Comments on: HARNESSED

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 21:29:37 +0000

Godel changed my way thinking and I am not a mathematician of any kind. It is obvious to me that he was a very special person who built a requirement that forced a new way by showing the error of the previous. I think that he wanted to move “the art of symbol” to the next level but, he did not have proof, and speculation was not allowed. I believe he was certain that new forms would evolve in advanced math. We are about to see that new horizon soon I believe and it will be a epiphany for us all. We will easily understand what before we could not have known. That new way of “language” may have arrived already and it is preparing for reveal. The hairs on my neck tell me that any moment some bright mind will know and share even if it take the rest of us some considerable time to catch up. The fruit is ripe.
I have not purchased a book in years but, I did this one and, I look forward to the read. GREAT SUBJECT!

By: lxm1117

lxm1117 — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:47:38 +0000

Looking forward to reading this book! I am hearing science major and currently preparing my exams for speech perception. Looks like the book is much more interesting than those research papers!

By: What Is Wrong With Academia « Changizi Blog

What Is Wrong With Academia « Changizi Blog — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:58:41 +0000

[...] Book: HARNESSED [...]

By: changizi

changizi — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:02:41 +0000

It sounds reasonable, certainly, and a fun hypothesis. No expertise on my part, though, to help.

By: arran_edmonstone

arran_edmonstone — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 02:19:18 +0000

@ changizi: You’re welcome! I’m deeply fascinated in the relationship between human / nature relationship and the ways in which humans have been practicing what today’s scientific community might call biomimicry. By chance would you happen to have any knowledge / evidence of a connection between human-made tools such as projectile points being a form of ancient “biomimicry”? My hypothesis is that ancient stone and bone tools were imitations of animal parts with points, such as teeth. All I’ve got so far is the evidence of competition and between Australopithecus and predators such as bears and sabre-tooth cats, as well as a predator-prey relationship between the latter and the former. From a cognitive approach would it sound reasonable that Australopithecus may have sought design inspiration from body parts such as teeth of their predators / competitors?

By: changizi

changizi — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:25:01 +0000

That’s funny about the latter. In cases of birds mimicking car alarms, their own “bird culture” is evolving to sound like human-artifacts, thereby doing *something* — but what? — to other bird brains. Thanks! -Mark

By: arran_edmonstone

arran_edmonstone — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:31:00 +0000

I look forward to reading your book. I am researching similar topics, as well. I think there are many things we see around us – if we trace back their history far enough – which mimick nature. What is also interesting is how “nature” mimicks humans (i.e. birds and car alarms).

By: Varifrån kommer musik? « Nonicoclolasos

Varifrån kommer musik? « Nonicoclolasos — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:32:56 +0000

[...] Mark Changizi kommer 2011 ut med en bok om sin teori om musik. [...]

By: Where Are the Pain Engineers? « Changizi Blog

Where Are the Pain Engineers? « Changizi Blog — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:52:12 +0000

[...] Book: HARNESSED [...]

By: Why Do We Have Ten Fingers? « Changizi Blog

Why Do We Have Ten Fingers? « Changizi Blog — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:38:50 +0000

[...] Book: HARNESSED [...]