Author Topic: Uncurious monkeys  (Read 8696 times)

Doktor Howl

  • Вся ваша база принадлежит нам
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 32873
  • Horrible Bastard
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #60 on: February 26, 2015, 10:04:50 pm »
I don't think it's guts, or willingness, that I lack, it may be ability (look, something I'm blind to!).

Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill.  It takes practice.
"What were you expecting?  Violins?"
- Lieutenant Checkov

axod

  • Don Well-Buttern' Cracker Crasher, Infernal Affairs
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2015, 08:25:46 pm »


axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.
I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.
Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.
Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.
Aha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved?  Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?
just this

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77637
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2015, 10:41:20 am »
I don't think it's guts, or willingness, that I lack, it may be ability (look, something I'm blind to!). Haven't I already admitted that those were loaded questions? Assuming people's lack of interest in x is caused by a lack of curiosity, and fishing for confirmation that there's something strange and mildly negative about it?

And I am aware that there's quite a few reasons people may not be interested, chiefly that they have already been exploring a subject and moved on, and also personal differences in openness to new experiences being attuned to different things and blind to others. Myself included. It just doesn't seem to me like that's all.

Am I still missing your point?

I was making assertions here because it seemed to me like we could be miscommunicating and I wanted to clarify exactly what I'm trying to say. I might simply be misunderstanding what you are saying, though. :) How am I not curious about people? I'm not extrapolating about a person from a single instance, I may add. All the individuals I've used in examples were people I consider my friends, genuinely like, and interact with often enough to see whatever I'm describing was not aberrant behavior. Maybe I should have mentioned this. None of them are shallow or stupid people, and that makes it all the more perplexing. And there's plenty of people I know who are not like this, people who'll bite into anything interesting you show them, who will talk about any subject, people who pay attention. Why are they this way, when others aren't? Simply personal difference?

But you're still not actually going to put any time or thought into taking apart your own questions and critically examining the assumptions behind them, are you?
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


axod

  • Don Well-Buttern' Cracker Crasher, Infernal Affairs
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2015, 06:27:45 pm »
In some cases, it's really the only window we have into understanding certain functions... I mean, look at Tierney's work with reverse genetics. Personally, I'm largely interested in what's going on in our brains when everything's working just right, but the technology for looking at that is brand-new, and the context for understanding it is largely dependent on what we've learned about brain structure by looking at injuries.

Trying to check out an accessible primer on this Tierney character - my memory's mucky much like my understanding of the subject.

[PS.  Forgive quoted date mismatch - correct one took too long to delete =]
just this

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77637
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2015, 07:07:22 pm »
In some cases, it's really the only window we have into understanding certain functions... I mean, look at Tierney's work with reverse genetics. Personally, I'm largely interested in what's going on in our brains when everything's working just right, but the technology for looking at that is brand-new, and the context for understanding it is largely dependent on what we've learned about brain structure by looking at injuries.

Trying to check out an accessible primer on this Tierney character - my memory's mucky much like my understanding of the subject.

[PS.  Forgive quoted date mismatch - correct one took too long to delete =]

Let me see if I can find something... it was pretty groundbreaking for identifying gene function. Does this paper make sense to you? http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/advanced/topics/Pages/ReverseGeneticTools.aspx
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77637
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2015, 07:16:30 pm »
Oh here we go, here's a video that's really accessible. I was crediting Tierney when really I should have been crediting Fuchs. Totally my error... not that Tierney isn't also an  excellent researcher.

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2012/06/elaine_fuchs_going_forward_in_reverse/
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Karapac

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I'm not actually karapac.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #66 on: March 04, 2015, 07:42:10 pm »
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill.  It takes practice.
I know, I'm doing my best.



axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.
I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.
Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.
Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.
Aha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved?  Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?
Hrrm. Tough. But I'd say yes, the very fact that we're discussing it means it can and is perceived, and as such can be judged. What do you suppose this ground of similarity is, exactly, though? Men can have vastly different outlooks, for many reasons, even on things as seemingly basic as "pain is bad" or "eating is good". Or do you mean a more general basis, higher-tier so to speak?

But you're still not actually going to put any time or thought into taking apart your own questions and critically examining the assumptions behind them, are you?
Consider that your critical thinking and analytic skills may differ from mine, so much that what for you takes little effort to see is not the same for me, rather than me being in denial or too precious to question myself. Because I'd like to understand what you're getting at, but I really don't.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77637
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2015, 08:43:46 pm »
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill.  It takes practice.
I know, I'm doing my best.



axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.
I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.
Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.
Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.
Aha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved?  Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?
Hrrm. Tough. But I'd say yes, the very fact that we're discussing it means it can and is perceived, and as such can be judged. What do you suppose this ground of similarity is, exactly, though? Men can have vastly different outlooks, for many reasons, even on things as seemingly basic as "pain is bad" or "eating is good". Or do you mean a more general basis, higher-tier so to speak?

But you're still not actually going to put any time or thought into taking apart your own questions and critically examining the assumptions behind them, are you?
Consider that your critical thinking and analytic skills may differ from mine, so much that what for you takes little effort to see is not the same for me, rather than me being in denial or too precious to question myself. Because I'd like to understand what you're getting at, but I really don't.

I'm going to be completely honest here, and say that I flat-out assumed from the beginning that my critical thinking and analysis skills are different from yours. The reason for that is because they ARE skills, learned skills that don't come especially easily or naturally to most people, and I've been working on them for a long time.

As Howl said, it takes practice. I keep asking you questions because that's where you start; if you can't come up with your own critical questions, answering other people's gives you a good launching-off point.

But you don't seem to want to ask or answer questions about your assumptions or the validity of your statements, so I can't help concluding that you aren't interested in improving your critical thinking skills. Which is too bad, really, because you don't seem stupid, but ultimately it means that you and I will probably have little to talk about, and I love a good conversation.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77637
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2015, 09:02:53 pm »
Let me walk you through what I meant when I asked you what assumptions you are making with the questions I quoted.

Behind every single question you asked, there is an assumption. In some cases you are flat-out begging the question. When you ask a question, it's not an insignificant part of the critical thinking process to start with examining whether the assumptions behind the question are valid. I will go through these one at a time.


What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?

...don't you agree that this is strange?

Why are (adult) humans so very not curious?

Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why??

What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity?

What happened to our species to make us blind?

What happened to some of us to have avoided it?

Quote
...don't you agree that this is strange?


The assumption is that it is strange.

Quote
Why are (adult) humans so very not curious?

The assumption is that adult humans lack curiosity.

Quote
Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why??

The assumption is that your statement, that adults are avoidant of things they are unfamiliar with or don't understand, is true.

Quote
What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity?

The assumption is that our curiosity is destroyed during our maturation process.

Quote
What happened to our species to make us blind?

The assumption is that our species is blind.

Quote
What happened to some of us to have avoided it?

The assumption is that some of us retained our curiosity. The subtext is that this is unusual, and that those who have retained curiosity into adulthood are special.

Essentially, the entire post read as "here are my assumptions, please validate them so that I feel validated in my sense of specialness".

I was curious whether you were able to look at the questions you posed, and see the subtext, which is really extremely obvious.

I was also curious about whether you have the capacity for curiosity to ask yourself, and perhaps others, whether the assumptions you made in each question is valid, and to look around for evidence to support or to falsify them.

I'm mostly curious about whether you show any actual indications of intellectual curiosity other than simply proclaiming yourself more curious than other people, which isn't curiosity, it's just narcissism.

Next, I will be curious to see whether you respond to this post by continuing to shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant, because the irony is delicious.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Karapac

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I'm not actually karapac.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2015, 09:17:29 pm »
But you're still not actually going to put any time or thought into taking apart your own questions and critically examining the assumptions behind them, are you?
Consider that your critical thinking and analytic skills may differ from mine, so much that what for you takes little effort to see is not the same for me, rather than me being in denial or too precious to question myself. Because I'd like to understand what you're getting at, but I really don't.

I'm going to be completely honest here, and say that I flat-out assumed from the beginning that my critical thinking and analysis skills are different from yours. The reason for that is because they ARE skills, learned skills that don't come especially easily or naturally to most people, and I've been working on them for a long time.

As Howl said, it takes practice. I keep asking you questions because that's where you start; if you can't come up with your own critical questions, answering other people's gives you a good launching-off point.

But you don't seem to want to ask or answer questions about your assumptions or the validity of your statements, so I can't help concluding that you aren't interested in improving your critical thinking skills. Which is too bad, really, because you don't seem stupid, but ultimately it means that you and I will probably have little to talk about, and I love a good conversation.

Good. But I am interested in it. Maybe you're right and I'm lying to myself, like that guy who's totally gonna write that novel and start going to the gym tomorrow, but I don't think I am. What I'm trying to say is, I haven't answered your question about my assumptions not for lack of will or trying, but because I just don't know. I can't. That they assume everybody else's experience has been similar to mine is the only thing I came up with.

[edit: you posted the explanations while I was musing over this post, I'll read them and then post again.]

Karapac

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I'm not actually karapac.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2015, 09:34:21 pm »
Ohhh, no, then I didn't understand what you meant. Yes, that is blatant, it's what I described as fishing for agreement. I naturally wrote the questions as valid, being backed-up by the rest of the rant, as part of it. Kind of rhetorical, perhaps. It wasn't subtext, it was text - as in yes, I'm assuming what I'm describing is strange because the strangeness is exactly what I'm writing about. Is asking such questions incorrect? It wasn't meant to close off discussion, the answer to "What happened to our species to make us blind?" may as well be "Our species isn't blind." (Which, I think, it largely was, and I'm okay with it.) Am I rationalizing it away now? :lulz:

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62117
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2015, 10:27:31 pm »
Well, you're certainly not addressing your assumptions directly.

Nigel, I really appreciate your role in this thread, it's instructive to more than just one.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77637
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2015, 11:06:08 pm »
Well, you're certainly not addressing your assumptions directly.

Nigel, I really appreciate your role in this thread, it's instructive to more than just one.

Thanks, I'm trying. It's good to know that I'm not wasting my time.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Reginald Ret

  • 'Miserable Atrocianthrope'
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4168
  • Interweb Gloryhole QC Inspector #23
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #73 on: March 05, 2015, 08:13:28 am »
Nigel, I really appreciate your role in this thread, it's instructive to more than just one.
Seconded.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

axod

  • Don Well-Buttern' Cracker Crasher, Infernal Affairs
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: Uncurious monkeys
« Reply #74 on: March 08, 2015, 09:47:33 pm »
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill.  It takes practice.
I know, I'm doing my best.



axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.
I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.
Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.
Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.
Aha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved?  Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?
Hrrm. Tough. But I'd say yes, the very fact that we're discussing it means it can and is perceived, and as such can be judged. What do you suppose this ground of similarity is, exactly, though? Men can have vastly different outlooks, for many reasons, even on things as seemingly basic as "pain is bad" or "eating is good". Or do you mean a more general basis, higher-tier so to speak?


The "higher-tier", if by that you mean a form of transcendental unity, is not that to which I'm resorting now.  Just in terms of formal logic, like how the set of all sets cannot contain itself, the subject of perception cannot itself be perceived as an object.  Although there are comunalities in value systems across different individuals, I do not think that particular values are the foundation on which we stand together.  It is by virtue of a deeper unitary ground that the manifold of experience  aligns to express common values.  Recognizing this means understanding that the source of meaning itself is the condition on the possibility of making all judgements; and as such cannot be judged, like how a gavel can't strike itself.
just this