however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

yes

SCIENCE said:

yes

give me an example, of and from your own experience, ideas and perspective

People who think they have a brain the size of a planet might be deluded, or might just be deliberately exaggerating.

sorry we were talking about the size of our seating

Bubblecar said:

People who think they have a brain the size of a planet might be deluded, or might just be deliberately exaggerating.

serious question anyway, people are invited to compare their self, or own country and self situated within, by way of comparing with the rest of the world, or the world in some totality, or entirety

but really, is that even possible, and how useful is it, how honest is it

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

yes

give me an example, of and from your own experience, ideas and perspective

you first.

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

Is empathy delusional?

Michael V said:

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

Is empathy delusional?

not really what talking about, but deal with it for a moment, by saying people limit empathy, it’s functionally necessary, you’d burn out quick if you went for maximum or maximally distributed empathy

so in response to that i’d say people also have indifference, culture calibrates (provides operating space) for what indifferences are acceptable, it’s nothing like maximal empathy

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

Is empathy delusional?

not really what talking about, but deal with it for a moment, by saying people limit empathy, it’s functionally necessary, you’d burn out quick if you went for maximum or maximally distributed empathy

so in response to that i’d say people also have indifference, culture calibrates (provides operating space) for what indifferences are acceptable, it’s nothing like maximal empathy

Then I really don’t know what you are talking about.

I thought empathy was a great example of identifying with the world.

ChrispenEvan said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

yes

give me an example, of and from your own experience, ideas and perspective

you first.

I would but I don’t identify with ‘the world’, which could be a personal poverty of some sort, granted, whatever I have nothing to offer that way

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

People who think they have a brain the size of a planet might be deluded, or might just be deliberately exaggerating.

serious question anyway, people are invited to compare their self, or own country and self situated within, by way of comparing with the rest of the world, or the world in some totality, or entirety

but really, is that even possible, and how useful is it, how honest is it

Seems a straightforward exercise in regard to many measurements and statistics.

For example, compared with the global human average, I’m fat.

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Is empathy delusional?

not really what talking about, but deal with it for a moment, by saying people limit empathy, it’s functionally necessary, you’d burn out quick if you went for maximum or maximally distributed empathy

so in response to that i’d say people also have indifference, culture calibrates (provides operating space) for what indifferences are acceptable, it’s nothing like maximal empathy

Then I really don’t know what you are talking about.

I thought empathy was a great example of identifying with the world.

i’m sure it is, but perhaps some qualifiers on the definition, your definition of ‘the world’ might be helpful, save assuming yours is the same as mine, automatically

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

not really what talking about, but deal with it for a moment, by saying people limit empathy, it’s functionally necessary, you’d burn out quick if you went for maximum or maximally distributed empathy

so in response to that i’d say people also have indifference, culture calibrates (provides operating space) for what indifferences are acceptable, it’s nothing like maximal empathy

Then I really don’t know what you are talking about.

I thought empathy was a great example of identifying with the world.

i’m sure it is, but perhaps some qualifiers on the definition, your definition of ‘the world’ might be helpful, save assuming yours is the same as mine, automatically

You first, please.

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

I have a guideline for morality that relates to that … to be continued.

Linus from Peanuts: “I love humanity, it’s people I can’t stand”.

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Then I really don’t know what you are talking about.

I thought empathy was a great example of identifying with the world.

i’m sure it is, but perhaps some qualifiers on the definition, your definition of ‘the world’ might be helpful, save assuming yours is the same as mine, automatically

You first, please.

Oi! That’s my line.

ChrispenEvan said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

i’m sure it is, but perhaps some qualifiers on the definition, your definition of ‘the world’ might be helpful, save assuming yours is the same as mine, automatically

You first, please.

Oi! That’s my line.

At least I asked politely.

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Then I really don’t know what you are talking about.

I thought empathy was a great example of identifying with the world.

i’m sure it is, but perhaps some qualifiers on the definition, your definition of ‘the world’ might be helpful, save assuming yours is the same as mine, automatically

You first, please.

I certainly don’t empathize with everyone equally, i’ll state that as a fact, and some of it is to do with proximity and relational whatever, very practical things really, to do with what works for me, and what is possible

and of ‘the world’ it’s doubtful i’d attribute same importance to aspects of human life, the biological world more broadly, and inanimate world as you, or a lot of other people, i’d speculate it’s quite varied, I wouldn’t assume uniformity, more uniformity than there possibly is or I know of

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Michael V said:

You first, please.

Oi! That’s my line.

At least I asked politely.

ain’t nobody got time fo dat!

“One’s delusion is one’s own reality”. – Me

Delusion is just someone else’s opinion. Never your own.

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Michael V said:

You first, please.

Oi! That’s my line.

At least I asked politely.

captain_spalding said:

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Oi! That’s my line.

At least I asked politely.

try telling them it’s just Lunar New Year tomorrow

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

Michael V said:

At least I asked politely.

try telling them it’s just Lunar New Year tomorrow

Sort of like the US and the imperial measurements system?

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

try telling them it’s just Lunar New Year tomorrow

Sort of like the US and the imperial measurements system?

His name wasn’t Confucius it was Confuseus.

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

Strange question.

If you word it how you like, and include whatever notions you like, of course it doesn’t need to involve any level of delusion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

Strange question.

If you word it how you like, and include whatever notions you like, of course it doesn’t need to involve any level of delusion.

That is the problem with these posts, too many commas and caveats and exclusions and inclusions. result in such a broad interpretation that anything is possible.

yes

SCIENCE said:

yes

can you expand?

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

yes

can you expand?

no

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

Strange question.

If you word it how you like, and include whatever notions you like, of course it doesn’t need to involve any level of delusion.

That is the problem with these posts, too many commas and caveats and exclusions and inclusions. result in such a broad interpretation that anything is possible.

Well sometimes transition comes up with some interesting stuff, but I don’t see it this time.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

Strange question.

If you word it how you like, and include whatever notions you like, of course it doesn’t need to involve any level of delusion.

That is the problem with these posts, too many commas and caveats and exclusions and inclusions. result in such a broad interpretation that anything is possible.

fella’s doing ok consider english not first language

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Strange question.

If you word it how you like, and include whatever notions you like, of course it doesn’t need to involve any level of delusion.

That is the problem with these posts, too many commas and caveats and exclusions and inclusions. result in such a broad interpretation that anything is possible.

Well sometimes transition comes up with some interesting stuff, but I don’t see it this time.

be a fail if I was trying to be interesting

what’s your latest idea, did you have one today

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

That is the problem with these posts, too many commas and caveats and exclusions and inclusions. result in such a broad interpretation that anything is possible.

Well sometimes transition comes up with some interesting stuff, but I don’t see it this time.

be a fail if I was trying to be interesting

what’s your latest idea, did you have one today

Still banging on about the multiple senses I’m afraid.

This time related to time.

Might be time to post a post about it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well sometimes transition comes up with some interesting stuff, but I don’t see it this time.

be a fail if I was trying to be interesting

what’s your latest idea, did you have one today

Still banging on about the multiple senses I’m afraid.

This time related to time.

Might be time to post a post about it.

go on, do’t

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

be a fail if I was trying to be interesting

what’s your latest idea, did you have one today

Still banging on about the multiple senses I’m afraid.

This time related to time.

Might be time to post a post about it.

go on, do’t

done.

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

There are three ways to word this. And all have completely different implications.

1. Identify with all the people of the word.

2. Identify with all the people, animals, plants and fungi of the world.

3. Identify with the totality of the world, including its geology.

My morality is number 2, not number 3, not number 1.

Only those whose morality is number 3 have a right to object to mining.

Those people whose morality is number 2 can’t be vegan, because they have to predominantly eat dairy.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

There are three ways to word this. And all have completely different implications.

1. Identify with all the people of the word.

2. Identify with all the people, animals, plants and fungi of the world.

3. Identify with the totality of the world, including its geology.

My morality is number 2, not number 3, not number 1.

Only those whose morality is number 3 have a right to object to mining.

Those people whose morality is number 2 can’t be vegan, because they have to predominantly eat dairy.

yeah that sort of thing, probably a good starter

related this below was territory I was venturing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

“A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual’s or society’s knowledge and point of view. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of “ground” in Gestalt psychology and media analysis..”

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

however it might be worded, and whatever notions makes for that, can it ever not involve some level of or type of delusion

There are three ways to word this. And all have completely different implications.

1. Identify with all the people of the word.

2. Identify with all the people, animals, plants and fungi of the world.

3. Identify with the totality of the world, including its geology.

My morality is number 2, not number 3, not number 1.

Only those whose morality is number 3 have a right to object to mining.

Those people whose morality is number 2 can’t be vegan, because they have to predominantly eat dairy.

yeah that sort of thing, probably a good starter

related this below was territory I was venturing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

“A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual’s or society’s knowledge and point of view. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of “ground” in Gestalt psychology and media analysis..”

Why can’t we have both?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

There are three ways to word this. And all have completely different implications.

1. Identify with all the people of the word.

2. Identify with all the people, animals, plants and fungi of the world.

3. Identify with the totality of the world, including its geology.

My morality is number 2, not number 3, not number 1.

Only those whose morality is number 3 have a right to object to mining.

Those people whose morality is number 2 can’t be vegan, because they have to predominantly eat dairy.

yeah that sort of thing, probably a good starter

related this below was territory I was venturing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

“A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual’s or society’s knowledge and point of view. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of “ground” in Gestalt psychology and media analysis..”

Why can’t we have both?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

There are three ways to word this. And all have completely different implications.

1. Identify with all the people of the word.

2. Identify with all the people, animals, plants and fungi of the world.

3. Identify with the totality of the world, including its geology.

My morality is number 2, not number 3, not number 1.

Only those whose morality is number 3 have a right to object to mining.

Those people whose morality is number 2 can’t be vegan, because they have to predominantly eat dairy.

yeah that sort of thing, probably a good starter

related this below was territory I was venturing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

“A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual’s or society’s knowledge and point of view. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of “ground” in Gestalt psychology and media analysis..”

Why can’t we have both?

have both of whatever you like, whatever you’re talking about, if it’s possible, and you want whatever

the question is a thought exercise, exploring if a big picture world view if you like, is likely, or often has some delusion about it

of course it all depends what delusion might mean, I don’t mean it in a bad way, not necessarily, i’m not using it in the way of referring to pathology, or what might be seen as pathology, though I could get around to it, if I did i’m not sure i’d stay there long, make a home of it

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah that sort of thing, probably a good starter

related this below was territory I was venturing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

“A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual’s or society’s knowledge and point of view. A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of “ground” in Gestalt psychology and media analysis..”

Why can’t we have both?

have both of whatever you like, whatever you’re talking about, if it’s possible, and you want whatever

the question is a thought exercise, exploring if a big picture world view if you like, is likely, or often has some delusion about it

of course it all depends what delusion might mean, I don’t mean it in a bad way, not necessarily, i’m not using it in the way of referring to pathology, or what might be seen as pathology, though I could get around to it, if I did i’m not sure i’d stay there long, make a home of it

I do believe that delusion is what it is. I doubt it has other meanings.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why can’t we have both?

have both of whatever you like, whatever you’re talking about, if it’s possible, and you want whatever

the question is a thought exercise, exploring if a big picture world view if you like, is likely, or often has some delusion about it

of course it all depends what delusion might mean, I don’t mean it in a bad way, not necessarily, i’m not using it in the way of referring to pathology, or what might be seen as pathology, though I could get around to it, if I did i’m not sure i’d stay there long, make a home of it

I do believe that delusion is what it is. I doubt it has other meanings.

yeah yeah, that’s it, your working concept summarized, presumed sameness of meaning, universal, probably amounts to no thought required, like there’s only one shade of blue or any other color

I can’t see why a world view wouldn’t likely be given to delusion, minor or otherwise

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

have both of whatever you like, whatever you’re talking about, if it’s possible, and you want whatever

the question is a thought exercise, exploring if a big picture world view if you like, is likely, or often has some delusion about it

of course it all depends what delusion might mean, I don’t mean it in a bad way, not necessarily, i’m not using it in the way of referring to pathology, or what might be seen as pathology, though I could get around to it, if I did i’m not sure i’d stay there long, make a home of it

I do believe that delusion is what it is. I doubt it has other meanings.

yeah yeah, that’s it, your working concept summarized, presumed sameness of meaning, universal, probably amounts to no thought required, like there’s only one shade of blue or any other color

I can’t see why a world view wouldn’t likely be given to delusion, minor or otherwise

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

I do believe that delusion is what it is. I doubt it has other meanings.

yeah yeah, that’s it, your working concept summarized, presumed sameness of meaning, universal, probably amounts to no thought required, like there’s only one shade of blue or any other color

I can’t see why a world view wouldn’t likely be given to delusion, minor or otherwise

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

I used to be more worldshaped, it’s harder to identify with now

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

I do believe that delusion is what it is. I doubt it has other meanings.

yeah yeah, that’s it, your working concept summarized, presumed sameness of meaning, universal, probably amounts to no thought required, like there’s only one shade of blue or any other color

I can’t see why a world view wouldn’t likely be given to delusion, minor or otherwise

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

I didn’t have a go at you, certainly wasn’t the feel of it here, it was more agreement

and no I wasn’t having a go at roughie for being inflexible, but did point to the need for some work on a working concept, for it be a working concept

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah yeah, that’s it, your working concept summarized, presumed sameness of meaning, universal, probably amounts to no thought required, like there’s only one shade of blue or any other color

I can’t see why a world view wouldn’t likely be given to delusion, minor or otherwise

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

I didn’t have a go at you, certainly wasn’t the feel of it here, it was more agreement

and no I wasn’t having a go at roughie for being inflexible, but did point to the need for some work on a working concept, for it be a working concept

Apologies then, must be me :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

I didn’t have a go at you, certainly wasn’t the feel of it here, it was more agreement

and no I wasn’t having a go at roughie for being inflexible, but did point to the need for some work on a working concept, for it be a working concept

Apologies then, must be me :)

not entirely, i’m working on a friendlier way to put the proposition, a work in progress

delusion and world view in the same sentence, it’s not ice cream

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I didn’t have a go at you, certainly wasn’t the feel of it here, it was more agreement

and no I wasn’t having a go at roughie for being inflexible, but did point to the need for some work on a working concept, for it be a working concept

Apologies then, must be me :)

not entirely, i’m working on a friendlier way to put the proposition, a work in progress

delusion and world view in the same sentence, it’s not ice cream

Though it does sound Neopolitan.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah yeah, that’s it, your working concept summarized, presumed sameness of meaning, universal, probably amounts to no thought required, like there’s only one shade of blue or any other color

I can’t see why a world view wouldn’t likely be given to delusion, minor or otherwise

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

transition said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

Rose cloured glasses?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

Rose cloured glasses?

probably an example, yeah

but i’d generalize more to the force of an idea, force of belief, force of feeling

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

Rose cloured glasses?

probably an example, yeah

but i’d generalize more to the force of an idea, force of belief, force of feeling

I have a friend who is convinced that all the roadworks infrastructure is to take the tanks northwards to ward off the inevitable Chinese takeover attempt.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

Rose cloured glasses?

probably an example, yeah

but i’d generalize more to the force of an idea, force of belief, force of feeling

I have a friend who is convinced that all the roadworks infrastructure is to take the tanks northwards to ward off the inevitable Chinese takeover attempt.

I guess all occupation is to make invasion less likely, or more difficult

transition said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You seem a little touchy tonight mr transition.

First you have a go at me for wanting to recognise two points of view as being part of a continuum, and not exclusive of each other, then you have a go at roughie for being too inflexible.

Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

So, does that mean your definition of delusion is the opposite of the dictionary definition?

Michael V said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

So, does that mean your definition of delusion is the opposite of the dictionary definition?

Well, it looks like that is what the suggestion appears to be.

Michael V said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

So, does that mean your definition of delusion is the opposite of the dictionary definition?

no it means whatever delusion is (of a computational apparatus) preceded your definition, or anyone elses, and that of the existing concept there must be things to be considered under the threshold of what qualifies, and that really you’re deferring to a threshold of what qualifies without considering the threshold, which is a bit arbitrary, to do that

I’m beginning to wonder why we bother to use words to define things. Maybe we should go back to grunting.

It is true that we have only recently included the words dark constellation because the indigenous science did view things differently to the accepted science.

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

>Delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

let me play with that definition a bit, make it true, fixed belief that tends to reduce the likelihood of contradictions emerging

fairly much what belief does, a lot of belief, its purpose, probably most common delusion is in that territory, the force of assumed truths, extending to shared reality

just as the sky is blue, it’s true the impression of it is what we call blue, that’s what the vision processing does, no matter what evidence you have confirming the sensation of blueness of the sky isn’t how it is external to that vision processing you can’t by any force of will alter that sensation of blueness, you can’t perceive it as red or green

and it’s not a misleading effect of perception, or illusion

and everyone functions on incomplete information, the work of minds has an economy, it’s not infinitely resourced to comprehend reality, it’s all patched, working patches, structure that way

So, does that mean your definition of delusion is the opposite of the dictionary definition?

no it means whatever delusion is (of a computational apparatus) preceded your definition, or anyone elses, and that of the existing concept there must be things to be considered under the threshold of what qualifies, and that really you’re deferring to a threshold of what qualifies without considering the threshold, which is a bit arbitrary, to do that

Nonsense!

One can’t communicate ideas without having agreed definitions for words. Dictionaries formalise that.

If someone uses a meaning for a word that is completely different (maybe almost completely the opposite), communication becomes impossible.

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

So, does that mean your definition of delusion is the opposite of the dictionary definition?

no it means whatever delusion is (of a computational apparatus) preceded your definition, or anyone elses, and that of the existing concept there must be things to be considered under the threshold of what qualifies, and that really you’re deferring to a threshold of what qualifies without considering the threshold, which is a bit arbitrary, to do that

Nonsense!

One can’t communicate ideas without having agreed definitions for words. Dictionaries formalise that.

If someone uses a meaning for a word that is completely different (maybe almost completely the opposite), communication becomes impossible.

if you want to restrict delusion to strictly be related obvious false beliefs, excluding the possibility a belief about something true (that actually is true – a true belief) can’t generate delusion, or be involved in sustaining a delusion, fine

how would propaganda be so influential, effective, if you couldn’t pack a little dubious truth into a bunch of truths, deliver it that way

would conscious self-awareness even exist if delusion were not possible, even likely

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

no it means whatever delusion is (of a computational apparatus) preceded your definition, or anyone elses, and that of the existing concept there must be things to be considered under the threshold of what qualifies, and that really you’re deferring to a threshold of what qualifies without considering the threshold, which is a bit arbitrary, to do that

Nonsense!

One can’t communicate ideas without having agreed definitions for words. Dictionaries formalise that.

If someone uses a meaning for a word that is completely different (maybe almost completely the opposite), communication becomes impossible.

if you want to restrict delusion to strictly be related obvious false beliefs, excluding the possibility a belief about something true (that actually is true – a true belief) can’t generate delusion, or be involved in sustaining a delusion, fine

how would propaganda be so influential, effective, if you couldn’t pack a little dubious truth into a bunch of truths, deliver it that way

would conscious self-awareness even exist if delusion were not possible, even likely

Because belief doesn’t define truth.

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

no it means whatever delusion is (of a computational apparatus) preceded your definition, or anyone elses, and that of the existing concept there must be things to be considered under the threshold of what qualifies, and that really you’re deferring to a threshold of what qualifies without considering the threshold, which is a bit arbitrary, to do that

Nonsense!

One can’t communicate ideas without having agreed definitions for words. Dictionaries formalise that.

If someone uses a meaning for a word that is completely different (maybe almost completely the opposite), communication becomes impossible.

if you want to restrict delusion to strictly be related obvious false beliefs, excluding the possibility a belief about something true (that actually is true – a true belief) can’t generate delusion, or be involved in sustaining a delusion, fine

how would propaganda be so influential, effective, if you couldn’t pack a little dubious truth into a bunch of truths, deliver it that way

would conscious self-awareness even exist if delusion were not possible, even likely

I’m not much good at philosophising about the very edges of how a mind may (or may not) work, but I try to stick to the principle above.

I’ll continue to try to communicate using normal definitions, not something else.

It’s the only way I can work, sorry.

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Nonsense!

One can’t communicate ideas without having agreed definitions for words. Dictionaries formalise that.

If someone uses a meaning for a word that is completely different (maybe almost completely the opposite), communication becomes impossible.

if you want to restrict delusion to strictly be related obvious false beliefs, excluding the possibility a belief about something true (that actually is true – a true belief) can’t generate delusion, or be involved in sustaining a delusion, fine

how would propaganda be so influential, effective, if you couldn’t pack a little dubious truth into a bunch of truths, deliver it that way

would conscious self-awareness even exist if delusion were not possible, even likely

I’m not much good at philosophising about the very edges of how a mind may (or may not) work, but I try to stick to the principle above.

I’ll continue to try to communicate using normal definitions, not something else.

It’s the only way I can work, sorry.

I agree. (And I’m not sorry)

yes

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Nonsense!

One can’t communicate ideas without having agreed definitions for words. Dictionaries formalise that.

If someone uses a meaning for a word that is completely different (maybe almost completely the opposite), communication becomes impossible.

if you want to restrict delusion to strictly be related obvious false beliefs, excluding the possibility a belief about something true (that actually is true – a true belief) can’t generate delusion, or be involved in sustaining a delusion, fine

how would propaganda be so influential, effective, if you couldn’t pack a little dubious truth into a bunch of truths, deliver it that way

would conscious self-awareness even exist if delusion were not possible, even likely

I’m not much good at philosophising about the very edges of how a mind may (or may not) work, but I try to stick to the principle above.

I’ll continue to try to communicate using normal definitions, not something else.

It’s the only way I can work, sorry.

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

if you want to restrict delusion to strictly be related obvious false beliefs, excluding the possibility a belief about something true (that actually is true – a true belief) can’t generate delusion, or be involved in sustaining a delusion, fine

how would propaganda be so influential, effective, if you couldn’t pack a little dubious truth into a bunch of truths, deliver it that way

would conscious self-awareness even exist if delusion were not possible, even likely

I’m not much good at philosophising about the very edges of how a mind may (or may not) work, but I try to stick to the principle above.

I’ll continue to try to communicate using normal definitions, not something else.

It’s the only way I can work, sorry.

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

I have plenty of delusions. Examples:

• That I can get some things done.

• That I can do better at doing things and get anything done.

• That I might get physically more able and be able to ride my motorbike again

• That I might restore my vintage motorbikes.

That I might make an important mark on the world. (This one has been with me as long as I can remember)

*etc, etc, etc.

I don’t understand your point.

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

I’m not much good at philosophising about the very edges of how a mind may (or may not) work, but I try to stick to the principle above.

I’ll continue to try to communicate using normal definitions, not something else.

It’s the only way I can work, sorry.

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

I have plenty of delusions. Examples:

• That I can get some things done.

• That I can do better at doing things and get anything done.

• That I might get physically more able and be able to ride my motorbike again

• That I might restore my vintage motorbikes.

That I might make an important mark on the world. (This one has been with me as long as I can remember)

*etc, etc, etc.

I don’t understand your point.

that’s actually a really good response, examples

so delusion is probably commonplace

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

yes

can you expand?

no

we can inspire, does that count

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

I have plenty of delusions. Examples:

• That I can get some things done.

• That I can do better at doing things and get anything done.

• That I might get physically more able and be able to ride my motorbike again

• That I might restore my vintage motorbikes.

• That I might make an important mark on the world. (This one has been with me as long as I can remember)

• etc, etc, etc.

I don’t understand your point.

that’s actually a really good response, examples

so delusion is probably commonplace

I have no way of knowing whether it is commonplace or not. I have never measured my delusions against the frequency of (my) non-delusions, nor have I done or read a population study.

And I think it would be a waste of my time to do the studies – I have no idea where to start. I can waste my time more interestingly in other ways. Like doing the washing up, or cooking tasty meals.

But I would be quite happy to read some expert’s study.

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

I have plenty of delusions. Examples:

• That I can get some things done.

• That I can do better at doing things and get anything done.

• That I might get physically more able and be able to ride my motorbike again

• That I might restore my vintage motorbikes.

• That I might make an important mark on the world. (This one has been with me as long as I can remember)

• etc, etc, etc.

I don’t understand your point.

that’s actually a really good response, examples

so delusion is probably commonplace

I have no way of knowing whether it is commonplace or not. I have never measured my delusions against the frequency of (my) non-delusions, nor have I done or read a population study.

And I think it would be a waste of my time to do the studies – I have no idea where to start. I can waste my time more interestingly in other ways. Like doing the washing up, or cooking tasty meals.

But I would be quite happy to read some expert’s study.

where I was going, was to the point people monitor for delusions, limit or reduce them, part of psychological life, and a world view lends to that, offers assurances you’re not deluded, or not too deluded, or not too deluded compared with most others, I mean if your shared world view is common enough, part of a broad shared reality, you hardly need ask if it involves any delusion

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

if you want to restrict delusion to strictly be related obvious false beliefs, excluding the possibility a belief about something true (that actually is true – a true belief) can’t generate delusion, or be involved in sustaining a delusion, fine

how would propaganda be so influential, effective, if you couldn’t pack a little dubious truth into a bunch of truths, deliver it that way

would conscious self-awareness even exist if delusion were not possible, even likely

I’m not much good at philosophising about the very edges of how a mind may (or may not) work, but I try to stick to the principle above.

I’ll continue to try to communicate using normal definitions, not something else.

It’s the only way I can work, sorry.

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

I have just one delusion.

Which is that I have just one delusion.

how about an imaginary number of delusions

SCIENCE said:

how about an imaginary number of delusions

LOLOLOL

:)

Perfect!

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

I have plenty of delusions. Examples:

• That I can get some things done.

• That I can do better at doing things and get anything done.

• That I might get physically more able and be able to ride my motorbike again

• That I might restore my vintage motorbikes.

That I might make an important mark on the world. (This one has been with me as long as I can remember)

*etc, etc, etc.

I don’t understand your point.

that’s actually a really good response, examples

so delusion is probably commonplace

There may be some difference between knowing that one is deluding oneself and why. ie: I think I can do this but it is because I still think I’m 17.
and Not accepting that it is a delusion because one believes it is truth.

Ecky Thump once told me that everyone should have an imaginary friend.

I talk to the birds.

roughbarked said:

I talk to the birds.

I do too. And I tell flies and cockroaches to “Fuck off” when they are annoying me.

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

I have plenty of delusions. Examples:

• That I can get some things done.

• That I can do better at doing things and get anything done.

• That I might get physically more able and be able to ride my motorbike again

• That I might restore my vintage motorbikes.

That I might make an important mark on the world. (This one has been with me as long as I can remember)

*etc, etc, etc.

I don’t understand your point.

that’s actually a really good response, examples

so delusion is probably commonplace

Think you are using delusion in such a wide context that it is meaningless. Below is a definition of delusion that would be most unlikely to match with what MV is calling delusion.

>>Delusional Disorder. Definition. Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. Delusions are considered “bizarre” if they are clearly implausible and peers within the same culture cannot understand them.

Psychologytoday.com

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

I have plenty of delusions. Examples:

• That I can get some things done.

• That I can do better at doing things and get anything done.

• That I might get physically more able and be able to ride my motorbike again

• That I might restore my vintage motorbikes.

• That I might make an important mark on the world. (This one has been with me as long as I can remember)

• etc, etc, etc.

I don’t understand your point.

that’s actually a really good response, examples

so delusion is probably commonplace

Think you are using delusion in such a wide context that it is meaningless. Below is a definition of delusion that would be most unlikely to match with what MV is calling delusion.

>>Delusional Disorder. Definition. Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. Delusions are considered “bizarre” if they are clearly implausible and peers within the same culture cannot understand them.

Psychologytoday.com

I was using a definition of delusion posted earlier in the thread. It was not quite the same as that, and didn’t include “disorder”.

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

that’s actually a really good response, examples

so delusion is probably commonplace

Think you are using delusion in such a wide context that it is meaningless. Below is a definition of delusion that would be most unlikely to match with what MV is calling delusion.

>>Delusional Disorder. Definition. Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. Delusions are considered “bizarre” if they are clearly implausible and peers within the same culture cannot understand them.

Psychologytoday.com

I was using a definition of delusion posted earlier in the thread. It was not quite the same as that, and didn’t include “disorder”.

Was not questioning what you said, only the excessive emphasis on single words by trans. A single word might mean something, but it is the accompanying words that give it the intended meaning and direction. Think the word delusion has fallen over the delusional cliff.

Essential Meaning of delusion (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion).

1: a belief that is not true : a false idea
…………..He has delusions about how much money he can make at that job.
…………..He is living/laboring under the delusion that he is incapable of making mistakes.
…………..She is under the delusion that we will finish on time.
2: a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness
…………..As the illness progressed, his delusions took over and he had violent outbursts.

—————————————————————————————————————————-
I was using definition 1, not 2.

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Think you are using delusion in such a wide context that it is meaningless. Below is a definition of delusion that would be most unlikely to match with what MV is calling delusion.

>>Delusional Disorder. Definition. Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. Delusions are considered “bizarre” if they are clearly implausible and peers within the same culture cannot understand them.

Psychologytoday.com

I was using a definition of delusion posted earlier in the thread. It was not quite the same as that, and didn’t include “disorder”.

Was not questioning what you said, only the excessive emphasis on single words by trans. A single word might mean something, but it is the accompanying words that give it the intended meaning and direction. Think the word delusion has fallen over the delusional cliff.

you’d spend a bit of time making sure you don’t have delusions, i’m sure, put some effort into that, so you can enjoy delusionless clarity of thought

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Think you are using delusion in such a wide context that it is meaningless. Below is a definition of delusion that would be most unlikely to match with what MV is calling delusion.

>>Delusional Disorder. Definition. Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. Delusions are considered “bizarre” if they are clearly implausible and peers within the same culture cannot understand them.

Psychologytoday.com

I was using a definition of delusion posted earlier in the thread. It was not quite the same as that, and didn’t include “disorder”.

Was not questioning what you said, only the excessive emphasis on single words by trans. A single word might mean something, but it is the accompanying words that give it the intended meaning and direction. Think the word delusion has fallen over the delusional cliff.

Fair call.

……………..“Think the word delusion has fallen over the delusional cliff.” Made me smile.

:)

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

I was using a definition of delusion posted earlier in the thread. It was not quite the same as that, and didn’t include “disorder”.

Was not questioning what you said, only the excessive emphasis on single words by trans. A single word might mean something, but it is the accompanying words that give it the intended meaning and direction. Think the word delusion has fallen over the delusional cliff.

you’d spend a bit of time making sure you don’t have delusions, i’m sure, put some effort into that, so you can enjoy delusionless clarity of thought

Something you do not appear to have experienced.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Was not questioning what you said, only the excessive emphasis on single words by trans. A single word might mean something, but it is the accompanying words that give it the intended meaning and direction. Think the word delusion has fallen over the delusional cliff.

you’d spend a bit of time making sure you don’t have delusions, i’m sure, put some effort into that, so you can enjoy delusionless clarity of thought

Something you do not appear to have experienced.

i’ll put it to you as put it earlier

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

you’d spend a bit of time making sure you don’t have delusions, i’m sure, put some effort into that, so you can enjoy delusionless clarity of thought

Something you do not appear to have experienced.

i’ll put it to you as put it earlier

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

In my opinion, philosophers think to much about nothing.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Something you do not appear to have experienced.

i’ll put it to you as put it earlier

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

In my opinion, philosophers think to much about nothing.

you could be in the wrong thread, if you have an aversion to philosophy, if you want call it that, but whatever, not like the world turns on it, or would stop otherwise

your world view, be Darwinian to some extent wouldn’t it

anyway where I was going with it all, is to explore convergent aspects of world views, this far into the global pandemic, the force of dominant world views, a dominant world view

i’m thinking if this post happened two years ago the responses would be quite different

transition said:

anyway where I was going with it all, is to explore convergent aspects of world views, this far into the global pandemic, the force of dominant world views, a dominant world view

i’m thinking if this post happened two years ago the responses would be quite different

or should say the thread subject would have been met differently, more lightly indulged perhaps

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

i’ll put it to you as put it earlier

try saying I have no delusions, none at all

what do you get, do you think it true, a dubious truth, or probably false

In my opinion, philosophers think to much about nothing.

you could be in the wrong thread, if you have an aversion to philosophy, if you want call it that, but whatever, not like the world turns on it, or would stop otherwise

your world view, be Darwinian to some extent wouldn’t it

This is the BIG problem with Philosophy it makes assumptions in order to make assessments. Unfortunately the original assumptions are often wrong and like computers, rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Science is concerned with facts, philosophy is more concerned with abstract non-tangibles. But what is delusional with these considerations? A person is knowledgeable depending on the number of facts they possess and how these facts relate with other facts. If they do not have sufficient facts they will not be able to conclude accurately and so you must make educated guesses as to what the unknown facts might be, and then test to see if they are true. These are not delusional unless the scientist assumes them to be true and ignores anything to the contrary. This means the former is not delusional only does not have sufficient facts, whereas the latter believes they have the facts and their conclusions are correct. It is THESE latter peoples who are delusional which seem to apply more to philosophers than to scientists.

transition said:

transition said:

anyway where I was going with it all, is to explore convergent aspects of world views, this far into the global pandemic, the force of dominant world views, a dominant world view

i’m thinking if this post happened two years ago the responses would be quite different

or should say the thread subject would have been met differently, more lightly indulged perhaps

I had absolutely no idea that this thread was about people’s COVID views.

Michael V said:

transition said:

transition said:

anyway where I was going with it all, is to explore convergent aspects of world views, this far into the global pandemic, the force of dominant world views, a dominant world view

i’m thinking if this post happened two years ago the responses would be quite different

or should say the thread subject would have been met differently, more lightly indulged perhaps

I had absolutely no idea that this thread was about people’s COVID views.

more about worldviews, not sure i’d completely discount the possibility this pandemic will influence peoples worldviews, climate change also, rise of china as they say, quite a few big things happening, those things are also used to influence peoples worldviews

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

In my opinion, philosophers think to much about nothing.

you could be in the wrong thread, if you have an aversion to philosophy, if you want call it that, but whatever, not like the world turns on it, or would stop otherwise

your world view, be Darwinian to some extent wouldn’t it

This is the BIG problem with Philosophy it makes assumptions in order to make assessments. Unfortunately the original assumptions are often wrong and like computers, rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Science is concerned with facts, philosophy is more concerned with abstract non-tangibles. But what is delusional with these considerations? A person is knowledgeable depending on the number of facts they possess and how these facts relate with other facts. If they do not have sufficient facts they will not be able to conclude accurately and so you must make educated guesses as to what the unknown facts might be, and then test to see if they are true. These are not delusional unless the scientist assumes them to be true and ignores anything to the contrary. This means the former is not delusional only does not have sufficient facts, whereas the latter believes they have the facts and their conclusions are correct. It is THESE latter peoples who are delusional which seem to apply more to philosophers than to scientists.

dunno if anyone can begin to think without some assumptions

i’d expect it’s possible to be so fond and enthusiastic about ones views that the force of the idea borders delusional, even if the idea is true or very useful, it’s not a sure thing it gets truer or more useful with greater enthusiasm applied

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

you could be in the wrong thread, if you have an aversion to philosophy, if you want call it that, but whatever, not like the world turns on it, or would stop otherwise

your world view, be Darwinian to some extent wouldn’t it

This is the BIG problem with Philosophy it makes assumptions in order to make assessments. Unfortunately the original assumptions are often wrong and like computers, rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Science is concerned with facts, philosophy is more concerned with abstract non-tangibles. But what is delusional with these considerations? A person is knowledgeable depending on the number of facts they possess and how these facts relate with other facts. If they do not have sufficient facts they will not be able to conclude accurately and so you must make educated guesses as to what the unknown facts might be, and then test to see if they are true. These are not delusional unless the scientist assumes them to be true and ignores anything to the contrary. This means the former is not delusional only does not have sufficient facts, whereas the latter believes they have the facts and their conclusions are correct. It is THESE latter peoples who are delusional which seem to apply more to philosophers than to scientists.

dunno if anyone can begin to think without some assumptions

i’d expect it’s possible to be so fond and enthusiastic about ones views that the force of the idea borders delusional, even if the idea is true or very useful, it’s not a sure thing it gets truer or more useful with greater enthusiasm applied

Another problem with philosophy and the extent of presumptions, is the need to debate what the philosopher actually meant. Conversely, the problem with facts is they are much more difficult to manipulate.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

you could be in the wrong thread, if you have an aversion to philosophy, if you want call it that, but whatever, not like the world turns on it, or would stop otherwise

your world view, be Darwinian to some extent wouldn’t it

This is the BIG problem with Philosophy it makes assumptions in order to make assessments. Unfortunately the original assumptions are often wrong and like computers, rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Science is concerned with facts, philosophy is more concerned with abstract non-tangibles. But what is delusional with these considerations? A person is knowledgeable depending on the number of facts they possess and how these facts relate with other facts. If they do not have sufficient facts they will not be able to conclude accurately and so you must make educated guesses as to what the unknown facts might be, and then test to see if they are true. These are not delusional unless the scientist assumes them to be true and ignores anything to the contrary. This means the former is not delusional only does not have sufficient facts, whereas the latter believes they have the facts and their conclusions are correct. It is THESE latter peoples who are delusional which seem to apply more to philosophers than to scientists.

dunno if anyone can begin to think without some assumptions

i’d expect it’s possible to be so fond and enthusiastic about ones views that the force of the idea borders delusional, even if the idea is true or very useful, it’s not a sure thing it gets truer or more useful with greater enthusiasm applied

Yeah bit there is no point going off on tangents that don’t exist just for the sake of it.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

This is the BIG problem with Philosophy it makes assumptions in order to make assessments. Unfortunately the original assumptions are often wrong and like computers, rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Science is concerned with facts, philosophy is more concerned with abstract non-tangibles. But what is delusional with these considerations? A person is knowledgeable depending on the number of facts they possess and how these facts relate with other facts. If they do not have sufficient facts they will not be able to conclude accurately and so you must make educated guesses as to what the unknown facts might be, and then test to see if they are true. These are not delusional unless the scientist assumes them to be true and ignores anything to the contrary. This means the former is not delusional only does not have sufficient facts, whereas the latter believes they have the facts and their conclusions are correct. It is THESE latter peoples who are delusional which seem to apply more to philosophers than to scientists.

dunno if anyone can begin to think without some assumptions

i’d expect it’s possible to be so fond and enthusiastic about ones views that the force of the idea borders delusional, even if the idea is true or very useful, it’s not a sure thing it gets truer or more useful with greater enthusiasm applied

Another problem with philosophy and the extent of presumptions, is the need to debate what the philosopher actually meant. Conversely, the problem with facts is they are much more difficult to manipulate.

Philosophers often get tangled up in theosophy.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

dunno if anyone can begin to think without some assumptions

i’d expect it’s possible to be so fond and enthusiastic about ones views that the force of the idea borders delusional, even if the idea is true or very useful, it’s not a sure thing it gets truer or more useful with greater enthusiasm applied

Another problem with philosophy and the extent of presumptions, is the need to debate what the philosopher actually meant. Conversely, the problem with facts is they are much more difficult to manipulate.

Philosophers often get tangled up in theosophy.

Sure you don’t mean sophistry?

…

Theosophy is a religion established in the United States during the late 19th century. It was founded primarily by the Russian immigrant Helena Blavatsky and draws its teachings predominantly from Blavatsky’s writings. Categorized by scholars of religion as both a new religious movement and as part of the occultist stream of Western esotericism, it draws upon both older European philosophies such as Neoplatonism and Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

As presented by Blavatsky, Theosophy teaches that there is an ancient and secretive brotherhood of spiritual adepts known as the Masters, who—although found around the world—are centered in Tibet. These Masters are alleged by Blavatsky to have cultivated great wisdom and supernatural powers, and Theosophists believe that it was they who initiated the modern Theosophical movement through disseminating their teachings via Blavatsky. They believe that these Masters are attempting to revive knowledge of an ancient religion once found around the world and which will again come to eclipse the existing world religions. Theosophical groups nevertheless do not refer to their system as a “religion”. Theosophy preaches the existence of a single, divine Absolute. It promotes an emanationist cosmology in which the universe is perceived as outward reflections from this Absolute. Theosophy teaches that the purpose of human life is spiritual emancipation and claims that the human soul undergoes reincarnation upon bodily death according to a process of karma. It promotes values of universal brotherhood and social improvement, although it does not stipulate particular ethical codes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Another problem with philosophy and the extent of presumptions, is the need to debate what the philosopher actually meant. Conversely, the problem with facts is they are much more difficult to manipulate.

Philosophers often get tangled up in theosophy.

Sure you don’t mean sophistry?

…

Theosophy is a religion established in the United States during the late 19th century. It was founded primarily by the Russian immigrant Helena Blavatsky and draws its teachings predominantly from Blavatsky’s writings. Categorized by scholars of religion as both a new religious movement and as part of the occultist stream of Western esotericism, it draws upon both older European philosophies such as Neoplatonism and Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

As presented by Blavatsky, Theosophy teaches that there is an ancient and secretive brotherhood of spiritual adepts known as the Masters, who—although found around the world—are centered in Tibet. These Masters are alleged by Blavatsky to have cultivated great wisdom and supernatural powers, and Theosophists believe that it was they who initiated the modern Theosophical movement through disseminating their teachings via Blavatsky. They believe that these Masters are attempting to revive knowledge of an ancient religion once found around the world and which will again come to eclipse the existing world religions. Theosophical groups nevertheless do not refer to their system as a “religion”. Theosophy preaches the existence of a single, divine Absolute. It promotes an emanationist cosmology in which the universe is perceived as outward reflections from this Absolute. Theosophy teaches that the purpose of human life is spiritual emancipation and claims that the human soul undergoes reincarnation upon bodily death according to a process of karma. It promotes values of universal brotherhood and social improvement, although it does not stipulate particular ethical codes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

And she got them in too. From that same article:

“Many important figures, in particular within the humanities and the arts, were involved in the Theosophical movement and influenced by its teachings. Prominent scientists who had belonged to the Theosophical Society included the inventor Thomas Edison, the biologist Alfred Russel Wallace, and the chemist William Crookes.”

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

This is the BIG problem with Philosophy it makes assumptions in order to make assessments. Unfortunately the original assumptions are often wrong and like computers, rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Science is concerned with facts, philosophy is more concerned with abstract non-tangibles. But what is delusional with these considerations? A person is knowledgeable depending on the number of facts they possess and how these facts relate with other facts. If they do not have sufficient facts they will not be able to conclude accurately and so you must make educated guesses as to what the unknown facts might be, and then test to see if they are true. These are not delusional unless the scientist assumes them to be true and ignores anything to the contrary. This means the former is not delusional only does not have sufficient facts, whereas the latter believes they have the facts and their conclusions are correct. It is THESE latter peoples who are delusional which seem to apply more to philosophers than to scientists.

dunno if anyone can begin to think without some assumptions

i’d expect it’s possible to be so fond and enthusiastic about ones views that the force of the idea borders delusional, even if the idea is true or very useful, it’s not a sure thing it gets truer or more useful with greater enthusiasm applied

Another problem with philosophy and the extent of presumptions, is the need to debate what the philosopher actually meant. Conversely, the problem with facts is they are much more difficult to manipulate.

fair enough, so goes the gestationally-induced metaphysical lobotomy

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

dunno if anyone can begin to think without some assumptions

i’d expect it’s possible to be so fond and enthusiastic about ones views that the force of the idea borders delusional, even if the idea is true or very useful, it’s not a sure thing it gets truer or more useful with greater enthusiasm applied

Another problem with philosophy and the extent of presumptions, is the need to debate what the philosopher actually meant. Conversely, the problem with facts is they are much more difficult to manipulate.

fair enough, so goes the gestationally-induced metaphysical lobotomy

As per your example: Why philosophers don’t use single, short, simple describing words, when they can use half a dozen longer, more complicated ones at the same time to do almost the same job.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Another problem with philosophy and the extent of presumptions, is the need to debate what the philosopher actually meant. Conversely, the problem with facts is they are much more difficult to manipulate.

fair enough, so goes the gestationally-induced metaphysical lobotomy

As per your example: Why philosophers don’t use single, short, simple describing words, when they can use half a dozen longer, more complicated ones at the same time to do almost the same job.

of course, don’t rip those optic nerves off trying to introspect that abyss

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

fair enough, so goes the gestationally-induced metaphysical lobotomy

As per your example: Why philosophers don’t use single, short, simple describing words, when they can use half a dozen longer, more complicated ones at the same time to do almost the same job.

of course, don’t rip those optic nerves off trying to introspect that abyss

You are far too deep for me trans.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

As per your example: Why philosophers don’t use single, short, simple describing words, when they can use half a dozen longer, more complicated ones at the same time to do almost the same job.

of course, don’t rip those optic nerves off trying to introspect that abyss

You are far too deep for me trans.

maybe wander back to the thread subject, if you want, or if you’d like to be part of an anti-philosophy thread you might start one, start a thread about that, you could be the perfect person to do that

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

of course, don’t rip those optic nerves off trying to introspect that abyss

You are far too deep for me trans.

maybe wander back to the thread subject, if you want, or if you’d like to be part of an anti-philosophy thread you might start one, start a thread about that, you could be the perfect person to do that

As the world is currently in a terrible mess, thanks to the enthusiastic efforts of many people, I would rather not.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

You are far too deep for me trans.

maybe wander back to the thread subject, if you want, or if you’d like to be part of an anti-philosophy thread you might start one, start a thread about that, you could be the perfect person to do that

As the world is currently in a terrible mess, thanks to the enthusiastic efforts of many people, I would rather not.

I just dug into a bag of lollies from christmas, see if I can sweeten myself up

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

maybe wander back to the thread subject, if you want, or if you’d like to be part of an anti-philosophy thread you might start one, start a thread about that, you could be the perfect person to do that

As the world is currently in a terrible mess, thanks to the enthusiastic efforts of many people, I would rather not.

I just dug into a bag of lollies from christmas, see if I can sweeten myself up

trans, just for the record I am not anti-philosophy, only of the philosophers who like talking grand, but who say little. There are good and bad philosophers, as there are good and bad scientists. However I feel there is greater scope to speak many words with little substance with philosophy, than there is to scientifically misrepresent or wrongfully construct facts, although that is certainly not unheard of. Just write me off as a philosophical sceptic.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

As the world is currently in a terrible mess, thanks to the enthusiastic efforts of many people, I would rather not.

I just dug into a bag of lollies from christmas, see if I can sweeten myself up

trans, just for the record I am not anti-philosophy, only of the philosophers who like talking grand, but who say little. There are good and bad philosophers, as there are good and bad scientists. However I feel there is greater scope to speak many words with little substance with philosophy, than there is to scientifically misrepresent or wrongfully construct facts, although that is certainly not unheard of. Just write me off as a philosophical sceptic.

philosophy skeptic maybe you mean, surely if you were a philosophical skeptic you would be some sort of philosopher, or doing philosophy of some sort

maybe you are a secret philosophical skeptic, it was a freudian slip, it’s so secret you’re keeping it from yourself, which is probably the origins of the capacity for secrets really, that things can stay secret even from ourselves, knowledge of that possibility, the reality of the possibility, the likelihood

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

I just dug into a bag of lollies from christmas, see if I can sweeten myself up

trans, just for the record I am not anti-philosophy, only of the philosophers who like talking grand, but who say little. There are good and bad philosophers, as there are good and bad scientists. However I feel there is greater scope to speak many words with little substance with philosophy, than there is to scientifically misrepresent or wrongfully construct facts, although that is certainly not unheard of. Just write me off as a philosophical sceptic.

philosophy skeptic maybe you mean, surely if you were a philosophical skeptic you would be some sort of philosopher, or doing philosophy of some sort

maybe you are a secret philosophical skeptic, it was a freudian slip, it’s so secret you’re keeping it from yourself, which is probably the origins of the capacity for secrets really, that things can stay secret even from ourselves, knowledge of that possibility, the reality of the possibility, the likelihood

Give it a break trans! It was meant as a comical remark, but obviously it fell into your word obsession.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

trans, just for the record I am not anti-philosophy, only of the philosophers who like talking grand, but who say little. There are good and bad philosophers, as there are good and bad scientists. However I feel there is greater scope to speak many words with little substance with philosophy, than there is to scientifically misrepresent or wrongfully construct facts, although that is certainly not unheard of. Just write me off as a philosophical sceptic.

philosophy skeptic maybe you mean, surely if you were a philosophical skeptic you would be some sort of philosopher, or doing philosophy of some sort

maybe you are a secret philosophical skeptic, it was a freudian slip, it’s so secret you’re keeping it from yourself, which is probably the origins of the capacity for secrets really, that things can stay secret even from ourselves, knowledge of that possibility, the reality of the possibility, the likelihood

Give it a break trans! It was meant as a comical remark, but obviously it fell into your word obsession.

yeah you’re probably right, I do juggle the alphabet a bit, enough that occasionally it’s caused me to wonder what it might indicate that language could be so predictable, so same, limited to largely borrowed word formulations, where no apparent peculiarities of vernacular emerged, could it indicate an aversion to alien cognitive territory, even a crushing conformity, like being hostage to the alphabet, and making a friend of it that way