George (and Bruno, of course) First my coingrats to Bruno for completing his writing up to t publishable level, and now comes the proble: George, I struggle for the same quagmire, to find words for terms unmatched/able to the baggage EVERY habitual human word carries. I have 3 languages plus Latin and a not so complete French to look into and have a pretty good word-fantasy (I make lots of puns), however whatever I try, it comes back to the conventional meanings
It is almpost imposible to have a "title-phrase" for an ignorant readership to take the text and read it - and refer at the same time to a novelty unfathomed by an innocent bystander so far. So I said: "so what" and explain my vocabulary 'inside' not minding those who will miss my divine wisdom <G>. There is a slow process to the Nobel, and not always open for the deservants. Our entire linguistics evolved while reductionist conventionalism ruled the human thinking. I guess (I gave up to 'understgand' his texts) Bruno has absolutely new ways of speculation and novel conclusions, different from the 'college-stuff' of scientific terms (language). George, you are absolutely right that 85% of people looking into titles of Elsevier (I reduced the 'audience already) will misunderstand 'machine', 'psych', tele- or the-ology, will think of software engineering as 'comput/er/ing(?) science or comp, and number theory will bring up integers, immaginaries, or fractions. The 15% will not care. I have problems over a decade to explain over and over again that my "wholism" is not holism as in some superstitious healing process and "wholistic view" is not holistic and does not look through a wormhole. But such is life. To be a mental pioneer does not mean the pecuniar benefits of a bestseller. To put your foot into Google/Wikipedia and watch for nitpickings by misundestanding (but reading!) strangers is one of the first steps. More than this (miraculous!) list-membership. BTW, Bruno, from the little I did understand from your texts so far and from the lots I didn't I think we are NOT in a perfect match of worldviews. Hard to pinpoint, because I bleong to those who do not "speak"/(think) within your vocabulary <G> How about "Ideational Mechanisms of the Totality (world)? With friendship John --- George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno > > I don't think either "machine psychology" or > "machine theology" work > because of the baggage those field already carry. In > any case the > attribute "machine" sends the wrong picture. And as > you have pointed out > the terms "computer science" and "number theory" do > not capture the > real issue of machine consciousness..... In fact I > do not think there is > any word in English or French to describe what you > are up to. > > Why don't you use a new word with no baggage to > describe what you are doing? > > "Psychomechanics" is not listed in most dictionaries > > <http://www.onelook.com/?w=psychomechanics+&ls=a> . > Unfortunately, this > word has already been invented. It can be found on > Google > <http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=psychomechanics&btnG=Search> > > in the context of animation and games and possibly > Linguistics. > > It may be that others in this list can think of a > better word. > > George > > >
