tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post4749963799580262988..comments2023-06-05T17:22:51.822+02:00Comments on The Oil Crash: El cénit tecnológicoAMThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04625371697066545381noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-80975422416408457902013-05-05T06:01:15.644+02:002013-05-05T06:01:15.644+02:00Un tema relacionado con el cénit tecnológico es el...Un tema relacionado con el cénit tecnológico es el siguiente artículo. La tecnología avasalla a la humanidad en vez de liberarla.<br /><br />"Según un equipo de científicos del Instituto para el Futuro de la Humanidad (IFH) en la Universidad de Oxford, la causa más probable de la futura desaparición de la raza humana será nuestra creciente dependencia de la tecnología."<br /><br />Texto completo en: http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/93583-tecnologia-humanidad-apocalipsis<br /><br /><br />Un cordial saludoJuan Carlosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-59643179665581969172013-05-02T12:29:42.410+02:002013-05-02T12:29:42.410+02:00Esa curva parece poner de manifiesto que la Ley d...Esa curva parece poner de manifiesto que la Ley de Rendimientos Decrecientes, también se aplica a la innovación tecnológica. Es como si el impulso de creatividad que supuso la aplicación de los principios de la ilustración al mundo de la Ciencia y de la Técnica y que tuvo como conseciencia la revolución industrial se estuviese desvaneciendo.<br /><br />Un sentimiento parecido aparece reflejado en la novela "Yo Claudio" con respecto a la técnica romana del siglo I. <br /><br />El famoso historiador Arnold Toynbee sostenía que la causa de la decadencia de las civilizaciones era la perdida de creatividad de sus minorías dirigentes, eso me lleva a pensar que esa pérdida de creatividad puede terminar manifestándose en el estancamiento de la técnica. Anselmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09913249312389380508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-54291734586805230882013-04-27T09:59:45.106+02:002013-04-27T09:59:45.106+02:00Georgia O’Keefe: “Hace mucho tiempo que llegué a l...Georgia O’Keefe: “Hace mucho tiempo que llegué a la conclusión de que, aunque pudiera expresar con precisión lo que veía y disfrutaba, jamás podría trasmitir al observador el sentimiento que experimentaba. No debía, pues, centrarme en hacer una copia, sino en crear el equivalente de lo que sentía”.FernandoMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316300355178085664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-8546222575288220382013-04-24T14:56:24.408+02:002013-04-24T14:56:24.408+02:00Hola. Me gustaría que comentaras esta noticia:
htt...Hola. Me gustaría que comentaras esta noticia:<br />http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/ibm-solar-collector-magnifies-sun-2000x-without-cooking-itself.html<br /><br />La verdad es que soy de los que piensan que las renovables no han hecho más que empezar. Si caer en ningún optimismo, lo cierto es que no me hace ninguna gracia que volvamos a vivir como en el siglo XVIII en comunidades campesinas. ¿Crees que noticias como estas podrían impedir que la economía caiga en picado en las próximas décadas?<br />Gracias.Wink55https://www.blogger.com/profile/00727418244947516052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-84028152376035025222013-04-24T11:04:45.506+02:002013-04-24T11:04:45.506+02:00Hola Rubik y demás de este hilo...
Que buen disfr...Hola Rubik y demás de este hilo...<br /><br />Que buen disfrute del comentariado...<br />Yo flipe bastante con un libro que por si no conocéis paso a recomendar:<br />Sobre Godel, Escher y Bach.<br />"Un eterno y gracil bucle" de Douglas Hofstadter,<br />Leí la edición de tusquets colección metatemas nº14 <br />Al menos echarle un vistazo al artículo de wikipedia.<br /><br />http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach:_un_Eterno_y_Gr%C3%A1cil_Bucle<br /><br />PARA MI UN ANTES Y UN DESPUÉS.<br /><br />Un abrazo.Ramón.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-65958813927160849272013-04-24T08:38:08.655+02:002013-04-24T08:38:08.655+02:00Me uno a las felicitaciones, memorable, lástima qu...Me uno a las felicitaciones, memorable, lástima que no quieras abrir tu propio blog.<br />Incluso las referencias borbónicas están tan bien traídas esta vez que suben la calidad "humana" del texto.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-76136134964939329182013-04-24T01:45:33.898+02:002013-04-24T01:45:33.898+02:00Para el registro (ya estamos con tema nuevo y casi...Para el registro (ya estamos con tema nuevo y casi nadie pasará por aquí), quiero decir que lo que ha escrito Rubik con fecha 21 de Abril es propio de un genio. Ojalá pases por el tema nuevamente y puedas leerlo (está un poco más arriba).<br /><br />Es uno de esos textos "GUAU" que aparece de modo muy escaso y cada mucho tiempo en Internet.<br />Dario Ruartenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-8875750495127177602013-04-24T01:42:19.323+02:002013-04-24T01:42:19.323+02:00Gu-au!
Lo digo de otro modo: G-U-A-U!
Ni sé por ...Gu-au!<br /><br />Lo digo de otro modo: G-U-A-U!<br /><br />Ni sé por donde empezar a felicitarte por este escrito Rubik.<br /><br />Que un tipo se pueda poner a escribir, así, a "mano alzada" en un blog y pueda producir esta maravilla que acabas de insertar es algo que admira, sorprende, deja sin habla.<br /><br />Arruinaría el momento si quisiera opinar al respecto ahora pero, me sentiría mal si no dejara constancia escrita de mi admiración y reconocimiento por lo que acabas de escribir.<br /><br />Felicitaciones.Dario Ruartenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-37240451214405368422013-04-23T22:21:46.979+02:002013-04-23T22:21:46.979+02:00En mi opinion, desearia que la tecnologia este mas...En mi opinion, desearia que la tecnologia este mas aplicada a la salud o a la educación, y no tanto a los prodcutos electronicos. No he escuchado niguna propuestas no siquiera de experiemtnados como <a href="http://www.jacobogordon.com/" rel="nofollow">Jacobo Gordon Levenfeld</a> u otros que tambien son muy reconocidosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-82653948655779714632013-04-23T16:39:24.514+02:002013-04-23T16:39:24.514+02:00El estudio de Huebner es muy interesnte, Ahora que...El estudio de Huebner es muy interesnte, Ahora que han pasado 8 años, ¿sabéis si ha realizado una actualización añadiendo los puntos para el año 2009? sería muy interesante de observar la evolución<br />gracias,<br />Iñigo CPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-46560820699756013962013-04-23T04:16:54.226+02:002013-04-23T04:16:54.226+02:00http://es.gizmodo.com/en-el-futuro-cualquier-plant...http://es.gizmodo.com/en-el-futuro-cualquier-planta-servira-como-alimento-sal-476535826 Quizas, un ejemplo de un descubrimiento util. Un saludo.juliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-4772350891865163732013-04-22T01:15:53.563+02:002013-04-22T01:15:53.563+02:00[viene]
Now if you simply think of this transla...[viene]<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Now if you simply think of this translated into idea-space, you have roughly the right image. Of course, not all implicospheres have the same radius. Some people´s implicospheres tend to have bigger radii than other people´s do, and consequently their implicospheres overlap more. This can be good but it can be overdone. Too much overlap (Figure 12-5b) and all you have is a mush of vaguely associated ideas, and overdone and tasteless mental goulash. Too little overlap (Figure 12-5d) and you have a very thin, watery mind, one with few big surprises (except for the meta-level surprise of having so few surprises).<br /><br />There is, in other words, an optimum amount of overlap for useful creative insight (Figure 12-5c). This is the kind of thing that CANNOT BE TAUGHT, however. It would be like trying to train a gnat to control the size of the spheres it traces out. Of if you prefer, it would be like trying to train an entire swarm of gnats to form spheres of a particular size whenever they cluster around lamps. The problem is, it is already preprogrammed in gnats how much they are attracted by lights, by each other, and so on.<br /><br />In my view, mindpower is a consequence of how implicospheres in idea-space emerge from the statistical predispositions of neurons to fire in response to each other. Such deep statistical patterns of each brain cannot be altered, although of course a few superficial aspects can be altered. You can teach somebody to think applehood whenever they think of mother pie, for instance; but adding any number of specific new associative connections does not have any effect on the underlying statistics of how their neurons work. So in that sense I am gravely doubtful about courses or books that promise to improve your thinking style or capabilities. Sure, you can add new *ideas*, but that´s a far cry from adding pizzazz.<br /><br />The mind´s perceptual and category systems are too much at the "subcognitive" level to be reached via cognitive-level training techniques. If you are old enough to be reading this book, then your deep mental hardware has been in place for many years, and it is what makes your thinking style idiosyncratic and recognizably "you". (if you are not, then what are you doing reading this book? Put it down immediately!) For more on the ideas of subcognition and identity, see Chapters 25 and 26.</i>RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-29461728767883355072013-04-22T01:14:51.084+02:002013-04-22T01:14:51.084+02:00[viene]
Of course, all this cannot happen with a...[viene]<br /><br /><br /><i>Of course, all this cannot happen with a trivial model of concepts. We see it happening all the time in minds, but to make it happen in computers or to locate it physically in brains will require a fleshing-out of what concepts really are. It is fine to talk of "orbits around concepts" as a metaphor, but developing it into a full scientific notion that either can be realized in a computer model or can be located inside a brain is a giant task. This is the task that faces cognitive scientists if they wish to make "concept" a legitimate scientific term. This goal, suggested at the start of this article, could be taken to be the central goal of cognitive science, although such things are often forgotten in the inane hoopla that is surrounding artificial intelligence more and more these days.<br /><br />(...)<br /><br />The concept of the "implicosphere" of an idea -the sphere of variations on it resulting from the twiddling of many knobs a "reasonable" amount- is a difficult one, but it is absolutely central to the meaning of this column. One way of thinking about it is this. Imagine a single gnat attracted by a bright light. It will buzz about, tracing out a three-dimensional random walk centered on that light.<br /><br />If you keep a photographic plate exposed so that you can record its path cumulatively, you will first see a chaotic broken line, but soon the image will get so dense with criss-crossing lines that it will gradually turn into a circular smear of slowly increasing radius. At the outer edges of the smear you might once in a while make out an occasional foray of the lone bug. For a while, the territory covered expands, but eventually this gnat-o-sphere will reach a stable size. Its silhouette, instead of being a sharp-edged circle, will be a blurry circle (see Figure 12-5a) whose approximate radius reveals something about how gnats are attracted by lights.</i><br /><br /><br />[sigue]RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-88864829498910564472013-04-22T01:10:58.779+02:002013-04-22T01:10:58.779+02:00[viene]
Frantic striving to be original will usu...[viene]<br /><br /><br /><i>Frantic striving to be original will usually get you nowhere. Far better to relax and let your perceptual system and your category system work together unconsciously, occasionally coming up with unbidden connections. At that point, you -the lucky owner of the mind in question- can seize the opportunity and follow out the proffered hint. This view of creativity has the conscious mind being quite passive, content to sit back and wait for the unconscious to do its remarkable broodings and brewings.<br /><br />The most reliable kinds of genuine insight come not from vague reminding experiences (...), but from strong analogies in which one experience can be mapped onto another in a highly pleasing way. The tighter the fit, the deeper the insight, generally speaking. When two things can both be seen as instances of one abstract phenomenon, it is a very exciting discovery. Then ideas about either one can be borrowed in thinking about the other, and that sloshing-about of activity may greatly illumine both at once (...)<br />(...)<br /><br />Once you have decidedd to try out a new way of seeing a phenomenon, you can let that view suggest a set of knobs to vary. The act of varying them will lead you down new pathways, generating new images ripe for perception in their own right. This sets up a closed loop:<br /><br />* fresh situations get unconsciously framed in terms of familiar concepts.<br /><br />* those familiar concepts come equipped with standard knobs to twiddle.<br /><br />* twiddling those knobs carries you into fresh new conceptual territory.<br /><br />A visual image that I always find coming back in this context is that of a planet orbiting a star, and whose orbit brings it so close to another star that it gets "captured" and begins orbiting the second star. As it swings around the new star, perhaps it finds itself coming very close to yet another star, and ficklely changes allegiance. And thus it do-si-do´s its way around the universe.<br /><br />The mental analogue of such stellar peregrinations is what the loop above attempts to convey. You can think of concepts as stars, and knob-twiddling as carrying you from one point on an orbit to another point. If you twiddle enough, you may well find yourself deep within the attractive zone of an unexpected but interesting concept and be captured by it. You may thus migrate from concept to concept. In short, knob-twiddling is a device that carries you from one concept to another, taking advantage of their overlapping orbits.</i><br /><br /><br /><br />[sigue]RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-85342360646794774492013-04-22T01:09:08.757+02:002013-04-22T01:09:08.757+02:00[viene]
As must be clear from this, I am not one...[viene]<br /><br /><br /><i>As must be clear from this, I am not one to believe that wholes elude descriptions in terms of their parts. I believe that if we come to understand the "physics of concepts", then perhaps we can derive from it a "chemistry of creativity", just as we can derive the principles of the chemistry of atoms and molecules from those of the physics of quanta and particles. But as I said earlier, it is not just around the corner. Mental bonds will probably turn out to be no less subtle than chemical bonds. Alan Turing´s words of cautious enthusiasm about artificial intelligence remain as apt now as they were in 1950, when he wrote them in concluding his famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence": "We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty that needs to be done".<br />(...)<br /><br />Some readers have objected to the slogan of this column -that making variations on a theme is the crux of creativity. They felt -and quite rightly- that making variations (i.e. twisting knobs) is as easy as falling off a log. So can how genius be that easy? Part of the answer is: For a genius, it *is* easy to be a genius. *Not* being a genius would be excruciatingly hard for a genius. However, this isn´t a completely satisfactory answer for people who pose this objection. They feel that I am unwittingly implying that it is easy for *anybody* to be a genius: after all, a crank can crank a knob as deftly as a genius can. The crux of their objection, then, is that the crux of creativity is not in *twiddling* knobs, but in *spotting* them!<br /><br />Well, that is exactly what I meant by my slogan. Making variations is not just twiddling a knob before you; part of the act is to manufacture the knob yourself. Where does a knob come from? The question amounts to asking: How do you see a *variable* where there is actually a *constant*? More specifically: *What* might vary, and *how* might it vary? It´s not enough to just have the desire to see something different from what is there before you. Often the dullest knobs are a result of someone´s straining to be original, and coming up with something weak and ineffective. So where do good knobs come from? I would say they come from SEEING ONE THING AS SOMETHING ELSE. Once an abstract connection is set up via some sort of *analogy* or *reminding-incident*, then the gate opens wide for ideas to slosh back and forth between the two concepts.<br />(...)<br /><br />Serendipitous observation and quick exploration of potential are vital elements in the making of a knob. What goes hand in hand with the willingness to playfully explore a a serendipitous connection is the willingness to censor or curtail an exploration that seems to be leading nowhere. It is the flip side of the risk-taking aspect of serendipity. It´s fine to be reminded of something, to see an analogy or a vague connection, and it´s fine to try to map one situation or concept onto another in the hopes of making something novel emerge; but you´ve also got to be willing and able to sense when you´ve lost the gamble, and to cut your losses.<br /><br />One of the problems with the ever-popular self-help books on how to be creative is that they all encourage "off-the-wall" thinking (under such slogans as "lateral thinking", "conceptual blockbusting", "getting whacked on the head", etc.) while glossing over the fact that most off-the-wall connections are of very little worth and that one could waste lifetimes just toying with ideas in that way. One needs something much more reliable than a mere suggestion to "think zany, out-of-the-system thoughts".</i><br /><br /><br />[sigue]RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-61944035584263759932013-04-22T01:06:56.892+02:002013-04-22T01:06:56.892+02:00[viene]
My own mental image of the creative proc...[viene]<br /><br /><br /><i>My own mental image of the creative process involves viewing the organization of a mind as consisting of thousands, perhaps millions, of overlapping and intermingling implicospheres, at the center of each of which is a conceptual skeleton. The implicosphere is a flickering, ephemeral thing, a bit like a swarm of gnats around a gas-station light on a hot summer night, perhaps more like an electron cloud, with its quantum-mechanical elusiveness, about a nucleus, blurring out and dying off the further removed from the core it is (Figure 12-5). If you have studied quantum chemistry, you know that the fluid nature of chemical bonds can best be understood as a direct consequence of the curious quantum-mechanical overlap of electronic wave functions in space, wave functions belonging to electrons orbiting neighboring nuclei. In a metaphorically similar way, it seems to me, the crazy and unexpected associations that allow creative insights to pop seemingly out of nowhere may well be consequences of a similar chemistry of concepts with its own special types of "bonds" that emerge out of an underlying "neuron mechanics".<br /><br />Novelist Arthur Koestler has long been a champion of a mystical view of human creativity, advocating occult views of the mind while at the same time eloquently and objectively describing its workings. In his book THE ACT OF CREATION, he presents a theory of creativity whose key concept he calls "bisociation": the simultaneous activation and interaction of two previously unconnected concepts. This view emphasizes the coming-together of *two* concepts, while bypassing discussion of the internal structure of a single concept. In Koestler´s view, something new can happen when two concepts "collide" and fuse, something not present in the concepts themselves. This is in keeping with Koestler´s philosophy that wholes are somehow greater than the sum of their parts.<br /><br />By contrast, I have been emphasizing the idea of the internal structure of *one* concept. In my view, the way that concepts can bond together and form conceptual molecules on all levels of complexity is a consequence of their internal structure. What results form a bond may surprise us, but it will nonetheless always have been completely determined by the concepts involved in the fusion, if only we could understand how they are structured. Thus the crux of the matter is the internal structure of a single concept and how it "reaches out" toward things it is not. The crux is *not* some magical, mysterious process that occurs when two indivisible concepts collide; it is a consequence of the divisibility of concepts into subconceptual elements.</i><br /><br /><br />[sigue]RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-25984052367423701162013-04-22T01:04:21.748+02:002013-04-22T01:04:21.748+02:00[viene]
This is an important idea: the test of w...[viene]<br /><br /><br /><i>This is an important idea: the test of whether a concept has really come into its own, the test of its genuine mental existence, is its retrievability by that process of unconscious recall. That´s what lets you know that it has been firmly planted in the soil of your mind. it is not whether that concept appears to be "atomic", in the sense that you have a single word to express it by. That is far too superficial (...)<br /><br />Both of the cited instances of this conceptual skeleton -in itself nameless, majestically nonverbalizable - are floating about in the implicosphere that surrounds it, along with numerous other examples that I am unaware of, not yet having twiddled enough knobs on that concept. I dont yet even know which knobs it has! But I may eventually find out. The point is that the concept itself has been *reified* -this much is proven by the fact that it acts as a point of immediate reference; that my memory mechanisms are capable of using it as an "address" (a key for retrieval) under the proper circumstances. THE VAST MAJORITY OF CONCEPTS ARE WORDLESS in this way, although we can certainly make stabs at verbalizing them when we need to.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />Early in this column, I stated a thesis: that the crux of creativity resides in the ability to manufacture variations on a theme. I hope now to have sufficiently fleshed out this thesis that you understand the full richness of what I meant when I said "variations of a theme". The notion encompasses knobs, parameters, slippability, counterfactual conditionals, subjunctives, "almost"-situations, implicospheres, conceptual skeletons, mental reification, memory retrieval, ... and more.<br /><br />The question may persist in your mind: Aren´t variations on a theme somehow trivial, compared to the invention of the theme itself? This leads one back to that seductive notion that Einstein and other geniuses are "cut from a different cloth" from ordinary mortals, or at least that certain cognitive acts done by them involve principles that transcend the everyday ones. This is something I do not believe at all. If you look at the history of science, for instance, you will see that every idea is built upon a thousand related ideas. Careful analysis leads one to see that what we choose to call a new theme is itself always some sort of variation, on a deep level, of previous themes. The trick is to be able to see the deeply hidden knobs!<br /><br />Newton said that if he had seen further than others, it was only by standing on the shoulders of giants. Too often, however, we simply indulge in whishful thinking when we imagine that the genesis of a clever or beautiful idea was somehow due to unanalyzable, magical, transcendent insight rather than to any mechanisms, as if all mechanisms by their very nature were necessarily shallow and mundane.</i><br /><br /><br />[sigue]RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-22593970977985444072013-04-22T01:02:09.040+02:002013-04-22T01:02:09.040+02:00CÉNIT de la TECNOLOGÍA o quizá más bien NÁDIR de l...CÉNIT de la TECNOLOGÍA o quizá más bien NÁDIR de la CREATIVIDAD.<br /><br />Sea como fuere, la <b>CAPACIDAD PARA INVENTAR</b> está directamente relacionada con el tema del post. Creo que vienen a cuento unos textos heurísticos del delicioso libro siguiente ...<br /><br /><br /><b>METAMAGICAL THEMAS: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern</b>, by Douglas R. Hofstadter<br /><br /><br />[Las palabras destacadas en MAYÚSCULAS en el texto son mías, a fin de resaltar lo más importante y atraer la atención sobre las ideas clave]<br /><br /><br />Sea:<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Text formatters and computer typesetting present us easily with many alternative versions of a piece of text. Metafont shows us how letterforms can glide into alternative versions of themselves. It is now up to us to continue this trend of extending our abilities to see further into the space of possibilities surrounding what *is*.<br /><br />We should use the power of computers to aid us in seeing the full concept -the implicit "sphere of hypothetical variations"- surrounding any static, frozen perception.<br /><br />I have concocted a playful name for this imaginary sphere: I call it the IMPLICOSPHERE, which stands for "implicit conterfactual sphere", referring to things that never were but that we cannot help seeing anyway. (The word can also be taken as referring to the SPHERE OF IMPLICATIONS surrounding any given idea. A visual representation of an implicosphere is shown in figure 12-5).<br /><br />If we wish to enlist computers as our partners in this venture of inventing variations on a theme, which is to say, turning implicospheres into "explicospheres", we have to give them the ability to spot knobs themselves, not just to accept knobs that we humans have spotted. To do this we will have to look deeply into the nature of "slippability", into the fine-grained structure of those networks of concepts in human minds.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />One way to imagine how slippability might be realized in the mind is to suppose that each new concept begins life as a compound of previous concepts, and that from the slippability of those concepts, it inherits a certain amount of slippability. That is, since any of its constituents can slip in various ways, this induces modes of slippage in the whole. Generally, letting a constituent concept slip in its simplest way is enough, since when more than one of these is done at a time , that can already create many unexpected effects.<br /><br />Gradually, as the space of possibilities of the new concept -the implicosphere- is traced out, the most common and useful of those slippages become more closely and directly associated with the new concept itself, rather than having to be derived over and over from its constituents. This way, The new concept´s implicosphere becomes more and more explicitly explored, and eventually the new concept becomes old and reaches the point where it too can be used as a constituent of fresh new young concepts.<br /><br />(...)<br /><br />By now, the original concept is almost lost in a silly sea of "almost" variations; but it has been enriched by this exploration, and when you come back to it, it will have been that much more *reified* as a stand-alone concept, a single entity rather than a compound entity. After a while, under the proper triggering circumstances, this very example may be retrieved from memory as naturally and effortlessly as the concept of "fish" is.</i><br /><br /><br />[sigue]RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-34428289593460976002013-04-22T00:31:01.335+02:002013-04-22T00:31:01.335+02:00Lo que sigue ya lo escribí en el post sobre EL MIT...Lo que sigue ya lo escribí en el post sobre EL MITO DEL CIENTÍFICO MALVADO, pero viene a colación de nuevo, así que copio-pego desde allí:<br /><br /><br /><b>A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE: REINVENTING PHYSICS FROM THE BOTTOM DOWN</b>, by Robert B. Laughlin<br /><br /><br />pp. 217 - 218<br /><br /><br /><i>(...) So I asked for permission to take the mike temporarily and deliver my version of the answer. Einstein´s ideas, I said, were certainly *right*, and one sees evidence for them every day, but the deeper sense of the question had been not so much whether relativity was right as whether fundamental things mattered and whether there were any more of them left to discover. I explained that I had heard this concern voiced again and again in my travels around the world and had come to recognize it as technological hubris –like the suggestion in 1900 that the patent office should be abolished because everything had already been invented.<br /><br />Just look around you, I said. Even this room is teeming with things we do not understand. Only people whose common sense has been impaired by too much education cannot see it. The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles and the continuing, unfinished task of science, is to unravel them.<br /><br />There was a brief silence after I finished, followed by a rising swell of applause –a fitting dismisal of the antitheory of the death of science. I returned to my table feeling rather good abou this result, a feeling enhanced by Mr. Safire’s subsequent advice that I should write a book.<br /><br />The applause at the ambassador´s dinner was not as miraculous as it might seem, for I have given roughly the same speech all over the world and gotten the same result. The first time it happened was not in America but in Japan. I concluded at the time that it was because Japan was a Buddhist country, but this was incorrect.<br /><br />I repeated the experiment in Amsterdam, and the result was almost identical, right down to the number of hands raised and the specific questions asked. Holland is about as un-Buddhist as one could possibly imagine. Then I tried it in Götteborg, Montreal, and Seoul, and the response was always the same.<br /><br />That there should be interest in physics in many corners of the world was perhaps not so shocking. The real surprise was its uniformity from one country to the next. The world appears to possess an enormous reservoir of thoughtful people from disparate walks of life –business, medicine, government, engineering, agriculture- who love science and understand intuitively that there is much, much more yet to come.</i>RUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-65768819678952330702013-04-21T23:35:44.065+02:002013-04-21T23:35:44.065+02:00Gracias Dario.
No es fácil hacerle entender a Rub...Gracias Dario.<br /><br />No es fácil hacerle entender a Rubik que por mucho que comente igual dice poco. O dice siempre lo mismo pero de forma (o fondo) diferente.<br /><br />Suerte<br />GusGustavo Donosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14263798576521024004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-52228042362108913712013-04-21T22:46:17.111+02:002013-04-21T22:46:17.111+02:00Ahora manda en Korea tu hijo Kim Jong Un, así que ...Ahora manda en Korea tu hijo Kim Jong Un, así que supongo que estás en el Infierno, sitio al que estoy dispuesto a ir pero para MANDAR YO, no para ser asesor de nadie.<br /><br />Estaría dispuesto a "asesorar" a tu hijo aquí en la Tierra siempre y cuando me cediera el control del maletín nuclear, para que yo pudiera escoger objetivos según mi gusto y de acuerdo con mi programa de tiro. Te aseguro que amortizaría las armas rapidito.<br /><br />Por cierto, conocí muchos koreanos (del sur) en China. Hubo comidas colectivas en las que yo era el único no-koreano (me invitaban). Me parecieron una gente formidable, trabajadora y empática. Muy parecidos a los japoneses, a pesar de las desavenencias históricas. Nada que ver en cambio con el españaco promedio.<br /><br />Un saludoRUBIKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-83662046661308133812013-04-21T21:07:18.242+02:002013-04-21T21:07:18.242+02:00Me parece una crítica muy banal la frase "Int...Me parece una crítica muy banal la frase "Internet nos ha traído a todos una mejora en diversión y entretenimiento, pero no está claro cuál es su aporte al ingreso agregado". Y sobretodo hecha desde el gran desconocimiento de la mayoría de la gente sobre Internet (que en su visión más común no dejan de verlo como un "videojuego" o simple entretenimiento).<br /><br />Internet ha sido el mayor avance en comunicación humana desde la imprenta, y la prueba es que el mismo que lo describe únicamente como "mejora en diversión y entretenimiento" tiene la gran suerte de poder dar a conocer su opinión a cientos de personas en todo el mundo con 4 pulsaciones de teclas desde su casa.<br /><br />Como todo, hay quien lo usa también para divertirse. Y no entiendo por qué ello debe verse como algo negativo. Muchos otros grandes avances también se usan así (¿o acaso debemos reservar, por ejemplo, la escritura para los textos científicos y dejar de escribir obras de teatro?).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-89489871091857983892013-04-21T20:32:07.854+02:002013-04-21T20:32:07.854+02:00@Rubik
¿para cuando disfrutaremos en nuestras ca...@Rubik <br /><br />¿para cuando disfrutaremos en nuestras casas los beneficios de la energía de fusión termocontrolada? ¿Crees que al mismo tiempo con toda esa abundante energía se podrán desarrollar tecnologías para solucionar rápidamente (5 años) otros problemas de escala global como el calentamiento global, polución, recuperación de bosques, agotamiento de suelos, agotamiento de bancos de peces y un largo etcétera que aún no tienen respuesta o podremos volar todos a un planeta similar a la Tierra y abandonar este cuando lo vaciemos?<br /><br />De otro lado, agradécele a Gandhi o Mandela que han enseñado otro camino y le han dado otras armas a quienes no las tienen y han permitido aprender que se pueden ganar guerras sin derramar sangre. Si, lastimosamente no se generó ningún campo para la ciencia, patente industrial, teoría, nueva aplicación tecnológica, pero las campañas de Gandhi pusieron en jaque a un imperio y si se hiciese una comparación seguramente fueron más cost-effective que las de cualquier campaña militar<br /><br />SaludosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-81784622026227504212013-04-21T20:22:44.894+02:002013-04-21T20:22:44.894+02:00@RUBIK: ¿no te gustaría ser mi asesor?@RUBIK: ¿no te gustaría ser mi asesor?King jong ilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983167210131421552.post-81053144678705736342013-04-21T19:04:51.791+02:002013-04-21T19:04:51.791+02:00Brillante explicación Rubik.
De todos modos se me...Brillante explicación Rubik.<br /><br />De todos modos se me ocurre que parte del problema -al menos para los yanquis- ha de provenir del golpazo que representó para ellos la decodificación del Genoma Humano.<br /><br />Este proyecto se encaró desde la NSF (National Science Foundation) y venía avanzando a ritmo "burocrático" y con los costes de desarrollo del F-35 (avión carísimo que todavía no vuela decentemente).<br /><br />El hecho de que una empresa privada (Celera Genomics) hiciera el desarrollo con dos monedas y en unos pocos meses cubrió de verguenza a la iniciativa oficial.<br /><br />(el proyecto oficial era de 3000 millones de dólares y 15 años de trabajo, Celera lo hizo en dos años y con 80 millones de dólares)<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />Me parece que desde allí la política ha sido la de ceder los fondos al sector privado.<br /><br />Y, como dicen muchos, no olvides que al "final de un Ciclo", la capacidad de imaginar grandes proyectos y atreverse con ellos disminuye fuertemente. Hay demasiadas manos tirando de fondos escasos.<br /><br />Dario Ruartenoreply@blogger.com