 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
