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.
that is correct, you are failing to communicate.
there is nothing wrong with Trans he is asking valid questions, and making very good points. there is no need for the sarcasm and snottiness and condescension. You can be a real snob and you are talking down to people. again.
if you cant describe and communicate what you are trying to get across, that is on you. not the readers.
if something is that convoluted then how useful is it?
yeah, we aren't guilty of that ourselves sometimes.
I have to say, the length of the circle talk is amazing. I am not sure if it done intentionally because the base notion seems simple enough.
"seeing" red is a function of the mechanism processing it. That is true. Like the density of the air the photon travels. One person looking through water and another looking through mostly nitrogen. There are two "reds" right there. The universe processed both. The velocity of the object relative to the observer, ei, how fast is it moving? A red object moving away fast enough (but not at or above C) may not be seen at all while a red object moving at somebody could look blue. Again, both "reds" are a function of mechanism processing the information. the universe processed all four so far.
the nature of the wiring from eye to brain. Copper, Iron, carbon? how about an axion? all sending down the single just a little different. Four more variation's of red that the universe just processed.
Human's agree to "red" for communication reasons, not some special universal code that tells us what red is. Because "red", I will use a photon here, is subject to many conditions that can change some of the properties of that photon or the perception of the photon.
In fact, everything we describe is a human description. that makes it "subjective", But it also shouldn't stop us from doing the best we can with what we gotz in describing "how the universe works".
yeah, we aren't guilty of that ourselves sometimes.
Things can be stated simply.
True wisdom is simple.
If it cant be explained using ordinary language in terms everyone can understand then it is likely being made unnecessarily convoluted and complex. People often do this because it makes them feel superior to others.
Every specialized area of study has its own jargon and technical terms. If that's all a person uses however it indicates an inability to communicate (and perhaps function) outside that limited and narrow range.
Trans has a really good point in one thread about people losing their connection to reality. People who get so deeply absorbed in UFOs or conspiracy theories or scripture or invented what ifs that they disconnect from reality. This is reflected in an inability to communicate in a way people understand, inability to relate to anyone outside that very narrow arena, and lack of being grounded in ordinary reality.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-08-2018 at 06:50 AM..
Things can be stated simply.
True wisdom is simple.
If it cant be explained using ordinary language in terms everyone can understand then it is likely being made unnecessarily convoluted and complex. People often do this because it makes them feel superior to others.
Every specialized area of study has its own jargon and technical terms. If that's all a person uses however it indicates an inability to communicate (and perhaps function) outside that limited and narrow range.
Yup, I agree. But I understand him.
Trap, there is many layers to this. I don't think he is condescending really. I see frustration, but that is to be expected. remember trap, he is a philosopher. As such, they use "if" as anchor points that may, or may not be real. when those "if" don't have a "real number" sometimes, it takes a ton of circling to support it.
Mystic ends the cycling by openly, and honestly, claiming, "I don't have proof but I have my feeling".
I give both of them credit in that they just don't run away from the tough data and they don't deny, minimize, or shun, data that doesn't fit their statement of belief about god (for or against). They offer a counter explanations.
rejection of a claim without offering a counter explanation is like faith without works.
also, grey is modifying his beliefs by discussing them. I have found, the best way to strengthen a belief is to discuss it with people that don't agree and can talk about it. I did it here. The more I talk to the anti-religious denomination of atheism the stronger my statement becomes. They have forced me to defend it well past what one would consider rational conditional changes.
Its like you said, I have to "adjust it down" for the executive function disconnects. Grey is working that out now. That is not the same as dumbing it down because they are "not smart" by how we define 'smart'. executive function disconnects is completely separate. People who write well and have good memory for a list of facts can cover up executive function disconnects" to/for most of the population.
J.r. posted in March: "The primary problem that intellectuals have is that they generally believe that because they are 'smarter' their beliefs hold more weight. What they have in knowledge they often lack in experience, thus the phrase ivory tower elitists. Yet despite these attitudes, in my experience, these people are the most out of touch with reality.'
Things can be stated simply.
True wisdom is simple.
If it cant be explained using ordinary language in terms everyone can understand then it is likely being made unnecessarily convoluted and complex. People often do this because it makes them feel superior to others.
Every specialized area of study has its own jargon and technical terms. If that's all a person uses however it indicates an inability to communicate (and perhaps function) outside that limited and narrow range.
Trans has a really good point in one thread about people losing their connection to reality. People who get so deeply absorbed in UFOs or conspiracy theories or scripture or invented what ifs that they disconnect from reality. This is reflected in an inability to communicate in a way people understand, inability to relate to anyone outside that very narrow arena, and lack of being grounded in ordinary reality.
Thanks Tzaph.
Getting into UFO's, alternative history and in fact questions and theopries about anything is fine (I have been watching a series of Biggest Fibs in British history) but I believe that one must stay anchored to reality, which means to the preference for validated research over guesswork theories, and sticking to the rules of logic; they are there for a purpose.
I have seen too many who lost their connection with rationality and, with whatever pops into their head being taken as true because nobody could disprove it, their brains go sailing off "Right out into the Universe" (1) and never come back.
(1) My mate Jerry and I always laugh about this. One fellow in the audience at a UFO meeting got up to give an account of a LITs (Lights in the sky) sighting. There was a murmur of 'how could you be sure it was a flying saucer'.
Dr Chhabria states " Wisdom is defined as an understanding and realisation of the environment, and using this observation to have an objective outlook of the world. It requires one to be in control of his/her emotions, reactions and actions. This is better understood by what we call emotional intelligence, which is a part of intelligence that involves the ability, capacity, skill or a self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and of groups. Without the above, knowledge may hold no value.
"The negative side of an intellectual snob (or low emotional intelligence) may make the person arrogant, judgmental, rigid, stubborn, critical, egoistic, non-adjusting, difficult, authoritative and dominant."
Intellectual Snob
One who uses intellect as a hammer to beat on others
"They tend to become judgmental about others to boost their own egos. Their interactions, interpersonal relations as well as communication with others may be based on the criteria of their definition of intelligence. Some of them may be suffering from a low self-esteem and so they try to compensate for it with an elevated superiority complex."
Because it isn't a mathematical problem, it is a simple logical problem. two of those are even. You can repeat the experiment a million times and it isn't going to change.
Yes. Exactly. And that is my point. You can simply see the truth of it without any need for any long-winded formal mathematical proofs. (BTW: And even if you did need a formal proof, the formal proof would do you no good whatsoever unless, ultimately, you were able to see the basic logic that serves as the ultimate grounds of the proof.) With basic logic, you simply see the truth of it. Period. That's the way that most of basic logic works. For me, the fact that one cannot derive qualia from purely objective/abstract terms appears to be basic logic - just as clear and simple and powerful as the fact that one cannot derive an odd number from purely even numbers.
I seem to be in a minority in this thread at the moment and, if this was my only experience with talking about this stuff, I would seriously doubt my sanity. I am not kidding. But in the larger worlds of philosophy and cognitive science I am not alone - in fact I am arguing on the side of the vast majority of academics. Very few philosophers or cognitive scientists defend eliminative materialism or complete reductionism. It is basically a "fringe" view, but it is nevertheless taken somewhat seriously just because a few of its advocates are highly respected philosophers.
Of course I want to be clear about this: I'm not offering this "majority position" stuff as any sort of argument in favor of my position. We don't get to determine truth by majority vote. All I'm doing is trying to explain why I feel fairly comfortable with the idea that I am probably not insane. If I am, in fact, completely out of touch with reality on this, then I am in good company with a majority of the greatest minds of modern science and philosophy - which I don't find comforting because - all things considered - I'd much rather be in a fringe minority who are correct than be comfortably wrong holding a majority view. If you are correct about reductionism, then I am jealous.
Also, the fact that you don't understand me is not a sign that you are crazy either. There is something peculiar about this particular logical conundrum. If I could somehow get a better grasp of your view, I would probably also get a better grasp of my own. My best guess is that the truth is somewhere in the murky gray fog between us.
Bottom line: I'm fascinated by the reductionist/behaviorist/logical-positivist views (which, BTW, historically took root in the early 1900s and started losing favor in the 1980s, but some influences still remain in the form of "eliminativism", as I mention above) and I'm fascinated by my inability communicate this concept of the subjective qualitative aspects of experience - a concept that seems like a matter of such basic logic to me. You can't relay on purely abstract terms to fully explain the concrete first-person qualities of experience. You just can't. But I also can't use purely abstract terms to prove that I am right about this, so I seem to be stuck unless I can somehow use my writing abilities to inspire some direct insight into the basic logic that I think underlies my position. How does one use communicative skills to inspire intuitive insight into an issue of foundational logic? That is the question that keeps haunting me. And, on the flip side, what can someone like you say that will give me the ah-ha that helps me see exactly where the intuitive differences are rooted? There is gold in them there hills, if we could just figure out how to mine it.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-08-2018 at 08:27 AM..
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.
