Re: What is life?



> Gee, Gill, I like your thinking/writing! :-)
>
> You have implicitly made it perfectly philosophically clear
> that people that are addicted to
> [or, more EPTly put, that are "AEVASIVE"
> (for reason of their both, phylogenetically formed,
> and conditioned, functionality") to the effect of]
> *detail-minded* evolution pertaining theorizing
> (and/or related practical experimental/investigative science),
> need not fear being 'flapped in the face by cold-turkey'. ;-)
>
> Peter
>
> P.S. It sure is great that s.b.e./Josh allows 'evolutionary philosophy
> type'
> thinking to flourish amongst explanatory approaches that attempts focused
> on
> representing evolution with figures and formulas!
> Thank you Josh! %-]

Awe, come on, Pedro, you can call me Gil.

You make your point well as to the need for sufficiently coherent syntax
and construction (and convention) to be clear.

There are writings and math that are hard to follow because the writer has
moved far beyond , say, the undergraduate level of study and has no desire
to communicate with more than perhaps five people in the world who are
at his level.

Then there are some individuals who are not clearly acquainted with the
limits (and frontiers) of their field, but wish to pretend they are one of
those in the above category.

There are those who, from birth, understand mathematics so easily they
can literally walk circles around many PhDs and solve problems that have
remained unsolved for centuries, but whose mathematical talents (describing
savantism here) do not carry over into verbal skills -- especially into
skills
of communicating with people of merely above-average mathematical talent.

(Don't mean to bore you...)

Perhaps you have diagnosed and prescribed and administered cold-turkey
aptly. I honestly don't know.

The abstraction of simple mathematical models from questions too complex
for anyone to understand can and does sometimes prove productive along the
way of breaking the large unsolvable problem into manageable pieces that
can be plugged back in and found to reveal worthwhile data.

On the other hand, where one wishes to beat a drum that merely plays with
numbers -- as, say, numerologists do -- without establishing any empirically
significant connection between an algorithm and any useful reality, he may
be ahead of his time, or trying to obfuscate and thereby impress, or he may
be
paranoid.

In all honesty, I sometimes have my doubts as to whether most number
manipulations are meaningful (even while appreciating that much
pure mathematical trivia has been found to be ahead of its time, and to have
great value in application to real questions).

Does the turkey slap help or hinder (rhetorical). I honestly don't know.

g


.

Relevant Pages