I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
We can write this:
ReplyDelete1/1 + 1/2+1/2 + 1/4+1/4+1/4 + 1/8+1/8+1/8+1/8 + ...
It is absolutely convergent, so we can rearrange it:
(1/1+1/2+1/4+...)+(1/2+1/4+1/8+...)+(1/4+1/8+1/16...)+....
=2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...
=4
Yup. I included 003 for the sake of 004.
ReplyDelete