David H. Burns wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>
>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible 
>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to 
>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many 
>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
> 
> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by 
> benighted morons
> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other 
> reason.

Why are you taking offense? Are you claiming there isn't an area generally 
referred to as "the bible belt"? Or that it isn't in the south? Or that 
there aren't many places that discriminate against atheists? Or that there 
are proportionally more in the south than the north?  I may be mistaken 
about that latter one, but I'm just basing it on the news I read.

If you're taking offense at true statements, then you're doing it wrong.

-- 
   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:
> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of 
>> "practicing atheists"
>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) 
> 
> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God 
> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not 
> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
Wouldn't even go that far for most of us. But, depends on your 
definition of "believe". If you mean, in the sense, that "I believe 
there is almost no chance I will spontaneously win the Australian 
lottery.", you are likely correct. I have no idea "if" such a thing 
exists, and even if it did, it would be hard to win, given that I don't 
live there, and haven't bought a ticket. If it does, then... there is a 
idiotically slim chance that someone might drop the winning ticket in 
front of me, in the parking lot, at work, because they happened to be 
visiting, while on vacation. Now, if you where to ask, "What are the 
odds of you winning the Lilliputian lotto?", then I would say *zero*, 
since Lilliput is a made up part of a silly book, and is in no way, 
shape, or form, part of the real world. I.e., could there be a god? I 
have no idea, but I place the odds very low, given the general lack of 
any evidence, and the fact that everything that is presented as such is 
better explained by something else. Does any "specific" god, as 
described in someone's theology exist? Absolutely *not*, for the same 
reasons.

-- 
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:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas 
>>> if they just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of 
>>> complaining about prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on 
>>> government buildings and such.
>>>
>> Ah, yes. Jews should do the same, and Pagans, and well..
> 
> I didn't say they *should*. I said they *can*. I.e., in contrast with 
> being black 100 years ago, where you couldn't avoid the racism by faking 
> it.
> 
Hmm. Point taken.

-- 
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:
> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of 
>> "practicing atheists"
>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) 
> 
> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God 
> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not 
> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.

No offense intended. That's why I put the the phrase in quotes; perhaps,
Non-Believers would be a better term for those who believe nothing --but 
that
term might be misread too. :)

  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 22:15, David H. Burns wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of 
>>> "practicing atheists"
>>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) 
>>
>> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God 
>> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not 
>> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
> 
> No offense intended. That's why I put the the phrase in quotes; perhaps,
> Non-Believers would be a better term for those who believe nothing --but 
> that
> term might be misread too. :)
> 
>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)

Depends. 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.
(I am aware of the parallels with the evolution as (merely) a theory).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>   Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>>
>>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible 
>>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to 
>>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many 
>>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
>>
>> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by 
>> benighted morons
>> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other 
>> reason.
> 
> Why are you taking offense? 

It's prejudice I take offense at -- though maybe "disgusted" may be a better
term than "offended" to describe my reaction. But I probably should have 
resisted
  the temptation to reply -- or just repeated the Kristofferson quote I 
used earlier. :)
Are you claiming there isn't an area
> generally referred to as "the bible belt"? Or that it isn't in the
> south? 
"Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no 
descriptive value.
Or that there aren't many places that discriminate against
> atheists? Or that there are proportionally more in the south than the 
> north? 

My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never 
seen such
discrimination. Off course I have heard and read people preach and rave 
against atheists
  and against christians, and against many other beliefs. But preaching 
and raving aren't
especially southern phenomena.
  I may be mistaken about that latter one, but I'm just basing it
> on the news I read.

What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.
To my mind, none of it is to be trusted too far.

David :)

I

> 
> If you're taking offense at true statements, then you're doing it wrong.
> 

I

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)

Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these 
terms in opposite ways.

The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As long 
as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.

The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I think 
this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually certain 
this is the truth."

So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what 
attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in 
god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a convincing 
reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know why."



-- 
   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:
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 .... :)

> (I am aware of the parallels with the evolution as (merely) a theory).

??

David :)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> It's prejudice I take offense at 

What prejudice do you think I'm exhibiting? That's the question I asked.

> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no 
> descriptive value.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Abible+belt

Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.

http://images.google.com/images?q=bible+belt
It sure looks like a pretty well-defined area, with five or six different 
but substantially similar maps showing the american bible belt, as well as a 
couple of Dutch bible belt maps.

As I said, if you're taking offense at the truth, you're doing it wrong.

> My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never 
> seen such
> discrimination.

Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. Yet 
I don't doubt it happens.

However, don't attribute to my prejudice what you can attribute to your 
ignorance. A better response would be evidence that a wide-spread prejudice 
is wrong, rather than simply calling someone names who hasn't said anything 
bad about you.

> What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.

Certainly. But it's not like I go out picking news sources that reinforce my 
beliefs. Quite the opposite, really.

-- 
   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:
>>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)
> 
> Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these 
> terms in opposite ways.
> 
> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As 
> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.
> 

Are you speaking from experience?

> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what 
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in 
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a 
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know 
> why."

It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has 
actually said.
Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we 
mean. You use of the
terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. 
> Yet I don't doubt it happens.

I, too, have seen little serious discrimination against black people, 
but it certainly
happened, lot lot more in the past than in present, I'm glad to say. I 
don't doubt either
that real a brutal acts of violence were perpetrated against black 
people by non-blacks.
You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated 
against" in their
modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in 
themselves have little
emotive content. "Mistreatment" might be a more concrete, though perhaps 
less
impressive term. Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by 
"discrimination" in the context
we're using it here. Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing 
a person which
might not be describe by either term. An these are possibly the most 
damaging in the long
run -- and, of course, I've seen that against black people, and about 
any "kind" of people
you might name.


>> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no descriptive value.

> Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.

OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)

David

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:

> andrel wrote:
> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
> 
> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
>   to be understood .... :)

Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty.  I've 
always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained 
instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you 
do in your life".  I've not completed my own pontifications on this 
definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to 
have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes 
it "knowledge" from their point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:00:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I
> think this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually
> certain this is the truth."
> 
> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know
> why."

This is a much better way of saying what I just tried to say....Thanks!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty. 

I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty 
gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you can 
know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how the 
universe started.

> 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 wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is defined.

The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without the 
justification, you just have a "good guess".

> 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.

I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just diluting 
the term.

What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent with 
the real world?  I.e., not the "instinctive" 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

David H. Burns wrote:
>> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As 
>> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.

> Are you speaking from experience?

To some extent, yes.

>> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
>> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know 
>> what attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't 
>> believe in god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually 
>> give me a convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I 
>> would know why."
> 
> It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has 
> actually said.

I wasn't talking about what he said. I was talking about my experiences in 
general discussing this sort of stuff. Jim just gave another good example: 
"I know *instinctively* that it's true."

> Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we 
> mean. You use of the
> terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)

I was saying precisely what I meant. ;-)  Faith is that which turns belief 
into "knowledge", altho I obviously use that latter term losely.

-- 
   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:
> You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated 
> against" in their
> modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in 
> themselves have little
> emotive content. 

Have you any evidence to back this assertion up?

> Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by 
> "discrimination" in the context
> we're using it here. 

Sure, as long as it includes (for example) not selling houses to people, or 
not giving them jobs, or things like that, even when it doesn't involve 
violence.

> Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing 
> a person which
> might not be describe by either term.

Sure. And when the president of the US gets up and says atheists shouldn't 
be considered citizens, it's pretty blatant there *is* prejudice going on.

> OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)

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?


-- 
   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 18:10:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first,
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive
>> certainty.
> 
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how
> the universe started.

I am not so certain about that.  But what you said (which I replied to 
later in the thread) actually more closely approximates what I'm trying 
to say here.  It's hard to explain.

>> 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 wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is
> defined.
> 
> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
> the justification, you just have a "good guess".

Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are 
some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.

>> 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.
> 
> I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just
> diluting the term.
> 
> What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent
> with the real world?  I.e., not the "instinctive" knowledge?

Learned knowledge.  But more to the point, instinctive knowledge isn't 
necessarily exclusive of learned knowledge.  I can instinctively know 
that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also 
prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive 
knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I am not so certain about that.

I'm sorry.

>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
> 
> Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are 
> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.

Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to say 
"that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not 
justified."  Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over 
whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.

> I can instinctively know 
> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also 
> prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive 
> knowledge.

That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.

-- 
   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 am not so certain about that. 

Actually, I'd go so far as to wonder whether it makes sense to talk about 
knowledge as "instinctive".  What is it that everyone (modulo birth defects 
etc) knows when they're born? That's instinct. Knowing how to *learn* a 
language is instinctive, but is it really knowledge? Is a falling pebble's 
compliance with the laws of gravity caused by instinctive knowledge of 
gravity by the pebble? If not, why is knowing how to learn a language 
"knowledge"? Does yanking your hand out of the fire have anything to do with 
knowing it's hot?

And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't 
instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read 
passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other such 
stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a natural 
tendency?

-- 
   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 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.

>>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
>> 
>> Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are
>> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
> 
> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
> justified."  Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.

Exactly my point.  People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that 
phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.  
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.  That's fine with me; I don't 
necessarily need that sort of certainty that we're here for a purpose or 
whatever.

>> I can instinctively know
>> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
>> prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
>> knowledge.
> 
> That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.

I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual 
cues.  I just knew it.  But the actual example isn't really the point, 
the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used 
hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:52:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I am not so certain about that.
> 
> Actually, I'd go so far as to wonder whether it makes sense to talk
> about knowledge as "instinctive".  What is it that everyone (modulo
> birth defects etc) knows when they're born? That's instinct. Knowing how
> to *learn* a language is instinctive, but is it really knowledge? Is a
> falling pebble's compliance with the laws of gravity caused by
> instinctive knowledge of gravity by the pebble? If not, why is knowing
> how to learn a language "knowledge"? 

There are good ways and bad ways to learn language.  That we have an 
instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies 
an instinctive knowledge.

> Does yanking your hand out of the
> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?

It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to 
make he pain go away.  Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive 
knowledge.

> And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't
> instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read
> passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other
> such stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a
> natural tendency?

Some people come to that conclusion without formal training.  I know 
several who are in that category.  I myself always had a particular idea 
about how the universe worked that nobody taught me, nor really that I 
figured out myself, I just seemed to know it.  Then I found that there 
were others who had a similar view and that it had a name.  Since then, 
I've kinda drifted because the "formal" part of that line of thinking 
didn't mesh as well as I thought it did.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I am not so certain about that.
>> I'm sorry.
> 
> Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with 
> not being certain about some things.

I suspect we're misunderstanding each other here. :-)  It sounded like you 
were saying you're not sure whether it's possible to have unlearned 
instinctive knowledge of how the universe was created.

>> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
>> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
>> justified."  Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
>> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
> 
> Exactly my point.  People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that 
> phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.

That's kind of the definition of "faith", you see. You don't have to be 
religious to be "faithful" that something is the case.

> It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality, 
> or it may coexist peacefully with reality.  There is a lot of uncertainty 
> in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that 
> there's something bigger out there.

Yes. I'm just disputing the word "knowledge."  I think using "knowledge" to 
mean the same as "faith" is diluting the word and making it useless for 
discourse. We already have a word for "knowledge for which I have no 
justification and which I wouldn't disbelieve regardless of presented 
evidence", and that's "faith".

> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual 
> cues.  I just knew it.  

You learned it before you built your model of the universe that includes 
yourself, and hence you were never self-aware before you learned that.

It happens when you're thrashing around, reaching for things, etc. That's 
why people hang stuff over the kid's bed, and give them toys to play with. 
That's what the "peekaboo" game is all about. For the first half a year, 
children don't even realize that things exist they aren't looking at, let 
alone that smaller things are farther away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_cognitive_development

I also understand informally from friends with children that it's about 18 
to 24 months before actual self-awareness develops, based on (for example) 
kids putting dolls in the doll-bath-tub rather than just banging the dolls 
on things. I.e., that's the age at which kids suddenly start thinking of 
other things (and people and animals) as having thoughts and personalities, 
rather than as parts of the environment they can't easily predict.

> But the actual example isn't really the point, 

I know that. I was just changing the subject. What? In off-topic? Shame on 
me! :-)

> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used 
> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).

Yes. I think it's possible to know the functioning of your own body, to a 
large extent. Even that isn't a given, tho.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/12s/the_strangest_thing_an_ai_could_tell_you/



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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> an instinctive knowledge.

What is the benefit of tacking the word on the end of that? Why is it 
"instinctive knowledge" and not just "instinct"?

>> Does yanking your hand out of the
>> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?
> 
> It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to 
> make he pain go away.  Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive 
> knowledge.

OK, so what everyone else calls "instinct" (or "reflex"), you call "knowledge".

> Some people come to that conclusion without formal training. 

Sure. But I specifically said "Christians" rather than something else to 
imply a substantive agreement with parts of the bible as written. I don't 
think it's unusual to have a tendency towards religion. Even atheists have 
days when they're convinced God hates them. ;-)

And I don't think you instinctively knew (or know) how the universe works. I 
think you learned it and didn't pay attention to having learned it, so 
you've forgotten you learned it.  Not that we'll ever know for sure.

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> 
>> andrel wrote:
>> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
>> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
>> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
>> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
>>   to be understood .... :)
> 
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty.  I've 
> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained 
> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you 
> do in your life".  I've not completed my own pontifications on this 
> definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to 
> have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes 
> it "knowledge" from their point of view.
> 
> Jim
Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time. 
People that act on such certainties tend to die, doing stupid things, 
which they where *certain* would work. The point of knowledge is, in 
part, to make you stop and go, "Huh, could I possibly be wrong about 
this?" lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, 
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive 
>> certainty. 
> 
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty 
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you 
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how 
> the universe started.
> 
Not even that you are hungry. Some people never really are hungry, so 
what they say when describing starving is not the feeling of needing 
food, but of just not having a full stomach, which is *not* the same 
thing. By the same token, someone with say, Downs Syndrome, among other 
diseases, is **incapable** of feeling hungry, even when they are eating 
themselves to death. Even instinctive processes can be distorted by 
real/false knowledge, or misinterpreted to say something entirely 
different than what is really transpiring. What *I* might see as a flash 
of incite, from myself, a religious person might, due to their 
perception of events, as the hand of god handing them an answer. And, we 
could say, with fair certainty, that the later was simply wrong, if we 
caught the *event* using a brain scan. We can even presume that its 
wrong, because we do know how such things happen, and that there has 
never been a case of *visible* outside intervention, which requires 
explanations beyond how the brain processes information.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual 
> cues.  I just knew it.  But the actual example isn't really the point, 
> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used 
> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
> 
> Jim

That you don't recall it isn't relevant, the process and stages by which 
such processes arise, how they work, and where they are in the brain, as 
well as how they can be derailed, destroyed, distorted, or disabled, 
temporarily or otherwise, are some of the ***most*** well studied 
aspects of cognitive processing we have. The issues neurology has, at 
this point, isn't, "How do you learn that distant objects look small?", 
its, "How do you decide that its still big enough to shoot at, *and* 
make the decision to do so?" You are talking about stuff that we 
actually use to make cameras and computers smarter, because we *know* 
how they work, and why. And, you don't have the ability from birth. You 
have to teach yourself how to tell that a distant object is the same as 
a close one, even though it *has* changed sizes. At a few weeks old, you 
didn't have the slightest clue, and neither does any other baby.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't
>> instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read
>> passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other
>> such stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a
>> natural tendency?
> 
> Some people come to that conclusion without formal training.  I know 
> several who are in that category.  I myself always had a particular idea 
> about how the universe worked that nobody taught me, nor really that I 
> figured out myself, I just seemed to know it.  Then I found that there 
> were others who had a similar view and that it had a name.  Since then, 
> I've kinda drifted because the "formal" part of that line of thinking 
> didn't mesh as well as I thought it did.
> 
> Jim
False perception. Before a certain age, almost no one remembers what 
they did or didn't *perceive*, and we have very clear cognitive studies 
that specify exactly when people *do* gain those things, as well as the 
earliest age that you are *likely* to remember things clearly. And, 
again, such perception is wrong a lot of the time, which is why magic 
tricks, visual tricks, etc. work **at all**. We learn, by handling the 
world around us, and experiencing it, what to expect in 99.9% of all 
cases, so.. you do something that fits in the other 0.1%, and our brains 
freak and start making things up, because it *can't* tell what is really 
going on. This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> False perception. Before a certain age, almost no one remembers what 
> they did or didn't *perceive*, and we have very clear cognitive studies 
> that specify exactly when people *do* gain those things, as well as the 
> earliest age that you are *likely* to remember things clearly. And, 
> again, such perception is wrong a lot of the time, which is why magic 
> tricks, visual tricks, etc. work **at all**. We learn, by handling the 
> world around us, and experiencing it, what to expect in 99.9% of all 
> cases, so.. you do something that fits in the other 0.1%, and our brains 
> freak and start making things up, because it *can't* tell what is really 
> going on. This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..

Reality throws curve balls sometimes, and graphs of real data are messy. 
  Saying 'almost no one' contradicts 'exactly when'.  Also, unless a 
study covers 100% of the population, you have to account for outliers.

Further, our brains make stuff up quite a bit.  Interpolation to fill in 
gaps in the senses, then the brain shmoozes it all together so we just 
see contiguous patterns.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a75d21b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I found these to be tedious and silly, myself. It wasn't an interesting 
> view on the nature of God, IMO. There was still all the unexplained 
> supernatural nonsense with a token toss of "science" into the mix.
>

Really? I enjoyed them. Which shows how people can react differently to 
things  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a766292$1@news.povray.org...
> There are good ways and bad ways to learn language.  That we have an
> instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
> an instinctive knowledge.
>

I doubt this very much. The case of the "wild childs" pleads against this. 
The "Aveyron child", in the 19th century, was unable to learn language once 
he was found in the wild. And other cases go in the same direction. So, 
language is taught by example, and is not instinctive. I am not sure, but I 
think this is also the common consensus among scientists.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:40:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I am not so certain about that.
>>> I'm sorry.
>> 
>> Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace
>> with not being certain about some things.
> 
> I suspect we're misunderstanding each other here. :-)  It sounded like
> you were saying you're not sure whether it's possible to have unlearned
> instinctive knowledge of how the universe was created.

We do have that habit a lot, don't we? ;-)

>> Exactly my point.  People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that
>> phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.
> 
> That's kind of the definition of "faith", you see. You don't have to be
> religious to be "faithful" that something is the case.

Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's 
based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from within 
rather than from external sources.

>> It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality,
>> or it may coexist peacefully with reality.  There is a lot of
>> uncertainty in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of
>> knowledge that there's something bigger out there.
> 
> Yes. I'm just disputing the word "knowledge."  I think using "knowledge"
> to mean the same as "faith" is diluting the word and making it useless
> for discourse. We already have a word for "knowledge for which I have no
> justification and which I wouldn't disbelieve regardless of presented
> evidence", and that's "faith".

There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts 
what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge".  There are 
some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the 
associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things 
that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.

In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this 
discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.

>> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
>> cues.  I just knew it.
> 
> You learned it before you built your model of the universe that includes
> yourself, and hence you were never self-aware before you learned that.
> 
> It happens when you're thrashing around, reaching for things, etc.
> That's why people hang stuff over the kid's bed, and give them toys to
> play with. That's what the "peekaboo" game is all about. For the first
> half a year, children don't even realize that things exist they aren't
> looking at, let alone that smaller things are farther away.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_cognitive_development
> 
> I also understand informally from friends with children that it's about
> 18 to 24 months before actual self-awareness develops, based on (for
> example) kids putting dolls in the doll-bath-tub rather than just
> banging the dolls on things. I.e., that's the age at which kids suddenly
> start thinking of other things (and people and animals) as having
> thoughts and personalities, rather than as parts of the environment they
> can't easily predict.

Perhaps.  Will have to think on this more.

>> But the actual example isn't really the point,
> 
> I know that. I was just changing the subject. What? In off-topic? Shame
> on me! :-)

LOL

>> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
>> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
> 
> Yes. I think it's possible to know the functioning of your own body, to
> a large extent. Even that isn't a given, tho.
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/12s/the_strangest_thing_an_ai_could_tell_you/

Will have to read that when I have more time.  It *sounds* interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:10:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..

Well, you may have a background in child development.  I don't.  Sheesh.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:44:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> an instinctive knowledge.
> 
> What is the benefit of tacking the word on the end of that? Why is it
> "instinctive knowledge" and not just "instinct"?
> 
>>> Does yanking your hand out of the
>>> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?
>> 
>> It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to
>> make he pain go away.  Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive
>> knowledge.
> 
> OK, so what everyone else calls "instinct" (or "reflex"), you call
> "knowledge".

Instinctive knowledge, actually.

>> Some people come to that conclusion without formal training.
> 
> Sure. But I specifically said "Christians" rather than something else to
> imply a substantive agreement with parts of the bible as written. I
> don't think it's unusual to have a tendency towards religion. Even
> atheists have days when they're convinced God hates them. ;-)

Well, yes, but I do think that many Christians don't have that certainty 
- they want to have it, but they don't.

> And I don't think you instinctively knew (or know) how the universe
> works. I think you learned it and didn't pay attention to having learned
> it, so you've forgotten you learned it.  Not that we'll ever know for
> sure.

True. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a766292$1@news.povray.org...
>> There are good ways and bad ways to learn language.  That we have an
>> instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
>> an instinctive knowledge.
>>
> 
> I doubt this very much. The case of the "wild childs" pleads against this. 
> The "Aveyron child", in the 19th century, was unable to learn language once 
> he was found in the wild. And other cases go in the same direction. So, 
> language is taught by example, and is not instinctive. I am not sure, but I 
> think this is also the common consensus among scientists.

I think people don't have an instinct for a particular language, but an 
instinct to learn whatever language they're around. Much like birds learn 
how to fly, pretty much reliably.

Of course, if you're entire raised around non-verbal beings, the instinct to 
try to learn is going to get frustrated, just like you can starve without 
food even tho you have an instinct to get hungry and eat when you need to.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.

Citation?

> People that act on such certainties tend to die, doing stupid things,
> which they where *certain* would work. The point of knowledge is, in
> part, to make you stop and go, "Huh, could I possibly be wrong about
> this?" lol

Knowledge doesn't imply self-examination.  Intelligence does.  Knowledge 
and intelligence are two different things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's 
> based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from within 
> rather than from external sources.

Certainly. But that doesn't make it knowledge, any more than being deluded 
into thinking you're Napoleon makes it "knowledge" that you are.

> There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts 
> what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
> washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge".  There are 
> some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the 
> associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things 
> that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.

Still not "knowledge" in my book. "Random stuff I'm sure of without any 
evidence" isn't knowledge.

> In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this 
> discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.

That's why I ruminate here so often. :-)


> Will have to read that when I have more time.  It *sounds* interesting.

It's all very cool. SciFi helps too. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, you may have a background in child development.  I don't.  Sheesh.

I suggest, if you're interested in this sort of stuff, you grab a popular 
book on child development, one or two on brain damage, some decent sci-fi 
that examines boundary conditions, and maybe an intro philosophy text.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:59:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's
>> based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from
>> within rather than from external sources.
> 
> Certainly. But that doesn't make it knowledge, any more than being
> deluded into thinking you're Napoleon makes it "knowledge" that you are.

A fair point, still will have to think about this more.

>> There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts
>> what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
>> washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge".  There
>> are some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the
>> associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things
>> that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.
> 
> Still not "knowledge" in my book. "Random stuff I'm sure of without any
> evidence" isn't knowledge.

Many years ago, I had a very bizzare experience driving home from work.  
As I got on the highway headed home, things seemed wrong, and I had 
absolute certainty that if I went my normal route home, something really 
bad was going to happen.  I could even pinpoint where the badness was 
likely to happen - getting off one highway onto another with a very short 
acceleration lane.  It was very late at night, so not a lot of traffic.

I changed my route home, I was that sure that something bad was going to 
happen.

To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.  Can't explain 
it, but the feeling even thinking about it now is much, much stronger 
than mere faith or belief.  I can't explain it.  Intellectually, I know 
it's unlikely anything was going to happen, but 15-ish years later, I 
still can't shake the feeling that the change in my route home was the 
right decision.

I suppose it's the sort of thing people who are more religious than me 
would attribute to "the protection of God" or something like that, but I 
don't.  I just instinctively knew that I needed to go home a different 
route.

>> In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this
>> discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.
> 
> That's why I ruminate here so often. :-)

Same here. :-)

>> Will have to read that when I have more time.  It *sounds* interesting.
> 
> It's all very cool. SciFi helps too. :-)

That it does. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:08:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, you may have a background in child development.  I don't. 
>> Sheesh.
> 
> I suggest, if you're interested in this sort of stuff, you grab a
> popular book on child development, one or two on brain damage, some
> decent sci-fi that examines boundary conditions, and maybe an intro
> philosophy text.

I've been thinking that I need to do more reading - so seems like an area 
that could give me something to engage my brain with.  Thanks!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.

No you don't. You just strongly believe it.  Had you opened the papers and 
the next morning found that a building had collapsed across that on-ramp, 
you still wouldn't have *known* it. You *still* would have only believed it. 
You had the true, and the belief, without the justification. (Unless, of 
course, you subconciously overheard a radio news station talking about 
demolition or something, in which case it's no longer really "instinctive.") 
And of course if you do it correctly and repeatedly, then it's worth looking 
into, but so far nobody has measured proper psi powers.

I know exactly what you're talking about, now.


Sometimes I wake from a dream, *knowing* I solved some problem while I was 
dreaming, but I just can't remember it now. Did I really solve the problem 
while I was dreaming, or am I just <ahem> dreaming?  How is your experience 
different?

> I suppose it's the sort of thing people who are more religious than me 
> would attribute to "the protection of God" or something like that, but I 
> don't.  I just instinctively knew that I needed to go home a different 
> route.

Sure. And when you read books about odd kinds of brain damage, with people 
who are neither blind nor sighted, with people who are absolutely convinced 
they had "out of the body" experiences yet can't see what's going on when 
you block something from their "body" eyes that their "soul" eyes could see, 
people who are utterly convinced that all their friends have been replaced 
with duplicates, etc, you realize no, you didn't know, you're just convinced 
you knew.

The very fact that you're convinced is what makes you think it's knowledge 
and not belief. Yet conviction is a state of mind. You're saying "because my 
brain has decided it's knowledge, that makes it knowledge and not just a 
hunch/guess/faith."

I really do believe there are faithful who have as much conviction about 
something as you did about your route home. I believe that's what a lot of 
the sudden unprompted "born again" stuff is about. I don't disparage that, 
but I don't count that as "knowledge" either.

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've been thinking that I need to do more reading - so seems like an area 
> that could give me something to engage my brain with.  Thanks!

Sci Fi:
   Greg Egan  (Sort of a PKDick of the brain)
     Permutation City
     Axiomatic
     The first chapter of Diaspora
     Quarantine
     (in that order of importance)

Brain damage:
   The man who mistook his wife for a hat

General how-stuff-works along with how-stuff-brakes:
   The Brains of Men and Machines
     Basically, a book describing the operation of human
     brains and bodies in terms of electronic circuits.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:47:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've been thinking that I need to do more reading - so seems like an
>> area that could give me something to engage my brain with.  Thanks!
> 
> Sci Fi:
>    Greg Egan  (Sort of a PKDick of the brain)
>      Permutation City
>      Axiomatic
>      The first chapter of Diaspora
>      Quarantine
>      (in that order of importance)
> 
> Brain damage:
>    The man who mistook his wife for a hat
> 
> General how-stuff-works along with how-stuff-brakes:
>    The Brains of Men and Machines
>      Basically, a book describing the operation of human brains and
>      bodies in terms of electronic circuits.

Fantastic, thanks - looks like a trip to the library is in order this 
week.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions? I thought
> "southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism 
> is dominant" was pretty descriptive, didn't you?
> 

So you mean that the "Bible Belt" is where "Protestant Fundamentalism" 
(another
prejudicial and emotive term) is "dominant" (whatever you mean by that). 
Why call it the
  "Bible Belt" and what real evidence was used in drawing the maps? And 
who drew them? :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual 
> cues.  I just knew it.  

You learned it. Visual clues are different in different societies and 
the misreading of them
can be a great source of misunderstanding.

David

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a75d21b$1@news.povray.org...
>> I found these to be tedious and silly, myself. It wasn't an interesting 
>> view on the nature of God, IMO. There was still all the unexplained 
>> supernatural nonsense with a token toss of "science" into the mix.
>>
> 
> Really? I enjoyed them. Which shows how people can react differently to 
> things  :-)
> 
> Thomas 
> 
> 
Tried to enjoy them, but there is only so many time you can watch, "The 
Blaire Witch Project", remade every week before you just have to sit 
back and think, "There people really are idiots." For me.. The threshold 
was one episode of morons wandering around going, "Did you hear that!", 
with night vision cameras aimed at their faces, and later "analyzing" 
the evidence for the same sort of random camera glitches and noise I get 
from well.. any camera or my computer speakers, if not grounded 
properly, and oohing over the ones that "sounded" or "looked", by random 
coincidence, like they where "directed by intelligence". Sadly, imho, 
those things seemed to be the only thing on those shows that hold that 
attribute. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:10:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..
> 
> Well, you may have a background in child development.  I don't.  Sheesh.
> 
> Jim
Actually, no I don't, but I read **a lot**, especially since, starting 
some 20 years ago, I had a fascination with AI, and the logical means to 
learn about why it didn't work well, once I found that, is to learn how 
the mind worked. My discovery was, sadly, that real brains don't work 
much better, they just have a more robust system of, "fill in the blanks 
and hope it works".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schreef in bericht 
>> news:4a766292$1@news.povray.org...
>>> There are good ways and bad ways to learn language.  That we have an
>>> instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
>>> an instinctive knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt this very much. The case of the "wild childs" pleads against 
>> this. The "Aveyron child", in the 19th century, was unable to learn 
>> language once he was found in the wild. And other cases go in the same 
>> direction. So, language is taught by example, and is not instinctive. 
>> I am not sure, but I think this is also the common consensus among 
>> scientists.
> 
> I think people don't have an instinct for a particular language, but an 
> instinct to learn whatever language they're around. Much like birds 
> learn how to fly, pretty much reliably.
> 
> Of course, if you're entire raised around non-verbal beings, the 
> instinct to try to learn is going to get frustrated, just like you can 
> starve without food even tho you have an instinct to get hungry and eat 
> when you need to.
> 
What usually happens is that they learn the body language and 
vocalizations of the species they are dealing with. In some cases, its 
easier to teach them basic signs, than teach them *spoken* language. The 
reason being, simply, that often body language, in species with a narrow 
range of ability to vocalize, use body posture and the like more to get 
across basic ideas. But, you are still dealing with a case where the 
person in question is being handed a more "limited" version of allowable 
responses, and thus loses the ability to learn more complex ones, 
especially dealing with vocal control and interpretation.

Sometimes I think this happens in cases of extreme indoctrination too. 
You find people who don't just misread/hear something you said, they 
seem to be almost **incapable** of parsing the meaning, based on any 
definition of an idea, other than their own, and most of them, a) can't 
change their definitions, and b) turn out to have lived isolated from 
alternate meanings, often to an unbelievable extent (no TV, no Internet, 
no books not approved, no friends outside the indoctrination 
environment, no contact with people who have differing views). It seems 
to warp their perceptions so badly that its not like they can't 
understand the word, but its like... how its sometimes described trying 
to learn an Asian language, when all your concepts are Western. Some 
things simply **don't** translate, and you end up trying to find a 
definition you *do* have, which fits the new word, despite the fact that 
no definition you possess fits the real meaning. And, in the case of 
*some* people isolated, by faiths, from the rest of humanity, for a long 
period of their early lives, unless they snuck stuff, or went to friends 
houses and saw it, etc., its like having a Brit ask you where to find 
the crisps, or if they can bum a fag. If you have no word for the 
former, and your entire universe has never contained a version of the 
later than involved tobacco... Only, the sort of problem I am talking 
about is actually *worse*, like, "What does the word 'evidence' or 
'theory' mean to these people?"

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:59:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's
>>> based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from
>>> within rather than from external sources.
>> Certainly. But that doesn't make it knowledge, any more than being
>> deluded into thinking you're Napoleon makes it "knowledge" that you are.
> 
> A fair point, still will have to think about this more.
> 
>>> There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts
>>> what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
>>> washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge".  There
>>> are some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the
>>> associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things
>>> that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.
>> Still not "knowledge" in my book. "Random stuff I'm sure of without any
>> evidence" isn't knowledge.
> 
> Many years ago, I had a very bizzare experience driving home from work.  
> As I got on the highway headed home, things seemed wrong, and I had 
> absolute certainty that if I went my normal route home, something really 
> bad was going to happen.  I could even pinpoint where the badness was 
> likely to happen - getting off one highway onto another with a very short 
> acceleration lane.  It was very late at night, so not a lot of traffic.
> 
> I changed my route home, I was that sure that something bad was going to 
> happen.
> 
> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.  Can't explain 
> it, but the feeling even thinking about it now is much, much stronger 
> than mere faith or belief.  I can't explain it.  Intellectually, I know 
> it's unlikely anything was going to happen, but 15-ish years later, I 
> still can't shake the feeling that the change in my route home was the 
> right decision.
> 
> I suppose it's the sort of thing people who are more religious than me 
> would attribute to "the protection of God" or something like that, but I 
> don't.  I just instinctively knew that I needed to go home a different 
> route.
> 

There are a lot of people with experiences like this and some who appear
at times to have accurate foreknowledge and knowledge (or perhaps)
perception. I don't think these experiences fit well into any theory of 
how the mind
and brain work. But I think you may be using the word "instinctive", in 
any but
a very loose sense, to these. Of course one of the common and, I 
suppose, legitimate
uses of the word "instinctive" is to describe knowledge or feelings 
(learned or unlearned)
that are so deeply ingrained in us that it doesn't occur to us to doubt 
it --until after the event,
perhaps. But that use shouldn't be confused with the way a scientist or 
a philosopher
would use the term.

David

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
> 
> Citation?
> 
Uh.. Such numbers are also made up and wrong, more than half the time? lol

Seriously though, I don't know the actual number, or have a cite, but I 
*have* seen cases dealing with cognition, where you can not only get 
50-50 fails, but even 99% failures. One of the best examples is the, 
"two people with a big sign walking rudely between two people talking.", 
experiment they run, yearly, at some colleges, for their psychology 
experiments. The one where they replace the person asking the question 
of some random person with someone the wrong height, dressed wrong, in 
clothing some **totally** different color, or even the wrong gender, and 
like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The 
brain just starts over where it was interrupted, so long as the 
conversation "seems" to be the same, and ignore **everything** else. The 
replacement could probably be standing their nude and the only reaction 
you would get was, "Damn, I didn't realize when you came up that you 
where nude.", not, "Where the hell did the original person I was talking 
to go?"

The ease by which the mind can be tricked is actually quite scary.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions? I 
>> thought
>> "southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism 
>> is dominant" was pretty descriptive, didn't you?
>>
> 
> So you mean that the "Bible Belt" is where "Protestant Fundamentalism" 
> (another
> prejudicial and emotive term) is "dominant" (whatever you mean by that). 
> Why call it the
>  "Bible Belt" and what real evidence was used in drawing the maps? And 
> who drew them? :)
> 
> David
> 
Same as most such data-

1. Self reporting of religious affiliation.
2. Lists of registered churches.
3. Stated views and objectives of the same, from their own mouths.
4. Self reporting of what the congregation members *in* those places 
*say* they believe.

You know, that sort of stuff.


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message