About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"In other words, intuition is nothing other than several lines of linear logic, interactionally synthesizing a grand, unforeseen solution."

This is an interesting explanation -- the idea of parallel processing (which, incidentally, happens to be one of my specializations). It could also explain why our intuitions are specialized, in the sense that some people have physical intuition, some others mathematical. Because one is only processing existing data (in the memory/brain) in a different/faster way, and people 'store' things in different ways.

As to the silence, two things kept me away: some exciting ideas that I have been playing with and bicycling:)

Sanjay

Post 21

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 12:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sanjay,

It would appear that you are largely in agreement then. It seems that I have squelched your initial indictment of my reasoning. "Interactionally-parallel processing" appears to explain intuition (conclusively). I will put a notch on my belt now -- that is, unless others are capable of a viable refutation of the inherently linear reasoning capabilities of humans.

Ed

Post 22

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon, that would be true if thats how it was taught; as a comparison of science vs. non-science.

I think the more realistic outcome is that it will be taught as if it were science, to students not advanced enough to know the difference yet.

But why just ID then? We can teach astrology and geo-centrism along with modern astronomy, we can teach numerology along with mathematics, the list of pseudosciences we can waste our gradeschoolers lives with is endless.

But then lets not complain when America loses its lead in science and technology, as is swiftly happening now anyway.


Post 23

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But why just ID then? We can teach astrology and geo-centrism along with modern astronomy, we can teach numerology along with mathematics, the list of pseudosciences we can waste our gradeschoolers lives with is endless.
Why not, we teach psychology don't we?



Post 24

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 10:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I thought classes like ethics and religion are already dead set on those stuff :D

If at all, I would give those courses a chance as voluntary courses to glimpse at obscure things. It is still amazing how much money you can make by simple astrology and a phone line.

@Steve:

Exactly, we should not teach it as if it is science, because it is not. It is a hypothesis which has no direct proof, but only proof by no-contrary-prove. They just pick some evidences out of history, that lacks an explanation with evolution theory. However, those incidences could be explained by a myriad of other explanations and therefore this particular explanation doesn't hold up.

Therefore we must protest that it is seen as a scientific theory. If they want to implement it into religious classes, no problem, but not as science.

And Bush wants to do it the science way, otherwise he would have put it directly to religious classes, however, he has not.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.