 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
