Grrrr! 😀😜 New day... On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:30 AM ┣glen┫ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops. I'm sorry if I've offended you. I am contrarian and tend to seek > out areas of disagreement, rather than agreement. > > On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > > The "as if" was the key. The "as if" alludes to the behavioral > manifestation. Yes? > > Yes, of course. However, this is the subject of the conversation. If we > allow the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking > the illusion seriously. So, by calling out the nonsensical materials > surrounding the "as if", I'm trying to avoid that. > > > I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and "nonsense" > [usually with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies. > > Yes, you're right. And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean > something more than it is. What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use > for it. I can't formulate a use case. What I mean by "nonsense" is that > it makes no sense to me. I should pepper my replies with more social salve > like "to me" and "in my opinion". It's difficult, though, because that > overhead interferes with the actual content. But please don't think my > attribution of "useless" and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried > to make use/sense of that content. My colleagues constantly mention work > like that of Csikszentmihalyi and I've studied what I can to extract > elements I can use, often to no avail. > > I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings. But it is true. I > have too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on > thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains. > > > In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually > make my point. Thanks! Language can be a problem. Symbolic reference. > Imprecision. But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try > to) understand anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really understand > anything you have said in as much as I have tried. And I am not sure it is > because of the imprecision of language, though. It is something else that > leads you to just find disagreement. As often said, it is much easier to > sound smart by tearing something down than to constructively build on > something. Maybe that applies here. Not sure. Hope not. > > I don't intend to tear anything down and am under no illusions regarding > my own lack of intelligence. I'm a solid C student and am always > outmatched by my friends and colleagues. (That's from a lesson my dad > taught me long ago. If you want to improve your game, choose opponents > that are better than you are. So I make every attempt to hang out with > people far smarter than I am. That they tolerate my idiocy is evidence of > their kindness.) > > But the point, here, is that you offered a solution to the problem I > posed. And I believe your solution to be inadequate. So, I'm simply > trying to point out that it is inadequate and why/how it is inadequate. ... > namely that your concept of optimal or efficient embedding in an > environment is too reliant on the vague concept of mind/thought. > > If birdsong retains its temporal fractality despite the bird being > embedded in a non-fractal environment, then we should look elsewhere ... > somewhere other than the birds' minds. Vladimyr's argument posted last > night may demonstrate that I'm wrong, though. I don't know, yet. > > -- > ␦glen? > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove