Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Under what conditions is this statement true: "Life is a sexually transmitted condition which always leads to death."
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Largo is the Trump of philosophy. WBraun is more like Hillary...
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Sex and drugs and Rock and Roll. Take any Rock song and replace the noun "love" with "drug" and it still kinda works.
But why kick it in the teeth? If yall don't like it post somewhere else!
But I like the kicking of the teeth. Not literally, just figuratively, and this a thread full of teeth-kicking. You do it too. This thread would be sleeper without some good ole teeth-kicking. Even putting ones foot in their mouth is a form teeth-kicking.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Under what conditions is this statement true: "Life is a sexually transmitted condition which always leads to death."
The same conditions under which "What is 'Mind?'" is an internet transmitted disease which always leads to no-thing.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Now we are getting somewhere. How does humor fit in to this discussion of mind? I would actually be interested in reading some neurophysiology studies dealing with humor. Anybody have any good links?
And cheers to you too, DMT. And all y'all too.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
How does humor fit in to this discussion of mind?
The usual answer is, "Because it's true."
However, humor is one of those mysteries, like music, that we should not try to explain. After all, most people do not actually like explanations.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
After all, most people do not actually like explanations.
It depends on who is doing the explaining and how. Some are better than others. How many times have you really enjoyed someone explaining but didn't get a real explanation?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
So the most likely responses to explanations:
"Oh? (not very interesting)."
"Oh no! (not going to be fun)."
But a good-sounding voice reading a laundry list? That can be fun.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
He’s talking over your head, Dingus . . . literally
The Wizard is intelligent, but no more so than other participants of this thread. He doesn't speak from an elevated dais, while below we gawk in wonder. His message is very simple, but he attempts to flesh it out with reams of philosophical commentary, spiced with concepts from physics and math, of which he has only a passing knowledge.
He's very entertaining, but let's not get carried away.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
I saw that Sycorax and I had a snappy reply. Damn it, I was just starting to have fun. I went through about twenty pages of this thread and found some real "howlers".
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Too bad she immediately deleted her post criticising the Wizard for his demeaning attitude and dated expressions, like "get jiggy". Must have had second thoughts about what side she's on.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Lol! I like your sense of humor, John.
You too, Sycorax.
Even when you are not trying to be funny.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Does Ed have internal dialog when he is trying to solve a problem?
I don't know about Ed, but I've caught myself talking out loud and even gesturing while thinking about a problem when hiking alone. My mind seems to be working at two degrees of seperation from the actual business of solving the problem: catching myself talking to myself while trying to solve a problem.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Why does everything revolve around Ed? I just don't get the hard-on.
Lol! She doesn't get the hard-on. Duh.
I thought everything revolved around Largo.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I remember first hearing from my thesis advisor the phrase, "hand-waving argument."
Now I've been motivated to look it up.
I think I detect a bit of hand-waving about hand-waving:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
or at least explanations that go on too long and don't satisfy.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Why does everything revolve around Ed? I just don't get the hard-on
Caught one before she deletes it! And it's a jewel. And sycorax, that second sentence, well it's just not possible. But keep trying.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Bob,
You don’t think you’re condescending? Oh, come on. (You might want to check out the common definition on that word.)
Ed: the point is that while we have an "interior" life that is ours and ours alone, what we define as "subjective," sharing it makes it "objective" if only because we share using commonly developed themes of communication intended to make our "subjective" accessible to others. We "objectify" our personal experiences.
I like that you come up with what you see as the point of the conversation. It’s needed. However, . . . I’d say the “sharing” is a seeming, Ed. It’s that very “seeming’ness” that signals that the subjective is not objective.
We may form the same squiggles, or mouth the same sounds, or even paint the same picture, but there would appear to be way too many opportunities / influences / variables that prevent a “sharing” to occur. It could be pointed out that beings appear to have different backgrounds, education, teachers, parents, experiences, peer groups, their own infinite imaginations, and on and on. Look at long-standing couples and how often and substantial their misunderstandings and miscommunications are. Or read the same book, or watch the same movie, or look at the same piece of art.
You could argue, I suppose, for the consistency and definitiveness of mathematics as a form of communication, but that is by no means common or very useful in living.
Objectivity is a construction, and that means it is subjective.
Wayno: there would be no science without the scientist. . . .there would be no art without the artist. . . . how does one escape the subjective?
One cannot. You’re constructing categories. You won’t find them in reality. Just like the following:
Marlow: "Life is a sexually transmitted condition which always leads to death."
This declaration is something that can be said, but it is not inclusive, accurate, complete, or final as an explanation, a description, or an understanding.
Talking is just talking. Expecting talking to wrestle and pin down what reality is gets one only to understand fruitlessness. Even this very conclusion is heavy-handed. That’s why there appears to be so many opportunities for “zingers.” It’s so easy to turn a phrase, point out a glitch, an error, an amphiboly, a pun, an ambiguity, an equivocation, etc. in any discussion. It’s only when we’re expressing how ludicrous anything is that we seem closest to expressing what THIS really is.
Be well.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Be well.
What would that be?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Objectivity is a construction, and that means it is subjective.
subjectivity is a social construction, which makes it objective...
but my point is that there is no hard boundary between the two, and certainly there is nothing that could even vaguely approach being a criteria for judging whether or not a scientific theory of mind, consciousness and all that, is possible.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|