RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 10:52:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

The alternative to Aswad's position is to implicity trust that anything one believes oneself to know must actually be true, a stunning conceit that is without doubt the single most notable characteristic of virtually every pestilent whacko who has ever infested humankind.



It's also the conceit of someone who stays alive by jumping off the railway track rather than getting splattered by what he believes he knows is an oncoming train. Just saying.

Yes. There are benefits to be had from real world testing of your beliefs. Something the religious try to ignore in their posturing, or avoid by claiming otherworldly beliefs are not subject to materialisting prediction and testing.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 11:09:18 AM)

quote:

These post-modern thinkers you speak of, to whatever degree correct, are not going back far enough, they are speaking to that one transition alone. It is obvious in reading the first religious texts that a number of "secular" items were 'smuggled in' to that process.

The problem is that the further back one goes prior to 1440 [Guttenberg] the less reliable are the tracts that were laboriously hand copied by scribes, and often only fragments survive. So, there is a great deal of uncertainty about ancient religious texts, don't you agree?

quote:

In any case, humans are innately curious and innately social, and the desire to understand the world (universe) and the need to find a way to deal with each other are what begat religion and philosophy.

As well as power, war, and slavery. I wonder if you give intellectual curiosity too much credit in the neat and tidy development of social institutions, which I doubt were really neat and tidy. Well, even current social institutions, religions, philosophies, and science are hardly neat and tidy, I think. Just rhetorical musings. [:)]



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 1:19:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

The alternative to Aswad's position is to implicity trust that anything one believes oneself to know must actually be true, a stunning conceit that is without doubt the single most notable characteristic of virtually every pestilent whacko who has ever infested humankind.


It's also the conceit of someone who stays alive by jumping off the railway track rather than getting splattered by what he believes he knows is an oncoming train. Just saying.


Well damn, I'd have thought that one of the most highly educated people using these forums - possibly *the* most highly educated - would have been able to recognize that jumping out of the way of an oncoming train can hardly be said to establish that someone implicitly trusts that anything they believe themself to know must be true.

Looks like you proved me wrong again. [:)]

K.



PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 1:35:33 PM)

Tell me, K, were you born this sarcastic or did it come as a result of many years of spiritual training?



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 2:19:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Tell me, K, were you born this sarcastic or did it come as a result of many years of spiritual training?

Actually, it developed in graduate school from dealing with certain professors and (ironically, or maybe not) severely paranoid clinic patients, who shared in common a mistaken belief that they were the smartest people on the planet, a modestly held "little secret" (to use your own apt description) which, like you, they were happy to divulge to anyone who would listen.

Thanks for asking.

K.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 2:27:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I've been pointing out that error to you for several pages now.


Perhaps it's time to stop pointing out what you see as an error and start considering whether it actually is.

quote:

You seem to be thinking that I don't get what you're saying, I do get it, I'm perfectly well familiar with solipsism. I just don't buy into conspiracy theories without good reason to do so.


And I neither buy into it, nor buy into it being false, because I've no reason to go with either assumption.

quote:

Um that wikipedia is really overstating the dictionary entry it's citing as a source


And you're overstating your own dictionary entry, seemingly toward the goal of refusing to acknowledge a concept simply because you don't have a word for it you're happy with.

quote:

With an arbitrary choice of axioms logic can from there be used to determine that either conclusion is correct or any other conclusion one wants to reach for that matter.


Quite so.

quote:

Thing is you've got a conspiracy theory in there mucking up your whole line of reasoning to get to that conclusion.


Uhm... so, I assert that familiarity frequently gives the illusion of self-evidentiality, a fairly well established fact, and suddenly I've got a conspiracy theory in there because I advocate being distrustful of assumptions when we know we humans are prone to biases and many different faults?

quote:

This is an example of what I'm talking about, that one bad position breaks all sorts of other stuff down the line. You've put solipsism is credible in and unicorns are credible pops out:


Never said I believe- or disbelieve- solipsism or unicorns.

I've said they're credible, in the sense of "I've no evidence to suggest this can't be", which is not the same as saying "I've evidence to support that this indeed is". Compare a witness statement. If what is said contradicts the evidence, the witness will not be credible. If what is said is compatible with the evidence, the witness will be credible, but not necessarily true.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 2:27:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Tell me, K, were you born this sarcastic or did it come as a result of many years of spiritual training?

Actually, it developed in graduate school from dealing with certain professors and (ironically, or maybe not) severely paranoid clinic patients, who shared in common a mistaken belief that they were the smartest people on the planet, a modestly held "little secret" (to use your own apt description) and one which, like you, they were happy to divulge to anyone who would listen.

Thanks for asking.

K.


Well, whatever. I suffer from supreme arrogance, and/or some kind of severe psychotic issue. Most of all, though, and as far as I'm concerned, I suffer from sheer bloody tiredness.

This is kids' stuff. Shall we move on?



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 2:32:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Shall we move on?

Sounds like a good plan. Let's go with it.

K.



GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 2:46:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Unfortunately, I can't always explain everything to everyone.

That is, given enough time, I can break down arbitrarily complex ideas into something that the target person can follow, of course, but just like writing up a set of guitar tabs won't give you an ear for music, or teach you improvisation, having me break things down doesn't help people understand something if they don't have what it takes. I like to credit people with having what it takes, and so I assumed you hadn't been applying yourself. If you have, then me breaking it down for you isn't going to do shit for your comprehension.

I don't much like to brag, probably a consequence of Jante Law (a Scandinavian secular cultural phenomenon), but the simple fact of the matter is I overestimate people, what they can do, what should be obvious to them, when in truth about one in a million humans could do what to me is as natural and intuitive as breathing.


I know I keep saying this but I do get it, you've explained your position to me, I understand what you're saying. That's nor the issue, what's happening is that I reject your conspiracy theory. I've been through this a bunch of times with a number of different conspiracy theories.

Stereotypically here's how the conversation goes. The conspiracy theorist upon finding out that his audience doesn't buy into his position figures they must not be aware of said conspiracy theory and pulls out the Circle of Reason. The audience explains they are perfectly well aware of said conspiracy theory and that informing them of it is quite unnecessary but the conspiracy theorist pushes on undaunted.

He explains that the evidence is invalidated by his conspiracy theory and then explains that his conspiracy theory is validated by the lack of evidence.

Upon finishing he's surprised that his audience hasn't been swayed by the obvious truth of the Circle of Reason and begins repeating himself despite the face palms and protests. This step can go on for quite some time but eventually he gets that somehow the Circle of Reason just isn't working. Typically at this point the conspiracy theorist gets noticeably butt hurt and informs his audience that they clearly aren't intelligent enough to comprehend his conspiracy theory.

I've sat through the whole song and dance plenty of times, I really do get how it works.

[image]local://upfiles/566126/0B8A3F725F0849C2B7E5D5D3B76913F3.jpg[/image]



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 3:16:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
That's precisely because I don't implicitly trust that anything I believe myself to know has any actual truth to it.

I hope that I'm misunderstanding this because what I'm seeing sounds seriously mentally unhealthy.


Well, to put your mind at ease, the best and brightest in the psychiatric field around these parts say I'm mentally healthy, save for chronic depression. I'm also not the dimmest bulb around, nor is self insight my weak point, so in the future you may leave concerns about the integrity of my mind to myself and the people actively studying me.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 3:27:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

It's also the conceit of someone who stays alive by jumping off the railway track rather than getting splattered by what he believes he knows is an oncoming train. Just saying.


C'mon, Peon... it's not the exclusive province of those that are entirely certain to act in accordance with the best available evidence.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 3:38:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Problem is you are now mucking the issue of axioms with values.


No, the "problem" is, it comes down to givens (since y'all are allergic to expanding the meaning of the word "axiom"), and values are just that: givens. Values are one of many starting points you can apply logic to, which is pretty much what the thing we call ethics comes down to. If you integrate all motive elements, the whole "problem" disappears. And, yes, as you say, if it fits your own givens, any fatwa can be a reasonable conclusion, whether it's "kill Rushdie" or "dronebomb some pakis". The question is one of compatibility, which may illustrate why your earlier examples make no sense to compare without moving it up to that level.

quote:

Now, Obama's premise may be faulty and the logical conclusion does not lead to the desired effects or there are unintended consequences which are more harmful to the cause.


Of course.

quote:

In a similar vein, the use of the existence of a supernatural world as an axiom for logical outcomes in the material world is faulty, unless you can come up with an instance where such a premise has lead to a logical prediction that worked in the world of Nature.


Positing something as absurd and supernatural as "life has value" leads to a number of interesting, useful outcomes.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 3:44:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I know I keep saying this but I do get it, you've explained your position to me, I understand what you're saying. That's nor the issue, what's happening is that I reject your conspiracy theory. I've been through this a bunch of times with a number of different conspiracy theories.


What is the unifying theme?

And what's my conspiracy theory?

I'm kind of curious, since I've never really gotten into it here.

quote:

Stereotypically here's how the conversation goes. The conspiracy theorist upon finding out that his audience doesn't buy into his position figures they must not be aware of said conspiracy theory and pulls out the Circle of Reason. The audience explains they are perfectly well aware of said conspiracy theory and that informing them of it is quite unnecessary but the conspiracy theorist pushes on undaunted.


Okay, so nothing like what's going on here, then.

quote:

I've sat through the whole song and dance plenty of times, I really do get how it works.


Feel free to demonstrate it at any time.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 3:51:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I really do get how it works.

We all get how it works. You dismiss something as a "conspiracy theory," people point out that you don't know what you're talking about, and then you claim that proves that they fell for it.

K.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 4:24:10 PM)

Circular reasoning 101:

1. You're sure you get my position.
2. The position you're getting is wrong.
3. I assert you're not getting my position.
4. You say I'm mistaken, because:
5. Goto 1.

Now, you could be right, or you could be wrong, but you're the one chasing your own tail here, GotSteel, and that's why you're not making any headway. The circle can be cut in various ways, such as by temporarily entertaining my notion that you're not getting my position, in which case you're left without the above route of reentrancy in your thinking, often beneficial in avoiding circularity. Another way to cut it would be to temporarily entertain the notion that I might be right, bearing in mind that such is not the same as accepting it, and then testing the coherence of the model with that assumption in it, which essentially breaks down as an instance of the former suggestion.

For 102... care to tell me the simplest, constant storage, finite time (indeed O(n) bounded) algorithm for determining the circularity of any linearly iterable sequence every time without false positives?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 4:25:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

It's also the conceit of someone who stays alive by jumping off the railway track rather than getting splattered by what he believes he knows is an oncoming train. Just saying.


C'mon, Peon... it's not the exclusive province of those that are entirely certain to act in accordance with the best available evidence.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



No, but it's the province of those who do have a pretty clear idea of what constitutes bad, or good, evidence - and will act upon it in the knowledge, gained from experience, that acting or not acting upon it will actually change his or her life.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 4:28:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

No, but it's the province of those who do have a pretty clear idea of what constitutes bad, or good, evidence - and will act upon it in the knowledge, gained from experience, that acting or not acting upon it will actually change his or her life.


Is it your impression that I have a problem in that department?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 4:39:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad


Is it your impression that I have a problem in that department?



No Aswad, for feck's sake. Please holster your revolver! But I do wonder if you're avoiding drawing the conclusion that's there, waiting for you, sometimes!



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 5:19:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

No Aswad, for feck's sake. Please holster your revolver! But I do wonder if you're avoiding drawing the conclusion that's there, waiting for you, sometimes!


My revolver ain't out. I was just curious, s'all. Taking things in order, and all that.

In the usual sense, I "never" "draw a conclusion" about anything. I continuously evaluate everything and act based on a weighting of all the available input, without storing (caching) what one might call "conclusions" along the way. In my experience, they complicate and clutter up the place. As Occam neatly put it, don't needlessly multiply entities. If you know f() and X both, you don't need to store f(X), it just makes for a redundant node in the network that can obscure the sources of errors and complicate later corrections. I try to maintain a dense mind, one with a minimum entropy representation of its contents, which is a flexible arrangement.

There's a lot of things I could conclude, on varying degrees of evidence.

But why would I tabulate and make decisions prematurely, when it's so much more practical to keep in mind the degree of confidence, the confounding factors, the known sources of errors, the best guesses about unknowns, knowledge of how bias creeps into these things, and so forth, for each individual element involved in a line of reasoning and just properly aggregate those up the chain whenever I'm in need of a thought? I mean, the graph merging process needs to reexpress things into more convenient patterns anyway, so why not let it start from a job half done?

This, I don't grok.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 5:29:12 PM)

I was just picturing you saying all that to me, as you're standing on the railway track watching the train coming towards you, but finishing with, 'Right, now I think I'll step out of the way of this train'.

Only joking. Got to sleep. Good night. [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875