(As an aside, I kind of dislike the use of "monkey" as shorthand for a degraded human being. I understand it and it makes sense, but it's insulting to monkeys. Monkeys, the furry, little ones, are clever, possessing an insatiable, thirsty curiosity. Plus, 100% of them are cute, which is more that can be said for some people. I generally don't like the use of animal names as pejoratives. Pigs are intelligent, clean creatures, dogs (female ones too) are loyal and kind, snakes are lazy and harmless if you don't bother them and aren't edible. I could maybe condone calling someone an amoeba as an insult to their intelligence, but hell, those fuckers have been around for millions of years before us, and will remain around for long after Homo sapiens suicides in one way or another. Just my tangential pet peeve.)
What prompted me to think about the subject of this rant was a very minor event, but it struck me surprisingly hard. I'm in vocational school for acting. We get our own very large room for the duration of the classes, with enough space to practice in peace, as well as its own toilets. In one of these there were muddy boot prints fairly high up on the wall right next to the toilet, left during what I imagine must have been one goddamned intense shitting session. Or... what? I have no idea what else could have happened there. I wanted to chat about it with the other folks, so I approached them.
As you could expect for such a girly thing to study, there's around twenty girls to a few guys. It doesn't, therefore, make sense, to leave the toilets gendered, else we'd be lining up for the Ladies while the Gents stood empty. Right? Simple. Well, dumbly arrogant people such as myself tend to assume everybody else has already come to the same conclusions as themselves. In my defense, I really wasn't the only one who used the toilets indiscriminately.
Still, when I said, "You know what I noticed in the gents' toilet?" I was immediately interrupted by the resident Unfunny Guy in that nasal teasing tone: "What were you doing in the gents'?"
"Toilet stuff. There's more girls, so it makes sense to use both. Anyway, there's boot marks high up on the walls. What happened there?"
"Ooh," he teased further, "look how observant you are."
The rest then only glanced at me blandly, then went back to talking about their day jobs (not exaggerating, that was the subject, and no, I hadn't interrupted anybody, there was a lull when I spoke).
Now, I wasn't expecting a riveting conversation, or to actually figure out what was the deal there, but I thought it was curious and interesting enough to wager a chuckle or a raised brow, at least. Something that broke up the monotony. And they snubbed me so hard.
Putting aside my feelsies being hurt, don't you agree that this is strange? Why are (adult) humans so very not curious? This is just a small example, but I'm sure you know how you expect somebody to investigate something past a Buzzfeed article and they don't lift a finger. Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why?? It drives me up the fucking wall, I'll admit. A monkey given a new thing will not cease until it is thoroughly sniffed, felt up, shred to pieces and chewed on. Even a fish is more curious! When you put something new in a betta's tank it will puzzle over it for hours, investigating it from every angle. And human children are the same. What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity? Is it a natural part of maturing for some reason, or is it the fault of modern school, either by the school itself killing every shred of inventiveness with it standardized teaching, or by the oppressively conformist society that forms when you force too many teenagers to spend all day together in what's basically lightweight prison? Am I blowing this out of proportion? Once I was collecting fruit off a tree in a park. The tree's branches were so obligingly arranged that I couldn't help but climb really high and ended up finding a comfortable seat. I spent at least half an hour there, just sitting, thinking and watching, and nobody, out of the numerous people who passed by there, noticed me (that I've seen). Nobody raised their head enough. Nobody paid enough attention to their surroundings. I could have pelted them with fruits/poop and they wouldn't have noticed. When something unusual appears in an animal's surroundings, it will lock on to that in seconds and try to get to the bottom of it. What happened to our species to make us blind? What happened to some of us to have avoided it? Is it necessarily wrong? Am I sounding superior? Is this post as whiny as I think it is upon rereading it? So many questions.
A human's focus does tend to become regimented, through various means, all of which often act against each other.
There's the heirarchy of needs, there's social signaling and status, there's operant conditioning, there are a stack of biases and heuristics in play, constantly... It's all pretty complicated.
It can be frustrating, but don't forget, you're a human also... so what is it you're unknowingly blocking out?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2015, 05:25:17 PM
A human's focus does tend to become regimented, through various means, all of which often act against each other.
There's the heirarchy of needs, there's social signaling and status, there's operant conditioning, there are a stack of biases and heuristics in play, constantly... It's all pretty complicated.
True. Could it be that there's simply too much going on in a human's head to constantly pay attention to the surroundings and take an active interest in it, like animals do? I suppose sapience would come with its price. But a hunter-gatherer cannot afford to zone out into a routine, can he? He either won't eat or get eaten himself. How could this have gotten selected for? Is it a more recent thing, come with the changes in society? It just seems so unnatural to me (as much as I try to avoid using that word, it fits here).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2015, 05:25:17 PM
It can be frustrating, but don't forget, you're a human also... so what is it you're unknowingly blocking out?
I keep wondering about that.
I like your thoughts on the monkey business.
I also think that the group of people approached makes a difference in how you interpret the scene, as does your inner monologue. Do you think a psychology class would have reacted differently? Is it possible that no one made much of you being in the tree, having noticed you from a distance, decided that you weren't a threat, and concluded that enjoying yourself in a tree is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in peace?
Oh yeah, absolutely. For aspiring actors -- so artists, supposedly -- that bunch of people is the most normal bunch of people I've had the pleasure of interacting with in a good while. They're lovely, kind people, but they're the type who think Oppa Gangnam is not only funny, it's still funny. :eek: So yes, I think a different group of people would have reacted differently. A psychology class is probably filled with more curious people. What is it though that makes them more curious than others? Than most, even, I'd say?
As for the tree, a building being in the way makes in impossible to see from a larger distance from any side other than one. People approaching from that side, I can't account for, but the rest did not look up.
Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 10:04:07 PM
Oh yeah, absolutely. For aspiring actors -- so artists, supposedly -- that bunch of people is the most normal bunch of people I've had the pleasure of interacting with in a good while. They're lovely, kind people, but they're the type who think Oppa Gangnam is not only funny, it's still funny. :eek: So yes, I think a different group of people would have reacted differently. A psychology class is probably filled with more curious people. What is it though that makes them more curious than others? Than most, even, I'd say?
As for the tree, a building being in the way makes in impossible to see from a larger distance from any side other than one. People approaching from that side, I can't account for, but the rest did not look up.
Looking up is fairly unusual behavior for most large primates, as well as other large species, unless they are looking for fruit or something alerts them to danger. Take note of your own behavior as you walk to school or work or the store... how many times in a mile do you look directly up, as opposed to scanning from a distance? Do you look up every time you turn a corner?
I doubt it has much to do with lack of curiosity... consider that a geologist might consider a birdwatcher uninquisitive because they never bother to simply look down, at the ground, where the secrets of our earthly origins lie.
As far as curiosity/openness to experience, that's a temperament trait, probably largely something you're born with, a result of your genetic and epigenetic blueprint, that tends to be stable over a life span.
Personally I look all around all the time, but I could easily be an outlier.
Good point about the geologist vs bird watcher. Not everybody is interested in the same things (duh much). Still. General inquisitiveness is something that goes down with age in humans... no? Damn, now I'm remembering my old dog who was afraid of everything unknown. She had a traumatic past for an excuse, though.
Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 10:50:38 PM
Personally I look all around all the time, but I could easily be an outlier.
Good point about the geologist vs bird watcher. Not everybody is interested in the same things (duh much). Still. General inquisitiveness is something that goes down with age in humans... no? Damn, now I'm remembering my old dog who was afraid of everything unknown. She had a traumatic past for an excuse, though.
Inquisitiveness tends to remain a stable personality trait over time. You may be confusing response to novel stimuli with curiosity. For children, more stimuli are novel, therefore there is more new stuff to explore and wonder about. As people get older, it starts to take more and more effort to seek out novel stimuli, as the things going on in one's immediate environment become more familiar. Some people are more likely to do so than others.
Someone in a tree might be very interesting to a child, but not very interesting to an adult, who has already explored why people might climb trees.
You might also be surprised how many things people register and dismiss as unimportant unconsciously, without appearing to notice them. This occurs in order to allow ordinary navigation of the world at a reasonable pace without a simple walk to the garden being an exhausting ordeal. Want to know what happens when you turn this filter off, forcing your brain to recognize all external stimuli as equally important and demanding of attention? Take a lot of mushrooms. Just don't try to get anything done that day.
Look at older people who travel to unfamiliar places a lot, or are constantly trying new things. They do this because they have a high level of openness to experience, and enjoy novel stimuli. They aren't incurious about their hometowns -- they are merely familiar with them, and the familiar can never, biologically speaking, produce the thrill of new stimuli.
Good example -- I'm a musician, and I'm always hearing sounds, background music, changes in ambient tones. Often, quite often, i'll comment on it, and other people won't know what I'm talking about. But at the same time, I'll be completely oblivious to other things in my environment.
Not to say either of us are less, or more, observant than the other.
I'm rather partial to how Huxley likened the mind to a "reducing valve" of experience. Kind of fits the feeling that there's always something I'm missing. Preferably for good reason. Because, in some way, I must always consider myself discerning in my capacity to discriminate meaningful differences. In fact, some accuse me of making that a matter of amatorial pride.
Thank you, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Nigel, you're right in what I was getting mixed up. My tree example wasn't the best, perhaps, because it is a fairly mundane thing from some angles. I assure you though that adults climbing trees isn't an usual sight, not around here, where even children rarely climb trees. I would expect some glances at least - but I suppose it is a thing that may have warranted a glance if it hadn't been filed away as uninteresting by the unconscious filters and not noticed by the person themselves.
I know I would have noticed though. I'm pretty sure I would.
I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?
LMNO - I know what you mean, I always seem to notice things others don't. And some people I interact with certainly notice things I don't. It's just that it seems like most don't notice anything but the most broad generalities about their immediate surroundings, and when I point some detail out, or hell, even share something interesting I'd learned, I get odd looks or that obliging, amused smile that says "you're zany, but in a non-abrasive and sometimes entertaining way, so I'll tolerate it". It's not the reaction I have when on the other end, I'm endlessly fascinated by things I haven't seen, heard of, or noticed before. Why aren't others? A betta certainly is.
(I understand they may simply not be interested in novel things, don't consider them novel enough to warrant interest, or consider them too minute to. I'm just wondering why and how, since that mode of thought is so alien to me.)
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 doubt...
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
Thank you, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Nigel, you're right in what I was getting mixed up. My tree example wasn't the best, perhaps, because it is a fairly mundane thing from some angles. I assure you though that adults climbing trees isn't an usual sight, not around here, where even children rarely climb trees. I would expect some glances at least - but I suppose it is a thing that may have warranted a glance if it hadn't been filed away as uninteresting by the unconscious filters and not noticed by the person themselves.
I know I would have noticed though. I'm pretty sure I would.
Well, that is easy to figure out.
What is the rate at which trees cross your path?
How many times have you
noticed that a tree was empty?
If you don't notice empty trees then your sampling method is biased and therefore suspect.
You've made me think about climbing trees.
This makes me like you, trees are some of my favourite things.
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?
You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think. These are nearly universal phenomena, and the latter is often experienced to an extreme degree by people with autism, who may have some differences in their brain circuitry that makes Theory of Mind a particularly challenging concept to fully grasp.
False uniqueness tends to peak in the teen years, something about developing self-consciousness being exaggerated during a developmental period blah blah blah.
Here is a question I will pose to you: Are you really curious? Or are you seeking validation for your conclusions?
I ask because the questions you ask, in themselves, beg the question. What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?
Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 04:07:27 PM
...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 from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 18, 2015, 11:14:26 PM
You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think,
Not always a fallacy. :whack:
That consensus shit, though, I don't like that.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 18, 2015, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?
You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think.
This is something I have been wrestling with for a while too. It's hard to express (for me - reading so many eloquently written thoughts on this forum make my own seem woefully jumbled and stunted) but I am torn between hoping that there are more
layers to people than they express externally and in public and worrying that there aren't and their actions perfectly mirror their inner worlds.
Now, when I think about it in my more optimistic moments I guess that everyone has a lot more going on in there than they make out. I certainly know that I don't express even 1/10th of my thoughts to the outside world so people would be excused for thinking that I am boring. Maybe everyone else is like that too.
But then maybe they aren't.
Thank you for bringing up those two fallacies, Nigel. I will definitely have to do some more reading on those topics. I do wonder how both can apply at once though - would they not be mutually exclusive?
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on February 18, 2015, 10:47:29 PM
What is the rate at which trees cross your path?
How many times have you noticed that a tree was empty?
If you don't notice empty trees then your sampling method is biased and therefore suspect.
You've made me think about climbing trees.
This makes me like you, trees are some of my favourite things.
Perhaps I don't consciously acknowledge every tree I pass with a "yep, that's an empty tree alright", but if there was something unusual about it my attention would be drawn to it. I can claim this because I've noticed unusual things up in trees, even ones I've passed by a million times, before. I just pay attention because trees are nice in themselves and there could be birds in them. I like birds. But then the sample is biased anyway, because I could have missed any number of armed yetis sitting up there and I would never know. :lulz:
And yeah, aren't trees wonderful?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 18, 2015, 11:14:26 PM
You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think. These are nearly universal phenomena, and the latter is often experienced to an extreme degree by people with autism, who may have some differences in their brain circuitry that makes Theory of Mind a particularly challenging concept to fully grasp.
False uniqueness tends to peak in the teen years, something about developing self-consciousness being exaggerated during a developmental period blah blah blah.
Huh, nice to put a name to a face, I fall for the latter often. Maybe because I don't get out enough. Luckily I manage to catch myself doing it, sometimes.
And while I see what you mean, I have to agree with the Doktor: at any given time there's a high possibility that I'm the only person (or one of two) in a room that can name at least two species of lemur. Hell, that knows that lemurs have different species at all. And this on some level is perplexing to me, because animals are fascinating -- there must be something
wrong with people who don't care about them. I suppose others may feel this way about any subject they're passionate about. Being a Discordian with all that comes with it in itself makes one pretty odd, if not on a global scale then in any gathering of not-selected-for people.
To your second post -- oh, no, I'll freely admit these questions were fishing for agreement, mostly because I was whining and it feels nice to have your "woes" affirmed. Doesn't mean I'm not willing to examine them, and dig to the bottom of them, and acknowledge that I was wrong or misguided; at least intelectually, emotions can be slow on the uptake. Hell, that's what I'm here for. Delicious food for thought.
Quote from: Xaz on February 19, 2015, 09:35:47 AMreading so many eloquently written thoughts on this forum make my own seem woefully jumbled and stunted
I know that feeling well. :lulz:
The other one, too. It's so hard to tell if there's more to a person than it shows. I've been disappointed by finding out how shallow and illogical people I've thought to be smart can be -- but then I'm painfully aware of how I can be either too quiet or run my mouth dumbly. So it may be safer to assume there's always more to a person that they're either unwilling or unable to express... and hope it's not something like a fondness for the KKK.
Quote from: Xaz on February 19, 2015, 09:35:47 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 18, 2015, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?
You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think.
This is something I have been wrestling with for a while too. It's hard to express (for me - reading so many eloquently written thoughts on this forum make my own seem woefully jumbled and stunted) but I am torn between hoping that there are more layers to people than they express externally and in public and worrying that there aren't and their actions perfectly mirror their inner worlds.
Now, when I think about it in my more optimistic moments I guess that everyone has a lot more going on in there than they make out. I certainly know that I don't express even 1/10th of my thoughts to the outside world so people would be excused for thinking that I am boring. Maybe everyone else is like that too.
But then maybe they aren't.
Thank you for bringing up those two fallacies, Nigel. I will definitely have to do some more reading on those topics. I do wonder how both can apply at once though - would they not be mutually exclusive?
That's where cognitive dissonance comes in.
There will always be things about everyone that is different and unique. Yes, you are a special snowflake, just like everybody else.
But being able to name more than two species of lemur is trivia. Some asshole at any given bar in the United States has an equivalent talent, whether it's being able to rattle off golf scores or knowing the favorite food of every player for the Bruins. That's not a sign of thinking or perceiving differently from the vast majority of human beings.
Dok Howl, he probably actually DOES think and perceive a bit differently, on account of his default network being a little borked. He's got a great workaround hack going, though.
I would say that I think and perceive "differently", but that's just because I'm epileptic and probably have temporal lobe damage. It's well-known that limbic system seizure activity has a strong effect on perception and personality. But here's the thing; it's the single most common form of epilepsy, which itself is not that rare. No fewer than THREE of my special snowflake friends also have TLE, and it's not like we met through a support group or any shit like that.
One thing that I see a lot of smart people doing is playing the "Woe is me, I'm so alone in the world, it's hard being so smart and different from the stupid blank-eyed masses". Don't fool yourself, Buttercup. By dismissing the people around you as stupid you are likely to ignore people among them who could be your friends.
Another possibility, and you probably shouldn't discount this, is that you are profoundly boring to them. Each of them likely has their own particular interests, and don't understand why you don't care as much as they do about nail decals or whatever it is. Nerds have a tendency to sincerely believe that they are smart and that their interests are superior, but to be frank, nope.
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 19, 2015, 03:29:21 PM
Another possibility, and you probably shouldn't discount this, is that you are profoundly boring to them.
If anything, I am all-too aware of this.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 19, 2015, 03:29:21 PM
Dok Howl, he probably actually DOES think and perceive a bit differently, on account of his default network being a little borked. He's got a great workaround hack going, though.
I don't know that I don't think normally, on a serious note. It's the perception issue: I operate normally on the data I have, but the data is sometimes corrupted. This can give the impression that I think differently.
And the hack is largely a matter of luck. I am not able to look
past what I am seeing, but I know it's crap and can make a good guess as to what's actually going on. Then I act like it's what it
ought to be.
Fortunately, the perception thing happens infrequently, and I have the standard warning (high blood pressure headache).
Oh I'm not even getting started on bigger stuff like what you describe, Nigel, trivial differences are precisely the level I get stumped on.
I understand that everybody is just interested in different things, that's Elementary kind of biz. And sure, when it comes to things like preference in video games or clothes, it's simple enough. But when I get suspicious looks and questions for saying I went for a three-hour solitary walk in the woods, implying that I must have been doing something beside just enjoying nature, I don't understand that. It's the most normal thing for me. I don't look askew at anybody for their hobbies, however unusual I may find them, rather, I wanna know more about it. And it's that reaction people have that I find odd.
Even if I understand now they just have a lower drive to find and try new things, I don't understand it. Just like I understand that somebody may like calamari but don't understand it, for instance. :lulz:
I think I'm lacking the vocabulary to express this properly.
Now tell me, was I/am I coming across as a self-pitying, up-their-own-ass nerd, or were you saying that just in case I was? :)
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
I hear songs and notice different qualities of reverb on the snare drums, and whether the vocals are doubled or not. I spent three hours hunting down the perfect dB level on a kick drum in relation to the number of miliseconds on the threshold of its compressor.
Why the hell doesn't everyone do that?
Why the hell indeed? To me, the intricacies of music are like magic. I even have a similar sort of awe, respect, puzzlement and a pinch of fear for music people as if they'd really spawned a rabbit in their hat. How the hell do you do that, and why can't I? Why don't I hear it, why don't I comprehend it? I was in music school for a year so it's not like I haven't tried, but I seem to be deaf to a whole world of stuff.
Why?
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 06:55:21 PM
Oh I'm not even getting started on bigger stuff like what you describe, Nigel, trivial differences are precisely the level I get stumped on.
I understand that everybody is just interested in different things, that's Elementary kind of biz. And sure, when it comes to things like preference in video games or clothes, it's simple enough. But when I get suspicious looks and questions for saying I went for a three-hour solitary walk in the woods, implying that I must have been doing something beside just enjoying nature, I don't understand that. It's the most normal thing for me. I don't look askew at anybody for their hobbies, however unusual I may find them, rather, I wanna know more about it. And it's that reaction people have that I find odd.
Even if I understand now they just have a lower drive to find and try new things, I don't understand it. Just like I understand that somebody may like calamari but don't understand it, for instance. :lulz:
I think I'm lacking the vocabulary to express this properly.
Now tell me, was I/am I coming across as a self-pitying, up-their-own-ass nerd, or were you saying that just in case I was? :)
You kind of were.
Around here, we call a three-hour walk in the woods "hiking". Where do you live, that people don't understand hiking?
I can be sometimes, I won't deny it. But I don't really think myself superior or special. Just a bit different, apparently. And it's not a source of misery or loneliness as much as confusion.
And, hm, a big city? But then the people I heard this from were born out in the country. Maybe they grew up so used to nature and forests they don't consider them interesting anymore? I wish I knew.
Quote from: Karapac on February 22, 2015, 03:54:34 PM
I can be sometimes, I won't deny it. But I don't really think myself superior or special. Just a bit different, apparently. And it's not a source of misery or loneliness as much as confusion.
And, hm, a big city? But then the people I heard this from were born out in the country. Maybe they grew up so used to nature and forests they don't consider them interesting anymore? I wish I knew.
Why not ask them?
I also want to point out that you may be suffering from fundamental attribution error, as you seem to be assigning motivations to their reactions, which may not in fact be the motivations that underlie their reactions at all.
Oh but I did, I just didn't get an answer.
What other motivations can they be then? Honest question, I really have no idea.
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Quote from: Karapac on February 22, 2015, 08:53:09 PM
Oh but I did, I just didn't get an answer.
All of them? How many people are we talking about, here? Are we talking about enough people to allow you to generalize about human beings, or about enough people for you to have asked them why they think it's weird to go for a walk in the woods, and for them all to have, for some reason, ignored your question?
Quote from: Karapac on February 22, 2015, 08:53:09 PM
What other motivations can they be then? Honest question, I really have no idea.
That is the thing, isn't it? That you don't know their motivations, so you're making up stories that fit within your own experience to explain other people's reaction. The problem with this is that it's more revealing about you than revealing about them; it doesn't say anything at all about them.
This seems like a good place to tell a fairly boring story.
When I was in my early 20's I thought that middle aged people were really boring. They weren't interested in having conversations about any of the deep topics my friends and I were into, like the problems with capitalism and how fucked up the school system is or the oligarchy or social justice any of those big, brand-new, world-changing ideas. If the conversation turned in that direction, they would often act kind of bored or just walk away. So boring! Come on old people, why don't you care about important stuff? And then one day I said something to a co-worker who was an older guy, and he just said "How many times can I have that conversation?" and I suddenly realized that it wasn't them who was boring. It was me. They were having far more interesting conversations than I was even able to understand because I was just then picking up the foundational information, having the foundational conversations with my peers that they had with their peers 20 years ago.
Do you need to re-learn how to read every time you pick up a book?
Once you learn something, you have already explored it. Therefore, when you go back to it, it is no longer exploring, it is visiting.
I could be wrong, but it sounds as if you are in a very exploratory mental place. many things are wondrous and new to you. That's great, keep doing it; exploratory behavior generates new neurons and keeps you healthy and resilient. But when you are exploring something and feeling good and see people who don't seem to think that what you're doing is interesting, rather than pitying them as poor uncurious monkeys, it might be wise to wonder whether they already know what you are just discovering.
On that note:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png)
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 18, 2015, 11:22:47 PM
What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?
Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 04:07:27 PM
...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 from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Generally, but not always. Some people live for years or decades convinced they are dead; they simply see no reason to stop eating.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
Laugh it up.
Just as an aside, it occurs to me that this whole new "deep-learning" AI stuff seem quite the misnomer.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2015, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Generally, but not always. Some people live for years or decades convinced they are dead; they simply see no reason to stop eating.
There may well be case studies my professor doesn't know about - we just covered this a couple of weeks ago, and he was pretty adamant about death almost always occurring within a few months. I am only aware of one case that didn't end in death by starvation/self-neglect - the patient recovered something approximating normal function with the help of therapy and medication. During the time when he was affected by the delusion, he did not eat.
Quote from: axod on February 23, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:25:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2015, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Generally, but not always. Some people live for years or decades convinced they are dead; they simply see no reason to stop eating.
There may well be case studies my professor doesn't know about - we just covered this a couple of weeks ago, and he was pretty adamant about death almost always occurring within a few months. I am only aware of one case that didn't end in death by starvation/self-neglect - the patient recovered something approximating normal function with the help of therapy and medication. During the time when he was affected by the delusion, he did not eat.
I'm working out of Wikipedia, but:
QuoteThe article Recurrent Postictal Depression with Cotard delusion (2005) describes the case of a fourteen-year-old epileptic boy whose distorted perception of reality resulted from Cotard Syndrome. His mental-health history was of a boy expressing themes of death, being sad all the time, decreased physical activity in playtime, social withdrawal, and disturbed biological functions. About twice a year, the boy suffered episodes that lasted between three weeks and three months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2015, 10:30:32 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:25:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2015, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Generally, but not always. Some people live for years or decades convinced they are dead; they simply see no reason to stop eating.
There may well be case studies my professor doesn't know about - we just covered this a couple of weeks ago, and he was pretty adamant about death almost always occurring within a few months. I am only aware of one case that didn't end in death by starvation/self-neglect - the patient recovered something approximating normal function with the help of therapy and medication. During the time when he was affected by the delusion, he did not eat.
I'm working out of Wikipedia, but:
QuoteThe article Recurrent Postictal Depression with Cotard delusion (2005) describes the case of a fourteen-year-old epileptic boy whose distorted perception of reality resulted from Cotard Syndrome. His mental-health history was of a boy expressing themes of death, being sad all the time, decreased physical activity in playtime, social withdrawal, and disturbed biological functions. About twice a year, the boy suffered episodes that lasted between three weeks and three months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
Interesting... so his syndrome was episodic rather than chronic. I actually don't know whether that would still be considered the same disorder from a neurological perspective, to tell the truth.
But either way, now I know about two.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: axod on February 23, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.
I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness. I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 05:49:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: axod on February 23, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.
I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness. I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.
What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.
Are you saying that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.
Capgras and Cotards are both very rare. They are defined by observational symptoms, but in all known cases seem to be based on underlying brain damage. So the answer to your latter question is perhaps, hypothetically.
For the most part though, you really don't see brains with nothing physically wrong with them producing minds that have debilitating functional disorders.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2015, 03:17:00 PM
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 05:49:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: axod on February 23, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.
I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness. I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.
What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.
Are you saying that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.
More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown. Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly. It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment. Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed. The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 08:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2015, 03:17:00 PM
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 05:49:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: axod on February 23, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.
I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness. I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.
What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.
Are you saying that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.
More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown. Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly. It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment. Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed. The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?
Yes, much as with genetic research, we have learned most of what we know about the brain by looking at what happens when parts of it are damaged. Mostly, when we have a situation where we have a disorder, we try to learn about it by comparing as many people with the disorder as we can to a similar or larger number of people who don't have any known disorders.
Still not sure what you were getting at, though. Maybe you could use teeny tiny little words, since using bigger ones didn't help to explain your point any better.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 25, 2015, 12:30:56 AM
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 08:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2015, 03:17:00 PM
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 05:49:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: axod on February 23, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.
I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness. I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.
What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.
Are you saying that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.
More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown. Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly. It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment. Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed. The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?
Yes, much as with genetic research, we have learned most of what we know about the brain by looking at what happens when parts of it are damaged. Mostly, when we have a situation where we have a disorder, we try to learn about it by comparing as many people with the disorder as we can to a similar or larger number of people who don't have any known disorders.
Still not sure what you were getting at, though. Maybe you could use teeny tiny little words, since using bigger ones didn't help to explain your point any better.
It's just curious to note how we understand the way some things work by examining the cases in which they don't. This could have lasting consequences. For example, I learned myself some these things by reading this 'merican translation of twisted Frencie author Maurice Merleau-Ponty. If you sample some of his text you will understand how the damage was irreversible ;)
Quote from: axod on February 25, 2015, 01:39:21 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 25, 2015, 12:30:56 AM
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 08:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2015, 03:17:00 PM
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 05:49:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: axod on February 23, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.
Fascinating. Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that. At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me. Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.
I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness. I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.
What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.
Are you saying that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.
More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown. Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly. It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment. Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed. The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?
Yes, much as with genetic research, we have learned most of what we know about the brain by looking at what happens when parts of it are damaged. Mostly, when we have a situation where we have a disorder, we try to learn about it by comparing as many people with the disorder as we can to a similar or larger number of people who don't have any known disorders.
Still not sure what you were getting at, though. Maybe you could use teeny tiny little words, since using bigger ones didn't help to explain your point any better.
It's just curious to note how we understand the way some things work by examining the cases in which they don't. This could have lasting consequences. For example, I learned myself some these things by reading this 'merican translation of twisted Frencie author Maurice Merleau-Ponty. If you sample some of his text you will understand how the damage was irreversible ;)
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.
And of course, in medicine, in order to cure something is is very often necessary to understand what caused it.
I'm out of my league here. Will read and attempt to comprehend, but I have nothing of value to add. :lol:
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 22, 2015, 08:53:09 PM
Oh but I did, I just didn't get an answer.
All of them? How many people are we talking about, here? Are we talking about enough people to allow you to generalize about human beings, or about enough people for you to have asked them why they think it's weird to go for a walk in the woods, and for them all to have, for some reason, ignored your question?
We're talking about two that I have asked this. And you're confusing not getting an
answer with not getting a
response. I did get the latter, and it amounted to a shrug and "I dunno, it's just weird." I'm not generalizing about human beings based on this, it's just another little thing adding to how mystified I am about them.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 22, 2015, 08:53:09 PM
What other motivations can they be then? Honest question, I really have no idea.
That is the thing, isn't it? That you don't know their motivations, so you're making up stories that fit within your own experience to explain other people's reaction. The problem with this is that it's more revealing about you than revealing about them; it doesn't say anything at all about them.
This seems like a good place to tell a fairly boring story.
When I was in my early 20's I thought that middle aged people were really boring. They weren't interested in having conversations about any of the deep topics my friends and I were into, like the problems with capitalism and how fucked up the school system is or the oligarchy or social justice any of those big, brand-new, world-changing ideas. If the conversation turned in that direction, they would often act kind of bored or just walk away. So boring! Come on old people, why don't you care about important stuff? And then one day I said something to a co-worker who was an older guy, and he just said "How many times can I have that conversation?" and I suddenly realized that it wasn't them who was boring. It was me. They were having far more interesting conversations than I was even able to understand because I was just then picking up the foundational information, having the foundational conversations with my peers that they had with their peers 20 years ago.
Do you need to re-learn how to read every time you pick up a book?
Once you learn something, you have already explored it. Therefore, when you go back to it, it is no longer exploring, it is visiting.
I could be wrong, but it sounds as if you are in a very exploratory mental place. many things are wondrous and new to you. That's great, keep doing it; exploratory behavior generates new neurons and keeps you healthy and resilient. But when you are exploring something and feeling good and see people who don't seem to think that what you're doing is interesting, rather than pitying them as poor uncurious monkeys, it might be wise to wonder whether they already know what you are just discovering.
How else am I to understand other people? There's three methods, basically - try to do it based on what I already know; ask them, which isn't always possible and not always reliable; or ask others' opinion and contrast their thoughts and experiences with mine, which I'm doing now or IRL or when I read stuff. Is there any other way?
I appreciate the story. It certainly is the case sometimes that people simply know already what I'm just now thinking about. But that can't always be the case, especially when I'm talking to people my age or younger, like at school (in the group, we're anywhere from 18 to 38). Some of 'em are barely out of high school and they just aren't interested in things outside of work, personal relationships, a few choice subjects like marijuana legalization, and hilarious internet memes. Some may grow out of it, but some
won't. And hell, it's not like I want all humanity to share my hobbies, not everybody has to be interested in roguelikes or recognize every bird species that lives around here. But when I point out that there's a lion relief on the facade of a building, or a cool car always parked in a certain spot, or an unusual beggar lady (all these things having been there forever) and the person I'm walking with says "Huh, I've walked here a million times and I've never noticed," I have to wonder
why. It's just about a general awareness, curiosity, open interest in one's surroundings, in the world in general -- that thing that animals and children have, but adults largely don't.
I'm really not that guy proudly flaunting "You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same" on a Hot Topic shirt or "98% of teens has done/likes X, if you haven't/don't put this in your signature." in their deviantArt sig. :lulz: I know I'm not special or smart, really, I do. I'm not pitying anybody. My original post was a rant, hence the whiny tone, but what I'm bemoaning is not that it's lonely at the top of these heights of consciousness and different-ness that I've reached, but rather than I still don't understand why do people act like they do.
@axod What you're saying is... really intriguing. What if we learned about, say, bones and their function mostly through comparing healthy ones to those broken or wrecked with osteoporosis or whatnot?
But what did you mean by
Quote from: axod on February 24, 2015, 05:49:37 AM
Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized. I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect? :lulz:
?
The thing is, Karapac, as I tried to point out before, you aren't really asking questions. You're making statements and waiting for validation.
You say you're curious about people, but you aren't acting curious about people. You aren't even acting curious about yourself. At this point, you are merely making assertions and defending them.
I'm gonna post this a third time, and see if this time you have the guts to actually critically examine your own assumptions:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 18, 2015, 11:22:47 PM
What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?
Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 04:07:27 PM
...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?
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?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 17, 2015, 10:19:53 PM
As far as curiosity/openness to experience, that's a temperament trait, probably largely something you're born with, a result of your genetic and epigenetic blueprint, that tends to be stable over a life span.
This is in books and shit, it's not a mystery. FYI.
Quote from: Karapac on February 26, 2015, 05:46:17 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.
Quote from: Karapac on February 26, 2015, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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?
Quote from: Karapac on February 26, 2015, 05:46:17 PM
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?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2015, 03:25:00 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 =]
Quote from: axod on February 28, 2015, 06:27:45 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2015, 03:25:00 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
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/
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2015, 10:04:50 PM
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill. It takes practice.
I know, I'm doing my best.
Quote from: axod on February 27, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 26, 2015, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 28, 2015, 10:41:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Karapac on March 04, 2015, 07:42:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2015, 10:04:50 PM
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill. It takes practice.
I know, I'm doing my best.
Quote from: axod on February 27, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 26, 2015, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 28, 2015, 10:41:20 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2015, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 18, 2015, 11:22:47 PM
What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?
Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 04:07:27 PM
...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.
QuoteWhy are (adult) humans so very not curious?
The assumption is that adult humans lack curiosity.
QuoteShow 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.
QuoteWhat happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity?
The assumption is that our curiosity is destroyed during our maturation process.
QuoteWhat happened to our species to make us blind?
The assumption is that our species is blind.
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 04, 2015, 08:43:46 PM
Quote from: Karapac on March 04, 2015, 07:42:10 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 28, 2015, 10:41:20 AM
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.]
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:
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) 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.
Thanks, I'm trying. It's good to know that I'm not wasting my time.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 04, 2015, 10:27:31 PM
Nigel, I really appreciate your role in this thread, it's instructive to more than just one.
Seconded.
Quote from: Karapac on March 04, 2015, 07:42:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2015, 10:04:50 PM
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill. It takes practice.
I know, I'm doing my best.
Quote from: axod on February 27, 2015, 08:25:46 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 26, 2015, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: axod on February 22, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 21, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: axod on February 19, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
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.