Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
I would never say never about technical issues.
Werner, you show your limited intelligence through your endless ad hominem, and your reliance on insults to make your point.
I have no idea what your point is.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
My point is you are clueless to the ultimate truth of life itself and you are constantly guessing onto to that truth .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: If you are criticizing me for using a "dictionary definition, . . .
No, not you.
“Words do not live in dictionaries; they live in minds.” (V. Woolf).
If you actually believe in your program of the solitary researcher disconnected from any outside distraction is the ideal, . . . .
It’s not about distractions, Ed. One is aware of distractions. It’s about programming that one is unaware of.
So what is intelligence?
A really great question. I would have said many years ago that intelligence is the ability to “order the mess.” Research on expertise (Herbert Simon, Anders Ericsson, others) have provided some evidence to argue that experts spend an inordinate amount of time and effort to be sure *just which problem they are facing* (compared to naive subjects or novices). Once experts are sure which problem they are attempting to solve, then what occurs appears to be pretty much rote execution. (I may be over-characterizing the arguments for you.) Once the mess has been ordered, known solutions are generated and then cross-checked with more than one methodology by experts.
That’s how I used to view intelligence: ordering, prioritization, subordination, seeing patterns, and classifications. “Oh, that’s an X; that’s a Y.”
Research claims naive learners and novices in a field jump to conclusions about which situation they are facing. They aren’t learned enough to make fine established distinctions. Whereas a naive person might see two distinctions (e.g., “it’s either republican or it’s democratic”), a novice might see eight distinctions. An expert by comparison is aware of 64 distinctions of varying complication.
I know I may be jostling most everyone here on this thread, but I no longer see patterns as I used to. I see uniqueness everywhere all the time. I think I could hardly help but force patterns onto experience (pre-mature closure), and then I jumped to my conclusions (albeit perhaps with a consensus).
I sit still and quietly every morning in a front courtyard, and I might gaze at the bricks in front of me “mindlessly.” At first I saw a pattern in the brick layout. But a closer inspection reveals no real pattern at fine levels of analysis. It just looks that way because I did not look closely or carefully.
IMO, all reality is like that up-close and personal. We think we see “things” out there, but what we are “seeing” is our own projections from programming. Common consensus leads and enforces those external perceptions. Mises en Abyme.
Intelligence seems to require an ability to self-reflect. Intelligence has emerged progressively in some species. Recognizing insidious programming in oneself leads to greater awareness about self, and that must perforce include what appears to be external to self. That realization is not something that can be taught or learned from authority, any measure of consensus, nor even conceptually. No one can force another to see for themselves. It’s an inside job. It must be *seen*—that is, lived. Seeing / living is subjective and solitary. All this one must do for him or herself. Hence, “the solitary observer.”
Do *I* make distinctions and generate conclusions. Sure I do, but these days I’m very hesitant to take them too seriously or concretely.
Be well.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
I would trust a scientist rather than a Buddhist to perform any technical task.
What hath god wrought?
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. R. Oppenheimer
And we all could be Tibet? ... least, in practice?
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
^ thats ridiculous sci fi
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
Apart from Trump / Trumpworld?! Oh come on man, that’s the most interesting question around! How could the overwhelming self assured awesomeness of the understanding of we academic intelligentsia fall to the likes of those rabble, I mean deplorables?! Chess in comparison is trivial, of course.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Trump: Chess in comparison is trivial, . . .
I guess I’ve been waiting for someone to say something like this. Although very complicated in terms of move sequences, Chess is still a bounded system with unchanging rules and objectives. It can be highly defined and taught for one to play without ambiguity. Sure there is great uncertainty in any set of lengthy sequences, but the system is not open to different meanings by virtue of rules and objectives that must be followed.
In many areas of life socially, that is not so. Socially, men and women can change the rules, they can change the objectives, they can change the values and their priorities, and new and various different players can enjoin and drop out without stopping the game. One sociologist has suggested analogically it’s like playing soccer against more than one team, with multiple goals spread across an octagon field that’s tilting in various directions now and then. This harkens back to some of Largo’s writing that suggests that mere observation not only changes but “defines” [sic] what exists.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 08:50am PT
|
The cartoon is a classic religious racists point of view.
No better than a color of the skin racist, no better than a right-wing KKK with a hood.
It perfectly reflects your hypocritical views while simultaneously you bow down and show worship to your so-called scientific Gods.
Always done by an anonymous coward who never stands up for themselves ....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 08:55am PT
|
W Braun wrote,
"The cartoon is a classic religious racists point of view.... No better than a color of the skin racist, no better than a right-wing KKK with a hood."
Werner Braun, post
Jan 10, 2019 - 08:50am PT
This is why we do it, right here.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 09:19am PT
|
HFCS,
The last panel in the cartoon strip shifts perspective radically. Man bows down to all sorts of items—up until the last panel? Now he’s free? You think that’s grown up?
For gosh sakes, look around. We’re all grown up around here? Now there is no lack of clarity, thoughtfulness, good intentions, peace?
You’re a cartoon.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 09:50am PT
|
rest assured there is a kind of freedom that comes from ignorance also
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 10:57am PT
|
Regarding the cartoon:
A brief history of science -
1. If I do enough messing around here in my lab with this philosopher's stone I'll soon be able to turn this lead bar into gold.
2. I can prove through careful observation and the discovery of the demon's hole that this woman is a witch.
3. I've just developed the calculus and proven the universe to be a clock work mechanism that is predictable and perfect and I'll finish my observations as soon as I've finished my astrological predictions.
4. Science is a blessing that gives us the birth of technology and the key to a brighter future never mind that mustard gas and those bombs falling from that flying machine.
5. I've just figured out the relative nature of time and space and solved some of the greatest physics problems of all and now I'll develop a unified field theory that will reveal all the mysteries of the universe.
6. That last guy doesn't have it quite right when it comes to sub atomic particles because you have to believe in, and we've already proven there is, magic. We call it entanglement.
So now maybe we can make lead into gold.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 11:09am PT
|
The difference is that science is error-correcting while religion is not. The difference is that the core emphasis in science is gain of knowledge about life and the world while the core emphasis in religion is supernaturalism (promoting it, maintaining it, etc). These are big differences at a fundamental level between these institutions, it's unfortunate some don't get it.
...
Meanwhile, this letter of support by Robert Sapolsky (biology, stanford) is devastating.
https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1083027522961342465
re: testing of belief, quality control, error-correction, intellectual fraud
Sounds familiar.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 11:19am PT
|
What then is the difference between as you describe it "super-naturalism" and quantum mechanics?
And really, religion has historically, as you say, self corrected. The difference between Augustine and Thomas Aquinas or Pope Julius II and Martin Luther for instance, so self correcting is hardly a concise definition of difference.
With regard to the Boghossian flap: why the need to denigrate the humanities? There are goof balls in every discipline but there is a distinct and observable tendency to exaggerate the plague of identity politics that has currently found favor in some quarters of the academic world. I say it's exaggerated because I don't see it, haven't seen it in the schools I've worked at. Anecdotal I suppose but that's been my experience. Like art the academic world is an easy target because it invites diverse ideas in order to weed out the foolish and find the reality we're all searching for.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 11:47am PT
|
The difference is that science is error-correcting while religion is not.
That's not true at all.
That's a veiled saying that your so-called modern science is the absolute authority and everything in religion is in error.
You have no real ultimate clue of absolute reality is a bonafide fact.
Your ignorant uneducated brainwashed bias is always revealing itself and really no better than a hooded KKK ......
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 11:53am PT
|
Hmmm, that's a lot of hard clutching.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2019 - 12:06pm PT
|
Paul's timeline appears to go from 300 BCE to present. Setting aside the fact that most of the error's in Paul pile of shjt were caused by religious predilections than anythung resemblimg science... just look at how much science has progressed compared to religion. Like everything worth a shjt, science adjusts to new knowledge rather than twist the bullshjt to fit what the existing story.
Yeah, science has progressed all the way to believing magic is the source of the universe. 300 BC? Take a history class. Religion has always adjusted that's what the cartoon was about... exhausting.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!