I came across the following blog posting by David Justice, which made
me smile:

I wonder who the fundamental tenant really is? Oh, dear... That typo
got through to the second edition too.

Russell Standish, a mathematician, cites the work of his chatmate, one Bruno:

His conclusion is, instead of psychology being reducible to, or indeed emerging 
from the laws of physics, the fundamental laws of physics are in fact a 
conseuence of the properties of machine psychology.  This is indeed a 
revolutionary reversal of the traditional ontology of these subjects.
Russell Standish, Theory of Nothing (2006; 2nd edn. 2011), p. 129

Such a view is certainly consilient, though it stands Wilsonian consilience on 
its head, along with common sense.  And Standish embraces it thus 
(solecistically):  “I agree with this fundamental tenant.”  By that he means 
tenet;  but “machine psychology” is no typo -- sic, as it stands -- albeit it 
would make about as much sense to derive the laws of physics rather from marine 
psychology :  We are all but the dreams of porpoises …

[Update 16 III 2012] A striven-for consilience of art criticism and 

Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to