The map is not the territory.
The map is never the territory.
Some maps are better than others.
What are the features of the best map?
it might be interesting to use some visual aids in answering this question...
what things do we deal with?
time
space
people
life/living things
symbols
words
robots
Machine
any worthwhile map needs to include all these elements directly or indirectly
The best map is the one you made yourself, as I'm sure we'll all agree.
But is is possible to actually manufacture a more perfect map than that of experience?
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 18, 2007, 02:22:59 AM
The best map is the one you made yourself, as I'm sure we'll all agree.
But is is possible to actually manufacture a more perfect map than that of experience?
i agree
the individual has to make it for themselves
but there can be shared features
They have to be, if you're in the same place.
(Geographical or metaphorical places)
No one's perceptions are that irregular, and still usable.
It's a matter of not audience, but your own ability to see and reason.
You are your own audience with the map. Write it as such.
another good observation
key
Lots of metaphors you can build into this idea. Maps, keys, cartographers, perspective, experience, exploration. It seems to be that way with things humans are fascinated with, that the language has a lot woven into those ideas.
The key of the map, as you said. It's how you mark the map, and what symbols you use and how readily understandable the symbols are.
no no -- i meant that your observation was a good observation
a key observation
i wasnt talking about map keys - tho it might fit the situation as you say
:) I decided to take it both ways and run with it.
Where you been on MSNM, man?
I've tried asking three different times, never get a response. :|
aint been at home too much
Cool, it was just curious.
Quote from: LHX on January 18, 2007, 02:29:14 AM
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 18, 2007, 02:22:59 AM
The best map is the one you made yourself, as I'm sure we'll all agree.
But is is possible to actually manufacture a more perfect map than that of experience?
i agree
the individual has to make it for themselves
but there can be shared features
The map symbolism in my mind right now equates to "those reactions to outside circumstances/situations in conjunction with usual attitudes/perspectives that derive from previous information/experiences and current moods." If this is different from what you meant, I ask for clarification.
The only times I've been able to "shortcut" my own experiential map to include more information is through books authored by people who have done more personal experience of their own in whatever field, and through the advice of people I can identify with and whose judgments I can trust (through past track record of experience following prediction).
As for the Best Map, I'd say that my personal Best Possible Map would differ widely from an outside observer's optimum for me. Also, the criteria of a Best Map would have to change to fit the requirements of the moment, lending itself to adaptability and encouraging the broadest possible range of information/experience.
Quote from: Bhode_Sativa on January 18, 2007, 05:42:53 AM
The map symbolism in my mind right now equates to "those reactions to outside circumstances/situations in conjunction with usual attitudes/perspectives that derive from previous information/experiences and current moods." If this is different from what you meant, I ask for clarification.
The only times I've been able to "shortcut" my own experiential map to include more information is through books authored by people who have done more personal experience of their own in whatever field, and through the advice of people I can identify with and whose judgments I can trust (through past track record of experience following prediction).
As for the Best Map, I'd say that my personal Best Possible Map would differ widely from an outside observer's optimum for me. Also, the criteria of a Best Map would have to change to fit the requirements of the moment, lending itself to adaptability and encouraging the broadest possible range of information/experience.
be careful -- a lot of the things you are describing are the type of things that (technically speaking) could fit on to a map
for example - you could have a map that includes a function that defaults to another map under certain situations (like the example you gave about using the maps of more experienced people)
your map could also have a timing/situational/adaptational element to it
dont limit yourself
The way B_S talks of these more experienced people puts me in mind of Dr. John Lilly's work with LSD. Do I guess correctly?
Mostly I was referring to the identification with characters/situations in novels, along with an almost faith-like acceptance of textbook information (because of the conditioning of the educational system), and a buildup of credibility given to the advice of my father, who has time and time again been able to understand my own unique approach to things and point me in directions that save me hassle later on, or would have, had I paid attention and been able to internalize/conceptualize the lessons beyond the words. I'm not familiar with Lilly's work, but I seem to recall reading something in connection with Richard Feynman and sense depo tanks.
Quote from: LHX on January 18, 2007, 05:53:43 AM
be careful -- a lot of the things you are describing are the type of things that (technically speaking) could fit on to a map
for example - you could have a map that includes a function that defaults to another map under certain situations (like the example you gave about using the maps of more experienced people)
your map could also have a timing/situational/adaptational element to it
dont limit yourself
Even borrowing someone else's map (as long as I've been able to understand and internalized the ideas) makes sense to me, as it is a way to broaden my range of responses and increase my total knowledge. In my pursuit of information whenever I find conflicting ideas, I try to find what makes the most sense to me at the time, and have *usually* no qualms about discarding the bullshit. Not limiting myself is kind of the point.
Critically analyzing new information and actively pursuing opinions that differ from the *necessarily* limited experience base that I have is important to me, but at some point trying to keep any and all relevant information pertaining to all possible causes and effects of any potential decisions to be made becomes an inefficient chore, and I make some decisions based off of a sub*un*conscious nudge in one direction versus another (usually stuff that doesn't matter).
Trying to keep the two extremes balanced is difficult, and in most things I find myself being both ends of the spectrum at the same time. My map seems to be folded on itself, where north and south overlap, and east and west are no longer mutually exclusive.
I have the feeling I'm not understanding the whole of what you're referring to as "The Map," but I'll run with what I got so far, until more perspective comes my way.
Perhaps the best answer is to draw your own map but use a pencil so you can rub bits out as and when you need to.
Not arguing the toss - just thinking out loud
IMO, the best map is the one that shows you what you need at that moment.
I think we should consider the map as similar to the "Reality Grid" of RAW; that said, it's helpful to have as many maps as you need, and use the one that fits.
For example, I have a Work Map, that shows me the things I need to guide me through the office; the pattern recognition of the work itself, the recognition of when the boss is coming by so I don't get caught on the internet, the social games of my co-workers, etc.
I also have the Punk Rock Map, which I use at band practice, and it shows me completely different things.
I feel that if you try to put it all on one map, you miss a lot. But if you keep switching up maps, you'll see a lot more.
A map that self-corrects is also good, too. Which is why I am wary of absolutist explanations and steer clear of dogmatic religions and ideology at all times.
Oooh. Yeah, self-correcting maps.
Expanding on metaphors, ITT.
Quote from: LMNO on January 18, 2007, 01:57:08 PM
Oooh. Yeah, self-correcting maps.
Expanding on metaphors, ITT.
lets ride that pony fo sho
How does a map correct itself? I thought correction took perception, open-mindedness, and willpower?
Just wondering.
A system that makes no pretence to absolutist answers about the Universe and is willing to incorporate new evidence into its understanding - for example properly applied science.
Quote from: LHX on January 18, 2007, 01:39:00 AM
The map is not the territory.
The map is never the territory.
Some maps are better than others.
What are the features of the best map?
it might be interesting to use some visual aids in answering this question...
what things do we deal with?
time
space
people
life/living things
symbols
words
robots
Machine
any worthwhile map needs to include all these elements directly or indirectly
this is interesting. I think I may have to play with this one on paper. In my new occupation one thing we work with quite often are logic models. This topic is just begging for one. Stay tuned.....
One, draw your map in chalk. It can be hosed down, erased and smudged, yet set with heat when needed.
Two, use a color key you understand--complicating shit only makes it too hard to keep up with.
Three, don't expect others to be going the same destination or even know where the hell you are going--it's your map, you are the one on the expedition (why does this point remind me of "who is driving car?"). Not your neighbor, your lover, your parent.
I don't have a point four.
For the mo.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2007, 02:38:34 AM
A system that makes no pretence to absolutist answers about the Universe and is willing to incorporate new evidence into its understanding - for example properly applied science.
exactly
Occams Razor meets Maybe Logic --> implement that on a map
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2007, 02:44:11 AM
this is interesting. I think I may have to play with this one on paper. In my new occupation one thing we work with quite often are logic models. This topic is just begging for one. Stay tuned.....
visuals FTW
Do not waste time believing in stuff. Even if something seems to be a particular way right now, it might not always be so.
Quote from: Jenne on January 20, 2007, 04:38:07 AM
One, draw your map in chalk.  It can be hosed down, erased and smudged, yet set with heat when needed.
Two, use a color key you understand--complicating shit only makes it too hard to keep up with.
Three, don't expect others to be going the same destination or even know where the hell you are going--it's your map, you are the one on the expedition (why does this point remind me of "who is driving car?").  Not your neighbor, your lover, your parent.
I don't have a point four.
For the mo.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/HIMEOBSCar.jpg)
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/RWHN/map.jpg)
:lol:
Though, I'd put myself in the curve of the mark rather than the point.
Quote from: Jenne on February 01, 2007, 05:34:00 PM
:lol:
Though, I'd put myself in the curve of the mark rather than the point.
HAWT.
more thoughts on the best map in light of recent discussions:
it cannot FACE the situation FOR you - but it can demonstrate which situations need to be faced, what might happen, where you might end up etc
it is easier to draw a map of a hazardous place than it is to travel thru it
but
if you have a general idea of what occurs on the other side, it can make it easier to travel
a good map reflects uncertainty where uncertainty exists
- it reflects undefinable regions if some regions are undefinable
ultimately, tho some maps can be more effective than others, it cannot turn a docile slouch into a sword-swinging adventurer
all it can do is suggest
imply
and at most - threaten
Quote from: LHX on January 18, 2007, 01:39:00 AM
The map is not the territory.
The map is never the territory.
Some maps are better than others.
What are the features of the best map?
it might be interesting to use some visual aids in answering this question...
what things do we deal with?
time
space
people
life/living things
symbols
words
robots
Machine
any worthwhile map needs to include all these elements directly or indirectly
I have a question: Just what exactly was that supposed to mean, in a pragmatic sense?
it was prolly a continuation from another thread
in a pragmatic sense (i think that means making it practical) - drawing a map is pretty much like a effort to figure out how best to navigate a territory
if you are dealing with a situation where there are a lot of known factors that are easy to lose track of, sometimes it can be helpful to use a map
does that follow?
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 09:38:45 PM
it was prolly a continuation from another thread
in a pragmatic sense (i think that means making it practical) - drawing a map is pretty much like a effort to figure out how best to navigate a territory
if you are dealing with a situation where there are a lot of known factors that are easy to lose track of, sometimes it can be helpful to use a map
does that follow?
Yes. I am assuming that there is more to this?
yeah - it kind of fits along with some general themes
you are familiar with the saying 'the map is not the territory'?
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 09:44:03 PM
yeah - it kind of fits along with some general themes
you are familiar with the saying 'the map is not the territory'?
Not really. Is it as simple as it looks, or is it jargon of some kind?
to be honest, i dont even know who said it, really
i think it was RAW
it is as simple as it looks, but it has a lot of implications
the map is not the territory is a observation that puts the entire system of language and communication up for scrutiny
for example:
what exactly is the relationship between map and territory?
symbol and object?
the discussion kind of progressed from there
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 09:50:50 PM
to be honest, i dont even know who said it, really
i think it was RAW
it is as simple as it looks, but it has a lot of implications
the map is not the territory is a observation that puts the entire system of language and communication up for scrutiny
for example:
what exactly is the relationship between map and territory?
symbol and object?
the discussion kind of progressed from there
Oh, okay.
I think I shall see my way out of this conversation, thought, before I say something rude.
rude is good
as long as there is substance to back it
feel free to add on if you got the inclination
What LHX said. Read a couple of other threads and you'll see we have no problem with calling bullshit, or being called on bullshit. If anything, it's another invitation to dialogue, and personally I feel dialogue is kind of like Chinese herbal medicine - the worse it tastes, the more you needed it. :D
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:11:18 PM
rude is good
as long as there is substance to back it
feel free to add on if you got the inclination
Okay. Here goes: Any usefulness that this (sub)forum might have seems to have been totally buried under jargon and a weird sort of pseudo-scholarship that doesn't seem to have any purpose except to muddy the waters for the sake of muddying the waters.
At least that's the impression I get.
Maybe I'm just too utilitarian.
one of the main themes here is to make a relationship between abstract and practical
abstract things become practical when you understand what they are
nobody here even likes jargon
or scholarship
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:20:28 PM
one of the main themes here is to make a relationship between abstract and practical
abstract things become practical when you understand what they are
No offense, but from an outsider's point o view, exactly the opposite has occurred.
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:20:28 PM
nobody here even likes jargon
or scholarship
Nothing wrong with scholarship. At least genuine scholarship (history and science are our friends).
Quote from: DJRubberducky on February 15, 2007, 10:16:31 PM
What LHX said. Read a couple of other threads and you'll see we have no problem with calling bullshit, or being called on bullshit. If anything, it's another invitation to dialogue, and personally I feel dialogue is kind of like Chinese herbal medicine - the worse it tastes, the more you needed it. :D
thats it right there
Doc Howl, I think what you call "jargon" in this sub-forum is a result of the main contributors having been "on the same page" for a long enough period of time that they've gotten used to each others' metaphors.
For this very reason, if you think you have an insight on how to re-phrase anything that's been posited here, I suspect it'll be welcomed. I know at least a couple of us have the goal of actually trying to get this message out to people, so having an "outsider" perspective is a good thing(tm). Or maybe a glossary. :D
I like scholarship.
And abstract things.
However, practical things are often much more....well, useful.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on February 15, 2007, 10:23:51 PM
Doc Howl, I think what you call "jargon" in this sub-forum is a result of the main contributors having been "on the same page" for a long enough period of time that they've gotten used to each others' metaphors.
Well, sure. That's what all jargon is.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on February 15, 2007, 10:23:51 PM
For this very reason, if you think you have an insight on how to re-phrase anything that's been posited here, I suspect it'll be welcomed. I know at least a couple of us have the goal of actually trying to get this message out to people, so having an "outsider" perspective is a good thing(tm). Or maybe a glossary. :D
No problem. :D But first I have to figure out what people are trying to say.
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:23:08 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:20:28 PM
one of the main themes here is to make a relationship between abstract and practical
abstract things become practical when you understand what they are
No offense, but from an outsider's point o view, exactly the opposite has occurred.
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:20:28 PM
nobody here even likes jargon
or scholarship
Nothing wrong with scholarship. At least genuine scholarship (history and science are our friends).
good ol reliable history and science
sounds like you already got some pre-conceived ideas that you are attached to
havent you ever questioned the practicality of history and science?
genuine?
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:30:14 PM
sounds like you already got some pre-conceived ideas that you are attached to
Yup. It's totally impossible to function without SOME of those, and anyone who claims not to have any is either autistic or a liar.
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:30:14 PM
havent you ever questioned the practicality of history and science?
If you don't, then they are neither history nor science. But what part of science are you most interested in questioning? Physics? Step off a building. Biochemistry? Drink cyanide. These questions tend to answer themselves.
conventional history and science fall short of explaining a lot of shit
namely ridiculously self-destructive tendencies
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:40:38 PM
conventional history and science fall short of explaining a lot of shit
namely ridiculously self-destructive tendencies
Not really. Those can be explained by generic adaptative syndrome, intoxication of some kind, or stupidity. Usually stupidity.
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
Psychology and sociology go a long way to filling in the gaps of science and history.
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals. We need an alpha male to tell us what to do. If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves. Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are
unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so. Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2007, 10:49:50 PM
Psychology and sociology go a long way to filling in the gaps of science and history.
OFUK
we fill in the gap to explain why psychology starts wiff a S-sound
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals. We need an alpha male to tell us what to do. If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves. Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so. Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
man
if you are willing to stick around for a couple of days, i will be more than happy to pick that apart
but if youre just gon poke and run
i aint givin it up for nothin
i need commitment
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:52:37 PM
man
if you are willing to stick around for a couple of days, i will be more than happy to pick that apart
but if youre just gon poke and run
i aint givin it up for nothin
i need commitment
Awwww, come on! It'll be good practice. Pleeeeeease? :aww:
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:52:37 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals. We need an alpha male to tell us what to do. If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves. Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so. Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
man
if you are willing to stick around for a couple of days, i will be more than happy to pick that apart
but if youre just gon poke and run
i aint givin it up for nothin
i need commitment
Answer it or don't. I cannot commit to anything. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Or I might just spend my time chasing women IRL.
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:55:02 PM
Or I might just spend my time chasing women IRL.
let them try to bag you
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:56:27 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:55:02 PM
Or I might just spend my time chasing women IRL.
let them try to bag you
That's more effective, but not as much fun.
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals. We need an alpha male to tell us what to do. If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves. Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so. Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
a alternative stance
we are not pack animals
we have been trained to listen to instructions
it makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to explore for ourselves
being denied the ability to explore for ourselves, there is a clash which results in a lot of confusion because our wires are crossed
independent thinking seems to trying to find a way to come back wiff a vengeance
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals. We need an alpha male to tell us what to do. If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves. Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so. Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
a alternative stance
we are not pack animals
we have been trained to listen to instructions
it makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to explore for ourselves
being denied the ability to explore for ourselves, there is a clash which results in a lot of confusion because our wires are crossed
independent thinking seems to trying to find a way to come back wiff a vengeance
Not bad, except that we're primates, and therefore we ARE pack animals (calling something by a different name doesn't change its properties. Neither does pretending or wishing). Independent thought prevents the pack from "pulling in the same direction", and is therefore undesirable, from a natural selection point of view. This is why most humans will do whatever the hell they are told.
Back in 2 hours.
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals. We need an alpha male to tell us what to do. If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves. Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so. Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
a alternative stance
we are not pack animals
we have been trained to listen to instructions
it makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to explore for ourselves
being denied the ability to explore for ourselves, there is a clash which results in a lot of confusion because our wires are crossed
independent thinking seems to trying to find a way to come back wiff a vengeance
Not bad, except that we're primates, and therefore we ARE pack animals (calling something by a different name doesn't change its properties. Neither does pretending or wishing). Independent thought prevents the pack from "pulling in the same direction", and is therefore undesirable, from a natural selection point of view. This is why most humans will do whatever the hell they are told.
if we didnt have the ability to discuss our status as pack animals, i would agree with you
but that is a pretty un-ignorable difference
the difference between this and that is a little more than the gee-shucks type progression that modern science seems to be fond of
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals.  We need an alpha male to tell us what to do.  If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves.  Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so.  Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
a alternative stance
we are not pack animals
we have been trained to listen to instructions
it makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to explore for ourselves
being denied the ability to explore for ourselves, there is a clash which results in a lot of confusion because our wires are crossed
independent thinking seems to trying to find a way to come back wiff a vengeance
Not bad, except that we're primates, and therefore we ARE pack animals (calling something by a different name doesn't change its properties.  Neither does pretending or wishing).  Independent thought prevents the pack from "pulling in the same direction", and is therefore undesirable, from a natural selection point of view.  This is why most humans will do whatever the hell they are told.
Primates aren't pack animals, per se. We are social, and we have hierarchies, but we aren't pack animals. And there is certainly no intrinsic property of the primate family that dictates the complex social orders of some of great apes, us included.
As far as independant thought goes, you need not look any further than the Bonobos.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:30:49 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals.  We need an alpha male to tell us what to do.  If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves.  Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so.  Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
a alternative stance
we are not pack animals
we have been trained to listen to instructions
it makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to explore for ourselves
being denied the ability to explore for ourselves, there is a clash which results in a lot of confusion because our wires are crossed
independent thinking seems to trying to find a way to come back wiff a vengeance
Not bad, except that we're primates, and therefore we ARE pack animals (calling something by a different name doesn't change its properties.  Neither does pretending or wishing).  Independent thought prevents the pack from "pulling in the same direction", and is therefore undesirable, from a natural selection point of view.  This is why most humans will do whatever the hell they are told.
Primates aren't pack animals, per se. We are social, and we have hierarchies, but we aren't pack animals. And there is certainly no intrinsic property of the primate family that dictates the complex social orders of some of great apes, us included.
As far as independant thought goes, you need not look any further than the Bonobos.
Please tell me you aren't going to bring up that "100 bonobos" garbage.
Please.
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:08:20 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals.  We need an alpha male to tell us what to do.  If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves.  Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so.  Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
a alternative stance
we are not pack animals
we have been trained to listen to instructions
it makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to explore for ourselves
being denied the ability to explore for ourselves, there is a clash which results in a lot of confusion because our wires are crossed
independent thinking seems to trying to find a way to come back wiff a vengeance
Not bad, except that we're primates, and therefore we ARE pack animals (calling something by a different name doesn't change its properties.  Neither does pretending or wishing).  Independent thought prevents the pack from "pulling in the same direction", and is therefore undesirable, from a natural selection point of view.  This is why most humans will do whatever the hell they are told.
if we didnt have the ability to discuss our status as pack animals, i would agree with you
but that is a pretty un-ignorable difference
the difference between this and that is a little more than the gee-shucks type progression that modern science seems to be fond of
Huh? Even lobotomy patients can carry on a conversation.
And yeah, bad ole science. Gets in the way at pagan fests, etc.
I have a question for you...which part of the scientific method do you have a problem with?
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 01:38:13 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:30:49 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
if you can explain the scientific origins of stupidity, then we can close the forum
I'll take a stab at it.
We're pack animals.  We need an alpha male to tell us what to do.  If makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to do what the alpha male says, than to think for ourselves.  Given a lack of instructions or bad instructions, we are unable to behave in a rational way, because we aren't wired to do so.  Independent thinking seems to be a fatal mutation.
a alternative stance
we are not pack animals
we have been trained to listen to instructions
it makes more sense, evolutionarily speaking, to explore for ourselves
being denied the ability to explore for ourselves, there is a clash which results in a lot of confusion because our wires are crossed
independent thinking seems to trying to find a way to come back wiff a vengeance
Not bad, except that we're primates, and therefore we ARE pack animals (calling something by a different name doesn't change its properties.  Neither does pretending or wishing).  Independent thought prevents the pack from "pulling in the same direction", and is therefore undesirable, from a natural selection point of view.  This is why most humans will do whatever the hell they are told.
Primates aren't pack animals, per se. We are social, and we have hierarchies, but we aren't pack animals. And there is certainly no intrinsic property of the primate family that dictates the complex social orders of some of great apes, us included.
As far as independant thought goes, you need not look any further than the Bonobos.
Please tell me you aren't going to bring up that "100 bonobos" garbage.
Please.
*eyebrow* If you want to bring it up, you can. Nothing I say is garbage.
You were making blanket statements. I got tired of it.
As for scientific method, I know it quite well. Im a biologist.
You'll find that most people here agree that the scientific method is an invaluable tool.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:44:59 AM
*eyebrow* If you want to bring it up, you can. Nothing I say is garbage.
You were making blanket statements. I got tired of it.
As for scientific method, I know it quite well. Im a biologist.
You'll find that most people here agree that the scientific method is an invaluable tool.
So far, all I've seen are people that think it's inconvenient.
Or decide to continue bringing up discredited work like the 100 bonobo bit, because it appeals to them.
Or hacks who decide to slip in cheap shots ("no matter what D&D tells you, etc") when they don't have an argument.
Sorry for being rational. I promise not to interfere in your "occult studies". *snicker*
Just let me know when you get results, okay?
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 01:48:55 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:44:59 AM
*eyebrow* If you want to bring it up, you can. Nothing I say is garbage.
You were making blanket statements. I got tired of it.
As for scientific method, I know it quite well. Im a biologist.
You'll find that most people here agree that the scientific method is an invaluable tool.
So far, all I've seen are people that think it's inconvenient.
Or decide to continue bringing up discredited work like the 100 bonobo bit, because it appeals to them.
Or hacks who decide to slip in cheap shots ("no matter what D&D tells you, etc") when they don't have an argument.
Sorry for being rational.  I promise not to interfere in your "occult studies". *snicker*
Just let me know when you get results, okay? 
LOL
Results.
For occult studies?
Get real.
This is just though processes. Mind expansion if you will.
Do you really believe that we actually BELIEVE all this stuff?
BTW, I wasn't talking about the "100 Bonobos", I was thinking more about the unque social structure of bonobo society. That story, which I hardly remember at all, I only thought of when you mentioned it.
As for the D&D quip, I find it bizzare that anyone would think that tools have some kind of standard action for which they are useful, and that you could put a "good" or "bad" lable on that. "Whatever works".
holy shit wish I had time to read all this...
but gotta get back to work
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
Do you really believe that we actually BELIEVE all this stuff?
I think LHX does.  Not too sure about you, yet.  You came running pretty quick.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
As for the D&D quip, I find it bizzare that anyone would think that tools have some kind of standard action for which they are useful, and that you could put a "good" or "bad" lable on that. "Whatever works".
Either that, or you decided to substitute a cheap shot for an argument.  Based on your posts so far, I think that's more likely.  
On a related note, you've never rebuilt a car engine, have you?  I mean, since tools don't have standard actions, I imagine you found some way to use a socket wrench as a gear puller.  I'd be interested in any new insights you have...you know, like using a screwdriver as a torque wrench, etc.
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:01:31 AM
Either that, or you decided to substitute a cheap shot for an argument.  Based on your posts so far, I think that's more likely.  
On a related note, you've never rebuilt a car engine, have you?  I mean, since tools don't have standard actions, I imagine you found some way to use a socket wrench as a gear puller.  I'd be interested in any new insights you have...you know, like using a screwdriver as a torque wrench, etc.
God damn. You're either a brilliant troll, or a complete fucktard. (Just thought it was worth stating.)
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on February 16, 2007, 02:07:59 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:01:31 AM
Either that, or you decided to substitute a cheap shot for an argument.  Based on your posts so far, I think that's more likely.  
On a related note, you've never rebuilt a car engine, have you?  I mean, since tools don't have standard actions, I imagine you found some way to use a socket wrench as a gear puller.  I'd be interested in any new insights you have...you know, like using a screwdriver as a torque wrench, etc.
God damn. You're either a brilliant troll, or a complete fucktard. (Just thought it was worth stating.)
Is there any reason I can't be both? I think I've clearly stated that I am an idiot. There's no reason I can't be a genius troll, too.
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:01:31 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
Do you really believe that we actually BELIEVE all this stuff?
I think LHX does.  Not too sure about you, yet.  You came running pretty quick.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
As for the D&D quip, I find it bizzare that anyone would think that tools have some kind of standard action for which they are useful, and that you could put a "good" or "bad" lable on that. "Whatever works".
Either that, or you decided to substitute a cheap shot for an argument.  Based on your posts so far, I think that's more likely.  
On a related note, you've never rebuilt a car engine, have you?  I mean, since tools don't have standard actions, I imagine you found some way to use a socket wrench as a gear puller.  I'd be interested in any new insights you have...you know, like using a screwdriver as a torque wrench, etc.
1)LHX doesn't believe this stuff. We've had talks in the past about how full of shit it is. Hes had the good nature to tell ME how full of shit I am when I start spouting BS. Its all mind excersises really, all this occult stuff, new metaphores that we can apply to think in new ways about things.
2)No, but I've taken a laptop appart, and let me tell you, theres lots of stuff in your desk drawer that can become tools if you need them. I figure theres a similar level of complexity there.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:15:49 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:01:31 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
Do you really believe that we actually BELIEVE all this stuff?
I think LHX does.  Not too sure about you, yet.  You came running pretty quick.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
As for the D&D quip, I find it bizzare that anyone would think that tools have some kind of standard action for which they are useful, and that you could put a "good" or "bad" lable on that. "Whatever works".
Either that, or you decided to substitute a cheap shot for an argument.  Based on your posts so far, I think that's more likely.  
On a related note, you've never rebuilt a car engine, have you?  I mean, since tools don't have standard actions, I imagine you found some way to use a socket wrench as a gear puller.  I'd be interested in any new insights you have...you know, like using a screwdriver as a torque wrench, etc.
1)LHX doesn't believe this stuff. We've had talks in the past about how full of shit it is. Hes had the good nature to tell ME how full of shit I am when I start spouting BS. Its all mind excersises really, all this occult stuff, new metaphores that we can apply to think in new ways about things.
2)No, but I've taken a laptop appart, and let me tell you, theres lots of stuff in your desk drawer that can become tools if you need them. I figure theres a similar level of complexity there.
1) That's not the impression I get. He complains too much about "modern science" being inadequate.
2) Yeah, you've never rebuilt an engine.
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:19:51 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:15:49 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:01:31 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
Do you really believe that we actually BELIEVE all this stuff?
I think LHX does.  Not too sure about you, yet.  You came running pretty quick.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
As for the D&D quip, I find it bizzare that anyone would think that tools have some kind of standard action for which they are useful, and that you could put a "good" or "bad" lable on that. "Whatever works".
Either that, or you decided to substitute a cheap shot for an argument.  Based on your posts so far, I think that's more likely.  
On a related note, you've never rebuilt a car engine, have you?  I mean, since tools don't have standard actions, I imagine you found some way to use a socket wrench as a gear puller.  I'd be interested in any new insights you have...you know, like using a screwdriver as a torque wrench, etc.
1)LHX doesn't believe this stuff. We've had talks in the past about how full of shit it is. Hes had the good nature to tell ME how full of shit I am when I start spouting BS. Its all mind excersises really, all this occult stuff, new metaphores that we can apply to think in new ways about things.
2)No, but I've taken a laptop appart, and let me tell you, theres lots of stuff in your desk drawer that can become tools if you need them. I figure theres a similar level of complexity there.
1)  That's not the impression I get.  He complains too much about "modern science" being inadequate. 
2)  Yeah, you've never rebuilt an engine.
Tell me, have you ever taken apart a laptop?
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:28:01 AM
Tell me, have you ever taken apart a laptop?
Nope. Is there a torque spec for putting it back together? Any timing issues to worry about? Any machining necessary?
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:34:58 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:28:01 AM
Tell me, have you ever taken apart a laptop?
Nope.  Is there a torque spec for putting it back together?  Any timing issues to worry about?  Any machining necessary?
Nope, you haven't. And if you haven't actually worked with a laptop before, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Period.
Theres a reason they void warrenty if there is any evidence of being opened.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:39:08 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:34:58 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:28:01 AM
Tell me, have you ever taken apart a laptop?
Nope.  Is there a torque spec for putting it back together?  Any timing issues to worry about?  Any machining necessary?
Nope, you haven't. And if you haven't actually worked with a laptop before, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Period.
Theres a reason they void warrenty if there is any evidence of being opened.
Yeah, I pretty much said "nope" as in "nope, I have never taken a laptop apart". Then I asked you a couple of questions about it.
So now maybe you can explain why not having dismantled a laptop makes me incapable of knowing what the fuck I am talking about when it comes to tools. This I GOTTA hear.
Tick-tock.
No response. Well, this Buddhist Monk guy is a punk. End of story.
Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:40:38 PM
conventional history and science fall short of explaining a lot of shit
namely ridiculously self-destructive tendencies
fear?
primative fear, still left over from our pre-civ days?
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 03:11:56 AM
No response. Well, this Buddhist Monk guy is a punk. End of story.
Timezones. BMW sleeps like anyone else.
You act a lot like Roger. Very easy to believe you knew each other.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on February 16, 2007, 05:56:49 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 03:11:56 AM
No response. Well, this Buddhist Monk guy is a punk. End of story.
Timezones.  BMW sleeps like anyone else.
You act a lot like Roger.  Very easy to believe you knew each other.
BMW was here during the entire interval between those posts.
And Roger and I have known each other since 1987. Roger is the reasonable one. He was always telling us to calm down, when there are hundreds of people walking around begging to be punched in the face.
You know Efrim, right?
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:41:45 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:39:08 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:34:58 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:28:01 AM
Tell me, have you ever taken apart a laptop?
Nope.  Is there a torque spec for putting it back together?  Any timing issues to worry about?  Any machining necessary?
Nope, you haven't. And if you haven't actually worked with a laptop before, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Period.
Theres a reason they void warrenty if there is any evidence of being opened.
Yeah, I pretty much said "nope" as in "nope, I have never taken a laptop apart".  Then I asked you a couple of questions about it.
So now maybe you can explain why not having dismantled a laptop makes me incapable of knowing what the fuck I am talking about when it comes to tools.  This I GOTTA hear.
You Win argument, I loose. Game over.
You can tear apart the occult all you want, personally I never cared enough for this shit in the first place. I only jumped in to help X get accross what he was saying. Obviously failed at that.
Besides, I've got other things on my mind right now. Think of me what you will
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:04:35 PM
Quote from: Felix Mackay on February 16, 2007, 05:56:49 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 03:11:56 AM
No response. Well, this Buddhist Monk guy is a punk. End of story.
Timezones. BMW sleeps like anyone else.
You act a lot like Roger. Very easy to believe you knew each other.
BMW was here during the entire interval between those posts.
And Roger and I have known each other since 1987. Roger is the reasonable one. He was always telling us to calm down, when there are hundreds of people walking around begging to be punched in the face.
You know Efrim, right?
I've heard the name, but I can't claim to know him.
Roger is reasonable, despite what people will say.
I think I remember his email, actually.
rogerepenrose@comcast.com
Efrim is apparently the meanest hippie in the known world. His dispatches from Europe are good reading.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on February 17, 2007, 02:13:37 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:04:35 PM
Quote from: Felix Mackay on February 16, 2007, 05:56:49 AM
Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 03:11:56 AM
No response. Well, this Buddhist Monk guy is a punk. End of story.
Timezones.  BMW sleeps like anyone else.
You act a lot like Roger.  Very easy to believe you knew each other.
BMW was here during the entire interval between those posts.
And Roger and I have known each other since 1987. Roger is the reasonable one. He was always telling us to calm down, when there are hundreds of people walking around begging to be punched in the face.
You know Efrim, right?
I've heard the name, but I can't claim to know him.
Roger is reasonable, despite what people will say.
I think I remember his email, actually. 
rogerepenrose@comcast.com
Thank you.
It has been nice speaking with you all.
take it easy man
dont celebrate the equinox too much
and dont feed the unicorns