Hi Dr. Dick:
It is nice to have a note from you. I ponder what you wrote. Thanks for giving a plug on this forum to www.dieoff.org, as have I. I don't endorse every item of information there, but its information has been generally honest in its intention, and pertinent, I think.
..."squirrel" thinking is the source of beliefs and logical thinking requires beliefs as a source.
Mike: I think that is very helpful!
A little more stuff:
Mike: At http://www.bio.net/hypermail/bio-info/bio-info.199507/0004.html
"The well-trained brain is an outstanding "device" for structuring
information in a formal system -- which the physical universe is.
(With a few exceptions, DNA processes and atomic behavior are "dependable.")
What is put forward here is that "the well-trained brain" (a squirrel concept conceived by that "well-trained brain"????) is an outstanding "device". To put that in my terms, squirrel decisions are almost unbelievably dependable at producing useable results. But to conclude that those decision are correct is a major leap of faith.
Do you agree: "correctness" may be a surprisingly undefinable concept when evaluating something without its full context!
Mike: Human societies are "controlled" by hierarchies of self-indulgent dominant primates, which, unlike most of nature, deliberately use formal systems to create false thought perceptions and manipulate information to degrade other formal systems.
Mike: In one sense, human mind goes beyond nature -- the fact that our complex brain supports our ability to appreciate abstraction -- to design vast arrays of variations of forms to create designs not found in nature. The thinking activity reputed to take place in the cerebral cortex of the human brain is a good candidate for contrasting with "formal" systems...as informal systems at work.
DNA and electrochemical transmissions in human brain are formal; if the human brain is not an "informal" system, then what would an "informal" information system be? If it is not coherent, it is not a system!
Formality seems to be defined as structure, as contrasted with content. Beyond semantics, the idea is useful in that formality is fixed while informality may be something new. Formal systems may be a vessel for something new, but something which flows through formal systems is what creates something new. I'm saying abstraction is not a formal system. Abstraction, being an informal system, is a different class of phenomena -- where formal systems may be designed or merely observed.
Any problems with that, besides my inevitable typos?