Tables are aware now
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2015, 09:54 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 09:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 09:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That too.


That is what I said, to quote myself in Post 46:

"I'm sure there are a variety of neurosurgeons and psychotherapist, that know some aspects of your thoughts better than you do. I'm sure your wife on some occasions might as well, sometimes even your children, friends, etc.... Just like some aspects of my own thoughts. "

Neurosurgeons or psychiatrists hypothesizing about what may be going through someone's head, is NOT because they understand that person's thoughts better than they do. It is because they understand how a brain works and how a mind works and can speculate about what that person MIGHT be going through or thinking.

They do not KNOW, in any meaning of the word, that person's thoughts better than they do.

I can even be generous and say that perhaps some great experts might well have such a level understanding, depending on the semantics one favours.

The idiotic d-grade psychoanalysis spouted off by Tomasia, on the other hand, constitutes no such thing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-11-2015, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2015 10:12 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 09:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Neurosurgeons or psychiatrists hypothesizing about what may be going through someone's head, is NOT because they understand that person's thoughts better than they do. It is because they understand how a brain works and how a mind works and can speculate about what that person MIGHT be going through or thinking.

They do not KNOW, in any meaning of the word, that person's thoughts better than they do.

Let's sit and watch as the contradictions flow.

Does a dementia patient tend to understand their thoughts better than the doctors diagnosing her?

Does a person suffering psychosis, or mania, tend to understand their thought process better than the psychiatrist diagnosing them?

How about when it comes to non-human animals, can we understand the thought process of a dog, better than the dog does?

I'm not sure why you seem inclined to put a box around the "mind", to present it as some unknowable mystery, to anyone other than it's owner.

Which understanding of a person mind is likely to be more accurate, one based on sound empirical evidence and research, or the person's own introspective assessment that contradicts those conclusions?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2015 10:10 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 09:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The idiotic d-grade psychoanalysis spouted off by Tomasia, on the other hand, constitutes no such thing.

That's very true, my psychoanalysis of folks I encounter on the internet is quite terrible, but it's a side hobby, which I tend to reserve primarily for my internet BFFs like TbD.

It's a bit better in real life, though.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 09:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The idiotic d-grade psychoanalysis spouted off by Tomasia, on the other hand, constitutes no such thing.

That's very true, my psychoanalysis of folks I encounter on the internet is quite terrible, but it's a side hobby, which I tend to reserve primarily for my internet BFFs like TbD.

It's a bit better in real life, though.

Admitting it's full of shit, your continued practice of it amounts to... ? What, precisely? I must admit I don't see how admitted deliberate disingenuousness is all that much of an improvement over otherwise ignorant arrogance.

Either way it indicates an inability or refusal to sincerely engage with others. If honest discussion is not a priority of yours, might I ask just what you're hoping to accomplish here?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-11-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 09:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 09:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Neurosurgeons or psychiatrists hypothesizing about what may be going through someone's head, is NOT because they understand that person's thoughts better than they do. It is because they understand how a brain works and how a mind works and can speculate about what that person MIGHT be going through or thinking.

They do not KNOW, in any meaning of the word, that person's thoughts better than they do.

Let's sit and watch as the contradictions flow.

Does a dementia patient tend to understand their thoughts better than the doctors diagnosing her?

Does a person suffering psychosis, or mania, tend to understand their thought process better than the psychiatrist diagnosing them?

How about when it comes to non-human animals, can we understand the thought process of a dog, better than the dog does?

I'm not sure why you seem inclined to put a box around the "mind", to present it as some unknowable mystery, to anyone other than it's owner.

Which understanding of a person minds is likely to be more accurate, one based on sound empirical evidence and research, or the person's own introspective assessment that contradicts those conclusions?

"Does a dementia patient tend to understand their thoughts better than the doctors diagnosing her? "

No one understands her thoughts, she has dementia. But some people do understand the unbalanced brain chemistry and cause for it.

"Does a person suffering psychosis, or mania, tend to understand their thought process better than the psychiatrist diagnosing them? "

A psychotic person not understanding what is going on in their brain, does not mean professionals know their thoughts or can read their minds. Once again, mental health and brain health professionals knowing how brains function, how brain chemistry functions, and knowing about mental processing, does not mean they know a person's thoughts better than they do. (this is why therapy isn't about having your therapist tell you what you're thinking and is instead, the reverse.)


"How about when it comes to non-human animals, can we understand the thought process of a dog, better than the dog does? "

Fuck, you are so goddamn off track into bullshit land that it is impossible to know what the hell you are even trying to get at.

We don't know the dog's thoughts (this is why it is a common fictional scenario to hook up a mind-reading device on other animals), but we can study and observe the dog's behaviors and hypothesize about what is driving those behaviors.


"I'm not sure why you seem inclined to put a box around the "mind", to present it as some unknowable mystery, to anyone other than it's owner. "

You are having it explained to you that the mind is not the brain. Not once has anyone claimed it is an unknowable mystery. Your straw men are moronic and constant.

"Which understanding of a person minds is likely to be more accurate, one based on sound empirical evidence and research, or the person's own introspective assessment that contradicts those conclusions?"

You clearly don't know what sound empirical evidence and research is, nor do you understand introspection.



There, I answered all of your asinine questions, answer mine.

"Do I know physiology, neurology, and psychiatry to any degree beyond an amateur level?"

"Do I find it weird that literally no one else agrees with me?"

"Could I be a complete ignoramus and be utterly fucking wrong?"


(11-11-2015 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 09:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The idiotic d-grade psychoanalysis spouted off by Tomasia, on the other hand, constitutes no such thing.

That's very true, my psychoanalysis of folks I encounter on the internet is quite terrible, but it's a side hobby, which I tend to reserve primarily for my internet BFFs like TbD.

It's a bit better in real life, though.

"That's very true, my psychoanalysis of folks I encounter on the internet is quite terrible, but it's a side hobby, which I tend to reserve primarily for my internet BFFs like TbD. "

It is on par with your arguments for a historical Jesus. Lacking in substance, evidence, and logical conclusion.

"It's a bit better in real life, though."

Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's very true, my psychoanalysis of folks I encounter on the internet is quite terrible, but it's a side hobby, which I tend to reserve primarily for my internet BFFs like TbD.

It's a bit better in real life, though.

Admitting it's full of shit, your continued practice of it amounts to... ? What, precisely? I must admit I don't see how admitted deliberate disingenuousness is all that much of an improvement over otherwise ignorant arrogance.

Either way it indicates an inability or refusal to sincerely engage with others. If honest discussion is not a priority of yours, might I ask just what you're hoping to accomplish here?

It is worth pointing out, Tommyboy, that cjlr and I aren't the only ones to call you on your bullshit, disingenuousness, and dishonesty.

You have a penitence for these things that is obvious to all but you it would seem. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2015 10:31 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's very true, my psychoanalysis of folks I encounter on the internet is quite terrible, but it's a side hobby, which I tend to reserve primarily for my internet BFFs like TbD.

It's a bit better in real life, though.

Admitting it's full of shit, your continued practice of it amounts to... ? What, precisely? I must admit I don't see how admitted deliberate disingenuousness is all that much of an improvement over otherwise ignorant arrogance.

Either way it indicates an inability or refusal to sincerely engage with others. If honest discussion is not a priority of yours, might I ask just what you're hoping to accomplish here?

Do you recall the last time that I even attempted to psychoanalyze you? I'm guessing probably not. Can you think of any example of me even vaguely psychoanalyzing anybody here besides TbD? I'm guessing probably not.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 10:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Admitting it's full of shit, your continued practice of it amounts to... ? What, precisely? I must admit I don't see how admitted deliberate disingenuousness is all that much of an improvement over otherwise ignorant arrogance.

Either way it indicates an inability or refusal to sincerely engage with others. If honest discussion is not a priority of yours, might I ask just what you're hoping to accomplish here?

Do you recall the last time that I even attempted to psychoanalyze you? I'm guessing probably not.

Dodge

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 10:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Admitting it's full of shit, your continued practice of it amounts to... ? What, precisely? I must admit I don't see how admitted deliberate disingenuousness is all that much of an improvement over otherwise ignorant arrogance.

Either way it indicates an inability or refusal to sincerely engage with others. If honest discussion is not a priority of yours, might I ask just what you're hoping to accomplish here?

Do you recall the last time that I even attempted to psychoanalyze you? I'm guessing probably not.

"You shouldn't do X; it makes you look like a dick."

"But I didn't do X to you, did I?"

...

Nice try? I mean, notwithstanding the times you were clearly talking about swaths of people. Whether that included me in your mind at the time is utterly irrelevant. So there's that.

See, for example, this shit, and its like:
(20-10-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I should say I wasn’t making a blanket statement about all atheists, and it’s particularly reserved for a particular type of atheist, and it’s not a question of their characters, but descriptive of a line of thought, and argument. People who I’d say fit that script here, is someone like yourself, Chas, TBD, and perhaps one or two others as well. People who don’t, is someone like Rocketsurgeon. There’s a noticeable distinction in the way one group thinks through question, than others do. It drives a curiosity in, in regards to how to account for it.

What I mean by nothing here, is that a typical argument tends to involve two people arguing in favor of two competing conclusions. An argument over historicity, is typically one between someone who subscribes to some version of historicity and another who subscribes to some form of mythicist. It would be like a Carrier vs Ehrman argument.

But for folks, like yourself and Chas, you don’t actually have a competing conclusion. You’re arguing in fact for nothing. It’s an argument for agnosticism, and it’s not even the sort of agnosticism associated with a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but a 4.

Where as someone else would start with a question, such as if there was a historical Yeshua, and what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in that period, and whether what we have is consistent with those expectations. Or if we were to consider the question in terms of non-existing, mythicist Jesus, what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in this case, what would a mythicist Jesus say of Jewish messianic expectations at time, if they allowed for a non-historical messiah, etc.. Questions about when did a mythicist Jesus start to take the form of a historical one. Was this likely to have been unintentional, of part of a concentrated effort, etc…. This thought process involves a comparison of different conclusions, a question of which conclusions are more reasonable than the other, are less prone to violating Occam’s Razor, make better sense of what occurred in that period than the other, offers a greater explanatory capacity. It involves actually thinking through a variety of questions.

If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions. It starts with the question of the term “evidence”. You have some predefined criteria for what constitutes as evidence and not. You look at the variety of sources being used for consideration here, and decide whether it in fact fits into the category of “evidence” or “not evidence” (much of the problem here is a result of the inability of individuals such as yourself to translate the meaning of “evidence” across multiple disciplines”. disciples that don’t use historical sources, and ones that do.) If you can squeeze all the material and sources into Stevil/Chas’s category of “no evidence”, then you declare that no conclusions can be drawn, we must all declare our level 4 agnosticism. Not only can we not know one way or the other, we cannot reasonably believe one way or the other. According to this reasoning.

What interesting is this process, doesn’t require much thinking, it’s primarily a means of avoiding thinking through questions all together. It’s a mean of avoiding having to consider questions, a means to deflecting questions from being considered. It’s a way to claim than no question can be asked, no conclusions can be drawn.

Your case is one that argues that we have to set all this material and sources aside, since they fall into Stevil’s category of “no evidence”, and declares that no inferences can be drawn from them in regards to historicity or mythicism. It’s a very odd thought process, one that you likely won’t find advocated by a particular philosopher or school of philosophy, or taught in some course one took on philosophy, or critical thinking. It’s a thought process that appears popularly in communities like this, and it appears that it’s these communities that frame it, encourage, and perpetuate it.

I’m not sure if this is an insulting description, but it is my attempt to describe in more detail what I was suggesting in the previous post. If you don’t agree with the description of your thought process, here, than you can clarify as need be.

...

Note how you pretended to be open to correction. It's almost cute. If it weren't so pathetically sanctimonious, mind.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-11-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 10:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you recall the last time that I even attempted to psychoanalyze you? I'm guessing probably not.

"You shouldn't do X; it makes you look like a dick."

"But I didn't do X to you, did I?"

...

Nice try? I mean, notwithstanding the times you were clearly talking about swaths of people. Whether that included me in your mind at the time is utterly irrelevant. So there's that.

See, for example, this shit, and its like:
(20-10-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I should say I wasn’t making a blanket statement about all atheists, and it’s particularly reserved for a particular type of atheist, and it’s not a question of their characters, but descriptive of a line of thought, and argument. People who I’d say fit that script here, is someone like yourself, Chas, TBD, and perhaps one or two others as well. People who don’t, is someone like Rocketsurgeon. There’s a noticeable distinction in the way one group thinks through question, than others do. It drives a curiosity in, in regards to how to account for it.

What I mean by nothing here, is that a typical argument tends to involve two people arguing in favor of two competing conclusions. An argument over historicity, is typically one between someone who subscribes to some version of historicity and another who subscribes to some form of mythicist. It would be like a Carrier vs Ehrman argument.

But for folks, like yourself and Chas, you don’t actually have a competing conclusion. You’re arguing in fact for nothing. It’s an argument for agnosticism, and it’s not even the sort of agnosticism associated with a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but a 4.

Where as someone else would start with a question, such as if there was a historical Yeshua, and what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in that period, and whether what we have is consistent with those expectations. Or if we were to consider the question in terms of non-existing, mythicist Jesus, what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in this case, what would a mythicist Jesus say of Jewish messianic expectations at time, if they allowed for a non-historical messiah, etc.. Questions about when did a mythicist Jesus start to take the form of a historical one. Was this likely to have been unintentional, of part of a concentrated effort, etc…. This thought process involves a comparison of different conclusions, a question of which conclusions are more reasonable than the other, are less prone to violating Occam’s Razor, make better sense of what occurred in that period than the other, offers a greater explanatory capacity. It involves actually thinking through a variety of questions.

If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions. It starts with the question of the term “evidence”. You have some predefined criteria for what constitutes as evidence and not. You look at the variety of sources being used for consideration here, and decide whether it in fact fits into the category of “evidence” or “not evidence” (much of the problem here is a result of the inability of individuals such as yourself to translate the meaning of “evidence” across multiple disciplines”. disciples that don’t use historical sources, and ones that do.) If you can squeeze all the material and sources into Stevil/Chas’s category of “no evidence”, then you declare that no conclusions can be drawn, we must all declare our level 4 agnosticism. Not only can we not know one way or the other, we cannot reasonably believe one way or the other. According to this reasoning.

What interesting is this process, doesn’t require much thinking, it’s primarily a means of avoiding thinking through questions all together. It’s a mean of avoiding having to consider questions, a means to deflecting questions from being considered. It’s a way to claim than no question can be asked, no conclusions can be drawn.

Your case is one that argues that we have to set all this material and sources aside, since they fall into Stevil’s category of “no evidence”, and declares that no inferences can be drawn from them in regards to historicity or mythicism. It’s a very odd thought process, one that you likely won’t find advocated by a particular philosopher or school of philosophy, or taught in some course one took on philosophy, or critical thinking. It’s a thought process that appears popularly in communities like this, and it appears that it’s these communities that frame it, encourage, and perpetuate it.

I’m not sure if this is an insulting description, but it is my attempt to describe in more detail what I was suggesting in the previous post. If you don’t agree with the description of your thought process, here, than you can clarify as need be.

...

Note how you pretended to be open to correction. It's almost cute. If it weren't so pathetically sanctimonious, mind.

[Image: oooh-sick-burn.gif]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: