Please take all the smokes they came up with themselves.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tabacco Stream
About more than twenty years ago, about 70% of male and 30% of female makes a half strong population smoked. So they were majority and were smoking inside the premises, offices, schools, station building, etc. whearever whenver they want to smoke . I non-smokers were unable to be with them so I never get into the company cafeterria where many smokers were smoking. All I had to do was just get out of the room, take a long breath in the air. Now things have greatly changed. About 40% of male and 15 percent of female are smokers, makes 20-30% of entire population smoke. They are not allowed to smoke inside the building any more. So we can stay in the premises, offices, schools, station building, etc. However because all smokers are smoking outside the buildings, we tend to have got a tabacco stream on the street. Suppose 20-30 percent of entire population are smoking outside, that's inevitably makes air contaminated by nicotin.
Anti-Nihilism
Christianity, existentialism are human-centristic. Structuralism is anti-egocentristic.
Anthropocentrism means both human-centrism (good) and egocentrism (bad), I don't want to assert the superiority of one thought than another, so I carefully used the term 'human-centrism'.
Make Use of it
I found a good online library -that is questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97533020
Final Stage II
Re:mercedo's JE(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.20 0:16 (#12281902) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
Thank you very much for your reference. I needed some courage to write a JE about you. But I did so because I thought it benefits both of us, and I wrote another JE.
What matters is your postulation.
I think your latest response to me was as good as perfection, but with MH42, you are still struggling. My new JE was a comment about your comment on MH42's comment. Whichever your comments might be, your idea is basically similar, but sometimes you are OK, then sometimes I feel questionable. Till we get rid of our questions, I would like to keep on discussing.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Danger of One Party Rule(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.20 1:59 (#12283103) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
My views are basically similar to MH42, apart from your postulation our view with you is similar, but because you perceives things a little bit differently, superficially it looks different. Anyway...
But how can you when you don't know for sure what it is?
We don't necessarily have to be sure when we can say something, though we'd be sure, we are just unable to be sure.
By understanding reality to be relative, it becomes a (more) political decision whether someone is sane, and it's reasonable to shut someone up for being politically/patriotically incorrect, lest their view "become reality".
It is a realy dangerous idea, we ought to evade that. So suppose you were physicaly absolutely correct, you have solemn right to declare some one is insane, and have shut them up, deprive of someone's right to say something because they are insane? This is a very dangerous idea. Everyone has got a their own right to live according to their perception of reality. Someone keeps on thinking God creates humans and others the earth is rectagular, what's wrong with them? Only matters when they tried to hurt us for their belief, what they believe doesn't matter. Even if they believe something wrong, as long as they keep on living in harmony with others, no problem. If someone tried to hurt by reason of other's wrong belief, that might be the case justice will apply.
Why should a perception be wiser simply because it is shared?
The existence of common perception is far more dangerous than the shared one. Wiser because it reflects the wisdom of human beings keep on existing on the planet, where competition and cohabitation repeat.
..Sorry Morosoph, Today I'm woking from 9:15 a.m. I need to take a rest now -almost 2:00 a.m., I will make a comment on the rest of your latter half the other day...
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re:Danger of One Party Rule(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.20 2:42 (#12283694) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
It is a realy dangerous idea, we ought to evade that. So suppose you were physicaly absolutely correct, But I don't know that. Existance != knowledge.
you have solemn right to declare some one is insane, and have shut them up, deprive of someone's right to say something because they are insane? This is a very dangerous idea.I agree, but the problem here is hubris: the conviction that one's own perception is unflawed. I hold that perception is extremely flawed, and that the way to surer knowledge is in fact through greater care, care to catch the flaws that one is able to deduce, and care though knowledge of the existance of other potential flaws: the "unknown unknowns", if you like.
Everyone has got a their own right to live according to their perception of reality. Someone keeps on thinking God creates humans and others the earth is rectagular, what's wrong with them? Only matters when they tried to hurt us for their belief, what they believe doesn't matter. Even if they believe something wrong, as long as they keep on living in harmony with others, no problem. If someone tried to hurt by reason of other's wrong belief, that might be the case justice will apply.I agree, but the real issue here is what one would be wise to believe oneself. What others believe, or the results of one's own investigations? What data should we act upon?
Practically, should we attempt to cure cancer with (only) prayer? Should those near death suffer, braindead, because some believe that the brain will regenerate itself out of nowhere? Should we allow the earth to go to pot for it is believed to hasten the second coming? When belief impinges upon the world, the results are not always healthy.
This isn't about diagnosing madness, it's about being sane oneself. And physical relativism risks undermining that. Naturally, you have the right to believe what you wish, but belief is not truth. If you're motivated by truth, you should reject physical relativism, for it transports you into a fake world of opinion. To inhabit that 'world' is your right, but that world is not one of truth, whatever you choose to call belief.
The existence of common perception is far more dangerous than the shared one. Wiser because it reflects the wisdom of human beings keep on existing on the planet, where competition and cohabitation repeat.In terms of personal existance, historically believed concepts will serve you well. They do not save us from collective folly though. We consume more and more. We give birth to ever more offspring. We keep going to war, even though our weapons are so much more dangerous than those that shaped our evolution. We need to escape historical context to see this, to be able to do anything about the flow of human evolution.
And physical relativism doesn't help. Truth is no longer recognised as a motive, for everyone's motive is (their) 'truth'. Scientists may be free to say what they will, but doing so is useless, for the issue now isn't "how do we avoid disaster?", but "do you care about the environment?": a political preference that people will support for only as long as it doesn't cost too much.
The cost of physical relativism is that the whole society regresses, and maybe even goes mad, to the cost of all of us. Any gain in tolerance is short-term, until those who seek power realise that they no longer need to make people believe that what they have to say is rooted in truth, but rather that to think other than as they do is dangerous.
If you haven't, you outght to read 1984. There, history changes on a daily basis. The consequences of physical relativism are right there.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:Danger of One Party Rule(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.22 2:21 (#12303843) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
but a diversity of opinion on the basis that we cannot be sure what reality is makes society more immune to bad (but 'fit') ideas.
"Shared reality == sanity" is what kills that natural resistance.
Maybe so, but physical relativism isn't going to fix that. In fact, it would make things worse: those in power would use the idea as leverage as to why people should believe their version. That each of us should be open to other possibilities isn't what they're going to deduce from it, instead, they'll slander those who are most concerned with physical truth in our society - scientists, much as already happens with decent journalists. Physical relativism will be used against your preferred ends, and much more powerfully than you would imagine.
I understand your idea basically, and it is not bad. You are taliking about your argument from idealistic point of view, at certain point of my younger days, I had time to feel as you did. But this current world is not as bad as you think. there are many good things as well as - intolerable things. So I would like to take a little bit more optimistic point of view than yours. I believe in human possibilities.
When belief impinges upon the world, the results are not always healthy.
And physical relativism risks undermining that.
If you're motivated by truth, you should reject physical relativism, for it transports you into a fake world of opinion. To inhabit that 'world' is your right, but that world is not one of truth, whatever you choose to call belief.
The cost of physical relativism is that the whole society regresses, and maybe even goes mad, to the cost of all of us.
All correct. First of all, I was not meant to start challenging your idea. Everybody knows truth is much better than physical relativism. What I was pointing about was your postulation -from where you were taliking about. Your comments above were standing as the same point as mine. I can plainly agree with you almost all. Your postulation - sometimes you were taliking as if you were in a truth - as if you were able to exclude other than truth, that was what I was challenging. As long as we all keep on striving to gain an ideal society based on a scientifically verfiable truth, we all have no room to feel dubious for our effort.
Any gain in tolerance is short-term, until those who seek power realise that they no longer need to make people believe that what they have to say is rooted in truth, but rather that to think other than as they do is dangerous.
In order to realise a little bit better society, truth counts for something, but tolerance, whatever the characteristics along with it, counts for more than truth, that's my belief though... Your comment this time is splendid. Now we all share the same reality.
The consequences of physical relativism are right there.
I haven't read Orwell's at all but of course I know what his book is all about. Unfortunately it seems our society will have been heading for worse than that.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 23:36 (#12223044) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
The word "Objectivism" has more than one meaning.
I thought that I ought to clarify that I am no follower of Ayn Rand [slashdot.org].
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.14 4:59 (#12226708) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Good for you to do that- most certainly. Ayn Rand's form of objectivism is definately an extreme- such an extreme that her works are outside of reality for most of humanity. The libertarian party would do far better if they'd realize they were working in a different reality than the rest of us- and adjust their language appropriately.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.20 0:16 (#12281902) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
Thank you very much for your reference. I needed some courage to write a JE about you. But I did so because I thought it benefits both of us, and I wrote another JE.
What matters is your postulation.
I think your latest response to me was as good as perfection, but with MH42, you are still struggling. My new JE was a comment about your comment on MH42's comment. Whichever your comments might be, your idea is basically similar, but sometimes you are OK, then sometimes I feel questionable. Till we get rid of our questions, I would like to keep on discussing.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Danger of One Party Rule(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.20 1:59 (#12283103) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
My views are basically similar to MH42, apart from your postulation our view with you is similar, but because you perceives things a little bit differently, superficially it looks different. Anyway...
But how can you when you don't know for sure what it is?
We don't necessarily have to be sure when we can say something, though we'd be sure, we are just unable to be sure.
By understanding reality to be relative, it becomes a (more) political decision whether someone is sane, and it's reasonable to shut someone up for being politically/patriotically incorrect, lest their view "become reality".
It is a realy dangerous idea, we ought to evade that. So suppose you were physicaly absolutely correct, you have solemn right to declare some one is insane, and have shut them up, deprive of someone's right to say something because they are insane? This is a very dangerous idea. Everyone has got a their own right to live according to their perception of reality. Someone keeps on thinking God creates humans and others the earth is rectagular, what's wrong with them? Only matters when they tried to hurt us for their belief, what they believe doesn't matter. Even if they believe something wrong, as long as they keep on living in harmony with others, no problem. If someone tried to hurt by reason of other's wrong belief, that might be the case justice will apply.
Why should a perception be wiser simply because it is shared?
The existence of common perception is far more dangerous than the shared one. Wiser because it reflects the wisdom of human beings keep on existing on the planet, where competition and cohabitation repeat.
..Sorry Morosoph, Today I'm woking from 9:15 a.m. I need to take a rest now -almost 2:00 a.m., I will make a comment on the rest of your latter half the other day...
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re:Danger of One Party Rule(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.20 2:42 (#12283694) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
It is a realy dangerous idea, we ought to evade that. So suppose you were physicaly absolutely correct, But I don't know that. Existance != knowledge.
you have solemn right to declare some one is insane, and have shut them up, deprive of someone's right to say something because they are insane? This is a very dangerous idea.I agree, but the problem here is hubris: the conviction that one's own perception is unflawed. I hold that perception is extremely flawed, and that the way to surer knowledge is in fact through greater care, care to catch the flaws that one is able to deduce, and care though knowledge of the existance of other potential flaws: the "unknown unknowns", if you like.
Everyone has got a their own right to live according to their perception of reality. Someone keeps on thinking God creates humans and others the earth is rectagular, what's wrong with them? Only matters when they tried to hurt us for their belief, what they believe doesn't matter. Even if they believe something wrong, as long as they keep on living in harmony with others, no problem. If someone tried to hurt by reason of other's wrong belief, that might be the case justice will apply.I agree, but the real issue here is what one would be wise to believe oneself. What others believe, or the results of one's own investigations? What data should we act upon?
Practically, should we attempt to cure cancer with (only) prayer? Should those near death suffer, braindead, because some believe that the brain will regenerate itself out of nowhere? Should we allow the earth to go to pot for it is believed to hasten the second coming? When belief impinges upon the world, the results are not always healthy.
This isn't about diagnosing madness, it's about being sane oneself. And physical relativism risks undermining that. Naturally, you have the right to believe what you wish, but belief is not truth. If you're motivated by truth, you should reject physical relativism, for it transports you into a fake world of opinion. To inhabit that 'world' is your right, but that world is not one of truth, whatever you choose to call belief.
The existence of common perception is far more dangerous than the shared one. Wiser because it reflects the wisdom of human beings keep on existing on the planet, where competition and cohabitation repeat.In terms of personal existance, historically believed concepts will serve you well. They do not save us from collective folly though. We consume more and more. We give birth to ever more offspring. We keep going to war, even though our weapons are so much more dangerous than those that shaped our evolution. We need to escape historical context to see this, to be able to do anything about the flow of human evolution.
And physical relativism doesn't help. Truth is no longer recognised as a motive, for everyone's motive is (their) 'truth'. Scientists may be free to say what they will, but doing so is useless, for the issue now isn't "how do we avoid disaster?", but "do you care about the environment?": a political preference that people will support for only as long as it doesn't cost too much.
The cost of physical relativism is that the whole society regresses, and maybe even goes mad, to the cost of all of us. Any gain in tolerance is short-term, until those who seek power realise that they no longer need to make people believe that what they have to say is rooted in truth, but rather that to think other than as they do is dangerous.
If you haven't, you outght to read 1984. There, history changes on a daily basis. The consequences of physical relativism are right there.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:Danger of One Party Rule(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.22 2:21 (#12303843) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
but a diversity of opinion on the basis that we cannot be sure what reality is makes society more immune to bad (but 'fit') ideas.
"Shared reality == sanity" is what kills that natural resistance.
Maybe so, but physical relativism isn't going to fix that. In fact, it would make things worse: those in power would use the idea as leverage as to why people should believe their version. That each of us should be open to other possibilities isn't what they're going to deduce from it, instead, they'll slander those who are most concerned with physical truth in our society - scientists, much as already happens with decent journalists. Physical relativism will be used against your preferred ends, and much more powerfully than you would imagine.
I understand your idea basically, and it is not bad. You are taliking about your argument from idealistic point of view, at certain point of my younger days, I had time to feel as you did. But this current world is not as bad as you think. there are many good things as well as - intolerable things. So I would like to take a little bit more optimistic point of view than yours. I believe in human possibilities.
When belief impinges upon the world, the results are not always healthy.
And physical relativism risks undermining that.
If you're motivated by truth, you should reject physical relativism, for it transports you into a fake world of opinion. To inhabit that 'world' is your right, but that world is not one of truth, whatever you choose to call belief.
The cost of physical relativism is that the whole society regresses, and maybe even goes mad, to the cost of all of us.
All correct. First of all, I was not meant to start challenging your idea. Everybody knows truth is much better than physical relativism. What I was pointing about was your postulation -from where you were taliking about. Your comments above were standing as the same point as mine. I can plainly agree with you almost all. Your postulation - sometimes you were taliking as if you were in a truth - as if you were able to exclude other than truth, that was what I was challenging. As long as we all keep on striving to gain an ideal society based on a scientifically verfiable truth, we all have no room to feel dubious for our effort.
Any gain in tolerance is short-term, until those who seek power realise that they no longer need to make people believe that what they have to say is rooted in truth, but rather that to think other than as they do is dangerous.
In order to realise a little bit better society, truth counts for something, but tolerance, whatever the characteristics along with it, counts for more than truth, that's my belief though... Your comment this time is splendid. Now we all share the same reality.
The consequences of physical relativism are right there.
I haven't read Orwell's at all but of course I know what his book is all about. Unfortunately it seems our society will have been heading for worse than that.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 23:36 (#12223044) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
The word "Objectivism" has more than one meaning.
I thought that I ought to clarify that I am no follower of Ayn Rand [slashdot.org].
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.14 4:59 (#12226708) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Good for you to do that- most certainly. Ayn Rand's form of objectivism is definately an extreme- such an extreme that her works are outside of reality for most of humanity. The libertarian party would do far better if they'd realize they were working in a different reality than the rest of us- and adjust their language appropriately.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Final Stage I
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 8:33 (#12218302) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Ah- you're still in that stage of acceptance of Autism. It works for a while- but in the end result, 956 people out of every 1000 don't have Autism. If you're ever going to truly understand THEIR reality- part of it is what is socially advantageous. To them, it's no less true than facts are to you; it's just based on a different set of axioms and logical rules.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 9:08 (#12218633) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 9:18 (#12218722) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism. And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality. But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world. We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 17:57 (#12221515) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference.
Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.14 4:57 (#12226678) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference. Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality.Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"? Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage. Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense. The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe. Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here. I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Reality(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.14 22:39 (#12232943) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality. Which, however, is singular. Thank-you. I have no argument with the obvious fact that we have differing perceptions of reality, and extremely harsh filters upon it.
Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"?Sorry, no.
Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness).
Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.I would rather say that different experiences and ways of thinking about those experiences lead them to a model of the world optimised around a different purpose. Because the concept of "truth" is around and venerated, concepts such as faithfulness in relationships and degree of belief take on the meaning of 'truth'. This isn't so much another truth, but another definition of 'truth' as conceived by a mind that is optimised around different criteria. If Mr. J. Random called what you call oranges 'pears', it would not help communication between us if I referred to them as other than 'oranges'.
The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.Some singular external reality is required in order to embed us all, even if that reality is only the rules of such embedding. To draw an analogy with relativity, I am not claiming that there is an 'at rest' frame, but rather that space exists. If you want to claim that under relativity, space is not singular, then we are using language differently, and probably in fact have no argument. I suspect that we do have an argument 'though: I claim that the universe is larger than the sum of those who you can communicate with. I will go further, and say that ignorance of an external reality is politically deadly, with (for example) the current republican administration in the states deliberately ignoring scientific opinion of a massive range of issues. I'm not saying that the scientists have got it right, but that they're better guessors than the rest of us, and the physical relativism that you are proffering makes everybody equal, and ignores specialism. Such relativism threatens to undo well-verified science by undermining the teaching of biology. Evidence counts for nothing when degree of belief is the criterian for 'truth'.
We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.We don't share a common reality; we perceive reality, and each of us distort it immediately. With time, we distort it futher and diverge in our opinions over what reality is. That our perceptions are distorted, and change with time has no baring, one way or the other, upon the nature of reality.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.Our map can only be incorrect if there is a means of comparison. I am not claiming that we know, or can know reality; I am rather claiming that it exists whether we can know about it or not.
I add (separately) that even with incomplete information, we can make deductions. These deductions may not have wide application, but they are sound given what we know. Maybe that is wrong: I lean upon the existance of self, other, and communication when in truth there might only be self, but I am saved by a nice piece of logic: if there is no other, then there's noone else to mislead! My communication is valid to the extent that it is received.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:Reality(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.15 4:21 (#12237235) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I think we're basically agreed- but I'd point out the importance of this little bit:This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness). So how do you know that a given human being, or group of human beings, shares the same past you do? And don't you mean more wide, as less wide would cut out all of those pasts where humans never evolved at all?
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.15 20:08 (#12242806) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
So how do you know that a given human being, or group of human beings, shares the same past you do?I don't; reality might be far vaster than our perception of it. For example, reality might involve several intersecting time-streams, so that others joined our universe, having experienced a past embedded in a different, parallel universe; perhaps one that merged, or part-merged with this one (I am applying the many-world hypothesis into the past). A practical objection is that human-sized objects are a pretty arbitary size to swap in and out, but then your liver might have existed upon a different timeline than your heart. Maybe if the mixing is on a much smaller scale, the deviances would be indetectable on the macroscopic scale in the shorter term, but they would accumulate to produce noticeable future differences.
Personally, I favour the universe being intrinsically a little random on the smallest scale, as a theory. This induces the same kind of deviation as microscopic exchanges with parallel universes, but is less increadable IMO.
But my point is that if they don't share pasts within the same universe, our initial assessment of what reality is was wrong. Expanded to the mutilverse, or other extension of the universe, our experiences are still embedded within that.
And don't you mean more wide, as less wide would cut out all of those pasts where humans never evolved at all?I see. I think that you misinterpretted me. Subject to the present state of the universe, the possible pasts are fewer, for the universe 'knows more' about itself than humans, and 'knows everything' that humans know, ergo, the past is less divergent than that that humans could deduce.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.15 23:55 (#12244294) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
I understand both of you have history of AS. He almost completely overcame his AS and will have been in a process of being a great thinker. You have been taking another way unlike he did. You are within an AS world and trying to justify your position.
I think both of you are correct. AS is not a disease, or rather their position is near to God, for me your views are extremely shinning and just it's uneasy for us to see it directly. You are a chosen one, please keep on holding your views and I am sure you will contribute to the major development of our society - maybe it is fair enough for us to claim it's a 'paradigm shift'. No one but you like who can be eligible to take totally different view from the rest of the folks. I respect you and just regret me not being a guy like you. I am just the same as other ordinary folks. Definitely.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.16 3:06 (#12246656) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
I understand both of you have history of AS. He almost completely overcame his AS and will have been in a process of being a great thinker. You have been taking another way unlike he did. You are within an AS world and trying to justify your position. Actually, it's stranger than that: I've found that I was adapting to others, and in the process of doing so, I was losing my insight and truth-centeredness! Since truth-centredness is not of high social value, it takes an effort of will to work at restoring it. I decided that that which was socially easier was not morally superior, and although it's easier to go with the flow, and make oneself equal or even inferior to others by adopting a pluralistic conception of reality, it is not the most courageous path.
Strangely, for someone without AS, a singular conception of reality would not be courageous, but would simply be a means to social advantage. In this case, reality would be seen as being coincident with a very conservative view of the world, which would allow outsiders to be treated as mad or simply being "deliberately different", a rebel without a clue.
One with AS realises that many ideas self-perpetuate for no good reason at all, so that the consenus is in fact unlikely to reflect the nature of the world, although it cannot be utterly ridiculous, for eventually the senses veto our inherited theories. "Consensus reality" is an oxymoron.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.16 3:51 (#12247212) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
But my point is that if they don't share pasts within the same universe, our initial assessment of what reality is was wrong. Expanded to the mutilverse, or other extension of the universe, our experiences are still embedded within that. Ok- I can handle that- that fits my theory. You're just using a superset of what I call realities, to define the singular reality. What a single human experiences as reality may be just a part of a universe, or part of several universes, there's no way to know.To root this back- when I talk of different forms of Truth, I am talking about different frames of reference based on a single individual's past. I've identified four so far that seem to be common to everybody in Western civilizations- but that's thanks to a rather recent event in the multiverse, the Roman Occupation of Europe. Beyond that there may well be many other truths, many other frames of reference. So to map to your Singular Truth, your Singular Reality- all I'm really talking about is a different universe in the multiverse.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.16 4:58 (#12248320) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
When someone see 'Re::lity', the ones recognise it Reality or Re:Reality, it is good enough to understand the nature of language (verbal expression) and reality (and what indicates behind the verbal expression). It is not very important whether it is a correct verbal expression (Reality/Re:Reality) or incorrect verval expression( Re::lity ) as long as we can recognise it refers to something refers to reality or re:reality, here we use the power of imagination to supplement the incompleteness of verbal expression.
In this case, reality would be seen as being coincident with a very conservative view of the world
Reality is in fact no order, which does not necessarily reflect society's conservative/conventional view.
although it cannot be utterly ridiculous,
If you can feel so, you stand to more conventional position than I do. From my view, many people live in an exactness of words and reality, much more coincidental than my view, I don't feel anything strange in oxymoron in reality. Because in reality, oxymoron is the nature of reality itself.
Distraction is order, as long as we have seen it. Perception always surpasses the nature of reality, as long as your perception works well enough to function, nothing strange in this real world.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.16 5:24 (#12248691) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Re::lity. I'm playing games with slashdot. Notice how it remains intact when one hits 'reply' :o)
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re::ctionary 'reality'(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.16 7:35 (#12250345) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
The biggest problem with physical relativism is that it entrenches a deeper and inescapable conservativism: 'truth' is made subservient to the power structure. I wrote a journal Reality is Singular [slashdot.org], as you know (since you wrote a reply (o: ). If evidence counts for nothing, and it would certainly count for less, then truth becomes completely swallowed by politics. Personally, I'd be just as unhappy with the 'truth' being democratised as it being made subsevient to buisness interests, as it is at present.
Possibly, the democratisation of 'truth' is worse: in business, advance is still possible; democratic truth is not advanceable, since whereas business can potentially get a head start over another through superior knowledge, the misfit who knows better is a social outcast, and his/her knowledge is potentially socially disruptive. If your population is self-trained (through prevalence of such doctorine) to believe that that which is widely held in some sense should be true, then the potential disruption is so much greater, reinforcing their opposition to progress.
I wish to make clear that 'truth' being subsevient to business interests would be bad indeed: look at the existing distortion of environmental science, for example. The only way in which mavericks can reasonably be heard is for it to be accepted that reality is singular, but unknown. Only then does evidence matter. Only then is society open to those who look at things differently, since they cannot be certain about what is true. Truth needs to be understood as being outside psychology.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Difference(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.16 12:52 (#12252393) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
It seems to me that I understand your thought clearly than ever. You stand in the objective truth which possibly exists outside our perception of knowledge, which I myself am unable to know. But in your reality, it counts for more than your or our subjective 'truth' - in your terminology, belief might be the word instead. I just noticed you live in an entirely different realm from the rest of us -including a man from AS, and 956 out of 1,000 -ordinary people who have got ordinary perception. Because normally we don't care or are not interested in what perceptions of other people let alone what universal truth may be. Whether we are evolved from ape or created by God, the earth is round or rectangular have nothing to do with our regular ordinary life, but if our even slightest amount of right being infringed, we would do our best to try to exclude the cause of those disturbances. Here no external objectiveness counts for something. Only I think therefore I do. From your statement -'Evidence counts for nothing when degree of belief is the criterion of 'truth'. My communication is valid to the extent that it's received.' , your standpoint -where your statements come from is clear -it's objective truth. There is an objective truth, but we definetely don't care...
I recall Wittgenstein's famous axiom -which says 'What we cannot speak about must pass over in silence.' I disagree with that. Instead I would say, 'What we cannot pass over in silence, we must speak about.' My stand point is always in human side, and I believe we will be able to open the infinite possibility to the future to come, that's my standpoint.
Again your view is different, but 44 out of 1,000 can agree with you. You ought to be proud of your view and I fully respect your viewpoint.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
My Perception isn't Objective Either(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.16 17:27 (#12253395) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Although I claim that there must be objective truth, I don't claim that I know it either. I too need to be open to others. I too need to listen to mavericks. I need to listen to you, and to Marxist Hacker 42.
My comparative difficulty in empathsising means that I am lacking data that you have. MH42's alternate theory is important, although to me it looks improbable. That is the way with theories: that which fits with the rest of our mental structure appears probable, and that which doesn't does not. Baysian inferencing is no escape, since the "prior probabilities" simply mirror our existing body of knowledge.
I do believe, though, that there necessarily exists an external, objective reality so that we can all exist and communicate. This is a little like Descartes's "I think, therefore I am"; the appropriate phrase here is something like "we communicate, therefore reality exists".
What that reality is, I don't know any better than you do.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.17 0:51 (#12255099) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
The Multiverse is a hypothesis that I don't buy into myself, but it is one that I accept as a possiblity. [slashdot.org] If universes intersect, though, this must but restrictions upon the degree of deviance in physical law: for universes to intersect is a restraining condition.
I believe (perhaps falsely) that there is political motivation behind your pluralistic view. I believe myself that physical relativism is antiprogressive [slashdot.org], and in facts results in less freedom, rather than more. The reason being that a lever is lost, for an external point of reference is lost, so that politics replaces experiment.
Even if we do have to accept a multiverse, the existance of a single reality is a useful abstract point of reference. It is abstract becuse you can never know it, yet it is more than useful when we are faced with individual destabilisation: it can keep one sane.
For many, faith in God plays a similar rôle, but events can destabilise such faith. Is god good? For example. The existance of a singular reality has to be true, and in a sense is trivially true in the case of solipsism, but then it doesn't matter. Still, there is always hope that there is a universe beyond humanity, and therefore that is it possible to give oneself purpose beyond humanity, so that the worst failures of humanity can be overcome.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:My Perception isn't Objective Either(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.18 12:01 (#12266031) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
I think it's worthwhile to keep on discussing the issue with you. For many people it's something which is taken for granted that there's a little difference but not much difference between reality and perception. Basically they don't care unlike you do. Of course I have already noticed it, but for my part, I haven't encountered difficulties as you've found - unbearable uneasiness of chasms between what it is(reality)and how it represents(perception). See another JE.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.19 4:19 (#12272655) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I believe (perhaps falsely) that there is political motivation behind your pluralistic view. No- you'd be correct in that. What that political motivation is, however is wrong in your assumption. By constraining freedom to a single reality- you limit your politics to a politics of adversarial competition- A singular Truth, a singular Profit, a singluar Dogma even, limits you to fighting for that. And by extention, limits you to a lack of understanding that ACTION ALWAYS HURTS SOMEBODY. That's the hole in Wicca and aslo in progressive politics- "Do no harm" would equal doing absolutely nothing- but even that does harm because as we see in US Government right now, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good to do nothing.Yes- I'm an anti-progressive in some ways- not every progressive action is a good action. In fact- a necessary consequense of the pluralistic theory is that human beings will NEVER have enough wisdom to govern themselves without a shared morality, a shared reality, for the mere reason that there are always more universes, more realities, than we can possibly perceive.Even if we do have to accept a multiverse, the existance of a single reality is a useful abstract point of reference. It is abstract becuse you can never know it, yet it is more than useful when we are faced with individual destabilisation: it can keep one sane. You say that as if Sanity is actually usefull in and of itself. I've had my faith that Sanity is useful quite strained recently- it seems that those who are insane (CEOs, politicians, and the investor class) are the ones who are actually successfull.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re::lity(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.19 6:16 (#12274329) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
No- you'd be correct in that. What that political motivation is, however is wrong in your assumption. By constraining freedom to a single reality- you limit your politics to a politics of adversarial competition- A singular Truth, a singular Profit, a singluar Dogma even, limits you to fighting for that. But how can you when you don't know for sure what it is? By understanding reality to be relative, it becomes a (more) political decision whether someone is sane, and it's reasonable to shut someone up for being politically/patriotically incorrect, lest their view "become reality".
And by extention, limits you to a lack of understanding that ACTION ALWAYS HURTS SOMEBODY. That's the hole in Wicca and aslo in progressive politics- "Do no harm" would equal doing absolutely nothing- but even that does harm because as we see in US Government right now, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good to do nothing.I've never advocated 'do no harm'; I recognise that the effect of action is complex, but all that physical relativism does is raise the ante. Now there is everything to fight for; before your interpretation of the world was an interpretation. Physical relativism means that you can win by changing the others' minds: reality (in this view) changes. The Bush government's attitude to environmentalism reveals just this approach.
Yes- I'm an anti-progressive in some ways- not every progressive action is a good action. In fact- a necessary consequense of the pluralistic theory is that human beings will NEVER have enough wisdom to govern themselves without a shared morality, a shared reality, for the mere reason that there are always more universes, more realities, than we can possibly perceive.Why should a perception be wiser simply because it is shared? Example: the Bush administration could change the culture of the US to the point where the US society would be psychotic (ignoring inconvenient data as instinct). Deviance from the norm is the only factor that can hold this in check, so that popular perception has to prove itself again and again. Yes, the cost is that some progressives will have ideas, which if implemented, would be harmful, but a diversity of opinion on the basis that we cannot be sure what reality is makes society more immune to bad (but 'fit') ideas. "Shared reality == sanity" is what kills that natural resistance.
You say that as if Sanity is actually usefull in and of itself. I've had my faith that Sanity is useful quite strained recently- it seems that those who are insane (CEOs, politicians, and the investor class) are the ones who are actually successfull.Maybe so, but physical relativism isn't going to fix that. In fact, it would make things worse: those in power would use the idea as leverage as to why people should believe their version. That each of us should be open to other possibilities isn't what they're going to deduce from it, instead, they'll slander those who are most concerned with physical truth in our society - scientists, much as already happens with decent journalists.
Physical relativism will be used against your preferred ends, and much more powerfully than you would imagine.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
mercedo's JE(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.19 6:18 (#12274366) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Ps. mercedo has published a JE [slashdot.org] concerning the nature of reality.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Marxist Hacker 42 versus Morosoph -part II
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 8:33 (#12218302) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Ah- you're still in that stage of acceptance of Autism. It works for a while- but in the end result, 956 people out of every 1000 don't have Autism. If you're ever going to truly understand THEIR reality- part of it is what is socially advantageous. To them, it's no less true than facts are to you; it's just based on a different set of axioms and logical rules.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 9:08 (#12218633) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 9:18 (#12218722) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism. And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality. But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world. We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 17:57 (#12221515) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference.
Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.14 4:57 (#12226678) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference. Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality.Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"? Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage. Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense. The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe. Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here. I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Reality(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.14 22:39 (#12232943) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality. Which, however, is singular. Thank-you. I have no argument with the obvious fact that we have differing perceptions of reality, and extremely harsh filters upon it.
Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"?Sorry, no.
Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness).
Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.I would rather say that different experiences and ways of thinking about those experiences lead them to a model of the world optimised around a different purpose. Because the concept of "truth" is around and venerated, concepts such as faithfulness in relationships and degree of belief take on the meaning of 'truth'. This isn't so much another truth, but another definition of 'truth' as conceived by a mind that is optimised around different criteria. If Mr. J. Random called what you call oranges 'pears', it would not help communication between us if I referred to them as other than 'oranges'.
The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.Some singular external reality is required in order to embed us all, even if that reality is only the rules of such embedding. To draw an analogy with relativity, I am not claiming that there is an 'at rest' frame, but rather that space exists. If you want to claim that under relativity, space is not singular, then we are using language differently, and probably in fact have no argument. I suspect that we do have an argument 'though: I claim that the universe is larger than the sum of those who you can communicate with. I will go further, and say that ignorance of an external reality is politically deadly, with (for example) the current republican administration in the states deliberately ignoring scientific opinion of a massive range of issues. I'm not saying that the scientists have got it right, but that they're better guessors than the rest of us, and the physical relativism that you are proffering makes everybody equal, and ignores specialism. Such relativism threatens to undo well-verified science by undermining the teaching of biology. Evidence counts for nothing when degree of belief is the criterian for 'truth'.
We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.We don't share a common reality; we perceive reality, and each of us distort it immediately. With time, we distort it futher and diverge in our opinions over what reality is. That our perceptions are distorted, and change with time has no baring, one way or the other, upon the nature of reality.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.Our map can only be incorrect if there is a means of comparison. I am not claiming that we know, or can know reality; I am rather claiming that it exists whether we can know about it or not.
I add (separately) that even with incomplete information, we can make deductions. These deductions may not have wide application, but they are sound given what we know. Maybe that is wrong: I lean upon the existance of self, other, and communication when in truth there might only be self, but I am saved by a nice piece of logic: if there is no other, then there's noone else to mislead! My communication is valid to the extent that it is received.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:Reality(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.15 4:21 (#12237235) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I think we're basically agreed- but I'd point out the importance of this little bit:This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness). So how do you know that a given human being, or group of human beings, shares the same past you do? And don't you mean more wide, as less wide would cut out all of those pasts where humans never evolved at all?
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 8:33 (#12218302) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Ah- you're still in that stage of acceptance of Autism. It works for a while- but in the end result, 956 people out of every 1000 don't have Autism. If you're ever going to truly understand THEIR reality- part of it is what is socially advantageous. To them, it's no less true than facts are to you; it's just based on a different set of axioms and logical rules.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 9:08 (#12218633) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 9:18 (#12218722) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism. And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality. But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world. We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 17:57 (#12221515) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference.
Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.But you've both got some basics in common- language, education, etc. That's not true for everybody else in the world. It doesn't appear to be a different reality- because you're coming from much the same place, the same set of reference points.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense.
We have different experiences, that is true, but we experience the same world.We can't be 100% sure of that. The experience changes the world. Try going back to a place you last visited as a child- and you'll see what I mean. Objectivism is at best just another myth.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.14 4:57 (#12226678) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference. Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality.Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"? Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are more strongly driven by truth as a motive, and that the average person is not optimising the use of the data that they aquire according to truth-based motives. Rather, the average person tends to think of information in terms of utility, say in winning an argument or other advantage. Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.You undermine yourself here. "Everyone else in the world" is a phrase that requires a single reality - the world, in order to make any sense. The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe. Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here. I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Reality(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.14 22:39 (#12232943) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembelance to reality. Which, however, is singular. Thank-you. I have no argument with the obvious fact that we have differing perceptions of reality, and extremely harsh filters upon it.
Ever read Heinlien's "Stranger In A Strange Land"?Sorry, no.
Remember the group of people known as Professional Witnesses? That's as close to truth telling as we can get- we can know what we immediately percieve, and we can train ourselves to have a memory of the past, but we cannot ever know that what we saw in the past is still true- let alone true in the future. All else is myth.This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness).
Or, at least it appears that way in your experience. An alternate, and equally plausible theory is that they're working with a different set of motives because their experiences have led them to a different definition of reality and truth. It may well be that there's a singular reality out there that all definitions tie to- or there may not. At any rate- such a reality is far beyond our ability to understand or record.I would rather say that different experiences and ways of thinking about those experiences lead them to a model of the world optimised around a different purpose. Because the concept of "truth" is around and venerated, concepts such as faithfulness in relationships and degree of belief take on the meaning of 'truth'. This isn't so much another truth, but another definition of 'truth' as conceived by a mind that is optimised around different criteria. If Mr. J. Random called what you call oranges 'pears', it would not help communication between us if I referred to them as other than 'oranges'.
The world is just another frame of reference. It might exist, it might not- it's just a concept temporarily adopted to make sense of a single model.Some singular external reality is required in order to embed us all, even if that reality is only the rules of such embedding. To draw an analogy with relativity, I am not claiming that there is an 'at rest' frame, but rather that space exists. If you want to claim that under relativity, space is not singular, then we are using language differently, and probably in fact have no argument. I suspect that we do have an argument 'though: I claim that the universe is larger than the sum of those who you can communicate with. I will go further, and say that ignorance of an external reality is politically deadly, with (for example) the current republican administration in the states deliberately ignoring scientific opinion of a massive range of issues. I'm not saying that the scientists have got it right, but that they're better guessors than the rest of us, and the physical relativism that you are proffering makes everybody equal, and ignores specialism. Such relativism threatens to undo well-verified science by undermining the teaching of biology. Evidence counts for nothing when degree of belief is the criterian for 'truth'.
We can't be 100% sure of that, so it's false? We have a different experience of the world, doesn't make the world different (although it might, independently, have changed); it makes our mental filters different. Surely for two people to live in the same world already means that they share a common reality - the world, indeed the universe. Our experience of that reality may be different, but our experience of reality is not in itself the universe.Sharing a common reality on a temporary basis is just that- a shared reality, a shared set of reference points. Remove one person from the equation, and the reference points will slowly change until they are entirely different.We don't share a common reality; we perceive reality, and each of us distort it immediately. With time, we distort it futher and diverge in our opinions over what reality is. That our perceptions are distorted, and change with time has no baring, one way or the other, upon the nature of reality.
You accused me of mistaking the map for the territory earlier; it appears to me that you are doing the same thing, here.I'm going one step further- I'm saying that our point of view on the map is so narrow, so finite, that the territory is unknowable. The map may be correct, it may not- but to build only ONE map is surely going to be incorrect in some situations.Our map can only be incorrect if there is a means of comparison. I am not claiming that we know, or can know reality; I am rather claiming that it exists whether we can know about it or not.
I add (separately) that even with incomplete information, we can make deductions. These deductions may not have wide application, but they are sound given what we know. Maybe that is wrong: I lean upon the existance of self, other, and communication when in truth there might only be self, but I am saved by a nice piece of logic: if there is no other, then there's noone else to mislead! My communication is valid to the extent that it is received.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re:Reality(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.15 4:21 (#12237235) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
I think we're basically agreed- but I'd point out the importance of this little bit:This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness). So how do you know that a given human being, or group of human beings, shares the same past you do? And don't you mean more wide, as less wide would cut out all of those pasts where humans never evolved at all?
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Marxist Hacker 42 versus Morosoph -part I
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 2:19 (#12202238) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
But what is natural? Isn't that what is precisely at issue? It's easy to confuse 'normal', and 'natural', but gayness is perfectly natural, or else it wouldn't occur. Gays have a variety of relationships, just as hetrosexuals do. If it's natural to marry someone that you love, shouldn't that still apply, even when that love hasn't historically been condoned or recognised? What if marriages between different classes or castes had historically not occurred?
I did write a long article about gay marriage [slashdot.org] a while back, leading to long arguments with On Lawn. The summary of it is that he thought that history what what was important, whereas I believe it to be consistency as regards recognition of a union of spirits, so as to form a larger whole with four arms, four legs, two heads, and two bodies. To have a child requires sexual difference, but the rest do not; besides, many couples choose not to have children; some are infertile.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org]
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 2:19 (#12202238) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
But what is natural? Isn't that what is precisely at issue? It's easy to confuse 'normal', and 'natural', but gayness is perfectly natural, or else it wouldn't occur. Gays have a variety of relationships, just as hetrosexuals do. If it's natural to marry someone that you love, shouldn't that still apply, even when that love hasn't historically been condoned or recognised? What if marriages between different classes or castes had historically not occurred?
I did write a long article about gay marriage [slashdot.org] a while back, leading to long arguments with On Lawn. The summary of it is that he thought that history what what was important, whereas I believe it to be consistency as regards recognition of a union of spirits, so as to form a larger whole with four arms, four legs, two heads, and two bodies. To have a child requires sexual difference, but the rest do not; besides, many couples choose not to have children; some are infertile.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.12 4:57 (#12204507) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
If it's natural to marry someone that you love, shouldn't that still apply, even when that love hasn't historically been condoned or recognised? Actually, what hasn't been historically recognized is the idea of marrying for LOVE. That's only about 300 years old. Before, love was love and marriage was marriage and it was very rare for the two to go together. Marriage was, as Mercedo correctly puts it, an economic affair- it was very much about producing heirs to merge the fortunes of two families. No wonder so many cultures choose to get their children engaged at a very young age- forming advantageous mergers between family businesses. So no- there's nothing natural in the connection between love and marriage at all.Would it surprise you to learn that love and sex are two different things as well?
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.12 6:02 (#12205303) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
Love is spiritual. Sex is physical. Marriage is economical.
.. Therefore I am.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 8:00 (#12206440) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Would it surprise you to learn that love and sex are two different things as well?We might not see eye to eye politically, but that is an insult.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.12 9:29 (#12207166) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
We might not see eye to eye politically, but that is an insult. Calling you an American is an insult? I suppose it could be. But the point was- in American culture we often mix sex, love, and marriage in a way that would be considered inappropriate, even scandoulous in an earlier time. The point is that there's nothing natural at all in marriage being linked to love; love being linked to sex; or for that matter, marriage being linked to sex beyond the necessary production of heirs to carry on the family name. For tens of thousands of years, these were separate concepts. Tighter inheritance laws in the middle ages under the Catholic Church made the link between sex and marriage a bit stronger- but even that was still tied to the production of heirs. Even in American society throughout the 1800s, at least among the upper classes marriage was an economic, political merger and had NOTHING to do with love.I do have to wonder if the lack of sex, attraction, and love is a part of the reason for the "American Curiosity" of families dying off after 3 generations or so even today.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 9:45 (#12207274) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Ah. I'm a Brit, BTW. And here too, some of the patterns that you mention apply, although less strongly (Europe is even 'softening' us, in a good way).
I forget that you too have AS; I may be lacking in an ability to read, but I believe that I have a subtlety about me that can in some ways compensate.
Love is complex indeed. I believe, personally, that there is more to love than chemistry: some kind of psychic 'resonance', maybe, and I have in the course of my former breakdown experienced enough "weird shit" to believe that this 'resonance' principle is vast indeed. I could make sense of the phrase "god is love" in this way, but having done so, the rest of dogma and doctorine makes no sense. Religion is a socialised massive oversimplification, to the point of harming those who really do want to know the truth.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 3:58 (#12215128) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Religion isn't about Scientific Truth or even Philosophical Truth at all to begin with- it's about Theological Truth, which HAS to be oversimplified to make any sense at all. You're trying to use logic to understand theologic- and it doesn't work because the rules simply aren't the same.Dogma and Doctrine, as a subset of theology, aren't about God or our relationship with God. It's about the interface between religion and Politics- a form of Political Truth, with a Theological Truth point of view. Thus it shouldn't make any "sense" from a scientific truth point of view at all- and only very tangenitally philosophic truth. What it's really about is- what are the individual behaviors that best support society as a whole? What is damaging to society, and what supports society? It's a TOTALLY different view than modern democratic Poltical Truth which is about freedom for the individual- it bears more resemblance to the totalitarian governments in some ways, but with more of an eye towards massive control of even the most uneducated portions of society, and for the good of all rather than the good of a small minority.Does that help, understanding that perhaps it's pointing at an entirely different thing than what you think of as "truth"?
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 4:17 (#12215350) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
Sorry. What I know comes from personal experience. There's one reality, and most people are wrong about it. I believe, as it happens, that what I experienced is explainable using current physics, but then it might require new physics. I might indeed be wrong, myself!
Your funny definitions of truth I cannot meaningfully distinguish from myth.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 4:46 (#12215680) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.11.29 9:27)
Physics itself is a myth. An new physics is a myth. There's no reason at all to think that our experiences are any more real than any other, let alone things that are second-and-third-order experiences like TV Sets, Radio Waves, Electronics, etc.What you're doing is confusing the symbol with the thing it symbolizes- like most people. If there is a single reality, it's completely unknowable because it is infinite and we are finite. The best we can do is create myths- symbols and systems that model reality, but are not in and of themselves reality. That's where my "funny definitions of truth" come in- what I'm really talking about is not a single reality, a single truth, but different ways of modeling reality in such a way that a human brain can understand it.As A.S. sufferers- you and I are particularly and singularly bad at some models. You and I are completely, utterly retarded when it comes to other people's emotions. We assume that they are the same as us, when they're really not- their brains work differently than ours do. That doesn't matter very much when it comes to scientific, or even theological truth. There are systems in place, the scientific method and it's older cousin the counciliar method, that specifically negate the emotional component- that's what they're supposed to do. But in Political Truth and Philosophical Truth- they have their methods too, but their methods are specifically designed, near as I can tell, to emphasize the emotions and SUPRESS the facts. You're looking for a factual based truth- confusing your model of truth with reality- when none can possibly exist, and you consider other models to be merely myth- not realizing that your own model, too, is merely myth, because that's all a myth is- a model that explains something about the universe.
--If you don't like the reaction- don't do the action. Isaac Newton applied to ethics.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 5:33 (#12216280) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
What you're doing is confusing the symbol with the thing it symbolizes- like most people.I don't do this. Physics is an analogy: a powerful one, to be sure. I stated that I believed that my experiences were "explainable using current physics, but then it might require new physics. I might indeed be wrong, myself!"; this does not mean that I believe that the physics is the reality. I even paused to wonder whether I should write that reality might indeed lack mathematical representation, but I decided that it distracted from my point, so I didn't write that.
Emphasising the emotions is a strategy that is fit, rather than true; it seems that subject to an environment where many perpetually seek social advantage, it is fit for some to specialise in truth over immediate social advantage. This, I suspect, is part of the reason that AS is relatively common. I suspect that it is similar with manic depressives: in that case, raw creativity is the advantage. I am not going to call what is socially advantageous "truth" out of deferrence; after all, the average person considers someone with AS to be emotionally naïve, stunted, maybe even (falsely) cold. Being in the minority, it is easy to accept an inferior status by using others' norms, but I don't think that this is fair, any more than it is fair to rate olympic runners according to their scores at IQ tests.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)