My apologies for the missing "b" in your e-mail address, Mr/Mrs/Ms Gibbsey! JM
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:57 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > All well taken dude, but what you gleaned was available to the author of > the post peripheral vision the other side of a large living room or a small > garden. If you'd actually read a few words in you would probably have > quickly added the insight immediately after the one (funny...and I really > like that scene) about tgoinghe tirade. I really went out of my way to make > it obvious I wasn't serious. The tiny snippet sentence and focus even there > on just one bit at the end. It was like. Steve Martin Dead Men Don't Wear > Plad....where the whole movie is about a massive conspiracy he realizes > after seeing a small tear on a dollar bill. > > But all that was just to entertain you and reel you in. I thought you > might be, simply because you are the one that knows that post was a > throwaway. Reel you in because there was some interesting in the > consequences...and if you maybe got warmed up and excited we could do some > mutually reinforcing discovery insight shit. > > I think you have to structure things this way nowadays. Otherwise all you > get from someone's vast actual potential is whatever upchuck is their > lowest energy repuke for the first pattern match. Not saying you. But we > all do that unless we're actually swimming the other way. Its the slow > undercurrent of things....goes to the stagnant end. Also, it's better if > people choose or not choose by their basic sequence of choices, if they > really want to do this thing, with you thing. I wouldn't with me. I would > with you. > > On Monday, October 27, 2014 9:08:10 PM UTC, JohnM wrote: > >> Dear Zibsey, >> what a response to my short-cut exuberance in my 'agnosticism'! >> Reminds me Rostand's tirade by Cyrano to the vicompt's brief "Sir, your >> nose is big".. >> I read it with gusto and - as usual - don't want to argue in detail. t >> I accept it as an addage to my ideas which I never want to get accepted >> by others. >> I was expecting a short snap from Brent's (Liz's?) wits - that's all. >> I do not envy those who make a career in ongoing science, be it >> financially supported, >> or just societally rewarding, I was active in 'that' domain for my 1st >> 1/2 century, until I >> learned to "think" better - for the 2nd half. >> >> I am glad my note triggered you into participating on this list, usually >> discussing more >> exciting (scientific?) terms than those godforsaken religious topics we >> get lately. >> >> Best regards >> >> John Mikes Ph.D. (chem), D.Sc. (sp.polymer techn) and classical music >> performer. >> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:53:36 PM UTC, JohnM wrote: >>>> >>>> Brent, these guys are SOOOOO smart! They even knew how to convert >>>> infinity into a definitely lucrative career with awards and stuff. >>>> >>>> you made a good insight here, so my thanks that you shared it. >>> >>> Reading the fuller laid down by you across the whole post, but taking >>> particular note of the sentence above, in which you do appear to make a >>> direct causal linkage between two individually distinctive manifestations >>> of "Smart" normally associated with very different human domains, and as >>> such kept separate from one-another thus not causally coupled the way you >>> imply, instead non-interacting. >>> >>> I'll clarify what I say there in just a moment. But the upshot is...Yes >>> you are right, I think. This is one of the rare instances in the history >>> of Science that awards, scientific status, influence, authority and >>> reputation : awhich science in the institutional tense of the word has >>> evolved its own unique checks and balances and all the other effects, to >>> keep things like reputation, awards and the other items above, strongly >>> convergent with real breakthroughs and advances, at some sort of parity. >>> Possibly the most successful solution for this in human history. >>> >>> And it is for that reason, the occurrence of what you imply above is >>> very rare. Scientists/thinkers can certainly seek financial rewards and >>> better career conditions. Say, writing a popular science book; Brian Cox >>> accomplished that kind of success for little more than the fortuitous >>> "perfect storm" - not really a storm at all...maybe Lou Reedd's Perfect >>> Day,. Some very positive traits. Some others insubstantial (like much >>> rehearsed eyes straight into camera and saying one particular >>> word..possibly the best anyone has ever said that word "Beautiful". >>> >>> But Brian Cox's awesomeness and personal advancement has never secured >>> him even a small upward-notching in the real of Science. He has yet to make >>> a significant contribution to science - he may one day in the future. But >>> his celebrity status and profile have not changed his prospects of doing >>> that at all. In fact, due to access to his ideas being more ready to hand, >>> the truth is, at least for a cursory look, his depth of understanding of >>> what by rights he ought to be able to master to earn the desk he occupies; >>> He seems not to pass muster. >>> >>> And that's a good illustration of the amazing effectiveness and awesome >>> success of science in this sense of self-correcting...taking its own >>> rubbish out. Exceptions are rare...too rare for my ability: I would not >>> have seen this that you saw. >>> >>> But I do see it now, thanks to the heavy lifting being sorted out all by >>> you, wrapped ribbon'ed and to the door delivered: I do see it now. >>> >>> And it's a great insight. You're saying that for the same reasons you >>> regard Infinity - the concept - safe for human handling, if at all, in its >>> most minimal form. And if you're right in the substance of what you say, >>> that infinity is beyond the human intellect for now. And if Science no >>> matter how unique it surely is, is no different than all the other things >>> humans have done, at least in the most minimal sense of it being, like all >>> the rest, ultimately reduceable nothing more - nor less - but significant >>> here, nothing more; than the affairs of human beings, warts and all, >>> intellectual ceilings, inclusive. >>> >>> Thus your insight does indeed make the falsifiable prediction, 'Science, >>> all of it, it's whole, it's parts: it breaks down when theories - the >>> substance they bring, reduce to infinities, the remainder of not-infinities >>> reducing necessarily to nothing. Science cannot operate, for example, >>> science cannot resolve one infinity-theory in terms of the size of its >>> contribution, from another. >>> >>> Therefore, the infinity theorist secures advancement only by the old >>> fashioned way: by career boosts, celebrity, PR. That's the way, the only >>> way, an infinity theorist becomes status-upgraded. The only way to >>> beat the competition to the prizes and scientific greatness. >>> >>> So yeah. They *are* smart, those guys. If they realized that ahead of >>> their time and before all the others. True vision of new kind of genius >>> never seen before. not in Science anyway. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
