The worst things that have ever been written

[þsy]

Yet that's not what's happening - what you're doing, to carry-on with this example, is extrapolating from noise - hearing whatever you hear - and then claiming that anyone who hears it differently to you has misheard it. What I'm saying is that our brains - as cognitive machines - intake signals and translate them into meanings, none of which will ever be exactly the same, as we are all different. Thus two people who hear the exact same noise will receive that information slightly differently

This actually renders my previous argument invalid - as what I'm saying is that even if you could speak to the writer of a biblical book directly, the information will always get slightly lost in translation from one body to the next. Despite this, it is far easier to understand more of the intended information if you can converse with the speaker directly, which you can't in the case of the Bible - which was my original point

[Phytotron]

- Gene-culture coevolution.

- “Humans are pattern-seeking story-telling animals, and we are quite adept at telling stories about patterns, whether they exist or not.”

- Hallowed are the Ori.

- Postmodernism/solipsism, rubbish.

- Lulz Are Not Great: How Internet Culture Poisons Everything.

- Devolution is real.

[Lucifer]

Yet that's not what's happening - what you're doing, to carry-on with this example, is extrapolating from noise - hearing whatever you hear - and then claiming that anyone who hears it differently to you has misheard it. What I'm saying is that our brains - as cognitive machines - intake signals and translate them into meanings, none of which will ever be exactly the same, as we are all different. Thus two people who hear the exact same noise will receive that information slightly differently

I hate to tell people they're flat wrong, but here you are, sorry. Schizophrenia really is misfiring neurons in the sensory interpretation parts of the brain. So I really do hear noises that aren't there, and they sound very real. I have a friend who has a schizo daughter that actually hears voices and has to be hospitalized when that happens. The voices speak clearly to her. That's not a matter of misinterpretation of noise, and it's been studied under fMRI. Medications help, but as I said, it's not that bad for me (the paranoia is actually worse, but I learned to control it and correct for it when I can't years ago). I'd like to say it's like a mild acid trip every day of your life (I've seen tracers without the need for drugs), but having never done acid I can't make that comparison.

This actually renders my previous argument invalid - as what I'm saying is that even if you could speak to the writer of a biblical book directly, the information will always get slightly lost in translation from one body to the next. Despite this, it is far easier to understand more of the intended information if you can converse with the speaker directly, which you can't in the case of the Bible - which was my original point

So try again, because false information does not render an argument invalid in any situation. Although you are approaching my previous point about the spread of information through gossip..... (and how every school kid should have had an experimental experience to prove that gossip is unreliable).

[þsy]

I think that on the contrary, what we've both said actually fit together very nicely. To use your example - the brain receives information and interprets that information in a specific way, whether or not that information is actually a voice, or just misfiring neurons, or whatever. One could claim that those voices don't really exist, as no one is saying them. As far as your interpretation is concerned however, they sound as a real as any 'real' voice, because the brain has interpreted that information is such a fashion

Also, I'm sorry to hear about all that stuff Luci, it doesn't sound all too pleasant

Phyto: It's great to dismiss people with a single sweep like that isn't it? It's called ignorance, but we've been here before right. What I'm talking about here is largely based on Bakhtin's concept of heteroglossia, it's very interesting (and is very much the polar-opposite of solipsism)

[Phytotron]

It's great to dismiss people with a single sweep like that isn't it? It's called ignorance....

Har.

[sinewav]

It's great to dismiss people with a single sweep like that isn't it? It's called ignorance....

Hilarious accusation given the thousands of words on this forum that prove otherwise. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Phytotron]

I'm simply amused by the irony of it.

"It's not right to hit people!" Proceeds to punch me in the face.

[Lucifer]

I think that on the contrary, what we've both said actually fit together very nicely. To use your example - the brain receives information and interprets that information in a specific way, whether or not that information is actually a voice, or just misfiring neurons, or whatever. One could claim that those voices don't really exist, as no one is saying them. As far as your interpretation is concerned however, they sound as a real as any 'real' voice, because the brain has interpreted that information is such a fashion

Um, this isn't something that is up to interpretation. Schizophrenia is real and well-studied with numerous treatments that attack the actual cause. Exactly how sensory inputs are first detected, then transmitted to the brain is also well-studied and documented. "Interpreting" this stuff is like "interpreting" the color of the sky at night. You can interpret it as pink and have a wonderful philosophical discussion about it, but that will never change what color it actually is.

[þsy]

If you want to partake in the discussion, I will engage with what you have to say. If your only contribution is gonna be 'this guy is dumb', then you are being ignorant. I don't mean it in an offensive manner - I'm sorry if you took it that way - but such comments don't contribute to the conversation in anyway. If you don't want to discuss it, go post elsewhere

Lucifer: I'm using the level of interpretation at a very basic level to describe interpretation at a more subjective level. The point I make, is that people interpret information differently - even at a sensory level - and the same applies at a more conscious* scale. If you found two people who seemingly shared exactly the same opinion on a matter, the way they approach it and think about it will be different

I guess the next point that follows on from this is that difference is good - we shouldn't attempt to homologise people, but celebrate differences amongst us, as it's a simple virtue of human nature - no two are the same.

This has lost its way from from the biblical discussion a bit, which in turn lost its way from the original discussion

[Jonathan]

If you want to partake in the discussion, I will engage with what you have to say. If your only contribution is gonna be 'this guy is dumb', then you are being ignorant. I don't mean it in an offensive manner - I'm sorry if you took it that way - but such comments don't contribute to the conversation in anyway. If you don't want to discuss it, go post elsewhere

Um, da, wha?

a more conscience scale

If you found two people who seemingly shared exactly the same opinion on a matter, the way they approach it and think about it will be different

Anyone can tell that my avatar was shot using a CMOS sensor of about 15 mm². It's also readily apparent that the lens is slightly scratched. Yeah, right. Even if a picture does contain vertical streaks, chromatic aberration, rolling shutter, motion blur or what have you, that's obviously part of the scene that was photographed. Now don't equate yourself to a lensless camera that argues the world really is all a blur, coincidentally with bokeh shaped like your aperture.

I guess the next point that follows on from this is that difference is good - we shouldn't attempt to homologise people, but celebrate differences amongst us, as it's a simple virtue of human nature - no two are the same.

That's one way to get out of an argument.