On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:49:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:10:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..
>> 
>> Well, you may have a background in child development.  I don't. 
>> Sheesh.
>> 
>> Jim
> Actually, no I don't, but I read **a lot**, especially since, starting
> some 20 years ago, I had a fascination with AI, and the logical means to
> learn about why it didn't work well, once I found that, is to learn how
> the mind worked. My discovery was, sadly, that real brains don't work
> much better, they just have a more robust system of, "fill in the blanks
> and hope it works".

My point stands, you've read more about it than I do.  So your expressed 
"disdain" for what I said that you said was "basic child development 
stuff" really was misplaced, which kinda was my point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:31:15 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
>> cues.  I just knew it.
> 
> You learned it. Visual clues are different in different societies and
> the misreading of them
> can be a great source of misunderstanding.

I don't see how that relates - I'm talking about understanding depth of 
field.....?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3-8-2009 1:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> 
>> andrel wrote:
>> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
>> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
>> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
>> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
>>   to be understood .... :)
> 
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty.  I've 
> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained 
> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you 
> do in your life".  I've not completed my own pontifications on this 
> definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to 
> have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes 
> it "knowledge" from their point of view.
> 
That is also what I meant. The things that are just as obvious and 
undeniable as 1+1=2.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't see how that relates - I'm talking about understanding depth of 
> field.....?

I've even read of tribes of people living in rainforests for generations 
who, when the researcher takes them out of the forest, are amazed that he 
knows how to make cows the size of flies. Never having been able to see more 
than a dozen yards in a straight line, they never got the whole perspective 
thing figured out.

Not that I've ever been able to find a cite for that, but I remember reading 
it long ago in a context that would imply it wasn't fictional.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> The term 
> "fundamentalism" and
> "fundamentalist" in current usage almost always refers to violent sects. 

Well, you either have the choice of being offended by the term as it is now, 
or being offended by the term as it was intended 100 years ago. If you pick 
the worst possible interpretation from both, you're just reaching for it.

> Other than that they are almost always pejorative. 

Only when used pejoratively.

> And for that matter what do you mean by "protestant"?

Why don't you ask Princeton professors these questions? It isn't my definition.

> Also do you mean by "Bible Belt" an area where the Bible is read a lot 
> or do you mean an area
> where the Bible is interpreted in a certain way?

I gave you a map.

> answer to some of the questions lies in the history of the term. "Bible 
> Belt" was coined by H. L.
>  Mencken as a derisive term. :)

Yes. Even 100 years ago, people were making fun of creationists. Funny, that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Did you read the accompanying text on Wiki? The term "Bible Belt" is a 
>> derisive term
> 
> Not any more. Indeed, 25 years after it was coined, the president didn't 
> seem to have any problem using the term. 
I must confess that I did not listen to a lot of what our previous 
President said.

> 
> And the page didn't say anything about it being derisive, but merely 
> about it being coined.
I see you aren't familiar with H. L. Mencken. You ought to try him. If I 
remember
right, Mencken is fun to read even if you disagree or even dislike him.
> 
> You really don't have to act offended or disgusted by someone using the 
> same terminology that Truman used 50 years ago. 

Oh you meant Truman, well I was too young to listen to him, but I 
wouldn't say
that a term wasn't derisive just because he used it. That would depend 
on the context.

>Unless, of course, 
> offense is a smokescreen for lack of content. ;-)

I'm not sure what this sentence means or what it could mean in the 
context, but I
think it's an insult or a attempt a one. :) Be that as it may, I don't 
believe that in my
original response to the tirade against the "south", that I objected to 
the tern "Bible Belt".
I do think that it is hardly ever used in any but a pejorative sense 
(except in the cases
  where someone something like "I'm glad I live in the Bible Belt" 
--there it's laudatory).
I doubt that it is ever used as a pure descriptive term. Often I think 
the user has no
denotative meaning at all in mind.

As to lack of content -- well, it should have been abundantly clear that 
my original response
to said tirade had no *denotative* meaning. :)

But if anyone wishes to use the term "Bible Belt" anyway he likes, let 
him do so. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

On 3-8-2009 6:40, Darren New wrote:
> 
> Yes. I'm just disputing the word "knowledge."  I think using "knowledge" 
> to mean the same as "faith" is diluting the word and making it useless 
> for discourse. We already have a word for "knowledge for which I have no 
> justification and which I wouldn't disbelieve regardless of presented 
> evidence", and that's "faith".

What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that 
knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are 
right. E.g. I know that no god exists for any accepted definition of 
god. I can not prove it, yet I will never say the 'I believe that god 
does not exist'. Unless from the context it is clear that 'believe' is 
meant as an almost synonym for 'know'. I am aware that technically it is 
just something I believe and others believe different, that does not 
change the fact that I know god does not exist.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:


>> And for that matter what do you mean by "protestant"?
> 
> Why don't you ask Princeton professors these questions? It isn't my 
> definition.
>

Currently they do not seem to be involved in this discussion. Are you 
simply quoting
them and don't know what they mean. It is always unwise to use words one 
doesn't know
the meaning of, even if one is quoting a Princeton or even a Harvard 
professor -- although
we are all guilty of it. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Currently they do not seem to be involved in this discussion. Are you 
> simply quoting
> them and don't know what they mean. 

I know what *I* mean. You're the one disputing whether the terms means what 
I say they mean.

Just so you know, falling back on the "every single word in the entire 
discussion has to be extensively and precisely defined, even tho all 
participants already know what it means" is an old and foolish debating trick.

If you don't know what it means, why are you expressing disapproval and disgust?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> I must confess that I did not listen to a lot of what our previous 
> President said.

I think there are probably few people on this newsgroup who listened to what 
Truman said live, yes.

>> And the page didn't say anything about it being derisive, but merely 
>> about it being coined.
> I see you aren't familiar with H. L. Mencken. You ought to try him. If I 
> remember
> right, Mencken is fun to read even if you disagree or even dislike him.

I'm merely disputing your ridiculing me by asking if I'd even read the page.

>> Unless, of course, offense is a smokescreen for lack of content. ;-)
> 
> I'm not sure what this sentence means or what it could mean in the 
> context, but I
> think it's an insult or a attempt a one. :)

No, it's just an expression that maybe you're not being as clever 
conversationally as you might think you are.

> Be that as it may, I don't 
> believe that in my
> original response to the tirade against the "south", 

It wasn't a tirade. It was a comment that prejudice against atheists is more 
common in the south of the USA.  Why, do you have some evidence that it 
happens more often in the north?

> I doubt that it is ever used as a pure descriptive term.

It is when you're explaining to someone that the southern area of the USA is 
so well known for fundamentalist christians that it's been given the name 
"the bible belt", you see.

> But if anyone wishes to use the term "Bible Belt" anyway he likes, let 
> him do so. :)

I'm using it as explanatory subtext for someone from a country with very 
little religious faith asking about the behavior of people prejudiced 
against atheists.  If you have some evidence that people outside the bible 
belt are more often prejudiced against atheists than people inside the bible 
belt, you should present that instead of taking mindless offense as 
perceived slights.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message