Posted by Reilly Atkinson on September 01, 1999 at 15:53:16:

In Reply to: Seeking Posting Advice on a Unified Theory of Knowledge posted by mike cahill on September 01, 1999 at 13:43:15:

Sir: There are several points in your discussions below that I find quite intellectually troubling.

That a computer could help amplify our minds - and abilities as in modern prosthetics - is an idea that is virtually as old as the computer. There are in both the formal and anecdotal literature numerous descriptions in which this help has been quite successfully accomplished. Has been done, probably can be done better.

Re visualization: there is knowledge, relativity or quantum mechanics or E&M, that cannot be demonstrated in visual form, they are ultimately algebraic theories that utilize 4 and higher dimensional spaces. For most of the hard sciences, which have generated an enormous body of knowledge, the equation is the thing. Graphical representations cannot capture the essence of these equations. That being said, graphical illustrations -- static or dynamic -- can often be extremely provocative and powerful in aiding the research process -- stimulating the imagination, and fueling intuition.

Why in the world is perception the enemy? Your diatribe was forceful, but it lacked any basis to support your contentions. Modern neuro-science strongly suggests that much of the input, which the brain mysteriously turns into knowledge, is perceptual - neural and receptor firings in your eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, .... I say mysterious simply because the specific neural processes and pathways remain to be identified and understood. And, there is ample evidence that without perceptual input humans go quite bonkers.
So, what's wrong with perception?

The idea of causal analysis is quite old -- I'm coauthor of a book on the subject, published 20+ years ago. Our term was behavioral modeling. That's not to say that causal analysis cannot be improved.

If you are developing a grand unified knowledge theory and basing it, to some degree, on causation, then you have some BIG problems. Modern physics, quantum theory, says that ascribing causality between two events with any great certainty is at least difficult, if not impossible. Bohr as the grandfather, and Heisenberg as the father of the Uncertainty Principle pretty much confirmed Hume's analysis of causality -- a great idea that has no basis in fact. So, it seems to me, that in your causally based Unified Theory of Knowledge, you must incorporate the physicist's non-causal theory of the Universe - I would be most curious to know how you pull that off.

Thank you,
Reilly Atkinson

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Agresive Criticism Mezei 10:25:14 9/02/99 (1)
  • Re: Agresive Criticism Reilly Atkinson 01:51:45 9/03/99 (0)
• Re: Agresive Criticism mike cahill 18:01:49 9/01/99 (2)
  • Re: Agresive Criticism Mezei 10:40:19 9/02/99 (1)
    • Re: Agresive Criticism mike cahill 12:47:38 9/02/99 (0)
• Re: Agresive Criticism mike cahill 17:30:28 9/01/99 (1)
  • Re: Agresive Criticism Reilly Atkinson 21:12:27 9/01/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: