MSC

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is known as a strawman. Thanks for the neg rep, though.

Projection again, you've strawmanned so much I have chafe in my teeth. You've done it again by accusing me of it when you know full well you've not answered any of my ON-TOPIC writings directly and have instead been quite rude. If you actually knew what you were doing, you'd have steelmanned my points. You've not. Bye now.

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

What if language/ideas is a self-organizing superstructure that's using us to build something we cannot intuit yet? I think that's very much what's happening, actually.

Yes! I believe this too! Hell, the intuition is in my name! 

Just now, iNow said:

How do you know I’m not also someone on the spectrum?

I don't, but I try to communicate in substantive detail and have been honest with you about my thoughts at every point. Hell, even if you didn't have a formal diagnosis that in itself wouldn't mean you aren't on the spectrum. It just means you've never been screened for it. 

This isn't the point of this thread though, if you want to discuss ASD then I suggest you open a new thread. You've not had a single rational or reasonable answer to what I have said about agnosticism. Now, would you like to address any of my points or are you just going to ignore everything I have to say on the matter just because I don't agree with you and you just want to be right instead of informed?

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Makes sense. I suspect you’ll find this community is pretty used to people being on the spectrum given the membership.

It’s a mistake to suggest people misunderstand you when they’re simply reacting to your style. I can understand perfectly the reasons for your style amd still find your style off putting. They’re not mutually exclusive. You can be both on the spectrum and come across as needlessly unfriendly. 

You’ll also likely find others stop interacting with you if you refuse to adjust. All the best. 

If people don't ask me questions or answer my questions, like yourself, then I'm not likely to be that bothered if people refuse to interact because I didn't "adjust" to their individual standards. It's not like you speak for everybody, so I really don't care. 

Why should I take anyone seriously who don't charitably read what I have to say?

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ll put you down for agnostic atheist then

You're making a list? That's weird. Atheistic agnostic* you saying otherwise isn't going to change my mind. You're just doing it to make yourself comfortable. You're playing a language game with yourself right now.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

You can be both on the spectrum and come across as needlessly unfriendly. 

You're coming across that way to me, so are you sure you're not projecting? You seem to care very much about my identity to the point of trying to force your point on me. So far what you see as unfriendly, I see as disagreeing with you. Which I'm allowed to do, last I checked, or do you think individuals with ASD don't have that right where you do?

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think we can continue forward while ignoring the non-apology apologies and needlessly unfriendly tone. 

Perhaps this offers a clearer picture of my intended meaning:

Where are you on this grid, MSC? 

You see the bottom of that middle line where it says Agnostic in red? That's me. I have a physical, non-supernatural idol. Not a god. I deify the future as the only thing that can truly judge me. For some, this puts me too far outside the common definitions of god or deity to be anything but an atheistic agnostic. To others, it means I have a god. Which means theistic agnostic. I view the entire debate over whether there is a creator god as something that is beyond my ability to gain any knowledge or certainty of. Of course, we are speaking consciously of course. Sub-consciously, I really couldn't say. I'll find that out on my deathbed when I either start praying, or don't. In this sense, my agnosticism has nothing to do with knowledge about beliefs in god, but more to do with my not knowing what my true beliefs are due to the nature of my existence. That being said, maybe psychoanalysis could shed some light on that and help me figure that out? I really don't know. For now, my final answer is that I am agnostic. My belief in god is like a cat in a box with some poison. I can't tell you if the cat is dead or alive, so for now I'm saying it is both. If you like, it means that a part of me is on the bottom left of the graph, and a part of me is on the right. However I trust myself to be able to self identify and self define, rather than allow others to identify or define me. So I say agnostic and I reject all other labels because to claim any certainty or knowledge either way would be truly disingenuous, I'd just be capitulating to what someone else says about me and that wouldn't be very honest at all, to myself or anyone else.

Unfriendly tone? Do you mean my word choice comes across as unfriendly? Or do you mean you're reading this with an audible tone of your own making? If so then my tone isn't the problem. How people interpret it is. I am diagnosed as a person with an autistic spectrum disorder, so maybe the way that makes me communicate comes off as aggressive or unfriendly but this is a misunderstanding made by individuals who are used to more Neurotypical styles of communication. 

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well that settles it.
I'm an agnostic atheist.

( I'm a science guy, we're never 100% sure of anything )

Are you certain you're an agnostic atheist? Or are you an atheistic agnostic? I reject the four choice dichotomy given in the graph.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

No library, no internet, and no other teachers who could reference Attila ?
Must have really sucked !

It was a different time, what can I say. Internet and decent textbooks were for rich kids.

Just now, MigL said:

Open up his textbook and say
"This guy here on page 78"

Then ask the teacher to take some remedial History courses.

We didn't have textbooks... My school sucked.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

As an example of 'free' speech, you can use any of the above words, "Fire', "Shoot" and "Poison Gas" in a sentence, so as to express an idea.

"I should be able to kill SNAKES by SHOOTing, POISON GAS or FIRE"

See, no problem.

 

Agreed. Individual words said in a vacuum don't mean that much. Context makes the difference.

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Speaking is an 'active' process.
You do it to convey YOUR ideas.

Listening is a 'passive' process.
It interprets others' ideas.

So again, if you want to convey your ideas accurately, the onus is on you.

What about Active, reflective and empathic listening?

I'll ask again, what was the 9 year old supposed to say to communicate a desire to learn about Attila the Hun? Other than Attila the Hun? Did the child deserve to be called a liar because his teacher was ignorant? Could his teacher have not said back "I've never heard of him, let me look him up. I think he might be fictional, but I'll check to be sure."

The reason I talk about different ages and teachers and students is that I don't agree with your claim that the onus is always on the speaker to be clear. Communication is a two way street and what meaning should we interpret from a listener who replies with defamatory statements? Especially when made to a child. 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You didn’t start this thread. I split it.

 

I wasn't talking about the split. I was talking about my new thread "What do words mean?" I knew we were being taken off topic so I started a new thread. 

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

There are certain rules that make it less of a 'crap-shoot', but you can definitely go to certain parts of my city, and speaking proper English, you will not be understood, or, at best, misinterpreted.
So, yes the onus is on you to use the 'best' tool available to convey your thoughts.
( sometimes that might mean drawing pictures, or pointing to a picture/reference of Attila the Hun in a textbook )

So there are only tools for speaking and not listening? If the listener does not know the meaning, is it fair game for them to assume one?

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Presumptuous and needlessly aggressive much?

You either believe or you do not, and have varying levels of certainty. Suggesting you’re just 50/50 down the middle is disingenuous, either to others or to yourself. 

Projection much? I'm sorry if you've interpreted aggression in my tone. I'm just being honest with you that I don't think you've read the full entry and your reluctance to quote from it only strengthen that belief. As does your desire to call me aggressive when I'm just being honestly polemical in my argumentation.

If you don't like being told to read something in it's entirety, then don't share it unless you have done that. I didn't suggest I was fifty fifty at all. I'm suggesting that I don't know what I believe. Hence why I said my beliefs are in a box, I don't have a key to this box. But by all means, try to tell me what my beliefs are and don't even address any of my points. That will help.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Reminder: if you aren’t discussing what made you stop believing in God, you are off-topic.

 

This is why I started a new thread. 

15 minutes ago, ahmet said:

as far as one of my old (now retired) hodja says "in fact,words can both mean or not mean anything. Becase that type of communication is caused by cryptic transmission"

I also add: " this cryptic transmission is commonly based on local paradigms"

Sounds like your Hodja has read MR Cohens Preface to logic. I like that! Either that or he's quite intelligent and is inferring the same thing as Cohen. 

A good example right here is how others may scratch their head wondering what "Hodja" means. 

Do you think it is possible for people to figure out the meaning, based on the context of your words? I had a suspicion as to what it meant, I confirmed it by double checking. 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Words mean whatever the listener interprets them to mean.
If the listener interprets them incorrectly, the speaker has used the wrong words to convey his ideas to his listener.

EG.    I may use a French word correctly, but if you don't understand French, I an using the incorrect 'tool'.

Is the onus always on the speaker to intuit what the listener will be able to understand on their own? What if they have had the same education? What if the listener is lying about not knowing the meaning and is in fact being contrarian? Wilful ignorance is unfortunately something we have to deal with these days, especially when people start to get competitive and write for an audience instead of writing to communicate with the interlocutor.

Eg: A teacher asks her class of 9 year olds, "What would you like to learn about in history?" One child says "Attila the Hun." The teacher, having never heard of this person, proceeds to believe the child made something up and tells them that this must he fiction since she hasn't heard of attila the hun and proceeds to humiliate the child and punish them for "Making things up and disrupting the class." 

Yet, Attila the Hun isn't made up. How could the speaker in this instance have conveyed their meaning in any other way without saying "Attila the Hun"? 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Theism / Atheism are statements of belief. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge or certainty. So, to elaborate:

You didn't read that SEP page did you? You just assumed only your point was there and that mine wasn't, I suggest you read more Le Poidevin and don't treat SEP like a one stop shop and that if you are going to treat it as such, at least read it all in it's entirety and treat it with respect.

If there is a specific part of that entry you'd like to excerpt for us here, I suggest you do that.

Firstly, Agnosticism isn't a statement of knowledge or certainty, it is a belief about knowledge and certainty. A distinct difference.

This needs to start since I keep getting corrected by others, as if each word has a mono-meaning and I'm using them incorrectly, instead of their being nuance between meanings and their contextual use. If you believe each word only has one meaning and you think being pedantic makes you correct, then A) You're wrong and B) You completely miss the point of what language and communication is all about. 

Let's start with Agnostic and agnosticism , what do those words mean? Are they about belief? Knowledge? Both?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Theism / Atheism are statements of belief. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge or certainty. So, to elaborate:

One can be a confident theist.

One can be a confident atheist.

One can be an agnostic theist.

One can be an agnostic atheist.

... and there are several levels along the spectrum in between, but...

One cannot just be "agnostic." It's a complete misuse of the word.

</pedantic>

Actually, I'm confident my beliefs are in a box and that I don't know either way. Agnostic. I'm not misusing the word, you just aren't aware of how agnosticism is also a statement of a belief.

41 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Never claim to "be certain" about anything. Only claim reasonable justification for belief, as it leaves you less embarrassed later, when evidence comes out that your claim of "certainty" was actually just you fooling yourself. 

This is just what I meant said in a different way except you've replaced knowing with certainty as if they mean the same in this context. They do not. Try again.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

You're gonna have to re-phrase that.
I haven't a clue what you mean to say.

Was just a joke to lighten the mood of this thread a bit but it's probably one of those referential humour things where if you don't know the origin it won't make sense.

I don't really identify with any organised religion but I don't identify with atheism either. I'm agnostic. I just see myself as opposition to baseless dogmatism. No-matter where that comes from. Science and religion both have their batches of dogmatic individuals. Ten years ago I was mocked by scientists for some of my beliefs about the early universe, now a few of my beliefs have been experimentally verified as potentially probable. Mostly I just take issue with anyone who says "I know" or "we know" because I have very high standards for epistemic claims, individually and collectively. It doesn't matter if someone says "I know god exists" or "I know conformal cyclical cosmology is wrong/right." I'm only really taking issue with the semantics of the claims being made really. Never claim to "know" anything. Only claim reasonable certainty for justification of belief, leaves you less embarrassed later, when evidence comes out that your claim to "know" something was actually just you fooling yourself. 

As it is, I just adhere to generationist values, since I am certain there will be future generations of humans who could have gotten a leg up by work done in my time.

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

It is all a bit too speculative or something for my liking. That some planets might be more likely than Earth for life - and for complex life - to develop seems a reasonable proposition. Knowing exactly what conditions those might be is going to be difficult, but even the assumption of milder, warmer, less extremes being "better" looks like overreaching.

I don't think we know what "better" is. Could not extreme conditions and variability be more - not less - significant to evolution?

I think I see what you mean and now wonder what is meant by "better" too. Do they mean more of the resources life needs are in greater abundance there? I definitely don't agree it would be better for our kind of life. We have different degrees of survivability just based on the variance of climate and weather patterns on our own planet. 

It may be that a larger earth like planet would have zones fit for our habitation (assuming we'd have some way of bolstering our immune systems to be able to deal with an entirely different an more diverse microbiome). It could be however that this hypothetical planet has less human fit habitable zones by square meter than earth does. 

There could be super desserts, Massive polar tundras, Colossal Volcanoes, Vaster and deeper oceans, Wetter rainforests with larger trees, larger and more dangerous wildlife, the scale of it's natural disasters could be completely out of our league. 

It could be that increased variance and geo instability simply doesn't allow anything to survive long enough to become a specialised survivor through earth typical evolution.

13 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Perhaps the other planets don't have Donald Trump.

You had me at "Don't have Donald Trump". When do we leave? If other planets have Humans, should we call SG-1? Michael Shanks has been struggling for roles since, so he'd probably be keen!

Thanks for highlighting some of the inconsistencies not my field, so I wouldn't have noticed that.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

It means they are psychopaths according to a specific checklist of traits and characteristics

Yes, although some of those traits being psychopaths or sociopaths (Anti-Social personality disorder tends to be the clincal terms) psychopath and sociopath are more like pop criminology terms.

Not every clinician agrees on all the traits on that list. Fear dominance for example is heavily debated as being a true anti-social trait.

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

It IS currently inhabitable and will remain so for some time, as it means 'suitable to live in'.
You probably meant uninhabitable ( unsuitable to live in ).
I think most understood what you meant, but I'm feeling nit-picky today.

Why did I get a notification saying I said this? I'd have corrected it myself but wasn't sure if English was that persons first language and busy most of the day today.

8 minutes ago, Pussstmpy said:

I really love the planet earth too but I think there will come a time that this planet will become inhabitable because of the global warming.

I know, I am holding a lot of faith in science to be able to combat that... If people can start to behave and work together and if we can also combat deep political polarisation.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

We've got two choice's, run away or learn how to live on a rock; the hard place lives and dies with us, the rock doesn't give a shit... 🖖

I love how you switched the words around and it can still mean the same thing in sentiment ahhhh language So beautiful.

A reconceptualisation of what a deity is coupled with being subject to effed up behaviours from my "religious" family. I worship something, but there is nothing supernatural about it. However it will judge me and all of us and it is the beginning and the end, for our form of life atleast. Children, or the future I guess. Hopefully, they'll figure out where this ages wisdom lies. Might help them. 

On 4/9/2020 at 2:49 PM, MigL said:

Absolutely agree.
Some people need Religion.
It gives them comfort and hope.
If that makes them feel better, who am I to try and take that away.

But, by the same token, don't preach to me, or try to convert me

Wanna join the eff all your factions faction? Your application will be ceremonially rejected obviously, but if you're a true believer you just won't apply in the first place, because faction.

Seriously though, strictly conforming ideologues are scary in how predictable they are .

Anyone got any good recommendations for Philosophy of Music?

My current reading is Margaret Urban Walkers - Moral Context.  (Not the same field as philosophy of music but I want to branch out after this to something different.)