The insecurity of ignorance

[dumbfounded1600]

Can't move forward from what you can't agnowledge...all people have there own problems....theyll come to you if they need help....don't sugar coat shit...tell it like it is...if they don't like it...then O well....deal with it....otherwise don't trip....

If that has anything to do with the topic lol

 

[GOT_BUD?]

I've just had a rather heated discussion in my real life. It seems that there are those out there, who are unable to alter their views when presented with a logical and reasoned argument. I was told that they are my views and that doesn't mean that others should agree. But there are facts in this world that can be reasoned rather than merely believed. I accept that no ones personal opinions are worth anything, but facts should be accepted by all, and to merely believe that they are wrong, and to hold on to your own wrong opinions in the face of reason is just wrong. It is why the world is still such a revolting place, filled with revolting people. Has anyone ever found a way to interact with this type of person without giving up? I need help in dealing with these people because when reason fails, I have nothing left. I refuse to argue on an emotional level as then it would jsut be my opinion against theirs. But I hate to walk away from someone leaving them to continue to act in ignorance. Yet when you try to educate these people, they feel like they are being personally attacked rather than being empowered. WTF is that all about? If someone explained to me that something I thought was true, was actually false, I'd be gratefull, not pissed off. Where am I going wrong with these people?

I think you're confusing ignorance with stupidity. Ignorance can be cured. Stupid can't. It's usually because of some non-sensical belief. And, as it was well said in Dogma, "It's a lot easier to change an idea than a belief." (or something like that.)

My way of dealing with these mouthbreaters is learn how to identify them early, then tag them so others know. No, that's not right.

If it's work related, I guess I just learned to let them live in their fantasy world, and accept the fact that they are wrong, and have no desire to be correct or corrected. Interact with them on the most basic level. Simple question that require yes or no answers and such. Unless you need to interact with them, don't.

Now if this person is a social aquaintence, then I would tease them mercilessly until they either threw a punch, left, or conceded the point.

It's really a judgement call

 

[TheBigGreen1]

The best that I can hope for is a just and merciful supreme being. That accepts me for being me. Thats all. I would hope that I will be judged for being myself. And not what someone else expected me to be. Each one of us is created for a reason, that is ultimately bigger than ourselves. The good are half bad. And the bad are half good. What fun would it be to hang out with people that followed every order ever given to them? My idea of heaven is not living in eternity with "sheeple". I wanna shoot guns and roll dice, and get lots of pussy. In this life or the next.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

No nature doesn't use maths, we use maths to represent and understand nature, it's different. To use maths, you need a concious mind, to to fall into the orbit of a larger mass, just requires mass. Gravity forms the orbit, maths explains it for us. Fractals are formed by computers who do use maths, because they were programmed to, and rely upon maths to work, why is it then surprising to find equations that cause repeatable and complex patterns?

This entire thread deals with some of my 'pet' concepts.
Glad I found it.


First off... damn ain't denial of the facts hard for some of us logically minded individuals to tolerate!

I am always flabberghasted when people refuse to see the empirically verifiable facts of some matter.


Also... GMT... remember my ramblings in one of the religion threads about M-theory being the set of equations which may ultimately allow us to discern the nature of the universe? Looks like Mr. Hawking has caught up .

God did not create the universe, Stephen Hawking revealed yesterday. In the flurry of publicity preceding his new book, The Grand Design, to be published next week, he does some serious dissing of the Almighty, declaring him/her/it irrelevant. The point is, he says, that our universe followed inevitably from the laws of nature. But, we might ask, where did they come from?...

In his famous conclusion to the book ( A Brief History of Time), Hawking wrote that if scientists could find the most fundamental laws of nature "then we should know the mind of God".

He now suggests that the search for this particular Holy Grail is over, now that scientists have come up with a type of theory, known as M-theory, that may describe the behaviour of all the fundamental particles and force, and even account for the very birth of the universe. If this theory is backed up by experiment, it might perhaps replace all religious accounts of creation – in Hawking's capacious mind, it already has.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html

Also interesting: testing String Theory
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Testing-String-Theory-Is-Possible-154736.shtml

 

[GMT]

lol head, talk about a miraculous resurection.

I had no idea he was releasing a new book, I'll be sure to get it. Nor did I realise they had now completed M-Theory, which was the last time I checked, a collection of 5 theories which didnt quite meet in the middle. That's amazing, I'll be honest I didnt expect to see it completed in my lifetime. Damn, I liked my personal theory that in order to make quantum mechanics and general relativity meet, we had to accept that we dont exist as anything more than quantum possabilities that were self aware (yet confused). I guess Descartes was right after all, we do exist lol.

 

[sac beh]

H3ad, thanks for posting this, very interesting read! It reminded me of some research tangents I wanted to return to but had forgotten.

I'm also enjoying GMT's ideas in this thread... a well deserved resurrection indeed.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Also... GMT... remember my ramblings in one of the religion threads about M-theory being the set of equations which may ultimately allow us to discern the nature of the universe? Looks like Mr. Hawking has caught up .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html

Also interesting: testing String Theory
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Testing-String-Theory-Is-Possible-154736.shtml

Is this news? Not really. Hawking has made it clear in the past that he's not religious, and his ex-wife, Jane, outed him as an atheist in her biography about their marriage. But Hawking has always been careful to delineate between religion and science, and his past writings seemed to have left open a window allowing for a God-like creator. In A Brief History of Time, he wrote of man's steps toward figuring out the universe as attempts to "know the mind of God."

But the new book appears to have taken that religious neutrality off the table. Due to laws like gravity, noted last week's excerpt, Hawking writes that it is entirely possible that the universe "can and will create itself from nothing." That's why we exist. That's why there's something rather than nothing. We don't need God.

Quite different than a full-blown, end-all-be-all 'God doesn't exist' statement.

But then again, how could he, or science at all for that matter?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well... since I was talking to GMT in particular, and he knows exactly what I was saying and why, I'll just laugh your ignorance off and proceed merrily along my way.


but when hawking comes out with a new statement that he's never made before which is exactly along the lines of thought I was putting forth a year ago... hmmm

being serious? only a tiny bit and just barely =] I'm well aware that my strong suspicion that things are a certain way does not carry the same weight as his learned opinion, but I do feel as though my suspicions have been somewhat validated by his assertions.

 

[GMT]

The purpose of the thread was to find a way of communicating with people without it turning into a shit fest. Please dont turn this thread into a shit fest stadium.

Hakwings references to god were in response to einsteins references to god. They make for good sound bites thats all and anyone who actually reads his work knows this as he makes it perfectly clear in his books. You'll find that most physicists make references to other physicists work in their own papers.

In the absense of any, yes ANY evidence for the existence of god, why should anyone ever believe in him other than hear say? I'm happy to pervert the purpose of this thread as its original purpose is long gone, but any discussions that follow, please keep them in the spirit of the thread so far, and not reduce it to another slanging match. This one is my thread, so I do have the right to keep control of it.

And head is right, its an old discussion we were having, and head was proved right and I wrong. Im gratefull to have seen the day it was decided.

 

[jarff]

Until ppl. learn to harness their Ego there will always be disagreements...no matter who,s right or wrong.......

jarff

 

[sac beh]

Until ppl. learn to harness their Ego there will always be disagreements...no matter who,s right or wrong.......

jarff

My first reaction was, meh, Freud. But thinking about it Freud's Ego serves as a helpful analogy in this discussion. Here's how.

Freud said we have an Id, which is the realm of basic/primitive drives and passions. The Id, standing alone, only seeks to satisfy these drives. It doesn't think about them, or question them, or take a poll to see what the best course of action would be. It is purely reflexive and not reflective. The Ego is that part that is open to the external world and takes input from it in a reflective way. The Ego says to the Id, hey wait, before going down that road, let's consider these other options brought up by experiences and ideas in the world around us. So the Ego is really what always two people to communicate rationally in the first place, because it links two otherwise self-centered individuals by opening there thoughts up one to the other.

In Plato's Chariot Allegory the human soul is a chariot driven by horses going in competing directions, one following desire and one following reason. Both horses are necessary as one provides passion that moves the individual forward, while the other provides direction. Someone who would seek true knowledge of how the world is and be freed from the endless cycle of chasing base desires must bring the horse of desire under submission to reason.

Socrates thought that true knowledge was self-knowledge, a dialogue between I and I. But for this internal rational discourse to take place, there had to be some external stimulus that would even raise the debate in the first place. This is why Socrates went about instilling doubt in his conversation partners. Without bringing people to a state of doubt, they could never begin to question their prior assumptions, and would only continue to approve and defend what they had always thought in the closed-circle of reason. Reasoning happens internally, in our human faculty to think, but it advances through the external dialogue with others.

We say that someone is open-minded when they allow their ideas to be challenged by others, when they are willing to submit their ideas to external judgment and include experiences from the external world in their decision making. Reason is the only common link between two thinking individuals. Without it each goes on his way believing what he's always believed as a slave to his internal drives. With it, we are free from the internal chains to think clearly about how the world outside of us really is.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

well put sac

 

[SacredTHCRitual]

another thing I might add is to try and learn why it's better not get upset at others differences..instead lead by example and do your thing in repetition..the others will notice and nature will show them that it's better to take outside criticism instead of thinking we are so right all the time..

Beginning of the thread starts with the Religious crazies vs the Science right...these are two sides of the same coins and equally far from the truth...the real truth is unspeakable, unknowable, it be a mystery of multiple dimensions. the mystery is what sets you free..it's when you give it a name and meaning..you bind your reality and perception to those ideas...

Scientists feel the same feeling of "knowing" as the Christians think Jesus was a white man

 

[Rafedial1]

to the OP, great thread. I find myself in similar situations as you.

People are in fear of truth, <--I did not say "the truth". I've met some who are afraid to acknowledge the Federal Reserve is a Private entity and regulates(lack thereof) itself, but same people(aware of our national debt) would probably vote NY FedRes chairman into the highest financial position in U.S. government. so there are millions of "truths" Large groups of people refuse to accept. Like how Ben Bernanke is not qualified for any job in gov or even handling Monopoly money. I have to ask....

How can one exist in ignorance?, ohh wait....It's "blissful"..........<---fuck that cliche.

The people closest to me violently oppose me when displaying new "controversial" facts to them, sometimes just talking about theory of mine will cause them to change the subject, or walk out of the room, personal verbal attacks come next.

I find it hard to communicate with people who don't share/have an individual opinion. It's like they have a mass-mentality. I.e., if it's ok for most then they agree and support the idea. Very few care to show pride in there unique beliefs. I try to have an educated opinion about topics shared with others and I don't try to pressure in any way for them to believe what I am saying. I thought I was just sharing? Some just like to shut there eyes and play "hide-and-go seek" with their brain.

#1 on my list and most college books ways to effective communication....................Listening!

 

[Weird]

the benefit of the insecurity of ignorance > than the cost of insecurity on the intellectual ego & it cost a lot less to maintain a buzz

 

[Weird]

its ok gentlemen, keep growing and smoking pot

it works if you work it

 

[GMT]

weird , would you care to expand upon your posts and explain the benefits and costs that you talked about?

IPS, please define "they" and "you" so that we may know about whom you speak. Please also give examples to back up the claim.

 

[Weird]

weird , would you care to expand upon your posts and explain the benefits and costs that you talked about?

IPS, please define "they" and "you" so that we may know about whom you speak. Please also give examples to back up the claim.

sure

any sane man or woman knows that the universe is dynamic and regardless of the constants we discover or the understandings of reactions we reveal we will not as individuals hold the complete body of knowledge the intellect and ego focused would so desire a claim there of

so in the effort of searching for a body of knowledge that is beyond our capacity to posses the ignorant simply does and learns from their actions (or perhaps not)


i prefer some realism and real life application with my reality, if it's so big it can't fit out the doors of the ivory tower it does not exist

it would seem a glaring truth that we having duality of mind and the ability to perceive and appreciate harmony for the purpose of applying the concept of balance

scientific relative analysis is not of the same benefit to everyone because it is the simple reverse engineering of truth from a simple equation to a more granular one and the capacity for some people to see an algorithm of truth in a given circumstance is an innate ability

sit in with a group of pro gamblers who either "calculate" or "feel" odds and the same phenomenon exists except its expressed differently

the bias behind the desire to uncover a different understanding to the same object of study is a practice in geometric extrapolations but not a pedestal of greatness

vision without action is a daydream

action without vision is a nightmare

analysis to determine a them vs us = primitive as fuck

grow weeds long enough and you'll see they don't need to know shit about anything and they have a hella lot better karma than all of us

maybe we can learn something here

i thought there were no religious threads LOL its all good im already labelled

its ok if being delusional means my goodwill hasn't been extinguished by cynicism and a need for intellectual superiority then delusional I shall be

i dont mean to direct this to anyone or any one perspective or belief except the one that says your understanding of the world is nullified by my understanding of the world because while one may hold the relative truth for another delivery is subject to whole other set of rules

 

[Weird]

i might just be a bit smart ass devils advocate too

i BLAME the weed

 

[GMT]

weird, I get the feeling that you equate a lack of belief in the unjustifiable to a lack of ethical behaviour or that scientific enquiry is at odds with contentment in life. As you pointed out, yes the ability to and interest in uncovering that which is not known, is merely a statistical phenomenon which varies among the population as a whole, to say that those who possess them have no greater value to society than those who don't is being a little short sighted. As how could we be discussing this topic without the existence of such people in the past? Though while having said that, I also accept that without the farmer who merely ploughs their fields and scatters their seed without any appreciation of the processes at work, those who developed the computer would have starved. A great number of people are required for a society to develop and survive, and its isnt necessary for them all to have an enquiring mind, however it is necessary for it to be possible for all to get along without every interaction being reduced to a match of insults or worse, coming to blows. To say that one persons reaction to a second is equal to the reaction the second has to the first regardless of whether one wishes to use logic and reason where the other wishes to use insults and illogical behaviour, I feel is untrue.