<DIV>Hi Heartland,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heartland wrote:</DIV> <DIV>"...Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong..." </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, suit yourself, but I beg to differ :-) </DIV> <DIV>My impression is that you perhaps just don't fully understand what I'm saying. I take responsibility for that, and I'll keep trying to convey it in different, and hopefully more straightforward, ways.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Wishes,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jeffrey Herrlich</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><B><I>Heartland <velvet977@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">> Dear Heartland,<BR>><BR>> I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected<BR>> outcome, but with hope of better
understanding the interaction and<BR>> possible resolution of incongruent models of reality.<BR>><BR>> It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model,<BR>> possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me<BR>> (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view.<BR>><BR>> It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list.<BR>><BR>> Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request.<BR>><BR>> - Jef<BR><BR>I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that <BR>minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated <BR>their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me <BR>finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a <BR>discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens <BR>during these discussions is that some
people are on the right track but get stuck <BR>at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't <BR>get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the <BR>way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get <BR>tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, <BR>Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was <BR>wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal <BR>examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just <BR>activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view <BR>Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of <BR>energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation <BR>of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism
<BR>inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new <BR>insight.<BR><BR>But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her <BR>basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the <BR>truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* <BR>what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is <BR>definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's <BR>ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths <BR>denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way <BR>to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to <BR>open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, <BR>in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a <BR>territory or just a map?" Or, as
part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test <BR>cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down <BR>you correct the theory.<BR><BR>As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I <BR>*knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, <BR>most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my <BR>own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people <BR>commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere.<BR><BR>Thanks for asking.<BR><BR>S.<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>extropy-chat mailing list<BR>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<BR>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman9/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com/"> calls to 30+ countries</a> for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.