Wow!

by Terry 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  You would probably find Derrida's "Signature Event Context" interesting.

  I shelve books in the Philosophy section (along with Relgion and Metaphysics). Derrida is a wild man! Even dangerous, perhaps.
• 

  Terry

  You would probably find Derrida's "Signature Event Context" interesting.

  Those are actually beanie babies scotch taped to my chest! Pre-vert!!
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  agreed about emotions and intellect.

  When I stopped believing that I devalued the concept. Now I can't get scared in a film even when I want to! I can be totally alone in the house with all sorts of creaks and shadows and nothing whatever happens to me emotionally.

  i went through exactly the same thing! except, now i am even more freaked of psycho homo sapiens in movies about psycho homo sapiens.

  when something goes bump in the night, i think: "well, it's probably the house creaking." but i cannot also escape the thought that some psycho has broken into the house, either. the probability is less, but it does happen.

  tetra
• 

  tan

  In to the weed Terry or just drinking?...
• 

  juni

  Huh?
• 

  Terry

  Huh?

  Wuh?
• 

  SirNose586

  Hguoht neve otatop yllaer gninettaf I era evol spihc yeht.

  "I love potato chips even though they are really fattening."

  Same with Haagen-Dazs, man. That stuff is the bomb, but it'll kill you.
• 

  Jeffro

  Hguoht neve otatop yllaer gninettaf I era evol spihc yeht.

  THE BOX ABOVE contains a whole.

  The box on top contains no "meaning" as is. It must be rearranged to fit our commonly agreed standards.

  No. The first box does have "meaning", in that it is composed of symbols representing phonemes familiar to those who recognize Roman characters. It just doesn't have as much meaning as the (quite unremarkable) 'solution'. The second box has no real point at all, except maybe to alert the particularly unobservant reader to the fact that the first box contains a resequenced sentence of words in reverse.

  If we do take the whole of it and rearrange the structure without dropping any of the molecules (word forms) a thought can be communicated.
  1.Wholeness, in and of itself, is not useful when communication according to a standard is sought.
  2.In order to pull data out of a whole structure (such as the top box) we must isolate the elements and rearrange them. If we find a pattern we must further apply standards of logic in order to derrive sense.

  All very 'zen', I'm sure. But certianly not rocket science.

  3. The Wow! in the heading serves to stimulate curiousity by invoking a commonly held bond between humans when expressing wonder, awe or satisfaction emotionally. The heightened level of curiousity serves as the catalyst for problem solving. The top box is treated as a puzzle. The heuristics of rearrangment via logic lead to the solution.

  Unfortunately the 'wow' is not an appropriate preface to a mundane puzzle followed by an overly verbose explanation of the process involved in solving it.

  4.The letdown at the rather mundane message doesn't live up to the effort of solving the problem. (Unless you really dig puzzles).
  However, once a pattern is detected a kind of tool is created which serves to unlock any similar WHOLE.

  Yes. If it wasn't such an easy puzzle, the mundane solution would be (even more) disappointing. Though it has made me hungry. Maybe you should write a compilation of potato-related puzzles.

  This box contains no information.

  The above box contains information.
  Self-reference creates paradox. Why? Because we often cannot tear the bond between an isolated IS-ness and the context of LOGICAL content.

  Self-reference does not, in itself, create paradox. In your example, the paradox is in the contradiction introduced by a loose definition of 'information'. There is no paradox in the autogram, "This sentence contains thirty-six letters."

  Go have a nap, and maybe see what's on the Telly.
• 

  Terry

  "I love potato chips even though they are really fattening."

  Same with Haagen-Dazs, man. That stuff is the bomb, but it'll kill you.

  Ladies and Gents, we have a winner!!
• 

  Terry

  All very 'zen', I'm sure. But certianly not rocket science.

  Okay, smarty pants, but; Sir Nose nailed it.