Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK let's talk about obstacles to learning
and flawed logic
let's use the calculus / not knowing how to count to 10 example /
there is a classroom with people discussing various calculus problems.
a person wanders in and does not know what they are talking about, and he tells them it is nonsense. he demands they tell him what they're talking about. they start to explain it and he says it is nonsense and doesn't make sense so they are making it up. they wave him away and tell him to go to the classroom down the hall where people are learning how to count to 10.
what needs to be in place for the person to learn how to count to 10? here are some that come to mind, what else would you put on this list? desire to learn, willingness to learn, willingness to admit they don't know how to count to 10, someone for them to learn from, ability to ask questions, ability to listen, willingness to do homework problems, make mistakes, study, practice.
obstacles to learning how to count to 10: numbers don't exist; people who claim there are numbers are not being honest, they are making it up; i've been hearing about numbers for 20 years and nobody will show me how to count to ten, therefore they are making it up; i've looked at the calculus book and it is nonsense; it must be explained to me using only letters, not numbers, otherwise it is made up nonsense; i don't like the teachers; i don't need numbers because i have letters.
the language of calculus will never make sense if a person insists that numbers don't exist and numbers are made up nonsense and if you claim numbers exist then you are dishonest because they are not listed in the alphabet book and something can only be substantiated by using letters therefore numbers don't exist and you are being dishonest and talking nonsense.
Learning goes better when there are statements along the lines of "i don't understand, this does not make sense to me, how does it work, i have a problem with this part here." Rather than being told you are making it up, this is nonsense, you are dishonest.
Wrong on two counts.
(a) we know that numbers are a man -made convenience like the calendar. And like grammar. However the rules seems to be more consistent than grammar, so maybe you are wrong on three counts.
(b) numbers and calculation are based on reality. Two rocks plus two rocks are what we call four rocks and all the Quantum mechanics there are won't change that. The astonishment of finding that Ug knows that when you brought two rocks of the four he gave you, you kept two back would e replaced by excitement of finding other that other rules work, too.
I don't know what was the point you were trying to make, but whatever it is, you haven't made it.
it's not about changing what you believe, that's not the point
it's about realizing that people are fluent in areas that you are not
if a person chooses to use only letters (or be fluent only in the physical), that is their choice
others choose to use letters and numbers (or be fluent in both the physical and the spirit)
for those fluent in spirit, spiritual principles are demonstrably sound.
my observation is that the conclusion put forth as "spirit is not credible," is from trying to do math using letters instead of numbers. due to the obstacles described in previous classroom example.
There are people who claim to be "fluent" in international finance who occasionally call other people stating for instance that some persecuted sympathetic character in some oppressive country has fled to the US and your help is needed transferring their martyred father's fortune to the US. In exchange for transferring this $50 million dollars you will receive a service fee of $500,000. All you have to do is open a bank account and send them a processing fee of $1,000 and the money is yours.
Now ... do I just ASSUME this person is legit, or do I judge the probability that they are legit and, hopefully, decline to believe them? Being aware that this is a classic Nigerian Internet scam, in particular, how credulous should I be?
People claim all sorts of things and some of them are as credible as professional mathematicians and some are not.
You are attempting the opposite of guilt by association, which is credibility by association (combined in this case with argument from presumed authority). You are attempting to get some of the hard-earned credibility that calculus and addition have earned to rub off on spirituality. Unfortunately claims about the realm of spirit must earn credence just like any other claims.
I don't know what was the point you were trying to make, but whatever it is, you haven't made it.
if a person claims numbers do not exist, they are not able to understand math. since they claim numbers do not exist, they state that everyone who claims to do math is a dishonest liar making it up. however, there are people who are fluent in math.
if a person claims spirit does not exist, they are not able to understand spirit and divinity. since they claim spirit does not exist, they state that everyone who discusses spirit is a dishonest liar making it up. however there are people who are fluent in spirit.
Being aware that this is a classic Nigerian Internet scam, in particular, how credulous should I be? People claim all sorts of things and some of them are as credible as professional mathematicians and some are not.
You are attempting to get some of the hard-earned credibility that calculus and addition have earned to rub off on spirituality. Unfortunately claims about the realm of spirit must earn credence just like any other claims.
yes there are internet money scams. a person uses their discernment or learns from choices that turned out badly. can you see the problem though with saying "he stole money from me therefore all bankers, financial planners, investment specialists are liars cheats and frauds."
i am pointing out the problem with equating "i was in a horrible relationship with an abusive man" to "therefore all men are pigs" and "anyone who says they are happily married is a dishonest liar making it up"
i am pointing out the glaring flaw in equating "i don't understand, that doesn't happen in my life" with "therefore you are making it up"
if a person is not fluent in spirit, fine. but other people are fluent in spirit. they have moved way beyond denying that numbers exist and are over here doing calculus. for them it is basic and obvious, both physical and spirit. for others it is not, only the physical.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-26-2016 at 07:02 PM..
if a person claims numbers do not exist, they are not able to understand math. since they claim numbers do not exist, they state that everyone who claims to do math is a dishonest liar making it up. however, there are people who are fluent in math.
if a person claims spirit does not exist, they are not able to understand spirit and divinity. since they claim spirit does not exist, they state that everyone who discusses spirit is a dishonest liar making it up. however there are people who are fluent in spirit.
Where your analogy fails is that numbers and abusive spouses can be demonstrated. Not only can this spiritual world not be demonstrated, but we have no mechanism to even attempt to demonstrate it.
Claiming unique knowledge about anything does not make one an expert or even credible unless it can be demonstrated.
Where your analogy fails is that numbers and abusive spouses can be demonstrated. Not only can this spiritual world not be demonstrated, but we have no mechanism to even attempt to demonstrate it.
Claiming unique knowledge about anything does not make one an expert or even credible unless it can be demonstrated.
spirit is also demonstrated. it is explored and participated in and experienced using tools and perceptions that every person has. if someone is unwilling to use these tools and perceptions, or denies they exist, that is an obstacle to learning or becoming fluent. spirit it is not "unique knowledge" because everyone has soul, just like every human has a body.
[we're going off topic / sorry about that mods / perhaps this can continue elsewhere]
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-26-2016 at 08:06 PM..
i am pointing out the glaring flaw in equating "i don't understand, that doesn't happen in my life" with "therefore you are making it up"
Just to be clear, I don't deny that spiritual happenings are real to some people or even suggest that the experiences are imaginary. They are generally real experiences. I simply don't read nearly so much as some folks into, say, the hair standing up on the back of my neck or something moving me to tears. And I tend to question apparent patterns that I discern when those patterns tend to support my own wishes, hopes and desires rather than the more prosaic simpler and more economical explanations that could equally well apply.
In my experience spirituality is the triumph of hope over experience. That is an aphorism usually applied to remarriage but I think it's way more appropriate for spirituality frankly.
OK let's talk about obstacles to learning and flawed logic
Your talking about it rather than talking WITH it would indeed be a welcome change. Lets go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
let's use the calculus / not knowing how to count to 10 example
What do you mean lets use it? We already used it. And as I said it was a very effective analogy in highlighting your ongoing failure here. Because in your analogy to people not being able to count or understand calculus.... I showed how someone like me who CAN do both of these things, really well in fact, can take the time and effort to teach someone who can not. And I have not yet met a person who could not, with the right application of time and energy, be led to a working understanding of these things.
The contrast the analogy shows is to your abjectly refusing ANY effort to get you to engage in the substantive content of the topics you are making assertions in. Topics such as the existence of an after life or a god. Unlike me, who can lead a person ignorant of maths to a point of knowledge, you are simply dodging and retreating from ANY effort to get you to lead me to whatever evidence or knowledge you have been pretending to have on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
they start to explain it and he says it is nonsense and doesn't make sense so they are making it up.
Such people do exist alas, and there is very little one can do about it. No matter how much evidence you give them, they have already decided it is bunk, so they simply ignore the evidence and keep screaming "nonsense". We get this, above all I think, in the subject of evolution for example.
But again this analogy does not hold here because people like me are NOT viewing your arguments and evidence and screaming "nonsense" at you regardless. Why? Because you have not OFFERED any arguments or evidence in the first place. So the analogy to the person going in to a class room, being offered the evidence, and ignoring it.... simply does not hold here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
obstacles to learning how to count to 10: numbers don't exist; people who claim there are numbers are not being honest
And in that situation, one I have ACTUALLY been in as it happens, I would sit down and explain basic number theory (set theory) to the person and explain just what numbers are and how we have defined them. Simples. And at the end I would.... if this person still screams "nonsense".... ask him to explain the flaw in what I have explained to him.
AGAIN this is not what is happening between you and I however. You have not offered anything for me to abjectly ignore as in your analogy. You are spouting phrases like "willingness to learn" but they do not apply because I could not BE more willing. You are simply pretending otherwise, to cop out of the fact you have not even OFFERED anything to be learned or judged or considered. That is the difference between your imaginary analogy, and the reality we have observed on threads such as this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Learning goes better when there are statements along the lines of "i don't understand, this does not make sense to me, how does it work, i have a problem with this part here." Rather than being told you are making it up, this is nonsense, you are dishonest.
Learning goes better when you first OFFER something to be learned, so that a person like me can say things like "I don't understand this...." and so forth. Try it sometime. It would, alas, be a first for you. But it would certainly progress this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the problem is the glaringly flawed logic of making the leap from "i don't understand" to "therefore you are making it up and you know you are making it up and you are dishonest"
Yet that is not the leap I am actually making, despite your pretense to the contrary. The leap I am making is from "You have not substantiated your assertions in any way whatsoever" to "Therefore I suspect you are making it all up". It's the glaring problem of equating "i have different views" with "I could not be bothered substantiating mine to you".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
i have no interest in changing anyone's views on religion.
Nor am I asking you to, thats the funny part of you continuing to say this line. I will do the changing of my OWN views on religion thanks. All I am asking YOU to do is tell me what the substantiation behind your assertions is. Then in MY time with my OWN effort I will consider what you have offered (thus far NOTHING as it happens) and decide for myself if my mind or views need to be changed.
See the difference? It is subtle I admit, but it is not small.
the problem is the glaringly flawed logic of making the leap from "i don't understand" to "therefore you are making it up and you know you are making it up and you are dishonest"
It isn't even necessary flawed logic, but rather flawed character. It is disreputable behavior rather than irrational thinking.
spirit is also demonstrated. it is explored and participated in and experienced using tools and perceptions that every person has. if someone is unwilling to use these tools and perceptions, or denies they exist, that is an obstacle to learning or becoming fluent. spirit it is not "unique knowledge" because everyone has soul, just like every human has a body.
[we're going off topic / sorry about that mods / perhaps this can continue elsewhere]
Go ahead and demonstrate this claim. Unless you have a unique definition for the word "soul", thousands have been searching for it for hundreds of years with no luck. Your input could a significant breakthrough in these efforts.
I think this is on topic because it demonstrates the requirements "internet atheism" places on those who make unsubstantiated claims, notwithstanding any possible demonstration of yours that proves the existence of a soul/spirit. Of course we'll need a definition so that we can know when your demonstration has been successful. Tell me what tools I must use to help in this venture and I will indeed summon them for this purpose.
By claiming that "spirit" is not unique knowledge proves that your calculus analogy is indeed weak because I believe we can all agree that proficiency in calculus is indeed a unique type of knowledge, one very difficult to understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
