a great deed of elitery

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry but yes you are a naked neophyte when it comes to understanding what actually is true. The field is enormous, it covers many topics it is a highly cross discplined field, I could care less what you think you know. I am currently working on the basis for universal language translation system, and I know since I am writing a book about language translation and where systems of language and math come from which will not be complete for some time. So you are simply wrong and not a very good liar, you have not kept up with the field I'm afraid if you in it which I highly doubt because you're contradicting much research and evidence from the field. I can pull more quotes but it would be a waste of time. Concepts are the lenses by which you see and interpret the world, and it's quite obvious you do not have the right ones.

Not only that but reasoning itself is not universal, nor is it understood well, neurological structures personalize objective reasoning. So someone can be doing advanced mathematical reasoning but it will be in the format of images, or music, or something else, it will take some other form other then the symbolic form we are taught in schools and universities. There is much evidence to this fact, see daniel tammet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqLzoiVzEY8

Ibn Al-Haytham:
"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency"

You have done neither, this is how I know, your lack of humility speaks to your inability to understand what I have said.

Just a quick few points:

You need to stop calling people liars. It is against WP rules.

You will need a better command of the English language, or a good ghost writer, before you get your book published.

You need to take note of the quotations you make. Ibn al-Haytham may have been dead for 970 years, but some of what he says is certainly still valid. Science is not about foisting hack ideas on others and then denying any discussion of the lack of basis of them.

The best science is done by those who lay open the foundations of their theories, inviting others to attack them. This is what distinguishes good science from bad - the willingness to invite criticism and the acceptance of the possibility, indeed near certainty, of error.

maths is a tool.

geometry and symmetry in nature are observable but not perfect.

Dude. You just resorted to the "you disagree with me, ergo, you're a liar" fallacy. I've barely even made any neuroscientific claims so your idea that I'm a liar is just the typical hogwash that is constantly peddled by individuals on the fringe when anyone contradicts them.

This is a math thread. If you think you're going to tell us the essential nature of math through neuroscience, you're just in a bad philosophical position a priori. I wouldn't need to no jack about neuroscience to disagree with you.

If you don't think you're going to tell us the essential nature of math through neuroscience, then I seriously cannot follow even your intentions.

And that's not lack of concepts. It's bad communication.

Only if you consider science silly, and research that has been done for the past 30 years by actual scientists as worthless.

Here's the links -- http://www.linktv.org/programs/orwell_deceiving

Not when someone is making attacks the can't back up with any credible evidence, did you even read what the guy said? He said:



He certainly was a naked neophyte, he was trying to tell me in a vague way that he was certain I was spouting nonsense, then I backed up my claims, then he had to think of something else. No one here is involved in the field or else they would not be spouting such nonsense.

Nonsense, you claimed I was spouting pseudoscientific nonsense and I handed you the evidence that this was not the case and you had to recant and make up some new BS to save face "from the fringe", you should not engage in discussions you know nothing about, 30 years of neuroscientific study is not "fringe".

I can point to other books with the studies if you need them, written by actual scientists in the field of study:

http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live ... 226468011/

I'm afraid I have terrible trouble with people who come out with bald statements like "Reason is 98% subconscious" (the preceding slide). I may watch the rest of it, sometime. However, I find this sort of polemic less than useful.

I don't feel that having read a few popularised paperbacks makes you an authority on a subject.

Oh yeah

Sorry bout that



Incidentally, we're all the way up to partial derivatives now. This is very good after all the arc length / curvature / etc. BS we were doing in the last chapter.

"That's, the way, to do it!"

(Said using a swazzle while wearing a cap'n'bell(s) and wildly waving a slapstick in the air.)