Too much "I"s in your post, go back to your pills On Dec 19, 7:14 pm, LCC <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Dec 19, 1:50 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Our short exchange produced several long posts full > > of interesting, but often marginal details, which, > > if all answered would diverge into several books. > > > I'll tackle here a few IMO pertinent points, trying > > to make our exchanges converge. > > ================ > > EDUCATION AND CONDITIONING. > > You said: "apparently due to early training, my mind > > functions differently from yours". > > True. As you can see in "MY > > UNIVERSITIES"http://findgeorges.com/CORE/1_MY_UNIVERSITIES/my_universities_1_conte... > > andhttp://findgeorges.com/CORE/1_MY_UNIVERSITIES/my_universities_2_hideo... > > I never went to any school and my education boils down to > > briefings by people I met in the hideouts of the Polish > > resistance. > > Yet, they were good enough for Infeld to accept me to > > his branch of Einstein Relativity research team. > > Actually, he told me that I have better chances to > > get creative than the rest, all PHD's, who "will hardly > > ever forget the bullshit that had been dumped on them". > > And the more efficient the education, the stronger > > the conditioning preventing one from thinking by himself. > > His judgment proved close to the mark and I was always > > rather creative. A few examples: > > -Correction of Einstein's quick and dirty derivation > > of E=MC2http://findgeorges.com/CORE/F_SPECIAL_RELATIVITY/f5_emc2.html > > -Conception of locality and > > causalityhttp://findgeorges.com/CORE/D_RATIONAL_VIEW/d1_causality_and_implicat... > > -Original, IMO unique rigorous logic, which I programmed > > first on Univac and which was used on many applications, > > starting with the Gemini project - sending the man to > > the moon. Simple tutorial example > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/CORE/D_RATIONAL_VIEW/d3_ern_logic.html > > > Einstein would have never been accepted to your, doubtless > > exceptionally efficient, AT education. He had a low IQ, > > was slow on the uptake and was considered by Lorentz as > > his worst student, who put 2 years more than average to > > get the gist of tensors. And till the rest of his life > > Lorentz stayed insulted by "this Einstein's theory" > > - he never said "Relativity" - with which the dunce had > > dared to ruin his own dear Aether. And yet, Lorentz was > > one of the most brilliant physicist of his time, certainly > > more brilliant than Einstein. Thus, "brilliant" does not > > always mean "right". > > > Just a digression: did your AT training explain why cars > > are steered in the front, but planes and boats in the rear? > > Please, in all decency, try to answer. The principle behind > > it is fundamental for physics and cybernetics. > > ================ > > AWARENESS. > > You refuted my "When I perceive a tree I'm not aware of > > being aware of perceiving a tree, but I'm aware of "tree", > > so that the only way of expressing Awareness would be "Tree"." > > saying: > > "Hmm, apparently due to early training, my mind functions differently > > from yours. In the third grade AT (Academically Talented**) program, I > > was taught to think in multitrack mode, with recursion. Not only do I > > see a tree, I am aware of the process of observing the tree..." > > > Indeed, you "are aware" of, but you don't PERCEIVE your > > "being aware". The percept "tree" has shape, colors and > > fabric and you are aware of perceiving them. But you don't > > PERCEIVE your "being aware", unless you can tell its shape, > > color and fabric. > > > By taking an illustration, you dodged the axioms it illustrates, > > to wit, > > > FUNDAMENTAL EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE: > > INTUITIVE(CONTINUOUS) ASPECT OF TIME > > IS EQUIVALENT WITH AWARENESS. > > and > > POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY > > ALL EVENTS OF HUMAN UNIVERSE ARE MUTUALLY RELATIVE > > AND FOUNDED IN THE ABSOLUTE CONTINUOUS AWARENESS > > And the corollary 1: > > THE POLARITY CONTINUUM/DISCRETENESS IS THE > > BASIC STRUCTURE OF ALL HUMAN EXPERIENCES > > WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL PREPONDERANCE OF THE > > CONTINUOUS ASPECT INTUITED AS AWARENESS > > > Now, refutal of an axiomatic theory does not > > work by just disliking or disagreeing with the > > axioms, but by falsifying them either deductively, > > pointing to logical flows in founding the theory, > > or inductively, by falsifying their factual > > predictions. > > > Now, these axioms are deemed to found the current > > physics. To falsify them factually you would have > > to falsify the Relativity and the Quantum Physics. > > To falsify them deductively you must show flaws > > in "NATURAL > > MODEL"http://findgeorges.com/CORE/B_NATURAL_VIEW/b1_natural_model.html > > > Yet, before refuting, it would perhaps be interesting > > to consider and to discuss the reality in the new > > light Einstein's ontology casts on it. > > > Georges. > > Georges, please do not be angry with me because I stumbled in my > offhand response to your observations. Although it may seem peculiar, > believe me when I say that my childhood was not the bowl of cherries > which you seem to imagine. For one thing my parents were abusive > religious fanatics, whose religion I found extremely unpalatable, > being drenched in the glorification of bloody suffering. For another I > was ostracized in every social situation which I ever encountered up > to my entry in college after being discharged from the USAF after 10 > months 21 days for "inability to cope with a regimented lifestyle", > "lack of respect for all authority and/or authority figures", and > being "too damned smart to trust". The only reason why I even made it > out of basic training was that I scored 93 on the EDPT test (mean 20 > std dev 14) and was recognized as just the sort of whiz kid, > presumably malleable, who could solve a couple of problems at SACHQ > command post. Once those problems were solved, I was ejected like a > used piece of tissue paper. In college, being the curve breaker in > almost all of my courses, I was loathed. Upon graduation, I was > mercilessly exploited by every employer, being expected to work > uncompensated overtime, solve problems normally assigned to teams of > regular programmers, and once again, ostracized for being "pretty damn > strange". With ulcerative colitis, high blood pressure, high > cholesterol, asthma, gross obesity, severe back pain from being hit by > a car in 76, severe tooth pain from lack of adequate dental care > programs, chronic money problems from trying to support less fortunate > members of my family (which to this day is lower class though some try > to pretend they have attained middle class wealth), I finally decided > to get out of the rat race in 1990. The decision was apparently mutual > because the rat race in the form of IBM fired me from my (as it turned > out) final employment due to "excessive absenteeism", after which I > was unable to get anything more than 5 minute phone interviews to > determine whether I would work for slave wages again. In 1997 I went > "crazy" to get a VA mental disability pension, which pays the > equivalent of a minimum wage job, with no work required beyond taking > drugs designed to keep me harmless... > > So I spend my time playing computer strategy games, occasionally > venturing out into the internet to see whether there is anything > interesting happening. Sometimes a subject piques my interest enough > to join a newsgroup and contribute (google my name plus "Merry > Christmas" in sci.crypt). Occasionally I go on a tear and have a bit > of trollish fun saying boo to see if there is anyone unintimidated by > my postings. It looks like you are definitely not intimidated, being > rather a wild card yourself... > > So far as why a car is steered in front but a boat is steered in back, > I did indeed learn that as early as my first toy wagon. Schools do not > concern themselves much with such things, being designed with other > goals as the ultimate driving forces, among which are definitely > discipline and herd mentality. I am a wild cat, or as Harry Harrison > puts it "Stainless Steel Rat", certainly not a line puller of bolt > toter. For me work has always been about how much money I could get in > exchange, because I certainly never got my four basic requirements of > "interesting work, reasonable compensation, a comfortable office, and > no hassle". > > You really like Einstein don't you? I don't because I prefer a reality > in which we can eventually cheat our way past relativity, see "Heim > Theory". Although I am unable to cope with higher dimensional > geometry, having mastered only linear algebra and transforms, I am > delighted by anyone who is able to formulate from basic principles > such a colossal structure of equations, without (so far as I know at a > glance) reference to Calculus. Perhaps someday I will grow bored with > strategy gaming and give it a whirl... > > "Now, refutal of an axiomatic theory does not work by just disliking > or disagreeing with the axioms, but by falsifying them either > deductively, pointing to logical flows in founding the theory, or > inductively, by falsifying their factual predictions." > > On this I beg to disagree. Unless an Axiom agrees with what I WANT to > be reality, I refuse to fall into the trap of spending time to either > support or refute it. If I am forced by circumstances to do so anyway, > then rather than testing the set of conditions resulting as a > consequence of the Axiomatic propositions, I search for an alternative > set of Axioms which would satisfy the same set of conditions... > > I am quite rusty in mental exercises of that nature as you can > probably tell, but hope to sharpen my wits here through reasoned > discourse. Under no circumstances will I engage in a flame war here > with you or anyone else. I also promise not to mock, lampoon, > ridicule, or engage in knowing deception here. Please consider that > the possibility always exists for misunderstandings caused by > different mental processes, in particular due to training, native > tongue, and habitual intellectual exercise. We might follow different > paths to reach the same conclusion, follow different evidence ... > > read more »
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
