1 files changed, 180 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..993604473
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/musings/musings-perception.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+% language=uk
+
+\definefontfeature[ligatures][liga=yes,mode=node]
+
+\startcomponent musings-perception
+
+\environment musings-style
+
+\startchapter[title=Advertising \TEX]
+
+I can get upset when I hear \TEX ies boast about the virtues of \TEX\ compared to
+for instance Microsoft Word. Not that I feel responsible for defending a program
+that I never use(d) but attacking something for no good reason makes not much
+sense to me. It is especially annoying when the attack is accompanied by a
+presentation that looks pretty bad in design and typography. The best
+advertisements for \TEX\ should of course come from outside the \TEX\ community,
+by people impressed by its capabilities. How many \TEX ies can really claim that
+Word is bad when they never tried to make something in it with a similar learning
+curve as they had in \TEX\ or the same amount of energy spent in editing and
+perfecting a word|-|processor|-|made document.
+
+In movies where computer technology plays a role one can encounter weird
+assumptions about what computers and programs can do. Run into a server room,
+pull one disk out of a \RAID-5 array and get all information from it. Connect
+some magic device to a usb port of a phone and copy all data from it in seconds.
+Run a high speed picture or fingerprint scan on a computer (probably on a remote
+machine) and show all pictures flying by. Okay, it's not so far from other
+unrealistic aspects in movies, like talking animals, so maybe it is just a
+metaphor for complexity and speed. When zapping channels on my television I saw
+\in{figure}[fig:tex-in-movie] and as the media box permits replay I could make a
+picture. I have no clue what the movie was about or what movie it was so a
+reference is lacking here. Anyway it's interesting that seeing a lot of \TEX\
+code flying by can impress someone: the viewer, even if no \TEX ie will ever see
+that on the console unless in some error or tracing message and even then it's
+hard to get that amount. So, the viewer will never realize that what is seen is
+definitely not what a \TEX ie wants to see.
+
+\startplacefigure[title={\TEX\ in a movie},reference=fig:tex-in-movie]
+    \externalfigure[tex-in-movie.jpg][height=8cm]
+\stopplacefigure
+
+So, as that kind of free advertisement doesn't promote \TEX\ well, what of an
+occasional mentioning of \TEX\ in highly|-|regarded literature? When reading
+\quotation {From bacteria to Bach and back, the evolution of minds} by Daniel
+Dennett I ran into the following:
+
+\startquotation
+In Microsoft Word, for instance, there are the typographical operations of
+superscript and subscript, as illustrated by
+
+\startnarrower
+base\high{power}
+\stopnarrower
+
+and
+
+\startnarrower
+human\low{female}
+\stopnarrower
+
+But try to add another superscript to base\high{power}\emdash it {\em should}
+work, but it doesn't! In mathematics, you can raise powers to powers to powers
+forever, but you can't get Microsoft Word to display these (there are other
+text|-|editing systems, such as TeX, that can). Now, are we sure that human
+languages make use of true recursion, or might some or all of them be more like
+Microsoft Word? Might our interpretation of grammars as recursive be rather an
+elegant mathematical idealization of the actual \quotation {moving parts} of a
+grammar?
+\stopquotation
+
+Now, that book is a wonderfully interesting read and the author often refers to
+other sources. When one reads some reference (with a quote) then one assumes that
+what one reads is correct, and I have no reason to doubt Dennett in this. But
+this remark about \TEX\ has some curious inaccuracies. \footnote {Of course one
+can wonder in general that when one encounters such an inaccuracy, how valid
+other examples and conclusions are. However, consistency in arguments and
+confirmation by other sources can help to counter this.}
+
+First of all a textual raise or lower is normally not meant to be recursive.
+Nesting would have interesting consequences for the interline space so one will
+avoid it whenever possible. There are fonts that have superscript and subscript
+glyphs and even \UNICODE\ has slots for a bunch of characters. I'm not sure what
+Word does: take the special glyph or use a scaled down copy?
+
+Then there is the reference to \TEX\ where we can accept that the \quotation {E}
+is not lowered but just kept as a regular \quotation {e}. Actually the mentioning
+of nested scripts refers to typesetting math and that's what the superscripts and
+subscripts are for in \TEX. In math mode however, one will normally raise or
+lower symbols and numbers, not words: that happens in text mode.
+
+While Word will use the regular text font when scripting in text mode, a \TEX\
+user will either have to use a macro to make sure that the right size (and font)
+is used, or one can revert to math mode. But how to explain that one has to enter
+math and then explicitly choose the right font? Think of this:
+
+\startbuffer
+efficient\high{efficient} or
+efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$ or \par
+{\bf efficient\high{efficient} or
+efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$}
+\stopbuffer
+
+\typebuffer
+
+Which gives (in Cambria)
+
+\getbuffer
+
+Now this,
+
+\startbuffer
+efficient\high{efficient\high{efficient}} or
+efficient$^{\text{efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$}}$ or \par
+{\bf efficient\high{efficient\high{efficient}} or
+efficient$^{\text{efficient$^{\text{efficient}}$}}$}
+\stopbuffer
+
+\typebuffer
+
+will work okay but the math variant is probably quite frightening at a glance for
+an average Word user (or beginner in \TEX) and I can understand why someone would
+rather stick to click and point.
+
+\getbuffer
+
+Oh, and it's tempting to try the following:
+
+\startbuffer
+efficient{\addff{f:superiors}efficient}
+\stopbuffer
+
+\typebuffer
+
+but that only works with fonts that have such a feature, like Cambria:
+
+\blank {\switchtobodyfont[cambria]\getbuffer} \blank
+
+To come back to Dennett's remark: when typesetting math in Word, one just has to
+switch to the math editing mode and one can have nested scripts! And, when using
+\TEX\ one should not use math mode for text scripts. So in the end in both
+systems one has to know what one is doing, and both systems are equally capable.
+
+The recursion example is needed in order to explain how (following recent ideas
+from Chomsky) for modern humans some recursive mechanism is needed in our
+wetware. Now, I won't go into details about that (as I can only mess up an
+excellent explanation) but if you want to refer to \TEX\ in some way, then
+expansion \footnote{Expanding macros actually works well with tail recursion.} of
+(either combined or not) snippets of knowledge might be a more interesting model
+than recursion, because much of what \TEX\ is capable of relates to expansion.
+But I leave that to others to explore. \footnote {One quickly starts thinking of
+how \cs {expandafter}, \type {noexpand}, \type {unexpanded}, \type {protected}
+and other primitives can be applied to language, understanding and also
+misunderstanding.}
+
+Now, comparing \TEX\ to Word is always kind of tricky: Word is a text editor with
+typesetting capabilities and \TEX\ is a typesetting engine with programming
+capabilities. Recursion is not really that relevant in this perspective. Endless
+recursion in scripts makes little sense and even \TEX\ has its limits there: the
+\TEX\ math engine only distinguishes three levels (text, script and scriptscript)
+and sometimes I'd like to have a level more. Deeper nesting is just more of
+scriptscript unless one explicitly enforces some style. So, it's recursive in the
+sense that there can be many levels, but it also sort of freezes at level three.
+
+\startplacefigure[title={Nicer than \TEX},reference=fig:nicer-than-tex]
+    \externalfigure[mathematics.png][width=\textwidth]
+\stopplacefigure
+
+I love \TEX\ and I like what you can do with it and it keeps surprising me. And
+although mathematics is part of that, I seldom have to typeset math myself. So, I
+can't help that \in {figure} [fig:nicer-than-tex] impresses me more. It even has
+the so|-|familiar|-|to|-|\TEX ies dollar symbols in it: the poem \quotation
+{Poetry versus Orchestra} written by Hollie McNish, music composed by Jules
+Buckley and artwork by Martin Pyper (I have the \DVD\ but you can also find it on
+\YOUTUBE). It reminds me of Don Knuth's talk at a \TUG\ meeting. In \TUGBOAT\
+31:2 (2010) you can read Don's announcement of his new typesetting engine i\TEX:
+\quotation {Output can be automatically formatted for lasercutters, embroidery
+machines, \THREED\ printers, milling machines, and other \CNC\ devices \unknown}.
+Now that is something that Word can't do!
+
+\stopcomponent