More random ideas!

Something else I should get down is that I'd like to tie together the idea of observer, perspective, person, and consciousness. If I do develop an internal language it will mix those ideas into a single word. Whenever referring to a reference point, such as in mathematics, that word will be used. It will refer to people, animals, perspective, or anything that "sees". There is value in distinction but there's value in anything where you look for it and the value I see with blurring the lines is that it entwines certain aspects of culture within the language itself. As language heavily adapts how we think, the interest here is not to give room for a tool but to enforce a principle.

On this language idea, some things will need to be eliminated over time. For instance, the forced communication of gender. Some words say too many things, some words say too little. But overall I think I have a problem with the limits of the English language to express the abstract thought I'm trying to express. While I've been told I'm proficient at expressing myself verbally, my problem is that it is not effortless whereas I feel it should be. Part of this process I think is to analyze the basics of my thinking pattern. See the limits of the abstract thought and assign words to the ideas I'm trying to express. And important, to note patterns in those ideas that can be represented simply. There are certain aspects of math that I wish we had more inherent language for. The expression of infinites and limits in terms of words. The use of "forever" as a non-literal is amusing, but how would you say "forever minus a day"? I think with grammar being designed around mathematic, ergonomic (linguistics), physical, and abstract ideas, it would allow for a better expansion in thought and explanation. I would like to design an internal language one day but there are things I want to take into account that I don't know yet. Hopefully I'll get there eventually, and maybe I'll blog about the whole process. ;)

Another one. ;) This might just be a rambling journal before you realize it.

A slightly more developed and concise interpretation of this is that science and art, as a complete circle, represent the act of causation, or impression, that occurs from the world to the observer and vice versa. Science is the act of the world impressing upon us and art is the act of us impressing upon the world. The world shapes us as we shape it and art and science must flow seamlessly through that. I'd also extend this to argue that you can't have art without science just as you can't have science without art.

Thinking further on the dichotomy aspect, there are some things associated with art and science that seem to be very apparent. Science is internal. But it is also the act of moving inwards. Art is external, what is moving outwards. This is true because science originates in the world and we simply assess it. Art originates in us and we put it out there.

What caused me to make another post on this was the realization that.

Things can only move to where they are not.

Art represents who we are.

Science represents what the world is.

And so we have the circle as it moves back and forth between us and the world. I suspect there might be some important aspects of cognition tied in with this idea.

Art and science

If I ever get work put up in an art gallery, half of it is going to be schema.

Why?

Because to me the lines of science and art have been recomposed into two distinct ideas. Science is left brain events. Things that are logical. Things that come inward. Science is learning and taking in the world. Art is the opposite side of the coin. Generally right brain, it's outward expression. Art is the practice of doing. It's anything that we put back into the world. Art is what we add. So, where do the lines begin and end in what we can call art? Designs and schematics deserve to be up just as much as paintings. No more, no less. Because art is a testament to Human efforts.

On that, the Great Pyramids of Giza are one of man's greatest works. So simple and beautiful; reflecting Orion's belt. What powerful meaning. Perhaps the buried are to go to those stars...

MIT Researcher Records and Analyzes Child's First 5 Years of Language Development

PHEW! Say that title ten times fast!

Apparently Deb Roy, an MIT researcher in cognitive science, decided to utilize the opportunity of having a child to further inspect development. A little geeky but his attention to detail is probably beneficial to parenting. I dig it. ;)

Link found through Groklaw

Cuteness of the Day

Okay, couldn't resist. Here you go.

From our friends at Neatorama

Double the Gun Double the Fun! lolwut?

Browsing around, I found this goofy contraption on Gizmodo. Sure, I don't have a good reason to post this besides this being the most laughable gun accessory I've ever seen. But is that not reason enough!?

Link ala Gizmodo