I have to break and rebreak my tendency to get woo-y about stuff. It’s easy to get religious about a theory and I really try not to be because then it can take over thinking. It’s not a bad thing necessarily just a challenge. Like with association: I had to track it down historically to my satisfaction because it has a hold on me. I’m still not there but discovering that David Hartley from 1749 is the modern source for a lot of my assumptions and for the schools-of-thought that I often find myself dwelling in was a big breakthrough. What kills me is that I was a click or two away from it but I just wasn’t looking at it. It’s hard seeing assumptions. Cool thing about Hartley is that he allows for non-linear effects, something that you DON’T get from the one way vs two way pipes sharing properties between objects. This allows it to fit perfectly into non-linear polyrhythmic chaotic neural oscillations.

 I have to break and rebreak my tendency to get woo-y about stuff. It’s easy to get religious about a theory and I really try not to be because then it can take over thinking.
It’s not a bad thing necessarily just a challenge.
Like with association: I had to track it down historically to my satisfaction because it has a hold on me. I’m still not there but discovering that David Hartley from 1749 is the modern source for a lot of my assumptions and for the schools-of-thought that I often find myself dwelling in was a big breakthrough.
What kills me is that I was a click or two away from it but I just wasn’t looking at it. It’s hard seeing assumptions.
Cool thing about Hartley is that he allows for non-linear effects, something that you DON’T get from the one way vs two way pipes sharing properties between objects.
This allows it to fit perfectly into non-linear polyrhythmic chaotic neural oscillations.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 7 = fourteen

Leave a Reply