Posted by mike cahill on September 26, 1999 at 23:09:13:

In Reply to: Re: UTK -- 2 of 2 Object Constancy posted by Reilly Atkinson on September 26, 1999 at 21:56:09:

Reilly,

Let us grant everything you say but one.

I do not think Muncie is trying to create new knowledge in his post. I DO think he is putting up a strong case for UTK failure. However, there is nothing in his post that can not be Triadically analyzed. For that matter, there is nothing in YOUR post that can resist TA. If you think so, PLEASE SHOW IT TO M E.

Now what I will not grant you is that somehow you have ever shown that The UTK is derivative of some ancient idea that scientist have had rattling around in some old laboratory drawer. You simply can not find anywhere in the history of man where ALL knowledge is shown to be graphically represented by three boxes that are causally connected, and where each box can be decomposed into a new set of three boxes … thus showing all knowledge has identical substructure and is thus unified.

One day you show me three coins in a fountain. One day you show me causation. One day you show me state change. One day you show me "forward chaining" or you show me drilling. But you FAIL to show where any philosopher anywhere EVER put it all together.

If you have go it, show it now. Please!

Best
mike

Copyright 1999
Michael J. Cahill
CA Associates
San Jose, CA
T - 408-978-2512
F - 408-448-3940
Mobile - 408-504-8378
caintel@concentric.net

---

Follow Ups:

• Blackboard Sitting On My Shouder Martyn R Jones 04:03:59 9/28/99 (4)
  • Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road Martyn R Jones 06:01:11 9/29/99 (3)
    • Re: Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road mike cahill 15:10:06 9/29/99 (2)
      • Re: Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road C.J. Sekhar 17:11:26 9/29/99 (1)
        • Humor and Explanation Martyn R Jones 04:35:22 9/30/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: