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

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:23:43 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't see how that relates - I'm talking about understanding depth of
>> field.....?
> 
> I've even read of tribes of people living in rainforests for generations
> who, when the researcher takes them out of the forest, are amazed that
> he knows how to make cows the size of flies. Never having been able to
> see more than a dozen yards in a straight line, they never got the whole
> perspective thing figured out.
> 
> Not that I've ever been able to find a cite for that, but I remember
> reading it long ago in a context that would imply it wasn't fictional.

Yeah, I remember reading that as well, I think maybe even up here, but 
there wasn't a good citation for it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:29:30 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:

>  that I objected to
> the tern "Bible Belt".
> I do think that it is hardly ever used in any but a pejorative sense

I've never actually heard it used in a pejorative or derogatory sense.  
I've always heard it to refer to a set of southern states (as defined on 
the map that Darren pointed to) where there is a fair grouping of people 
following various sects of Christianity.  I've heard it used by people 
from *within* the Bible Belt as well, at that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:34:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.
>> No you don't. You just strongly believe it.  
> 
> Well, that's your read of it, but I know differently.

I understand what you're saying. But if you *know* you're Napoleon, and I 
tell you you just strongly suspect it, I think I'd win, in general.

"Knowing" isn't *just* a state of mind, is what I'm trying to express.

> Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming

No, because then you would have discounted it. :-)

> But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.

Cool.

> Hmm, an interesting point, and something else to think about.

These are fun things to think about. I find it's actually kind of refreshing 
and liberating to realize that I might be wrong in my deepest convictions. 
It makes discussions of various philosophical stuff much more interesting.

> I think part of it with me is that I tend to attribute "faith" and 
> "belief" with "religion", so I shy away from those terms because of those 
> connotations, which I consider undesirable connotations.

I don't have a problem with faith, even of a religious nature. It's when 
that "faith" turns into "knowledge" and therefore "you should do X" that 
causes trouble, religion or not. For example, in college at one point my 
mother became convinced I was doing drugs, and she wanted to see all my 
class schedules and wanted me to come home promptly. (I was commuting to 
college at the time.) I, *knowing* I wasn't doing drugs, just laughed and 
refused. No amount of confidence, belief, or faith on her part was going to 
convince me I had to change my behavior to stop doing drugs I wasn't already 
doing. So maybe I'm a little oversensitive to people claiming something is 
true simply because they're really, really convinced it is.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> better than 90% of the time, I'm right.

You mean, better than 90% of the time you remember making the prediction and 
remember checking, you're right?  Or do you actually keep objective notes?

Granted, it's definitely a skill you can learn to read people and to pick up 
subtle clues. I'm just saying ...

> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability 
> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good - 

See, now *that* is justified belief. :-)  Without some external validation, 
you can never tell whether you're fooling yourself.

Just look at any friend who is infatuated with some girl that's no good for 
him. :-)

A very good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Just so you know, falling back on the "every single word in the entire 
>> discussion has to be extensively and precisely defined, even tho all 
>> participants already know what it means" is an old and foolish 
>> debating trick.
> 
> Why foolish?  Seems reasonable to me.  Make sure everyone's on the same 
> proverbial page, and clarifies things.

Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when the 
words admittedly don't have the sort of precision you're asking for? 
Especially when the topic isn't even about the words that you're arguing the 
definitions for?

Sorry. Foolish. Especially foolish if you do it so transparently. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when 
> the words admittedly don't have the sort of precision you're asking for? 
> Especially when the topic isn't even about the words that you're arguing 
> the definitions for?
> 
> Sorry. Foolish. Especially foolish if you do it so transparently. :-)

Well, how about having a pre-debate meeting where you explicitly define 
all the words you're going to be using?  XD

(Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien culture 
50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the language...)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook schrieb:
> Well, how about having a pre-debate meeting where you explicitly 
> define all the words you're going to be using?  XD
>
... and of course a pre-pre-debate, to define the language to use in the 
pre-debate :P

(which reminds me of that dictionary entry "recursion: see -> recursion")

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a77087b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I think people don't have an instinct for a particular language, but an 
> instinct to learn whatever language they're around. Much like birds learn 
> how to fly, pretty much reliably.
>
> Of course, if you're entire raised around non-verbal beings, the instinct 
> to try to learn is going to get frustrated, just like you can starve 
> without food even tho you have an instinct to get hungry and eat when you 
> need to.
>

Yes. That is correct. I just browsed again through some textbooks dealing 
witht his. We definitely have the inate "building blocks" for (complex) 
language, but we need the proper environment (i.e. parents, other members of 
the group) to trigger and control the faculty.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when 

> (Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien culture 
> 50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the language...)

I don't follow. How would aliens 50,000 years in the future be participating 
and already know what it means?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that 
>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are 
>> right.
> 
> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've 
> eliminated the usefulness of the word.

Again, that is not what I did.

> If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what 
> would you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew 
> that for a fact?  Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
> 
>> I can not prove it,
> 
> You have justification for your belief.
> 
> One can argue over whether there is sufficient justification to turn a 
> belief in something that happens to be true into knowledge, sure. But no 
> amount of confidence without justification will turn belief into knowledge.

The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That 
unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.

> 
> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually 
> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by 
> overstating their knowledge.

I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to 
convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement

Post a reply to this message

On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
ps

> 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 think I'd say that you have your facts wrong. That happens quite 
often. Sometimes when I give a talk I end with the conclusion that 'what 
is common knowledge may not be true'. Specifically of course when I have 
just shown an example of that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that 
>>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are 
>>> right.
>>
>> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've 
>> eliminated the usefulness of the word.
> 
> Again, that is not what I did.

"Those that believe *know* they are right" is incorrect. "Those that believe 
think they *know* they are right" is correct.

> The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That 
> unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.

It depends on how good your evidence is, of course. If you believe you were 
kidnapped by aliens while your entire family watched you sleeping in front 
of the fireplace, then you're without justification for your belief.

If you think you know that George Washington was the first president of the 
USA, you're pretty justified in believing that.

As I said, there are grey zones in the middle, of course, where one might 
not know if there was sufficient 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.
> 
> I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to 
> convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement

Right.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 4-8-2009 20:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that 
>>>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are 
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", 
>>> you've eliminated the usefulness of the word.
>>
>> Again, that is not what I did.
> 
> "Those that believe *know* they are right" is incorrect. "Those that 
> believe think they *know* they are right" is correct.

Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I 
understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...

> 
>> The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That 
>> unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
> 
> It depends on how good your evidence is, of course. If you believe you 
> were kidnapped by aliens while your entire family watched you sleeping 
> in front of the fireplace, then you're without justification for your 
> belief.

Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted, 
even if you would insist they mere believe it.

> If you think you know that George Washington was the first president of 
> the USA, you're pretty justified in believing that.

There was a trick question about that on QI some tie ago, I forgot the 
point, however :(

> As I said, there are grey zones in the middle, of course, where one 
> might not know if there was sufficient justification.

Post a reply to this message

On 4-8-2009 21:10, andrel wrote:

> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I 
> understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...

Isn't there a scene in Goedel Escher Bach where something is proven but 
then the focus turns on the proof rules, because they must first be 
agreed on. But that requires that you have to agree on how to make rules 
  proof rules etc.

Which a.o. shows that you don't have to agree on what constitutes a 
proof, you can always go to a meta level. That even works for Euclid. I 
think it is clear that somewhere on the third meta level we don't agree.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I 
> understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...

Well, we're kind of debating over the meaning of the word. What's the 
objective word *you* would use for justified true belief?

> Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted, 
> even if you would insist they mere believe it.

OK. I'm just objecting to the use of that word to mean that you can know 
something which you are justified in believing is false.

-- 
   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:
> Isn't there a scene in Goedel Escher Bach where something is proven but 
> then the focus turns on the proof rules, because they must first be 
> agreed on.

This always happens when you try to make math tell you something about the 
real world. The problem isn't with proving something mathematically. It's 
with proving that the math is isomorphic to reality.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 4-8-2009 23:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, 
>> I understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
> 
> Well, we're kind of debating over the meaning of the word. What's the 
> objective word *you* would use for justified true belief?

Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge' 
for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)

>> Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted, 
>> even if you would insist they mere believe it.
> 
> OK. I'm just objecting to the use of that word to mean that you can know 
> something which you are justified in believing is false.

I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false 
belief that knowledge is objective.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
Hmm. Point taken. But, then, I also tend to forget that not everyone 
necessarily took even the basic psychology course I did in college 
either, which covered at least bits of it too. Still, its harder to miss 
some of the common examples of mind tricks, which have been shown on TV 
programs. But, again, that only works if you presume they where watching 
the show on "Funny tricks played on people using psychology.", instead 
of, "Random sitcom #345, in which someone trips over a hose.", that day 
instead. lol Or, well... you get what I mean. Picking things with, 
relatively, *zero* content in new ideas, or which tend to feed into 
common perception, or not watching at all, instead of pointing out where 
those perceptions fail, etc.

I suppose... Its sort of similar to the reaction that someone who has 
gone to church every day for 20 years (but probably never read the Bible 
on their own from cover to cover, in my, and other's experience), 
wondering how I don't **get** how all the "truths" they know are valid. 
But, its not *quite* the same thing, since, imho, they are the people 
standing, like the natives in one of the other posts, looking out at a 
field and going, "How did you make cows the size of flies?" I definitely 
need to remember that one.

-- 
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

andrel wrote:
> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge' 
> for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)

I can't parse that sentence.

> I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false 
> belief that knowledge is objective.

I never claimed it was objective. Indeed, I asserted the opposite.

-- 
   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 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.
> 
Actually. No. There are two problems with this. One is called 
"confirmation bias". The mind, as a means of helping itself *make* such 
good choices, de-emphasizes bad ones, while exaggerating perceived good 
ones. The result is that we tend to forget the bad things. Someone gave 
and example of this about why we tend to, in old age, think the past was 
better than now. The way they put it is, "50% of everything ever made is 
useless crap, whether it be music, literature, or anything else. Much of 
the good stuff is kept, some of the bad stuff survives, but, overall, we 
only ever actually remember the good bits, so the past always **seems** 
to contain fewer problems, better ideas, better things, etc. than now." 
Or, something roughly to that effect.

Everyone thinks that they make good instinctive decisions 90% of the 
time, save for those people that are totally disfunctional and hide in 
their houses, unwilling to make *any* decisions. Its our nature to 
forget the cases where we screwed up, or at least marginalize them, in 
favor of a self perception of being right most of the time. We couldn't 
function effectively if we second guessed every action, based on a 
recognition that we get it close enough to right only half the time to 
call it "good instinct".

Its also a tested psychological factor that the true twits in society 
have a coping mechanism, by which they "exaggerate" their own competence.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL

By the same token, people *good at their jobs*, tend to know that they 
could be wrong, are prone to mistakes, and can get to be hyper critical 
of their own successes. What would appear to be "pride" or "humility" in 
people with high positions could very well be signs of instead 
"incompetence" and "great skill", in the same order. Left me struggling 
with an infinite loop though, "are the things I am bad at, things I am 
actually pretty good at, but I didn't see it, because I am too critical, 
or am I instead horrible at the things I think I am good at, and still 
as bad at the ones I think I am, as I believe." lol

> 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

I would, with some caveats, tend to allow for their perceptions to be 
less flawed than yours. The caveats being, for starters, that their 
perception of "why" you seem to have good instincts may be due to their 
own flawed views of who a good candidate for deception are, and the 
like, due to personal bias, than to actual skill in the matter. Good 
example of this sort of fun thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8183502.stm

Now, if everyone that was telling you that you are good at detecting 
deceit where one of those who claimed to trust priests, farmers and 
prostitutes, before scientists, what would your reaction be to their 
certainty of how good you are?

Point being, pretty much by definition, any social group you are in is 
**already** predisposed, by you as a member, to perceive your 
contribution as more trustworthy than someone else's. Its the whole my 
tribe/monkey-troop is more worthy than those other monkeys, thing. ;)

-- 
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:
>>> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when 
> 
>> (Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien 
>> culture 50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the 
>> language...)
> 
> I don't follow. How would aliens 50,000 years in the future be 
> participating and already know what it means?

No, no...the other way around.  The aliens 50,000 years in the future 
*wouldn't* be participating, and wouldn't necessarily already know what 
the words that were being used mean.  Hence the explicitly defining 
everything...for their convenience.  XD

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On 5-8-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge' 
>> for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
> I can't parse that sentence.

That may be a dutchism How about if you replace 'reserve' by 'use', will 
it parse then?

>> I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false 
>> belief that knowledge is objective.
> 
> I never claimed it was objective. Indeed, I asserted the opposite.

Ok, then we don't understand one another (again). Why do you assert that 
I cannot use 'know' when I talk about thing that *I* know for certain. 
As far as I understood, you said that I should use 'believe' for all but 
the most basic math because you or someone else might think different. 
In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor would 
the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist. In my opinion 
you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that 
allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those 
where truths that may be absolute.
I know I would run into problems soon in most fields, even my own. How 
would you like a doctor at your bed: 'I believe that I saw more than 2 
mm ST elevation on an ECG that I believe the nurse said was yours. If 
that was the case then most doctors believe that this may indicate that 
you are suffering from ischemia at the moment. It could be that the 
electrode was wrongly positioned, but I believe this is an experience 
nurse. I believe the general opinion is that the following treatment 
gives the best results in such cases: ...'

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 5-8-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge' 
>>> for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
>> I can't parse that sentence.
> 
> That may be a dutchism How about if you replace 'reserve' by 'use', will 
> it parse then?

Either you mean "I reserve 'superstition' to mean other peoples' 
'knowledge'" or I don't know what you mean. Why would you use the word 
knowledge to refer to what you consider supersition in others?

>>> I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false 
>>> belief that knowledge is objective.
>>
>> I never claimed it was objective. Indeed, I asserted the opposite.
> 
> Ok, then we don't understand one another (again). Why do you assert that 
> I cannot use 'know' when I talk about thing that *I* know for certain. 

Because if you're *wrong*, you only think you know it.  Whether you're 
*wrong* is what can be subjective.

But if you claim you "know" you are George Washington, I'll claim you are 
merely strongly deluded.

> As far as I understood, you said that I should use 'believe' for all but 
> the most basic math because you or someone else might think different.

No, I said knowledge is justified true belief. If you're not justified in 
your belief, then you by definition don't know what you're asserting. If you 
believe in something that's false, you don't know it. If you don't believe 
it's true, then you don't know it either.

Simply asserting that if you're sufficiently confident then you know 
something is newspeak.


> In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor would 
> the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist.

He (or you) could *say* it. That doesn't mean he's right. Assuming we're 
still arguing over whether or not God actually exists, then it's a question 
of whether it's (a) true and (b) justified to say it's true.

Distinguish "I know God exists" from "I know I am Napoleon."  What's the 
difference between these two claims? Do you see any difference between these 
two claims?  If not, why use that word when it's equally true to claim "I am 
confident God exists" or "I am confident I am Napoleon"?

 > In my opinion
> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that 
> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those 
> where truths that may be absolute.

Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were objecting to.

> I know I would run into problems soon in most fields, even my own. How 
> would you like a doctor at your bed: 'I believe that I saw more than 2 
> mm ST elevation on an ECG that I believe the nurse said was yours. If 
> that was the case then most doctors believe that this may indicate that 
> you are suffering from ischemia at the moment. It could be that the 
> electrode was wrongly positioned, but I believe this is an experience 
> nurse. I believe the general opinion is that the following treatment 
> gives the best results in such cases: ...'

No, because he has justification and it is true. By saying "I know you're 
suffering from ischemia" he's saying he is justified in believing it's true 
and that it's true.

Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively real-world 
false?  If you want to say "I know I'm dead", simply because you are 
confidently deluded of that fact, then you're just going to make "know" a 
useless word meaning the same thing as "confident".

Clearly the pope thinks he is justified in believing in the existence of his 
God.  I am justified in believing his God does not exists. Which one of us 
knows the truth depends on whether his God actually exists. I'm not sure how 
you can argue with that. I'm not sure how you can say we both know the 
answer, when those answers are mutually contradictory.

-- 
   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

Let me start by saying that I don't think we'll ever agree on this one ;)
On 6-8-2009 22:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 5-8-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 
>>>> 'knowledge' for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
>>> I can't parse that sentence.
>>
>> That may be a dutchism How about if you replace 'reserve' by 'use', 
>> will it parse then?
> 
> Either you mean "I reserve 'superstition' to mean other peoples' 
> 'knowledge'" or I don't know what you mean. Why would you use the word 
> knowledge to refer to what you consider supersition in others?

Because that is what everybody does, even you. There will be things that 
you believe are true to such extend that you don't see how anyone can 
have a different opinion (either on evolution, the position of man and 
women, gays, life, the moonlanding, some scientific theory, or whatever) 
that are still disputed by some and considered part of your false religion.


>> As far as I understood, you said that I should use 'believe' for all 
>> but the most basic math because you or someone else might think 
>> different.
> 
> No, I said knowledge is justified true belief. 

Again that implies that you or somebody knows what is 'true'. I keep 
repeating that there are many differences of opinion about what is true, 
about what processes are allowed to determine if something is true and 
all the other metalevels.


> If you're not justified 
> in your belief, then you by definition don't know what you're asserting. 
> If you believe in something that's false, you don't know it. If you 
> don't believe it's true, then you don't know it either.
> 
> Simply asserting that if you're sufficiently confident then you know 
> something is newspeak.

no, it is much older than written history.

>> In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor 
>> would the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist.
> 
> He (or you) could *say* it. That doesn't mean he's right. Assuming we're 
> still arguing over whether or not God actually exists, then it's a 
> question of whether it's (a) true and (b) justified to say it's true.
> 
> Distinguish "I know God exists" from "I know I am Napoleon."  What's the 
> difference between these two claims? Do you see any difference between 
> these two claims?  If not, why use that word when it's equally true to 
> claim "I am confident God exists" or "I am confident I am Napoleon"?

Because nobody would say such a thing. Technically correct, but it would 
raise eyebrows if used in ordinary conversation. 'I am confident this is 
my daughter', 'No sir he could not have killed him, I am confident he 
was home last night'.

>  > In my opinion
>> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that 
>> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those 
>> where truths that may be absolute.
> 
> Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were objecting to.

Yes I was following your reasoning here, trying to point out leads to a 
nonsense conclusion. I am confident that in e.g. Greek I would have used 
another time than you did read.


>> I know I would run into problems soon in most fields, even my own. How 
>> would you like a doctor at your bed: 'I believe that I saw more than 2 
>> mm ST elevation on an ECG that I believe the nurse said was yours. If 
>> that was the case then most doctors believe that this may indicate 
>> that you are suffering from ischemia at the moment. It could be that 
>> the electrode was wrongly positioned, but I believe this is an 
>> experience nurse. I believe the general opinion is that the following 
>> treatment gives the best results in such cases: ...'
> 
> No, because he has justification and it is true. 

No, he merely thinks it is true, he may be wrong, so he has to use 
'believe' according to your rules.

> By saying "I know 
> you're suffering from ischemia" he's saying he is justified in believing 
> it's true and that it's true.
> 
> Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively real-world 
> false?  
yes. I know Newton's law of gravity. Now you may argue that we know it 
is wrong but still can be used as approximation. OTOH that is also true 
of almost any other important theory in physics.
I also know that most cardiologists know what causes the T wave part of 
the ECG. I also know that they are wrong.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Because that is what everybody does, even you.

Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean everything 
is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm bringing up the 
examples of Napoleon.

>> No, I said knowledge is justified true belief. 
> 
> Again that implies that you or somebody knows what is 'true'. 

No it doesn't. It merely means there are some assertions of belief which we 
cannot determine the truth of, and hence we cannot determine whether they 
are actually knowledge.

> I keep 
> repeating that there are many differences of opinion about what is true, 
> about what processes are allowed to determine if something is true and 
> all the other metalevels.

Right. And I keep repeating that while there are many differences of 
opinion, there are also many facts about which there are few differences of 
opinion.

>>> In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor 
>>> would the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist.
>>
>> He (or you) could *say* it. That doesn't mean he's right. Assuming 
>> we're still arguing over whether or not God actually exists, then it's 
>> a question of whether it's (a) true and (b) justified to say it's true.
>>
>> Distinguish "I know God exists" from "I know I am Napoleon."  What's 
>> the difference between these two claims? Do you see any difference 
>> between these two claims?  If not, why use that word when it's equally 
>> true to claim "I am confident God exists" or "I am confident I am 
>> Napoleon"?
> 
> Because nobody would say such a thing.

Sure they would. I am confident God doesn't exist. See? :-)

 > Technically correct, but it would
> raise eyebrows if used in ordinary conversation. 'I am confident this is 
> my daughter', 'No sir he could not have killed him, I am confident he 
> was home last night'.



>>  > In my opinion
>>> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that 
>>> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those 
>>> where truths that may be absolute.
>>
>> Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were 
>> objecting to.
> 
> Yes I was following your reasoning here, trying to point out leads to a 
> nonsense conclusion. I am confident that in e.g. Greek I would have used 
> another time than you did read.

But I didn't say we could distinguish confidently between whether something 
that is disputed is knowledge and something that is disputed is not knowledge.

>> No, because he has justification and it is true. 
> 
> No, he merely thinks it is true, he may be wrong, so he has to use 
> 'believe' according to your rules.

I'm not making rules. I'm simply saying that if he says he knows something, 
and that thing is false, then he's mistaken. I'm not saying he isn't confident.

>> Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively 
>> real-world false?  
> yes. I know Newton's law of gravity. 

You know what it is, but you also know it doesn't apply in all situations. 
And that's true of every other replaced theory, and possible of every other 
scientific theory.

> I also know that most cardiologists know what causes the T wave part of 
> the ECG. I also know that they are wrong.

You see, I would never say that. I would say "They think they know what 
causes it, but I know they're wrong", or even "I think they're wrong".

OK, so to you, there's no difference between knowing something and being 
confident it's true. I feel that's a loss.

-- 
   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 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:10:09 +0200, andrel wrote:

> There was a trick question about that on QI some tie ago, I forgot the
> point, however

I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:45:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> "Knowing" isn't *just* a state of mind, is what I'm trying to express.

That's a fair point, and something I hadn't considered before.

>> Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming
> 
> No, because then you would have discounted it. :-)

Very likely, yes. :-)

>> But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.
> 
> Cool.

I find that life is generally full of challenges to things that one 
asserts as true - and that "truth" (as commonly used from a philosophical 
standpoint rather than a scientific or mathematical standpoint) is 
something that depends on circumstances.  So accepting a perception as 
truth means that often it has to be subject to change.

>> Hmm, an interesting point, and something else to think about.
> 
> These are fun things to think about. I find it's actually kind of
> refreshing and liberating to realize that I might be wrong in my deepest
> convictions. It makes discussions of various philosophical stuff much
> more interesting.

Same here (that's what I was trying to say above, and as always, you said 
much more eloquently <g>).  It takes a willingness to accept that one 
might be wrong about something that's a deeply held conviction, though, 
and it's rare that people do that.  I think that's a real shame.

>> I think part of it with me is that I tend to attribute "faith" and
>> "belief" with "religion", so I shy away from those terms because of
>> those connotations, which I consider undesirable connotations.
> 
> I don't have a problem with faith, even of a religious nature. It's when
> that "faith" turns into "knowledge" and therefore "you should do X" that
> causes trouble, religion or not. For example, in college at one point my
> mother became convinced I was doing drugs, and she wanted to see all my
> class schedules and wanted me to come home promptly. (I was commuting to
> college at the time.) I, *knowing* I wasn't doing drugs, just laughed
> and refused. No amount of confidence, belief, or faith on her part was
> going to convince me I had to change my behavior to stop doing drugs I
> wasn't already doing. So maybe I'm a little oversensitive to people
> claiming something is true simply because they're really, really
> convinced it is.

That makes a lot of sense and provides an interesting insight into your 
perspective - thank you for sharing it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:23:55 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hmm. Point taken. But, then, I also tend to forget that not everyone
> necessarily took even the basic psychology course I did in college
> either, which covered at least bits of it too. 

Question of putting yourself in the shoes of someone with a different set 
of life experiences. :-)  I never took any psychology classes in college, 
my focus was engineering and then computer science.

> Still, its harder to miss
> some of the common examples of mind tricks, which have been shown on TV
> programs. But, again, that only works if you presume they where watching
> the show on "Funny tricks played on people using psychology.", instead
> of, "Random sitcom #345, in which someone trips over a hose.", that day
> instead. lol Or, well... you get what I mean. Picking things with,
> relatively, *zero* content in new ideas, or which tend to feed into
> common perception, or not watching at all, instead of pointing out where
> those perceptions fail, etc.

Yeah, I tend not to go for the brainless sitcoms, I prefer things that 
make me think at least a little.  Magic and misdirection (Penn & Teller 
style, for example) are things I really enjoy a lot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:48:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> better than 90% of the time, I'm right.
> 
> You mean, better than 90% of the time you remember making the prediction
> and remember checking, you're right?  Or do you actually keep objective
> notes?

Just an informal recollection - and yeah, I know I'm biased, but I try to 
be objective about it.

> Granted, it's definitely a skill you can learn to read people and to
> pick up subtle clues. I'm just saying ...

Yes. :-)

>> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
>> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good
>> -
> 
> See, now *that* is justified belief. :-)  Without some external
> validation, you can never tell whether you're fooling yourself.

I do get that kind of feedback quite frequently, it seems.  Of course my 
best recent examples are ones that are confidential due to their legal 
nature.

> Just look at any friend who is infatuated with some girl that's no good
> for him. :-)

LOL

> A very good book on the subject:
> http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198

I'll have to see if the library has that one.  I need to read more. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/

There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on knowing 
technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the question 
that was asked rather than what it sounds like.

What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey.
(Technically, it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to breeders.)

Where is Grant buried?  Not in Grant's Tomb.
(Grant is entombed there.)

Who was born on Washington's Birthday?  Not Washington.
(The calendar changed between his birth and his death.)

-- 
   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