For some reason I don't seem to be able to get this out in a way that
makes much sense. Note the correction to my previous correction:
"Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
> 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.
In my judgment, this is 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 firstname.lastname@example.org from "Norman K. McPhail" <email@example.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 23:43:57 GMT