test new server

[Dana Tweedy]

Testing a new server.

Why is a raven like a writing desk?



DJT. Fjord and all that

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Paul J Gans]

Seems to work!

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[SkyEyes]

On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Testing a new server.
>
> Why is a raven like a writing desk?

So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[John S. Wilkins]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Testing a new server.
> >
> > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>
> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>

Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[chris thompson]

On Jun 17, 12:56 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Testing a new server.
>
> > > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>
> > So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>
> Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
> --

> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

So did Freddy Mercury-

"I'm just a Poe boy, from a Poe family...."

[Dana Tweedy]

They both produce notes, but not musical ones.

DJT

[Paul J Gans]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

>> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Testing a new server.
>> >
>> > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>>
>> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>>
>Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.

Scoooooooooooore!

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:03:06 PM UTC-6, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> Testing a new server.
>
>
>
> Why is a raven like a writing desk?

Evermore?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:41:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

>On Jun 17, 12:56 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Testing a new server.
>>
>> > > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>>
>> > So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>>
>> Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.

>So did Freddy Mercury-

....and S&G...

>"I'm just a Poe boy, from a Poe family...."

"I am just a Poe boy, though my story's seldom told..."

(...a brief line about boxers...)
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Earle Jones]

In article
<ac7c06d4-cabf-4a64...@b2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Testing a new server.
> >
> > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>
> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?

*
Brenda:

The real answer to Lewis Carroll's famous riddle is at:

http://io9.com/5872014/the-answer-to-the-most-famous-unanswerable-fantasy
-riddle

earle
*
(AA#57)

[Earle Jones]

In article <1l4m6t2.1mj6an81xzhzh8N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Testing a new server.
> > >
> > > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
> >
> > So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
> >
> Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.

*
Not bad, John!

But here's a hint: Lewis Carroll spelled 'never' as 'nevar'.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:54:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:41:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Jun 17, 12:56 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> > On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > Testing a new server.
>>>
>>> > > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>>>
>>> > So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>>>
>>> Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
>
>>So did Freddy Mercury-
>
>....and S&G...
>
>>"I'm just a Poe boy, from a Poe family...."
>
>"I am just a Poe boy, though my story's seldom told..."
>
>(...a brief line about boxers...)

Ouch! I hope nobody gets their panties in a bunch over that one.

[Dana Tweedy]

It's the same old thong, all I can do is jockey for position.....

DJT

[J. J. Lodder]

Only a hundred years late. (Sam Lloyd)
Another popular answer is:
"Because there is a B in both and an N in neither",
(Aldous Huxley)

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:19:48 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> >SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Testing a new server.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>> >>
>> >> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>> >>
>> >Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
>>
>> Scoooooooooooore!
>
>Only a hundred years late. (Sam Lloyd)

I assume this is who you were thinking of, although no
mention is made of his "Poe" answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Loyd

If so, note the spelling.

And I'd argue that, if Wilkins posted his answer with no
knowledge of Sam Loyd, that answer would be just as original
as Loyd's.

>Another popular answer is:
>"Because there is a B in both and an N in neither",
> (Aldous Huxley)

[SkyEyes]

On Jun 16, 9:56�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Testing a new server.
>
> > > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>
> > So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>
> Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.

Sheesh. I should have seen that one coming.

Brenda

[John S. Wilkins]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:19:48 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >> >SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Testing a new server.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
> >> >>
> >> >> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
> >> >>
> >> >Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
> >>
> >> Scoooooooooooore!
> >
> >Only a hundred years late. (Sam Lloyd)
>
> I assume this is who you were thinking of, although no
> mention is made of his "Poe" answer:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Loyd
>
> If so, note the spelling.
>
> And I'd argue that, if Wilkins posted his answer with no
> knowledge of Sam Loyd, that answer would be just as original
> as Loyd's.

I didn't know it was Lloyd's but I wasn't being original. I heard it
years ago. The irony is that Carroll wrote years before Poe.

>
> >Another popular answer is:
> >"Because there is a B in both and an N in neither",
> > (Aldous Huxley)


--

[Paul J Gans]

Is that a Poe excuse? Or are you just Carrolling?

[John S. Wilkins]

I'm just raven on.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<ac7c06d4-cabf-4a64...@b2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Testing a new server.
> >
> > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>
> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>

Because they are both transient phenomena with a beginning, middle and
end.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:23:42 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

"Hark! The Herald Newsgroups Sting"?

[Paul J Gans]

Just raven? No quothing? I haven't heard a good quothing
in years.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:19:48 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >> >SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Testing a new server.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why is a raven like a writing desk?
> >> >>
> >> >> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
> >> >>
> >> >Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
> >>
> >> Scoooooooooooore!
> >
> >Only a hundred years late. (Sam Lloyd)
>
> I assume this is who you were thinking of, although no
> mention is made of his "Poe" answer:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Loyd
>
> If so, note the spelling.
>
> And I'd argue that, if Wilkins posted his answer with no
> knowledge of Sam Loyd, that answer would be just as original
> as Loyd's.

Disagree.
It really is impossible to be an original reinventor
with things like these.
All of us have heard so much, read so much,
and above all forgotten so much
that we can't be sure if it's invention
or some memory from long ago coming up.

We are less original then we like to believe we are,

Jan

--
Because the notes for which they are noted
are not noted for being musical notes.
(Sam Loyd again)

[John S. Wilkins]

I'd heard that...

[*Hemidactylus*]

Where did you get that idea? Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia


--
*Hemidactylus*- Hey, let's be careful out there (HSB):
http://siteinspector.comodo.com/
http://csi.websense.com/
http://safeweb.norton.com/
http://www.virustotal.com/en/#url

[*Hemidactylus*]

"Novelty" is merely rearranging fragments of memory. I cribbed that
somewhat from Jung.

There's content and source. It's easier to recall content than source. I
may have cribbed that from Daniel Schacter, but I'll have to double check.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:51:49 +0200, the following appeared

Unlikely, at least for the well-read, but not impossible.

>All of us have heard so much, read so much,
>and above all forgotten so much
>that we can't be sure if it's invention
>or some memory from long ago coming up.

I tend to agree, which is why I specified "with no knowledge
of Sam Loyd", not "while remembering nothing of Sam Loyd".
An absolute, not a conditional. Obviously no way to
determine which, of course, but that doesn't render invalid
the stated condition.

>We are less original then we like to believe we are,

Of course.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:55:21 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com>:

I'd point out that, taken literally and to its logical
conclusion, that implies that infants are born with all
possible knowledge and merely "remember" it later.

> I cribbed that somewhat from Jung.

>There's content and source. It's easier to recall content than source.

Seems obvious to me.

> I may have cribbed that from Daniel Schacter, but I'll have to double check.
--

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 22 June 2013 12:51:49 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [New answers to old riddles]

> It really is impossible to be an original reinventor
> with things like these.
> All of us have heard so much, read so much,
> and above all forgotten so much
> that we can't be sure if it's invention
> or some memory from long ago coming up.
>
> We are less original then we like to believe we are,

Well... you /would/ have to hear the idea that you
subsequently think you invented, presumably in its
context such as _Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_,
and then "forget" the invention /and/ the context
sufficiently so that when we return to the context
again, we "remember" the idea but we aren't
conscious of remembering it.

I think that can happen, but only when the precise
necessary sequence and quantity of learning, forgetting,
and remembering occurs.

Proving that it happened is even more difficult -
and I suppose you don't want to make a claim
with�out... well, not "proof", but good evidence.

[*Hemidactylus*]

No not Platonic anamnesis at all. It's a matter of cultural exposure. As
a process of learning we are exposed to (or bombarded with) lots of
disparate factoids we accumulate over the years. Many of the factoids we
vaguely recollect (as they are chopped up into smaller pieces) from
years ago are easily distortable as fragments and juxtaposed with other
fragments in *unusual* ways (ref. this current post). The sources of the
factoids are often long forgotten, but they came from a proximal or
ontogenetic (jonathan-like word salad) source-pool, not a distal or
phylogenetic mneme-pool (do you want caesar or thousand island with that?).

Juxtaposition is the boss of novelty, as witnessed in dreams, like why
is there an elephant reading a newspaper in the living room? Oh that's
normal. But elephants and newspapers as content are unremarkable. Having
an elephant comment on the current situation in Syria would be odd,
unless one is in the House of Representatives, where many elephants
currently sit.

>> I cribbed that somewhat from Jung.
>
>> There's content and source. It's easier to recall content than source.
>
> Seems obvious to me.

Actually I was still waking up and posting hypnopompically. One could
likewise recall a source, but little of the content, such as having read
a book long ago, but not remembering much about it, like Schacter's
_Seven Sins of Memory_, ironically as I've probably committed or omitted
several over the course of this subthread. He did focus on cryptomnesia
though.

>> I may have cribbed that from Daniel Schacter, but I'll have to double check.


--

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think I'm plagiarizing myself from an earlier thread by using the file
metaphor and that attached to files are pieces of metadata (like source)
that can get lost in the shuffle. And like Windows on a hard drive, our
memory gets more and more fragmented, so that content itself gets all
chopped up. Source metadata could be placed in a temp state that gets
dumped while dreaming. Content remains, but decays over time.

http://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/e9O0oE8ojM0/cL9IyUHRjCIJ

http://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/e9O0oE8ojM0/xu8PeNeQR_gJ

I lack a Windows Explorer or MacOSX/iOS Spotlight function for my
brainstates, so I have no idea what I was going on about a year and a
half ago, but I was much more cogent then than now :-(

Metadata...wtf?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1l4w1ls.nmrh4eo87kd4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> >

> > Disagree.
> > It really is impossible to be an original reinventor
> > with things like these.
> > All of us have heard so much, read so much,
> > and above all forgotten so much
> > that we can't be sure if it's invention
> > or some memory from long ago coming up.
> >
> > We are less original then we like to believe we are,
> >
> I'd heard that...

It is getting to be nigh high impossible to commit even an original
sin.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/22/2013 04:04 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <1l4w1ls.nmrh4eo87kd4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Disagree.
>>> It really is impossible to be an original reinventor
>>> with things like these.
>>> All of us have heard so much, read so much,
>>> and above all forgotten so much
>>> that we can't be sure if it's invention
>>> or some memory from long ago coming up.
>>>
>>> We are less original then we like to believe we are,
>>>
>> I'd heard that...
>
> It is getting to be nigh high impossible to commit even an original
> sin.

All sins are cribbed from the original couple.

[John S. Wilkins]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <1l4w1ls.nmrh4eo87kd4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Disagree.
> > > It really is impossible to be an original reinventor
> > > with things like these.
> > > All of us have heard so much, read so much,
> > > and above all forgotten so much
> > > that we can't be sure if it's invention
> > > or some memory from long ago coming up.
> > >
> > > We are less original then we like to believe we are,
> > >
> > I'd heard that...
>
> It is getting to be nigh high impossible to commit even an original
> sin.

Keep trying. It's so much fun.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 6/19/2013 2:31 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:19:48 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>>> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jun 16, 2:03 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Testing a new server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is a raven like a writing desk?
>>>>>
>>>>> So why *is* a raven like a writing desk?
>>>>>
>>>> Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
>>>
>>> Scoooooooooooore!
>>
>> Only a hundred years late. (Sam Lloyd)
>
> I assume this is who you were thinking of, although no
> mention is made of his "Poe" answer:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Loyd
>
> If so, note the spelling.
>
> And I'd argue that, if Wilkins posted his answer with no
> knowledge of Sam Loyd, that answer would be just as original
> as Loyd's.

<Glenn Posting Mode>

"Loyd" is a Welsh name. The Welsh spell it "Lloyd." Therefore Sam Loyd
is spelled "Lloyd," you idiot.

</Glenn Posting Mode>

Mitchell Coffey

[Burkhard]

The Welsh do of course no such thing. Our Celtic brethren write the name as "llwyd", the "Lloyd" spelling is one attempt by the Sassanachs to transfer it into English by getting rid of the welsh wy diphtong that has no equivalent in English. Dropping one of the l's is just one step further down the road.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 04:28:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com>:

<Rational Posting Mode>

"It's irrelevant how 'the Welsh spell it'; the only relevant
issue is how Sam Loyd spelled it. HTH."

</Rational Posting Mode (for this exchange)>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:19:13 -0400, the following appeared

So take it back in time a ways, as was my intent. If novelty
is merely rearranging fragments of memory acquired via
cultural exposure, where did those fragments originate if
novelty is an illusion?

> As
>a process of learning we are exposed to (or bombarded with) lots of
>disparate factoids we accumulate over the years. Many of the factoids we
>vaguely recollect (as they are chopped up into smaller pieces) from
>years ago are easily distortable as fragments and juxtaposed with other
>fragments in *unusual* ways (ref. this current post). The sources of the
>factoids are often long forgotten, but they came from a proximal or
>ontogenetic (jonathan-like word salad) source-pool, not a distal or
>phylogenetic mneme-pool (do you want caesar or thousand island with that?).
>
>Juxtaposition is the boss of novelty, as witnessed in dreams, like why
>is there an elephant reading a newspaper in the living room? Oh that's
>normal. But elephants and newspapers as content are unremarkable. Having
>an elephant comment on the current situation in Syria would be odd,
>unless one is in the House of Representatives, where many elephants
>currently sit.
>
>>> I cribbed that somewhat from Jung.
>>
>>> There's content and source. It's easier to recall content than source.
>>
>> Seems obvious to me.
>
>Actually I was still waking up and posting hypnopompically. One could
>likewise recall a source, but little of the content, such as having read
>a book long ago, but not remembering much about it,

I suppose that would depend almost entirely on the relative
memorability ("memorableness"? Something like that...) of
the source and content. In most cases, at least in my
experience, the content is the more memorable, sort of like
the content of a scientific hypothesis/theory is more
memorable (and far more important) that its formulator,
despite backspace's usual idiocy.

> like Schacter's
>_Seven Sins of Memory_, ironically as I've probably committed or omitted
>several over the course of this subthread. He did focus on cryptomnesia
>though.
>
>>> I may have cribbed that from Daniel Schacter, but I'll have to double check.
--

[Paul J Gans]

Are you calling my friend Mitch a dipthong? Where do you get
off doing such a thing? He is NOT a dipthong, though he may
wear one.

[Burkhard]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:03:02 PM UTC+1, Paul J Gans wrote:
<snip>

>
> >> > as Loyd's.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> <Glenn Posting Mode>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "Loyd" is a Welsh name. The Welsh spell it "Lloyd."
>
>
>
> >The Welsh do of course no such thing. Our Celtic brethren write the name as "llwyd", the "Lloyd" spelling is one attempt by the Sassanachs to transfer it into English by getting rid of the welsh wy diphtong that has no equivalent in English. Dropping one of the l's is just one step further down the road.
>
>
>
> Are you calling my friend Mitch a dipthong? Where do you get
>
> off doing such a thing? He is NOT a dipthong, though he may
>
> wear one.
>
>
>
> --
>
> --- Paul J. Gans

You mean he wears two thongs at the same time? How strange - and how do you know anyway?

[John S. Wilkins]

What happens at the AMNH stays at the AMNH.

[Paul J Gans]

Well, it is a long story, but basically it is all Wilkin's fault.

[Mitchell Coffey]

[snip]

I was in Glenn Posting Mode. Aspirations to accuracy had nothing to do
with it.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

In truth, I'm a Whig.

Mitchell

[Mike L]

Nonetheless, it may be worth noting that dialectal variation makes the
"oy" spelling (not, of course, an American "o") nearer to some
speakers' pronunciation of the name.

The great 17thC polymath Edward Lhuyd, first user of the term "Celtic
languages", exemplifies another attempt to spell the name according to
English conventions.

--
Mike.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:33:43 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
talk.origins:

Traditionally English-speakers take whatever non-English word they hear
and make it fit their expectations before adaptation. Accuracy has never
been the highest priority.

Some of them are even close to the word we borrowed, others are not
quite as easy to catch.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Most of what resides in our noggins came from other people. So the
content of thoughts is not original. In the rare case something new
comes along we filter it based on what we already know and base new
knowledge on analogies to the old.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:44:05 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com>:

>On 06/23/2013 02:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:19:13 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@hotmail.com>:

>>> On 06/22/2013 12:57 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:55:21 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>>>> <ecph...@hotmail.com>:

<snip>

>>>>> "Novelty" is merely rearranging fragments of memory.

>>>> I'd point out that, taken literally and to its logical
>>>> conclusion, that implies that infants are born with all
>>>> possible knowledge and merely "remember" it later.

>>> No not Platonic anamnesis at all. It's a matter of cultural exposure.

>> So take it back in time a ways, as was my intent. If novelty
>> is merely rearranging fragments of memory acquired via
>> cultural exposure, where did those fragments originate if
>> novelty is an illusion?

>Most of what resides in our noggins came from other people. So the
>content of thoughts

That would be "most thoughts"

> is not original. In the rare case something new
>comes along we filter it based on what we already know and base new
>knowledge on analogies to the old.

No argument here; my sole intent was to show that the
statement above, taken as an absolute, is incorrect. The
addition of "usually" would have precluded my response.