Funny. But you do see the difficulty in answering your your thread. Where is CG? Well, I ‘see’ him almost everyday, on-and-off throughout the day, but...did I or anyone really know where CG was?
and for online gamers like me, 'bio' means you have to use the bathroom (short for biological break) Don't you just hate it when our physical selves get so needy? :)
lol, well I actually do have a RL so I limit myself to one game at a time, only on the weekends. For the past year or so it has been SWTOR but in the past, WOW, etc.
Sorry. :) I wouldn’t have assumed a new member of the Gulch was a newbie to the internet as well. RL stands for real life. Posters on a website often disappear for hours or days or week or months, because RL comes up.
Well, that's probably a good question, coming from you. He's pretty smart, and a nice man, though I think he would like everything to be OK, you know, like the Carib Indians who when they first saw the ships of Columbus, refused to acknowledge their existence. That is, their eyes saw, but their minds refused to process it. I think they were afraid that there was nothing they could do about it. CG, please take notice.
Say, CS, not to be off-topic - or even worse, rude and affrontive - but you don't buy into that "What The (bleep) Do We Know" nonsense about the Indians not being able to see the first Euro ships, do you?
(I guess that was pretty affrontive, but still... really?)
(And yes, I know "affrontive" isn't really a word but I still like it and you knew what it meant so I'm keeping it.!)
You ought to know by now that I don't buy into that touchy-feely be careful what you say or you're going to hurt someone's feelings cr-p. A court in Colorado ordered a defendant (sued because he did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding!) to go to sensitivity training. I thought, I have better idea, the plaintiff ought to be ordered to have desensitization training! We all need to become less word-fearing!
You know, Zero, going back to your original remark, I either buy into the Carib Indian story, in which case I better be able to defend it (the story or myself), or else I don't and you still had a right to ask. Another possibility is I might have asked you why shouldn't I believe it. What makes you think it isn't true? All in all, I didn't consider you affrontive.
Thank you, CS, very kind of you! Ha! Ha! (I'm old - I don't "laugh out loud" so easily and I don't think I've ever "rolled on the floor laughing." I just go "Ha!")
I've never seen myself as unkind or disrespectful. I just don't like to hide behind false pretenses or untruths in order not to offend. Kinda hard to explain, but I'm getting rather fed up with court decisions for sensitivity training and football players who are forced to go into reeducation as well.
I'd like to think people can pretty much take care of their feelings themselves. You see it so much in the education system today, to the point where rewards/awards are not being given out in some schools, because those who didn't get one might feel bad. That is truly overdoing it.
Of course I do. Buy into it, I mean. But even if not true, it's a better metaphor than ostriches with their heads in the sand. By the way, I'm pretty hard to insult! Hide of an alligator---
Not to take it too far, being surely off-topic and all, but just to have it said...
Y'know, CS, one of the best ways to self-police your intellectual growth - to make sure you're homing in on the Truth, not veering off into the ether - is to be cognizant of bizarre conclusions.
When you embrace the idea that cognition precedes perception - (The universe is only as it is because we "believe" it this way and it would be very different if only we all "believed" it so.) - it leads to a logical conundrum: How can one perceive the unimaginable?
In "What the Bleep Do We Know" they addressed this with the example of the first time Indians saw the great sailing ships. They posited that the first ships were actually UNSEEN by the Indians on the shore until a particularly intelligent comrade wrapped his head around the concept of a "super-canoe". Then, when he shared this insight with his brothers they gradually began to make out the shapes of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.
What a crock of sh!t! (Wow, that was kinda rude, Z!)
What did the "stupid" Indians see? A hull-shaped hole in the water? If the ship beached itself before the smart guy showed up, would a dummy Indian, walking in the surf, smack into an invisible wall? Would he have just walked through it? (Vision is only one form of perception.)
The idea that a real thing, standing right in front of you, would remain invisible because you've never seen it before is rediculous on its face.
How could a newborn ever learn anything of the world?
--- Here in the Gulch, many (most?) of us are Objectivists. The name of our philosophy was chosen specifically to refute this worldview. We believe in an Objective Reality that exists independent of our observation, and that we are equipped to perceive that objective reality - whether we can make sense of it or not. (The slug is still squished - whether it understands truck-ness or not.)
Upon rereading, I see where you got the whole point of this story wrong. The point, I emphasize, is that people will see what they want to see, out of whatever emotion is driving their thinking at the time. Which is why we must be aware of our emotions, so our subjective experience doesn't rule.
I actually didn't care for What The Bleep Do We Know? (My teenage daughter wanted me to see it with her.) It was ok until it got to the point where scientists were predicting that water responds to human emotions and then I left.. Well, those are some of the reasons I have ongoing debates with the quantum physicists. But anyway, I don't remember where I read that about the Carib Indians, but I think it was a study taken from direct observations at the time, I mean somewhat later by Europeans. The reason I tend to believe it is because it has a ring of truth to it--human nature being what it is. I actually did not ask you why you didn't believe it; I just said I could have.
But the point is: human processing of reality--where it can go wrong. Have you read some of my other posts? It could be an education for you.
Hide of an alligator is a metaphor, too. Hopefully, CG isn't too affronted. I also make up my own words. Sometimes I do it deliberately to confuse people, sometimes not,
Yes, he is very intelligent. I like him very much. Thinking and processing reality are very different. As I said, he is a very nice man, and I'm not too sure about you.
But you do see the difficulty in answering your your thread. Where is CG? Well, I ‘see’ him almost everyday, on-and-off throughout the day, but...did I or anyone really know where CG was?
Which games?
It's a khalling-ism.
CG, please take notice.
(I guess that was pretty affrontive, but still... really?)
(And yes, I know "affrontive" isn't really a word but I still like it and you knew what it meant so I'm keeping it.!)
A court in Colorado ordered a defendant (sued because he did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding!) to go to sensitivity training. I thought, I have better idea, the plaintiff ought to be ordered to have desensitization training! We all need to become less word-fearing!
I still speak my mind.
But I do try to be polite. It's just a sign of respect.
All in all, I didn't consider you affrontive.
Ha! Ha!
(I'm old - I don't "laugh out loud" so easily and I don't think I've ever "rolled on the floor laughing." I just go "Ha!")
You see it so much in the education system today, to the point where rewards/awards are not being given out in some schools, because those who didn't get one might feel bad. That is truly overdoing it.
By the way, I'm pretty hard to insult! Hide of an alligator---
Y'know, CS, one of the best ways to self-police your intellectual growth - to make sure you're homing in on the Truth, not veering off into the ether - is to be cognizant of bizarre conclusions.
When you embrace the idea that cognition precedes perception - (The universe is only as it is because we "believe" it this way and it would be very different if only we all "believed" it so.) - it leads to a logical conundrum: How can one perceive the unimaginable?
In "What the Bleep Do We Know" they addressed this with the example of the first time Indians saw the great sailing ships. They posited that the first ships were actually UNSEEN by the Indians on the shore until a particularly intelligent comrade wrapped his head around the concept of a "super-canoe". Then, when he shared this insight with his brothers they gradually began to make out the shapes of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.
What a crock of sh!t! (Wow, that was kinda rude, Z!)
What did the "stupid" Indians see? A hull-shaped hole in the water? If the ship beached itself before the smart guy showed up, would a dummy Indian, walking in the surf, smack into an invisible wall? Would he have just walked through it? (Vision is only one form of perception.)
The idea that a real thing, standing right in front of you, would remain invisible because you've never seen it before is rediculous on its face.
How could a newborn ever learn anything of the world?
---
Here in the Gulch, many (most?) of us are Objectivists. The name of our philosophy was chosen specifically to refute this worldview. We believe in an Objective Reality that exists independent of our observation, and that we are equipped to perceive that objective reality - whether we can make sense of it or not. (The slug is still squished - whether it understands truck-ness or not.)
---
Never-the-less, well met CS, and welcome.
But anyway, I don't remember where I read that about the Carib Indians, but I think it was a study taken from direct observations at the time, I mean somewhat later by Europeans. The reason I tend to believe it is because it has a ring of truth to it--human nature being what it is.
I actually did not ask you why you didn't believe it; I just said I could have.
But the point is: human processing of reality--where it can go wrong. Have you read some of my other posts? It could be an education for you.
Hopefully, CG isn't too affronted.
I also make up my own words. Sometimes I do it deliberately to confuse people, sometimes not,
Thinking and processing reality are very different.
As I said, he is a very nice man, and I'm not too sure about you.
Try these: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/f1...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/e9...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/e4...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/d5...
enough?