Am 21.07.2021 um 21:45 schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>>
>> They are just some transistors etc., yes the modern cpu's are quiet
>> complex but they also started small and on these small units where
>> placed other parts and so forth until they became so big, if someone
>> without university degree would be interested to build a cpu he for sure
>> would start with the old 8086 cpu's or even older cpu's and look what
>> they have added to these cpu's and so could probably build his own if he
>> liked! As i said they are just complex arrays of transistors and shit!
>
> Here is another place where you need to go to university to even
> understand what you are saying.
> --
> Noah Sombrero
>

I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of electronics
and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's he was so good
at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU circuits and
finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university seminars but
something like a community school). That was some 40 years ago or so
when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious about Computers that
he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC together, which then
where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he understood the CPU's
circuits and basic electronics so well that he could have build basic cpu's.

Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
world!

--
https://slowtemplelovecozmicpurplehealing.space/

Am 23.07.2021 um 12:57 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
> Am 21.07.2021 um 21:45 schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>>>
>>> They are just some transistors etc., yes the modern cpu's are quiet
>>> complex but they also started small and on these small units where
>>> placed other parts and so forth until they became so big, if someone
>>> without university degree would be interested to build a cpu he for sure
>>> would start with the old 8086 cpu's or even older cpu's and look what
>>> they have added to these cpu's and so could probably build his own if he
>>> liked! As i said they are just complex arrays of transistors and shit!
>>
>> Here is another place where you need to go to university to even
>> understand what you are saying.
>> --
>> Noah Sombrero
>>
>
> I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
> educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
> visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of electronics
> and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's he was so good
> at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU circuits and
> finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university seminars but
> something like a community school). That was some 40 years ago or so
> when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious about Computers that
> he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC together, which then
> where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he understood the CPU's
> circuits and basic electronics so well that he could have build basic
> cpu's.
>
> Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
> world!
>

For clarification the 8086 pc project came a few years later!

--
https://slowtemplelovecozmicpurplehealing.space/

Am 23.07.2021 um 13:02 schrieb Venus as a Boy:

>> I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
>> educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
>> visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of
>> electronics and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's
>> he was so good at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU
>> circuits and finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university
>> seminars but something like a community school). That was some 40
>> years ago or so when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious
>> about Computers that he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC
>> together, which then where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he
>> understood the CPU's circuits and basic electronics so well that he
>> could have build basic cpu's.
>>
>> Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand
>> the world!
>>
>
> For clarification the 8086 pc project came a few years later!
>

Addendum the PC project took so long to finnish, because the parts were
so expensive then, that my father had to "smuggle" them out of Siemens
Electronics iow steal them, that we never finnished the PC because after
some time this 8086 PC was outdated and PC's became available on the
market for a reasonable price!

--
https://slowtemplelovecozmicpurplehealing.space/

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:10:50 +0200, Venus as a Boy
<rainbowguardian@web.de> wrote:

>Am 23.07.2021 um 13:02 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
>
>>> I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
>>> educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
>>> visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of
>>> electronics and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's
>>> he was so good at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU
>>> circuits and finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university
>>> seminars but something like a community school). That was some 40
>>> years ago or so when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious
>>> about Computers that he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC
>>> together, which then where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he
>>> understood the CPU's circuits and basic electronics so well that he
>>> could have build basic cpu's.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand
>>> the world!
>>>
>>
>> For clarification the 8086 pc project came a few years later!
>>
>
>Addendum the PC project took so long to finnish, because the parts were
>so expensive then, that my father had to "smuggle" them out of Siemens
>Electronics iow steal them, that we never finnished the PC because after
>some time this 8086 PC was outdated and PC's became available on the
>market for a reasonable price!

We were talking 20 years ago. The 8086 was 40 years ago. Even then,
he did not invent it. He only learned how to make one, at school and
then at work.
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah wrote:
> one wrote:

>>When my turn arrived while my plea was the same, an
>>explanation as to exactly what was going on failed
>>to impress the judge and so it was, traffic school as well.
>
>Yes, in such situations give enough information to answer questions.
>No more. This is stock lawyerly advice, I understand. Volunteer
>nothing.

To plead no contest may differ from admitting guilt.

We didn't have computers during that time. At present,
finding out if the posted speed limit applies for a number
of miles might be found, if one had the desire to sew dew.

>>Some authorities might go by the Book, the Letter as it were.
>>Some are more in tune with what's called the Spirit.
>>
>>Whether spirits exist or the Spirit might be
>>a question beyond the realm of higher education,
>>beyond physical science and experimentation.
>>
>>- measures vary
>
>True. My point was, that faulted as they are, the professional is
>still your best choice. If nothing else, you might not know when to
>shut up.

Generally speaking, when you say, your,
as in, your best choice, you might mean, you.

An odd feature of Tao Chia is how ways are ways.
A way can be the way, but not necessarily always.

For some people, perhaps most people, professional help
might be the best help if they can afford it and if they
don't have the tools or inclination to be a DIYer.

Lots of people don't go to schools and do very well.
Many are capable of learning on their own and
doing on their own, naturally.

>Courtrooms are often not a good place to find justice. That is why it
>takes a skillful lawyer to get you unscathed out the front door.

Many innocent people might be advised to know
when to hold, fold, walk away or fight. Cutting a deal works
for some people some times. Others might fight for a principle.
Many appeal, lose, appeal and lose again, and again.
Eventually some laws change at times.

>Or as some might say, a trial is a contest to see who has the best
>lawyer. So, you do want the best you can get. Prison is no joke.
>Your feeling of self satisfaction might fade, at having told that
>judge what you thought, when the cell block bully wants you to be his
>girlfriend.

When you are a victim, you are, personally.
You appear to be a generalist, generally and
make your points such as you point to them.

When one is the block bully then, a tale shifts a bit.

When one is an uncarved block locked in a single cell
one may find solitude in solitary as a being in solitude.

A myth may suggest caves can be good
places to meditate as well as going spelunking.

>It might also be that RG is right, asylums are not good places to find
>sanity.

Cultures may cope and try to quote,
fix things, which to that culture appear broke.

>It could even be true that it might be even difficult to find a decent
>life if you don't have the personal traits (within certain limits)
>that other people expect. Maybe.

- aye. agree. Thanks!

Venus as a Boy wrote:
> schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>
>> Here is another place where you need to go to university to even
>> understand what you are saying.
>>
>
>I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
>educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
>visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of electronics
>and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's he was so good
>at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU circuits and
>finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university seminars but
>something like a community school). That was some 40 years ago or so
>when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious about Computers that
>he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC together, which then
>where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he understood the CPU's
>circuits and basic electronics so well that he could have build basic cpu's.
>
>Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
>world!

Agree. Totally.
My father built telescopes for fun.

He didn't need to be educated by an institution
with walls and professors in a class-room setting.

A friend of mine probated an estate of his parents
without being a lawyer. He simply took the time to learn
on his own, what needed to be done to be acceptable.

Another friend of mine restores cars, for fun.
He didn't learn how by going to school.

Lots of examples can be given where people don't need
to go to a university to understand various phenomena.

A way is a way and yet might not be the only way.

Noah is an interesting conversationalist.
He is rational enough to make sense and generally
speaking is pleasant enough to not offend me
as he generalizes given his Way with words.

- thanks to the both of you! Cheers!

Venus as a Boy wrote:

>Addendum the PC project took so long to finnish, because the parts were
>so expensive then, that my father had to "smuggle" them out of Siemens
>Electronics iow steal them, that we never finnished the PC because after
>some time this 8086 PC was outdated and PC's became available on the
>market for a reasonable price!

At times, when pushing points and other items, eventually a
question arises in terms of who taught the ones who innovated.
At times teams work. At times individual, alone, invent and reinvent.

If everyone needs to go to an institute of higher learning to learn
or hire professionals at higher prices than one can afford, then
a contradiction may emerge on the surface of a world-view.

Universities, professors, doctors, lawyers, rulers of many sorts
grow out of environments, naturally, one mite presumes.
Specialists can be important and are generally.

What works for some or most people, works.
What works at times, doesn't work at other times.

Trying to apply a Way, to find the One, a magic bullet,
one ruler to measure all things, even the Void, may not work.

Emptiness has its virtues, especially in space.
Stillness has its virtues, especially at times.

Being skeptical and relativistic, Taoism,
Taoist philosophy, has bin said two be.

- in a bamboo grove ...

Noah wrote:

>We were talking 20 years ago. The 8086 was 40 years ago. Even then,
>he did not invent it. He only learned how to make one, at school and
>then at work.

Pioneers might be called pioneers for a reason.

At first, perhaps, in some fields, no one understands what a
trail-blazer is talking about. Private languages vary.

Feynman reinvented mathematics using his own symbology.
He realized that if he wanted to communicate, then, to use
what was being used could facilitate that desire.

Newton and Leibniz might have gone to school, then to work
on creating a means of expression as did Copernicus, Galileo,
Kepler, da Vince and others, or not.

Once a revolution in thought occurs, when a paradigm shifts,
what was unknown may drift and then suddenly everyone
and every one, each and every so-called individual
knows the new game plan that was unknown,
except the ones that dew knots.

- being for a limited time time beings ...

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:32:29 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Noah wrote:
>
>>We were talking 20 years ago. The 8086 was 40 years ago. Even then,
>>he did not invent it. He only learned how to make one, at school and
>>then at work.
>
>Pioneers might be called pioneers for a reason.
>
>At first, perhaps, in some fields, no one understands what a
>trail-blazer is talking about. Private languages vary.
>
>Feynman reinvented mathematics using his own symbology.
>He realized that if he wanted to communicate, then, to use
>what was being used could facilitate that desire.
>
>Newton and Leibniz might have gone to school, then to work
>on creating a means of expression as did Copernicus, Galileo,
>Kepler, da Vince and others, or not.

Notice that school is part of the equation. It might be that for
early inventors, it was enough to think of a simple better way that
nobody else was seeing. Not enough any more for many things, although
there is still room for that simple good idea. They remain as rare as
ever.

>Once a revolution in thought occurs, when a paradigm shifts,
>what was unknown may drift and then suddenly everyone
>and every one, each and every so-called individual
>knows the new game plan that was unknown,
>except the ones that dew knots.
>
>- being for a limited time time beings ...
--
Noah Sombrero

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:04:56 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Venus as a Boy wrote:
>> schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>>
>>> Here is another place where you need to go to university to even
>>> understand what you are saying.
>>>
>>
>>I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
>>educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
>>visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of electronics
>>and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's he was so good
>>at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU circuits and
>>finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university seminars but
>>something like a community school). That was some 40 years ago or so
>>when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious about Computers that
>>he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC together, which then
>>where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he understood the CPU's
>>circuits and basic electronics so well that he could have build basic cpu's.
>>
>>Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
>>world!
>
>Agree. Totally.
>My father built telescopes for fun.

But he did not invent the idea of how lenses can be shaped for
different purposes and fit together for other purposes.

>He didn't need to be educated by an institution
>with walls and professors in a class-room setting.

One way or the other, he had to learn.

>A friend of mine probated an estate of his parents
>without being a lawyer. He simply took the time to learn
>on his own, what needed to be done to be acceptable.
>
>Another friend of mine restores cars, for fun.
>He didn't learn how by going to school.
>
>Lots of examples can be given where people don't need
>to go to a university to understand various phenomena.
>
>A way is a way and yet might not be the only way.
>
>Noah is an interesting conversationalist.
>He is rational enough to make sense and generally
>speaking is pleasant enough to not offend me
>as he generalizes given his Way with words.

You are kind.

>- thanks to the both of you! Cheers!
--
Noah Sombrero

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:56:34 -0700, aye <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Noah wrote:
>> one wrote:
>
>>>When my turn arrived while my plea was the same, an
>>>explanation as to exactly what was going on failed
>>>to impress the judge and so it was, traffic school as well.
>>
>>Yes, in such situations give enough information to answer questions.
>>No more. This is stock lawyerly advice, I understand. Volunteer
>>nothing.
>
>To plead no contest may differ from admitting guilt.
>
>We didn't have computers during that time. At present,
>finding out if the posted speed limit applies for a number
>of miles might be found, if one had the desire to sew dew.
>
>>>Some authorities might go by the Book, the Letter as it were.
>>>Some are more in tune with what's called the Spirit.
>>>
>>>Whether spirits exist or the Spirit might be
>>>a question beyond the realm of higher education,
>>>beyond physical science and experimentation.
>>>
>>>- measures vary
>>
>>True. My point was, that faulted as they are, the professional is
>>still your best choice. If nothing else, you might not know when to
>>shut up.
>
>Generally speaking, when you say, your,
>as in, your best choice, you might mean, you.

Or not.

>An odd feature of Tao Chia is how ways are ways.
>A way can be the way, but not necessarily always.

Very few things are "always".

>For some people, perhaps most people, professional help
>might be the best help if they can afford it and if they
>don't have the tools or inclination to be a DIYer.

When they can't afford it is when those false convictions tend to
occur. Then, decades later, as they try appeal after appeal, they
might find a smart enough lawyer willing to take their case. Some
lawyers are decent guys who don't require huge fees, and do have an
interest in helping people get justice. The beast is known in the
lexicon.

>Lots of people don't go to schools and do very well.
>Many are capable of learning on their own and
>doing on their own, naturally.

Learn some things, yes. Typically those are the kinds of things that
people who do well in school can't learn to do well. There are
different kinds of intelligence.

>>Courtrooms are often not a good place to find justice. That is why it
>>takes a skillful lawyer to get you unscathed out the front door.
>
>Many innocent people might be advised to know
>when to hold, fold, walk away or fight. Cutting a deal works
>for some people some times. Others might fight for a principle.
>Many appeal, lose, appeal and lose again, and again.
>Eventually some laws change at times.
>
>>Or as some might say, a trial is a contest to see who has the best
>>lawyer. So, you do want the best you can get. Prison is no joke.
>>Your feeling of self satisfaction might fade, at having told that
>>judge what you thought, when the cell block bully wants you to be his
>>girlfriend.
>
>When you are a victim, you are, personally.
>You appear to be a generalist, generally and
>make your points such as you point to them.

It is an unpopular position to take, but yes, I do believe there are
real patterns in real reality. Not that they are absolute, but near
enough to be useful.

>When one is the block bully then, a tale shifts a bit.
>
>When one is an uncarved block locked in a single cell
>one may find solitude in solitary as a being in solitude.

If you bend that way. First you need to engineer to get yourself into
solitude. Usually that is seen as a punishment in such places.

>A myth may suggest caves can be good
>places to meditate as well as going spelunking.
>
>>It might also be that RG is right, asylums are not good places to find
>>sanity.
>
>Cultures may cope and try to quote,
>fix things, which to that culture appear broke.
>
>>It could even be true that it might be even difficult to find a decent
>>life if you don't have the personal traits (within certain limits)
>>that other people expect. Maybe.
>
>- aye. agree. Thanks!
--
Noah Sombrero

Am 23.07.2021 um 14:54 schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>>>
>>> Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
>>> world!
>>
>> Agree. Totally.
>> My father built telescopes for fun.
>
> But he did not invent the idea of how lenses can be shaped for
> different purposes and fit together for other purposes.

Read the other post by one/aye where he elaborated that, someone had to
be the first to invent/come to conclusions about things, and this one
had no physical teacher but maybe....

--
https://slowtemplelovecozmicpurplehealing.space/

Noah wrote:
>one wrote:
>>Noah wrote:
>>
>>>We were talking 20 years ago. The 8086 was 40 years ago. Even then,
>>>he did not invent it. He only learned how to make one, at school and
>>>then at work.
>>
>>Pioneers might be called pioneers for a reason.
>>
>>At first, perhaps, in some fields, no one understands what a
>>trail-blazer is talking about. Private languages vary.
>>
>>Feynman reinvented mathematics using his own symbology.
>>He realized that if he wanted to communicate, then, to use
>>what was being used could facilitate that desire.
>>
>>Newton and Leibniz might have gone to school, then to work
>>on creating a means of expression as did Copernicus, Galileo,
>>Kepler, da Vince and others, or not.
>
>Notice that school is part of the equation.

Was it?
I don't know, personally, about the above,
how much schooling they had prior to
putting their minds to a task.

Is school part of the equation?
Is it always? For all people?

When people began to shrink transistors
using quantum mechanics and knowing how
electrons tunnel and circuits work, exactly
how few or many knew, I don't know.

You know you were told something.
Some professor made an assertion.

For me to question authority is logical.
To use authority as a premise is not as sound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

<< Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he
made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number
theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions
to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. Ramanujan
initially developed his own mathematical research in isolation: >>

His muse was metaphysical, Namagiri Thayar.
Did she exist? Does she? Was she a mere figment? Is she?

> It might be that for
>early inventors, it was enough to think of a simple better way that
>nobody else was seeing.

Such as, using a rock as a hammer.

> Not enough any more for many things, although
>there is still room for that simple good idea. They remain as rare as
>ever.

Perhaps.
Then again, maybe more inventions occur now than ever.

- statistics, selective perception, cognitive bias may vary

Noah wrote:
>one wrote:
>>Venus as a Boy wrote:
>>> schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>>>
>>>> Here is another place where you need to go to university to even
>>>> understand what you are saying.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
>>>educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
>>>visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of electronics
>>>and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's he was so good
>>>at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU circuits and
>>>finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university seminars but
>>>something like a community school). That was some 40 years ago or so
>>>when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious about Computers that
>>>he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC together, which then
>>>where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he understood the CPU's
>>>circuits and basic electronics so well that he could have build basic cpu's.
>>>
>>>Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
>>>world!
>>
>>Agree. Totally.
>>My father built telescopes for fun.
>
>But he did not invent the idea of how lenses can be shaped for
>different purposes and fit together for other purposes.

But he did understand how they worked.
But he didn't understand quantum theory.
But he did understand how to grind a lens.

Point being, he didn't go to a university.
He was self-educated in many Ways.

He didn't need a professional
nor an authority to inform him in various Ways.

>>He didn't need to be educated by an institution
>>with walls and professors in a class-room setting.
>
>One way or the other, he had to learn.

Naturally, if that's the paradigm chosen to map
a phenomenon called, being able to do.

There's a Taoist tale in the Chuang-tzu about a swimmer
who took a dive into rapid water and emerged unscathed.

When asked about if he had a Tao, he said, nope.
He simply grew up around water and went with the flow.

To say, one way or the other, he had to learn
could be said. To say he needed an education
and that's in the equation, or a university or a
professor, he'd have said nope.

>>A friend of mine probated an estate of his parents
>>without being a lawyer. He simply took the time to learn
>>on his own, what needed to be done to be acceptable.
>>
>>Another friend of mine restores cars, for fun.
>>He didn't learn how by going to school.
>>
>>Lots of examples can be given where people don't need
>>to go to a university to understand various phenomena.
>>
>>A way is a way and yet might not be the only way.
>>
>>Noah is an interesting conversationalist.
>>He is rational enough to make sense and generally
>>speaking is pleasant enough to not offend me
>>as he generalizes given his Way with words.
>
>You are kind.

Sometimes.
I'm kinda going for a walk in a bit.

>>- thanks to the both of you! Cheers!

- looking forward to beer o'clock ...

Venus as a Boy wrote:
> schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>>>>
>>>> Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
>>>> world!
>>>
>>> Agree. Totally.
>>> My father built telescopes for fun.
>>
>> But he did not invent the idea of how lenses can be shaped for
>> different purposes and fit together for other purposes.
>
>Read the other post by one/aye where he elaborated that, someone had to
>be the first to invent/come to conclusions about things, and this one
>had no physical teacher but maybe....

Sometimes, but not all the time, words used by me
including yet without being limited to helping verbs
such as may, might and could are seen by others
as waffle words and lack assertion.

Noah makes many statements.
Some he says, he was told.
Lots of sentences he writes are generalities.
Many might be his opinion, naturally.

For me to see an imo after every sentence
or a qualification of some sort might leave
little room to disagree and end conversation.

And sew an it is, aye, happy as cans be.

- kicking down the cobble unstoned ...

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:00:55 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Noah wrote:
>>one wrote:
>>>Noah wrote:
>>>
>>>>We were talking 20 years ago. The 8086 was 40 years ago. Even then,
>>>>he did not invent it. He only learned how to make one, at school and
>>>>then at work.
>>>
>>>Pioneers might be called pioneers for a reason.
>>>
>>>At first, perhaps, in some fields, no one understands what a
>>>trail-blazer is talking about. Private languages vary.
>>>
>>>Feynman reinvented mathematics using his own symbology.
>>>He realized that if he wanted to communicate, then, to use
>>>what was being used could facilitate that desire.
>>>
>>>Newton and Leibniz might have gone to school, then to work
>>>on creating a means of expression as did Copernicus, Galileo,
>>>Kepler, da Vince and others, or not.
>>
>>Notice that school is part of the equation.
>
>Was it?
>I don't know, personally, about the above,
>how much schooling they had prior to
>putting their minds to a task.
>
>Is school part of the equation?
>Is it always? For all people?

Very few things are "always".

>When people began to shrink transistors
>using quantum mechanics and knowing how
>electrons tunnel and circuits work, exactly
>how few or many knew, I don't know.
>
>You know you were told something.
>Some professor made an assertion.
>
>For me to question authority is logical.
>To use authority as a premise is not as sound.

Beyond authority there is only you and me, who don't know much about
such things.

If you are that guy who has spent 30 innocent years in prison, you
know that the lexicon says there is such a thing as a smart lawyer who
cares about helping people find justice.

Authority has its uses. It is true though, that you need to find the
right authority. Some times the search is a long one.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
>
><< Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he
>made substantial contributions

He made contributions to already existing disciplines, which is better
than snake bite. I suspect, he could not have contributed if he had
no knowledge of the existence of such.

> to mathematical analysis, number
>theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions
>to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. Ramanujan
>initially developed his own mathematical research in isolation: >>
>
>His muse was metaphysical, Namagiri Thayar.
>Did she exist? Does she? Was she a mere figment? Is she?

Only Rama baby knows. It is not our concern in any case.

>> It might be that for
>>early inventors, it was enough to think of a simple better way that
>>nobody else was seeing.
>
>Such as, using a rock as a hammer.

Or maybe even a little more than that. Next came shaping the rock,
harder rocks, better nails. Building slowly on that first good idea.

>> Not enough any more for many things, although
>>there is still room for that simple good idea. They remain as rare as
>>ever.
>
>Perhaps.
>Then again, maybe more inventions occur now than ever.

Building on what was before. But that single simple new good idea?
Rare.

>- statistics, selective perception, cognitive bias may vary
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah wrote:
> one wrote:

>>You appear to be a generalist, generally and
>>make your points such as you point to them.
>
>It is an unpopular position to take, but yes, I do believe there are
>real patterns in real reality.

Really?

What is the real pattern of Earth as it appears
to be a pale blue dot?

Does that dot orbit a yellow dot with north pointing up?

When the sun called the Sun rises, does it, really?
Is north really pointing up? Then why does the Sun rise?

Is a solid really solid? How solid is its real pattern
in the really real reality really?

How real are images printed in pixels, dots?
What perspective is the really real one and only one?

> Not that they are absolute, but near
>enough to be useful.

What works, works.

A pattern to one form of Life differs
from that of some other form and to say Life
is that which forms all its forms, one may.

To some minds, gods exist and to sum God is.
They see the patterns and wonder how could any
doubt exist, it's so obvious, their real reality.

- designs vary ...

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:13:17 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Noah wrote:
>>one wrote:
>>>Venus as a Boy wrote:
>>>> schrieb Noah Sombrero:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is another place where you need to go to university to even
>>>>> understand what you are saying.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just take my father as an example, he never studied and only was
>>>>educated as an electrician, but to get a job at Siemens Electronics he
>>>>visited electronics seminars where he learned the basics of electronics
>>>>and also the basics of CPU circuits studying basic CPU's he was so good
>>>>at it that he even made me understand the basic CPU circuits and
>>>>finnished the seminars with an A grade (Not university seminars but
>>>>something like a community school). That was some 40 years ago or so
>>>>when i was 10 years old, and he became so ambitious about Computers that
>>>>he convinced me of weilding/building a 8086 PC together, which then
>>>>where like the non plus ultra! And i am sure he understood the CPU's
>>>>circuits and basic electronics so well that he could have build basic cpu's.
>>>>
>>>>Conclusion: You don't have to be a wizard or a genius to understand the
>>>>world!
>>>
>>>Agree. Totally.
>>>My father built telescopes for fun.
>>
>>But he did not invent the idea of how lenses can be shaped for
>>different purposes and fit together for other purposes.
>
>But he did understand how they worked.
>But he didn't understand quantum theory.
>But he did understand how to grind a lens.
>
>Point being, he didn't go to a university.
>He was self-educated in many Ways.
>
>He didn't need a professional
>nor an authority to inform him in various Ways.
>
>>>He didn't need to be educated by an institution
>>>with walls and professors in a class-room setting.
>>
>>One way or the other, he had to learn.
>
>Naturally, if that's the paradigm chosen to map
>a phenomenon called, being able to do.
>
>There's a Taoist tale in the Chuang-tzu about a swimmer
>who took a dive into rapid water and emerged unscathed.
>
>When asked about if he had a Tao, he said, nope.
>He simply grew up around water and went with the flow.
>
>To say, one way or the other, he had to learn
>could be said. To say he needed an education
>and that's in the equation, or a university or a
>professor, he'd have said nope.

It depends on what a person needs to learn. Certainly growing up
around water helps, but many people do need to be taught to swim. And
if you are drowning, you probably won't figure it out in time. Best
bet is to learn before, and if necessary, get a teacher.

>>>A friend of mine probated an estate of his parents
>>>without being a lawyer. He simply took the time to learn
>>>on his own, what needed to be done to be acceptable.
>>>
>>>Another friend of mine restores cars, for fun.
>>>He didn't learn how by going to school.
>>>
>>>Lots of examples can be given where people don't need
>>>to go to a university to understand various phenomena.
>>>
>>>A way is a way and yet might not be the only way.
>>>
>>>Noah is an interesting conversationalist.
>>>He is rational enough to make sense and generally
>>>speaking is pleasant enough to not offend me
>>>as he generalizes given his Way with words.
>>
>>You are kind.
>
>Sometimes.
>I'm kinda going for a walk in a bit.
>
>>>- thanks to the both of you! Cheers!
>
>- looking forward to beer o'clock ...
--
Noah Sombrero

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:31:21 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Noah wrote:
>> one wrote:
>
>>>You appear to be a generalist, generally and
>>>make your points such as you point to them.
>>
>>It is an unpopular position to take, but yes, I do believe there are
>>real patterns in real reality.
>
>Really?
>
>What is the real pattern of Earth as it appears
>to be a pale blue dot?
>
>Does that dot orbit a yellow dot with north pointing up?
>
>When the sun called the Sun rises, does it, really?
>Is north really pointing up? Then why does the Sun rise?
>
>Is a solid really solid? How solid is its real pattern
>in the really real reality really?
>
>How real are images printed in pixels, dots?
>What perspective is the really real one and only one?

There is that fallacy known as ad absurdum. Yes it is possible make
nearly any proposition seem absurd by taking it to an extreme.

>> Not that they are absolute, but near
>>enough to be useful.
>
>What works, works.
>
>A pattern to one form of Life differs
>from that of some other form and to say Life
>is that which forms all its forms, one may.
>
>To some minds, gods exist and to sum God is.
>They see the patterns and wonder how could any
>doubt exist, it's so obvious, their real reality.

Right there is a pattern in how people get caught up in seeming
realities. Avoiding them is like threading your way through a mine
field. To do that, you need to know where the mines are. Patterns
help. But are not absolute.

>- designs vary ...
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah wrote:

>It depends on what a person needs to learn.

Aye, asked my friend who was restoring a car,
when he said he needed something for it,
if he needed it or wanted it.

He said he needed it because he wanted it.

> Certainly growing up
>around water helps, but many people do need to be taught to swim. And
>if you are drowning, you probably won't figure it out in time. Best
>bet is to learn before, and if necessary, get a teacher.

Growing up, there were backyard swimming pools and
across the street three boys about my age, two a little older.

Learning to swim, I was told, hang on to the side of the pool
and go under the water. And so it was I learned to swim
under water at first and then learned to dog-paddle.

Eventually, swimming the width, then the length
of the pools under-water was easy for me.
The crawl was never my noun-thing.

Learning how to hold one's breath,
to walk and talk might take practice.

Tao Chia has several tales of how practice makes for a Tao.

To think an education is part of the equation, a university
education, with walls, a room full of students and professors
who profess what they learned, a thinker might.

I liked going to school as an adult.
It was fun. And so it went.

- for a time being ... as an eternal being ...

Noah wrote:

> It is not our concern in any case.

To be unconcerned is best, imo.
Uninvolved. Without a care is ideal.

To be concerned if an objective world exists,
independent of any and all observers can be
used by scientists given a method, it works.

Hypothetically, no scientist exists.
That would be their premise, axiomatically.

To be concerned about psychologiical states,
how really real they are for many, one could be.

What concerns me the most, on most mornings
is when beer o'clock is, after a constitutional.

Dawns dawn, pattern wise.

- thanks again! Cheers!

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:53:30 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Noah wrote:
>
>> It is not our concern in any case.
>
>To be unconcerned is best, imo.
>Uninvolved. Without a care is ideal.
>
>To be concerned if an objective world exists,
>independent of any and all observers can be
>used by scientists given a method, it works.
>
>Hypothetically, no scientist exists.
>That would be their premise, axiomatically.
>
>To be concerned about psychologiical states,
>how really real they are for many, one could be.
>
>What concerns me the most, on most mornings
>is when beer o'clock is, after a constitutional.
>
>Dawns dawn, pattern wise.

Until the day when there is no beer o'clock and the cell block bully
wants you to be his girlfriend. Do you say, is that so?

>- thanks again! Cheers!
--
Noah Sombrero

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:47:33 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:

>Noah wrote:
>
>>It depends on what a person needs to learn.
>
>Aye, asked my friend who was restoring a car,
>when he said he needed something for it,
>if he needed it or wanted it.
>
>He said he needed it because he wanted it.
>
>> Certainly growing up
>>around water helps, but many people do need to be taught to swim. And
>>if you are drowning, you probably won't figure it out in time. Best
>>bet is to learn before, and if necessary, get a teacher.
>
>Growing up, there were backyard swimming pools and
>across the street three boys about my age, two a little older.
>
>Learning to swim, I was told, hang on to the side of the pool
>and go under the water. And so it was I learned to swim
>under water at first and then learned to dog-paddle.
>
>Eventually, swimming the width, then the length
>of the pools under-water was easy for me.
>The crawl was never my noun-thing.
>
>Learning how to hold one's breath,
>to walk and talk might take practice.
>
>Tao Chia has several tales of how practice makes for a Tao.
>
>To think an education is part of the equation, a university
>education, with walls, a room full of students and professors
>who profess what they learned, a thinker might.
>
>I liked going to school as an adult.
>It was fun. And so it went.

Yes, not nearly so oppressive to a child's spirit as grade school. The
story we hear now is that grade schoolers are eager to get back to
real classrooms. Could that be so, I wonder?

>- for a time being ... as an eternal being ...
--
Noah Sombrero

Noah wrote:
> one wrote:

>>To some minds, gods exist and to sum God is.
>>They see the patterns and wonder how could any
>>doubt exist, it's so obvious, their real reality.
>
>Right there is a pattern in how people get caught up in seeming
>realities. Avoiding them is like threading your way through a mine
>field. To do that, you need to know where the mines are. Patterns
>help. But are not absolute.

Do countries exist, for really real?
Aye. One may imagine.

Many people believe they do. And sew they may.
Such as they dew and condense they seam
to weave in the minds, a spell cast.

>>- designs vary ...

- prehaps all too, many ... states of mind vary ...

Noah wrote:
> one wrote:
>
>>I liked going to school as an adult.
>>It was fun. And so it went.
>
>Yes, not nearly so oppressive to a child's spirit as grade school.

No school was oppressive to my spirit as a youth.
Dress-codes were abolished as the 50s turned to 60s.
Aye, me being me simply went with the flow. A wave form
formed me as naturally as any particle of quantum mech was.

> The
>story we hear now is that grade schoolers are eager to get back to
>real classrooms. Could that be so, I wonder?

Being able to play real ball games
differs from virtual ball games. And in sew saying, aye,
there is a form of real and really real versus myth.

- oh logical thinking beings th'ink ...