Re: Devices that read human thought now possible

"KP_PC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> First, Mr. Barker, you are in my 'heart'.
>
> Your point here is 'heart'-breakingly Valid,
> Mr. Barker.
>
> But the thing is, it occurs as a function
> of 'normal' behavioral dynamics that
> transpire in relative absence-of-under-
> standing with respect to how nervous
> systems process information.
>
> That is, it's the Same-Stuff that underpins
> the bullying of 'geeks' by the high-school
> 'in-crowd'.
>
> You know?
>
> It's absence-of-understanding all the way,
> up and down the spectrum of interactive
> dynamics.
>
> The only thing that'll alter this 'normal' stuff
> is replacing absence-of-understanding with
> respect to how nervous systems process
> information with understanding with respect
> to how nervous systems process information.
>
> To the degree that that happens, folks'll 'just'
> cease doing Jackass-stuff to one another -
> be-cause, then, other stuff 'just' makes more
> sense.
>
> Cheers, Mr. Barker,


Hi Ken,

IMO, there is no need for you (at the age your are) to pander to just
possibly puffed-up people, by addressing them with their 'preferred' titles
such as Mr. or Mrs. or Dr. or Prof., etcetera.

It *should* be part of every rational philosopher's "self-esteem
preservation program" that they politely offer only semantically simple yet
of course both sane and suitably sophisticated suggestions -- for others to
make sense of.

I suppose it can be profitable (and good tactics) to put in some references
to some recently published and peer reviewed related but independent results
of Science; this of course ultimately inorder to please and so get your
points better across to topically not adequately informed academic snobs, or
to 'honestly ignorant' but interested persons.

[Mind you, I am also trying to train myself! :->]

Yours benevolently understanding,

Peter