First, an observation... on a rather unique topic. Most restroomshave three urinals. I'm not sure why, it just seems to be a commonsize -- easily reached, not often surpassed, regardless of trafficof the establishment. When all are free, most males, I'vefound, including myself, have a natural tendency towards the middleone. I wonder if this is some kind of territory-claiming instinct..However, in sufficiently trafficed restrooms, there is often one personon the side, and typically males will then choose the most distanturinal from that one. This might again be the same territorial instinct..It's an unspoken rule not to get too close to people in restrooms, toavoid unnecessary talking, and generally to avoid eye contact. Allthis behavior, hard to analyze from the inside, controlled by urges..
I almost fell asleep again in Psychology class.. It was actually reallyinteresting stuff, and it was just that darned meal that did it to me.I wish they would interrupt class occasionally for people to get upand walk around -- I think that might help a lot.
We're still exploring computation in discovery. I still find myselfhaving doubts -- I tend more towards scientific naturalism, thenotion that methods and concepts in science are learned by theirsuccess in science, but his ideas do have fascinating ways to measurethings that are just intuitive normally. However, we are focusing ourexploration to areas that are naturally suited to the CS basis --I'm not certain if it would be so interesting in the general case.
I've had a line of thought on justifying the justice system, or perhapssuggesting a justification. The problem is that as neither the prosecutorsnor the defender has a particular motive for finding the truth, just a setof safeguards against certain abuses. We might look for an explanationin emergence. Specifically, Searle's Chinese Room problem in AI (or, rather,it's solution) is what we might adapt -- the solution to the problem is that thesystem itself understands chinese, and the same might apply here -- thedefense is that the system as a whole is interested in justice, even if it'scomposed of elements with definite pulls in other directions. I'm not sureif this can offer more than an 'escape hatch' though. It's worth chewing on.
Speaking of which, why is it that this line of thought, which so far offersmainly a 'draw', at least as visible so far, so unconvincing to the masses?That is, why does Searle win the popular vote even if he has the intellectualsspitting on him? I think it has something to do with two things.. firstly,people have vanity, and hate to see intelligence defined because once it is,it's no longer manipulable by their desires, and feels less magical. Secondly,it pushes the normal definition of intelligence, or at least the applicablethings for it, and much of that retooling is something people are naturallynot comfortable with.
