• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

----

Migrated topic.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Another thing to take into account on this subject is how much time and energy is spent on mindful awareness of total experience- including lucid dreaming, psychedelic experience, and other non-ordinary states of consciousness that many people ignore or downplay.

A 20 year old that has been conscious of his/her lucid dreams every night can have many years of experience over a 40 year old that spends their sleeping hours unconscious/non-lucid every night. Plus, it should be considered that time can be experienced differently during lucid dreaming and psychedelic states of consciousness. Lifetimes can be lived. Bursts of awareness and wisdom are common while lucid/tripping. Conscious experience is not always linear. Theoretically, many lifetimes can be accumulated in a standard 80-90 years!

Reality is perception. And perception can take many forms.😉
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
KillaNoodles said:
I feel that this is a relevant question to ask as a new member, and it's more important to ask it of the currently active, vetted members, as it is a descriptor for the community - which I'll be potentially conversing with!
Click to expand...

Relevance, importance, what for?

offtopic:
Welcome to the nexus, KillaNoodles.

tseuq
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here, this is a perfect example of why I say you are posting in a trollish manner!

Allow me to demonstrate :)

So, I said:

SnozzleBerry said:
KillaNoodles 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

To which you replied:

KillaNoodles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now, if you actually read my words, it's clear that I said, "...in your mind, one who has capitalized on their opportunities is, in some sense, superior to someone who has not."

Yet, you replied with, "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."

As I said in my last post, the fundamental issue at the heart of this--which would precede your feeling superior/not feeling superior to those you are judging--is your constructed ethic, where some people are superior to others.

The issue here is more foundational than whether or not you feel superior to other people (although, imo, your posting style is rather telling). The issue is that you believe, as pitubo pointed out, that some people are superior to others. Again, this is your own moral construct. The fact that some people believe that it naturally follows that you then feel superior to both parties you are judging, is incidental, in a sense. As far as I'm concerned, that's the underlying, problematic, foundational thought.


And honestly, a final point as to why you come off as trollish in your shifting engagements and posting style, look at this exchange.

You open this thread and state that:
KillaNoodles said:
I feel that this is a relevant question to ask as a new member, and it's more important to ask it of the currently active, vetted members, as it is a descriptor for the community - which I'll be potentially conversing with!
Click to expand...

But when I say:
Snozz said:
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.
Click to expand...

You fire back that:
KillaNoodles said:
Communities are made up of individuals. I do not submit that I should have to "treat everyone as the community".
Click to expand...

However, not only do we have an Attitude in place that lays out some structure for engaging with this community, you yourself have already engaged in the equation of individual "active/vetted members" with "the community."

So in this second case, you have literally talked it out both ways, therefore, when you tell me that individuals ≠ community, after your initial claim to have started this thread because individuals = community, it seems as if you are doing so solely to argue. By definition, this is trollish behavior.


I think you may have interesting contributions to make to this forum. That is precisely why I am attempting to help you see how your posts are coming across to myself and at least a couple of others. Flat text has a funny way of impacting words/thoughts/ideas and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said earlier, if this is an unintentional byproduct of your posting style, I'm trying to reflect to you how you are coming across, as communication is a two-way (at least) street, and flat text communication is even more challenging.

Please try to understand where I'm coming from and why myself and others have offered critiques about your posting style. This isn't just about a difference in opinions, but also an attempt to convey communal etiquette around how we try to interact, present opinions/arguments/data, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
KillaNoodles said:
While I agree with your claim, however, I disagree with Pitubo's:
Pitubo said:
Anyone who judges one person above or below another, implicitly places himself above both.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. This is worth an argument. This is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Except it's not...

Except in your opinion of course, which you're certainly entitled to. Just don't bandy it about and pretend you've got a logical fallacy every other post. Sure, we disagree, but it's just that, a disagreement, not a fallacy.

Avoiding morality denotations, passing judgement requires a legitimate (or illegitimate) vantage point from which to judge, no? What constructs create such a position? What implicit and explicit relationships are constructed between the judge and those judged? The very etymology of the word judge comes from the Latin of "law" + "speaker" (i.e. one who speaks the law). This implies that the one judging is inherently in a position of power over those judged (regardless of whether this is a "good" or a "bad" thing). So clearly, the word judgement carries a connotation of superiority by definition.

Or in other words, ignoring the moral questions of whether or not judging people is "good" or "bad," and simply focusing on the actual meaning, history, and connotations of the word in question, it still seems pretty clear that

pitubo said:
Anyone who judges one person above or below another, implicitly places himself above both.
Click to expand...

:thumb_up:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
KillaNoodles said:
As with all untestable conclusions (or rather things you'd need a supercomputer the size of Manhattan to test), it's up for debate. Our modern Linguistic overseer, however, Noam Chomsky, arguably the most learned and experimental linguist on Earth for the last 60 years, holds views consistent with Formal Language Theory. Use of the word Formal in this context implies Formal Logic.

Here is Wikipedia (sourced from a book about the man) describing "perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to [linguistics]":

"Perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to the field is the claim that modeling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the "productivity" or "creativity" of language. In other words, a formal grammar of a language can explain the ability of a hearer-speaker to produce and interpret an infinite number of utterances, including novel ones, with a limited set of grammatical rules and a finite set of terms. He has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar, although it is also inspired by Cartesian and rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge"
Click to expand...
You admit that this is a totally unproven (and potentially unprovable) conjecture, and the best evidence is 'well, Noam Chomsky (who I think it's kind of overrated actually) believes that this is so,' but later on in this very thread, you're treating it as if it's an axiomatic truth.

There is no one 'true definition' of the word judge that can be taken as a certain, logically useful definition. It's entirely possible (and I would say, probable), that every person involved in this conversation has a different definition of 'to judge' and for some of us, 'to judge' may carry an implicit, heirarchial value, while yours may not. The idea that people have different definitions for the same word is not a hard pill to swallow.

Basically, you're trying to execute logical (or pseudo-logical, I'll get to that in a moment), processes on an undefined variable ('to judge' ), which is impossible.

It seems to me like what's happening here is that you are taking your preconceived notions and definitions, which are no more or less legitimate than anyone else's, and assuming that they embody some axiomatic, logical truth value.

That said, the whole idea that we're engaged in 'logical' or 'rational' debate is kind of absurd. Cognitive science has found so many cognitive biases and quirks of cognition that the idea that we're engaged in some kind of pure, rational discourse is almost impossible. I would say the entire idea of 'Philosophical Reason,' is patently useless, and more of a way to lend artificial weight to one's ideas than it is any useful path to truth. We all may as well be cave men hitting each other with sticks.

Now, formal, mathematical logic is valid (although really only in that it tells us how our brains process information), but we're not doing that here (we're not doing anything even remotely like that here), and to claim otherwise is, to use your word, a fallacy.

Blessings
~ND
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
KillaNoodles said:
Stopped reading at "Chomsky is overrated". Really don't have time to argue with people who seem to be doing it for the sake of "winning". If you don't study linguistics, you shouldn't have an opinion on Chomsky's contribution to the subject. His theory is as applicable as "The Theory of Evolution" or "The Big Bang Theory".

EDIT: Read a bit more and had to stop again. "to Judge" is not undefinable. It's defined right there in Merriam Webster as provided.

I am done arguing with the two of you. Big time waster. Has to end eventually, and running in circles is useful to no one. Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences. Be well~
Click to expand...


Snoz and Nathaniel are some of the sharpest minds we have on this site. Rather then looking at this argument as pointless self gratification one should see it as an opportunity to use their minds as grindstones!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SnozzleBerry said:
KillaNoodles said:
Stopped reading at "Chomsky is overrated"...If you don't study linguistics, you shouldn't have an opinion on Chomsky's contribution to the subject.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Look what I found!
Appeal to authority

Come on man, have you even read the attitude?

Why did you even start this thread? Did you want to tell us how old you are?
Click to expand...

That's funny I was gonna say the same thing.



I personally think this thread is good. I learn so much from threads like this, especially about fallacies. It gets confusijh trying to learn the fallacies and how to spot them, threads like this are like a little crash course in fallacy 101. Debating is suppose to be fun and getting upset solves nothing.

Often times when one reads the text of another, they apply their own emotion to what they see. This usually causes issues and is just you getting offended by yourself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Redguard said:
KillaNoodles said:
Stopped reading at "Chomsky is overrated". Really don't have time to argue with people who seem to be doing it for the sake of "winning". If you don't study linguistics, you shouldn't have an opinion on Chomsky's contribution to the subject. His theory is as applicable as "The Theory of Evolution" or "The Big Bang Theory".

EDIT: Read a bit more and had to stop again. "to Judge" is not undefinable. It's defined right there in Merriam Webster as provided.

I am done arguing with the two of you. Big time waster. Has to end eventually, and running in circles is useful to no one. Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences. Be well~
Click to expand...


Snoz and Nathaniel are some of the sharpest minds we have on this site. Rather then looking at this argument as pointless self gratification one should see it as an opportunity to use their minds as grindstones!
Click to expand...
Aw, shucks, that's really nice to hear from someone. Thanks :)

*Awkwardly shuffles feet*

Blessings
~ND
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom