Page 4 of 4
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:07 am
by rcain
chrismb wrote:rcain wrote:
...can i just mention Euler at this point...?
Feel free!... Presumably you raise him for his own use of circles in set diagrams, a use not previously prescribed.
My thesis is that we just don't know whether many of these 'ancient' inventions were just random event coming together, random ideas, and/or a mixture of both.
My contention is that if we just say
"ah well, it just evolved and no-one really thought about it" and do not
seek to analyse that process and see if we can accelerate it, then we're doomed just to 'hang around' until some
event comes up with the ideas, entirely at the whim of random circumstances and probabilities. And with that attitude, is it any wonder that innovation on fusion energy has stalled?!
What is it that enables us to see the value and use of 'a plate' or 'a bucket' that a monkey can't see? There is, quite literally, "more than meets the eye" when it comes to humans making use of new ideas. But it still doesn't happen easily - despite how much you may have convinced yourself that it is otherwise - so how do we generate new concepts, and learn to spot others generating useful ones?
..i was sort of more alluding to which came first, the cicle, the axis, or the log {sic} (his famous identity if you wiki).
all is derivative.... upon the shoulders of giants, (evolution), etc. to set humans (or human genius) too far apart from the animal (or natural) is hubris and delusion. in that they are 'language', they are the same.
imho.
this does not help polywell.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:25 am
by alexjrgreen
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:28 am
by rcain
alexjrgreen wrote:
Or the drum...
the drum has my vote. in all its forms. or perhaps a stick? a hook?
ps. what is Iter doing - anything happen yet?
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:08 pm
by cybrbeast
This forum really needs some moderators. If things go this off-topic why not just make a new thread? It's annoying when you click on an interesting topic and most of the discussion is about a random concept or politics etc.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:52 pm
by vankirkc
chrismb wrote:Feel free!... Presumably you raise him for his own use of circles in set diagrams, a use not previously prescribed.
My thesis is that we just don't know whether many of these 'ancient' inventions were just random event coming together, random ideas, and/or a mixture of both. My contention is that if we just say "ah well, it just evolved and no-one really thought about it" and do not seek to analyse that process and see if we can accelerate it, then we're doomed just to 'hang around' until some event comes up with the ideas, entirely at the whim of random circumstances and probabilities. And with that attitude, is it any wonder that innovation on fusion energy has stalled?!
My belief is that innovation stalled because the best and brightest physicists of the past twenty years have abandoned their training to become rich inventing financial products for wall street. If wall street becomes a less attractive option (hopefully), such people may stick with physics and push the boundaries further.
As for inventions, no doubt some were random, but most were evolutionary. Take Einstein, for example. He did not invent the physics that led him to his discovery, and I would argue that without the work that preceded him having been done, he wouldn't have been able to come to the insights that he did. Certainly he was brilliant, but the pieces were all there for him to pick up, and perhaps many of them were still missing only a few decades earlier.
chrismb wrote:
What is it that enables us to see the value and use of 'a plate' or 'a bucket' that a monkey can't see?
Perhaps it's the profoundly different brain size and structure? The result of millions of years of divergent evolution. I'm not seeing how the monkey analogy helps further your argument on inventive genius.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:59 pm
by Betruger
Guys, take it to its own thread.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:16 pm
by rcain
Betruger wrote:Guys, take it to its own thread.
...yeah...thread why dont you....
attempting to curl things back in....
JET's latest news letter is out (havent read it yet)::
http://www.jet.efda.org/documents/insig ... e-2009.pdf
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/news/2009 ... imits.html
being supportive (and well ahead of its time, being british, of course)
and last years (2008) results from japanese::
http://www.nifs.ac.jp/report/annrep08/index.html
else, inscrutable silence.
usual ra-ra and bonkers timelines @::
http://www.iter.org/newsline/Pages/87/Default.aspx
- not much happening till 2026, then..
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:10 pm
by choff
I would argue that the idea of the wheel came from observing the dung beetle, and humans are just copyists.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:01 pm
by Helius
choff wrote:I would argue that the idea of the wheel came from observing the dung beetle, and humans are just copyists.
I disagree. Since there are no known accounts of dung beetles rolling dung prior to the invention of the wheel, the copyists must be the dung beetle.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:58 am
by Roger
SO who made/invented the dung beatles?
Or did they just make copies?
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:04 am
by TallDave
I don't mind the thread drift myself, but maybe we could evolve to a Slashdot-like threading system where people can follow or ignore chains as they wish.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:01 am
by Betruger
This is going to sound rude, but why not just start new threads?
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:36 am
by choff
Rugby probably also got its start from people watching dung beetles.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:23 pm
by Torulf2
I collect beetles, and have some dung beetles.
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:20 am
by JoeStrout
Topic locked due to serious drift. This is the News forum, guys — keep it to news. Please show some restraint yourselves, so I don't have to spend my time policing.
Thanks,
— Joe