> Hi Lee,
> I became an academic person long ago with a
> special interest in light. Not light, as energy,
> but light as information, and the neuro and
> cognitive processing of that information. Along
> the way, I was thoroughly schooled in how confused
> and messed up things were in science, best
> explained by Thomas Kuhn:
> I actually met Thomas about the time I was
> participating in a full scale Cognitive revolution
> in academia, and the experimental studies being
> carried out all around me were fascinating. A fun
> read from this era is Plans and the structure
> of behavior:
You mention Kuhn often.
> The source of much of my revolutionary thinking
> was, The senses considered as perceptual
I'm a stones and bones kind of guy.
> It was in Hawaii, working on a telemedicine
> project, that I stumbled upon "Fingerprints . . ."
> and devoured the contents. With such a radical
> scientific background--even within the academic
> world--I was not at all surprised to see Graham
> similarly tackle established dogma in fields that
> I knew nothing about. What surprised me a little,
> was that we academics were thought of as locked
> into dogma--to be exposed and enlightened by free
> thinking free lancers like Graham. But, the
> writing was compelling, and the discoveries seemed
> real--sounded like fun. Besides,I had always been
> a fan of blue sky thinking.
Its interesting how many people were first exposed to this subject, at least in a more in depth way, by FoG. Graham's impact on this genre, and public awareness of the subject at large, cannot be understated.
> The big difference I see, after following
> developments for 20 years or so is that so many of
> the contributors are really lacking in appropriate
> training in basic science and philosophy.
This is not a prerequisite and when needed they can/should easily defer to others.
> So they
> do it wrong--but don't understand why their
> contribution has not been widely accepted.
Can you give specific examples?
> deeper issue is that many of Graham's flashy
> fantasies of lost civilizations can't be tested in
> sufficient detail to be truly supported--even if
> the "know-how" and resources were available.
History can be like that though, part of the reason why it is so open to interpretation and speculation.
> I've admired what you've contributed in Mysteries
> for a long time, and hope some of it turns into a
> book. I think it represents some of the best
> efforts to add some of the detail sorely lacking
> in Graham's books.
Thanks Ray. Very kind of you.
> Efforts to get more "sciency" in speculations
> about human cognitive processes, consciousness,
> and the universe seem to be new areas--especially
> when they involve some sort of computer
> simulation. It may be an area of exploration for
> the future, but so far I've found examples at GHMB
> far too sensationalistic.
Almost unanimously gobbledygook.
> So far, ones I've
> explored lack detail much as in Graham's early
> I never forget that there are two kinds of bad
> theories: ones that explain too little; and ones
> that explain too much. At GHMB, the theories
> never explain too little.
I think the problem is what they are thing to explain is nonsense in the first place.