Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part Five)
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:26:24 EDT
Subject: [MegaList] My Medications and Sanity
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Chris Langan wants me properly medicated before I express an opinion. Good
news, Chris, I *am* properly medicated. Can you say the same? I take
Risperdal for paranoia, Luvox for depression, and Lithium for mood
stabilization. I have just landed what may be the best job of my life.
In this past January I had an article published in _QEX_, a magazine for
experimenters in amateur radio. I was paid the princely sum of $500.
Anybody ever pay you for an intellectual contribution, Chris? The article
described my method for automatic tuning of single sideband voice signals.
Before I invented the technique there was no way to tune SSB without the
human ear being involved if you didn't know the frequency of the missing
carrier.
If you want to experience the power of my contribution firsthand, get a
"DSK3" from Texas Instruments (price $99) and download my software for it
from http://www.arrl.org/files/. Look for the file SSBTUNE.ZIP.
Radio amateurs invented SSB. Do you really think their biggest organization
would publish my method for it if it wasn't a good contribution?
OK. I wait to hear that Chris is properly medicated, and that Chris has made
a major contribution to something IN THE EYES OF EXPERTS, not himself.
Bob Dick, PhD
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 00:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] My Medications and Sanity
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 GR2rojad@aol.com wrote:
> Chris Langan wants me properly medicated before I express an opinion. Good
> news, Chris, I *am* properly medicated. Can you say the same? I take
> Risperdal for paranoia, Luvox for depression, and Lithium for mood
> stabilization. I have just landed what may be the best job of my life.
Congratulations, Bob.
>
> In this past January I had an article published in _QEX_, a magazine for
> experimenters in amateur radio. I was paid the princely sum of $500.
> Anybody ever pay you for an intellectual contribution, Chris? The article
> described my method for automatic tuning of single sideband voice signals.
> Before I invented the technique there was no way to tune SSB without the
> human ear being involved if you didn't know the frequency of the missing
> carrier.
Never heard of QEX, Bob. No, nobody pays me for my work; I do it for love,
not because I'm out there grubbing for the "princely sum" of $5C. But that
doesn't detract from your accomplishment.
>
> If you want to experience the power of my contribution firsthand, get a
> "DSK3" from Texas Instruments (price $99) and download my software for it
> from http://www.arrl.org/files/. Look for the file SSBTUNE.ZIP.
Unfortunately, I'm not into SSB. But I'll be sure to mention it if I ever
run into anyone who is.
>
> Radio amateurs invented SSB. Do you really think their biggest organization
> would publish my method for it if it wasn't a good contribution?
Of course not, Bob. You've done a wonderful thing.
>
> OK. I wait to hear that Chris is properly medicated, and that Chris has made
> a major contribution to something IN THE EYES OF EXPERTS, not himself.
We have people claiming to be math and philosophy experts in this group,
Bob, so I shouldn't have to go elsewhere for peer review. It's the
responsibility of my fellow members, you included, to provide it. And I
don't give a hoot about your useless, overpriced PhD, which I have no
doubt whatsoever that I could duplicate in several weeks of concentrated
solitary effort. All I'd lack is the rubber stamp.
Again, congratulations on getting published.
Chris
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:21:15 EDT
Subject: Re: [MegaList] My Medications and Sanity
To: megalist@brokersys.com
In a message dated 4/5/99 11:41:01 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
<<
We have people claiming to be math and philosophy experts in this group,
Bob, so I shouldn't have to go elsewhere for peer review. It's the
responsibility of my fellow members, you included, to provide it. >>
First, let me say it was a surprise to me to see Chris acting civil, even,
dare I say, friendly. Maybe he IS worth having on this list.
My one cent peer review: Chris, on first sight I fail to see the value of
your metaphysical gyrations. I like simple language, which is one reason I
dislike the Mega Test. I therefore lack the motivation to give your work
second and third looks. Perhaps if you could see that your peers totally
lack a sense of wonderfulness about your work...
Can you name ONE peer that has gotten into the CTMU and appreciated it? I
think not. This is exactly what I meant by your ideas NOT interacting with
the ideas of others.
Bob Dick
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 11:08:12 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: "Don O'Brien" <dono@scruznet.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Some thoughts on sanity
It seems to me that anyone claiming superiority by virtue
of never having had mental difficulties is like an artist
claiming to be an expert in shades of gray who has never seen
or experienced black.
I will not be so presumptuous as to assume that I am in anyway
superior by having experienced black myself. However, when
I can put aside my own fear, it is an interesting and
enlightening experience to have gone through; shedding a
minuscule amount of light on how much of "me" is just a
particular combination of chemicals in my brain.
I could argue that one might more objectively evaluate,
comprehend and appreciate sanity by having something to
compare it with in personal experience.
Personally I have found that the ignorance and prejudice
of others is more of a discouragement than the disease itself.
Except that it would give more credit for experience than
is due, I would say that denigrating someone for mental
problems is itself a form of insanity.
Don O'Brien
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:28:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Some thoughts on sanity
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Don O'Brien wrote:
> It seems to me that anyone claiming superiority by virtue
> of never having had mental difficulties is like an artist
> claiming to be an expert in shades of gray who has never seen
> or experienced black.
>
> I will not be so presumptuous as to assume that I am in anyway
> superior by having experienced black myself. However, when
> I can put aside my own fear, it is an interesting and
> enlightening experience to have gone through; shedding a
> minuscule amount of light on how much of "me" is just a
> particular combination of chemicals in my brain.
>
> I could argue that one might more objectively evaluate,
> comprehend and appreciate sanity by having something to
> compare it with in personal experience.
>
> Personally I have found that the ignorance and prejudice
> of others is more of a discouragement than the disease itself.
> Except that it would give more credit for experience than
> is due, I would say that denigrating someone for mental
> problems is itself a form of insanity.
You're quite correct. I apologize for seeming to suggest that people with
mental problems are "inferior". I don't really believe this, and I'm sure
the rest of us don't either. I was just angered when Bob Dick suggested as
much regarding me, even though he's been on the dark side himself. Try to
remember that Bob has a history of disparaging me and my work without
giving any rationally-accessible specifics. I'm tired of it, not least
because his accusations are so frequently echoed by his pal Foghorn...
again, without benefit of meaningful specifics. It's a game they play.
Let me ask you this. Would you rather that I patronize Bob because I know
that he's had mental difficulties? Or would you rather that I treat him
just like I treat Kevin? [If you'd rather that I ignore them both and let
Kevin have his way the customary 100% of the time at Society expense, you
can forget it.]
Chris L.
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:25:27 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: "Don O'Brien" <dono@scruznet.com>
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Some thoughts on sanity
> ....
> Let me ask you this. Would you rather that I patronize Bob because I know
> that he's had mental difficulties? Or would you rather that I treat him
> just like I treat Kevin? [If you'd rather that I ignore them both and let
> Kevin have his way the customary 100% of the time at Society expense, you
> can forget it.]
>
> Chris L.
Since you asked...
Treat him with respect as someone who has a different opinion than yourself.
Argue constructively and logically with those ideas that you disagree;
not the person who holds them.
If we all believed the same things life would be pretty boring!
Appreciate and revel in the differences!
I enjoy hearing well thought out logical arguments contrary to my views.
Sometimes I learn something new. Sometimes I can respond in a way
that the other person learns something new. I consider that
a win/win situation. But if you call me an idiot in the process
that tells me you know your arguments are weak because you
feel your logic needs to be propped up with rhetoric.
At that point I become bored with the discussion, and find something
more interesting to do with my time, unless I can divert the discussion
back to something intellectually interesting.
Consider this my attempt to do that and avoid turning on filters.
I can get all the clever rhetoric I want by Turing on the TV or
reading a newspaper, I don't have any interest in having it in my email.
I challenge all of you guilty of using rhetoric in this way to
show a little more creativity and intelligence by avoiding
its use in the future. Those who are not up to this
challenge risk being filtered, and I doubt just by me.
Speaking only for myself: rhetoric which is intended as satire
or humor that EVERYONE can enjoy laughing at is of course acceptable.
Don O'Brien
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:06:50 -0500
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Steve Schuessler <bahai@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Some thoughts on sanity
A lotus, bright and unsullied, rises through the mire.
To Don: every word of your reply echoes my own thoughts.
-Steve
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:37:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] SAT and IQ Test Normings
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 gcfogleman@att.net wrote:
> Chris L. wrote:
>
> >> The SAT isn't an IQ test; it's a test of crystallized
> >> intelligence.
>
> and
>
> >> Most other IQ tests are indeed normed using childhood scores,
> >> and these scores have been incorporated in the power-IEQ test
> >> normings. The baby's already in the bath water that Kevin wants
> >> to throw out. He can't do this without experimental statistical
> >> gyrations that would curl the lip of any mainstream
> >> psychometrician.
>
> The SAT is considered a thinly-veiled and pretty good IQ
> test (at least for U. S. High School juniors and seniors -
> - it isn't "culture-fair"). A number of references
> regarding this fact can be found in the Prometheus Society
> Membership Committee report.
I have that report. Quoting Jensen, it reads "Data obtained from 339
college students support the notion that much of the variance in SAT
scores can be attributed to g." Obviously, this isn't the same as calling
it an "IQ test". For the report then goes on "There are cautionary notes
to be added, though: g-loading is a function of both the test involved and
the population being measured. Jensen's data were obtained from a small
sample of college students..." It even mentions a study in the Princeton
Review which claims that SAT-takers can register improvements of well over
200 points due to coaching.
I have no trouble acknowledging that the SAT is g-loaded. But it's loaded
for other factors too, and we can't be sure that these other factors don't
play a part in the correlations with power-IEQ tests. Moreover, what about
the persistence factor? I know for a fact that power-IEQ test scores are
pretty sensitive to how much time you're willing to spend racking them
up. The Mega Society selects its members well above the level at which
persistence enters the picture. I know that from personal experience, as
well as from the reports of other members. Why do you think Ron Hoeflin
felt compelled to disallow second attempts? There was too much gain for
extra time spent. Persistence is not equivalent to *g*.
> It is not true that "most other IQ tests are normed using
> childhood scores." Again, evidence for this is discussed
> in the PS MC report. There was a lot of discussion during
> the MC deliberations (I was a participant) about the ways
> the standard IQ tests are normed. Several MC members had
> significant experience in psychometrics and had
> professionally administered a number of the standard
> tests. One MC member is a clinical psychologist who has
> access to the highly confidential "test manuals," which
> contain details on the test normings and on how to score
> the tests. Many of the tests we discussed were normed by
> age group. The test publisher would provide, say, several
> normings for different childhood age ranges and a separate
> independent norming for adults. Some tests (e.g. the
> Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices) also had normings for
> different adult age groups in order to take into account
> the decrease in cognitive function that generally comes
> with aging.
This looks to me to be all but irrelevant. Power-IEQ tests have been
normed using the scores that were provided, regardless of the age-based
normings from which those scores were derived. So there are bound to be
childhood scores in the mix...scores that don't allow for the usual
age-related decrease in IQ. On the other hand, if you're saying that
childhood IQ test normings automatically allow for "regression to the
mean", then there's no reason not to accept them as primary qualifiers.
Either way, my point stands.
Chris
From: gcfogleman@att.net
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: [MegaList] SAT and "power-IEQ" tests
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:52:07 +0000
[Quoted material from Chris Langan moved from end:]
> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 gcfogleman@att.net wrote:
> >
> > Chris L. wrote:
> >
> > >> The SAT isn't an IQ test; it's a test of crystallized
> > >> intelligence.
> >
> > and
> >
> > >> Most other IQ tests are indeed normed using childhood scores,
> > >> and these scores have been incorporated in the power-IEQ test
> > >> normings. The baby's already in the bath water that Kevin wants
> > >> to throw out. He can't do this without experimental statistical
> > >> gyrations that would curl the lip of any mainstream
> > >> psychometrician.
> >
> > The SAT is considered a thinly-veiled and pretty good IQ
> > test (at least for U. S. High School juniors and seniors -
> > - it isn't "culture-fair"). A number of references
> > regarding this fact can be found in the Prometheus Society
> > Membership Committee report.
>
> I have that report. Quoting Jensen, it reads "Data obtained from 339
> college students support the notion that much of the variance in SAT
> scores can be attributed to g." Obviously, this isn't the same as calling
> it an "IQ test". For the report then goes on "There are cautionary
notes
> to be added, though: g-loading is a function of both the test involved and
> the population being measured. Jensen's data were obtained from a small
> sample of college students..." It even mentions a study in the Princeton
> Review which claims that SAT-takers can register improvements of well over
> 200 points due to coaching.
>
> I have no trouble acknowledging that the SAT is g-loaded. But it's loaded
> for other factors too, and we can't be sure that these other factors don't
> play a part in the correlations with power-IEQ tests. Moreover, what about
> the persistence factor? I know for a fact that power-IEQ test scores are
> pretty sensitive to how much time you're willing to spend racking them
> up. The Mega Society selects its members well above the level at which
> persistence enters the picture. I know that from personal experience, as
> well as from the reports of other members. Why do you think Ron Hoeflin
> felt compelled to disallow second attempts? There was too much gain for
> extra time spent. Persistence is not equivalent to *g*.
>
> > It is not true that "most other IQ tests are normed using
> > childhood scores." Again, evidence for this is discussed
> > in the PS MC report. There was a lot of discussion during
> > the MC deliberations (I was a participant) about the ways
> > the standard IQ tests are normed. Several MC members had
> > significant experience in psychometrics and had
> > professionally administered a number of the standard
> > tests. One MC member is a clinical psychologist who has
> > access to the highly confidential "test manuals," which
> > contain details on the test normings and on how to score
> > the tests. Many of the tests we discussed were normed by
> > age group. The test publisher would provide, say, several
> > normings for different childhood age ranges and a separate
> > independent norming for adults. Some tests (e.g. the
> > Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices) also had normings for
> > different adult age groups in order to take into account
> > the decrease in cognitive function that generally comes
> > with aging.
>
> This looks to me to be all but irrelevant. Power-IEQ tests have been
> normed using the scores that were provided, regardless of the age-based
> normings from which those scores were derived. So there are bound to be
> childhood scores in the mix...scores that don't allow for the usual
> age-related decrease in IQ. On the other hand, if you're saying that
> childhood IQ test normings automatically allow for "regression to the
> mean", then there's no reason not to accept them as primary qualifiers.
> Either way, my point stands.
>
> Chris
I agree with what Chris L. says about the SAT and Power-
IEQ tests. We on the Prometheus Society Membership
Committee found no test that was perfect. The best we
could do was to identify tests for which there was a
plausible argument that they could select at the 1/30,000
level in cognitive ability.
The problem is even tougher for selection at the Mega
level.
- Guy
From: "Guy Fogleman" <gcfogleman@worldnet.att.net>
To: <megalist@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] IQ Test Normings and Childhood Scores
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:48:24 -0400
Original message from Chris:
>>>The SAT isn't an IQ test; it's a test of crystallized
>>>intelligence. Most other IQ tests are indeed normed using childhood
>>>scores, and these scores have been incorporated in the power-IEQ test
>>>normings. The baby's already in the bath water that Kevin wants to throw
>>>out. He can't do this without experimental statistical gyrations that
>>>would curl the lip of any mainstream psychometrician.
Me:
>>It is not true that "most other IQ tests are normed using
>>childhood scores." Again, evidence for this is discussed
>> in the PS MC report. There was a lot of discussion during
>> the MC deliberations (I was a participant) about the ways
>> the standard IQ tests are normed. Several MC members had
>> significant experience in psychometrics and had
>> professionally administered a number of the standard
>> tests. One MC member is a clinical psychologist who has
>> access to the highly confidential "test manuals," which
>> contain details on the test normings and on how to score
>> the tests. Many of the tests we discussed were normed by
>> age group. The test publisher would provide, say, several
>> normings for different childhood age ranges and a separate
>> independent norming for adults. Some tests (e.g. the
>> Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices) also had normings for
>> different adult age groups in order to take into account
>> the decrease in cognitive function that generally comes
>> with aging.
Chris L.:
>This looks to me to be all but irrelevant. Power-IEQ tests have been
>normed using the scores that were provided, regardless of the age-based
>normings from which those scores were derived. So there are bound to be
>childhood scores in the mix...scores that don't allow for the usual
>age-related decrease in IQ. On the other hand, if you're saying that
>childhood IQ test normings automatically allow for "regression to the
>mean", then there's no reason not to accept them as primary qualifiers.
>Either way, my point stands.
>
>Chris
Me (trying for clarification, not debating points!):
Chris,
I interpreted the first half of your original comment (from the top of this
message, with my attempt at disambiguation in square brackets): "Most other
[standard?] IQ tests are indeed normed using childhood scores, and these
scores have been incorporated in the power-IEQ test normings." as referring
to the way standard IQ tests are normed. If this interpretation is correct
then my comments are relevant (at least to the first half of your sentence).
Also, the data I've seen indicates that the Mega test was normed primarily
on tests that are not generally given to children (e.g., the SAT). I don't
know the status for the LAIT. I agree that if an adult IQ (or IEQ or
whatever) test is normed using using a significant number of childhood
scores, then there is problem with the norming. From what I understand,
there is definitely "regression to the mean" in IQ as children move into
adulthood (BTW: I wasn't saying that childhood normings take this into
account -- I don't believe they do). I think that the HIQ societies should
select for current adult intelligence, not childhood precociousness. This
is a point over which intelligent people may differ, though. For example,
what should be the minimum age that an IQ score should be accepted by the
Mega Society? Eighteen is probably too high and eight is probably too low.
- Guy
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:41:34 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: IQ Test Normings and Childhood Scores
At 07:48 PM 4/6/99 -0400, Guy Fogleman wrote:
[Chris:]
>>>> The SAT isn't an IQ test; it's a test of crystallized
>>>> intelligence. Most other IQ tests are indeed normed
>>>> using childhood scores, and these scores have been
>>>> incorporated in the power-IEQ test normings. The
>>>> baby's already in the bath water that Kevin wants to
>>>> throw out. He can't do this without experimental
>>>> statistical gyrations that would curl the lip of any
>>>> mainstream psychometrician.
[Guy:]
>>> It is not true that "most other IQ tests are normed using
>>> childhood scores." Again, evidence for this is discussed
>>> in the PS MC report. There was a lot of discussion
>>> during the MC deliberations (I was a participant) about
>>> the ways the standard IQ tests are normed. Several MC
>>> members had significant experience in psychometrics and
>>> had professionally administered a number of the standard
>>> tests. One MC member is a clinical psychologist who has
>>> access to the highly confidential "test manuals," which
>>> contain details on the test normings and on how to score
>>> the tests. Many of the tests we discussed were normed by
>>> age group. The test publisher would provide, say, several
>>> normings for different childhood age ranges and a separate
>>> independent norming for adults. Some tests (e.g. the
>>> Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices) also had normings
>>> for different adult age groups in order to take into account
>>> the decrease in cognitive function that generally comes
>>> with aging.
>> This looks to me to be all but irrelevant. Power-IEQ tests
>> have been normed using the scores that were provided,
>> regardless of the age-based normings from which those
>> scores were derived. So there are bound to be childhood
>> scores in the mix...scores that don't allow for the usual age-
>> related decrease in IQ. On the other hand, if you're saying
>> that childhood IQ test normings automatically allow for
>> "regression to the mean", then there's no reason not to
>> accept them as primary qualifiers. Either way, my point
>> stands.
> Me (trying for clarification, not debating points!):
Yeah, yeah. There are just different kinds of debating points.
(However, these differences are crucial. The principal
distinction is that between those who debate as part of their
search for truth and those motivated otherwise.)
> Chris,
> I interpreted the first half of your original comment (from
> the top of this message, with my attempt at disambiguation
> in square brackets): "Most other [standard?] IQ tests are
> indeed normed using childhood scores, and these scores
> have been incorporated in the power-IEQ test normings."
> as referring to the way standard IQ tests are normed. If this
> interpretation is correct then my comments are relevant (at
> least to the first half of your sentence).
> Also, the data I've seen indicates that the Mega test was
> normed primarily on tests that are not generally given to
> children (e.g., the SAT). I don't know the status for the
> LAIT.
We tested very similar populations, drawn from the high-
IQ societies and the readership of *Omni* and very similar
patterns of previous scores submitted are in fact observed.
> I agree that if an adult IQ (or IEQ or whatever) test is
> normed using using a significant number of childhood
> scores, then there is problem with the norming. From
> what I understand, there is definitely "regression to the
> mean" in IQ as children move into adulthood (BTW: I
> wasn't saying that childhood normings take this into
> account -- I don't believe they do). I think that the HIQ
> societies should select for current adult intelligence, not
> childhood precociousness.
Hear, hear!
> This is a point over which intelligent people may differ,
> though. For example, what should be the minimum age
> that an IQ score should be accepted by the Mega Society?
> Eighteen is probably too high and eight is probably too low.
> - Guy
I don't think we need a rule on this point. What's required is
a 4.75-sigma score according to adult norms. That should
make it hard enough for the eight-year-olds to get in.
Kevin Langdon
From: "Guy Fogleman" <gcfogleman@worldnet.att.net>
To: <megalist@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] IQ and Age
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 22:19:14 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 8:06 PM
Subject: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan, 4/6/99 (Part Three)
......
>
>IQ increases to a peak around age 20-25 (fluid) or 60
>(crystallized), and then declines. Fluid *g* declines slowly up
>until age 60, then more rapidly. But the age at which fluid *g*
>peaks depends on how much of it there is. People at the Mega
>level peak around age 40-50, on the average. (This is a very
>rough estimate based on eyeballing raw data.)
>
.......
The charts I've seen (from one of Eysenk's books -- I don't remember which
one) showed IQ (which for Eysenk was, I believe, primarily defined as the
fluid part) peaking at age A and then declining with slope -B. Peaking age
A was in the late teens for average IQ and around early to mid twenties for
"high" IQ (2 sigma). Eysenk mentioned the general increase of A with IQ.
I'm surprised, though, that Mega-level fluid IQ's would peak at an age as
late as 40, when all other physiological systems are usually past their
peak. If raw data really shows a peaking at around 40 or higher, are you
sure that what is peaking isn't some combination of fluid + crystallized?
BTW, Eysenk also mentioned that B, the rate of decrease of fluid IQ past age
A, decreases with increasing IQ. Good news there!
- Guy
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "James C. Harbeck" <df249@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: [MegaList] the pooh server is a server of very small mailbox
To: megalist@brokersys.com
In a way, it's fun to watch the sLANGing match whiz by; it saves
me from having to turn on pro wrestling on TV to get roughly the same.
And I even get the pleasure of hitting the D button and making whole
reams of invective disappear magically as though down a wide-mouthed
toilet. But could I make one small request? When replying to each other,
could you keep the repeat (i.e., caretted) material down to a minimum?
And avoid saying the same thing too many times? My mailbox got maxed out
over the weekend, resulting in several bounces, and even just since
yesterday it's come dangerously close to overflowing again. Brevity,
amigos, is the soul of wit, no? And if you were to keep your missives to
two screens in length, more people might take the time to read them
through--if that matters to you (if it doesn't, and you're happy having a
three- or four-way shouting match, perhaps you could take it off the list
to save bandwidth).
Muchos gracias, James Harbeck.
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:06:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] the pooh server is a server of very small mailbox
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, James C. Harbeck wrote:
> In a way, it's fun to watch the sLANGing match whiz by; it saves
> me from having to turn on pro wrestling on TV to get roughly the same.
> And I even get the pleasure of hitting the D button and making whole
> reams of invective disappear magically as though down a wide-mouthed
> toilet. But could I make one small request? When replying to each other,
> could you keep the repeat (i.e., caretted) material down to a minimum?
> And avoid saying the same thing too many times? My mailbox got maxed out
> over the weekend, resulting in several bounces, and even just since
> yesterday it's come dangerously close to overflowing again. Brevity,
> amigos, is the soul of wit, no? And if you were to keep your missives to
> two screens in length, more people might take the time to read them
> through--if that matters to you (if it doesn't, and you're happy having a
> three- or four-way shouting match, perhaps you could take it off the list
> to save bandwidth).
> Muchos gracias, James Harbeck.
I agree, big Jim. I'd rather discuss something with real content (that's
what those challenges Kevin keeps ignoring are about - actual
mathematico-philosophical issues we've debated). Let's go back to the
latest topic proposed by Steve: the distinction between rationalistic and
empirical factors in theorization.
Here's what I say. I say both factors are necessary. Modern science is
attempting to have its cake and eat it too by booting rational cognition
out of the picture while making free use of logic and mathematics to
relate observed phenomena (and even to construct experiments). I say
that's a paradox...a prima facie absurdity constituting a protracted
backlash against (Grecophile) scholasticism. You can't boot cognitive
structure out of objective reality in order to "de-subjectivize" it and
then use it to glue together your supposedly "objective" theories. The
very idea is ridiculous, but has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by
much of the scientific establishment. Call it "anti-scholastic
scholasticism".
For example, the metric tensor, a mathematical construct, is accepted as a
feature of spacetime structure (we can use any other mathematical
ingredient of physical law just as easily). That amounts to the physical
objectivization of a certain mathematical construct. But since a tensor is
just a mathematical black box that transforms input vectors to output
vectors (or scalars), this amounts to saying that spacetime is
computational - or in a specific generalized sense, "cognitive" - in
nature and functionability. This is totally out of sync with modern
science, which would scream like a wounded eagle at the very idea that
reality works by means of distributed generalized cognition. Why, it's
almost a projection of the human psyche onto "objective reality"!
Remember, Kant identified logic and mathematics as what amount to
"elements of cognitive syntax". So when you implant them in objective
reality, you implant the cognitive syntax of the human mind in reality.
And when you do that, you (in effect) make reality cognitive.
So why do physicists, and even mathematicians, so assiduously screen all
mention of cognition out of their theoretical universes? Are they dummies?
Or are they just frightened?
Chris Langan
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:05:04 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: the pooh server is a server of very small mailbox
At 09:32 AM 4/6/99 -0400, James Harbeck wrote:
> In a way, it's fun to watch the sLANGing match whiz by; it saves
> me from having to turn on pro wrestling on TV to get roughly the
> same. And I even get the pleasure of hitting the D button and
> making whole reams of invective disappear magically as though
> down a wide-mouthed toilet.
Funny. That's what some of it seems to come up out of.
> But could I make one small request? When replying to each other,
> could you keep the repeat (i.e., caretted) material down to a
> minimum?
That's difficult when someone is attacking you on every line, but I
have snipped what I could (except in my current response to Chris,
as he apparently objects to any snipping at all). If that makes me a
"snip," too bad.
> And avoid saying the same thing too many times?
The same lie calls for the same truth in response, though there *is*
a point where it becomes too much.
> My mailbox got maxed out over the weekend, resulting in several
> bounces, and even just since yesterday it's come dangerously close
> to overflowing again.
Get a system (ISP plus hardware plus software) that will handle the
traffic you actually have; I'm sure that the MegaList by itself must
be a small fraction of this traffic.
> Brevity, amigos, is the soul of wit, no?
It is indeed. And most of my comments are short.
> And if you were to keep your missives to two screens in length,
> more people might take the time to read them through--if that
> matters to you (if it doesn't, and you're happy having a three- or
> four-way shouting match, perhaps you could take it off the list
> to save bandwidth).
> Muchos gracias, James Harbeck.
Actually, my experience of this is the reverse. I'd much rather see
material grouped into longer messages than deal with the
overhead involved in opening up one little message after another.
I would also appreciate hearing from more of you on the substance
of the issues under examination.
Kevin Langdon