Dear Tim, I am sorry that you did not read my 1st par: "Dear Tim, this writing is not about YOU, only addressed to your post. It is about the topic of it. I have no argument with you, maybe you will have with me."
And you have. You precisely formulated what I marginally 'shorthanded' writing "this list": > Given that there is no moderation, no censorship, it is clear that talk > about "this list...took" is missing the point. "This list" is really > "the comments of those subscribed and contributing." Amen. And I love to read them, mostly as a 'lurker', posting occasionally and in very select topics. I definitely do not want to 'reorganize' or 'change' the list. I don't believe I wrote anything understandable as "what I would like to read", only referred to the free spirit that was frequently readable by contributors who let their (professionally well trained) minds walk - roam around, as someone said: in a post-post-post modern scientific view. Please do NOT read into this that I deem this spirit all gone from the list. I wrote "more conventional" referring to the formalistic classical physics of the textbooks (not exclusively, but the majority of the list-contributors seem to prefer physics over other 'scientific' disciplines). Not "you", and my remark was not complaining, rather observing - even if you overestimate the "alas" in it. It only means that I enjoy the 'nonconventional' more. I always stood up for free spirit/speech/ideas, whether I was in agreement or not, and it feels really bad to have to defend myself against the image of a fascist tyrant. So please, remember the omitted 1st par above. I suppose your line: > I cannot understand your point here. But if the "several" who were once > here are no longer posting, I am not stopping them.< refers to my phrase "'well composed' edifice of the scientific doctrines..." (discounting the personal defensive) - maybe if you care to glance at my 'older' essay (http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/SciRelMay00.html) that would release me from lengthy explanations - subject maybe to my newer miscraftings here - (and I refer to your next remark: > Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here<) Idea I have, wording is hard. I may mention some key-phrases without contextual explanations (and without asking Wei Dai to reformulate the list in favor of these <G>) as stirring around lately in select speculations: -- "complexity-thinking", -- extending the limits of reductionism: induction-buildup, to deduction-analysis, -- extending the limited models of reductionist science, -- natural systems as networks of networks, -- total interconnectedness -- etc., but I am afraid that whatever I mention opens another Pandora's box of worms. We (working in these lines) have still arguments how to understand (then formulate) concepts like impredicative, endogenous, emergent, etc., beside the re-identification of 'older' terms galore. Sorry to have aggrevated you John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Science > > On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:11 PM, John M wrote: > > > This list - several years ago - took a free approach, alas lately more > > and > > more conventional opinions slip in, regrettable for me, because I hold > > that > > the conventional "science establishment" holds feverishly to old > > addages, > > acquired in times when the epistemic cognitive inventory was much less > > than > > available today (which is much less than that of tomorrow). Even the > > "topics > > of the future" build on ancient observations and their explanations > > (formalism), in order to conform with the scientists' earlier books, > > teachings, pupils, discussions. > > Given that there is no moderation, no censorship, it is clear that talk > about "this list...took" is missing the point. "This list" is really > "the comments of those subscribed and contributing." > > As always, if you believe people are talking about the wrong things, > your best approach to is to persuasively make your own points which you > believe fit your conception of what subscribers to the list "should" be > talking about. > > I have no understanding of what you mean by saying "alas lately more > and more conventional opinions slip in." > > If you think my views are too conventional, for example, or that I > should not be posting to this list, I suppose you can ask Wei Dai to > remove me. I believe nearly all of my posts are in the spirit of the > list's charter, discussing as I do MWI, Tegmark/Egan, possible worlds, > modal logic, etc. > > (I seldom if ever discuss the Schmidhuber thesis, and the "COMP" > thesis, as these are not currently interesting to me. I notice plenty > of other people discussing them, and I read their comments with _some_ > interest, anticipating the eventual day when the COMP stuff is more > germane to me.) > > > > > In MOST cases the methodology works in practical ways, builds > > technology, up > > to the point when "understanding" comes in. This is a many negated > > term, > > many so called scientists satisfy themselves with practical results > > (for > > tenure, awards, etc.) > > Few researchers take the stance to "free" their mind from learned > > prejudice > > and check the 'well composed' edifice of the scientific doctrines for > > sustainability under the newly evolved vistas. There were several on > > this > > list. > > I cannot understand your point here. But if the "several" who were once > here are no longer posting, I am not stopping them. > > > The new ideas were quickly absorbed into the existing formalistic mill > > - > > calculative obsolescence and semantic impropriety, which confused > > many. > > New science is like Tao: who says "I developed a theory within it" > > does not > > know what he talks about. Science is on the crossroad: (I wold not say > > bifurcation, because I have negative arguments against this concept) > > and we > > know only that something 'new' is in the dreams, we need more thinking > > before we can identify "what". > > Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here. > > > Speaking of "science" usually means "old science". This list started > > out to > > serve the "new science". > > It woulod be a shame to slip back into the conventionalities. > > Talk to Wei Dai. I write what I think is true and important. > > > --Tim May