|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
uncertainty
#7486185 - 10/04/07 07:34 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Today i was thinking about how many people talk to themselves when they are alone. Then I started thinking about how it would be impossible to quantize or atleast measure what is an acceptable amount of self-conversation. Any measurement that you took would ruin the results... it is one of those things if people know they are being recorded, they will act differently.... and if we try to measure it without them knowing, we wouldnt know if they are talking to their parents ashes, or their pet goldfish...etc.
now... why do most "skeptics" feel that things with this nature of uncertainty goes in their favor? I understand that you cannot disprove a false and all that stuff, but when you run into topics with observational entanglement, the skeptics seems to take that as proof that Occams Razor (which in itself is subjective with the current knowledge of science) coupled with this uncertainty makes their belief correct.
now, that is what it is, a belief. A true "skeptic" or "logician" would see that Planck's wall makes the big bang vs creationism debate an argument that will forever be inconclusive.... so wouldnt the most logical action be to take an agnostic approach to it? not in the sense that you believe in a higher power and all, but rather that since it is inconclusive, dont believe either way. I find that debates like these are about as pointless as arguing over what a black hole looks like.
|
PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 15 years, 30 days
|
|
Interesting idea.... My first thought to the internal dialog was "moderation is always key".... But, at what measure do you set the levels to moderate....
Quote:
YawningAnus said: and if we try to measure it without them knowing, we wouldnt know if they are talking to their parents ashes, or their pet goldfish...etc.
I would consider this self conversation as well.... Just a little more projecting and creatively predicting the other side of the conversation involved....
Quote:
YawningAnus said: I find that debates like these are about as pointless as arguing over what a black hole looks like.
If you looked at a black hole, it would suck your soul out.....
>^;;^<
-------------------- I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
|
ShroomFan
nn dmt
Registered: 03/12/04
Posts: 866
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
|
when ur consciousness rises your mind silences
think of that part of the trip where you are pure awareness no thought just experience
we talk to ourselves to do certain things, but when there is nothing why is there a need for words.
I wonder who that voice really is
-------------------- Fellow Shroomerites, if you Love expressing yourself with a dope tee shirt feast your 3rd eye on www.facebook.com/vicereversa ∞ Conscious Clothing for Conscious Minds ∞ Wear a tee , open a mind Each shirt is spawned to Arouse Awareness <> We believe in Sustainability & Giving back <> Do you know of a community project or persons in need you feel deserves attention? - Tell us on our page And we just might pick the story > develop a tee > and donate the proceeds to that cause. ∞♥∞ Unget it, VICE REVERSA
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
now... why do most "skeptics" feel that things with this nature of uncertainty goes in their favor?
First off, no one can answer for most skeptics nor you can you quantify how most skeptics feel. However, if you first posed a coherent question, someone might be able to to make the skeptic viewpoint clear. (As if the thousand other posts on this forum that clearly outline skeptical thinking could be made any more concise.)
Edited by fireworks_god (10/08/07 12:30 AM)
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
Moderator edit: Personalisms are not permitted in this forum. Let's stick to the ideas presented for discussion, and not personalizing the discussion by discussing other posters.
Edited by fireworks_god (10/08/07 01:02 AM)
|
Amberthefrog
Daemonic Frog of Kehjistan
Registered: 01/05/07
Posts: 138
Loc: UK
|
|
What’s wrong with talking to yourself? I don't do it myself, not for any real reason i just keep internal dialogue. well internal. What exactly is the difference between saying what you are thinking and just thinking? Our society often seems to assume that talking to yourself somehow correlates with mental illness/absent mindedness. To me it just says that the person is comfortable speaking there mind, i can't see anyone who is excessively paranoid or what have you talking aloud to themselves unless it is a long developed habit.
Along with what the OP said it defiantly is interesting what is accepted as normal. It is generally accepted (at least i think by many) in old people and not really equated to mental illness...just age. Odd.
-------------------- "All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses. " ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
wouldnt the most logical action be to take an agnostic approach to it? not in the sense that you believe in a higher power and all, but rather that since it is inconclusive, dont believe either way. I find that debates like these are about as pointless as arguing over what a black hole looks like.
Right, and that's what I do. Mostly I debate vigorisly against true believers because they will not discuss evidence and so it looks like I'm against what they believe and that's not so.
I debate it mostly for the fun of debate.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Ego Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
|
|
Seems a few people here missed the point - this post is not about talking to yourself.
That was just a scenerio raised to show the point!
Yawing anus - I completely agree. You've done a very good job of writting down something that I have never been able to properly explain with words!
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Quote:
figgus fiddus said: A true skeptic, a true scientific mind, does not disbelieve--he or she simply doubts unlikely statements until there is sufficient observable evidence to support them.
If this is the "agnostic" approach to which you are referring, I agree with you 100%.
In a debate, a skeptical approach could include a statement to the effect that a claim is SO unlikely, due to lack of any verifiable evidence, that they cannot seriously entertain it as a possibility. Is this a belief? Must we accept the potential validity of every claim in order to be considered logical?
Edited by fireworks_god (10/08/07 12:43 AM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Today i was thinking about how many people talk to themselves when they are alone. Then I started thinking about how it would be impossible to quantize or atleast measure what is an acceptable amount of self-conversation. Any measurement that you took would ruin the results... it is one of those things if people know they are being recorded, they will act differently.... and if we try to measure it without them knowing, we wouldnt know if they are talking to their parents ashes, or their pet goldfish...etc.
Why not just not tell them they are being recorded, and also video record them too so you can see what they're doing? There are many experiments that have been done without telling the subject (or telling them a lie) before hand what the experiment was really about.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said: now... why do most "skeptics" feel that things with this nature of uncertainty goes in their favor?
I have no concept of "most 'skeptics'". I assume you aren't simply referring to a dictionary definition of the word skeptic, as you have put it in parentheses. Without it being substantiated what a skeptic is, it is impossible to even consider your question. This quotation is very ambigious.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
SheerTerror
ST
Registered: 11/28/03
Posts: 2,348
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
yea this is all i ever do. i been waking up recently and i notice how enlightening true energy is, i crash easily though, i really need work on keeping it in place because ive been asleep for years
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
YawningAnus said: now... why do most "skeptics" feel that things with this nature of uncertainty goes in their favor?
I have no concept of "most 'skeptics'". I assume you aren't simply referring to a dictionary definition of the word skeptic, as you have put it in parentheses. Without it being substantiated what a skeptic is, it is impossible to even consider your question. This quotation is very ambigious.
good point.... lets define it. Browsing through wiki, I was trying to find a type of skepticism that described what my initial post was referring to....
Quote:
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.
Common topics that scientifically-skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and medicines, such as homeopathy, Reiki, Thought Field Therapy (TFT), vertebral subluxations; the plausibility of supernatural entities (such as ghosts, poltergeists, angels, and gods); as well as the existence of ESP/telekinesis, psychic powers, and telepathy (and thus the credibility of parapsychology); topics in cryptozoology, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Global Warming, alien visitations, UFOs, crop circles, astrology, repressed memories, creationism, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.
Most empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
that is quoted straight from Wiki..... and I think this is the most common type of skepticism we see (next comes philosophical skepticism/solipsism). If you disagree that this doesnt accurately define what type of skepticism you see most often in P&S, then please feel free to re-define it.... otherwise, all references to skepticism will be considered to relate to the above definition.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
That's excellent.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
onlynow
transformativeinformativeenergy
Registered: 02/06/07
Posts: 1,480
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
|
-------------------- Strive to be more than a codified manifestation of a generalized technological consciousness
|
|