On Dec 19, 4:18 am, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. > MIND AND BRAIN deals with the glaring physical proof that the > DISCRETE brain, or any other processor cannot perform by > itself any CONSCIOUS action, and that by over 50 orders. > The solution, or rather direction in which it may be looked for, > is suggested to reside in the fundamental Continuum/Discreteness > polarity of Einstein's Physical Reality. > (It's founded in "TIME, AWARENESS AND > EVENTS"http://findgeorges.com/CORE/A_FOUNDATIONS/a1_time_awareness_and_event... > which I have mentioned in the answer to your "Nature of Time".) > > Brain can, of course, perform fast UNCONSCIOUS acts learned and > imprinted locally by conscious repetitions. > > I'm right now composing a blues "Wind is Blowing", in which, quite > a way down I play the chord of VI. Whistling under the shower, I > got the idea to replace it with V(9). Then I played, my fingers > moving automatically through the beginning, while my mind was all > the time concentrating on the V(9) to come. > > Georges. > =================== > I had to give up whistling due to dental problems. Perhaps I will take the art up again when I get dentures. From your statements, it is obvious to me that you engage in situational awareness, as does most every musician. As an analogy to computer pipeline processing, you are hearing and correcting the current note, anticipating in your mind the next note, with tone adjustment to transition from the current to the next, and controlling your breath so that you do not run out of air until the music provides a pause. Sadly, I have noticed that the art of whistling has declined significantly during my lifetime. Some mean spirited people who are incapable of performing well with the one instrument always available to anyone claim that whistling "hurts their ears", "is out of tune", "is not following the song", etc. etc.. What they really mean is that they can't stand to know that someone can do something better than they can, with more versatility and originality...
>From the link above : NOTE: As justified in "STRUCTURES OF MIND" (Reflection and Meaning) words don't carry meaning, but more or less vaguely point to it. Very vaguely indeed when concerning general and intuitive concepts such as "universe" or "awareness". Particularly misleading are the possessive adjectives like "my", prepositions like "of", etc. "My awareness", or "I am aware" misdescribe for instance some "I" having "awareness". Yet, such forms are unavoidable when using a natural language. Sartre introduced a convention to put misleaders in brackets, like in "conscience (de) soi". We shall use it in especially confusing cases and write: "(my) awareness", "awareness (of) tree", or "(my) universe". Not that it's any more precise, but at least it gives a warning against misinterpretations. To achieve precision, a language needs to denote the observer, the observed object, the target which will receive the observation, and the observables, with subclauses for all of them providing additional information. Since I know of no natural language which does that much, perhaps we will all have to wait for the linguists to come up with something appropriate, hopefully without resorting to 1000 word long sentences. One solution may be to get away from the notion that a language must have a minimal number of root words and meanings per word, and instead develop languages rich in both word modifiers and contextual interpretation. Another solution might be to expand the number of punctuation marks using iconic characters from the current dozen or so in English to perhaps a hundred, as an aid to sentence parsing. I am not a linguist, though I try to be cunning D:)+++ One of the reasons why I decided to focus upon software engineering while in college was so that I could become more aware of my own thought processes, debugging them where flaws were found. As an aid to that task, I purchased and read (except for boring archaic and specialized technical jargon) a Webster's Unabridged dictionary from cover to cover, which took six months of my "spare" time. One of the things which I noticed was the circularity of definitions when dealing with atomic constructs such as the pronouns, articles, and simple phase constructs such as prepositions. Long words and much lather was being used to define the short words, with the shortest and most ambiguous being referential to the observer, observed, and target of a communication regarding the observed. If you have never studied Latin, then I highly recommend that you should give it a whirl. I took two years of Latin in high school, and found the experience of trying to think in a different language highly valuable when I first started programming at 17 in Fortran. I was able to bypass tech school in the USAF by reading the Cobol test cover to cover, then answering all of the questions based upon what I deduced regarding the language and the multiple choice questions' answers. Although I had never seen Cobol before, I scored 75 on the bypass test, 50 being a passing score. Once in my assignment, I swiftly learned Jovial, EXEC 8 Assembler for the UNIVAC 1108 and actually read the study material for learning Cobol. While in college I learned Algol, Basic, Xerox Sigma 9 assembler, Z80 assembler, PDP-8 assembler, and various other less useful computer languages. I have a sister who graduated with fluency in foreign languages Italian, German, French, Spanish, Portugese and less fluency in a couple of others. So perhaps my genetic heritage lends itself to learning various languages. I was prevented from getting a BS as opposed to BSEE degree by the foreign language requirement, with an enrollment in German which I was obliged to drop almost immediately, and private study of Greek, which was not fruitful. Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
