IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

SV: Capacity of the brain

patrik bagge patrik-b at online.no
Wed Nov 24 03:26:25 EST 1999


Jan Ingvoldstad skrev i meddelandet ...
>On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:44:03 +0100, "patrik bagge"
><patrik-b at online.no> said:
>
>> [Bill Todd]
>
>>> Your statements didn't address 'what good' the theory might be, just how
>>> successful it was.
>
>> and the difference is ?
>
>"What good" a theory is or might be is a very loose thing to ask for,
>and hard to determine.
>
>How _successful_ a theory is or might be is much easier.


ok agreed, but obtaining success killing yourself has a tiny
little element of contradiction in it. normally success is
associated with a little 'good'

>>> The concept of the success of a theory is at least
>>> somewhat well-defined as its ability to explain (and predict) reality,
and
>>> has little or nothing to do with its practical application (and, of
course,
>>> practical application of many abstruse physical theories has occurred
>>> decades or more after the they were formulated, so evaluating 'what
good' a
>>> theory may be is rather difficult in the absense of reliable
precognition).
>
>> ok, good answer, you contradict yourself a little bit,
>
>Where are the contradictions?


if one should consider, predicting weather, building a computer
a 'practical application' then the science enabling us to do this
has something 'to do' behind the scenes.

>No, he states that practical application has occurred before, not that
>practical consequences _must_ follow.


if consequences do not follow, ever, do you think that the
science will be alive&kicking, gaining success, despite of it's
lack of consequences ?
(let's not get into marketing/religion here..)

>For instance, for most people, it has virtually no practical
>application how gravity really works; even Newtonian principles are
>overkill, and we could be satisfied with the explanation from certain
>Greek philosophers that some elements seek downwards, some seek
>upwards, and some don't.


yup, depending on application, one or the other science will do.
Iv'e heard that the finns have been messing with gravity, above
a superconducting spinning disc. I wonder what newton&boys
would say?

>Yet, there _may_ be practical applications of quantum theory that
>already affect your life, you just live blissfully unaware of it (just
>as you probably live blissfully unaware of how chemistry and physics
>play important roles in how fast and cheap your computer really is).


sure, aren't we all blissfully unaware of something


>> Regards from a Troll
>
>You've got that one right.


turning left might be right,spinning gets us right back, what
is left is the headache, right?








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net