‹ First  < 6 7 8
 
   
 

A Hateful Thread

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
07 May 2019 15:46
 
Nhoj Morley - 07 May 2019 10:21 AM

Speaking to the Mario comparison, there is a difference. I can stop and the BM cannot.

Certainly you can pause, but can you stop?

Into how many threads have you injected Trioonity?

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6336
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
07 May 2019 23:45
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 May 2019 01:10 PM

Actually, the problem I had in mind is similar to your own point to ASD in another thread, where you say in response to his emphasis on models, as opposed to perceiving reality: “We make a model, and then we… see it? Then how did we make the model if we didn’t know what we were looking at until we made the model that we can’t see until we make it?!”  Simply put in “delusion” for “model” and you’re there, as in: “We are deluded, and then we…see it?  Then how do we know we’re deluded if we don’t have access to the reality we are looking at, but yet we can’t see that reality but through our overconfidence-driven bandwidth-mistaken delusions?!  How, then, do we know delusion?” 

The common problem, logically—since you refer to logical necessity in your parameterization of attention: in order for the explanations to gain any traction, the arguments from delusion and for absolute knowledge both presuppose what they purport to explain away; thus they are bad explanations.  As you nicely illustrate in your point—your perfectly valid point—to ASD.

If you are not stipulating—or discovering, positing, asserting…whatever—that delusion is some kind of primitive state we have to overcome or cope with because of intrinsic overconfidence and mistaken bandwidth; if instead you mean, simply, we can be deluded, under rather restrictive conditions, and not know it…if the latter is the case then the upshot of Trioonity becomes trivial.  Of course delusion is possible.  But I suspect you are attached to the deepity of “delude responsibility;” that for you delusion is some kind of endemic cognitive hurdle we struggle to overcome (it isn’t).  As you yourself obliquely indicate in another line of reasoning, this strong claim of Trioonity makes no logical sense.

And distinguishing between a “philosophy of examination” and “a high speed mechanics that describes our capacity to examine” is just evasive—as you put it—“gobbledygook.”

As a preface to my last word here, I admit my use of the term “wrangling” revealed my disposition against the OP.  “Twisted fulfillment” is your term, not mine, but it’s apt.  In any case, I confess to suspecting any honesty to your confession amounted to nothing more than: “The more I accuse myself, the more I have a right to judge you,” just absent Camus’ moral subtlety.  Not that there is any sincerity to be had, I suspect.

That developing Trioon did not involve the humility of kneeling is obvious.  Science, however, does.

Your fixation on my signature is unfortunate but you seem a grab-n-go kind of reader. I’ll grant that it’s tempting. It was made in a different context. If we’re going to live inside a story we believe, make it a good one and manage it responsibly. It is not a reference to perception or its workings.

Your take is short. punchy and silly. I cannot endorse it. Your flashes of anal-witticism are improving but do not camouflage your tendency snack, burp up some vocabulary and wander off with yer chin high. No, I’m not interested either.

Is it my approach to science that lacks humility or my approach to folks like yourself? Trioon was very humbling for me. Your cognition must be amazing to make such a comment. I must be amazed.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6336
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
07 May 2019 23:55
 
bbearren - 07 May 2019 03:46 PM

Certainly you can pause, but can you stop?

Into how many threads have you injected Trioonity?

Should I put a link to my post here? I said I can stop and how. What do mean by pause?

All of them, I suppose. Like any poster, my views infect my posts. What’s your point?


Oh, that’s right… stardust doesn’t have any points. Just poorly defined edges.

It’s like my dad said… “I get that you don’t like asparagus. Do you mind if the rest of us enjoy some in peace?”

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 May 2019 06:51
 
Nhoj Morley - 07 May 2019 11:55 PM
bbearren - 07 May 2019 03:46 PM

Certainly you can pause, but can you stop?

Into how many threads have you injected Trioonity?

Should I put a link to my post here?

Posts; lots, wherein you interject trioon/trioonity into a thread.

I said I can stop and how. What do mean by pause?

Continuing to do something is not stopping.  Not doing something for a while and then begin doing it again is pausing.  Pausing is not stopping.  Stopping is not restarting after the last pause.

All of them, I suppose. Like any poster, my views infect my posts. What’s your point?

See above; posts where you interject trioon/trioonity specifically into a thread.

Oh, that’s right… stardust doesn’t have any points. Just poorly defined edges.

Not even edges, really.  Things can just slide right on by or pass right on through without significant disturbance.  We covered the stardust thing fairly well in the the podcast.  I get that you don’t get that.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6336
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
08 May 2019 10:04
 

I stayed up all day working it out. The number is 361 1/2 (one is iffy). Now what?

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 May 2019 11:46
 
Nhoj Morley - 08 May 2019 10:04 AM

I stayed up all day working it out. The number is 361 1/2 (one is iffy). Now what?

From four notes in a hat

Not the video, the comments.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8584
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
08 May 2019 12:45
 

Trioonity has a number of practioners and disciples, some able to dispel confusion better than others.

“Greek philosophers concur in this: the same attracts the same, and Chemistry has given us several examples of this natural law, some polar abnormalities notwithstanding, A scientific approach to relationships is desirable in the age of information, and given the immense universe data available, it renders obsolete most of the antiquated ways of communication or converse. Given that as a principle, pairings should be accomplished exclusively in the interweb, coupling as many personality traits as possible, and following the proposal to its ultimate logical consequences, insemination or adoption of a third party with a compatible genome to pass information and estates should be the next step in the search of perpetuating the family unit, and having no need to remove the partners from their workplaces or even from their internet connections. Surely they can buy the white picket fence wallpaper, after all, in a design pleasing for both and ask for their descendant to be exposed to the images daily so they grew the attachment desirable to the concept of home.  -  Babs Galv, Writer and Manager

Our thanks to Babs for that.  Stardust takes a long time to become self-conscious, and a drawing of Mr. Bearren’s family tree calls for a very large sheet of paper..

Image Attachments
 
132_3219.JPG
 
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  865
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
08 May 2019 15:22
 
Nhoj Morley - 07 May 2019 11:45 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 May 2019 01:10 PM

Actually, the problem I had in mind is similar to your own point to ASD in another thread, where you say in response to his emphasis on models, as opposed to perceiving reality: “We make a model, and then we… see it? Then how did we make the model if we didn’t know what we were looking at until we made the model that we can’t see until we make it?!”  Simply put in “delusion” for “model” and you’re there, as in: “We are deluded, and then we…see it?  Then how do we know we’re deluded if we don’t have access to the reality we are looking at, but yet we can’t see that reality but through our overconfidence-driven bandwidth-mistaken delusions?!  How, then, do we know delusion?” 

The common problem, logically—since you refer to logical necessity in your parameterization of attention: in order for the explanations to gain any traction, the arguments from delusion and for absolute knowledge both presuppose what they purport to explain away; thus they are bad explanations.  As you nicely illustrate in your point—your perfectly valid point—to ASD.

If you are not stipulating—or discovering, positing, asserting…whatever—that delusion is some kind of primitive state we have to overcome or cope with because of intrinsic overconfidence and mistaken bandwidth; if instead you mean, simply, we can be deluded, under rather restrictive conditions, and not know it…if the latter is the case then the upshot of Trioonity becomes trivial.  Of course delusion is possible.  But I suspect you are attached to the deepity of “delude responsibility;” that for you delusion is some kind of endemic cognitive hurdle we struggle to overcome (it isn’t).  As you yourself obliquely indicate in another line of reasoning, this strong claim of Trioonity makes no logical sense.

And distinguishing between a “philosophy of examination” and “a high speed mechanics that describes our capacity to examine” is just evasive—as you put it—“gobbledygook.”

As a preface to my last word here, I admit my use of the term “wrangling” revealed my disposition against the OP.  “Twisted fulfillment” is your term, not mine, but it’s apt.  In any case, I confess to suspecting any honesty to your confession amounted to nothing more than: “The more I accuse myself, the more I have a right to judge you,” just absent Camus’ moral subtlety.  Not that there is any sincerity to be had, I suspect.

That developing Trioon did not involve the humility of kneeling is obvious.  Science, however, does.

Your fixation on my signature is unfortunate but you seem a grab-n-go kind of reader. I’ll grant that it’s tempting. It was made in a different context. If we’re going to live inside a story we believe, make it a good one and manage it responsibly. It is not a reference to perception or its workings.

Your take is short. punchy and silly. I cannot endorse it. Your flashes of anal-witticism are improving but do not camouflage your tendency snack, burp up some vocabulary and wander off with yer chin high. No, I’m not interested either.

Is it my approach to science that lacks humility or my approach to folks like yourself? Trioon was very humbling for me. Your cognition must be amazing to make such a comment. I must be amazed.

[Sigh. Call me weak.]

“Delude responsibly” links to Trioonity.  Trioonity is, according to the website, “an examination of our perception.”

To this effect, in a thread about being delusional you say: “in guiding our perceptions, we are also guiding our own inner workings like our emotions and tastes and preferences… Over time, we each create our own recipes for reality as if the world is a raw, uncooked substance that needs preparation before consumption. These recipes can work out fine for the way we live our lives without being entirely correct. We are usually satisfied with operational and efficient.  Is it delusional?  Of course it is….The only issue is whether it effectively serves the deluded.” 

Now, you say in your latest reply that “delude” actually refers to the fact that we “live inside a story we believe,” and in creating these stories we believe you state, in this thread: “we overestimate our cognition” and “we mistake our bandwidth for the whole spectrum”—hence, overestimation and mistake in our grasp of reality comprise our perception of it.  How, one must ask, is living in overestimation and mistake not “delusion” in the ordinary sense, when in the quoted thread you indicate that it is—a quote, no less, that elaborates on Trioonity, which on the website linked to the signature you call an “examination of our perception” (a fact you seem to deny now)?

The problem, as I see it, is not a “snack-n-go kind of reader”—I appreciate the condescension, I sincerely do.  The problem appears to be an intellectually dishonest writer who doesn’t want what he says to mean what it actually says, as though he can say—with any kind of intellectual integrity—“I shall become the word’s sole proprietor and personally responsible for its meaning.”  You were referring to “relativism” in that quote from your book, but in fact it seems to characterize your basic attitude in this and all of our exchanges on this topic. 

As I see it, I stand entirely corrected if you say delusion does not characterize our perception as such but always exists as a possibility that we might suffer, when something in our perception misfires.  That’s a perfectly valid point. Some people surely do suffer from them, and we must all be careful about the stories we create.  But anything more that says we are constitutively delusional because our perceptions are partial or limited—e.g. because of limited bandwidth and chunk limits—falls into the self-defeating trap I’ve pointed out.  It amounts to either a conceptual mistake or a game with words, and you yourself have pointed out the problem with it when making an analogous point to ASD (e.g. “a recipe for realty” that is delusional is functionally no different than a “model of reality”; both presuppose what they explain away—a perception of reality itself).  So, I ask, which is it: is our perception inherently delusional because it’s misconceived limited bandwidth recipes—what the quoted material says—or do you mean we can sometimes fall prey to delusion, as a possibility, and we know this because our perception routinely gives us the real—a fact no sensible person can deny?  I certainly don’t deny it (though I’d quibble a little over using the term “delusion” in a non-clinical sense, but not stridently so).

I leave it up to you to decide if you yourself are prone to delusion; that it’s a moving tendency you have to work at to avoid.  No one I know is that way, myself included.

Anyway, this time you really can have the last word, with my blessing, if you want it, unless you want a reply.

 

[ Edited: 08 May 2019 20:33 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6336
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
09 May 2019 02:31
 

I am trying to pick you out of the background noise but you don’t make it easy. If you want to open a channel of inquiry, I will gladly give you my whole day’s allotment of typing. If your charming stick-poking crosses the line, I’ll have to give you my whole day’s allotment of typing. Excuse my impromtitude.

I do not know why you hammer on about the signature. It is a riff on ‘Drink Responsibly’ and it precedes my website by several years. It seemed handy when I looked for somewhere to add a link. I cannot defend a rationale it never occurred to me to make. You convince me that I should change it. Maybe keep it simple and add ‘more on trioon…’

This was cheeky, Mr. Anus…

TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 08 May 2019 03:22 PM

Now, you say in your latest reply that “delude” actually refers to the fact that we “live inside a story we believe,” and in creating these stories we believe you state, in this thread: “we overestimate our cognition” and “we mistake our bandwidth for the whole spectrum”—hence, overestimation and mistake in our grasp of reality comprise our perception of it.

 
A sloping gauntlet starts here. You have substituted ‘delude’ for my signature so you would have me defining delude instead of my signature. If that is a slip-up, then it sends you sliding into a misguided task of reconciling it with a post from this thread. Hence, your hence challenges me on a point I never made and can agree tis silly. If this is an approach you prefer to employ, I will find it hard to separate from the background noise and we’re back to the appreciable and witty insults. It is hard to gauge what you want. I do appreciate how far you tend to dig in but I recommend an equal effort in zooming out.

There are back stories with some of this stuff that you have barged into the middle of. Someone posted a paragraph on delusion awhile back. I forget where. It inspired an exploration of the term that became the thread you reference. The thread was intermusing (interesting and amusing) and it played out. This one sure has. Its all trioon from here.

How, one must ask, is living in overestimation and mistake not “delusion” in the ordinary sense, when in the quoted thread you indicate that it is—a quote, no less, that elaborates on Trioonity, which on the website linked to the signature you call an “examination of our perception” (a fact you seem to deny now)?

Trioon is an examination of our perception. Yup. That is a fine question up to the comma. It is not, in the ordinary sense, because it would render the term into infinite elasticity. Let’s start from scratch. What does delude mean in trioonity?

Any perception beyond our first and primary gleaning is manufactured by our brains. By beyond, I mean our thoughts and the extra perch from which we can perceive them, which trioon cast as two further capacities for perception. Making a total of three. Hence trioon. If we posit the term ‘lusion’, that is what our primary perception receives and the others get a delusion or better, a re-lusion. But it is just FUN with words and quibbly clinical.

The problem, as I see it, is not a “snack-n-go kind of reader”—I appreciate the condescension, I sincerely do.

I know. The polite version would be the point about zooming out and observing how some of these conversations have built themselves on previous threads. If condensation is a problem, I suggest you put a tray under yourself or stop excreting altogether. If you want to a make a quick muddle of my stuff so you can conjure some insulting quips, fine. I’ll spit in those ears as long as you enjoy it. Moderately, of course. In my book, that is one or two steps back from the dishing out. The patent office, UL and Lighting Science Labs (my peer reviewers) all think my science is fine. If you think I would allow an intellectually dishonest writer to manage the Harris Forum, you are worse than crazy. This has been, for me anyway, like working in a church. As in somberly bring your best to it. No Swaggert metaphors, please.

The problem appears to be an intellectually dishonest writer who doesn’t want what he says to mean what it actually says, as though he can say—with any kind of intellectual integrity—“I shall become the word’s sole proprietor and personally responsible for its meaning.”  You were referring to “relativism” in that quote from your book, but in fact it seems to characterize your basic attitude in this and all of our exchanges on this topic.

You certainly have a take on me and trioon that you find unsatisfying. So do I, and I must wonder where any satisfaction might come from unless it is in making a half-anus’ed excuse for paragraphs like that. That reference to relativism was a comedic pitch about taking over a franchise that everyone had abandoned and rehabilitating it. With stuff like this coming, two steps back will still pack a punch. Remember where you left your gurney.

You don’t make it easy. With Anal as a moniker, condescension has work to do. A baseline of being an anus means throwing half the insult thesaurus away. Is that by design? Allow me to now trowel out some fair inquiries…

As I see it, I stand entirely corrected if you say delusion does not characterize our perception as such but always exists as a possibility that we might suffer, when something in our perception misfires.

 
Okay. Delusion does not characterize our perception as such but always exists as a possibility that we might suffer, when something in our perception misfires. Not a problem. Our primary perception can miscalculate. I would add a further qualifier. A delusion would be a conclusion or estimation with a misfire. Like an outfielder choosing the wrong place to stand for the ball’s trajectory. That is a generous application of the term. I don’t think we have a problem here.

Some people surely do suffer from them, and we must all be careful about the stories we create.  But anything more that says we are constitutively delusional because our perceptions are partial or limited—e.g. because of limited bandwidth and chunk limits—falls into the self-defeating trap I’ve pointed out.

 
That stretches many meanings and makes a knot of them. Limitations of bandwidth define our primary perception in ways you are likely familiar with like light and sound. That can make illusions but not delusions. Like a mirage. No big deal here.

A Chunk-limit is one of those pesky trioon terms. It means nothing to our primary perception. It applies only to our second internal glean that generates our cinematic perception. If that notion alone is full stop for you then there is no need to worry about a chunk-limit. Otherwise, consider it the threshold of complexity. We can look at something, and say it is simple. We can look at something else and say it is complex. The latter exceeds the chunk-limit. We would have to walk through it in steps to establish all the relationships. After we are led to a conclusion, we leave the steps behind.

Sticking with the delusion theme, cinematic perception is prone to missteps of recall that can quickly lead to faulty conclusions. This is where ‘cognitive bias’ happens. Folks say biases are hard to catch. That is because they kick in promptly after being triggered. There are two ways I would use delusional here.

First, a cognitive bias can lead to deluded conclusions with consequences of all kinds. Second, if this operation is performed by a physically ill brain, the result can be immediate distortions of what we see or hear or think before the cognitive biases have a chance to contribute. I don’t think I’ve crossed the clinical-quibble line yet.

It amounts to either a conceptual mistake or a game with words, and you yourself have pointed out the problem with it when making an analogous point to ASD (e.g. “a recipe for realty” that is delusional is functionally no different than a “model of reality”; both presuppose what they explain away—a perception of reality itself).  So, I ask, which is it: is our perception inherently delusional because it’s misconceived limited bandwidth recipes—what the quoted material says—or do you mean we can sometimes fall prey to delusion, as a possibility, and we know this because our perception routinely gives us the real—a fact no sensible person can deny?  I certainly don’t deny it.

I remember hiking in the weeds with Auntie Darwin. The problem I would point out here is that there are three gleans to ask. Each has their own limits in method and means of misfire. Only one of them can make us believe things. That is when ‘delusional’ can get quibbly with many folksy applications. Including, I’ll grant, some of mine.

I leave it up to you to decide if you yourself are prone to delusion; that it’s a moving tendency you have to work at to avoid.  No one I know is that way, myself included.

If you zoomed out, you would see the irony of your adjective. I am prone to spatial delusions (once visually fatigued) or misfires of primary perception and have the wounds to prove it. I am dangerous (once visually fatigued) and don’t get out much. Hence, forum moderator. Now in moderation. The more I type, the more I fall down the stairs. This was my window with a view of primary and cinematic perceptions in action. Or not, like when my primary sensation would go numb and I’d have nothing but my freaking out conclusions to get me home. That did in part steer the course to trioon.

Anyway, this time you really can have the last word, with my blessing, if you want it, unless you want a reply.

If I got to pick it, maybe. If you want a linear one-stop-shopping often clinical thread of up to date trioon, I would steer you to The Cult of Zero in the Hall of Holy Grails. Or to zag and zig through many years of trioon as an evolving project, there is FUN with YOUR EYEBALLS in a similarly named thread. I forget where I put it when the forum changed.

You pick the path. I have a persona for either. Can I say that next time I pummel, your anal cheeks will swell so tight you’ll have to sing ‘Old Man River’ to poop. Yuck. Next time, I go for the bunnies. Or I can whip up a custom, anal-friendly trioon. It is no threat to science. Nor am I.

Short answer- Go wipe yourself.

That’s good. Does anyone ever say that? You must know some broad anal humor.

 

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1781
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
09 May 2019 13:23
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 08 May 2019 03:22 PM
Nhoj Morley - 07 May 2019 11:45 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 May 2019 01:10 PM

Actually, the problem I had in mind is similar to your own point to ASD in another thread, where you say in response to his emphasis on models, as opposed to perceiving reality: “We make a model, and then we… see it? Then how did we make the model if we didn’t know what we were looking at until we made the model that we can’t see until we make it?!”  Simply put in “delusion” for “model” and you’re there, as in: “We are deluded, and then we…see it?  Then how do we know we’re deluded if we don’t have access to the reality we are looking at, but yet we can’t see that reality but through our overconfidence-driven bandwidth-mistaken delusions?!  How, then, do we know delusion?” 

The common problem, logically—since you refer to logical necessity in your parameterization of attention: in order for the explanations to gain any traction, the arguments from delusion and for absolute knowledge both presuppose what they purport to explain away; thus they are bad explanations.  As you nicely illustrate in your point—your perfectly valid point—to ASD.

If you are not stipulating—or discovering, positing, asserting…whatever—that delusion is some kind of primitive state we have to overcome or cope with because of intrinsic overconfidence and mistaken bandwidth; if instead you mean, simply, we can be deluded, under rather restrictive conditions, and not know it…if the latter is the case then the upshot of Trioonity becomes trivial.  Of course delusion is possible.  But I suspect you are attached to the deepity of “delude responsibility;” that for you delusion is some kind of endemic cognitive hurdle we struggle to overcome (it isn’t).  As you yourself obliquely indicate in another line of reasoning, this strong claim of Trioonity makes no logical sense.

And distinguishing between a “philosophy of examination” and “a high speed mechanics that describes our capacity to examine” is just evasive—as you put it—“gobbledygook.”

As a preface to my last word here, I admit my use of the term “wrangling” revealed my disposition against the OP.  “Twisted fulfillment” is your term, not mine, but it’s apt.  In any case, I confess to suspecting any honesty to your confession amounted to nothing more than: “The more I accuse myself, the more I have a right to judge you,” just absent Camus’ moral subtlety.  Not that there is any sincerity to be had, I suspect.

That developing Trioon did not involve the humility of kneeling is obvious.  Science, however, does.

Your fixation on my signature is unfortunate but you seem a grab-n-go kind of reader. I’ll grant that it’s tempting. It was made in a different context. If we’re going to live inside a story we believe, make it a good one and manage it responsibly. It is not a reference to perception or its workings.

Your take is short. punchy and silly. I cannot endorse it. Your flashes of anal-witticism are improving but do not camouflage your tendency snack, burp up some vocabulary and wander off with yer chin high. No, I’m not interested either.

Is it my approach to science that lacks humility or my approach to folks like yourself? Trioon was very humbling for me. Your cognition must be amazing to make such a comment. I must be amazed.

[Sigh. Call me weak.]

“Delude responsibly” links to Trioonity.  Trioonity is, according to the website, “an examination of our perception.”

To this effect, in a thread about being delusional you say: “in guiding our perceptions, we are also guiding our own inner workings like our emotions and tastes and preferences… Over time, we each create our own recipes for reality as if the world is a raw, uncooked substance that needs preparation before consumption. These recipes can work out fine for the way we live our lives without being entirely correct. We are usually satisfied with operational and efficient.  Is it delusional?  Of course it is….The only issue is whether it effectively serves the deluded.” 

Now, you say in your latest reply that “delude” actually refers to the fact that we “live inside a story we believe,” and in creating these stories we believe you state, in this thread: “we overestimate our cognition” and “we mistake our bandwidth for the whole spectrum”—hence, overestimation and mistake in our grasp of reality comprise our perception of it.  How, one must ask, is living in overestimation and mistake not “delusion” in the ordinary sense, when in the quoted thread you indicate that it is—a quote, no less, that elaborates on Trioonity, which on the website linked to the signature you call an “examination of our perception” (a fact you seem to deny now)?

The problem, as I see it, is not a “snack-n-go kind of reader”—I appreciate the condescension, I sincerely do.  The problem appears to be an intellectually dishonest writer who doesn’t want what he says to mean what it actually says, as though he can say—with any kind of intellectual integrity—“I shall become the word’s sole proprietor and personally responsible for its meaning.”  You were referring to “relativism” in that quote from your book, but in fact it seems to characterize your basic attitude in this and all of our exchanges on this topic. 

As I see it, I stand entirely corrected if you say delusion does not characterize our perception as such but always exists as a possibility that we might suffer, when something in our perception misfires.  That’s a perfectly valid point. Some people surely do suffer from them, and we must all be careful about the stories we create.  But anything more that says we are constitutively delusional because our perceptions are partial or limited—e.g. because of limited bandwidth and chunk limits—falls into the self-defeating trap I’ve pointed out.  It amounts to either a conceptual mistake or a game with words, and you yourself have pointed out the problem with it when making an analogous point to ASD (e.g. “a recipe for realty” that is delusional is functionally no different than a “model of reality”; both presuppose what they explain away—a perception of reality itself).  So, I ask, which is it: is our perception inherently delusional because it’s misconceived limited bandwidth recipes—what the quoted material says—or do you mean we can sometimes fall prey to delusion, as a possibility, and we know this because our perception routinely gives us the real—a fact no sensible person can deny?  I certainly don’t deny it (though I’d quibble a little over using the term “delusion” in a non-clinical sense, but not stridently so).

I leave it up to you to decide if you yourself are prone to delusion; that it’s a moving tendency you have to work at to avoid.  No one I know is that way, myself included.

Anyway, this time you really can have the last word, with my blessing, if you want it, unless you want a reply.

People are able to skate across their delusions, noticing various details and origins, without obliterating them. WTF kind of clinician are you, if you are one?

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21484
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 May 2019 16:23
 

Trioonity did help me to understand that we all, to some degree or another, are experiencing a delusion when we perceive anything. Trioonity is another reason why I reject any claim that someone is 100% sure of ultimate truth - whether it is Mario being 100% sure that God exists or GAD being 100% sure that he doesn’t.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8584
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
10 May 2019 12:42
 
EN - 09 May 2019 04:23 PM

Trioonity did help me to understand that we all, to some degree or another, are experiencing a delusion when we perceive anything. Trioonity is another reason why I reject any claim that someone is 100% sure of ultimate truth - whether it is Mario being 100% sure that God exists or GAD being 100% sure that he doesn’t.

“Whether we exist or not doesn’t seem to matter,” the Walrus said.  “We still have to carry on just the same.” 

“That goes for God too,” the White rabbit said, motioning to Alice to pass the teapot.  “We’re not going to hurt his feelings by being skeptical.”

The dormouse stirred under his napkin.  “it all depends,” he said, and fell asleep again.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 May 2019 22:18
 
EN - 09 May 2019 04:23 PM

Trioonity is another reason why I reject any claim that someone is 100% sure of ultimate truth

Quantum mechanics gave me that a few decades ago.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6336
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
11 May 2019 01:25
 

If one doesn’t get that from watching Brother Jacob walk into a pond of people at the end of the amazing and potent ‘Knowledge or Certainty’, then their brains are frigid. That’s who took my certainty cherry. ‘Tis cool if trioon beefs that up. It is a step in undoing the mythology of hate.

 
 
‹ First  < 6 7 8