 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:52:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I am not so certain about that.
>
> Actually, I'd go so far as to wonder whether it makes sense to talk
> about knowledge as "instinctive". What is it that everyone (modulo
> birth defects etc) knows when they're born? That's instinct. Knowing how
> to *learn* a language is instinctive, but is it really knowledge? Is a
> falling pebble's compliance with the laws of gravity caused by
> instinctive knowledge of gravity by the pebble? If not, why is knowing
> how to learn a language "knowledge"?
There are good ways and bad ways to learn language. That we have an
instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
an instinctive knowledge.
> Does yanking your hand out of the
> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?
It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to
make he pain go away. Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive
knowledge.
> And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't
> instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read
> passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other
> such stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a
> natural tendency?
Some people come to that conclusion without formal training. I know
several who are in that category. I myself always had a particular idea
about how the universe worked that nobody taught me, nor really that I
figured out myself, I just seemed to know it. Then I found that there
were others who had a similar view and that it had a name. Since then,
I've kinda drifted because the "formal" part of that line of thinking
didn't mesh as well as I thought it did.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I am not so certain about that.
>> I'm sorry.
>
> Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with
> not being certain about some things.
I suspect we're misunderstanding each other here. :-) It sounded like you
were saying you're not sure whether it's possible to have unlearned
instinctive knowledge of how the universe was created.
>> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
>> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
>> justified." Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
>> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
>
> Exactly my point. People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that
> phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.
That's kind of the definition of "faith", you see. You don't have to be
religious to be "faithful" that something is the case.
> It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality,
> or it may coexist peacefully with reality. There is a lot of uncertainty
> in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that
> there's something bigger out there.
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".
> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
> cues. I just knew it.
You learned it before you built your model of the universe that includes
yourself, and hence you were never self-aware before you learned that.
It happens when you're thrashing around, reaching for things, etc. That's
why people hang stuff over the kid's bed, and give them toys to play with.
That's what the "peekaboo" game is all about. For the first half a year,
children don't even realize that things exist they aren't looking at, let
alone that smaller things are farther away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_cognitive_development
I also understand informally from friends with children that it's about 18
to 24 months before actual self-awareness develops, based on (for example)
kids putting dolls in the doll-bath-tub rather than just banging the dolls
on things. I.e., that's the age at which kids suddenly start thinking of
other things (and people and animals) as having thoughts and personalities,
rather than as parts of the environment they can't easily predict.
> But the actual example isn't really the point,
I know that. I was just changing the subject. What? In off-topic? Shame on
me! :-)
> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
Yes. I think it's possible to know the functioning of your own body, to a
large extent. Even that isn't a given, tho.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/12s/the_strangest_thing_an_ai_could_tell_you/
--
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:
> an instinctive knowledge.
What is the benefit of tacking the word on the end of that? Why is it
"instinctive knowledge" and not just "instinct"?
>> Does yanking your hand out of the
>> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?
>
> It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to
> make he pain go away. Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive
> knowledge.
OK, so what everyone else calls "instinct" (or "reflex"), you call "knowledge".
> Some people come to that conclusion without formal training.
Sure. But I specifically said "Christians" rather than something else to
imply a substantive agreement with parts of the bible as written. I don't
think it's unusual to have a tendency towards religion. Even atheists have
days when they're convinced God hates them. ;-)
And I don't think you instinctively knew (or know) how the universe works. I
think you learned it and didn't pay attention to having learned it, so
you've forgotten you learned it. Not that we'll ever know for sure.
--
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:
> 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.
>
> Jim
Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
People that act on such certainties tend to die, doing stupid things,
which they where *certain* would work. The point of knowledge is, in
part, to make you stop and go, "Huh, could I possibly be wrong about
this?" lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first,
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive
>> certainty.
>
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how
> the universe started.
>
Not even that you are hungry. Some people never really are hungry, so
what they say when describing starving is not the feeling of needing
food, but of just not having a full stomach, which is *not* the same
thing. By the same token, someone with say, Downs Syndrome, among other
diseases, is **incapable** of feeling hungry, even when they are eating
themselves to death. Even instinctive processes can be distorted by
real/false knowledge, or misinterpreted to say something entirely
different than what is really transpiring. What *I* might see as a flash
of incite, from myself, a religious person might, due to their
perception of events, as the hand of god handing them an answer. And, we
could say, with fair certainty, that the later was simply wrong, if we
caught the *event* using a brain scan. We can even presume that its
wrong, because we do know how such things happen, and that there has
never been a case of *visible* outside intervention, which requires
explanations beyond how the brain processes information.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
> cues. I just knew it. But the actual example isn't really the point,
> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
>
> Jim
That you don't recall it isn't relevant, the process and stages by which
such processes arise, how they work, and where they are in the brain, as
well as how they can be derailed, destroyed, distorted, or disabled,
temporarily or otherwise, are some of the ***most*** well studied
aspects of cognitive processing we have. The issues neurology has, at
this point, isn't, "How do you learn that distant objects look small?",
its, "How do you decide that its still big enough to shoot at, *and*
make the decision to do so?" You are talking about stuff that we
actually use to make cameras and computers smarter, because we *know*
how they work, and why. And, you don't have the ability from birth. You
have to teach yourself how to tell that a distant object is the same as
a close one, even though it *has* changed sizes. At a few weeks old, you
didn't have the slightest clue, and neither does any other baby.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't
>> instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read
>> passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other
>> such stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a
>> natural tendency?
>
> Some people come to that conclusion without formal training. I know
> several who are in that category. I myself always had a particular idea
> about how the universe worked that nobody taught me, nor really that I
> figured out myself, I just seemed to know it. Then I found that there
> were others who had a similar view and that it had a name. Since then,
> I've kinda drifted because the "formal" part of that line of thinking
> didn't mesh as well as I thought it did.
>
> Jim
False perception. Before a certain age, almost no one remembers what
they did or didn't *perceive*, and we have very clear cognitive studies
that specify exactly when people *do* gain those things, as well as the
earliest age that you are *likely* to remember things clearly. And,
again, such perception is wrong a lot of the time, which is why magic
tricks, visual tricks, etc. work **at all**. We learn, by handling the
world around us, and experiencing it, what to expect in 99.9% of all
cases, so.. you do something that fits in the other 0.1%, and our brains
freak and start making things up, because it *can't* tell what is really
going on. This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> False perception. Before a certain age, almost no one remembers what
> they did or didn't *perceive*, and we have very clear cognitive studies
> that specify exactly when people *do* gain those things, as well as the
> earliest age that you are *likely* to remember things clearly. And,
> again, such perception is wrong a lot of the time, which is why magic
> tricks, visual tricks, etc. work **at all**. We learn, by handling the
> world around us, and experiencing it, what to expect in 99.9% of all
> cases, so.. you do something that fits in the other 0.1%, and our brains
> freak and start making things up, because it *can't* tell what is really
> going on. This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..
Reality throws curve balls sometimes, and graphs of real data are messy.
Saying 'almost no one' contradicts 'exactly when'. Also, unless a
study covers 100% of the population, you have to account for outliers.
Further, our brains make stuff up quite a bit. Interpolation to fill in
gaps in the senses, then the brain shmoozes it all together so we just
see contiguous patterns.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> schreef in bericht
news:4a75d21b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I found these to be tedious and silly, myself. It wasn't an interesting
> view on the nature of God, IMO. There was still all the unexplained
> supernatural nonsense with a token toss of "science" into the mix.
>
Really? I enjoyed them. Which shows how people can react differently to
things :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schreef in bericht
news:4a766292$1@news.povray.org...
> There are good ways and bad ways to learn language. That we have an
> instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
> an instinctive knowledge.
>
I doubt this very much. The case of the "wild childs" pleads against this.
The "Aveyron child", in the 19th century, was unable to learn language once
he was found in the wild. And other cases go in the same direction. So,
language is taught by example, and is not instinctive. I am not sure, but I
think this is also the common consensus among scientists.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:40:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I am not so certain about that.
>>> I'm sorry.
>>
>> Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace
>> with not being certain about some things.
>
> I suspect we're misunderstanding each other here. :-) It sounded like
> you were saying you're not sure whether it's possible to have unlearned
> instinctive knowledge of how the universe was created.
We do have that habit a lot, don't we? ;-)
>> Exactly my point. People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that
>> phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.
>
> That's kind of the definition of "faith", you see. You don't have to be
> religious to be "faithful" that something is the case.
Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's
based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from within
rather than from external sources.
>> It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality,
>> or it may coexist peacefully with reality. There is a lot of
>> uncertainty in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of
>> knowledge that there's something bigger out there.
>
> 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".
There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts
what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge". There are
some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the
associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things
that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.
In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this
discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.
>> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
>> cues. I just knew it.
>
> You learned it before you built your model of the universe that includes
> yourself, and hence you were never self-aware before you learned that.
>
> It happens when you're thrashing around, reaching for things, etc.
> That's why people hang stuff over the kid's bed, and give them toys to
> play with. That's what the "peekaboo" game is all about. For the first
> half a year, children don't even realize that things exist they aren't
> looking at, let alone that smaller things are farther away.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_cognitive_development
>
> I also understand informally from friends with children that it's about
> 18 to 24 months before actual self-awareness develops, based on (for
> example) kids putting dolls in the doll-bath-tub rather than just
> banging the dolls on things. I.e., that's the age at which kids suddenly
> start thinking of other things (and people and animals) as having
> thoughts and personalities, rather than as parts of the environment they
> can't easily predict.
Perhaps. Will have to think on this more.
>> But the actual example isn't really the point,
>
> I know that. I was just changing the subject. What? In off-topic? Shame
> on me! :-)
LOL
>> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
>> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
>
> Yes. I think it's possible to know the functioning of your own body, to
> a large extent. Even that isn't a given, tho.
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/12s/the_strangest_thing_an_ai_could_tell_you/
Will have to read that when I have more time. It *sounds* interesting.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:44:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> an instinctive knowledge.
>
> What is the benefit of tacking the word on the end of that? Why is it
> "instinctive knowledge" and not just "instinct"?
>
>>> Does yanking your hand out of the
>>> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?
>>
>> It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to
>> make he pain go away. Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive
>> knowledge.
>
> OK, so what everyone else calls "instinct" (or "reflex"), you call
> "knowledge".
Instinctive knowledge, actually.
>> Some people come to that conclusion without formal training.
>
> Sure. But I specifically said "Christians" rather than something else to
> imply a substantive agreement with parts of the bible as written. I
> don't think it's unusual to have a tendency towards religion. Even
> atheists have days when they're convinced God hates them. ;-)
Well, yes, but I do think that many Christians don't have that certainty
- they want to have it, but they don't.
> And I don't think you instinctively knew (or know) how the universe
> works. I think you learned it and didn't pay attention to having learned
> it, so you've forgotten you learned it. Not that we'll ever know for
> sure.
True. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schreef in bericht
> news:4a766292$1@news.povray.org...
>> There are good ways and bad ways to learn language. That we have an
>> instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
>> an instinctive knowledge.
>>
>
> I doubt this very much. The case of the "wild childs" pleads against this.
> The "Aveyron child", in the 19th century, was unable to learn language once
> he was found in the wild. And other cases go in the same direction. So,
> language is taught by example, and is not instinctive. I am not sure, but I
> think this is also the common consensus among scientists.
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.
--
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 Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
Citation?
> People that act on such certainties tend to die, doing stupid things,
> which they where *certain* would work. The point of knowledge is, in
> part, to make you stop and go, "Huh, could I possibly be wrong about
> this?" lol
Knowledge doesn't imply self-examination. Intelligence does. Knowledge
and intelligence are two different things.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's
> based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from within
> rather than from external sources.
Certainly. But that doesn't make it knowledge, any more than being deluded
into thinking you're Napoleon makes it "knowledge" that you are.
> There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts
> what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
> washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge". There are
> some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the
> associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things
> that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.
Still not "knowledge" in my book. "Random stuff I'm sure of without any
evidence" isn't knowledge.
> In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this
> discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.
That's why I ruminate here so often. :-)
> Will have to read that when I have more time. It *sounds* interesting.
It's all very cool. SciFi helps too. :-)
--
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:
> Well, you may have a background in child development. I don't. Sheesh.
I suggest, if you're interested in this sort of stuff, you grab a popular
book on child development, one or two on brain damage, some decent sci-fi
that examines boundary conditions, and maybe an intro philosophy text.
--
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 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:59:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's
>> based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from
>> within rather than from external sources.
>
> Certainly. But that doesn't make it knowledge, any more than being
> deluded into thinking you're Napoleon makes it "knowledge" that you are.
A fair point, still will have to think about this more.
>> There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts
>> what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
>> washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge". There
>> are some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the
>> associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things
>> that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.
>
> Still not "knowledge" in my book. "Random stuff I'm sure of without any
> evidence" isn't knowledge.
Many years ago, I had a very bizzare experience driving home from work.
As I got on the highway headed home, things seemed wrong, and I had
absolute certainty that if I went my normal route home, something really
bad was going to happen. I could even pinpoint where the badness was
likely to happen - getting off one highway onto another with a very short
acceleration lane. It was very late at night, so not a lot of traffic.
I changed my route home, I was that sure that something bad was going to
happen.
To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night. Can't explain
it, but the feeling even thinking about it now is much, much stronger
than mere faith or belief. I can't explain it. Intellectually, I know
it's unlikely anything was going to happen, but 15-ish years later, I
still can't shake the feeling that the change in my route home was the
right decision.
I suppose it's the sort of thing people who are more religious than me
would attribute to "the protection of God" or something like that, but I
don't. I just instinctively knew that I needed to go home a different
route.
>> In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this
>> discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.
>
> That's why I ruminate here so often. :-)
Same here. :-)
>> Will have to read that when I have more time. It *sounds* interesting.
>
> It's all very cool. SciFi helps too. :-)
That it does. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:08:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, you may have a background in child development. I don't.
>> Sheesh.
>
> I suggest, if you're interested in this sort of stuff, you grab a
> popular book on child development, one or two on brain damage, some
> decent sci-fi that examines boundary conditions, and maybe an intro
> philosophy text.
I've been thinking that I need to do more reading - so seems like an area
that could give me something to engage my brain with. Thanks!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.
No you don't. You just strongly believe it. Had you opened the papers and
the next morning found that a building had collapsed across that on-ramp,
you still wouldn't have *known* it. You *still* would have only believed it.
You had the true, and the belief, without the justification. (Unless, of
course, you subconciously overheard a radio news station talking about
demolition or something, in which case it's no longer really "instinctive.")
And of course if you do it correctly and repeatedly, then it's worth looking
into, but so far nobody has measured proper psi powers.
I know exactly what you're talking about, now.
Sometimes I wake from a dream, *knowing* I solved some problem while I was
dreaming, but I just can't remember it now. Did I really solve the problem
while I was dreaming, or am I just <ahem> dreaming? How is your experience
different?
> I suppose it's the sort of thing people who are more religious than me
> would attribute to "the protection of God" or something like that, but I
> don't. I just instinctively knew that I needed to go home a different
> route.
Sure. And when you read books about odd kinds of brain damage, with people
who are neither blind nor sighted, with people who are absolutely convinced
they had "out of the body" experiences yet can't see what's going on when
you block something from their "body" eyes that their "soul" eyes could see,
people who are utterly convinced that all their friends have been replaced
with duplicates, etc, you realize no, you didn't know, you're just convinced
you knew.
The very fact that you're convinced is what makes you think it's knowledge
and not belief. Yet conviction is a state of mind. You're saying "because my
brain has decided it's knowledge, that makes it knowledge and not just a
hunch/guess/faith."
I really do believe there are faithful who have as much conviction about
something as you did about your route home. I believe that's what a lot of
the sudden unprompted "born again" stuff is about. I don't disparage that,
but I don't count that as "knowledge" either.
--
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:
> I've been thinking that I need to do more reading - so seems like an area
> that could give me something to engage my brain with. Thanks!
Sci Fi:
Greg Egan (Sort of a PKDick of the brain)
Permutation City
Axiomatic
The first chapter of Diaspora
Quarantine
(in that order of importance)
Brain damage:
The man who mistook his wife for a hat
General how-stuff-works along with how-stuff-brakes:
The Brains of Men and Machines
Basically, a book describing the operation of human
brains and bodies in terms of electronic circuits.
--
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 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:47:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've been thinking that I need to do more reading - so seems like an
>> area that could give me something to engage my brain with. Thanks!
>
> Sci Fi:
> Greg Egan (Sort of a PKDick of the brain)
> Permutation City
> Axiomatic
> The first chapter of Diaspora
> Quarantine
> (in that order of importance)
>
> Brain damage:
> The man who mistook his wife for a hat
>
> General how-stuff-works along with how-stuff-brakes:
> The Brains of Men and Machines
> Basically, a book describing the operation of human brains and
> bodies in terms of electronic circuits.
Fantastic, thanks - looks like a trip to the library is in order this
week.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions? I thought
> "southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism
> is dominant" was pretty descriptive, didn't you?
>
So you mean that the "Bible Belt" is where "Protestant Fundamentalism"
(another
prejudicial and emotive term) is "dominant" (whatever you mean by that).
Why call it the
"Bible Belt" and what real evidence was used in drawing the maps? And
who drew them? :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schreef in bericht
> news:4a75d21b$1@news.povray.org...
>> I found these to be tedious and silly, myself. It wasn't an interesting
>> view on the nature of God, IMO. There was still all the unexplained
>> supernatural nonsense with a token toss of "science" into the mix.
>>
>
> Really? I enjoyed them. Which shows how people can react differently to
> things :-)
>
> Thomas
>
>
Tried to enjoy them, but there is only so many time you can watch, "The
Blaire Witch Project", remade every week before you just have to sit
back and think, "There people really are idiots." For me.. The threshold
was one episode of morons wandering around going, "Did you hear that!",
with night vision cameras aimed at their faces, and later "analyzing"
the evidence for the same sort of random camera glitches and noise I get
from well.. any camera or my computer speakers, if not grounded
properly, and oohing over the ones that "sounded" or "looked", by random
coincidence, like they where "directed by intelligence". Sadly, imho,
those things seemed to be the only thing on those shows that hold that
attribute. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schreef in bericht
>> news:4a766292$1@news.povray.org...
>>> There are good ways and bad ways to learn language. That we have an
>>> instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
>>> an instinctive knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt this very much. The case of the "wild childs" pleads against
>> this. The "Aveyron child", in the 19th century, was unable to learn
>> language once he was found in the wild. And other cases go in the same
>> direction. So, language is taught by example, and is not instinctive.
>> I am not sure, but I think this is also the common consensus among
>> scientists.
>
> 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.
>
What usually happens is that they learn the body language and
vocalizations of the species they are dealing with. In some cases, its
easier to teach them basic signs, than teach them *spoken* language. The
reason being, simply, that often body language, in species with a narrow
range of ability to vocalize, use body posture and the like more to get
across basic ideas. But, you are still dealing with a case where the
person in question is being handed a more "limited" version of allowable
responses, and thus loses the ability to learn more complex ones,
especially dealing with vocal control and interpretation.
Sometimes I think this happens in cases of extreme indoctrination too.
You find people who don't just misread/hear something you said, they
seem to be almost **incapable** of parsing the meaning, based on any
definition of an idea, other than their own, and most of them, a) can't
change their definitions, and b) turn out to have lived isolated from
alternate meanings, often to an unbelievable extent (no TV, no Internet,
no books not approved, no friends outside the indoctrination
environment, no contact with people who have differing views). It seems
to warp their perceptions so badly that its not like they can't
understand the word, but its like... how its sometimes described trying
to learn an Asian language, when all your concepts are Western. Some
things simply **don't** translate, and you end up trying to find a
definition you *do* have, which fits the new word, despite the fact that
no definition you possess fits the real meaning. And, in the case of
*some* people isolated, by faiths, from the rest of humanity, for a long
period of their early lives, unless they snuck stuff, or went to friends
houses and saw it, etc., its like having a Brit ask you where to find
the crisps, or if they can bum a fag. If you have no word for the
former, and your entire universe has never contained a version of the
later than involved tobacco... Only, the sort of problem I am talking
about is actually *worse*, like, "What does the word 'evidence' or
'theory' mean to these people?"
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:59:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's
>>> based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from
>>> within rather than from external sources.
>> Certainly. But that doesn't make it knowledge, any more than being
>> deluded into thinking you're Napoleon makes it "knowledge" that you are.
>
> A fair point, still will have to think about this more.
>
>>> There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts
>>> what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
>>> washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge". There
>>> are some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the
>>> associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things
>>> that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.
>> Still not "knowledge" in my book. "Random stuff I'm sure of without any
>> evidence" isn't knowledge.
>
> Many years ago, I had a very bizzare experience driving home from work.
> As I got on the highway headed home, things seemed wrong, and I had
> absolute certainty that if I went my normal route home, something really
> bad was going to happen. I could even pinpoint where the badness was
> likely to happen - getting off one highway onto another with a very short
> acceleration lane. It was very late at night, so not a lot of traffic.
>
> I changed my route home, I was that sure that something bad was going to
> happen.
>
> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night. Can't explain
> it, but the feeling even thinking about it now is much, much stronger
> than mere faith or belief. I can't explain it. Intellectually, I know
> it's unlikely anything was going to happen, but 15-ish years later, I
> still can't shake the feeling that the change in my route home was the
> right decision.
>
> I suppose it's the sort of thing people who are more religious than me
> would attribute to "the protection of God" or something like that, but I
> don't. I just instinctively knew that I needed to go home a different
> route.
>
There are a lot of people with experiences like this and some who appear
at times to have accurate foreknowledge and knowledge (or perhaps)
perception. I don't think these experiences fit well into any theory of
how the mind
and brain work. But I think you may be using the word "instinctive", in
any but
a very loose sense, to these. Of course one of the common and, I
suppose, legitimate
uses of the word "instinctive" is to describe knowledge or feelings
(learned or unlearned)
that are so deeply ingrained in us that it doesn't occur to us to doubt
it --until after the event,
perhaps. But that use shouldn't be confused with the way a scientist or
a philosopher
would use the term.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
>
> Citation?
>
Uh.. Such numbers are also made up and wrong, more than half the time? lol
Seriously though, I don't know the actual number, or have a cite, but I
*have* seen cases dealing with cognition, where you can not only get
50-50 fails, but even 99% failures. One of the best examples is the,
"two people with a big sign walking rudely between two people talking.",
experiment they run, yearly, at some colleges, for their psychology
experiments. The one where they replace the person asking the question
of some random person with someone the wrong height, dressed wrong, in
clothing some **totally** different color, or even the wrong gender, and
like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The
brain just starts over where it was interrupted, so long as the
conversation "seems" to be the same, and ignore **everything** else. The
replacement could probably be standing their nude and the only reaction
you would get was, "Damn, I didn't realize when you came up that you
where nude.", not, "Where the hell did the original person I was talking
to go?"
The ease by which the mind can be tricked is actually quite scary.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions? I
>> thought
>> "southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism
>> is dominant" was pretty descriptive, didn't you?
>>
>
> So you mean that the "Bible Belt" is where "Protestant Fundamentalism"
> (another
> prejudicial and emotive term) is "dominant" (whatever you mean by that).
> Why call it the
> "Bible Belt" and what real evidence was used in drawing the maps? And
> who drew them? :)
>
> David
>
Same as most such data-
1. Self reporting of religious affiliation.
2. Lists of registered churches.
3. Stated views and objectives of the same, from their own mouths.
4. Self reporting of what the congregation members *in* those places
*say* they believe.
You know, that sort of stuff.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Brain damage:
> The man who mistook his wife for a hat
Very interesting book. All of the author's (Oliver Sacks) books, that I
have read,
are well worth reading.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions?
>
Did you read the accompanying text on Wiki? The term "Bible Belt" is a
derisive term
coined by H. L. Mencken, a Baltimore journalist, who had a special
hatred for the
"south" and Baptists (exceeding his hatred for everything else). But I
don't want to do
Mencken injustice. He was a brilliant and witty writer and fun to read
even now. Try him if you
haven't. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1aEqBaK3aM
--
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:
> So you mean that the "Bible Belt" is where "Protestant Fundamentalism"
> (another prejudicial and emotive term)
What's prejudicial about the term? Are you saying there aren't protestant
fundamentalists?
> is "dominant" (whatever you mean by that).
So you're arguing with the words in definitions now? You don't know what the
word "dominant" applies to when used to refer to a population of people?
> Why call it the "Bible Belt"
Because it's a description of how people in that belt of land interpret the
bible. Do you not know the definition of "bible", or of "belt"?
> and what real evidence was used in drawing the maps? And
> who drew them? :)
I don't know, but it's been a term in common use for decades, so arguing
that it's meaningless is just playing silly buggers. You'd like to take
offense, but since there's really nothing to take offense at, you're having
a hard time coming up with reasonable objections.
Do you think that protestant fundamentalism *isn't* dominant in those areas,
compared to other religions?
--
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:
> 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 would imagine that after 90 or so
years of common usage, it may very well have lost its sting for most people,
including all those foreign countries that decided it was a good term to adopt.
And the page didn't say anything about it being derisive, but merely about
it being coined.
You really don't have to act offended or disgusted by someone using the same
terminology that Truman used 50 years ago. Unless, of course, offense is a
smokescreen for lack of content. ;-)
--
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:
> Do you think that protestant fundamentalism *isn't* dominant in those
> areas, compared to other religions?
>
What do you mean by "protestant fundamentalism"? The term
"fundamentalism" and
"fundamentalist" in current usage almost always refers to violent sects.
Other than that
they are almost always pejorative. And for that matter what do you mean
by "protestant"?
For instance the Baptist Church historically did not arise from the
"Protestant Reformation".
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? If the latter, then
it's a misnomer. Off course the
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. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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.
> that does not change the fact that I know god does not exist.
You may have justification in your belief. Others may have justification in
theirs. But just as I wouldn't call any amount of belief in something false
to be "knowledge", I wouldn't call any amount of belief in something
unjustified to be "knowledge."
The idea that you "know" that you "should have" taken another route home is
silly. To "feel strongly" and to "know" are two different words, and it's
intellectually dishonest to use one instead of the other when you know better.
If you've had first-hand experience with deities, then saying you "know"
deities exist is reasonable, even if it turns out later you're mistaken and
you simply justifiably believed in something false.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to say "I know X", when indeed
you're mistaken about it. But you don't have the knowledge. You either
believe something false, or you accidentally believe something true without
any justification.
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.
--
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:
> 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.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:10:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
>>
>> Citation?
>>
> Uh.. Such numbers are also made up and wrong, more than half the time?
> lol
It is true that 78.64% (I'm rounding) of all statistics are made up on
the spot. :-)
> Seriously though, I don't know the actual number, or have a cite, but I
> *have* seen cases dealing with cognition, where you can not only get
> 50-50 fails, but even 99% failures. One of the best examples is the,
> "two people with a big sign walking rudely between two people talking.",
> experiment they run, yearly, at some colleges, for their psychology
> experiments. The one where they replace the person asking the question
> of some random person with someone the wrong height, dressed wrong, in
> clothing some **totally** different color, or even the wrong gender, and
> like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The
> brain just starts over where it was interrupted, so long as the
> conversation "seems" to be the same, and ignore **everything** else. The
> replacement could probably be standing their nude and the only reaction
> you would get was, "Damn, I didn't realize when you came up that you
> where nude.", not, "Where the hell did the original person I was talking
> to go?"
>
> The ease by which the mind can be tricked is actually quite scary.
True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts. I
seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct that
something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find that
better than 90% of the time, I'm right. That's far better than the luck
of averages.
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 -
I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at
deception. Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to trust
very easily because I know that people will generally try to get away
with whatever they can.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. It's difficult to
explain, but there is a distinct difference in my own mindset when I know
something vs. when I strongly suspect something.
> no longer really "instinctive.") And of course if you do it correctly
> and repeatedly, then it's worth looking into, but so far nobody has
> measured proper psi powers.
I don't think it's anything like that - I think it's that I have a good
instinct for reading people and situations. Maybe it's something I've
learned on a subconscious level, I don't know. I'm not claiming to be
'supernatural" or anything silly like that.
> I know exactly what you're talking about, now.
:-)
> Sometimes I wake from a dream, *knowing* I solved some problem while I
> was dreaming, but I just can't remember it now. Did I really solve the
> problem while I was dreaming, or am I just <ahem> dreaming? How is your
> experience different?
Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming, I was
driving home. I sure hope I wasn't sleeping. ;-)
But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.
> friends have been replaced with duplicates, etc, you realize no, you
> didn't know, you're just convinced you knew.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
> The very fact that you're convinced is what makes you think it's
> knowledge and not belief. Yet conviction is a state of mind. You're
> saying "because my brain has decided it's knowledge, that makes it
> knowledge and not just a hunch/guess/faith."
Hmm, an interesting point, and something else to think about.
> I really do believe there are faithful who have as much conviction about
> something as you did about your route home. I believe that's what a lot
> of the sudden unprompted "born again" stuff is about. I don't disparage
> that, but I don't count that as "knowledge" either.
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
