James Drogan

Re Conversations with Dave

You're arguing a Catch 22, aren't you?  How will you get interested readership if you don't put something out there to interest the readers?  For example, aren't your core correspondents an interested readership with whom you have established some level of credibility?  It strains belief to think that there are only a few of us (I am brazenly suggesting I am on this list.) with this mental makeup.  Doesn't this argue for moving these conversations to a more public space?  It strikes me that you are either overly modest or overly concerned about "bolts from the blue."  Why hide your light under a basket?  Post yourself, figuratively, at Speaker's Corner in London's Hyde Park and see what happens.
 
As to hits on my site.


 
This site only started in April.
 
I've no statistics for my previous site, but occasionally I would run across a reference someone had made to my site. I would discover this by either googling "James Drogan" or finding a reference to my site on other sites I happened to be browsing.  I'm sure there is a more elegant way to check for references, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to look into the matter further.
 
As to the model, I would differ with you on the interpretation of interpret and learn as "off-line" activities.  I think they must be embedded in the data stream. I do agree with you that filters (e.g., biases; existing knowledge, skills, and experiences; physical, mental, and spiritual vitality) shape the fundamental components.  The traditional process model (i.e., the filter) works for me in the decomposition of these fundamental components.

 

This model is, and should be, in a state of constant flux.
 
Your comment regarding the relatively static processing capacity is interesting.  One can, I believe, through high quality communications and collaboration, both based on trust, improve the amount of processing capacity focused on an issue of personal interest.  SETI is an example of that.  Massive parallel processing, which is what SETI is all about, represents that.  Blue Gene and other efforts come to mind here.  Maybe a useful analogy is the packing of an increasing number of components on a chip to improve processing power.
 
So where does this all leave me as a teacher and learner?
 
First, is to evoke a realization on the part of the student that a loop such as I describe exists.  
 
Second, is that this model is, and should be, in a state of constant change.  
 
Third, there are ways to recognize when change is required and means whereby that change can be designed and implemented.  
 
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, each traveler on Spaceship Earth has a personal responsibility to manage the loop.  This responsibility should not be delegated to others unless absolutely necessary.  Giving someone the power of attorney over one's mind is opting out of life.  
 
Fifth, interconnection of the loops can put more processing power on the problem.  However, one's initial role as the brain now becomes one of being the brain of the brains.  One may not, as suggested by my previous note, be comfortable in this central role.