He didn’t get it.
I was surprised, kinda. But it made sense, why he didn’t think much of my suggestion. In fact, in his seminar at UCIrvine Information and Computer Science department (as tactic to get MIT to give him a better offer as a tenured faculty member), he dismissed my “idea”, quickly, even though he had asked (obviously rhetorically, in hindsight) for suggestions as a kind of Socratic presentation tactic in his talk.
My mentioning of Kirchoff’s law as a parallel in regards into information flow, he thought irrelevant, and was rather dismissive. But who was I, just a graduate student from a west coast Podunk U [which eventually was a key university in the development of the World Wide Web]. He was an assistant Professor from MIT, angling for tenure.
This time I understood. Although I didn’t have a name for it at the time. I just shut up.
Now, I call it eucaryotic hubris. We all have it, in the area of our expertise and our vast areas of ignorance.
This time, I had had enough encounters with these kind of guys to not be in awe of them. I didn’t assume I was at fault in not understanding, and not smart enough it “get what they are promoting”. They were just as ignorant as I was.
And, Stupid, as me. So when I was watching one of Geoffrey Hinton’s youtube talks…
I had interacted this “professor” before, in that seminar. And I had listened to some of his other conference talks, he is very very very smart and accomplished. So smart, these days, he is a distinguished emeritus faculty member, at the institution he got his BS and PhD at. He has never had to move out of Massachusetts, or MIT. No, this guy wasn’t Marvin Minsky, but his student. So when Hinton told his offhand story, about Professor Carl Hewitt, I had to laugh. Deja vu, all over again.
“Indeed, in their later years (after finding out that most others are faking an understanding of the laws of nature), INTPs [Architect Rationals] are likely to think of themselves as the master organizers who must pit themselves against nature and society in an unending effort to create organization out of the raw materials of nature.” – Please Understand Me II, Keirsey, David. Please Understand Me II (Kindle Locations 4099-4107). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kindle Edition.
As scientists, we all are struggling with understanding:
Formatics: Precise Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison. Precise Analogy and Precise Metaphor: how does one do that, and what does one mean by these two phrases? This is an essay, in the form of an ebook, on the nature of reality, measure, modeling, reference, and reasoning in an effort to move towards the development of Comparative Science and Relational Complexity. In some sense, this ebook explores the involution and envolution of ideas, particularly focusing on mathematics and reality as two “opposing” and “fixed points” in that “very” abstract space. As Robert Rosen has implied there has been (and still is going on) a war in Science. Essentially you can view that war as a battle between the “formalists” and the “informalists” — but make no mistake the participants of this war are united against “nature” — both are interested in understanding the world and sometimes predicting what can and will happen, whether that be real or imagined. So… I will ask the questions, for example, of “what could one mean” precisely by the words: “in,” “out,” “large,” and “small.” The problem is both Science and Mathematics are imprecise — but this sentence contains fighting words and is impredicative, to say the least. In my father‘s terms, it is important to distinguish between order and organization, and understand the difference. Lastly, for now, the concepts and their relations, in the circle of ideas of “dimensions of time” and dimensions of energy along with the dimensions of space and dimensions of mass will be explicated, as I evolve (involute and envolute) this ebook. SO WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT? Let me try to explain.