rref wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:42 pm
Sincerely please post less. I chose to unsubscribe from the forum RSS due to the volume of your writing.
noted, thanks. will soon fix!
jacob wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:32 pm
I say unintentional because believing that one has an intuitive grasp of a discipline after listening to two experts discuss some scifi-applications is like believing that Grey's Anatomy is a substitute for Netter's Anatomy when doing surgery; and I don't believe that.
where did i say i was an expert? that's a very funny accusation to throw. such a loaded assumption.
all i said about that video was that their concepts
were highly graspable. that makes me an expert in all the ins and outs of their technology, their procedures, their machinery, their experimental protocols, any of that.
for me as i recall i think the college level was less accessible because it was discussed in terms of specific enzimes i'm not familiar with. but past that level the focus was on ethics.
so, while i don't know in detail the specific technology they were discussing, what they were saying was not gibberish to me. so if i were a in a comgressional panel looking to regulate thar industry, i'm pretty sure those 2 people could explain things to me in an intelligible way.
i feel however if you were questioned by a congressional panel you'd use your response time to categorize the questioners as below your comprehension level and how they're not sufficiently developed to understand you.
and no, the video does not answer the muggles question and it doesn't answer the question of whether your model is ideological or open ended.
obviously you have found analogies to your model in various developmental models. this is promising! but you cannot conclude from the analogy that you're modeling the development of a particular entity--maybe you're modeling the steps of an evolution towards something you don't know.
in biology at least (you referred me to a psychological model, i see that as a subset of biology) the developed form of an organism is know. but the end form of evolution is not known. nevertheless one can reconstruct the evolution of an organism from their development.
yes yes, everybody can understand what a developmental model is, we don't need to be patronized with mentions of "trigonometry".
my question in the other thread was meant to ask if you were certain you were tracking an actual development towards a know end, and not an open evolution to the unknown. because your model, while analogous, is not other people's models about something else. is ere "an ego"? you never actually responded. that youtube link, lol.
also you didn't answer the matter than an evolution is not a design (except for the intelligent design crowd). conceptual clarity is important for understanding. development, evolution and design are different things. this is why the title retirement
keeps having unwanted effects. but if you want to keep blaming misunderstandings on "the other," that's totally your prerogative. same as the renaissance "man" business--it's always their
fault. go watch a youtube!
anyway, this will never be settled, i agree. i think we have different conceptions of humanity. i learned a lot though, thanks for the experience.