farzad didehvar

Probably, Collapsing soviet union shows the more right structure of any government is the in side of the designing that answer the above question, by replying back:"People". Seemingly any designing is a balance among, the worldwide situation, the local situation and cultural points of that society and to consider that "in order a government be able to support his people, that is people in first step which should support the government". It is why we need Ngo s and universities. This institutions could be destructive in the same time, specially in societies that are in progress.So, it is why they need to be conservative . Usually a mixture of university people and non political NGOS, as some experiences shows could be so much helpful. Any other point? Any other plan?

This is an interesting question which we faced in a fist for Mathematics some hours ago.(Thanks the questionors) "Questioning is more important or answering?" I like to know your idea about and your idea about the following answer: When we wish to answer this question, the most important fact is: To answer this question. So answering(questioning) is more important. But, if no one answer us this quetion, the most important fact about this question is: to ask this question. So asking is more important. Is this just a bafeling?(respect to the other possible valuable answers). If it is not and thats a true word, what about the other answers?the value of them.

Any group of people, when they start to be formed have people by their own characterestics, little by little when the relations start to be formed people change their behaviour and adopt themselves to the situation. So, there is a force to change any individual to a social element of that society.Competitions, quellings, education, ... . Inteligence goes to be "the power and ability of adoption". But human being has the other sources of inteligence and creativity, which will be the source of various kind of conflicts. What will be the final result? "Are people reduced to their own relations?"

Atomic Master, By definition usually we wish to go more deep in the subject, to know the branches. To know better what are in the umberella of computer science, what is tightly related and what to be considered as out of the subject. Your definition is nice for start, but when the questions arise we need more elements to be in definition, and the purposes would be important. For example in management the courses, the funds,decision makings... the priorities would be so important. If we reach to such conflicts to have a conclusive definition would be so important and helpful. Unfortunately, some deviate and sabotage everything to have position and funds.This could be a trying to control and to prevent it, means we are persuded to be more exact about the subject.

As you said: "The answer is dependent upon the purpose for which you wish to classify it." First, I wish to know is there any definition that satisfies different views and angles or not? In this respect, Me, myself have a critical stand poit to this definition: What about "Prograaming" and "Hardware designing of Computers"? Respect to we know them in or out of the definition we should change a little bit the definition, specially about programing the problem seems more critical, and possibly we should accept it in, possibly instead of algorithm we should put 'Algorithm and Programming" and to know "Hardware designing of Computers" in the subject of machine(seemingly so natural). Second, we have as usual a categorization of "the subject" and "The related subjects". Here we know some important subjects like Logic and Domain Theory, Related subject(or so related subject if you wish), although in some of their applications these two subjects have so many overlaps. So, the question is, are these definitions are satisfactory in any angle? If not, we go to your question.

How do you define Computer science? Is there any definition. Let we start from the following definition (if you wish): Computer Science is the science of Algorithm, machine and effieciency, and the relations among these three subjects(1 plus 2 is Theoretical Computer Science), besides its vast applications in different branches of science as: (a very large list)... (The third is Applied Computer Science). The agendas are:1. "Various types of Computation" and making models for Mind and brain abilities. What are the possible flaws of this definition? How do you define Computer science? Is there any definition. Let we start from the following definition (if you wish): Computer Science is the science of Algorithm, machine and effieciency, and the relations among these three subjects(1 plus 2 is Theoretical Computer Science), besides its vast applications in different branches of science as: (a very large list)... (The third is Applied Computer Science). The agendas are:1. "Various types of Computation and modeling" and making models for Mind and brain abilities. What are the possible flaws of this definition?

When and where enligthment grows in a society? It is certain that some environments changes the type of mentality. Seemingly we have such an evolution: In the first step, concepts are considered as an important entity. In the second step, the ideas cross each other. In the third step, loic, reflexibility in thinking, and respecting each other are considered as important. In the third step, there is an evolution. From, labeling mind toward analytical mind. By having labeling mind, people when face a idea, statement or individual, they try to categories him in their known categories, and in the case that they do not find him in his own categoricity they know him bizarre, irregular and finally unreliable. In analytical mind, every statement of an individual is considered in different types of approach: The statement as itself, independent of the teller and the group he belongs(as it is possible to consider it independently) The meaning of the statement related to the views of the teller and the group he belongs why statement is said and trying to sum up the above all. An analytical mind owner, is able to think as a labeling mind owner in the same time, but as an ideal case the first is the prevailing, although we are not in idel case all the time. Now the hypothesis is: 'Enligthment grows in a society when, we pass the first and the second steps and the analytical mind owner develops more and they are going to occupy the central part of decision making in a society.' Usually, the societies under the threat or the societies that had such a reputation have a high tendency to the labeling minds more than the Analytical ones.(Threat cultural or the entity of that society). Even in a progressed country in this respect, posing the threats could lead a society to this side.(ex.Mccarthy era). The wrong with the society that is somehow "labeling mind society" is to underestimating analytical ways in feeling, understanding, purposing and solving a problem besides underestimating the analytical minds owners. So many times a society by these features, by putting aside analytical mind owners (specially, when the subject of discussion is a taboo or semi taboo) of that society, makes himself blind.(ms disease of a society). So, in these cases, the society could make some restericted environments to save his inteligence. The historical examples show the structure of power has a large impact in this regard... .

Dogmatic and ideological?! To be ideological is not necessarily to be dogmatic (It depends on the ideology). And it is not true to say that any dogmatic view is wrong totally(The second is said as my personal view) although we need to be reflexibe. I suggest even in your examples (US, IMO) there is an exageration in your view. Discarding ideological views and their disputations,any socity loose its motivations, and its feelings. Logic and the discussions around(Consistency,...) are powerful devices but it is not sufficient. The combination of oportunism and Logic is not sufficient too. The engine of society needs ideologies(even the weak form of it) otherwise the society goes to be a dead body. But any how the societies are diferent, some are heavily ideological in culture and some not. Some western countries are strange in this respect, specially US. There is a contradiction in a sever form in them. In one aspect they are heavily ideological, and in the other aspect so engaged to economical reasons and oportunism. Seemingly harsh contradictions has exIsted from first US constitution and couple of times people used to this situation, but in the other cases many society movements was fed by these ideological disputations and not simply economical reasons.

What are the rules and principals that a political discussion should obey? A view is considered in below, any other view or experience? any objection? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seemingly a complete Political dialogue should containes 4 elements: 1.To be critical of the present situation (or to defend it) 2.What would be the ideals and alternatives for the present situation? 3.Is there any way to achieve these ideals and alternatives? 4.Are there any ways to stablize these ideals and alternative? Most of the wrongs with political dialogues is to concentrate simply on 1 and to neglect most the times the problem of politics is either modifying a structure and rebuliding it or to bulid it from foundation. So, in any Political dialogue two views should be considered: 1. Ideological dialogue 2.Architectural discussions(How to make and to stablize a structure?) The usual mistake is to forget the second. The key words and key questions in the second are words and questions like: Equilibrium and how to have an achievment in this way, Dynamic equilibrium, Conciousness of the sicety how to grow it, the complex relation among groups (Cooperation , Compeition), How to define groups and parties in a rational way, what are the relations among culture and programs?, The question of solidarity, ... . So any text or dialogue that is simply critical should be considered either as an incomplete dialogue that is waiting for to be completed or just a political action.

In speaking of some special scope of human science, we categorise the problems in two scopes: 1.Cultural 2. Economical But the intervene of these two sacopes are higher. In fact clearly in the chapter of culture we have a subsection of economiy and in the chapter of econmy we should have a subsection of culture. The problem arise more when under a heavy cultural environments mathematical models of economy do not work. So, the first thing which come in mind is: The cultural points are so important here, which we should consider them as a parameter in our economical theories. If we do not do that, irregularities arises intensively, and some times it changes the problem drastically. In our experiences, irregularities as an important fact that effect everything have two major sources: 1.Education: In family and culture, in school 2.Inconvenient economical model: Economical models that do not adopted by cultural points of a society. 1.Education:In the first type, people usually do not concentrate on the problems, but they concentrates on each others. Usually, it comes back to their type of passion.Love , hate and jealousy , plays a major role in their taking actions, and problem solving do not consider as an important factor. It is the major difference between Modern societies and the others. These passions should be lead by education from childhood in other sides. As an experience, I am sure that classic music could solve this problem drastically.In a convinient mixture of this, and our cultural points, and teching leittle by little adopted to the age the regulation the success is in hand.Bad musics(specially dishy washy ones, has completely dire consequence).The problem is;how to work calm, energetic and motivated.A nd how to learn the positive cultural points of any society in the happiness of children. 2.Inconvenient economical models:When we do not consider the cultural points of a society. For example, when in a society people are sensibile to justice problem, it affects their work on some subjects like progress programs. A long period time of progress, will affects them heavily.Instead of a A long period time of progress and a long time period of justice programs, it is much better to cut them in shorter times, and to consider them case by case(some progress, some justice), and to watch what is the reaction of people. So, we need a control room by considering what the others say. This is more complicated than a simply mathematical model, since it will be based on feed backs. We need a higher type of models.Something like feed back models. So there will be a general theme, to chop the strategy to two different types(freemarket, socialistic), for each problem. If a society is sensibile to family structure and in the same time women has a prominent place, we should work on working spaces, and having a mixture of physicsal spaces and virtual ones.To have sufficite time to be in home, for all family. Here, in as a economical parameter we face every time to the "amount of tollerance".

Is thinking or any mental activity is just in linguistic level? Some thinks so, but I think even in simple examples there are mental activities which contradicts it.When you see a clock to know time, there is a lag of time to understand it as a mental activity.For sure, that mental activity is not in linguistic level, although it ended in a liguistic level, when you know realy what time it is. Clock and time are limited subjects, seemingly some has some experiences about the concepts around infinity, such that the same process of the example of clock(a limited subject)is not able to be ended to a linguistic level, and if we say some possibly logically we fall in contradictions.(Real infinte or seemingly infinit, the situation of(a weak mind and a large subject or concept). So we have the other level mentalities. As an experience in faith, many feel such situation as personal experience.Let we call it:"INNER LEVEL"(or perception level) in contrast to "LINGUISTIC LEVEL". The questions are: 1.Is it possible some have faith in "linguistic level" but not in "inner level"? 2.Is it possible some have faith in "inner level" but not in "linguistic level"? My tendency is saying no to 1, but being agnostic to 2.But not sure. What is your idea? I think this question could be a central question.

Thank you for your nice examples,they enlights the subject. But in the above examples we have a chance the subjects would be computable, not now but in future. Is there such possibility that some Physical quantity have no chance(By some specific theory, of course)to be computed? Not now and not in future, till the time that we accept that we accept that specific theory as a true Theory?

Seemingly in Physics we are interested in measurable concepts. Does it mean that these concepts are measurable also? Have we "measurable" but Incomputable concepts in Physics?