We are there...if not almost! On Jun 5, 2011 2:51 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <[email protected]> wrote: > Mmmhhhmmm... It Goes something like this : > > [Context -> Interaction -> Events] -> > [Observations -> Abstractions -> Prioritization and Categorization -> > Memorization -> Recall -> Pondering and Correlation] > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > On Sunday, June 5, 2011 3:55:24 AM UTC-7, Awori wrote: >> >> Good. That is...before the fact..there is fact. The existence of >> phenomena..'data'...is independent of the conscious fact that, it is there. >> >> On Jun 5, 2011 12:29 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Oof Misunderstanding! Information continuously cycles within an awareness
>> between the so called "conscious mind", the "memory", and the >> "subconscious". Furthermore there are often many layers within each of those >> broad categories, each of which exchanges content within its own realm of >> control. For example, when I want to fetch a particular datum from memory >> due to a fleeting wisp of recollection, I must follow a path of mnemonically >> associated compactions to attain retrieval. If I have secreted the memory to >> prevent unauthorized extraction, then I must also follow a keying sequence >> of permissible windows of synchronization, such that I am not diverted into >> false leads which provide bogus imitations of the buried data. Information >> exists as datums taken WITHIN CONTEXT in my mind. Perhaps I could clarify by >> saying that every transitional exchange of a datum is information regardless >> of whether the transmitter and receiver are located within the same >> awareness? As extraction proceeds, the information attains a solidity of >> form which approaches clarity of its true meaning, until the final stage is >> attained with the clarity at which the datum was stored. This begs the >> question of how much subtext is contained in the clarified information, and >> how many associated datums must be synthesized together within the conscious >> mind to attain a true vision of the meaningfulness of the data. >> >> So far as derived conclusions go based upon the gibberish which I spout - >> Arrggghhhh Yaarrr, Good Luck Pilgrim! >> >> Lonnie Courtney Clay >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 4, 2011 8:01:57 AM UTC-7, Awori wrote: >> >>> >>> > >>> > Interesting...but the assumption is that data only becomes information >>> when it is transmitted f... >>> >>> >>> > >>> > On Jun 4, 2011 4:54 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > Wonderful to hear from ... >>> > 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. >>> > > >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Epistemology" group.... >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/MFh5Q3JvSFB3UVFK. >> >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group,... >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/LWstQTBZenJvZ3NK. > 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. > -- 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.
