Feather

Two words: "word salad."

Mr. Sammi, I'm sorry but I just don't understand the idea you're trying to communicate. On one hand you speak of the PIKI model as though it were a model of intelligence and understanding; an algorithm, if you will. And on the other you speak of it as though it were a physical object one might pick up (you indicate that an actress can have "many models").

I just don't get it.

Cosimo

Don't feed the troll. He's had enough.

Mr. Sammi

Ok, in a nutshell the PIKi model fits a rational "Domain of Discourse" coupled with the "Intelligence of Thought".
I am assuming that the quoted terms are understood. The Intelligence of Thought is related to fruitful thinking practises. The Domain of Discource concerns all related perceptions.

As the Domain becomes restricted through the development of Knowledge (noting the Domain can also loosen some of itz restrictivness) the Model can change existentially. This existential changing of the "necessaries" to approach the bounds of some crieteria can be normalised through the actions of the Intelligence destined for Thought concerning Domains of Discourse.

With a philosopohy of Thought, which can be applied to the Domain of Discourse, and to the Intelligence of Thought (thinking about thinking), the possibilities exist where models of philosophy can be consumed by Humans using smooth thinking methods.

If you now notice, after all the introductory Errors we have passed, we are now back in the realm of pure Philosophy,

Will do, to hear some more comments...

Sammi Na Boodie (Think-tu?)

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I'm with Cosimo.

Don't feed the troll.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi

Cosimo with 9 posts under your belt and you post : "Don't feed the troll. He's had enough.", it makes me wonder about your intellectual philosophical apparatus and whether you actually comprehended anything I have said.

Keith Russell, Can you only say boo, without any contradictory evidence, or did this pass over your head like it did to Cosimo.

* * *

That is what I warned some of you about earlier, this was a topic for hard, very hard thinkers, the fluffy heads would have a difficult time understanding. And to think of it. I have only scratched the surface, hav'nt even started.

Anyway, when the fluff heads, recognise language over their heads, thay should steer clear, or do some more goddamm homework instead of being such bores and bothers.

Sorry some of you were unable to understand what I am achieving. I will try again in 5 years time.

Sammi Na Boodie (what's a troll anyway)

Laurentius

Frankly,
I would have liked to take a peek at this model but there is too little description of it. P stands for perception, I for information, K for knowledge and i for intelligence. They make the terms of a model. The model states that there is a process of abstraction from the mere perception to the complex thought. I don't see anything revolutionary in it and Sammy has failed to prove it so. There are also ohter concepts I'm assumed to have heard about (the actress, the domain). Is it so hard to just explain them here or just give a link?...

Sammy, you've started the thread to meaningfully converse and, maybe, persuade. Isn't it possible that your PIKi model should indicate you that you've made an error? And failed?

AVE

Mr. Sammi

True, there is nothing too revolutionary about the model, except it tries to capture our Domain Intelligence on one hand, and on the other hand, in the domain of thinking, the thinking intelligence. The thinking intelligence which is also derivable through the Domain of Discourse, via the process of learning and development, could be in place a priori, to the experiences of the Domain (of course not 100% possible)by the use of a PIKi model reasonably resolved either by some previous Domain Experience, or by the the pure PIKi model of thinking.


To the uninitiated this seems a bit confusing, but think of how we use, what we call our common sense, is there a standard? is it rule based? OR is it result based, or is it a mixture of the two? What common sense thinking should do, to assist and replace common sense, is to provide regular guidelines on how to obtain minimum information out of our head.

There is much more to say, because of the abstract part of the model, its cognitive counterpart, its organisation, its instantiation, and much more.

It is not that difficult after all, if we can find a common ground of communication.

Sammi Na boodie ()

Keith Russell

OK Sammi, I'll give it one more try.

Sammi said:
"Ok, in a nutshell the PIKi model fits a rational "Domain of Discourse" coupled with the "Intelligence of Thought"."

I am assuming that the quoted terms are understood."

Keith: Nope, I haven't heard these terms before.

Sammi: The Intelligence of Thought is related to fruitful thinking practises.

Keith: 'Fruitful' can only be understood if one understands what is meant by 'fruit'. I assume you differentiate between types of thinking, but calling one type 'fruitful' in no way explains what you view as productive, and what you view as non-productive.

Sammi: The Domain of Discource concerns all related perceptions.

Keith: 'Discourse' means 'discussion', 'conversation', 'debate'. This is the 'domain' of language, not 'perception'. Further, you say 'all related perceptions'. OK, but related to 'what'?

Sammi:
As the Domain becomes restricted through the development of Knowledge (noting the Domain can also loosen some of itz restrictivness) the Model can change existentially.

Keith: Why does the Domain become restricted? What causes this? Why can it also loosen its restrictiveness, and why do you mention this as an afterthought? Last, anything which changes, changes existentially. Saying the Model changes existentially is a redundancy.

Sammi: This existential changing of the "necessaries"--

Keith: Wait a minute, you said the Domain changes existentially. What is this 'necessary', and how is it related to the Domain?

Sammi: --to approach the bounds of some crieteria--

Keith: For comprehension, don't you think we might need to know what the criteria are? 'Some' is not very specific.

Sammi: --can be normalised--

Keith: You haven't even specified what the 'necessaries' are, now you want us to simply accept that they can be normalized? What constitutes 'normal', in this context? Is this 'normalization' a good thing? Or is 'normalcy' a situation you see as being in need of improvement?

Sammi: --through the actions of the Intelligence destined for Thought concerning Domains of Discourse.

Keith: Sammi, would you mind diagramming the above sentence? I'd love to see what you believe the subject and verb of that sentence to be. As far as I can tell, your subject verb is 'changing' 'can be', with the object of the verb being 'normalized'. (You use a great deal of extraneous clauses, but I don't see much hard information here...)

Sammi: With a philosopohy of Thought--

Keith: All philosophies are philosophies of thought; a redundancy, yet again.

Sammi: --which can be applied to the Domain of Discourse, and to the Intelligence of Thought (thinking about thinking)

Keith: At last, a definition. (Thanks!) If the 'Intelligence of Thought' means 'thinking about thinking, why not use the accepted term: epistemology?

Sammi: --the possibilities exist where models of philosophy can be consumed by Humans using smooth thinking methods.

Keith: What is 'smooth thinking'? What does it mean to 'consume' a model of philosophy? Why would you want a 'model' of philosophy, anyway? Why wouldn't an actual philosophy suffice?

Sammi: If you now notice, after all the introductory Errors we have passed, we are now back in the realm of pure Philosophy.

Keith: What are these 'introductory errors'? How were they recognized as errors? How can these 'errors' be corrected?

This is the first time you've mentioned 'pure Philosophy'. How is this 'pure Philosophy' different from your 'models of philosophy', and does 'philosophy' differ, in your view, from 'Philosophy'--or is your use of capital letters incidental?

Sammi, Albert Einstein wrote Relativity so it could be read by a person with an 8th grade education. Big ideas don't require convoluted syntax, distorted grammar, or special jargon.

You've defined 'fluff-heads' as being those who don't understand your ideas, and you define your ideas as being 'too advanced' for 'fluff-heads'.

In this way, you've committed several fallacies at once. First, a circular argument; second ad hominem; and lastly, you present the same sort of 'logic' as the men who sold the Emperor his new clothes.

If this is all you have to offer, I for one have no problem with being seen, in your eyes, as a 'fluff-head'.

Keith.

Laurentius

I bet Mr. Sammi has thought of something that might make sense if he were able to crystalize the concepts clearly enough as to make it understandable for others. Also I sometimes have the impression I've been explicit when in fact I've merely pointed at the issue, not explained it.

As for your analysis, Keith... man, it is really surgical. Is the patient still alive?

AVE

Keith Russell

Laurentius:

LOL.

I'll take your bet, and take comfort in the knowledge that you cannot collect until Mr. Sammi--whatever his 'ideas'--can communicate those ideas in a coherent, legible fashion.

Keith.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>