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

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