Ronin

That sure is a lame rule for a freethinker.

One day I hope you become just a little bit more open minded.

HelenM

Oh, sure it does.

Amazing - so do I!

Your curiosity about my views was incredibly short-lived, I must say.

I saw the photos and I clicked on a link which turned out to be ten pages of why society's attitudes about sex are wrong.

I can see why you would decide free-thinking is a myth, if you came to that conclusion based on some self-examination.

Helen

viscousmemories

Well, in all fairness I don�t like having anything I say challenged. I can see that you and I are very much alike in that regard. However, I am always willing to change my opinion in light of new and rational information. An excerpt from the daily journal of an alien abductee, however, does not qualify. Here�s a tip: If you want to make a clear and simple point try to keep your article fewer than four pages long and make some reference to the article title within the first 1000 words. That way when I want to challenge your perspective, I won�t have to first wait for the Dramamine to kick in.
I�m willing to concede that my comments may sound like someone who fits that description. But I assure you that it doesn�t fit me.
Pat, did I ever suggest that I have all the answers, and that I disbelieve that �many of my understandings are inaccurate, flawed, and downright stupid�? No. What I said was that your assertion that each individuals perception of the �truth� is necessarily more accurate than the interpretation of a third party is baseless. In fact, and you really should consult your therapist for a second opinion on this, I would go so far as to say that it is this very rationale that has you at odds with the majority of humankind right now. See, you think your perception of reality is necessarily more accurate than everyone else�s, and as a result you are bucking social convention. You might want to consider the possibility that it is not everyone else that�s crazy, Pat.
I completely agree, and I think it�s time for you to take a good hard look at yourself.
I know what child pornography is as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and I looked through the images that you have at your site. I am not a judge or jury, but I have no doubt that the images you have on your site could be construed as child pornography in a court of law. For that reason, I believe you should forewarn visitors to your site that by visiting your site, they may be downloading illegal materials. If you do not provide such a warning, it becomes obvious that your real intent is to trick people into coming to read your, dare I say, crap.
And you have proven mine.

HelenM

Richard1366

Will all members of N.A.M.B.L.A (North American Man Boy Love Association) please raise both hands....
















You're under arrest!

Pat Kelly

viscousmemories - I am trying to grasp whether you simply did not understand what was written, understood it and decided to dispute it for the sake of disputing it or genuinely have some point you are trying to make. The part of the article you appear to be referring to compares two informational sources based upon the accuracy of those sources. What I said was one's first-hand observations are generally far more accurate than information received from someone else's communicated observations. There is nothing too difficult about this and I even included an example of how each generation of an audio recording introduces additional errors. To be honest with you I am having a little trouble understanding how your interpretation of what I allegedly wrote relates to what I wrote. This idea of an individual's interpretation of truth not being more accurate than a third party's interpretation of truth, who can be nothing other than another individual, gives me a headache because it is like saying more people like red cars because a few buy green shirts. If there was an assertion in what I wrote it was that we should rely more upon our own first-hand observations and conclusions derived from those observations than blindly accept the communicated and re-communicated interpretations of others. Is this the concept you dispute? I know by now this is probably hard for you to swallow but if you do not disagree with this statement that is a good indication we concur on this point. Also, there is a big difference in the meaning of the words "necessarily" which you chose and the word "usually" which I used. The reason you choose to use the word "necessarily" is very telling about the true nature of your post or should I say challenge.

Life is too short to spend it jousting in some kind of intellectual game. Surely, you must have better things to do with your time. I know I do.

Thanks for the critique on my writing skills. I will keep what you said in mind for my next writing assignment because in spite of your tainted motives, there is definitely some truth in what you say. For that I thank you.

HelenM

We should never 'blindly' accept anything.

But it may be true that someone else's observations could be better than ours. Maybe they are more perceptive or more intelligent or more experienced. I think it's only wise to allow for the possibility that their observations could be better. And to do so is very different from following others blindly.

If you were implying that the only options are to follow others blindly or to think our own observations necessarily superior, I disagree.

Helen

Philosoft

Well, it is difficult, because "generally" does not describe when and how an individual's observations are more accurate than transmitted information. For example, are my own observations of how the universe works more accurate than the sketchy conclusions I draw after reading Feynman or Brian Greene? Inductively, your assertion is consistent with that proposition. But that's because you're leaving understanding out of the equation. There's more to it than mere observation.

Well, your qualifier, "blind" acceptance, changes matters. But, since freethinkers rarely "blindly" accept anything, you appear to be flitting about in non-sequitur-land.

So, now that we have nudged those goalposts back, how else can you wrongly impugn freethinking?

viscousmemories

You can likely determine the answer to this question employing logic. Which of these possibilities makes the most logical sense?

1. That I am so glaringly ignorant that I simply did not understand the advanced concepts you espoused.
2. That I have so much time and so little to do in life that I seek out opportunities to argue about issues which are of no interest to me, or
3. I genuinely have some point I'm trying to make

Let's make this easier, I'll quote the text from your article and then try to explain why I disagree with your assertion. That way neither of us will inadvertently manipulate what you said to further our argument.
You are right that I should not have paraphrased your article, because it's true that my interpretation of what you wrote is different from what you actually wrote. What you wrote was: "what we learn from firsthand experience is usually infinitely more accurate than what we learn from others". I think this statement is baseless. Human beings are not tape recorders. We all perceive the world around us differently. Can you cite any research that shows that any given person's interpretation of experience is "usually infinitely more accurate" than any others? Heck, I'd be happy to read research that proves that experience is quantifiable at all.

Honestly, Pat, these quotes just make you look paranoid. You know nothing about me or my motives. Based on the limited comments I have offered here you know nothing about what I believe in or condone. For all you know I could be a pedophile myself (not that I think you are or anything... wink-wink, nudge-nudge). What makes you so sure I'm out to get you?

Pat Kelly

Boy... Once you get stuck on an idea it is like pulling teeth to try and get you to see where you went wrong. Try and clear your mind of everything and focus on the following:

I was talking about the accuracy of two different sources of information, one being one's own first-hand experiences and the other being information communicated to you by someone who may or may not have gained the information directly themselves. This has nothing to do with how one person's interpretation of experience compares to another person's interpretation of experience.

Viscousmemories - How you think or whatever it is you do says much and I do not need to personally know you or interact with you for a long period of time to correctly identify certain things about you. ("wink-wink, nudge-nudge") By the way I took some of your suggestions and edited the article to make it a bit easier to follow. New ending too. Thanks.