Our short exchange produced several long posts full of interesting, but often marginal details, which, if all answered would diverge into several books.
I'll tackle here a few IMO pertinent points, trying to make our exchanges converge. ================ EDUCATION AND CONDITIONING. You said: "apparently due to early training, my mind functions differently from yours". True. As you can see in "MY UNIVERSITIES" http://findgeorges.com/CORE/1_MY_UNIVERSITIES/my_universities_1_context.html and http://findgeorges.com/CORE/1_MY_UNIVERSITIES/my_universities_2_hideout_briefings.html I never went to any school and my education boils down to briefings by people I met in the hideouts of the Polish resistance. Yet, they were good enough for Infeld to accept me to his branch of Einstein Relativity research team. Actually, he told me that I have better chances to get creative than the rest, all PHD's, who "will hardly ever forget the bullshit that had been dumped on them". And the more efficient the education, the stronger the conditioning preventing one from thinking by himself. His judgment proved close to the mark and I was always rather creative. A few examples: -Correction of Einstein's quick and dirty derivation of E=MC2 http://findgeorges.com/CORE/F_SPECIAL_RELATIVITY/f5_emc2.html -Conception of locality and causality http://findgeorges.com/CORE/D_RATIONAL_VIEW/d1_causality_and_implication.html -Original, IMO unique rigorous logic, which I programmed first on Univac and which was used on many applications, starting with the Gemini project - sending the man to the moon. Simple tutorial example in http://findgeorges.com/CORE/D_RATIONAL_VIEW/d3_ern_logic.html Einstein would have never been accepted to your, doubtless exceptionally efficient, AT education. He had a low IQ, was slow on the uptake and was considered by Lorentz as his worst student, who put 2 years more than average to get the gist of tensors. And till the rest of his life Lorentz stayed insulted by "this Einstein's theory" - he never said "Relativity" - with which the dunce had dared to ruin his own dear Aether. And yet, Lorentz was one of the most brilliant physicist of his time, certainly more brilliant than Einstein. Thus, "brilliant" does not always mean "right". Just a digression: did your AT training explain why cars are steered in the front, but planes and boats in the rear? Please, in all decency, try to answer. The principle behind it is fundamental for physics and cybernetics. ================ AWARENESS. You refuted my "When I perceive a tree I'm not aware of being aware of perceiving a tree, but I'm aware of "tree", so that the only way of expressing Awareness would be "Tree"." saying: "Hmm, apparently due to early training, my mind functions differently from yours. In the third grade AT (Academically Talented**) program, I was taught to think in multitrack mode, with recursion. Not only do I see a tree, I am aware of the process of observing the tree..." Indeed, you "are aware" of, but you don't PERCEIVE your "being aware". The percept "tree" has shape, colors and fabric and you are aware of perceiving them. But you don't PERCEIVE your "being aware", unless you can tell its shape, color and fabric. By taking an illustration, you dodged the axioms it illustrates, to wit, FUNDAMENTAL EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE: INTUITIVE(CONTINUOUS) ASPECT OF TIME IS EQUIVALENT WITH AWARENESS. and POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY ALL EVENTS OF HUMAN UNIVERSE ARE MUTUALLY RELATIVE AND FOUNDED IN THE ABSOLUTE CONTINUOUS AWARENESS And the corollary 1: THE POLARITY CONTINUUM/DISCRETENESS IS THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF ALL HUMAN EXPERIENCES WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL PREPONDERANCE OF THE CONTINUOUS ASPECT INTUITED AS AWARENESS Now, refutal of an axiomatic theory does not work by just disliking or disagreeing with the axioms, but by falsifying them either deductively, pointing to logical flows in founding the theory, or inductively, by falsifying their factual predictions. Now, these axioms are deemed to found the current physics. To falsify them factually you would have to falsify the Relativity and the Quantum Physics. To falsify them deductively you must show flaws in "NATURAL MODEL" http://findgeorges.com/CORE/B_NATURAL_VIEW/b1_natural_model.html Yet, before refuting, it would perhaps be interesting to consider and to discuss the reality in the new light Einstein's ontology casts on it. Georges. -- 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.
