On Dec 19, 1:50 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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_conte... > andhttp://findgeorges.com/CORE/1_MY_UNIVERSITIES/my_universities_2_hideo... > 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=MC2http://findgeorges.com/CORE/F_SPECIAL_RELATIVITY/f5_emc2.html > -Conception of locality and > causalityhttp://findgeorges.com/CORE/D_RATIONAL_VIEW/d1_causality_and_implicat... > -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 > inhttp://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.
Georges, please do not be angry with me because I stumbled in my offhand response to your observations. Although it may seem peculiar, believe me when I say that my childhood was not the bowl of cherries which you seem to imagine. For one thing my parents were abusive religious fanatics, whose religion I found extremely unpalatable, being drenched in the glorification of bloody suffering. For another I was ostracized in every social situation which I ever encountered up to my entry in college after being discharged from the USAF after 10 months 21 days for "inability to cope with a regimented lifestyle", "lack of respect for all authority and/or authority figures", and being "too damned smart to trust". The only reason why I even made it out of basic training was that I scored 93 on the EDPT test (mean 20 std dev 14) and was recognized as just the sort of whiz kid, presumably malleable, who could solve a couple of problems at SACHQ command post. Once those problems were solved, I was ejected like a used piece of tissue paper. In college, being the curve breaker in almost all of my courses, I was loathed. Upon graduation, I was mercilessly exploited by every employer, being expected to work uncompensated overtime, solve problems normally assigned to teams of regular programmers, and once again, ostracized for being "pretty damn strange". With ulcerative colitis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, gross obesity, severe back pain from being hit by a car in 76, severe tooth pain from lack of adequate dental care programs, chronic money problems from trying to support less fortunate members of my family (which to this day is lower class though some try to pretend they have attained middle class wealth), I finally decided to get out of the rat race in 1990. The decision was apparently mutual because the rat race in the form of IBM fired me from my (as it turned out) final employment due to "excessive absenteeism", after which I was unable to get anything more than 5 minute phone interviews to determine whether I would work for slave wages again. In 1997 I went "crazy" to get a VA mental disability pension, which pays the equivalent of a minimum wage job, with no work required beyond taking drugs designed to keep me harmless... So I spend my time playing computer strategy games, occasionally venturing out into the internet to see whether there is anything interesting happening. Sometimes a subject piques my interest enough to join a newsgroup and contribute (google my name plus "Merry Christmas" in sci.crypt). Occasionally I go on a tear and have a bit of trollish fun saying boo to see if there is anyone unintimidated by my postings. It looks like you are definitely not intimidated, being rather a wild card yourself... So far as why a car is steered in front but a boat is steered in back, I did indeed learn that as early as my first toy wagon. Schools do not concern themselves much with such things, being designed with other goals as the ultimate driving forces, among which are definitely discipline and herd mentality. I am a wild cat, or as Harry Harrison puts it "Stainless Steel Rat", certainly not a line puller of bolt toter. For me work has always been about how much money I could get in exchange, because I certainly never got my four basic requirements of "interesting work, reasonable compensation, a comfortable office, and no hassle". You really like Einstein don't you? I don't because I prefer a reality in which we can eventually cheat our way past relativity, see "Heim Theory". Although I am unable to cope with higher dimensional geometry, having mastered only linear algebra and transforms, I am delighted by anyone who is able to formulate from basic principles such a colossal structure of equations, without (so far as I know at a glance) reference to Calculus. Perhaps someday I will grow bored with strategy gaming and give it a whirl... "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." On this I beg to disagree. Unless an Axiom agrees with what I WANT to be reality, I refuse to fall into the trap of spending time to either support or refute it. If I am forced by circumstances to do so anyway, then rather than testing the set of conditions resulting as a consequence of the Axiomatic propositions, I search for an alternative set of Axioms which would satisfy the same set of conditions... I am quite rusty in mental exercises of that nature as you can probably tell, but hope to sharpen my wits here through reasoned discourse. Under no circumstances will I engage in a flame war here with you or anyone else. I also promise not to mock, lampoon, ridicule, or engage in knowing deception here. Please consider that the possibility always exists for misunderstandings caused by different mental processes, in particular due to training, native tongue, and habitual intellectual exercise. We might follow different paths to reach the same conclusion, follow different evidence trails to reach different conclusions, or in my case wander through "a maze of twisty passages, all alike" D:) 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.
