connection to Shakespeare works well in another way. Shakespeare was a great human being - he produced a great corpus …… Now, the corpus of this thread is not distinguished in the ways Shakespeare's is - but it does have a serious purpose - and its word count is now several times greater than Shakespeare's (the thread text is now somewhere over 8 million words - and links to billions of words pretty directly. ) Enough so that it could be subjected to every kind of text analysis (including statistics) that is used on Shakespeare's text.

Wow. “Self-aggrandising” ? [Not so, says fredmoore]

I imagine, the checkout counter rags of a few months may also amount to a word count “several times greater than Shakespeare" and you combined. SO ?

Do you at least know what kind of “text analysis (including statistics)” are you talking about ? Text analysis for: Relevance, logic, facts, self referencing links, focus ? Or just the “word count”?

For myself - I think that analysis would be worth it - and would remain worth it if every single one of my posts were excluded from the analysis - unless someone involved in the analysis wanted to make an exception. The NYT - if it wished to - could make a very few phone calls - and this funding would happen - from conventional foundation sources.

NOT difficult to imagine. ANY “analysis” for relevance/logic/facts is going to be much different than those on self-references and “word count.” RIGHT ?

You want NYT to make a few phone calls to have this “analysis” done ? Is this ALL for some “funding” you looking for ? From “conventional foundation sources” ? Why don’t you APPLY directly to them for grants/contracts/whatever – the way it’s ‘conventionally’ done ?

I think the analysis would be worth it because negotiation and peacemaking are major problems before us - and so is the process by which human being make sense of their world - and of each other - when they do make sense.

Be sure to include that in your grant proposal, and good luck.

[Hint: They might want to know WHAT specific things you will do or have done and how, with at least a fain idea of some logical possiblility of your achieving the specified objectives in reasonable time (Grant period). The same questions you’ve been avoiding here so strenuously .

cantabb - 11:49am Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14291 of 14292)

rshow55 - 05:02am Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14286 of 14287)

This passage is from Fundamental Neuroanatomy by Walle J. H. Nauta and Michael Feirtag . . …. The passage is the last paragraph of Nauta and Feirtag's Chapter 2 - The Neuron; Some Numbers "One last conclusion remains to be drawn from the numbers we have cited……… it comes to represent the very complexity one must face when one tries to comprehend the nervous system.

So I assume, you (a self-described math "maven") understand the biology you’ve cited in relation to your own work.

To understand workable human logic at all - to "connect the dots" - and do so well - and form workable judgements - we must face the need to "go around in loops" with a lot of different kinds of crosschecking. To say "no fair doing self reference" is like saying "no fair for a neuron to connect to anything but and input or an output neuron." It doesn't work that way, and can't.

You can’t have logic without relevant “facts” [“dots”] and you can’t do any statistics without data/facts, "the dots" properly “checked” out for accuracy and relevance. Otherwise your “loop tests” won’t be much different from chasing your own tail, "endlessly." Worse, if your facts are already blended with fiction and personal opinions, or can not even “connect” the “dots” of facts/fiction.

We can find out how this organization works - as it connects to the language we actually use - the thinking we're conscious of (and unconscious of ) - or approach that understanding more closely.

So, you want to find out how WHICH “organization works” ? Neuron to human logic; or biological basis of decision-making process and “the language” used? Or, how the decisions are made in relation to MD ?, or what ?

Forget the biological part, but can you tell us anything now or after “analysis” and “ statistics” and “connecting the dots” IF this fact/fiction mixture is supposed to get you closer to the MD Science and related issues ?

That's happening - and happening on this thread.

Is THIS what you think you are working on ? Or is just hat you think has been “happening on this thread” ? NO wonder !

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense