 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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
>
>
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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
