| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited |
| Posted by: | nj |
| Date/Time: | 15/10/2003 23:47:34 |
|
Hello, Dr. Grinder. By "experience" in the interpretation (1) "I interpreted quote (1) to imply the following objective connotation for 'f2 transforms': internal computation and internal state as experienced in all sensory systems at all times" I meant ..., well, it's up to you to decide how to be clear about what defines f1 and f2 transform processes. They're your terms, but you know, people will start misusing them (not me, of course :-). The concept termed: (2)"objective connotation" is intensionally described by: (3) "the lexical definiens of a term." Contrast term (2) with the term: (4)"subjective connotation" which means: (5) "all concepts personally associated with a term." I adopted terms (2) and (4) from a logic textbook. Compare term (2) with the term: (6) "intension". Terms (2) and (6) are close in meaning. But I am a little frustrated, because: (7) I doubt the discussion you present on pages 9-49 of WITW will let me properly distinguish the concepts termed: (8) "f1-transform" and: (9) "f2-transform". Also: (10) I'm a thoughtful reader and: (11) I repeatedly read the section of WITW that discusses concepts (8) and (9). Facts (10) and (11) lead me to conclude that another reading of the first 50 pages of WITW will not help me understand your (I assume, finished - over with) distinction of the concepts (8) and (9). If you can further respond to my objections to your statements of what concepts (8) and (9) connote, then go right ahead, if you have the spare time. But, just for taking the time to read this, thank you. :-) -nj ps: I'm hoping you are going to release some written description of the New Code in a book soon. Just hoping! |