Walter Eric Johnson wrote in message <73qvlf$pgi$2 at news.tamu.edu>...
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
in his usual ambiguous style
Your perseverance is to be admired Eric. Kkollins thinks he is the process
of some grand synthesis across various disciplines. I tried to point out to
him (Is this pain thread) why such an endeavour is often hopeless and
unnecessary but he mounted no challenge to this, instead making reference to
the fact that I would not follow his path. My guess is he didn't have a clue
what I was on about. He has made the most common blunder of autodidacts
(hubris).
In any event, being Sunday arvo in Aus and me somewhat bored, I will attempt
a little exegesis of Mr. Kollins writings ...
>: <snip> ... but the page missed the whole
>: point of "memory" formation... the necessity of all "memory" mechanisms
to
>: maintain the topology of external energy gradients while bridging between
>: sensory & motor dynamics...
Not at all. To begin with, memory does not faithfully record anywhere near
the requisite amount of data to maintain such a 'typology'. We select
salient features of our environment, we do not mirror the same in our minds,
we distort them.
Sounds impressive though, "typology of external energy gradients" ...
Stuff it, time for The Simpsons.
May I suggest we direct our attention to more profitable endeavours?
John.
I wasn't going to bother posting this but finally I proffer the following
for Ken's consideraton ...
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
<3660D037.E1465AE7 at pop3.concentric.net>...
>Clearly, you're disinclined to go in the only way I could lead you. Be at
Peace "on my account". ken collins
OK now I'm really pissed off ...
As my previous post demonstrated I have gone many ways, which is not to say
I will go any way. Clearly, you're completely resistant to going any way but
you're own. So be it, but the challenge before you then is to convince us
that your way is worth travelling. You can start by:
1. Recognize that autodidacts are prone to a very serious error: thinking by
yourself for yourself leads you to thinking that your thinking is for
everyone. Consider, "Unless ye become like little children ... ."
2. If you can't explain it simply or within standard jargonese don't bother.
3. People who make breakthroughs do so using the conventional jargon (eg
Einstein relied on the maths of Hamilton and Reimann), only latter does the
new jargon emerge. Until such time, the whiz kid must conform to the normal
requirements of communication: make it clear.
4. Maybe not to you and many others, but good grammer, clear language, and
lack of ambiguity are essential. If you can't meet these high school
criteria then go back there, unless you're writing another Ullysses.
5. I will not be at peace with anyone who proclaims profound insights and
obfuscates. For heaven's sake, I can follow Fodor, Crick, Edelman et al so
why on earth should I bother to deconstruct your own personal language? If
they can express themselves like
common people why can't you? Ambiguity is also a very effective weapon for
convincing the masses, a casual examination of many religions reveals the
host of ambiguities that allows such misleading impressions to gain power.
(Pop Psychology, Economics & Postmodernism are modern examples), You may be
able to impress your associates but up against someone who knows their stuff
and you're doomed unless you're right, as the physicist Alan Sokan so
powerfullly demonstrated to the literary world.
Ok, Edelman is an exception in the clarity department but we cannot doubt
his intellectual power -Nobel Prize winner 1972 for immune system work and
considered a possibility for his work on NCAMs. When you've have the runs on
the board you can play that game Ken.
6. Don't throw that condescending attitude at me. I have sufficient faith in
my intellectual capacities and will not tolerate "Oh, you're just can't
appreciate what I'm saying" attitude.
7. If you so choose feel free to continue on your current trajectory but
rest assured you shall remain the lonesome traveller.
"In order to see much one must look away from one's self."
Nietzsche,
John.
Now, I have this pain in my tooth!
