Re: what is understanding?

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:02:45 -0700 (MST) "Daniel L. MacIsaac"
> <Dan.MacIsaac@nau.edu> writes:
> > > I am waiting for your mathematical model of understanding. But can
> > you
> >
> > Just to stick in a quip here; if human understanding can be reduced to
> > a mathematical model (Boolean algebra, perhaps) then I'm not sure I
> > want to human anymore.  What about emotional rationality?  We are
> > creatures
> > of emotion as well as calculus.
> >
> > Dan M
> >
> > Dan MacIsaac, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Northern
> > AZ Univ
> > danmac@nau.edu  http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/homepage.html
> My results are nearly complete.  I simply prefer precision and rigor over
> vagueness.
> The great music teacher and composer, Ben Boretz, made a similar
> statement about music analysis despite our tendency to want to say
> everything about music in emotional terms.
> Regards / Tom

There is another relevant quote in an early scene in the movie "Dead Poets
Society". It relates to the quantitative determination of the quality of
poetry. I suspect Boretz (of whom I confess I have never before heard)
would concur with the teacher's opinion. Those who have seen the movie
will understand.

Leigh

Leigh Hunt Palmer                                  Phone: 604 291 4844
Department of Physics                                FAX: 604 291 3592
Simon Fraser University                             Home: 604 299 3731
Burnaby, BC  V5A 1S6                              email: palmer@sfu.ca
CANADA                                              122d58m W 49d17m N