News:

By the power of lulz, I, while living, have conquered the internets.

Main Menu

Theory of Human Experience

Started by Jasper, January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jasper

Posit:  All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful. 

Attempt #1:

All decisions can be made in seven breaths or less. 

All behavior is derived from imitation of others or by extrapolating/mutating known patterns.

Breath control is the key to a great deal of human nature.

Hell is other people.

The human condition*.




* Being the set of all conditions and experiences that are uniquely human.


This needs improving, and I could use an outside perspective.

LMNO

I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Kai

Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Jasper

Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Can you suggest improvements?  I'm not actually trying to defend the OP, I'm trying to improve it.

Jasper

Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Posit:  All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful. 

This is a big posit, and to have this thread be productive I should probably defend it.   My premises are:

The range of human experiences is finite but very expansive.
Language is essentially limitless, and excels at expressing complex ideas in minimal format.

The first premise, though controversial, is based on the fact that we experience reality with no greater than 5 to seven senses, depending on how liberal you are about accepting proprioception or "sixth sense" to be senses.  So there is a cap on which kinds of sensory data we can experience.  Despite the combinatorial explosion that results from trying to compute the number of possible states, it does not approach infinity.



Kai

Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction.  :wink:
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Jasper

Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction.  :wink:

'k...

So what does that mean, exactly?

Kai

Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction.  :wink:

'k...

So what does that mean, exactly?

That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Jasper

Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction.  :wink:

'k...

So what does that mean, exactly?

That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.

Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think.  Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things.  Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?

Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.

Kai

Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction.  :wink:

'k...

So what does that mean, exactly?

That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.

Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think.  Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things.  Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?

Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.

And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".

Why would you want to encapsulate it?
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Jasper

Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 31, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
Posit:  All human experience can be described with broad enough statements, and these statements can be formulated in a way that is relevant and useful. 

Attempt #1:

1.All decisions can be made in seven breaths or less. 

2.All behavior is derived from imitation of others or by extrapolating/mutating known patterns.

3.Breath control is the key to a great deal of human nature.

4.Hell is other people.

5.The human condition*.

* Being the set of all conditions and experiences that are uniquely human.

1. No, some decisions can take forever, in such as avoidant or neurotic people.

2. I think this is the posture of social psychology; but do tell me, what about the behaviour of fetuses?

3. Why? This is theme-associated with "1.", and i dont see why you put so much emphasis on breathing.

4. Homo homini lupus?

5. ?

A better explanation of what you are trying to do would be nice (even do you already gave two).


1. Agonizing over all the possible options rarely makes for good decisions that you might not have made in the heat of the moment.  Read "Blink" by Gladwell.

2.  Is fetus experience the same thing as human experience?  Who can say?  I don't have any fetus experiences, and anyone who says they do are full of it.  Memories of being a fetus are not preserved by the brain.  So I don't consider fetuses part of human experience, except by proximity to them.

3.  Breath control is what gives us the ability to use language.  Trufact.  Without it, we would not be able to make word sounds properly.  Breath control demonstrates a level of self-awareness and bodily control that is unique to thinking animals.  Dolphins do it too, so it's not *uniquely* human, but it is definitely not common among animals.  Breathing is linked to a lot of preconscious systems, such as our moods, level of arousal, and psychological state.  Try altering the way you breathe and see how it affects you sometime, there is interesting stuff there.  Breath manipulation techniques span the gamut of human experience, from yogic practices, singing, speaking, and even autoerotic asphyxiation.   So yes, a huge theme in human experience is breath control.

4 is a reference to existentialism.  One can hardly discuss the nature of human existence without a nod to sartre.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition


Jasper

Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 07:06:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 07:03:32 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 05:58:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 31, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction.  :wink:

'k...

So what does that mean, exactly?

That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.

Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think.  Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things.  Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?

Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.

And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".

Why would you want to encapsulate it?

They don't.  The schemas we have depend on specific causalities, such as preexisting values and attitudes, and previous experience.

Requia ☣

Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

I have another one:  "It's more complicated than that."
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Kai

Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 31, 2010, 09:02:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 31, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

I have another one:  "It's more complicated than that."

Yes.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Jasper

Funny how people start ignoring my posts whenever I have valid points.