Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 8:59 PM
144 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, kjsimons, ramoss (4 members, 140 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   All about Brad McFall II.
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 1 of 39 (385804)
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


All about Brad McFall II
(Any one who wants to ask me any question in a less serious mode that does not have specific references to a particular topic may query me here but if I can recall having discussed (it) before elsewhere on EVC I may link otherwise.)

I was going to post this thread in continuation of
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=199&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=199&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=199&m=1
especially as this post is in response to Martin’s differentiation of East and West
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=711&m=176#176
, and in that prior one Adminnemooseus focused on the issue of “location” in evCcyberspace and Lam’s avatar is North America (while it was Lam’s post that started the the now defunct thread “All About Brad…”) but since members still have access to post in the Coffee House and I would rather have a non-serious threadline to post in, where it is me myself that may be at issue and as this response today does not seem to me to be an issue of Board Administration, I am starting a new one here. By the way, here in Collegetwon, Ithaca a Starbucks just opened across the street from my ‘normal’ browsing spot.

In his essay on Logic, Kant distinguished
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apothegms
from aphorisms and this difference probably can deconstruct this thread if need be.

“Empty nest” and “empty niche” would be two different things to me. While a student at Cornell, Simon Levin
http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/~slevin/
, suggested I meet up with GE Hutchinson
http://lakes.chebucto.org/PEOPLE/hutchins.html
the author of a most modern concept of “niche.” I declined because I could not find the different sizes of manufactured tri-cycles nor the supposed difference of beetle environments from the looks of beetles themselves (no matter the size) of any real value to my own notions of “endemism.” Back then I really did think that the notion of ‘niche’ was as empty as the crevice that a salamander might squeeze into OR was considered the view down the Gorges in Ithaca NY which were different than the “Cretaceous” landscape of New Jersery I had collected most of my specimens in.

In the link you provided
http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/voegelin_pungent_observations.html#american
one may read:

quote:
You get some funny situations. In California now there is a fight between literalists or providentialists, and biological theorists. And you get in the textbooks both Genesis and Darwinian evolutionism as two "theories" of evolution. You see what that really means? The fundamentalist theologians in California (fundamentalism was well established there at the beginning of the century) don't know what a myth is. They believe it is a theory. They're in ignorance.
And the biological theorists don't know that Kant has analysed why one cannot have an immanentist theory of evolution. One can have empirical observation but no general theory of evolution because the sequence of forms is a mystery; it just is there and you cannot explain it by any theory. The world cannot be explained. It is a mythical problem, so you have a strong element of myth in the theory of evolution.

But I MUST say that whatever the notion of “niche” is it IS NOT ‘empty’ with respect to the notion of “biological theorist” presented in these two paragraphs. Diversity may be “just there” but as Kant DID SAY there are immediate consequences related “to the first figure” and I THINK (I could be thinking wrong, that is always a possibility) that these consequences are found in the purposes put to different ordinations of normal forms in databases set theory wise. My herpetological observation has been that whatever the functional shift was that physiologists attempt to master when discussing the difference of cold and warm bloodness there IS NOT the enumerative diversity we see “at first glance” when stepping outside into nature. This view has not been mastered in the standard literature and is why my own view still stand a bit too far out. I believe time will smooth over the rough edges.

In the last
http://axiompanbiog.com/method.aspx
page on
http://www.axiompanbiog.com

I have started to present the details of how gene trees and species trees (crossing thus “habitats and niches”) may be related with a human simulation that involves a thought as complex as the “moving stars” of years ago.

This would enable the principle to remain and yet the purposes be reduced to simple mechanical actions of the model. I have not completed the work. Probably because it is not done, John Grehan has suppressed a post I attempted to reply to

http://www.sebasite.org/
On.
https://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/wws/info/biogeography

I am dealing with something really restrictive here.
The problem with the two paragraphs is that “hypothesis non fingo”and any idea of “theory” are very similar with regard to “popularization.”

Now as far as there being some place to “escape” to in the US, this is not strictly true even for me, there is time to mature but really no other place to go. I will explain this part of “my story” if you are really interested in particular details of my own life. All that has happened is that through bad choices I am no longer fit enough to become an astronaut. Entropy wins.

You also

http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_table_of_contents.html
provided

quote:
The pure typical case of a transcendent explanation is Linnaeus' theory, according to which God created at the beginning of the world the various animal species and endowed the individuals of each species with the ability to bring forth their own kind; in fact, the species was the quintessence of the individuals who have descended from each other through procreation; in theory the species was coined by God's creative hand. When fixity of the species was understood in this way, there was hardly any reason to look for the inner causes of the individual's character; the reference to God as the transcendent creator of the world in its thusness was sufficient.
Of all the theoreticians of biology of his day, Linnaeus was most deeply immersed in the Christian worldview. Linnaeus believed that the world actually had a definite beginning; there was a day and an hour when the world, in the organization of its existence, emerged from the chaos through God's creating hand. When this belief died, the teaching of the species and its duration became questionable, leading to those transformations in the theory with which we must now concern ourselves.

Now I must say that when I first tried to get my head around the fact that the common milk snake had 13!!!!! Different names aka Linnaeus, I could not fathom how this was so. I still do not. This however has not kept Gould from extending evolutionary theory WITHIN the naming and necessity that taxonomists do every day. It matters MORE about the notion of sex in plants than it does the linguists whether deep or not that keep thi going NO MATTER WHAT the relation is to Christianity. Williams in his “classic” on adaptation kept the difference of sex in plants and animals separate. We still have no name for this as we do as much for discussions on “adaptation”.

If a “species” is more than something a German women adds to soup then this IS NOT what we “theorists” need most to concern ourselves with today. Kant said we should laugh at the science not the man. Perhaps THAT is what we do better here. The notion that is still laughed at but survives is more fit for fact than tit for tat.

The continuation of my ideas on technobiology without as much academics applied is found at

http://www.aexion.org


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2007 7:15 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 07-06-2007 12:09 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 07-06-2007 12:12 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 07-06-2007 1:26 PM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 01-31-2008 7:36 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 39 (386300)
02-20-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


Change of Avatar? - any suggestions??
At the end of the last thread on me there was some back and forths to which I did not respond but not for any particular reason. Thanks to the 11 or so of you who looked at this thread but did not respond. Microsoft told me how many linked over.

RickJB said
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=366&m=299#294
in the Lam All About Brad McFall thread:

quote:
Re: Behold! The Lithican Times

Brad writes:
A future without the web....

Heh. Amazing how quickly such an idea has become almost unthinkable to so many people in the space of just ten years or so...


Yes that is unthinkable for indeed the web has served me well enough despite my difficulty in getting onto a Biogeography discussion forum whereas instead I got some correspondence from Dr Jorge Llorente

Click to enlarge

of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
UNAM
wherein was a paper:

Click to enlarge

and a cover to a volume


Click to enlarge

that in proper colors appropriately makes a print of my clover avatar also somewhat UNTHINKABLE to me by extracting the "Extra" black space(representing the rarity of the four leafed modification) made by scanning the clover itself.

Very interesting was a letter from Croizat to the American Museum protesting the publishing of a paper by Mayr and Phelps decrying barriers to "the progress of American knowledge". I found this barrier unfaceable by Ernst personally myself later.

So I guess I can not say that I would like a world without the internet anymore. The paper I got in the mail points towards a "geographical analysis of scientific change" which is what I was hoping MartinV would look into.

The content of the volume


Click to enlarge

is helpful to those who may like to broaden their ability to apprehend comparative biology, as for instance, the various relations that preserve order may be used as guides when looking a purely anatomic structures in addition to one where temporality is to have been inferred. I have not tried it but it looks interesting to view meristic variation as terminally developing various order preserving transforms.

The junction of this work and creation/evolution probably lies in attempts to so visualize anatomy such that details of pre-Tertiary life might be thought to have been thought through. Creationists typically think, it seems to me, that claims to understand distributions based on an Ice Age are wrong but Panbiogeographers are pushing back the mentality to earlier horizons, however as far as I can tell the real difference of Creationism and Evolutionism though written as a Cambrian difference would be resolvable in Permian time if all the words were taken care of, no matter what the disagreement is over climatic fluctuations is and continues to politically be. A concrete visualization would be the translation and space and form-making of pond turtles (Clemmys) on the West and East coasts of the US. It may even be possible to bring back Aggasiz's ideas if this was tried.

In the light of all these on-line things going on, I am thinking of changing my AVATAR...

Does anyone have any suggestions or requests?? I am tired of looking at "sprint" commericals but I am not dead set on changing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 39 (408921)
07-06-2007 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


reevc
I have rerouted my response to Monk
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=211&m=6#5
on the aspects of Conway's thought process and my own that need not bear directly on the question of countering Dwise's statements here.

If there is significant interest in starting a thread on Conway or Kant then I that would be better than focusing on my own methods of thinking.

quote:
Perhaps you should first decipher the Conway manuscript before using it to posit something from Kant.

Ok, NOW I see what you were complaining of.

Yes, I would have liked to have read a bit more about Conway himself and his philosophy before I attempted to say what I did. I take it you feel that I might have used the intelligence of someone already established as a great and valuable thinker and via a simple cut and paste succeed in making his reputation one with mine? Right?? Sure that would be wrong. It would be really wrong in most cases if someone went simply to, and found a quote, in this case from Conway, that said something like, "I think that mathematicians should do practical things and I think the recent work of Kitcher and others that claim math is an empirical endeavor to be correct" ( I know there is some evidence for the first part of that sentence).

But in what I did with it, it does not matter even if Conway holds to a different philosophy than me and what I did. That is the great thing about MATH, once you "see" it, that is all there is to it. It is true or it is not.

quote:
That's true. The article you quoted notes that the Conway manuscript appears as gibberish and has not yet been understood by scholars.

Perhaps you know more about manuscript than I do. What do scholars expect to be able to understand? What parts of it are “gibberish”. Do they assert that the names given to the partial 3-D “objects” are gibberish because they are only partly helpful in helping these scholars to memorize the symmetries?? Do they fail to see the usefulness of his multiple signs/names and symvbols for the same things??? Why is it that one can see on the internet that some people have substituted an x for an o in calling in effect, the wonder, a miracle????
????

Now there are two parts:
(What did I think Conway was trying to show (also whether that WAS what Conway was trying to do with his papers (but this matters not again for my particular use case AS MATH again.)

and

What did I actually show by myself and then with the use of Conway's notes (or, and it does matter, what I thought I showed whether I actually did (or did not)).

I found the drawings in the left hand column of Conway of the 1-D symmetries to be continuous via Heyda's physics


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

(if one was to calculate the torque given by the human hand on the OUTER SPHERE of the power/dnabee ball) , with his partial 3-D drawings INTO the geometrical sphere. I recognized that by designing a digital input output system to record the Euler angles from Heyda’s “every day physics” a complete system could be construced with only minor choices on which symmetry groups could be used in different parts of the plan. The permanences seemed bound by the forms of what I assumed were gibberish to others. These were NEEDED by my prior drawing. I took it that since the authors of the paper on Conway did not mention these partial 3-D drawings, this is WHAT they must have meant mostly as “gibberish”

Now as for Kant and all of this lets start from SuberGeometry and Arithmetic are Synthetic and I can really try to show you, as phenotype and genotype are actually not soma and genes, that if the whole data access system were built (perhaps it may be said to read and write transilient variations) and expanded via Conway’s already fractally extendible thought ( I will explain how Conway’s moving among the different geometrical dimension objects permits this which was only 1-D and serially programmable by me prior) that computers could actually permit humans to create synthetic a priori instantiations BECAUSE we have falsely sundered the genotype and phenotype were the separation is actually only catastrophically divided by continuousness nonthenevertheless. One would have to show that epistasis and genetic homeostasis benefit however even though one may pursue the technology before the empirics are available. Perhaps it will only enable a better use of group theory in biology in an end and not be as glorious as I say. But that would in itself of significance worth talking about. The error would have been finding a saltus where instead the relation of the plane, the line and the sphere (not 3-D space) remains.

From that understanding one may begin to realize why I feel this operation is one of math as a synthesis because I would be using geometry in biology as Kant used it in his time. The actual philosophical discursion would have to put the question to places in nature where the view of this bio-geometry might be contra position to other maths non-Euclidian wise of physics. I do not know just where in the various levels of organization these theoretical conflicts might experimentally be tried in. It will depend on a more permanent and actually existing data input out put system than the one I cut and paste that still has some variables but not enough to permit unconstrained 3 degrees of freedom of motion.

For me Conway made group theory visualizable. Without thinking across the dimensions and only thinking in terms of the symmetry groups on the sphere I had been unable to do this. I did not complete a group theory class at Cornell because I could not "see" what was being prooved on the black board. I now know why I could not and perhaps I would be able "to see" it now.

Are the scholars expecting something great from these manuscripts?? The interesting thing about algebra is that one DOES it with symbols. These pages appeared to me to be a bit a of a rossetta stone. I can learn the symbols easier with it than without it, but more importantly he provided me clues to the spatialization of my intution that I was planning on only having access to a posteriori. He has given even more room for the a priori in my mind, whether that was his intent in his or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 39 (408922)
07-06-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


reevc
sorry, double post
I guessed wrong when I got a server not found response.

Edited by Brad McFall, : double post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 07-06-2007 2:29 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12159
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 5 of 39 (408939)
07-06-2007 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brad McFall
07-06-2007 12:12 AM


All About Eccentricity
Geez, Brad..you started a topic about yourself and the started the first four posts as well! :rolleyes: OK, I'll bite:

Here are some questions for you:

1) When one meets you in person, are your verbal conversations anything like your written conversations or is there a distinct difference?

2) What were you like in High School?

3) What is your current passion regarding your field of study?


Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
--General Omar Bradley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 07-06-2007 12:12 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 07-10-2007 10:19 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 39 (408996)
07-06-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


Brad writes:

All about Brad McFall II…
(Any one who wants to ask me any question in a less serious mode that does not have specific references to a particular topic may query me here but if I can recall having discussed (it) before elsewhere on EVC I may link otherwise.)


Good god, man! In real life do you talk the way you write here?


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2007 12:23 PM Taz has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 39 (409276)
07-08-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
07-06-2007 1:26 PM


real life vs reality
Hi Taz,

No, I do not really talk like this, "any one who wants to ask me any question...may query me here but if I can recall having", but it is true that this "any one" mentioned is the same as "any taxanomic and niche matrix" in the sense I am trying to correct below.

“Lewontin, dissatisfied with the theoretical results possible using single locus and even multilocus state space types, suggests an entirely different state space type.^6 The intention is to treat the entire genome as a whole, rather than as a collection of independently segregating, noninteracting genotypes of single loci. Ernst Mayr stresses the importance of the interaction of genes and the homeostasis of genotypes (i.e., the large amount of linkage) in evolutary processes. The genome will respond to selection pressures as a whole says Mayr, instead of as an aggregate of individual loci (1967, p. 53). In our terms, if evolution works this way, any accurate model of evolution cannot utilize the single locus state space type. Following up his claim that the construction of a dynamically sufficient theory of the genome with many genes is “the most pressing problem of [population genetics] theory,” Lewontin suggests an alternative approach utilizing a completely different set of state variables (1974, p.271).(The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory by E. Lloyd 1988, 1994)

However, even by the mid80s when attempting to get information from Richard Lewontin (personal observation) as to what this different state space type would be in terms of concrete traits his notion of the kinematic underlying any better dynamics was NOT one that would differentiate locomotion of fish and snakes within his evironoment/ organism couple(d) differential equations. That notion of motion seems contrary to that necessary to establish a homeostatic or co-ordinated whole view of many interacting but yet independently segregating single loci phenotypic correlations.

Recently, Odling-Smee, Laland and Feldman have attempted to provide a more ordinal notion of this antecedent state of population genetic theory in their coopting of ecosystem engineering to the purpose of niche construction. G.E Hutchinson had broadend the notion of the niche space and taxanomic space when species are necessary(Population Biology and Evolution edited by Richard Lewontin) and the invocation of ecosystem engineering to inform niche construction provided a visualization for treating genomes as a whole when niche constructability is involved. This work provides a cardinal improvement in layering the superfludity of the one locus approach. The incorporation of entropy via Maxwell’s demon however restricts the range of the type of orders this gene interaction “system” can produce and does not holistically reach the level that Mayr required for bean bag genetics to govern systematically some aspects of natural history.

The modeling of niche construction, so far, is thus unable to achieve the shape that Llodyd intented the direction the “different state space type” to take progressive population genetics dynamically to beyond single and multi-locus models. This is obvious where the 2-D result, among any taxanomic and niche matrix lead to the statement that (page 143, Niche Construction) “ Note that these polymorphic equilibria are neutral in the sense that perturbations away from such an equilibrium followed by subsequent evolution will result in convergence to another point on the curve.”

There seems to be some confusion in the TEACHING of evolution that leads to this kind of error. In 2001 Cornell’s Evolutionary Biology Class was teaching


Click to enlarge
This perspective demonstrates that the curve arrived at is a political rather than a biological consequence as there seems to be no room for divisions of the phenotype (above mentioned) into categories that are causally dependent on a whole that does not return to the place of the drawn figure yet is also not “a collection of independently segregating, noninteracting genotypes of single loci”.

The possibility of visually utilizing Conway’s symbols (on line manuscript) for relations among symmetry in the line, plane, partial 3-D and sphere can instead correct the teaching of evolutionary biology such that the most pressing problem of the theory (getting the correct model match to nature) can be diagrammed without having to use words to do the interpolation.


Click to enlarge

So the problem in real life is that my version of biological thinking as a reality is at odds with mental facts if there is a simple difference of physical and mental (but I doubt that(regardless of American politics), as to possibe obsevation of and acquaintance with mental entities.

I usually do not talk off line in as much detail as I do on because my contribution to society, outside of things that every other average person does, if expressed, covers many years and yet we live day by day, while it is rare to find random people with an interest even as broad as on EvC.

I am a "normal" guy mind you. After I thought up and pasted together the Conway page above, satisfied, I went out for a beer, had two, was walking back home past a club and a co-worker insisted I come in.

I ended up drinking another 4-5 and dancing with two girls so close to me that there really was no way to turn. I used to do this every Friday when I was younger and healthier.

Neutrality seems to uncover psychology, politics and the rear anti-eugenic biological apology as one teaching. This elite position needs to be dismantled before my every day life becomes my life's work beyond myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 07-06-2007 1:26 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 07-08-2007 5:35 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 39 (409323)
07-08-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
07-08-2007 12:23 PM


Re: real life vs reality
In a way, I can somewhat understand the mental processes that your mind goes through everytime you are reminded of something you've been interested in or have been working on. I, too, tend to get side tracked and frequently allow my mind to wander in the middle of conversations. For me at least, everything reminds me of something else, and it cascades into something like a snowball affect. I think my "condition", if you want to call it that, resembles more to AAD and is no where near as severe as yours. But nonetheless, my friends have described me as having too many "random thoughts".

But more to the point.

Brad writes:

No, I do not really talk like this, "any one who wants to ask me any question...may query me here but if I can recall having", but it is true that this "any one" mentioned is the same as "any taxanomic and niche matrix" in the sense I am trying to correct below.


I just find it funny that for someone as yourself, obviously having a very good grasp of the English language, failed to interpret what I said in the right context. I did not literally mean to ask if you talk like the sentence I quoted.

So the problem in real life is that my version of biological thinking as a reality is at odds with mental facts if there is a simple difference of physical and mental (but I doubt that(regardless of American politics), as to possibe obsevation of and acquaintance with mental entities.

I can somewhat understand what you are trying to say, or think I somewhat understand. But can you define what you mean exactly by "mental entities"?

I usually do not talk off line in as much detail as I do on because my contribution to society, outside of things that every other average person does, if expressed, covers many years and yet we live day by day, while it is rare to find random people with an interest even as broad as on EvC.

I wonder... let me ask you the following question(s). When you have a conversation with a friend or two, do apparently random things that you are reminded of by the different words or phrases that come up in the conversation flash through your mind? And if so, do you as a result bring up these "random thoughts" in the conversation?

I ended up drinking another 4-5 and dancing with two girls so close to me that there really was no way to turn. I used to do this every Friday when I was younger and healthier.

I have to admit that it's pretty damn hard for me to imagine you dancing with girls and not try to bring up Gould or Lewontin in your small talks.

Neutrality seems to uncover psychology, politics and the rear anti-eugenic biological apology as one teaching. This elite position needs to be dismantled before my every day life becomes my life's work beyond myself.

I have to admit that you are the first living jargon generator I have ever known in my life.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2007 12:23 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 07-09-2007 12:35 AM Taz has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 39 (409369)
07-09-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
07-08-2007 5:35 PM


Re: real life vs reality
Well, sure, you probably wanted me to assume that I talk differently in person than on EvC.

If I was a proffessor like my brother, I probably would get the opportunity to talk like/as I think.

It is not so much that I get sidetracked or have "random" thoughts. It is that I would prefer my life to be lesiurely enough, for me to follow up a mental process to conclusive fruition, but not being rich, the necessities of life bear in, and rather than say *something* I tend to say nothing.

Sometimes this causes the appearence of my avoiding mentally, the given social or work situation particulars, to become apparent but usually the vissitidues are such that I can simply make timely choices to avoid anything but chosen behavior. This is really not as much an issue to me as you might make it out to be. I have never really felt the "sympathy" posts that others have made on EVC, thinking, there is something mental here, where in fact it is simply that I have a very causal physical perspective hard to express in print. I often simply have to sprint through it, leaving jargons to be the doors shut in the process of becomeing all gone.

I mentioned "mental entites" as a means to draw you into a discussion of Bertrand Russell's essay "On the nature of acquaintance". I can open up this avenue of conversation if you would like.

The essay of BR rotates around 6 questions: "(1) Are faint and peripheral sensations included in 'experience'? (2) Are all or any of our present true beliefs included in present 'experience' (3) Do we now 'experience' past things which we remember? (4) How do we come to know that the group of things now experienced is not all embracing? (5) Why do we regard our present and past experiences as all parts of oneexperience, namely the experience which we call 'ours'? (6) What leads us to believe that 'our' total experience is not all-embracing?"

I think that James' view that Russell presented and the discussion of being lead or not to the Harvard delta to really be erroneous. Russell wrote of James, "Finally he(JAMES) comes to the alleged introspective certainty of consciousness. But his introspective deliverance is not the usual one. In himself, he says, 'the stream of thinking (which I recognize emphatically as a phenomenon) is only a careless name for what when scrutinized, reveals itself to consist chiefly of the stream of my breathing. The "I think" which Kant said must be able to accompany all my objects, is the "I breathe" which actually does accompany them."

I have a much more intricate "breath" than James thought by way of elite training, but living near the Cornell campus, I need only breath actually and thinking I thought something others around me did not, whatever "random" thoughts I may have been having I disappear myself like the gossamer of superman's ghost and only fiction remains.

Russel went on to distinguish mental facts and mental entites. I took that quickly that mental facts are what psychiatrists get paid to diagnose and the entities are the actuall brain things going on, but then again I have had some peculiar ideas of the nervous system, so perhaps I should not anticipate that synapse crossing when we come to it.

I have had a lot of experiences that others have not that I can draw from to make small talk. I generally have not engaged in this on EVC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 07-08-2007 5:35 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 2:26 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 39 (409381)
07-09-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brad McFall
07-09-2007 12:35 AM


Re: real life vs reality
Brad writes:

If I was a proffessor like my brother, I probably would get the opportunity to talk like/as I think.


Well, not necessarily. The most important part of being an educator is the ability to communicate in a manner that most people, if not everyone, could understand. Trust me, it's harder than most people think to have to communicate something that is so obvious to you but not so obvious to others, especially when you're trying to exploit to the full extend their attention span.

It is not so much that I get sidetracked or have "random" thoughts. It is that I would prefer my life to be lesiurely enough, for me to follow up a mental process to conclusive fruition, but not being rich, the necessities of life bear in, and rather than say *something* I tend to say nothing.

But obviously, as far as you communicating with us online like this, this is not true. The reason I think your mental processes tend to get sidetracked is because most of the time you tend to introduce what seem to many if not all of us completely unrelated subjects and names to the discussion.

I think what you are trying to tell me is that you like to take leisure in expressing your ideas in, what many of us would call, "too many words". Of course this method of communication was widely used by just about everyone back in the old old days when people had too much time on their hands. Anyone can get a sample of this by reading The Scarlet Letter by Hawthorne or Frankenstein by Shelley.

I, on the other hand, consider myself a minimalist. This is probably why I have such a hard time trying to grasp what you say on here.

I have never really felt the "sympathy" posts that others have made on EVC, thinking, there is something mental here, where in fact it is simply that I have a very causal physical perspective hard to express in print. I often simply have to sprint through it, leaving jargons to be the doors shut in the process of becomeing all gone.

I don't think I've read anything that could be considered a "sympathy" post for whatever it is that you have, if any. I think it's mostly just how you often baffle people with your very unique style of communication.

I think that James' view that Russell...

Hahaha... philosophers are second in rank on my hate-list.

Russel went on to distinguish mental facts and mental entites. I took that quickly that mental facts are what psychiatrists get paid to diagnose and the entities are the actuall brain things going on, but then again I have had some peculiar ideas of the nervous system, so perhaps I should not anticipate that synapse crossing when we come to it.

I must admit that I haven't run across this concept before, even though I have certainly studied the works of many philosophers before and after Kant.

I have had a lot of experiences that others have not that I can draw from to make small talk. I generally have not engaged in this on EVC.

Perhaps it would help those of us that are simply curious about you to figure out some things if we start having small talks. How about we set up a time to meet in EvC chat?


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 07-09-2007 12:35 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 07-09-2007 8:59 PM Taz has responded
 Message 19 by Brad McFall, posted 07-16-2007 7:57 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 11 of 39 (409494)
07-09-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
07-09-2007 2:26 AM


Re: real life vs reality
Hahaha... philosophers are second in rank on my hate-list.

...And your first? I've learned that people who keep hate-lists are hateful people. Do you happen to have a love-list you could share?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 2:26 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 10:05 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 12-19-2007 9:32 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 39 (409505)
07-09-2007 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fosdick
07-09-2007 8:59 PM


Re: real life vs reality
Hoot writes:

...And your first?


Religionists.

I've learned that people who keep hate-lists are hateful people.

Well, since this thread is about Brad, I'd say that Brad would have no comment on whether I am a hater or not.

Do you happen to have a love-list you could share?

In no particular order... sorry, can't think of any. Wrong question to ask an atheist. Remember that we're all grumpy.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 07-09-2007 8:59 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 07-10-2007 9:55 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 39 (409575)
07-10-2007 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
07-09-2007 10:05 PM


Re: real life vs reality
I'll try to get back to Bertrand Russell's use of the relation "hate", just to have a Hoot later. I dont know if the opposite must be LOVE.

I will be out of town shortly and while I can chat any time you see me on line, I probably have to take a rain check and chat sometime next week. I'll let you know when I'not working later.

Edited by Brad McFall, : obverse


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 10:05 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3107 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 39 (409580)
07-10-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
07-06-2007 2:29 AM


Re: All About Eccentricity
1) I have been working at a local grocery store here in Collegetown after getting the AS in Computer Science while working on-line. I would say that the same difficulties in communication are still there, in public, but these are really only ones of desiring perfection and not finding it. It may be hard to guess given all the mistakes I permit in my posts to imagine that I have some strict astehtic vision I strive to maintatin and sustain, but I do.

So, what happens during work, is that I observe a lot things that need changing but there is often little time to discuss this with co-workers, so.... what actually happens is that I end up talking very fast and giving way too much information to who ever is the manager on duty at the time. Their response is for me to "slow down". This is supposed to be a symptom "pressure of speech" but in truth it is nothing more than the actuality that I can often remember an extensive amount of things that I can quickly "get off my mind."

As I said to Taz, the solution to this is always to say nothing and breath. It is an easy thing to do.

In truth I do not find this as symptomatic of anything psychological. I have restricted my attention consiousouly to objects of biology over the years and as such I am a bit of a narrow thinker compared to the average cosmopolitan citizen. I think it is that narrowed mentally initiated thought process that results in the appearence of difference to others. That is just what makes me an individual, nothing more nothing less. If there is anything that singles me out from others it is that I grew up in a sheltered and well cared for household where learning was taken as the default. I simply try to learn every day.

2) Now starting in High School I began a thought process on how to extract energy from biological form that I held as a premium. If there were things happening in my life that prevented me from following up on this thought I would choose decisions that would not prevent me from keeping the introspection going. This was sustained for well nigh up to two decades. Having done this enabled me to really actuallly mentally focus for long times. I do not know if others do this. That began in high school.

But I was not particularly isolated. I ran track, played in the band, was almost student council president, conducted numerous 4-H meetings, played with a group of close friends, had a girl friend, and was an Elder in the Presbyterian Church among other things.

3)I hope this summer to produce a paper showing that conservation biologists who use simple species abundances and political boundaries to create maps forging hierarchies of contaniers of priorities may not represent the actual distribution of natural needs for preservation of genetic diversity using 3Item analysis.

The French authors working on this have not responded to my request for a program even though Dr. Gladyshev in Moscow has acknowledged reciept of e-mail. I will try to use my recent epiphany on frieze patterns to suggest a better and truer alternative(I have to figure out how Conway got some binary trees patterned). If all goes as planned I will submit it to "Systematic Biology". It will be a negative paper, but then again a lot of them in that Journal are.

It is often the positive passion that gets in the way, so in this current instance, the negative correspondence is much easier to get the words around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 07-06-2007 2:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 10:59 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4637
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 39 (409587)
07-10-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brad McFall
07-10-2007 10:19 AM


Re: All About Eccentricity
Brad, that was one of your most clear posts to date. I think you have explained that your complex educated thoughts compel you to think differently from others, in that you can remember detailed information and can expunge our posts at will.

If you could write every post like you did this one, I think people would read your posts more. It's ironic Brad, that all your posts that take a lot of effort, will be the ignored ones.

You have to realize that the average person can understand posts such as this one, and I think it would benefit you to try and realize that the average person doesn't know about all of this information about Gould and Gladyshev, even though you've been dropping those names for years. :)(What happened to Matchet? - whoever he is. ;))

Listen - we are just far lazier thinkers than you - so you're going to have to learn to talk with the intention to communicate to us lesser folk.

I see that this place is your outlet for intellectual thought, but it would be great if you could communicate like this every time.

Best wishes, wiz of a wiz.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 07-10-2007 10:19 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 07-11-2007 7:35 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019