rwas rwas wrote:
> I guess the virtue of that depends on what you want to
> achieve. Sequential thinking is nice for applying
> formalized methods of analysis on something.
> Lateral thinking is far better for creative problem
> solving.

Ahh - now I see that your "sequential thinking" means the same thing
as analytic or deductive thought. As opposed to synthetic or
integrative thought (which is in essence what lateral thinking is all

> My frustration with this group has been to observe
> (apparently) no creative ideas in transcending the
> darkness which our ignorance of consciousness and the
> nature of existence creates.
> Robert W.

You must have a particular problem in mind to have made this
comment. In fact this group has come up with many novel ideas that
have been discussed. Some were preconceived ideas brought to the
discussion, other arose in the heat of debate. Some have been found to
be wanting, and so have been left on the wayside. Other ideas have
better stood the test of criticism, but are still contentious.

Consciousness per se, is a philosophical quagmire, that is unlikely to
be solved anytime soon. I believe it is somewhat on the periphery of
the sort of ensemble theories we discuss here, as it appears through
the various types of anthropic principles, and that more progress
will be made by postulating certain properties of consciousness and
working with that. I know that several members of this list are also
interested in the "AI" problem, that is how to generate a conscious
being in an artificial machine - as much as this would be a
significant philosophical milestone in many areas, I don't believe it
is needed to make progress.


Dr. Russell Standish                     Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967                    
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         Fax   9385 6965                    
Australia                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Room 2075, Red Centre          

Reply via email to