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
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to