Comments on: Why the Peer-Review Requirement in Science is a Problem http://goodshare.org/wp/why-the-peer-review-requirement-in-science-is-a-problem/ An inclusional worldview Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:52:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ted lumley http://goodshare.org/wp/why-the-peer-review-requirement-in-science-is-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-88 ted lumley Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:53:12 +0000 http://goodshare.org/wp/?p=478#comment-88 walt, you miss the point. what i am talking about cannot be broken down into two types of computation (bottom-up and top-down). i am talking about two different sources of behaviour, one is computational and the other is not. 1. either top-down digital computer analysis or bottom-up analogue computer simulation. 2. direct orchestration/organization of form, behaviour and organization by the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation. the nenets let their behaviour be orchestrated the dynamics of the space they are included in (2), there is no computation, bottom-up or top-down in the process. if they reindeer move on (if the dynamic milieu they are in transforms), the nenets move on so as to sustain a resonant inner-outer relation. this is NOT the thought-informed purpose-directed behaviour that science (most science) constrains itself to. simulation (bottom-up analogue computation) is a replication of what may be going which does not give an understanding of how such behaviour unfolds. in order to understand how it unfolds one has to be included in the dynamic, in the manner that geese are sustain a resonant relation with the dynamic milieu they are conditioning. our form, behaviour, organization are not, at the base of it, thought-informed and purpose directed. in other words, our form, behaviour, organization do not have to be understood as pushing out of the interior of ourselves. in the overall scheme (natural order) of things, our emergent form, our behaviour and our collective organization is orchestrated/organized by the dynamics of the milieu that we are conditioning with our dynamics at the same time as its dynamics are conditioning our dynamics. this is the relationship between storm-cells and the flow of the atmosphere, and my view is that it is the relationship between the organism and its milieu; i.e. it is a continuing 'coniunctio'. meanwhile, we can if we want 'see ourselves' as a 'thinking machine' with locally originating thought-informed, purpose-directed form, behaviour, organization. if we do that makes us into a 'thinking machine' and we can think into ourselves two modes of thinking in our machine, bottom-up and top-down, but that is all confined to our thinking-machine view of self. if we suspend that (which mostly comes from language and abstractions), then we are free to let our behaviour and organization be orchestrated by the dynamics of the milieu in which we are included. our thinking machine view of ourself as a thinking machine is idealization that should not be confused for reality. walt,

you miss the point. what i am talking about cannot be broken down into two types of computation (bottom-up and top-down). i am talking about two different sources of behaviour, one is computational and the other is not.

1. either top-down digital computer analysis or bottom-up analogue computer simulation.

2. direct orchestration/organization of form, behaviour and organization by the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation.

the nenets let their behaviour be orchestrated the dynamics of the space they are included in (2), there is no computation, bottom-up or top-down in the process. if they reindeer move on (if the dynamic milieu they are in transforms), the nenets move on so as to sustain a resonant inner-outer relation. this is NOT the thought-informed purpose-directed behaviour that science (most science) constrains itself to.

simulation (bottom-up analogue computation) is a replication of what may be going which does not give an understanding of how such behaviour unfolds. in order to understand how it unfolds one has to be included in the dynamic, in the manner that geese are sustain a resonant relation with the dynamic milieu they are conditioning.

our form, behaviour, organization are not, at the base of it, thought-informed and purpose directed. in other words, our form, behaviour, organization do not have to be understood as pushing out of the interior of ourselves. in the overall scheme (natural order) of things, our emergent form, our behaviour and our collective organization is orchestrated/organized by the dynamics of the milieu that we are conditioning with our dynamics at the same time as its dynamics are conditioning our dynamics.

this is the relationship between storm-cells and the flow of the atmosphere, and my view is that it is the relationship between the organism and its milieu; i.e. it is a continuing ‘coniunctio’. meanwhile, we can if we want ‘see ourselves’ as a ‘thinking machine’ with locally originating thought-informed, purpose-directed form, behaviour, organization. if we do that makes us into a ‘thinking machine’ and we can think into ourselves two modes of thinking in our machine, bottom-up and top-down, but that is all confined to our thinking-machine view of self. if we suspend that (which mostly comes from language and abstractions), then we are free to let our behaviour and organization be orchestrated by the dynamics of the milieu in which we are included.

our thinking machine view of ourself as a thinking machine is idealization that should not be confused for reality.

]]> By: ellocogringo http://goodshare.org/wp/why-the-peer-review-requirement-in-science-is-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-87 ellocogringo Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:33:23 +0000 http://goodshare.org/wp/?p=478#comment-87 PS Sorry, forgot to address the problem. the right mind is basically a data accumulation correlation device, (inclusionary) while the left mind is primarily a data discarding analysis mechanism (exclusionary) so you're right . The scientific method can't prove shit, it can only disprove something. walt PS
Sorry, forgot to address the problem. the right mind is basically a data accumulation correlation device, (inclusionary) while the left mind is primarily a data discarding analysis mechanism (exclusionary) so you’re right . The scientific method can’t prove shit, it can only disprove something.
walt

]]> By: ellocogringo http://goodshare.org/wp/why-the-peer-review-requirement-in-science-is-a-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-86 ellocogringo Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:26:43 +0000 http://goodshare.org/wp/?p=478#comment-86 Hi, Mr Ted Sigh! You are missing the points. (there are two) As far as I can see the last person to understand the nature of the universe was Plato. There is not one tip of the iceberg but two seperate and discinct tips of two seperate and distinct icebergs. I'll try another analogy, (I've lost count how many that is) we'll keep this with scientists studying reindeer herders. In the west the scientists use digital (top down)computers to analyze the movements of said reindeer herders. In russia they use analog (bottom up) computers to analyze the same. The more focused the view the closer these results compare but the more difuse the view the more these results diverge. As long as we remain within the narrow window we evolved to perceive the world through, the results are fairly consistant, or at least not inconsistant. Neither result is right, neither is wrong. To obtain the optimum result, however, the results must be compared, and discrepancies understood. The problem, Mr Ted is not which view is right, but which is less wrong in regard the particular problem being analyzed. "If we apply the top down result what does the bottom up result tell us about what will happen?" The western approach will kill off the herd, the russian approach will starve the nenet"? The nenete approach works. The Russians think the west is wrong, the west thinks the russians are wrong. But what neither realizes is that they are both wrong. The reindeer herders behave as they do because the results of the two computers they are using (inside the skull) give consistent results when they behave as they do. you are de-bugging the wetware (taking things apart, differentiating whatever) trying to figure it out, whereas the reindeer herders are differentiating AND integrating, comparing the results and acting accordingly. Non-adherants to dogma are called heretics, by the way. walt Hi, Mr Ted
Sigh!
You are missing the points. (there are two) As far as I can see the last person to understand the nature of the universe was Plato. There is not one tip of the iceberg but two seperate and discinct tips of two seperate and distinct icebergs. I’ll try another analogy, (I’ve lost count how many that is) we’ll keep this with scientists studying reindeer herders. In the west the scientists use digital (top down)computers to analyze the movements of said reindeer herders. In russia they use analog (bottom up) computers to analyze the same. The more focused the view the closer these results compare but the more difuse the view the more these results diverge. As long as we remain within the narrow window we evolved to perceive the world through, the results are fairly consistant, or at least not inconsistant. Neither result is right, neither is wrong. To obtain the optimum result, however, the results must be compared, and discrepancies understood. The problem, Mr Ted is not which view is right, but which is less wrong in regard the particular problem being analyzed. “If we apply the top down result what does the bottom up result tell us about what will happen?” The western approach will kill off the herd, the russian approach will starve the nenet”? The nenete approach works. The Russians think the west is wrong, the west thinks the russians are wrong. But what neither realizes is that they are both wrong. The reindeer herders behave as they do because the results of the two computers they are using (inside the skull) give consistent results when they behave as they do. you are de-bugging the wetware (taking things apart, differentiating whatever) trying to figure it out, whereas the reindeer herders are differentiating AND integrating, comparing the results and acting accordingly. Non-adherants to dogma are called heretics, by the way.
walt

]]>