Ideas and Brain signals

CSGnet Archive CSG1994
1

[From Bruce Buchanan 941014.10:00 EDT]

"Michael G. Koopman" <koopman@CTC.COM> writes (13 Oct) - (inter alia) -

. . . Popper's world views were neither original to Popper, as
presented, nor do they stand alone as distinctly correct. [etc. etc.]

Of course, what I said was -

I think Karl Popper formalized a modern key to this . . .

In other words, Popper brought together and into focus many considerations
which had been developed up to a point, by the giants who have gone before,
on whose shoulders we all stand.

I think this whole post by Michael Koopman provides a striking example of
what can result when one's reference criteria become too narrowly
circumscribed within a too-purely verbal realm, in which assumptions and
data are mixed up in a helter-skelter fashion. Or so it seems to me,
because the communication involves too much noise for intelligibility. This
is not so much a reply as a comment on the implications of the
communication.

Rick Marken (941013.2015) writes:

My assumptions about how the brain works tell
me that my assumptions about how the brain works are signals in my
brain.

That answer may be a convenient resting place intellectually, which also
provides a basis for practical work, and may be O.K. On the other hand,
there are risks (see above) to any self-referential system of thought.
There may come a time and a class of problems which require a more
systematic approach which considers all possibly relevant assumptions, as
well as other information.

Cheers!

Bruce B.

2

Bruce Buchanan makes clear his point on Popper reinforcing his visual
perception of BBC English and rose-coloured glasses consensus:

In other words, Popper brought together and into focus many
considerations which had been developed up to a point, by the giants
who have gone before, on whose shoulders we all stand.

Why baseball comes into play in the surrounding environs of this
discourse is outside my comprehension of scientism enactments:

I think this whole post by Michael Koopman provides a striking example

I greatly appreciate the way in which you provide self-referential
comments relevant to the assumptions upon which your logos is grounded:

what can result when one's reference criteria become too narrowly
circumscribed within a too-purely verbal realm, in which assumptions
and data are mixed up in a helter-skelter fashion.

BBC English, of course, is the only true lingua franca of science.

Cheers! [recycle bits more often]

Mike Koopman internet: koopman@ctc.com phone: +1-814-269-2637

BTW: Ad hominem attacks are truly scrumptious, vat we haf hier.