Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Well, I had been hoping for an intelligent response to this thread. It has been over a month since I posted and only seventy nine people have even read it so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. …
|
I sympathise.
Myself, I occasionally post a problem on which I’m failing to make progress to science boards like this one, in the hope that (1) the solution already exists in the literature, and someone will kindly point me to it, or (2) someone will find the problem compelling, and make better progress than I have.
Occasionally, I get interesting feedback. Always, I find I benefit from the exercise of packaging my work for an audience. To date, I’ve never had anyone pick up and run a problem to a satisfying conclusion.
My apologies for not providing you with any feedback. Your initial post reminded me of many ideas I’ve encountered in popular neuropsychological literature, in particular the 1970s work of John Lilly (Eye of the Cyclone, Mind of the Dolphin, etc.)
My personal intuition is that traditional, philosophical approaches to understanding the whole phenomena of “knowing” the nature of objective reality – which is what I take to be of the focus of you search – have consumed lifetimes of minds more capable than mine, so are not likely to be fruitful paths for me. I believe that a reductionistic approach to understanding the underlying mechanics of human and animal thought is the most productive path to understanding “how we understand”, and, ultimately, “understanding the universe”.
I’ll not pursue such research myself, but attempt to keep up with the literature, and, perhaps, find applications that the specialists actually doing the work would not.
