| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited |
| Posted by: | nj |
| Date/Time: | 14/10/2003 21:40:40 |
|
Hello, Dr. Grinder. I don't mean to be impolite or impertinent by responding to you before I order another copy of your book. Before I burned my copy of WITW, I had concluded that the concept termed "f2 transforms", is interpretable from what you wrote in your example (1). In your example (1), you wrote: (1) "...language ... is only a portion of the f2 transforms. Consider the visual virtuosity of an architect or the deep kinesthetic thinking of a well-trained athlete or the composer in mid-composition." I interpreted quote (1) to imply the following objective connotation for "f2 transforms": (2) internal computation and internal state as experienced in all sensory systems at all times Therefore, when you wrote, in your example (2): (3)"...the suspension of all f2 transforms does not imply any change in the f1 transforms - they continue to function as usual - which includes the functional application of the logics (primarily inductive) of the set f1." I find a contradiction between an implication of quote (3), and my definition (2). The contradiction is: (4) the set f2 contains all internal computation performances and internal state experiences, yet the set f1 has inductive logic processes that govern it, so the set of f1 transforms contains internal computation performances, and therefore the set of f1 and f2 transforms overlap, which is a contradiction. Contradiction (4) can be resolved if I reinterpret your use of the term "inductive" in quote (3), so that it is analytically true that: (5) the inductive logic of set f1 does not involve internal computations. To me, if it's true that: (6) f1-transformed data is input to internal computations from outside the human body then it's deductively entailed that: (7) humans don't perform inductive computational processing, as part of any f1 transformation of external_source sensory input. Propositions (5) and (7), taken together, indicate some felicity conditions for your stipulative use of the term "inductive", but I need more input from you to understand your stipulative definiens for the definiendum "inductive", unless you don't agree with propositions (5) and (7). Contradiction (4) could also be resolved if: (8) f1 and f2 transforms overlap in definition and function I intuitively reject proposition (8), based on my earlier readings of WITW. But if I should accept statement (8), absolutely let me know. -nj |