 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:23:43 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I remember reading that as well, I think maybe even up here, but
there wasn't a good citation for it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:29:30 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> that I objected to
> the tern "Bible Belt".
> I do think that it is hardly ever used in any but a pejorative sense
I've never actually heard it used in a pejorative or derogatory sense.
I've always heard it to refer to a set of southern states (as defined on
the map that Darren pointed to) where there is a fair grouping of people
following various sects of Christianity. I've heard it used by people
from *within* the Bible Belt as well, at that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:34:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.
>> No you don't. You just strongly believe it.
>
> Well, that's your read of it, but I know differently.
I understand what you're saying. But if you *know* you're Napoleon, and I
tell you you just strongly suspect it, I think I'd win, in general.
"Knowing" isn't *just* a state of mind, is what I'm trying to express.
> Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming
No, because then you would have discounted it. :-)
> But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.
Cool.
> Hmm, an interesting point, and something else to think about.
These are fun things to think about. I find it's actually kind of refreshing
and liberating to realize that I might be wrong in my deepest convictions.
It makes discussions of various philosophical stuff much more interesting.
> I think part of it with me is that I tend to attribute "faith" and
> "belief" with "religion", so I shy away from those terms because of those
> connotations, which I consider undesirable connotations.
I don't have a problem with faith, even of a religious nature. It's when
that "faith" turns into "knowledge" and therefore "you should do X" that
causes trouble, religion or not. For example, in college at one point my
mother became convinced I was doing drugs, and she wanted to see all my
class schedules and wanted me to come home promptly. (I was commuting to
college at the time.) I, *knowing* I wasn't doing drugs, just laughed and
refused. No amount of confidence, belief, or faith on her part was going to
convince me I had to change my behavior to stop doing drugs I wasn't already
doing. So maybe I'm a little oversensitive to people claiming something is
true simply because they're really, really convinced it is.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> better than 90% of the time, I'm right.
You mean, better than 90% of the time you remember making the prediction and
remember checking, you're right? Or do you actually keep objective notes?
Granted, it's definitely a skill you can learn to read people and to pick up
subtle clues. I'm just saying ...
> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good -
See, now *that* is justified belief. :-) Without some external validation,
you can never tell whether you're fooling yourself.
Just look at any friend who is infatuated with some girl that's no good for
him. :-)
A very good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why foolish? Seems reasonable to me. Make sure everyone's on the same
> proverbial page, and clarifies things.
Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when the
words admittedly don't have the sort of precision you're asking for?
Especially when the topic isn't even about the words that you're arguing the
definitions for?
Sorry. Foolish. Especially foolish if you do it so transparently. :-)
--
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:
> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when
> the words admittedly don't have the sort of precision you're asking for?
> Especially when the topic isn't even about the words that you're arguing
> the definitions for?
>
> Sorry. Foolish. Especially foolish if you do it so transparently. :-)
Well, how about having a pre-debate meeting where you explicitly define
all the words you're going to be using? XD
(Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien culture
50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the language...)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook schrieb:
> Well, how about having a pre-debate meeting where you explicitly
> define all the words you're going to be using? XD
>
... and of course a pre-pre-debate, to define the language to use in the
pre-debate :P
(which reminds me of that dictionary entry "recursion: see -> recursion")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> schreef in bericht
news:4a77087b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I think people don't have an instinct for a particular language, but an
> instinct to learn whatever language they're around. Much like birds learn
> how to fly, pretty much reliably.
>
> Of course, if you're entire raised around non-verbal beings, the instinct
> to try to learn is going to get frustrated, just like you can starve
> without food even tho you have an instinct to get hungry and eat when you
> need to.
>
Yes. That is correct. I just browsed again through some textbooks dealing
witht his. We definitely have the inate "building blocks" for (complex)
language, but we need the proper environment (i.e. parents, other members of
the group) to trigger and control the faculty.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when
> (Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien culture
> 50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the language...)
I don't follow. How would aliens 50,000 years in the future be participating
and already know what it means?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've
> eliminated the usefulness of the word.
Again, that is not what I did.
> If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what
> would you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew
> that for a fact? Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
>
>> I can not prove it,
>
> You have justification for your belief.
>
> One can argue over whether there is sufficient justification to turn a
> belief in something that happens to be true into knowledge, sure. But no
> amount of confidence without justification will turn belief into knowledge.
The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That
unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
>
> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually
> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by
> overstating their knowledge.
I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to
convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
