Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[nemo]

With regard to your thoughts on traditional logic vs. squirrel logic: Is it possible that, instead of assuming that the actions of an adult squirrel or the fluid motions of a talented basketball player are a different sort of logic, they are the result of repetitive traditional logic - as demonstrated by traditional structured programming's transition to object oriented methods? As a child learns mathematics, they go through the proofs of repetitive addition, just as an athlete would learn to simultaneously dribble the ball and run. As the child grows, the use of multiplication proves itself to be more efficient than repetitive addition, and problems that used to involve 13 individual addition computations may now involve 3 - repetitive computations are now viewed as blocks, just like the actions of moving down a basketball court.

Perhaps it's not that the traditional logic is not done anymore, it's that the computations are already proven and now being treated as grouped objects.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by nemo

With regard to your thoughts on traditional logic vs. squirrel logic: Is it possible that, instead of assuming that the actions of an adult squirrel or the fluid motions of a talented basketball player are a different sort of logic, ...

You are making exactly the same error Buffy made in that you are concerning yourself with the "usage" of knowledge, not the issue I was talking about. My concern is with the issue of how we come to have this knowledge available. The analysis of that process is very important as the logical question of determining the validity of the information is a serious philosophical question. All I am trying to do is point out the vast difference between the two definable procedures.

Originally Posted by nemo

As the child grows, the use of multiplication proves itself to be more efficient than repetitive addition, and problems that used to involve 13 individual addition computations may now involve 3 - repetitive computations are now viewed as blocks, just like the actions of moving down a basketball court.

I do not argue with that at all. What I say is that it is a very different procedure from a formal sequence. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is lay out, in detail, exactly what the specific mechanical steps are (all of them) from start to finish. The point being to make absolutely sure that there is not an invalid presumption anywhere in the operation. If you can do that then I tell you what, write out the decision process in detail so I can build a robot which can learn to play basketball from scratch.

Perhaps you might benefit by examining my answer to Buffy.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Happeh]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Well, I had been hoping for an intelligent response to this thread. It has been over a month since I posted and only seventy nine people have even read it so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The fact that so few people have even taken the trouble to look appears to imply that "Defining the nature of rational discussion" isn't an issue held in high regard here. That is too bad as it is actually the veritable key to understanding the universe. So I will respond to the only reply on the thread in the fond hope that further responses might occur.

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

I think you are being harsh. The post is huge first of all. Second of all it gave me a headache just skimming thru it.

Yes you could divide up thought the way you did. Yes intuition is better to listen to for life decisions. Yes science can be replicated, but really, what good is it? If you are not a technician working for someone to make money, or working on a new invention, what real use does scientific knowledge have in a person's daily life?

It is better for a person health wise and for their uplifiting to be an intuition type thinker.

You know how I said what you wrote gave me a headache? There is a reason for that. The same reason so many people appear "Stupid" because they "do not understand" science and scientific thought. What if, instead of being stupid or innately unable to think scientifically, they choose not to think scientifically? They choose not to think scientifically because it literally make them sick? Who would choose to do something that makes them sick?

I think you think too much. That first post made me sick by forcing my brain into this rigid block that hurt. It is a product of the scientific process. That style of writing and thinking. If you want readers....more than 79....and some responses, you want to speak more fluidly, more enjoyably, more healthily. The problem with that is your fellow scientists will jump on you for not being scientifically rigid.

I am kind of beating around the bush to tell you that IMO, people have a choice in life. They can think scientifically, or they can be a basketball guy who makes instinctive shots from 30 feet. You have a choice because your body must develop in a way to do one or the other. The two tasks are mutually exclusive to each other. You cannot expect people who choose to shoot baskets from 30 feet to be able to force themselves to endure the pain of reading that first post. From the paucity of replies, it looks like lots of people did not want to endure the physical pain of reading it.

It was kind of like watching a person juggle balls, or should I say squirrels? It was fun to watch for a little bit, but then you walk away. No one ever talks to jugglers because it will break their concentration. Not because they are bored or rude.

[Happeh]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Hi Buffy,

Sorry for the length of my posts. It is no more than an attempt to be clear. I can see so many ways my comments can be misinterpreted I try to cover all the bases. In the end, the readers usually misinterpret me anyway. I guess I am just not a decent writer. But I try!
You shouldn't sell yourself short. When I was young, my mother told me that one learns more by listening than by talking and I took her quite seriously. I listened for a long time. Now I am old and not in a position to learn much more. Maybe it is my turn to talk. I know a few things that I think are worth talking about. But I just can't find anyone who wants to listen.

In my life, I have never met anyone who's mind I would condescend to rank superior to my own. I was always told that intelligence was a measure of one's ability to solve problems: i.e., if two people know exactly the same things, the more intelligent one can do more with it. Think about that. Considering what the top people know, why is it that most of the breakthroughs are accomplished by youngsters? Now is that controversial enough for you Buffy? If you have a good answer for that one I would like to hear it. I have one; a very specific answer.
Yeah, I have noticed that. It's probably due to the ignorance of the people one has to deal with (notice I said "ignorance", not "intelligence"; in my opinion, the average man is far more intelligent than he is given credit for, his problem is that he doesn't know very much). If one listened to everyone, they wouldn't have any time left. I know I don't listen very much anymore myself. If you don't have a decent attention span, you might as well ignore me because what I have to say requires understanding a number of rather diverse facts ordinarily never brought to bear on one another.

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

I feel familiar with some of these thoughts. You have a problem. You are never going to find the people you are looking for.

The way you talk and think is rare. Exceedingly rare. I been around the internet for 8 or 10 years and I can't really remember anyone who can talk like that. In my life I have maybe met 10 people who can talk like that. You have to get used to being alone, and the idea that you are different. Once you accept that, the next part is easier.

You have to accept that if you want to get thru to people, you will have to change. You will have to "dumb down" your style of speech and your ideas. That goes against everything science and your ego will tell you. It is not pleasant. To force yourself to be someone you are not. I think you have no choice.

For instance, the comment about your length of writing is necessary to be clear. I understand that completely. I write so much people literally tell me to stop. What you and I find to be the clarity of completely describing an experiment as science recommends, regular people find to be mind numbing detail. Excruciating boredom. They are not scientists, there is no reason for them to be rigourous as must be done with experiments or scientific discussion or thought. Regular people will find you pedantic and scroll thru the post after 1 paragraph.

The bit about your turn to talk and others to listen. That tells me you are indeed older. I wonder if that feeling is like salmon swimming upstream? All older people feel like imparting their wisdom to someone else? I wonder if it is fathering instinct. Passing on knowledge that can save your tribe from future trouble. The problem is, other people do not necessarily feel it is their time to listen.

Lastly, the arrogance. I really don't know what to say about that. People really hate arrogance. If you said you would give them $1000, but you did it in an arrogant way, some people will turn you down. Telling people you are smart and they are ignorant is guaranteed to drive away anyone in the vicinity. It does not matter if it is true. No one wants to hear another person say that. You have to be satisfied that you know you are smarter than the average bear.

If I could give you some advice, first I would say you need exercise. Do you exercise? You will find that if you begin to exercise regularly, in a relaxing and fun exercise, not weightlifiting or something stressful, that your thinking, your speech and your writing style will change. The condition of your body has a direct influence on the thoughts you think and how you talk. Right now you sound very rigid and hard. If you were more relaxed, your thinking would relax. I think just that process of relaxation of your brain would allow the answers to some of your questions to bubble up to the surface. Right now the answers are trapped under a concrete plug that is surrounding your brain.

[alxian]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Well, one piece of advice: even smart people have short attention spans, and the length of your initial post...

[the quote should be longer but this is the important bit]

EEEK!!!

is this thread even worth investigating for its scientific merit????

[Happeh]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

You are making exactly the same error Buffy made in that you are concerning yourself with the "usage" of knowledge, not the issue I was talking about. My concern is with the issue of how we come to have this knowledge available. The analysis of that process is very important as the logical question of determining the validity of the information is a serious philosophical question. All I am trying to do is point out the vast difference between the two definable procedures.
I do not argue with that at all. What I say is that it is a very different procedure from a formal sequence. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is lay out, in detail, exactly what the specific mechanical steps are (all of them) from start to finish. The point being to make absolutely sure that there is not an invalid presumption anywhere in the operation. If you can do that then I tell you what, write out the decision process in detail so I can build a robot which can learn to play basketball from scratch.

Perhaps you might benefit by examining my answer to Buffy.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

Oh Dick! You owe me $10 at least! I can't believe I am reading all of this. These posts are killing me.

You want to know how basketball players "come to have this knowledge". There is no answer like 2 + 2 = 4. You have to completely change your view of how the universe works and what life is about and the nature of human beings. You will resist that because it is your nature. You will demand detailed explanations and proof for everything. The problem is, there is no proof. The way it works is that you have faith, nothing but your belief, then the proof shows itself. No one can do anything about that except reassure you that you are not wasting your time having faith.

It is like proving radiation exists. If I say to you radiation exists, you can say no, you have no proof. I don't have any proof. There is nothing in my back pocket to prove radiation. I don't have any objects or any experiments to prove that there is such a thing as radiation. I believe that it takes huge expensive machines to prove that radiation exists. Plus the necessary background to even understand what radiation is. What I can do is give you simple examples of the effects of radiation. I can say if you stand close to a stove, that is heat radiation. I can't prove it. There is no heat beam we can see coming from the stove and making you hot. No visible waves rising up from the stove or anything. Just the sensation of heat.

That is just like the stuff about life you don't know. First someone has to give you background to even begin the discussion of what life is really about. Then I can say to you, "See this evidence? That is evidence of this particular principle of life that you do not understand". You can't see the principle of life, you can only see it's effects. That is where faith comes in. Once you see enough evidence of results, you will then have faith in what the principle of life causing those results is.

Then that bit of someone having to prove you wrong. That is scientific talk that makes perfect sense. But it is not very.......fun. Especially when you got sarcastic. It is not possible to do what you want. You want a process as complex as a nuclear reactor spelled out in steps so you can replicate it. If you break down your demands into something easier and more reasonable to handle, maybe someone can help you.

I can tell you why basketball players are the way they are and you are the way you are. You won't believe me. I like to have fun in discussions. If your posts so far are any indication, it looks like you would be demanding, short, arrogant and sarcastic with me. Trying to help someone understand, when they are returning negativity like that is very draining. Someone has to like you a lot to do that for you.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Happeh

I can't believe I am reading all of this. These posts are killing me.

If you don't enjoy it, why bother reading it.

Originally Posted by Happeh

You want to know how basketball players "come to have this knowledge". There is no answer like 2 + 2 = 4.

I thought that was what I said???

Originally Posted by Happeh

Then that bit of someone having to prove you wrong. That is scientific talk that makes perfect sense. But it is not very.......fun.

"Different strokes for different folks". I have a lot of fun thinking and would enjoy talking to others who have that same penchant.

Originally Posted by Happeh

If your posts so far are any indication, it looks like you would be demanding, short, arrogant and sarcastic with me. Trying to help someone understand, when they are returning negativity like that is very draining. Someone has to like you a lot to do that for you.

I'm very sorry, I had no intention of upsetting you. Please just ignore my posts if you do not enjoy reading them.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[EWright]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If you don't enjoy it, why bother reading it.
I thought that was what I said???
"Different strokes for different folks". I have a lot of fun thinking and would enjoy talking to others who have that same penchant.
I'm very sorry, I had no intention of upsetting you. Please just ignore my posts if you do not enjoy reading them.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

It's not a matter of not enjoying them, as I do find interest in what you have to say. But I have no desire to the initial long-ass post on a philosophical point that I'd only have a moderate interest in, in the first place. Surely what you have to say there can be summarized to a large extent. Or, pose an initial thought and then expand on it with responses to those who reply.

Perhaps this is somewhat hypocritical of me, as I tend to get lengthy about things that I am passionate about as well. But a lot of the topics on this site are rather 'deep'; and personally, I tend to get 'worn out' thinking too deeply about too many different things for too long. So when I come across something I'm only moderately interested in, and my mind is already getting full, I tend to pass it by.

Just my two cents.

[Turtle]

___Very interesting! Some of us do do things which make us sick, in the hope & anticipation of reward in the form of emrgence/synergy.
___I believe part of this hinges on the 2 different approaches to logic, i.e. deduction & induction; the specialist vs the generalist. The generalist approach is less apprehended in my opinion; it does not arise anyway without considerable excursions into the specifics. Many people reach a specific plateau & remain there engaged in its nuances with little regard or knowledge of general principles.

[Qfwfq]

Try thinking of it this way DD, if a squirrel eats 'cause it's hungry, hunger is a reason for eating. It's very much a terminological issue. Apart from this I didn't find much that was enlightening.

If the squirrel needed to ponder it over, instead of having been born with the instinct, by the time it logically deduced that eating would alleviate the discomfort it would likely be too late. It took several tens of thousands of years before homo sapiens sapiens started to formalize the inference rules of logic. Yet, if people hadn't been naturally making an intuitive use of logic long before Aristotle, we wouldn't have survived. It's what we had instead of other things.

After saying in the other thread that these things would be better discussed here than there I took a look here, that's why you got the response you did get during a month. Your reply came on the first day of my break.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Lots of people think I'm a dumb blonde, but that's okay, it doesn't really bother me much!

I had absolutely no doubt Buffy, that you're far too smart to let such things bother you!!!