Jump to content
Science Forums

Defining the nature of rational discussion!


Recommended Posts

If you look at my profile, you will find a comment about a search for intelligent life. That is a very central defining aspect of my life. I have a Ph.D. in physics. I went into physics because I wanted to understand the universe and not because I wanted to "do physics". By the way, "the universe" is, by definition, everything – think about that for a while. At any rate, physicists seemed to have a better handle on the problem than anybody else or at least they offered to defend their explanations. However, when I got into graduate school, their interest in justifying their beliefs seemed to fall considerably short of my hopes.

 

In essence, there are two very different ways of "understanding the universe". There is that emotional feeling that something makes sense; that you understand what is going on and have no doubts as to the validity of your expectations. Then again there is a very different kind of understanding which allows you to logically defend some set of analytical expectations in intimate detail; even in cases where no emotional feeling exists to defend the validity of those expectations (here I am talking about all those totally counter intuitive deductions so common in analytical work).

 

In my head, both meanings are very important. When someone says that they "think" something is true, they can have either of the two meanings in mind and they seldom make it clear as to which phenomena they mean to convey. I believe that it is very important that these two different phenomena should be carefully identified and kept in mind whenever rational discussion is attempted. I propose that the following analysis should be examined carefully. If anyone here finds fault with my arguments, please make your complaints clear.

 

I will use the adjective "logical" to classify a specific kind of thought commonly believed, particularly by intellectuals, to be the only possible variety of rational thought (I suspect they believe rational and logical are merely different words for the same phenomena). In my head, the term "rational thought" implies the idea being expressed makes sense: i.e., it does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity. Under that view, the adjective rational does not always imply "logical". The view also makes it apparent that "rational statements" (though they seem to make sense) are not necessarily valid, a point anyone familiar with the development of science should be aware. That is, very bright people have made errors in their beliefs from time to time; but that does not mean that those beliefs were irrational.

 

If one holds that only logical thoughts are rational, then scientific progress becomes impossible since any deductions must be based on things presumed to be valid without reason (those axioms one starts with) and that is certainly irrational. However, I hold that there is a second kind of rational thought which needs to be clearly understood. Call it intuition, Zen or whatever you prefer; I will give it my own name as, though it is what is commonly referred to as intuition or Zen, I don't want to include some of the common connotations of those terms.

 

I will use the adjective "squirrel" (my own creation) to classify thought which is not "logical". (I do this because I think the word has some valuable applicable connotations.) If one has ever watched squirrels in the tree tops, they will see those squirrels making life and death decisions without pause; and usually the correct decisions. Have you ever seen a squirrel run full tilt down a thin branch (the branch bending under his weight) jumping out into empty air to catch a thin branch on another tree ten or twelve feet away? Very rarely do they miss their mark (actually I have never seen an error, but my wife says she has). How do they do this? Most people would agree that they manage this feat by intuition but few would call it Zen.

 

Squirrels are great in the treetops but they lack a bit of skill on the streets. All my life I have heard those smears you see on the street (and I think you know what I mean) humorously referred to as "poor squirrel decisions". Well, they were actually results of real decisions and I think "squirrel" is an excellent adjective to use. I doubt anyone would classify those decisions, whether they are in the tree tops or in the streets, as "logical" (logic being "a strict detailed deduction via the rules of analytical logic").

 

So all thought is divided into two categories, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The great strength of logical thought is that the conclusions reached through logical thought are guaranteed to be as valid as the premises upon which they are based. The weakness of logical thought is that it is limited to a very small number of premises: i.e., the specific number of factors which can be included in the analytical statement of the problem. This is a seriously small number when compared to the volumes of information available to us through our senses.

 

A further problem with logical thought is that the number of specific steps in the process cannot be excessive as we must be consciously aware of each step. If we are to be truly logical, each and every step must be consciously validated. Anyone who has carefully thought anything out is very well aware of the fact that considerable time is consumed in such an analysis. If a logical process were to involve a million steps, I doubt many here would attempt to follow that logic. Now mathematics and formal logic provide us with a certain respite from that last constraint but, even so, logical thought is of very limited applicability.

 

Squirrel thought has its own strengths and weaknesses. Its strength lies in the astonishing number of factors which may be taken into account. Its weakness is the fact that the process can not be validated: i.e., there is no way to prove a squirrel decision is correct. Nevertheless, most of them will be good decisions. Why is that? The answer should be clear. Whatever the mechanisms are, by which those decisions are reached, they have been honed and polished through millions of years of survival; failure to make good "squirrel" decisions has been cleaned from the gene pool by the consequences of the bad decisions.

 

Watch a basketball player dribble down the floor, dodging his opponents, sometimes dribbling behind his back, as he jumps suddenly sideways and snicks the ball through the net thirty feet away! Any athlete knows that very little logical thought goes into such a move. In fact, if you try to consciously think about what you are doing, you won't be able to do it. I think it was Buddha who once said all evil comes from conscious thought.

 

What I am getting at is the fact that logical thought is actually a rather worthless endeavor when it comes to life and death decisions. It is often much better to "go with your gut"; let it be a squirrel decision. In fact, in the absence of mathematics, logical decisions are so limited as to be almost entirely inapplicable to any day to day activities. This is why many students can not understand a purpose to learning mathematics. Actually they are quite right, neither math nor logic serve much of a purpose to important problems. I have known very successful people who have never made a logical decision in their entire life.

 

However, when a problem can be approached with math and logic, one can be quite sure of the absolute validity of their conclusions. Well, "absolute" to a certain extent: it is possible that an important factor was omitted or that some axiom thought to be true is, in fact, false. Thus it is important that we understand how those factors came to be established. There is but one answer; squirrel decisions! I come to the fundamental conclusion that squirrel decisions are the single most important part of thinking; logical thought is not even possible in the absence of squirrel thought.

 

This is, in fact, the single biggest problem in trying to understand the universe. Most everyone believes the ideas they have arrived at via their personal squirrel decisions are the only possible conclusions which can be reached. The reader should understand that "belief" of anything is a squirrel decision. The ability to communicate (language itself) was acquired through squirrel thought. Accept your squirrel decisions as your best bet when it comes to any serious question, but don't ever think that those squirrel decisions are infallible. You don't have to believe they are infallible before you can follow them; when it comes to life, "you pays your money and you takes your chances".

 

On the other hand, if you want to do science, you should remember that even your most cherished squirrel decisions could be wrong. Even you guys who are not "crackpots" should remember that. A lot of science is done in the total absence of logical thought and that has to be so; but scientists should not forget that fact. If they do, science folds over to religion. It may work great, but that does not mean it is valid. Think about that next time you see a "poor squirrel decision".

 

Have fun -- Dick checked

 

Knowledge is Power

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is all that a definition of the nature of rational discussion?

 

Rational means based on reason. Even a squirrel can have it's reasons, although it couldn't afford the time to step through them during it's acrobatics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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. :)

Is all that a definition of the nature of rational discussion?
"All"? If it were "all", it would have to be a lot longer. I presumed you already understood much of the concept before I started. My interest was in clarifying a very important issue central to all analysis. :)
Rational means based on reason. Even a squirrel can have it's reasons, although it couldn't afford the time to step through them during it's acrobatics.
"Couldn't afford the time to step through them"? Am I to interpret that to mean you believe squirrels have the intellectual capacity to step through the logical analysis of the problem that confronts them and it is only their busy work day which prevents them from doing so? I don't think you intended to imply such a thing. What I think is that you have failed to comprehend the central issue I tried to present.

 

The issue I tried to communicate is the difference between beliefs and deductions. Deductions require logic and verification of the steps required can be accomplished. That there are verifiable steps which will lead inevitably to beliefs is itself a belief. And as Qfwfq says, the squirrel couldn't afford the time to step through them (even if he were intellectually capable); well we can't afford the time to step through them either (no matter how intellectually capable one might believe they are).

 

What I was trying to point out is that, anytime we lose sight of the verifiable issue, we are blinding ourselves to the possibility of error. That act is irrational in the extreme and is the major error made in almost all philosophical discussions (an opinion only). All I am really asking is careful recognition of that very real difference: the difference between what we know and what we think we know.

I will leave your other points for discussion in your other thread.
Apparently Qfwfq had little to say about these other points which, for some reason beyond my understanding, he felt were "off topic" on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Since he is the authority on this forum, I will try to make those points a little clearer. :evil:

What would you say if I told you that determinism is a central element of explanation and not of reality at all? If we decide not to explain it, reality is nothing more than a collection of unrelated events in the past. Events which we cannot revisit to assure ourselves the description we are working with is correct (think about that one for a moment).

If we decide not to explain it, what do we discuss? I've thought of these things often, for more than just a moment, without you telling me to.
I never said I had no interest in explaining things. What I was trying to communicate is the idea that this is a fact which should be kept in mind when one goes about constructing an explanation.

 

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion of how what we know and what we assume bears on explaining the universe, let me know.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Well, one piece of advice: even smart people have short attention spans, and the length of your initial post in combination with the lack of a summary of your thesis in the first paragraph probably lost a lot of people early on. To a great extent too, now that I've read it, it seems to be a bit on the "obvious" side, so I think a lot of people may have had few "complaints" so didn't bother to respond, or like Q, ended up with what you might have considered a somewhat flip response.

 

Now the only issue I was really interested in in your post is that you seem to be missing the connection between logical and "squirrel" thought: It seems your definition of logical though is restricted to the process of actually going through the steps of a proof, and instantly if you skip over these steps, you're in squirrel-land. In fact what the squirrel is doing may well have been based on a logical proof, but once proven gets built into "instantaneous reaction based on input". No you don't think about your reaction, but you "know" its right, you don't have to go through the proof again everytime it happens. Moreover, logical proofs can be reasonably approximated by inference: its not an "absolute" proof, but through practice and/or genes, that squirrel knows what muscles need contracting to hit that second limb (and as your wife says, some times they goof, but its still based on "logic"). None of this really "contradicts" any of what you've said, its just clarifying some nuances.

 

Also, 79 is not a bad number of hits for a thread with no followups: you get lots of hits because the thread keeps getting bumped to the top.

 

In general I like formalism, but a lot of people can't be bothered. If you really want to get into an argument here (or anywhere else for that matter) you've got to say something controversial, and yes, do say it in the first sentence, or better yet the title....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffy either I am smarter than I thought or you are dumber than I thought, but you just said almost exactly what I was going to say.

 

Rationale is logic applied quickly. It is logic that is relative, which obviously will lead to bad decisions by squirrels. In squirrel world, judging vehicular speed has been much less necessary than limb jumping accuracy. Thump thump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffy either I am smarter than I thought or you are dumber than I thought, but you just said almost exactly what I was going to say.

 

Rationale is logic applied quickly. It is logic that is relative, which obviously will lead to bad decisions by squirrels. In squirrel world, judging vehicular speed has been much less necessary than limb jumping accuracy. Thump thump.

Actually I don't completely agree with that. :) I think that in Dick's definition of rational thought you can also include the "gut feel" "I'm pretty sure that's right, but I have no evidence for it" kinds of processes that I agree with him, are in fact the source of "new" and "creative" ideas that don't necessarily start with logic (although they may be backed up by logic after the fact!)...maybe this argues that the "logic applied instantaneously" is really a third type of reasoning...

 

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

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think new ideas are modifications to things that already exist. I subscribe to the notion that we are all conditioned by our environment we live in and the rest is genetic/evolved. Gut feelings --> your new ideas theory are merely logic turned rationale turned common sense applied to solve a problem at hand. Our thought process has evolved with our bodies and we simply apply it in the range of our present.

 

When we have more time we always turn to the slow, raw logic. When we are in the middle of the street and under a tire, we use what we were born with, unless something we lived through has modified that gut feeling. Hence the concept of "knowing better." Sometimes we are torn between what we sense and what we learn. Such as my example in a different thread about turning to look who is coming into your area. We know we are not really prey anymore, but we still look even though we know we probably don't need to. In this case, our gut wins over our logic. It depends on your circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. …
I sympathise.

 

Myself, I occasionally post a problem on which I’m failing to make progress to science boards like this one, in the hope that (1) the solution already exists in the literature, and someone will kindly point me to it, or (2) someone will find the problem compelling, and make better progress than I have.

 

Occasionally, I get interesting feedback. Always, I find I benefit from the exercise of packaging my work for an audience. To date, I’ve never had anyone pick up and run a problem to a satisfying conclusion.

 

My apologies for not providing you with any feedback. Your initial post reminded me of many ideas I’ve encountered in popular neuropsychological literature, in particular the 1970s work of John Lilly (Eye of the Cyclone, Mind of the Dolphin, etc.)

 

My personal intuition is that traditional, philosophical approaches to understanding the whole phenomena of “knowing” the nature of objective reality – which is what I take to be of the focus of you search – have consumed lifetimes of minds more capable than mine, so are not likely to be fruitful paths for me. I believe that a reductionistic approach to understanding the underlying mechanics of human and animal thought is the most productive path to understanding “how we understand”, and, ultimately, “understanding the universe”.

 

I’ll not pursue such research myself, but attempt to keep up with the literature, and, perhaps, find applications that the specialists actually doing the work would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :)

My personal intuition is that traditional, philosophical approaches to understanding the whole phenomena of “knowing” the nature of objective reality – which is what I take to be of the focus of you search – have consumed lifetimes of minds more capable than mine, so are not likely to be fruitful paths for me.
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. :eek_big: :eek: :eek:

 

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. :)

Well, one piece of advice: even smart people have short attention spans...
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. :D
To a great extent too, now that I've read it, it seems to be a bit on the "obvious" side, ...
Well, I would certainly think of it as obvious but you nonetheless may have missed the central issue I was trying to convey. You appear to have viewed the thing from the point of view of "usage" of the knowledge, not from the intended perspective of "development" of that knowledge. When looked at from the development side, the basis (or foundation) of both is rather obvious. The foundation of "squirrel" (or intuitive) knowledge is experience and the foundation of "logical" (or deduced) knowledge is presumed axioms. The fact that those axioms are arrived at via intuitive (or squirrel) processes and the fact that deduced knowledge is part and parcel of your experiences provides the connection between the two. They are inexorably bound in any concept conceived by man (or woman :) ). Nonetheless, they are very different processes and the differences are fundamental to answering the question, Exactly what can be deduced from first principals?

In general I like formalism, but a lot of people can't be bothered.
If you like it, perhaps I could interest you in my thoughts. For those who "can't be bothered", I really don't want to bother them. The issue I want to talk about takes a decent attention span to make sure one is performing a rational examination of that subject (particularly when most people believe the correct answer is "nothing at all". :) ) Anyone here who feels uninterested in the subject can drop out here; I won't feel rejected at all.

 

Mathematics as fundamental foundation principal

 

Meanwhile, for anyone who might be interested, I need to establish some fundamentals. Exactly what are the "first principals" I think should be used as the foundation of such a study? Since all logic is itself based on intuitive concepts, logic itself is a "squirrel" concept. That is, logic is constructed from concepts taken to be "self evident"; but "self evident", when examined objectively, is essentially no more than the fact that one can not conceive of them being wrong. I bring this issue up only to confront the oft raised philosophical position that logic itself is a presumptive structure and, as such, cannot be asserted to be an unquestioned requirement. (Yes, I have had that issue raised against my thoughts.) I counter their position with the assertion that "truth" by definition is the only absolute truth available to us. The issue of truth by definition rests on two very straight forward points: (1.) we either agree on our definitions or communication is impossible and (2.) only the existence of internal contradictions can invalidate a definition. Formal logic is no more than extension of the concept of definition: i.e., the definition of absolute truth. As Feynman once said, "mathematics is the distilled essence of logic". Thus it is that I take mathematics as a given foundation element but not quite as it is seen by most others. I see it as a language which has been stripped of inconsistencies through thousands of years of hard work performed by professional mathematicians. The important point being, when I give instructions in mathematics, I can be fairly confident that the listener will obtain the same results I obtained: i.e., communicantions can be much clearer than they are in English.

 

What is the definition of mathematics

 

"First Principles of Mathematics" is an extremely esoteric subject. I have not made a careful study of it but I have managed to pull out enough to convince me of an overall viewpoint which makes sense of their approach and their results (to me at least). I have come to define mathematics as the invention and study of internally consistent systems (systems being any collection of "things" together with set of rules involving those "things"). That definition is a statement of what I mean when I refer to mathematics. I only make that comment because I have rarely found it possible to achieve agreement on that definition. Everyone else seems to think that is not the definition of mathematics but no one has ever told me what they think mathematics is so I am left holding the bag. They apparently know it when they see it and presume everyone else does too. Personally I don't care for that position; I need to know what I am talking about so I can see what my presumptions are.

 

When it comes to first principals of mathematics, I think most everyone misses a very significant point (particularly people ignorant of mathematics). That is the fact that numbers are mere symbols and that the operations (addition, multiplication, integration, ...) are no more than a set of rules which have been shown to establish internally consistent systems.

 

Application of mathematics to science

 

Science is an attempt to explain our examinable experiences (it is our ability to examine it which makes that experience "physical" :D ). The issue here is that an internally inconsistent explanation is a pretty worthless thing. By definition, an internally inconsistent explanation is one which gives different answers depending on the specific path taken through the logic (that would be the supposed rules presumed by the explanation). It should be obvious to all that, in that case, it doesn't provide an answer so its original purpose is defeated. Thus it is that inconsistency is used by everyone as the primary sign of error in an explanation.

 

However, it is often very difficult to prove an explanation is internally consistent (particularly if the explanation is presented in a language other than mathematics). Just as an aside, you should note that, if you can prove an explanation actually is an internally consistent structure, mathematicians will accept it as a branch of mathematics! That is the central reason Newton is credited with the invention of calculus. One of the problems with modern science is that a lot of it is compartmentalized. The individual fields may be internally consistent within the field of interest but it is often very difficult to make those different fields consistent with one another. The prime example of that difficulty is the current conflict between quantum and general relativity.

 

The conflict between quantum and general relativity rears its ugly head in tachyons, collapse of the wave function, the Bell inequalities and the fundamental inability of the physics community to set off a correct general relativistic version of quantum mechanics. What I am trying to point out to you is the fact that there are still a lot of internally inconsistent explanations in physics (and physics is usually put forward as a model of internal consistency): i.e., it is still not possible to reduce the whole of physics to mathematics (an internally self consistent system).

 

The issue I am trying to get attention to is the fact that any internally self consistent explanation of anything can be seen as mathematics. It is that primary requirement that all explanations must be internally self consistent which I felt needed examination. I have done that examination and found some very interesting consequences which are apparently of little interest to anyone. None of it has ever been published as the professional physicists contend my work is philosophy and simply refuse to look at it (they assert it has no application to their field). The professional philosophers contend my work is mathematics and it should be turned over to mathematicians as it is outside their field of expertise. The mathematicians contend there is no new mathematics in my work and the only issue is one of physics which is outside their field of expertise. :D

 

So it is my position that the question, Exactly what can be deduced from first principals? is a question which can only be answered after establishing an exact definition of an explanation. (Another of those concepts they apparently know when they see it and presume everyone else does too). Again, I need to define it if I want to know what I am talking about.

 

I will begin by pointing out that all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be thought of as information. It thus follows that "explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. The question then is, if we are to define "an explanation" in general, we must lay down exactly what an explanation does to (or for) information? First, I think it is pretty clear that one cannot "explain" anything they do not understand.

 

It seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (in fact, that circumstance could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation itself constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

 

Thus I come to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. If you have any arguments with that definition, it seems to me that you need to show me either a method of obtaining those expectations which can not be conceived to be an explanation or an explanation which provides no method of obtaining expectations. If you cannot show one of those circumstance, than you should agree that it is a usable definition of an explanation consistent with the common meaning of the term.

 

Looking to hear your complaints.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :P

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :P

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. :o

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :P

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :(
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??? ;)
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. :(
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. :P

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...