Re: Creativity

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:52:26 -0800, Jim Balter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:54:29 -0800, Jim Balter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> 
>> And you know this how? I checked out the reference you gave and it
>> turned out to be nothing more than a google search on the subject.

>
>"nothing more than"??

I thought you had definitive evidence for the effect not just a
variety of hypothetical explanations for an effect Glen denies.
>
> > The
>> first article up made it clear that it was the authoritative solution
>> on the subject and that all the others were wrong. Duh?
>
>"Duh?" Is right; the contrast is among psychological theories;
>none of them refer to "atmospheric lensing".

And Glen's assertion simply denies the effect without an explanation.
So what is there for psychological theories to explain?
>
>> Apparently the
>> paradox is a little more problematic than you seem to believe.
>
>Wrong.
>
>> I'd be
>> a little more circumspect with claims to omniscience.
>
>I made no such claim.
>
>> People might
>> begin to think you're a Democrat.
>
>People might begin to think you're an idiot.

Which I freely admit for conversing with you. Anyone with an inability
to comprehend the meaning of is and is not is either a Democrat or
currently repeating sixth grade. Same difference I guess. AMF.



Regards - Lester