Re: [pcp-discuss:] Re: Fwd: Comments on _One Half Of A Manifesto_by Jaron Lanier

From: Norman K. McPhail (norm@SOCAL.WANET.COM)
Date: Mon Nov 20 2000 - 21:43:14 GMT

  • Next message: Norman K. McPhail: "Re: [pcp-discuss:] Re: Fwd: Comments on _One Half Of A Manifesto_by Jaron Lanier"


    As I re-read my last post, I found the following misstatement that I
    want to correct.

    > Don Mikulecky wrote:

    > > I don't
    > > think most folks with any sense of awe for the real world are threatened by an
    > > admission that we can only get at it one way at a time.
    > I agree and that is precisely what I've been trying to say. But the way
    > Rosen's case against simple models is stated infers that there are no
    > other models available to our imperfect human minds. It is this
    > inference that I think causes all the confusion and the potential for
    > the defeatist attitude that it seems to encourage.

    I just want to say that I don't fully agree with the last phrase from
    the above sentence that we humans can only get at the truth one (simple)
    way at a time. To say otherwise is, in my judgement, an arbitrary
    statement with no basis in fact.

    From my own experience, I find that I am perfectly capable of combining
    "or" and "and" logic thought modes and models. I can also play the
    piano, carry on a conversation and reflect on these ideas all at the
    same time. Anyone who has experienced walking and chewing gum while
    etc. while contemplating the wonders of the universe will also testify
    that we are capable of integrating the simultaneous processing of
    multiple parallel thought modes and data streams. Empirical studies in
    cognitive processes confirm this beyond any reasonable doubt.


    Posting to from "Norman K. McPhail" <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 21:46:49 GMT