Once again, somebody seems to be trying to put some sort of philosophical interpretation on one of my articles. To wit, consider the following description:
"Porter, Mason, et al. Communities in Networks. Notices of the AMS. 56/9, 2009. In consideration, Oxford University mathematician Porter, along with Jukka-Pekka Onnela, a Helsinki University physicist lately at Harvard, and from the University of North Carolina, mathematician Peter Mucha, might themselves be imagined as agents interlinked in local and global neural-like webs that they study. By this view, Mindkind’s historic learning process may just be reaching critical robustness in such exemplary works, together with many other articles posted herewith (e.g., Barrat, et al above). As the quote cites, statistical physics and complex systems science are realizing they engage the same phenomena in different ways so a merger is underway, still largely unbeknownst. But viola, a revolutionary new kind of materiality is being revealed. Both an independent, implicate network geometry and dynamics that involves such node/link, modular, weighted clusters becomes evident, which then explicates into universally repetitive, nested occurrence from biosphere to blogosphere, from protein webs to international scientific collaborations. In a natural genesis, such a vista could appear as a parent to child genetic code."
The following text is a quote from my article that is included below the blurb above:
Graphs can represent either man-made or natural constructs, such as the World Wide Web or neuronal synaptic networks in the brain. Agents in such networked systems are like particles in traditional statistical mechanics that we all know and (presumably) love, and the structure of interactions between agents reflects the microscopic rules that govern their behavior.
The text that really confounds me is the following: But viola, a revolutionary new kind of materiality is being revealed. Both an independent, implicate network geometry and dynamics that involves such node/link, modular, weighted clusters becomes evident, which then explicates into universally repetitive, nested occurrence from biosphere to blogosphere, from protein webs to international scientific collaborations. In a natural genesis, such a vista could appear as a parent to child genetic code.
Comment: What the fuck?
In case you're curious, here is link where I found this deconstruction.
1 day ago
4 comments:
About , your post,........,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=-VRBWLpYCPY
...
...
...
;)
Happy holidays,
Miguel
Miguel: That video was awesome! Thanks!
What especially bothers me is "viola". Do you, in your paper, discuss the intricacies of the tensile "links" between the tailpiece, bridge, and pegbox "nodes"?
/rant
Sorry, pet-peeve....
Whoever wrote that doesn't seem to have any idea about what we actually do. I think that he/she basically took one or two sentences that he/she liked and then ran with it in directions that have nothing whatsoever to do with my paper or the area I was reviewing in it.
Post a Comment