[Bakker User]

I apologize for the previous post.

I've met the other one.

Once he realized what I was looking for, he politely brushed me off.

It turns out that he refrains from engaging with theoretical models until they are mainstream and have been thoroughly vetted and refined experimentally.

I have certain research interests...

I'm not the right guy to judge a novel theory for you. If it's as good as you seem to think, it will become widely promulgated and I'll have the opportunity to grapple with it then...

It's great that you are interested in this stuff.

So it seems Callan got a good read on him.

I suppose I'll just bow out. I won't find any proselytes with such an approach. It's not like I should be looking for ways to boost my ego anyway...

Good stuff. Thanks for the backup, fellows.

[What Came Before]

Bakker User, apologies if I missed that crucial detail that you solicited these scientists in person.

There's a great adage, something to the effect of no scientist has the luxury of diagnosing their own degeneration or disorder. While that's not entirely true, Bolte Taylor describes a haunting account of having a stroke in her book and ted talk My Stroke of Insight.

[Callan S.]

While what he says has a fallacy in it (it's like the job experience fallacy - where you wont be given a job because you have no experience in it - how do you get experience? By doing the job. Here he wont listen to the idea until it's widely promulgated. How does it get promulgated? By people listening to the idea...) atleast he sets out his terms for acceptance, instead of falling to the usual human habit of throwing up a smokescreen of rationalisations. So a tip of the hat to that.

It kind of reminds me of games companies - you might have an awesome idea for a game, but someone in a games company has about a dozen of their own ideas they've come up with over the decades that they still haven't actually made into a game and would go and make way before they'd consider your game idea. Here, the dudes have an abundance of ideas to work through.

[Meyna]

Bakker has read our minds (or, somehow less likely I think, our forum): http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-crux/

[Callan S.]

Bakker has read our minds (or, somehow less likely I think, our forum)

LOL! Good one, Meyna!

[Bakker User]

Aphorism of the Day: Give me an eye blind enough, and I will transform guttering candles into exploding stars.

Isn't it the other way around?

More information (exploding star) -> bottlenecked data-bus/consciousness (eye blind enough) -> less information (guttering candles)

Have Bakker's aphorisms finally gotten the better of him? 

[What Came Before]

I read that as something to the affect of the blind are unhindered by vision and, therefore, unconstrained in their imaginings.

Bakker dons the omniscient trickster who leads ignorant (of greater perception, in this case) humans to see beauty in a shit stain. In other words, Kellhus. Though it smacks of Cishaurim (not that I attribute any of these qualities to Bakker in actuality, beyond the aphorism.)

Though, I haven't had the capacity to read the whole post yet. Mornings before the exertion of the day are best.

Through the Brain Darkly is a huge development though. I'll bet it outsells his entire discography...

[Callan S.]

Aphorism of the Day: Give me an eye blind enough, and I will transform guttering candles into exploding stars.

Isn't it the other way around?

More information (exploding star) -> bottlenecked data-bus/consciousness (eye blind enough) -> less information (guttering candles)

Have Bakker's aphorisms finally gotten the better of him? 

It suffers a little that way. But you need more information to tell what you're seeing is a guttering candle, not less. It's like when you give a little kid a dollar and they get really, really excited. Because they don't know any better. But yeah, blindness tends to remove information, fuzzifying stuff and making less of more. It does seem more like it's Cishy that way.

Probably something like : Give me an eye small enough and I will transform a guttering candle into a super nova.

'Blind' probably has too many cultural connotations in regards to people recognising they are losing their sight. It doesn't harken much to anognosia or whatever it's called.

Edit: Anosognosia. Sog of sogs.