The Problem with Skeptics

[ProphetofOccam]

And since you're forcing my hand, I'll directly attack the idea you presented. I don't like doing that, but I think it's what you perceive as "not explaining [my] rationale."

You took a portion of the discussion regarding whether or not the brain functions like every other part of the body -- sugar conversion, bio-electric signals,, other chemistry leading to energy converted leading to output -- in a place it didn't belong. You attempted to force an otherwise inapplicable ancient, philosophical premise into relevance by erroneously applying a principle of theoretical quantum physics to an instance of classical physics. That is completely nonsensical in a very inherent, self evident way.

You never provided a coherent reason for this diversion, and placed the burden of discerning its relevance, or coherence, on me. When I said it was "outside the realms of the discussion," I meant it was nonsense. It is your duty to explain your rationale for this incoherent approach to that specific topic, it's not my job to explain that the unifying theory needed to bring coherence to your argument is nonexistent.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Full disclosure, the minute I have to type something like that is the minute I stop having fun. Actually, the minute I am told that my failure to conform to a person's worldview regarding the value of the awesome things that person uses to define the world around them is an obvious sign of my lack of understanding of those things is the minute I stop having fun. In short, this is no longer fun.

I came to this place to talk about aliens and shit, but foolishly entertained the idea of talking about personal worldview. That degenerated into some kind of debate about UFOs and brains, which always devolves into a pointless defense of science as a construct.

This isn't why I'm here. Not at all.

 

[Randall]

That's just not true. The problem is that you disagree with my rationale, so it is classified as having never been presented.

You keep saying I disagree, when in fact I'm saying you just aren't seeing the whole picture and that for the most part I agree with the parts you do see. If you are saying you actually do see the whole picture, you haven't made that clear in any of your counterpoint.

I have explained, in three different ways throughout the course of this and two other threads, that I do not think that critical thinking, outside the realms of the scientific method that can restrain it in a positive way, is a valuable tool for investigating the universe.

You've stated it but you haven't "explained" it. Explaining it would require that you provide counterpoint that goes beyond repeating one way or another that you simply disagree.

Using theoretical quantum physics as a device to explain elements of large body physics is fundamentally inappropriate. Unless you are proposing to have discovered the unifying theory, you can't do that and expect someone not to say "that doesn't work." No further explanation is required when matters are self evident.

The analogy that I constructed using the Planck length was in response to your commentary on brain/thought duality. If you had understood the analogy in the context of the philosophy mentioned, then you wouldn't be applying it to physics in an attempt to invalidate it.

As far as the whole philosophy thing goes, I'll tell you what I told the only philosophy professor I had at Kent: When it comes to matters of the advancement of knowledge and our understanding of the universe, it's best to stay cutting edge. I'm unimpressed by people who sit around thinking about complicated problems and more impressed by the people with their feet on the ground actually solving them. The fact is, philosophy gave birth to pragmatism and then became irrelevant. Pragmatism gave way to the modern scientific method, and real advancement began to take place in regards to our knowledge of the state of the physical universe (reality).

Again, the issue above does nothing to provide counterpoint to the issues raised in past posts. If you just want to hand wave and dismiss, then you cannot claim to hold any view that is more or less accurate than any other. How "impressed" you are with people's ability to process complex problems is also irrelevant to the validity of your position. However I do concur with you that field work is worthy of respect, and at no time have I indicated otherwise.

Most modern philosophers are actually armchair scientists who use studies and data from scientific and psychiatric journals to focus their contemplations. The ones who dwell on abstractions like the metaphysical nature of a consciousness are dealing in untestable, unknowable, unprovable matters that aren't interesting to me, as they present nothing that can ever be registered as fact or legitimate knowledge (to me). I have explained, over and over, why contemplation, perception, reason, common sense, critical thinking and personal experience are weak devices for the seeking of truth, though some of them, when constrained within the scientific method, have a place. You seem to think that by disagreeing with this that you have stricken it from the record of our conversation, but you most assuredly haven't.

Again you haven't "explained" your position. You've simply restated it in different ways, each time failing to address the counterpoints to your position.

Your suggestion that my rationale has gone unexplained is just plain untrue. You just don't like the explanations.

Dismissal and repetition do not qualify as explanation, and your points have been met with counterpoint in the form of examples backed by reason and logic that show there are exceptions to your view.

And since you're forcing my hand, I'll directly attack the idea you presented. I don't like doing that, but I think it's what you perceive as "not explaining [my] rationale." You took a portion of the discussion regarding whether or not the brain functions like every other part of the body -- sugar conversion, bio-electric signals,, other chemistry leading to energy converted leading to output -- in a place it didn't belong. You attempted to force an otherwise inapplicable ancient, philosophical premise into relevance by erroneously applying a principle of theoretical quantum physics to an instance of classical physics. That is completely nonsensical in a very inherent, self evident way. You never provided a coherent reason for this diversion, and placed the burden of discerning its relevance, or coherence, on me. When I said it was "outside the realms of the discussion," I meant it was nonsense. It is your duty to explain your rationale for this incoherent approach to that specific topic, it's not my job to explain that the unifying theory needed to bring coherence to your argument is nonexistent.

We've jumped back and forth a bit between threads so maybe that's where some of the confusion is coming into play. In order to clear up the above we'd need to retrieve the quotes in the context of the specific issue and examine them. From what I recall, we were discussing the difference between the bio-electrochemical functioning of the brain and the phenomenon of thought ( e.g. the presence of an image in one's mind ). You indicated,

"I don't think the brain and thought are one entity, but I do think thought is energy that has been converted by the brain in the form of sugars, other chemicals and reaction ( just as light is energy [electricity] that has been converted in the light bulb ). In that way, I see it as no different than running, speaking, or any other expression of bodily energy conversion."​

My response was two fold:

1. "However in the case of a thought ( an imaginary image ), the image isn't actually composed of light. There is no tiny little projection screen inside your head. It also has no weight that can be measured. Brain waves can be measured on an EEG, but the EEG doesn't display the actual image. So "brain waves" aren't the image any more than radio waves are the music you hear on an FM station. The fact is, we just don't know exactly what it's made of.
2. "Running is not equal to to carrots in the same way thinking is not equal to carrots, but a thought is as different from carrots as running is from motion. We can run and still go nowhere ( treadmill ). We might then be tempted to say running isn't actually about how far our body travels, but about the movement of our legs, arms heart and so on that are used when running. But that still involves movement, and we tend to think we understand what is happening when we move something from location to location, but in reality we're not quite sure. This is another philosophical conundrum ( think Zeno of Elea ). When we look at the issue as close as we can, we get down to something called the Planck Length, and what goes on at that distance isn't certain. Below the Planck Length we can't pinpoint the location of anything, yet above it things still traverse the distance, but we we don't know how ... it just seems to happen."

In the context of our discussion and my response, using the Panck Length is perfectly legitimate. However if you aren't aware of Zeno's Paradox, then you won't see how it applies to the issue of movement, and consequently how it relates to the fundamental difference between running and motion, and consequently again not see how it is an accurate analogy to the difference between the physical brain and the thoughts it gives rise to.

 

[5tomidnite]

Sorry. I meant to comment on this, but it slipped my mind.

No worries. I've been following the thread. You've been busy.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Zeno's Paradox

Anyone who has spent a year in college knows these things, Ufology. Philosophy intel is dimestore. I don't think your analogy works for the reasons stated. You can't just break the rules of reality to create an analogy to prove a point that barely makes sense in the first place. The entire concept of Zeno's Paradoz is an abstraction created by people who didn't understand the world around them. The only way things of this nature can make sense, given modern knowledge, is to break the rules of the physics that contradict them.

Every school kid in the world has looked at a ruler and said "geeze, you could just keep cutting this thing in half infinitely; so, this ruler is infinitely long!" That's because they don't realize that there are rules in play that prevent that from happening. Most of Zeno's paradoxes are constructed around that basic idea. I'm not going to read a wikipedia article about something I had to take a stupid test about ten years ago, especially when I think it's inappropriately applied.

It's a pointless distraction from the point. the analogy made no sense -- it is nonsense. You basically sidestepped the legitimate point at hand to try to explain why movement is an illusion. I think that's a waste of time. Movement is not an illusion. it is a physical fact of reality. Attempting to force Planck distance into Newtonian concepts, like a person running a distance, or even a muscle moving, is also a waste of time. Doing the latter to reinforce the legitimacy of the former is just a really long waste of time.

Saying "We don't know what movement is. We don't know what it is because an ancient Greek didn't know how the natural world worked. We also don't know what it is because, when looking at something like a Planck length, we don't actually know how matter behaves," is a non sequitur that doesn't address the immediate topic or offer any legitimate counterpoint to what's been said. We don't look at the Planck distances when we are talking about moving limbs. Why would we do that for the sake of trying to legitimize Zeno's abstraction of motion?

You needed special pleading to make your analogy work. I am not open to accepting that, for myself, and the way I see things. Telling me that I don't understand your analogy, or the very elementary pieces of information that went into its creation, is asinine, pretentious, and frankly, obnoxious.

Rather than address how these systems actually work, physiologically or bio-chemically, you sidestepped the issue to get into an argument from a metaphysical perception of reality. I said I felt it wasn't in the nature of the immediate subject matter. It's not.

That is where we disagree. It's not in the nature of the immediate subject.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

And like I said, man, these types of discussions aren't fun when it stops being about "here's what i think" and starts being about "yer gunna fuckin' think what i think or justify why you don't!" and then into "if you don't think what I think, you obviously don't understand the things I use to build what i think, you poor simple fuck!" That's what this has become.

I don't need to explain to you why I don't think like you think. I explained, now in four different ways, each more needlessly detailed than the last, why I felt you were derailing the point at hand -- that should be enough to either agree to disagree regarding the value of what's being said or just end the conversation due to an inability to proceed. You have the inability to accept either of those two concepts.

People agree to disagree to be polite -- to avoid these kinds of exchanges. Let them.

 

[Randall]

I've never said you have to think like anyone. I've only pointed out the logical issues with your "explanations". For example, your comments don't always address the issues. The latest examples ( above ) consists of downplaying the point made by calling it "dimestore" and slighting the intellect involved by suggesting that it's for people who "don't understand the world around them" ( as if you somehow do ). Then you've gone on in a rather suggestive manner to put words in my mouth when there is no actual evidence of any such attitude or behavior. This is reminding me of the discussions I've seen where religious people who have no logical counterpoint start in with hand waving and acting out. You may want to "agree to disagree", and I respect the spirit of that intent ( to remain civil - which I've been the whole time), but as I said a few posts back, I can go a long ways before flaming out. I've also got a lot of altitude left.

So although you might disagree, there is no need for me to agree to do the same. As already mentioned, I agree with you up to a point and after that it's not so much that I have disagreed, as pointed out exceptions to your counterpoint. In theory, a rational skeptic would embrace this and use it to advance the discussion beyond where it was. At least that's what skeptics claim they do. However your counterpoint has consisted largely of repeating the same view in different ways. Valid counterpoint consists of addressing the points made and doing one of three things; accepting them, adding to them, or providing a rationale for rejecting them. Simply saying we'll have to "agree to disagree" is called "hand waving" and doesn't qualify as valid counterpoint. Skeptics also claim to embrace critical thinking. But you choose to "disagree" with that as well.

So whereas you started out claiming to be a skeptic, and put on a pretty good show up this point, the veneer appears to be peeling off and what we're seeing beneath is denial. If you don't find that "fun", I guess that's too bad. I would prefer that you were enjoying the discussion, but ultimately the amount of fun we're having isn't relevant. All that should be required to stay within acceptable social limits is to remain focused, rational and civil. If you're having trouble doing that, perhaps it would be better for us to adjourn the discussion.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

We weren't having a debate. Had I been having a debate, I would have been interested in counterpoint.

I was originally expressing why it's difficult, as a skeptic, to see eye to eye with nonskeptics ona level that even allows for debate.

That sprouted into the two of us kind of explaining how we both see the situation, which also involved some of the bleeding of another conversation into this one (something I'm not entirely comfortable with for a number of reasons). You began using matter-of-fact wording to "counterpoint" my passive commentary. I originally believed that I was just being asked to sharpen what i was trying to explain, in regards to my view. It slowly became clear that i was being asked to justify it. That is true of both conversations.

In both cases, I was "hand waving" things that I don't believe are valuable tools in the seeking of truth. I did this believing that what I was discussing were the major differences between two view points. Despite the phrase "that's not accurate" appearing at one point, I didn't really think i was being legitimately debated, but passively questioned in a debate-like manner so as to focus what the things I was saying meant.

I didn't realize you were literally telling me that the way i think is inaccurate until I mentioned it in this thread. That's why I was so confused regarding why you couldn't just accept that we disagree regarding the value of these things.

I'm glad you like philosophy. Still, I don't like someone telling me that i don't know things that one learns in intro philosophy classes, nor do i like someone to use that ridiculous assumption to attempt to formulate some kind of "counterpoint." Philosophy is not difficult to learn, understand, or contribute to, largely because fallacies in the formation of its paradoxes and untestable hypotheses go unchallenged; that, to me, is cheap -- dimestore. It's not for me, which is what i was explaining to you.

I feel like I could respond that the average junior high school student with decent grades knows more about the world around them than an ancient Greek, thanks to science and the knowledge it has brought to our modern society, but it's not up to me to force people to live in a particular epoch. However, I don't allow people to attack my viewpoint uninvited, nor do I allow people to do so using the inaccurate application of science, logical fallacy, or metaphysics. That's not interesting or entertaining to me, on any level.

I'm sorry that you believed that we were engaged in a debate, beyond the light usage of the word to describe a type of questioning being used to encourage me to focus a particular point or explanation. In no conceivable way would I debate my worldview with you, or anyone in these forums. If anyone is ever under that impression, quickly understand that you have the wrong impression.

The problem with this exchange is that someone got emotionally involved and turned it into an inquisition. I'm sorry that I don't feel that there is enough evidence or information to believe that aliens or spaceships visit this planet. I'm sorry that some people feel that the fact that a skeptic feels this way means that the skeptic must also think those who do think this way are somehow stupid. I'm sorry that those people then feel the urge to turn a table that doesn't exist in an attempt to make the skeptic feel stupid. I'm sorry that that technique never works. I'm sorry that some people are incapable of recognizing that some people don't agree with their world view and that it's perfectly fine. I'm sorry that I mistook this ambush debate for a good natured sharing of view points. It won't happen again.

 

[dyingsun]

Yes, why would someone emotionally get involved. Have 'fun' here, as long as it will last, dear ProphetofOccam.

 

[Randall]

We weren't having a debate. Had I been having a debate, I would have been interested in counterpoint.

It's not reasonable for you to make posts and simply expect everyone agree with your position and forfeit their right to request an explanation, or question your explanations when they appear to be faulty or unclear.

I was originally expressing why it's difficult, as a skeptic, to see eye to eye with nonskeptics ona level that even allows for debate. That sprouted into the two of us kind of explaining how we both see the situation, which also involved some of the bleeding of another conversation into this one (something I'm not entirely comfortable with for a number of reasons). You began using matter-of-fact wording to "counterpoint" my passive commentary. I originally believed that I was just being asked to sharpen what i was trying to explain, in regards to my view. It slowly became clear that i was being asked to justify it. That is true of both conversations.

So what? Same response as above.

In both cases, I was "hand waving" things that I don't believe are valuable tools in the seeking of truth. I did this believing that what I was discussing were the major differences between two view points. Despite the phrase "that's not accurate" appearing at one point, I didn't really think i was being legitimately debated, but passively questioned in a debate-like manner so as to focus what the things I was saying meant. I didn't realize you were literally telling me that the way i think is inaccurate until I mentioned it in this thread. That's why I was so confused regarding why you couldn't just accept that we disagree regarding the value of these things.

Again, same response as the first.

I'm glad you like philosophy. Still, I don't like someone telling me that i don't know things that one learns in intro philosophy classes, nor do i like someone to use that ridiculous assumption to attempt to formulate some kind of "counterpoint." Philosophy is not difficult to learn, understand, or contribute to, largely because fallacies in the formation of its paradoxes and untestable hypotheses go unchallenged; that, to me, is cheap -- dimestore. It's not for me, which is what i was explaining to you.

Calling the philosophical issues raised, "cheap dimestore" and "not true for you" amounts to nothing more than offhanded dismissal. It also makes no difference whether or not the example used involves the most fundamental of philosophical issues. By trivializing them as if it's unworthy of your consideration is coming across as some kind of superior attitude. In contrast, I've admitted I don't have the answers and the search for them is central to our understanding of reality and truth.

I feel like I could respond that the average junior high school student with decent grades knows more about the world around them than an ancient Greek, thanks to science and the knowledge it has brought to our modern society, but it's not up to me to force people to live in a particular epoch. However, I don't allow people to attack my viewpoint uninvited, nor do I allow people to do so using the inaccurate application of science, logical fallacy, or metaphysics. That's not interesting or entertaining to me, on any level.

Another example of trivializing the issues to justify your hand waving, while at the same time using unsubstantiated proclamations to portray yourself as being reasonable and scientific.

I'm sorry that you believed that we were engaged in a debate, beyond the light usage of the word to describe a type of questioning being used to encourage me to focus a particular point or explanation. In no conceivable way would I debate my worldview with you, or anyone in these forums. If anyone is ever under that impression, quickly understand that you have the wrong impression.

Same as my first answer. If you plan on posting your views here then expect them to be subject to analysis, and free comment.

The problem with this exchange is that someone got emotionally involved and turned it into an inquisition.

Same as my first answer. If you plan on posting your views here then expect them to be subject to analysis, and free comment. If your response is to start in with allusions that cast aspersions on people's motives and intentions, instead of actually dealing with the issues, then you're entering another arena altogether. Not only do you expect to be able to make your comments without any challenge, you feel you have some justification to cast judgmental evaluations on those who make such challenges. So much for your "passive" approach. This is the same behavior I see from the religious devotees.

I'm sorry that I don't feel that there is enough evidence or information to believe that aliens or spaceships visit this planet. I'm sorry that some people feel that the fact that a skeptic feels this way means that the skeptic must also think those who do think this way are somehow stupid. I'm sorry that those people then feel the urge to turn a table that doesn't exist in an attempt to make the skeptic feel stupid. I'm sorry that that technique never works. I'm sorry that some people are incapable of recognizing that some people don't agree with their world view and that it's perfectly fine. I'm sorry that I mistook this ambush debate for a good natured sharing of view points. It won't happen again.

Maybe you don't realize it but you're passive resistance is teetering more on the side of passive aggression. You do this by making loaded statements like the ones above that sound apologetic but cast judgmental assumptions as if they're true, again all without ever addressing the issues we were talking about in the first place.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

So what?

I don't know what else to tell ya, dude.

Victory is yours.

 

[Randall]

I don't know what else to tell ya, dude.
Victory is yours.

Using the "victory" metaphor, as if our discussion were a game, the other team is neither you nor I, but ignorance itself. Once we've gone as far as we can, we should both be able to walk away and claim at least a partial victory. At least that's how I see it, not as a competition between the participants in the discussion. Perhaps your view of debating is colored by some negative competitive experience. It doesn't have to be that way. Nobody here is keeping score between you and I.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I'm not on a quest to vanquish ignorance. I will speak up when i think someone says something regarding known science that isn't correct. If/When that person shows me something, regarding the topic at hand, that suggests new information has come to light since the last time I personally checked, I say "oh, cool," and we all move on. This happened in the Alien Physiology disagreement between Maudib and I regarding the components of DNA found in a meteorite, for example. I don't do this, though, to defend knowledge and science or to defeat ignorance; I do it to experiment with how the other person's interpretation of the subject matter might changed based on whatever information I'm introducing.

I don't particularly care whether or not someone -- anyone -- knows correct information about something. It makes no difference, in any way. I care to see the world inside their head, how it works and how it differs from the one in mine. I use science as a measuring stick for the objective, but I'm not altogether concerned about to what degree the other person's world resembles the objective world.

There's no victory for me to claim in any conversation. There is fun, and only fun. I don't find the comparative weighing of worlds particularly fun, so debate is a waste of my time. When in comes to certain topics, I feel like it's a waste of everyone's time. When I'm told that I "can't just make a statement" regarding my own perceptions -- my own world -- without phrasing it as direct counterpoint, I can only see that as a suggestion that I have broken the rules of some sort of contest involving the weighing of my world against another. As I never enter into any contest in any of these conversations, I choose to disengage at that point.

If there is no score, then there is no contest. If there is no contest, then the need for rules is subjective and arguably, in my perception, nonexistent.

In that environment, considerateness is the only gauge for honor and tact. I feel it's entirely fair and decent to disengage from any discussion when the very structure of the discussion threatens the stability of those concepts. I will always exercise the ability to disengage politely, but unapologetically.

 

[Randall]

I'm not on a quest to vanquish ignorance.

The "victory" analogy is one you started so that's why I chose to respond with the same analogy. It's not necessary to inflate it into a "quest" for either one of us.

I will speak up when i think someone says something regarding known science that isn't correct. If/When that person shows me something, regarding the topic at hand, that suggests new information has come to light since the last time I personally checked, I say "oh, cool," and we all move on. This happened in the Alien Physiology disagreement between Maudib and I regarding the components of DNA found in a meteorite, for example.

That's sounds perfectly fair.

I don't do this, though, to defend knowledge and science or to defeat ignorance; I do it to experiment with how the other person's interpretation of the subject matter might changed based on whatever information I'm introducing. I don't particularly care whether or not someone -- anyone -- knows correct information about something. It makes no difference, in any way. I care to see the world inside their head, how it works and how it differs from the one in mine. I use science as a measuring stick for the objective, but I'm not altogether concerned about to what degree the other person's world resembles the objective world.

If you don't care about correct information, how can you hope to understand the world inside someone else's head ( or anywhere else for that matter including your own )?

There's no victory for me to claim in any conversation. There is fun, and only fun. I don't find the comparative weighing of worlds particularly fun, so debate is a waste of my time. When in comes to certain topics, I feel like it's a waste of everyone's time.

Perhaps you've hit on a key point. Although I find the pursuit of truth ( the effort to obtain correct information ) about these mysteries very enjoyable, it's not all fun and games. Those who believe there are objective realities behind unusual phenomena, especially those who've seen it for themselves, value that experience in a way that often makes it very important for them to figure out what is going on. If you truly want to understand "the world inside their head" you need to come to grips with that instead of deeming it irrelevant.

When I'm told that I "can't just make a statement" regarding my own perceptions -- my own world -- without phrasing it as direct counterpoint, I can only see that as a suggestion that I have broken the rules of some sort of contest involving the weighing of my world against another. As I never enter into any contest in any of these conversations, I choose to disengage at that point. If there is no score, then there is no contest. If there is no contest, then the need for rules is subjective and arguably, in my perception, nonexistent. In that environment, considerateness is the only gauge for honor and tact. I feel it's entirely fair and decent to disengage from any discussion when the very structure of the discussion threatens the stability of those concepts. I will always exercise the ability to disengage politely, but unapologetically.

You can make whatever statement you want in whatever way you want within the bounds of the forum's decorum. Just don't automatically expect that it will be taken at face value. You can also disengage any time you want. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't give them adequate reasons to.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

If you don't care about correct information, how can you hope to understand the world inside someone else's head ( or anywhere else for that matter including your own )?

It isn't the accuracy of information inside someone's head that defines the way they think or perceive, but how they process all information to arrive where they have. That's why I say I might speak up about a topic, just to see how that information is rejected, assimilated, or cut up into a mixture of both. How much someone knows isn't important to me when it comes to how they think and see.

Are people more interesting to me when they are generally knowledgeable? Often, yes. I have found that it's not always necessary, however. If a person can weave their incomplete or otherwise inaccurate information database into a new kind of creative knowledge, they can sometimes still be interesting. All the same, in an environment like this, I'm more interested in how someone thinks versus what they know.

What I do with information, or how I feel about information in my own life, is irrelevant to my understanding of another person's world.

Those who believe there are objective realities behind unusual phenomena, especially those who've seen it for themselves, value that experience in a way that often makes it very important for them to figure out what is going on. If you truly want to understand "the world inside their head" you need to come to grips with that instead of deeming it irrelevant.

This is something most adult people are aware of. Again, I think we were having two very different conversations without being aware of it.

If we had been discussing the objective validity of the paranormal, for example, this concept would be helpful to shape the structure of that conversation into something that leads us nearer to some greater understanding or common truth. It would be crucial to accomplishing the goals of that discussion.

I think you may have been having that conversation. I tried to communicate in many ways that I wasn't, nor was I interested in it.

The conversation I was having was more along the lines of, "here's what and how I think, what and how do you? Ok, good to know." Defense of ideas or statements doesn't enter in to that transaction. There are no "inaccuracies," because we aren't talking about something that can be measured or valued -- we're talking about internal universes and how we process information as individuals. If someone says "I don't feel like X is part of the discussion," it means that I don't feel like X is a part of the universe in my head when it comes to evaluating the objective. I don't need to explain why that is, let alone explain it outside the bounds of my style of articulation. I can choose to explain it, and I do, but I do so in my own words for my own reasons.

Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't give them adequate reasons to.

It's never been a problem I've experienced, and I'm not particularly worried about it, here. Even if it were a problem, I fail to see how not being taken seriously affects the scope of these conversations in any way. I'd still get what i want to get out of them, regardless.

 

[Randall]

It isn't the accuracy of information inside someone's head that defines the way they think or perceive, but how they process all information to arrive where they have. That's why I say I might speak up about a topic, just to see how that information is rejected, assimilated, or cut up into a mixture of both. How much someone knows isn't important to me when it comes to how they think and see.

So if I understand you correctly, the only accuracy you are interested in is what the person is thinking and how that information is processed, not the accuracy of the information itself?

Are people more interesting to me when they are generally knowledgeable? Often, yes. I have found that it's not always necessary, however. If a person can weave their incomplete or otherwise inaccurate information database into a new kind of creative knowledge, they can sometimes still be interesting. All the same, in an environment like this, I'm more interested in how someone thinks versus what they know. What I do with information, or how I feel about information in my own life, is irrelevant to my understanding of another person's world.

That is not possible. We are not a blank slates. Any information we gain about another person's world is automatically compared with our existing model as a reference point. That model consists of language and other symbolic programming that is deeply intertwined with our worldviews on both a conscious and subconscious level. Therefore what you do with or feel about the information you already possess prior to engaging another person is of key relevance to your capacity to understand and relate to them.

The conversation I was having was more along the lines of, "here's what and how I think, what and how do you? Ok, good to know." Defense of ideas or statements doesn't enter in to that transaction. There are no "inaccuracies," because we aren't talking about something that can be measured or valued -- we're talking about internal universes and how we process information as individuals. If someone says "I don't feel like X is part of the discussion," it means that I don't feel like X is a part of the universe in my head when it comes to evaluating the objective. I don't need to explain why that is, let alone explain it outside the bounds of my style of articulation. I can choose to explain it, and I do, but I do so in my own words for my own reasons.

This seems to be where you and I are running into barriers. During a discussion, the "What and How I think" are synonymous with critical thinking in the pursuit of truth. So that's exactly what you'll get from me. Before I add any information to the "database" that makes up my worldview, it has to pass through these filters so that it can be accurately defined within its intended context. Consequently my worldview is less like a Jackson Pollock and more like a Jacques Bodin. But you'll never really "understand that world" because it's an exception to what you find "fun". It requires work and attention to detail.

 

[nameless]

The problem with most sceptics is that they do not hold to their own tenets and become fundamental debunkers or people who regardless of reason or facts will overlook or disregard theories or evidence.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I'd quickly like to remind everyone that just because there can be an 'earthly' explanation for something it doesn't mean that that explanation must be the case. Certainly makes it more likely but that is not 100%.

For instance -
(and yes I am arguing for the possible existence of non man-made structured craft) - witness says they saw bright object in sky at night bearing X, it is later found that venus would have been in direction X relative to the witness, debunker says the witnessed object must be the planet venus.
Now, yes indeed it very well could be venus but it might not have been. I am not at all arguing against there being a mundane explanation the witness overlooked, I am only pointing out that the debunking mentality seems to me to be to absolutely hang onto any possible mundane explanation even when it might not be correct.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

That is not possible. We are not a blank slates. Any information we gain about another person's world is automatically compared with our existing model as a reference point. That model consists of language and other symbolic programming that is deeply intertwined with our worldviews on both a conscious and subconscious level. Therefore what you do with or feel about the information you already possess prior to engaging another person is of key relevance to your capacity to understand and relate to them.

That's not what I meant. I don't often state the obvious, unless pushed.

Your apparent understanding of conversation comes from an information seeking standpoint. Mine doesn't.

I mean that my personal pursuit of information, and how I value that information, has no bearing on what I am told by another person regarding their view. I can certainly hear something that clashes with my own perception, but it has nothing to do with my purpose in talking to them.

I am capable of speaking to a person without judging them based on my perception of their lack of knowledge. This is especially true in cases where I am seeking to experience the inner world of another person, not seeking to expand my own knowledge base.

Conversation is experiential, for me. When I want to learn something objective, I'll read a science text book.

In other words, I'm not talking to you to learn about this world. I'm talking to you to visit your brain planet and learn about it.

During a discussion, the "What and How I think" are synonymous with critical thinking in the pursuit of truth.

To you.

We define conversation very differently; consequently, we partake in it for different reasons. If you must, review my reactions to our initial discussion in the "Truth" thread, when I believed it had ended. It is "fun" to find out about how other people think -- to see their inner world.

So that's exactly what you'll get from me.

Yes. I've said that several times. I kept trying to explain to you that we weren't in the same universe, let alone having the same conversation. You couldn't let go of the fact I didn't care about counterpoint or a debate.

Before I add any information to the "database" that makes up my worldview, it has to pass through these filters so that it can be appropriately defined within its intended context. Consequently my worldview is less like a Jackson Pollock and more like a Jacques Bodin.

Fair enough.

For me, that's not what conversation is about. I'm not looking to add to my database, and I don't automatically suspect anyone else is, either. That is what makes it interesting to throw information out there and see how it's processed.

Going back to the meteorite thing, I wasn't looking to add to my database, but it happened. It was a byproduct of my legitimate purpose -- hearing stories, visiting the heads of other folks, and having a good time.

It can get complicated when a conflicting, measurable matter has to be resolved -- as with the meteorite -- before further exploration of the other person's world can take place. I didn't challenge what I was being told because I wanted to enlighten Mau. I challenged it because I was interested in seeing where he'd take the conversation, given what I was saying -- given what I outdatedly knew. For instance, did he build his inner world to conflict with X piece of data, despite knowing that it exists? Did he build it because he didn't know? Those are the interesting things to discover. When he presented the follow-up information, and I found a few more sources, like NASA, that avenue could no longer be explored. The foundation for that section of that part of his inner world was built upon an ingested piece of objective reality -- a reality we were capable of sharing -- and that particular curiosity of mine was quenched.

Did we disagree on every other part of that discussion? Pretty much. Did it matter? Not really. There's no reason to explore those parts through the presentation of conflicting objective materials. As long as the topic of discussion revolves around subjective interpretation of data, the brain-world exploration is inherent.

In your version of conversation, most of that is ignored in favour of a systematic editing of two data sets via interactive comparison and redaction (or so it seems). That couldn't be any less interesting to me, as an activity. It's cool if that's what you're after, but understand that you won't find it reciprocated, in that way, on my end.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

The problem with most sceptics is that they do not hold to their own tenets and become fundamental debunkers or people who regardless of reason or facts will overlook or disregard theories or evidence.

Skeptics can certainly become Dogmatic. Still, given the way many believers quantify evidence, and the way many skeptics do, both sides can mistakenly come across as dogmatic. The two sides just tend to define evidence in two different ways, which is why I say a debate can't take place.

In that case, it makes sense to me that both sides have to default to an ignostic position regarding this type of subject matter, rather than agnostic or skeptic/believer. If we can't even agree on the nature of evidence, how are we supposed to agree on what any evidence suggests? We can't collect and observe enough mutual information in the first step to even allow for a disagreement.