I found a free “Logic Minimizing” tool called “Logic Friday”. You can enter gates OR Truth Tables OR Equations and it uses a heuristic (best guess) to minimize redundant circuits. NOR gates have fascinated me for years because of how their truth tables work, especially when layered. My first experiment is with 4 4-input NOR gates that narrow down through 1 4-input NOR gate to produce 1 function (output). What’s it gonna do? No idea.

I found a free
[read full article]
 

I don’t agree with this. It’s mistaking mapping for the thing. Yes, much of you that’s you if not most or all is an amalgam of all these things BUT a) the product is unique which is YOU, b) Awareness of the law, various standards do exist in society c) Our languages are relatively standardized within a realm of flexiblity and code-switching from subculture to dominant culture is a reality, meaning you CAN HOLD conflicting processes and switch, much as how a 4 year old DOES know the difference between FICTION and FACT – that all you hear is not necessarily true and yet some of it is fun. Therefore, there is also LESS uniqueness within a given culture than the extremes possible in a language-free, society-free environment. d) As there are at least some standards that are common among users of a language and members of a culture, it is reasonable to expect SOME level of civil compliance. e) Thought experiment: Driving on the road. Why doesn’t everybody crash into everybody else? How do they negotiate meaning without words?

I don’t agree with
[read full article]
 

Ah ha! Key to metaphor is an understanding of affordances that link – and all it needs is ONE feature in common. This is done through having a list of “how many ways they function”. It doesn’t HAVE to be put into words, but it *can* be. ALL YOU NEED is a list with every word that is a PROPERTY OF another word. [or a characteristic, or a FUNCTION – I’m calling them all affordances]. FROM THAT, you know you COULD use that word as a metaphor WITH ANY OTHER WORD that shares at least ONE feature in common – even metaphors that no one has yet made! SO: It’s _not_ a computationally impossible or even a complex problem to discern metaphorical connections, whether in English or in ANY human language, including science (whose very language is BUILT upon grammatical metaphors). BUT MAYBE, as one goes up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy (“umbrella term”) chain, you reach a point with TOO MANY possible metaphors among the hyponyms (subordinates in the taxonomy (ontology, hierarchy), especially when EACH word will have _its own_ unique tree from which a network of connections COULD POSSIBLY result in the “AT LEAST ONE” common property that I think is needed to create a metaphor. ADDING to this: New metaphors are created all of the time. The world of memes have their own metaphorical worlds overlapping, and there’s distinctions between users such that, say, a 35 year old gamer will create a meme from his/her own knowledgebank of visual metaphors that will “read” entirely differently to a 12 year old memer, whose generation has been developing their OWN set of metaphorical connections, for example, pruning what they see as an EXPLICIT reference (that the 35 year old thinks is subtle) and substituting a more “in-group” meaning such that both will laugh but from a much different place. Ok, this ramble is long enough. The quote below made it “click” for me: That it really CAN be “as simple as” using words, so long as you create the proper systemic view of each. I don’t think this is “mere semantics” either as this power is part of the very logic of the lexico-grammar itself and arises from a place as powerful as “Noun, Verb”. “the categorization view of metaphor can be interpreted as a type of conceptual combination, in which the head concept provides relevant dimensions and the modifier concept provides candidate features for attribution.”

Ah ha! Key to
[read full article]
 

t scares me that I understand this. Not enough to explain it much further but it paints a functioning structure in my head just the same. “Grammatical metaphor is a linguistic structure that results from the stratal tension between ideational (experiential and logical) and interpersonal meanings in discourse semantics, and lexicogrammar. The above definition opens up room for the theorization of interpersonal metaphor and emphasizes a differentiation between experiential and logical metaphors.”

t scares me that
[read full article]
 

measuring unit from which all else is derived. ——- The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton. The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

measuring unit from which [read full article]