Keith Russell

Sammi, you said:

"Keith Russell, a problem could arise when people start acting dumb. Take for example if I need to repeat something for effect, some could call it rhetoric and unnecessary, while the intelligent humans call it brilliant expositive writing.

I do believe if you Keith Russell, or anyone else cannot understand what I am saying, then philosophy is not your business, you should stich to your a,b,c's which your professors showed you."

Keith: Sammi, your opinion is noted, and--if I valued your opinion--I might actually be offended. Since I don't, however, no harm done. But, I ask my fellow forum members, to review what it means when a person, instead of presenting an argument in support of his or her ideas, instead chooses to attack his or her opponent.

Sammi: I am really crushed that the great world-power Americans cannot understand simple thinking, or they feign ignorance. In my opinion Keith, what I am presenting is too complex for your mind.

Keith: Again, Sammi, if I valued your opinion, I might actually be offended. But, you haven't a clue about me, or your opinion would be different. Since it isn't, it matters not at all. And again, I would like to restate what I said earlier, that personally attacking me in no way should be construed as evidence in support of your claims.

Sammi: I cannot make changes directly in your head, neither is what I am presenting suitable for high school reunions, what I am presenting is for decision makers and PHILOSOPHICAL THINKERS.

Keith: Sorry, Sammi, that is only your opinion, and your believing that it is so, in no way makes it so.

You are free to draw your own conclusion as to my abilities as a philosophical thinker, based on what I say right here in this forum. My words speak my truth for me, I've no need to tell you how to interpret them, or what evaluation you should draw of me, based upon them.

If only you were willing to say the same.

"Judge, and be prepared to be judged."
--Ayn Rand.

Keith.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Clutch

Keith, no word to your fellow forum members is required. The only question in anyone's mind is why you've so patiently stuck it out with the vacuous, incoherent ramblings of Napoleon -- oops, Sammi -- this long. Why not just let it drop.

Feather

You had me until you started quoting Rand, Keith. Shame on you.

Keith Russell

Clutch:

I can only explain that I'm sometimes a glutton for punishment.

But enough is definitely enough.

Keith.

Keith Russell

Feather:

That wasn't the first time I've quoted Rand--

--it won't be the last.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi

Clutch, Russell, and any others!

What I find remarkable, is some readers have been able to follow the idea of the PIKi model, while others have been unable to follow. This is a logical implication of a partial education on those who miss the basic concepts of the PIKi model. What blows my mind is those who are partially educated and wish to present themselves, as superior thinkers in philosophy. They are not, and should be told so in objective fashion.

* * *

If the logicians wanted to attack my work, they could have started with my definition of knowledge and intelligence, which has veered from classical philosophy. There is a lot of room for argument, instead, the ideas of incoherency and gibberish arise. What does this mean? In bold terms, it shows the lack of sensitivity for the elements of a stronger reading of the PIKi model.

Stronger readings of the so-called incoherent writings, would have yielded results far superior to what I am currently witnessing on this board. Being an expert in my field, I find the decorative nonsense that Clutch and Russell have managed to muster, examplary of those humans, who know not, and know not they know not.

* * *

I did start at the beginning, outlining the elements of the PIKI model, Perceptions, Information, Knowledge, and Intelligence. It would have been clear that the PIKi model is a REPRESENTATIVE MODEL, being based on representations of perceptions. It should have also been clear that there is limited hierarchy in this PIKi model. It should have been clear that the PIKi model is used to describe and represent the Universe of Discourse. It should have been clear the Intelligence of Thought is also described by the PIKi model. It should then have been clearer that the Intelligence used to think of/in the Domain of Discourse is a result of the PIKi model.

The idea to use philosophical intelligence to contrive and control the PIKi model should have been evident.

SO when readers say, incoherent OR gibberish, I reply, you people either have ulterior motives or some other agenda for saying it, OR it really is incomprehensible to you folk.

Clutch, you should shut up.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

I never really wanted to devlve into the PIKi model. What I proposed at a resonable tilt, was the natural PIKi model, all humans must necessarily posess. If we did not posess a natural PIKi model we would have been unable to communicate with each other. Some may ask for proof, scientific evidence to the fact of humans posessing a PIKi model. Spinoza would have cracked up with laughter at this evasion of natural reason.

What I wanted to explain was with a thinking scheme (provided by PIKi) humans would have a better chance at avoiding HUMAN ERRORS when faced with particular experiences (the Universe of Discourse). The natural implication of this MODEL is to improve the thinking schemes and to provide an "Intelligence of Thought".

* * *

In the end all the PIKi model has to provide is a conscious application of itz practices. This is a conscious thinking machine (human) acting OR preparing to act out an experience in life through use of the representations obtained within the Universe of Discourse.

The result of the model shows the necessity of conscious thinking to raise the condition of life.

* * *

TO think of what one is doing. To think of how one does what one does. To think of how one arrived at the result one obtained. To think of ways to improve the efficiency of what one did. To think of how one can achieve self-improvement.

To NOT think of this as gibberish, outlandish, or incoherent would be a good baseline to begin.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell

Sammi:

Thanks for telling me that you are an expert in your field.

Thanks also for telling me what an ignorant person I am.

I have seen no evidence to support either of the above statements, but I guess you think your word should (on both of those matters) be good enough for me.

I guess I'm letting you down, yet again, by telling you that your word is not good enough for me. (Don't be angry, though. I mean, what else could you expect, from such a stupid person as me...?)

Keith.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Keith Russell,

You should shut up 2, I am not asking you to take me on my word, but to take a look at the reasoning which is an example of my word. All you claimed was, I cannot understand, I do not know what you mean. When I give an explaination, you evade the explaination AND look for side issues, non-issues.

Keith Russell, The meat of the matter is beyond your intellect. You have shown time and time again your inability to handle the issue at hand, always ready to push your shortcomings in life over to my side instead, accusing me of your shortcomings. This is so blatantly obvious.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Sammi ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

A real issue in the PIKi model is the change from information to knowledge. It is here I believe human errors can occur.

Not everyone is capable of changing information to knowledge. This seems more the case when the Domain of Discourse is unfamiliar to the individual or individuals. We have seen examples of this sort of incapability in this thread.

Something a working PIKi model can achieve, as I was noting previously, is to incorporate conscious methods to guide the transitions from information to knowledge. Some guidelines should be not dependent on content.

What is a primary guideline? The accuracy of the Information. The dependability of the representation. The method used to derive the knowledge should not be an out-of-context method. This means the method should be applicable in the group constrained by the representations of the Domain of Discourse.

A small example would be having knowledge of the method of picking apples, does not mean that same method can be applied to picking coconuts.

Sammi Na Boodie ()