Andrew K Fletcher wrote:
>> Thanks for your kind review Ken
>> Would like to offer the following remark to the use of a microscope, and
> hope it is received in a positive context.
Andrew, I See Clearly the Sincerity in your "Heart". I'll Welcome
=Anything= you have to say, and Treasure it, be-cause I See Clearly the
Sincerity in your "Heart".
> Education has been the downfall of science and prohibits free thinking.
> Education causes people to stop before they say something. A child is far
> more clever than some well educated people, whom I have met.
I Agree, and offer an additional Insight from the Biology. What's
referred to as "intelligence" is the capacity to, given "information",
Learn how to manifest behaviour with respect to that information. Our
nervous systems do such by modifying themselves so that, given an
external 3-D energy distribution ("information"), the internal topology
of the nervous system becomes a mirror-image of the particular external
3-D energy distribution with respect to which Learning is occurring. The
degree that such occurs is a direct measure of the "intelligence" of the
nervous system involved... a direct measure of that nervous system's
capacity for doing the work that Learning" entails.
Now, consider a new-born Infant... "tablo rasa"... confronted with
Infinity, the Infant's nervous system, never-the-less, =races= through
that Infinitely-large information-set. As Learning occurs, though, the
capacity for Learning =tends= to decrease because, as the individual's
Learning-based repitoir of behavioral manifestations augments, it
becomes relatively more-easy for the individual to =use= elements of the
individual's existing behavioral repitoir than it is to =develop=
additional behavioural manifestations which will have better
goodness-of-fit with this-or-that external 3-D energy distribution
("information")... as a result of this, the rate at which an individual
Learns tends to decrease. (For those who have it see the discussion of
the "volitional diminishing-returns decision", AoK, Ap7, and its
behavioural correlates in Ap8.)
The Choice to =use= rather than to =develop= is Rigorously-coupled to
the dynamics of the passive/active phase shift (the
sensory-template-dominant/motor-template-dominant phase shift) as they
are discussed in in the "dynamic subordinate coupling" section of AoK,
Ap5.) The Decision to "use" existing Learning, rather than "develop" new
Learning, is a Volitional Decision to forsake Intelligence :-)
There's more to the Biological dynamics, Andrew, but I'll defer further
discussion to a future post. What I've worked to point out, here, is
that all of Neuroscience "says" that you are Correct in what you've said
about what is typically, but unnecessarily, the case with respect to the
relative "intelligence" of Children and Adults... be-cause of the
Blindly-Automated Choice of Adults, as is briefly discussed above,
Children tend strongly to Learn extremely-more-rapidly than do Adults,
and tend to be vastly-more-Intelligent than are Adults. (It's a Sorrow
that it's so, by =Choice=, albeit, Blindly-Automated "choice" that's
Dictated by that which I refer to as the "Beast", Abstract Ignorance
(the Absence of understanding of how nervous systems process information
which is, never-the-less, Physically encoded within the flesh of nervous
systems).
[An asside: It was this Biological Reality that Jesus was addressing
when He said (paraphrase), "Unless one is as a child, one cannot enter
into the kingdom of heaven." ...Jesus Understood how we work, and He
Taught, simultaneously, with respect to Heaven and Earth... as God
would, 'cause God =Knows= both Heaven and Earth :-)]
> They have
> become too well educated, and no longer see the wood for the trees.
But what they invoke as "education" is as above... Total =Surrender= to
Ignorance... most often, in the name of "profits", but not always...
sometimes folks are "just" Lazy.
> A top scientist was talking on a BBC radio program about the advances in
> science. Listeners were invited to ask him questions.
>> Needless to say there were not many takers. However I asked him this
> question: "When you look through your microscope, do you see more or less of
> the object which you are focused on?". To my surprise he couldn't answer the
> question and blinded the question with B.S. and somewhat hesitant political
> skill. A child would have probably answered "More", meaning more detail, but
> you actually see less of the object.
I understand, but I'd just move the microscope to every point in the
problem, and cross-correlate everything as I do so... to get a
higher-resolution "picture" of the whole... this's why, in my
immediately-previous post, I emphasized the importance of a Willingness
to endure the work entailed. Technology like "microscopes" isn't "bad",
in and of itself. What's "bad" is when folks who use such technology
Choose to behave as if the fact of their using the technology is
"sufficient"... it =Never= is. Increasing the resolving-power that's
brought to bear upon a question "just" makes the cross-correlation work,
that must be done to maintain Contact with the Whole,
commensurately-bigger... Sorrowfully, it's most-often the case that,
when a Scientist is given a new technological "toy", using the "toy"
becomes the Scientist's focus, rather than the Problem that the
Scientist happens to be working on. It's a Sorrow. One can open up =any=
Scientific Journal, and See such "happening" throughout it.
You are Correct, Andrew.
> I was trying to point out that the closer one looks at the details the less
> one sees. In other words step back and look at the whole picture. This is
> particularly important with regard to trying to work out how things happen
> in the real world. You can't take a slice from a tree any more than you can
> take a slice from a vital organ, to find out how it works because you have
> disconected it. "Sorry for stating the obvious again".
You are Correct, Andrew. But all that's necessary to maintain the Whole
is the Willingness to do the work entailed in the "magnified"
cross-correlation, and through which work, the Whole is Maintained.
Sincerely, ken collins
>kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
> <36733F0D.5BA589C9 at pop3.concentric.net>...
> >Good for you, Andrew, the integration inherent in your Theory is
> >Quite-Nice. You can Verify your position be-cause, if it's Correct, the
> >"tube"-construction must be graded over the length of the tubes
> >(greatest where the tube is oldest, least where the tube is newest.) a
> >carefully cross-sectioned tree, a microscope, and the Will to do what'll
> >be a lengthy cross-correlation process are all you need.
> >
> >I enjoyed reading your work. Cheers, Ken Collins
> >
> >Andrews K Fletcher wrote:
> >
> >[his Interesting Theoretical Position re. water flow in trees]
