----

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[anrchy]

A wise, old, well-traveled philosopher, is absolutely worth lauding more than the young, apprentice philosopher. And he very well might wish to place himself in an apprentice's role.

You're conflating age with experience. You could take a 50 year old who has taken DMT once, and a 20 year old who has smoked it hundreds of times. I would tend to treat that 20 year old as a more credible source on the subject.

No, I'm not. You've taken my quote out of context. I think you're abandoning my metaphor to make your counter-point. But if you place my metaphor back into its original context, experience is mentioned explicitly. A master only becomes such through experience and study. This is the master/apprentice relationship you quoted me describing above.

So, it is wrong to suggest I'm "conflating age with experience", because I agree that experience is the philosopher's stone of life. Which is why I said the following:

It is true that older people can be immature and younger people can be mature, but it is also true that older people have had more opportunity to gain experience.
That being said, an older person who has jumped at opportunities to live a rich and informed life, will be more mature and knowledgeable than a young person who has done the same. The younger person has had less chances to be proven wrong, less chances to recognize mistakes, and spent less time exploring the multitudes of knowledge.

By that same token, an older person who has squandered his opportunities may be well beneath a younger person who has capitalized on his own. We are in agreement, you see.

I believe you are though. Correlation does not imply causation.

So on that note, asking what physical age people are to judge their merit based on the belief that physical age implies experience is false. Age would be a more reliable measurement of experience if on average most people of high age were more experienced but that is mostly not true. Take into consideration the fact the those who are old, experienced much more of the past and are less likely to be able to grasp present technologies than many youngsters.

For example, I know of many people, aged 38 and older, that are computer illiterate. They are simply incapable of learning how to use a computer at all. On the other hand I have met CHILDREN of ages around 6, 7, 8, ect that blow me out of the water when it comes to knowledge of technology. It seems more common that older people are less adaptable, more concrete in their ways, and actually less experienced in current times. Look at music... most people only relate to music of their generation. (I believe there to be a relative correlation)

Experience also does not imply knowledge. My father has taken more LSD, mushrooms, ect than the average person. Yet I am constantly "trying" to correct his misinformation, yet he doesnt fully absorb it and sticks to his beliefs despite his "great" experience in the matter. I know personal experience isn't reliable information to build my case, mainly used to build my perspective of what I'm trying to say.

 

[anne halonium]

Take into consideration the fact the those who are old, experienced much more of the past and are less likely to be able to grasp present technologies than many youngsters.

doesnt fly for me and the maid.

weve been playing with computers since 1976
its the kids that cant make a motherboard from scratch.

we were all LED light before it was affordable by kids

same with grow teks.
hydro cactus wasnt invented by kids.

we listen to music of all ages routinely.

we vaped and used heat guns/ vape bags before most here even heard of it.

some of many examples...........

alot of old people are useless, from over work , bad diet and poor education.
but not all of us. some of us are sophisticated and still hot.

id suggest the cool kids are actually riding the coat tails of the uber cool old people.

 

[anrchy]

Take into consideration the fact the those who are old, experienced much more of the past and are less likely to be able to grasp present technologies than many youngsters.

doesnt fly for me and the maid.

weve been playing with computers since 1976
its the kids that cant make a motherboard from scratch.

we were all LED light before it was affordable by kids

same with grow teks.
hydro cactus wasnt invented by kids.

we listen to music of all ages routinely.

we vaped and used heat guns/ vape bags before most here even heard of it.

some of many examples...........

Thats why I said "less likely". Which you then agreed with by making your ending statement...

alot of old people are useless, from over work , bad diet and poor education.
but not all of us. some of us are sophisticated and still hot.

I'm not young, am open minded and adaptable. There are too many variables to take into consideration when looking for experience, knowledge, and reliability. Age is on the bottom of that list.

 

[anne halonium]

true cool is always a low percent of the population,
no matter what age.......

i dont care so much the age of nexians.
i care about the cool value and education level.
this place does pretty good.

 

[anrchy]

Wouldnt it make more sense that "vetted" or "mod" members are just that due to the fact they are believed to be experienced and "aged" in understanding the topic of this forum? Hence physical age being meaningless. I mean if you want to know who knows what they are talking about, their forum age will be more of a reliable indicator than their physical age...

 

[anne halonium]

seriously , there arent alot of old experts that survived the drug war.
the few that do exist are often drowned out by the computer wave of psychonauts,
and mileage varies with that.

so we work with the experts we gots, .........at any age.

forum age , should be considered.
but ive met peeps on the forums with 95081 posts, on for 10 yrs,
who really couldnt pass a biology 101 with a cheat sheet, and their entire rep,
is built on the ability to shovel bovine offal faster than the competitors for a shroom.

ive been on forums for about 10 yrs.
yet i grew and researched pro level for almost 35 years.
we need a measurement like " dog years".
people forget all this existed before the internet.
some of us learned the hard way, books and underground college projects in labs at night.

alot of this , all depends,
i dont think there is a rule for " validity" in our case.
and if there is...........

 

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[Nitegazer]

Damn, Killa--

Those colors you chose for the older age ranges are too hard for my eyes to read!

 

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[pitubo]

Obviously, not all people are the same. In fact nobody is the same, even though we are all probably more the same than different.

However and whatever our differences are, we should be very careful not to call one person "lesser" than another, because that is not a neutral indication of differences, but a judgement with dubious moral overtones.

Moral High-Ground Fallacy.
Not sure how you got there.

->

[..] beneath [..]

 

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[SnozzleBerry]

From my perspective, you've made some rather trollish posts in your short time here. If that's not your intent and is somehow a byproduct of your posting style, I apologize in advance for my misinterpretation. Please consider that you are interacting with a community and remember that communication requires both people to work to make and find meaning in the words passing between them.

For example, your claim of the "logical" breakdown of pitubo's words is distracting and unnecessary, imo.

It's clear, imo, that pitubo is simply saying that a person who feels qualified to rank people (above/below), on some level, believes they are in a position to do so (regardless of their "objective" ability), thereby implying some sense of superiority.

This is not the moral highground fallacy you're looking for, in fact, if you read pitubo's words, he clearly states as much

a judgement with dubious moral overtones

The judgement is not the issue, the issue is that the judgement is predicated on dubious moral overtones. The dubious moral overtones were presented by you when you said:

By that same token, an older person who has squandered his opportunities may be well beneath a younger person who has capitalized on his own.

This is, in fact, your own moral construct, where in your mind, one who has capitalized on their opportunities is, in some sense, superior to someone who has not.

Seems pretty straightforward to me

 

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[anrchy]

This is fun.

The appearance of trolling [something that happens on the Internet and the nexus is not immune to] is cause for questioning the posts validity, not because snozz doesn't agree with you.

However it still stands that age does not determine wisdom, or experience, or anything usable here. Just how a million likes on a Facebook post doesn't mean it's a good one.

 

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[anrchy]

From my time being here, I have learned that most often than not I was incorrect in guessing the age of some of the members here whom I now know their specific age. It might be interesting to know that it wasn't even the sense of knowledge or experience that they gave off that caused me to feel that each person was a certain age. It was the way in which they spoke (textually) and engaged in conversation (in forum and chat).

Some people came off young and energetic, spunky in their typed out demeanor. Then I found out they were older than myself... some much more so.

Others came off calm and wise, piercing my brain with carefully placed daggers of information giving me a sense of an older spirit. Found out they were barely 21.

You can say the same thing about gender. There is a thread on that as well.

Besides, members here fall in all your age ranges. Including mods and vets.


BTW trav is like 327,471 years old I believe. Give or take a hundred years.

 

[KillaNoodles]

---

 

[anrchy]

I'm not saying it's not a good trait. It fills my heart with joy to know that not only is this place diverse in age groups, but in ethnicity and beliefs as well. This place is a true community.

Age just doesn't necessarily determine any of the things you believe that it does. Especially here.

In other forums where attitude isn't so closely managed, you will see actual maturity levels come out magnified. This place has a way of maintaining a more even playing field of maturity which in a way negates any feasible link between age and implied experience, wisdom, what have you.

You seem level headed to me, and I appreciate your lack of hostility.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

5. Linguistics follows logic. When you use language to argue, it's useful to the understanding of the person your arguing with to codify the language in ways he can understand. Math is the universal language. Logic is mathematical. By putting what we are saying into logical terms, we can more easily understand what the two of us are trying to say. This is the fundamental precept for studying and debating philosophy [in academia]. So I am considering precisely what you say I am not! I maintain that I do not rank myself above two people, simply because I determine one to have lived a more rich life than another. I may fall beneath both of them by my same standards, between them, or above them, depending entirely on the context. The logic of the argument discounts context and presupposes on a moral judgement that judging people ipso facto leads to feeling superior over those you judge. This is a moral highground fallacy by definition. I'm not labeling something on a whim, but categorizing an illogical pathway as a biologist would categorize an organism.

Can we get a citation for that "linguistics follows logic," thing, and I don't mean some kind of philosophical or theoretical proposition, but rather, hard evidence.

I don't work in linguistics directly, but my understanding was that language was absolutely chalk-full of strange little random absurdities that defy explanation and seem to be the result of quirks of time, place, and circumstance as opposed to emergent properties of some fundamental human grammar.

It seems more likely to me that language and linguistics are not inherently logical, certainly not in any formal sense, but rather, human communication is a collection of largely arbitrary system that varies widely across time, space, and cultures. Why can't language be a complex networks of assumptions, misunderstandings, interpretations, and randomness that gets the job done just well enough for us to survive another day?

Blessings
~ND