User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 352

  1. #121
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Yeah, I don't think there's any way for you to know that. It seems rather unlikely to be true to me.
    Give me one example of an idea born in complete isolation.

  2. #122
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Give me one example of an idea born in complete isolation.
    How am I supposed to do that?
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  3. #123
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Things that we already know? Without learning them? Do you mean in terms of genetic predisposition toward learning language, etc.? I don't think that we're born "knowing" things. We have biological drives and genetic predispositions, but we don't know anything inherently. Because of our biological make-up we may sense that some things feel more natural than others, but...
    Yeah, you picked up on the points of why what I'm talking about is not what one considers to be the classical philosophical discussion of tabula rasa. It sits on the nature side of the nature, nurture debate, whereas I think that there's both...nature AND nurture.

    Also, tabula rasa would assume that we ALL start with a clean slate, and thus, X and Y if given exactly the same 'learning' will learn and understand in exactly the same depth/way. This is not true as we have pre-programmed (differently so, in terms of strength) brain processing capability and capacity. So, what you're describing above is not in the strictest definition, tabula rasa, as you acknowledge biological predispositions.

  4. #124
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    How am I supposed to do that?
    Ask yourself why you CAN'T do that, and you'll understand my argument.

  5. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    entp
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Back up even further to basics. And you'll understand my argument (as your response didn't really understand my argument in the first place)

    How did you know what self is? You must have had to understand yourself as a separate entity from OTHERS. I.e., you cannot know from inside your brain ONLY, you needed the external stimuli of your surroundings/environment to understand what SELF is RELATIVE to others...much less know/understand what you know about self.
    using the outside as a reference is not a stimulus for introspection. it is comparing the measure of outside development with the measure of inside development.

    stimulus is be the seed of such developments.

    and yes, i am saying it IS possible to have the seed thats not external.

    i would normally use my dominant hand to run my hand throuhg my hair. 2 hours ago, i used my left. what insipred me to use my left? raising this question of myself qualifies as being self-aware. using left instead of dominant right is the internal seed to the action that resulted in ruffling through my hair


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Um...okay?
    what? personal experience and i get a blank look?

  6. #126
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thisGuy View Post
    using the outside as a reference is not a stimulus for introspection. it is comparing the measure of outside development with the measure of inside development.

    stimulus is be the seed of such developments.

    and yes, i am saying it IS possible to have the seed thats not external.

    i would normally use my dominant hand to run my hand throuhg my hair. 2 hours ago, i used my left. what insipred me to use my left? raising this question of myself qualifies as being self-aware. using left instead of dominant right is the internal seed to the action that resulted in ruffling through my hair



    what? personal experience and i get a blank look?
    I can't understand your counter. Can you explain what you understand my argument to be? Maybe we can go from there.

  7. #127
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Actually, I said your statement demonstrated how much you value feeling as a rational function. In that, do you see its value in reasoning as less than that of logic. Not whether it is a rational function or not but whether you see it as a desirable form/function for reasoning.
    Yes, in terms of the context of belief... and is the crux of my argument that discussions of belief can best work using subjective reasoning (I'll expand below). Do I personally value such reasoning? I won't answer that as my personal value is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

    It works for me says:
    1. I use personal values to come to the conclusion that this set of beliefs works for me. No implication regarding the use of either rational function. You can't really argue with personal values.
    2. When you use this for somebody else's beliefs, in my view you are also implying the above about that person and thus comes across as an end of discussion from either end.

    The above. Did I misunderstand? Please clarify.




    Can't you and don't you choose how to set up the model/logical inferences and which ones you concentrate on (to falsify or not)? It seems in the realm of religion where we have limited information and observation powers, you can use logical principles (depending on how you set up the model and thus what propositions you seek to to declare as true/false) to reach either conclusion in this case - there is a God or there isn't.



    I'm not arguing there is an absolute morality. I said above that ethics are subjective -- I just don't see it as a black or white issue though, either an absolute morality or completely subjective values. However, there are other possibilities. There are commonly understood and accepted (based on consensus) principles we can use or establish ourselves to evaluate our beliefs based on these ethical principles.

    As a social scientist, living in the world of probabilities and not absolute truths, I can't help but apply that to this realm as well.

    Are you not attaching value to the term subjective as less than equal to objective analysis? If not, then I misunderstood you.
    Okay, I've been thinking for a bit on how best to approach my answering to you. And, rather than decide to tackle the points raised, maybe I can re-state my argument (differently worded), and then, we can see if it resolves some of the above misunderstanding?

    (I have issues sometimes translating what I understand inside le head to words... , bear with me)

    Christianity, let's use as an example.

    Now, you start off calling it a belief. So, we can't inherently use any questioning of objective evaluation of true/false. It's a belief. It's subjective by the very nature of what a belief is. It's *your* (general) belief. It's obsolete bringing in any kind of objective evaluation on the merit of belief.

    Now, you want to understand (question) that belief, for yourself, help others, whatever.
    By the very first assumption that you set up....i.e., that it is a belief, you have moved it to the subjective realm, thus, any logical premise/statement that you set up, will be subjective towards your aim/end, as it fullfills your initial subjective aim (that of 'belief'). And, in this point, I say, it's redundant to sway back to the objective evaluation, as a bias is already introduced, that of subjectivity, by the very nature of what you are discussing. You're kinda favouring the argument towards one side right from the start, then, saying, okay, we can objectively evaluate even though the base it sits on is subjective. My question is, what does this 'objective evaluation' say in terms of any additional information that you couldn't have achieved by sticking to subjective evaluation throughout?

    Why the need for an objective evaluation of belief if you accept it to be a belief in the first place? Why not stick to the subjective? What does an objective evaluation afford if the premise of these objective evaluation are based on subjectivity in the first place?

  8. #128

    Default

    This post is in isolation because I haven't read the rest of the thread, because I am an ENFP and there is completely unnecessary effort involved, which is irrelevant to my view.

    Here are my reasons why Christianity might be not true.

    Firstly there is too much consistency. It sounds great that what God does involves certain numbers over and over, but these numbers were also liked by men because they had practical significance in the times when the bible was spoken/written. I know we would all love God to be a J, they appreciate him the most, but I can't see an all powerful maker out there wanting to move with the times. Really, I can't believe that if God exists he would be someone I could laugh at.

    Secondly, it was a natural progression. I don't know how many people think deeply about the evolution of society and our species, but Christianity had a strong case to be invented. As did Judaism before it. Whether it was to make people more comfortable with their own mortality, or give people a reason to unite, something to fight for. It still offers some parts of humanity a great service. And I'm not just talking about giving those with no abition or free will something to do. Many food for souls campaigns operate throughout the world. And they are important for keeping people alive. And why else would you keep a person alive, but to find God.

    And lastly, some of God's servants are entertaining writers, but others should be shot. If not wooed by some scheme, or introduced to it at a young age, I'd have trouble reading much at all without killing myself. I know the church says it is hard to believe and you are of little faith. But a lot of it makes no sense, and is even too contradictory in message for an ENFP. I can understand there are different accounts and different views, but if you don't put a lot of effort into turning off alarm bells, and have a degree in making sense out of nonsense, then the Bible will most likely feel poorly written, poorly compiled, a poor at communicating (yes God, you decided to create bad poetry when you really should've just said what you wanted to say. Though this could be the problem in getting men to write a holy book.)
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  9. #129
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Ask yourself why you CAN'T do that, and you'll understand my argument.
    Nah, BS. The onus is not on me to prove something I never contended. You were the one who made a declaration about what people CAN'T do. I never said for sure that they can.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  10. #130
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Nah, BS. The onus is not on me to prove something I never contended. You were the one who made a declaration about what people CAN'T do. I never said for sure that they can.
    Onus of proof only works if you understand the argument put forth, and I'm not yet convinced that you even understand what my argument is. Hence, me trying to establish that first.

    As when I gave proof - neuronal plasticity....you bypassed that, making me infer you didn't understand the argument so no amount of proof would work, would it?

Similar Threads

  1. Quotes to Motivate You to *Get To Work*
    By Usehername in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-21-2014, 12:36 PM
  2. If You Had to Pick, What Are Your Top Two Needs Out of This List?
    By Evolving Transparency in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-21-2014, 04:41 PM
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 03:22 PM
  4. [NT] NTs, if you had to pick...
    By Zarathustra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 02:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO