RE: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
JS,
you wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You have made many statements about perception, most
> of them obvious, some debatable, and some dubious.
the perspectives are supported by research data refs. I can easily play
'references at 10 paces'.
> But you fail to recognize a simple point:
>
> 1. A statement about the world is verified or falsified
> by observation and experiment upon the world.
>
...as is shown in the website both in prose and associated references. you
obviously have not bothered to go through the details since your 19th
century mindset is too rigid to allow for change. You should not be involved
in innovative work - too much dead weight; 'old' thinking. The issue is
that the METHOD of observation will filter things and FORCE perspectives
derived at the unconscious into consciousness. ANY experiments derived from
that consciousness will REFLECT the original METHOD of information
aquisition and a driving force in the construction of the experiments and
their equipment.
A classic example of this is modern interpretations of quantum mechanics
where the originators had no idea what was going on 'in here' and as such
used their imagination (due to 'pressures' to interpret what they, and their
XOR-realm models, were coming up with.) In that utilisation, the XOR
perspective of consciousness dominated all, such that the AND nature present
in our species-nature, a nature integrated with the environment through
instincts/habits, was not recognised - IOW the 'failure' was in not
compensating for our consciousness being a PART of our being, not the WHOLE
of our being and as such one level of reality removed from what our species
has adapted to.
The differences are subtle but enough to elicit 'differences' in
perspectives that can affect thinking and that thinking then becomes
'dogma'. The advantage of imagination, from an evolutionary perspective, is
in pre-empting contexts to which we may need to adapt. The disadvantage is
that imagination is ignorant of laws of physics, chemistry etc - it reflects
the mindset of the child. As such it can come up with some really 'novel'
perspectives - delusions but 'fun' -- until woven into the collective's
mindset.
> 2. The method of arriving at a statement does not
> affect its truth or falsity.
>
yes it does - 'uncertainty' or 'incompleteness' models being classic cases
of idealism out of touch with reality. Our consciousness is PARTS oriented,
MECHANISTIC, serial-oriented, and so ANY models coming out of that XOR
context will HAVE TO BE incomplete. The FULL nature of our being includes
our species-nature, and so our unconscious where contact with that organic,
parallel, nature is the 'final' completion - instincts/habits are 'complete'
response systems but access to them is limited to the wholistic, the
immediacy, of our intuition. THAT is considered 'not science' since it falls
back on issues of 'blind faith' - there is no 'negation' with which to
contrast since that process requires the serial! - IOW our science
perspective GUARANTEES incompleteness such that the truth/falsity of a
statement, as a univeraal, IS affected by the method used to derive it.
LOCALLY, in one's "little world", be it individual or collective, so
'fundamentalist' notions can develop that blind those inside those
collectives "all is fine in here!" - this at times gets into areas of
psychosis - a price for high precision, XOR-oriented, thinking.
> If you can't understand this point, I have no confidence
> in anything you say.
>
LOL! From your prose of recent I have NO confidence nore trust in ANYTHING
you say - you come across as a prime example of conceited, over-educated,
out-of-touch individual. You dont focus on WHAT is presented, you focus on
HOW it is presented and as such show a focus on VALUES ahead of FACTS. To
your over-educated mindset, universally, spelling and margin placement are
of equal importance to any facts presented! You have been dealing with too
many dissertations and universalised the requirements! Deplorable conduct,
you should be ashamed of yourself. If this was a list about court politics
or some mindless 'chat' list where one's position etc was of importance then
I could understand the 'values' oriented perspective, but as far as I can
see this list is supposed to be about FACTS about issues of IS-ness and so
focused on reality free of individuals concerned more with their
labels/badges/past-guru-status.
> CL> For example, you have FAILED totally in comprehending
> > what I have presented re a property of recursion in its
> > encoding of meaning.
>
> Indeed, I have failed to see anything insightful, notable,
> or useful in what you have said.
I can understand that statement from someone obviously ignorant re how they
think, how their brain and so mind interacts at levels deeper than the
superficial. If you did your homework on how the brain deals with
information and from there how we do then you might just start to comprehend
what is being delt with. The fact that you think NOT understanding the
METHOD we use to think is acceptable in a context of determining
MEANING/IS-ness shows a stunning, a shameful, degree of ignorance in this
day and age.
A wonderful example of this lack of understanding, and how imagination plays
a part in perpetuating that lack, is in the descriptions of the more
'spritually inclined' re sensations sourced in our species-nature. This
example is the prose of a Rabbi outlining the properties and methods of
'angels' - obviously done with no understanding of the neurology, where
instincts/habits are encoded into our input areas of the neurology and as
such allow for context to PUSH us.
Since individual consciousness is obviously DERIVED from increased
complexity in information processing, so it has no idea what is going on
when 'something', seemingly inconsequental, picked up by peripheral vision
etc, can push a button to elicit a response not intended, not 'decreed' by
consciousness!
Consciousness, being an agent of mediation, is driven to try and interpret,
based on existing perspectives - and so out pops....
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html
> I will give you the
> benefit of the doubt: perhaps you have some deep insight
> that you don't know how to express in ways that I can
> understand.
>
> When you learn how to express your deep thoughts, let me
> know. Until then, I will continue to ignore your web site.
>
no problem - based on your prose to date it would be a bit beyond you
anyway - it is more focused on the 21st century, not the 19th century. ;-) -
and of course HOW it is presented will upset you since you obviously lack
the skills to deal with the facts, your values make it more difficult for
you to take risks, if things are not layed out the way YOU want them to be
then they are rejected! LOL! You go ahead and ignore it all JS, I am sure
you will be just fine.