THIS explains it!

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 21:13
VIEWED: 4656
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:01 PM

QUOTE

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions....

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." ...

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

---------------------

I've always known that some posters are emotionally-driven. Now I know why they're so resistant to facts.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:27 PM

Wow. Interesting. I bet it covers all sorts of 'true believers'. That's how AntiM can dimiss all evolutionary evidence, how Rap post the things he posts, and so on.

************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:29 PM

It's that old devil dopamine, I'll bet. To be fact-based would mean eliminating the "high". These people are addicted to their "true beliefs".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:30 PM

But to the point of dismissing reality ... wow.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:09 PM

Could you two just get a room? Geesh. Besides all this "holier than thou" stuff wouldn't come across as being quite so phoney if the two of you were not amongst the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality."

I posted something similar a couple of weeks back. The belief is taht it's a mechanism to avoid people wasting too much time second guessing previous decisions. My guess is that it's not so much a "reward" for sticking with the same model (ie dopamine) as a "punishment" for having to change established models. That explains the high levels of stress in modern cultures, if adapting to change has a physiological discouragement that has to be overcome each time then living with contant change would result in constant "punishment." Maybe that's what stress is?

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:11 PM

If this surprises you so, try trading jobs with me for a month.

It won't any more.

I get folk loonier than PN all the time, some of em "regular" customers, who don't get along well with any other driver, lol.

Once folk have invested enough time, effort and emotion in something, you will *NOT* move them on it, evidence or not - as I pointed out in a thread a long while back, even if you made the world itself so safe and cooperative there was no use or need for violence, I would never dispose of my piece because I simply can. not. do. it.

Past a certain point of calcification, it gets quite literally hard-wired at the reflex level of activity, the same place you store stuff like riding a bike or swimming, stuff even a total amnesiac doesn't forget, muscle memory if you will.
(Thanks again to Doc Perry's work for this concept)

What it is, is that if someone believes in something so fervently (double especially if at some point it saved their arse/life) for so long, that it just etches itself in like leaving a static picture up would burn it into some of the old monitors (one reason screensavers were invented, although truthfully they're useless now) and at that point it's indelible because their entire personhood, their being, their personality, is wrapped around that core framework and to remove it would destroy all they are.

Sometimes something happens to do that to someone, and their journey to rebuild it is always a struggle - look at Mal in Firefly trying to deal after having his pillar kicked out from under him.

All that bein said... I like shakin peoples pillars, it shows who they really are inside, how they respond to it.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:15 PM

Nah, Stress is caused by the social requirement of not choking the living shit out of someone who physically deserves it - conflict between caveman instinct and civilized reality, is all.

Not so sure I'm in agreement with civilization on that whole not choking them thing - and if you dislike a discussion here simply because of who initiated it, aren't you just handing yourself over as "Exhibit A" of *exactly* what they're talkin about, like a great bloody idiot ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:20 PM

Quote:
Could you two just get a room? Geesh. Besides all this "holier than thou" stuff wouldn't come across as being quite so phoney if the two of you were not amongst the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality."

Bulltwaddle. You're only annoyed because I don't accept your "Profit is spent like wages" supposition - which BTW you have NOT shown to be true. (And no, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't count. Try bringing either logical analysis or numeric facts to tbe board.)

Quote:
My guess is that it's not so much a "reward" for sticking with the same model (ie dopamine) as a "punishment" for having to change established models.

So how do "reward" circuits come into play? Oh, I guess they don't... Nothing like substituting YOUR factless opinion for a brain scan, eh?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:21 PM

"the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality.""

Care to provide an example ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:22 PM

Oh I definately think there are social stresses, I'm not suggesting that this is a be all and end all. Fact is though that people are naturally conservative (small c) because if a survival strategy works for them they stick with it (naturally enough.) We know that uncertainty and change cause stress and so people tend to avoid it. Now what if that is a hard wired physiological response? What if finding a strategy that works is rewarded and then deviating from that norm is punished by some brain mechanism? If you were placed in a situation where you were forced to change that would be bad === a source of "stress."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Bulltwaddle. .

I have repeatedly I just dont accept your "remove everything from the model" model. I called BS on it, I dont accept it and so we have an impass.

You dont know that dopamine is involved. They see activity in the brain that is linked to emotion and mechanisms for managing conflicts. My explanation is as valid as yours based on the presented data. We have two propositions, two theories, which a scientist would test by conducting a definative experiment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:28 PM

Quote:
...The most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality.- Fletch

Care to provide an example?- Rue

Hmmm... bet he doesn't.

FLETCH2_ I see we xposted. YOu missed the part of the report that says... but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains Okay, maybe it's not dopamine (the infamous "drug fix" neurotransmitter involved in "reward") but there definitely IS reward involved.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Could you two just get a room? Geesh. Besides all this "holier than thou" stuff wouldn't come across as being quite so phoney if the two of you were not amongst the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality."

That's the first thing I thought too. Another lecture from Signym on how everyone who disagrees with Sigrue is biased.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality.""

Care to provide an example ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Show me an example where you have changed your mind on any topic we have discussed? Now show me three examples? Does it occur to you that this demonstrates exactly the issue you are crowing about? You dont come here to discuss anything, you come here to browbeat people with your personal worldview because out there your opinion counts for squat, you're a complete nobody but in here you get to shout people down from behind the cover of complete anonymity. That's why you can never let it go you cant bear the thought of being even slightly wrong.

And that's great, makes you human, means you have the same frustrations and failings we all have and that's fantastic. The problem comes when you think that makes you better than the rest of us. From my seat in the peanut gallery there is zero difference between you and say Hero or Geezer except in lawish kind of questions Hero has a slight edge.

Jack I disagree with lots but he's an honest broker, Frem at least has an original worldview even if it is a bit paranoid but you and Sig and AU and Hero -- same show just a different network.

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:45 PM

Fletch
the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality."

Rue
Care to provide an example ?

Fletch
Show me an example where you have changed your mind on any topic we have discussed?

Rue
So you CAN'T provide an example where I ignored reality to maintain a true belief ! I thought so.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:50 PM

Fletch

Still waiting for an example - you know, a fact, rather than a belief.

***************************************************************
I'll be checking back for it from time to time.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:55 PM

Quote:
Show me an example where you have changed your mind on any topic we have discussed? Now show me three examples?

I've changed my mind about gun control. I used to be for it. I think it's ridiculous to think that you're going to "protect your rights" with a gun (you need lots of people willing to do the same) but OTOH I don't want a government to have a monopoly.

I've modified my stance on big government. I used to be for it, now I see how much of a "Ring of Sauron" it can be in the wrong hands.

I've changed my mind about how people feel about liberty. I used to think people would just naturally feel passionately that it was THE most outstanding and important feature of the USA. Sadly, I've come to realize that most Americans... indeed, most people... don't care as much about abstract concepts like liberty as they do about their every-day lives.

I used to think that even if individuals were foolish, "cultures" would always evolve. Now I see that even entire cultures can engage in denial and irrationality, and walk off a cliff into oblivion.

I used to think that rational discussion would be convincing. My experience on this board has led me to realize that some people are totally emotion-driven. I see people reacting in gibbering fear all the time.

What about YOU? Have YOU changed your mind on anything?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch
the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality."

Rue
Care to provide an example ?

Fletch
Show me an example where you have changed your mind on any topic we have discussed?

Rue
So you CAN'T provide an example where I ignored reality to maintain a true belief ! I thought so.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Soi what you are saying is that you cant find a single example where you changed your mind as the result of a discussion here? That makes it less of a discussion and more a diatribe from your side right? I admit I look at things differently as a result of what I read here. I'm inclined to imagine Frems take on a news item or Finns or even Siggy's. I am even informed occasionally by PN. At the very least I have to accept that there are people with valid points of view I don't agree with. You can't accept that any view but your own has any merit because to do so would be an attack on your perception of worth. You are not a person with opinions you are opinions with control of a person.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:59 PM

So Fletch2- since you didnt' answer Rue's question (come up with an example) perhaps you will answer mine: Have you changed your mind on anything? Anything at all?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:01 PM

Fletch

Here you have a 'belief' that I don't base my views on available facts.

In fact I rather pride myself on posting either links or searchable quotes from credible sources to back up what I say, or quoting people here when they claim 'that's not what I said', or using logic to deconstruct an argument.

You will not actually be able to find me posting things which are at odds with reality. Please. I invite you to find one.

***************************************************************
Anything else is just your opinion, probably not based a whole lot on reality.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Show me an example where you have changed your mind on any topic we have discussed? Now show me three examples?

I've changed my mind about gun control.
......

This wasn't addressed to you now was it?

Quote:

What about YOU? Have YOU changed your mind on anything?

Me? Lots of things. For beginners I read a few of Frem's Patrick Henry links which has greatly expanded my awareness of the debates had about the formation of the constitution. Reading "Federalist" you only see people refute arguments you dont see the arguments themselves. It's changed my view of that entire period.

I've changed my mind on gun control, I used to be of the opinion that personal gun ownership had no place in a civilised society. Now I see no harm in the idea that properly administrated it might be a good thing.

While it hasn't changed my opinion as such I think I now have a better grasp of where in the spectrum I am in the personal liberty vs public order debate I am. I think I have actively refined my position as a result.

Almost every topic we discuss here that extends beyond an irrational belief has resulted in background reading ranging from US law through to cell biology. It's fantastic.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:16 PM

Rue I asked for examples where you changed your mind and got another puffed up important speech about how through you are.

Still waiting on those examples.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
QUOTE
"What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." ...

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted.

---------------------

I've always known that some posters are emotionally-driven. Now I know why they're so resistant to facts.

---------------------------------

I think Rue said in another thread something to the effect that if you repeat something often enough and forcefully enough, eventually people will start to believe it. This study seems to show that we might have some ability to block this brainwashing effect by identifying people as adversaries. Seems like its easier to brainwash people who don't know that your an adversary.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:21 PM

Quote:
This wasn't addressed to you now was it?

I thought it was. Especially that part where you said

Quote:
Could you two just get a room?

I didn't catch much distinction there. BTW- I noticed you haven't yet come up with an example of Rue not being fact-based. "Changing your mind" is not necessarily an indication of being non-partisan or realistic. Galileo comes to mind as an example of someone who was forced to mouth a popular- but erroneous - belief.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:21 PM

I've changed my mind on Bush- there was a time when I pegged him as an outright evil liar..I don't think he's evil anymore.

Evil Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:22 PM

Still waiting for you to reply to my question. When have I posted something at odds with reality ? You said that I was a poster child for that. I asked for one measly example. You can't seem to provide one. Not even one. If I was a poster child, examples should be easy to find.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I've changed my mind on Bush- there was a time when I pegged him as an outright evil liar..I don't think he's evil anymore.

Who you tryin' to convince isall :p

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I've changed my mind on Bush- there was a time when I pegged him as an outright evil liar..I don't think he's evil anymore.
Who you tryin' to convince isall :p

Oh, he's still an outright liar, he just thinks he's doing it for the greater good.

Wink-y Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:40 PM

Just 'cause I'm still waiting.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Still waiting for you to reply to my question. When have I posted something at odds with reality ? You said that I was a poster child for that. I asked for one measly example. You can't seem to provide one. Not even one. If I was a poster child, examples should be easy to find.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:43 PM

I guess I evaluate a person's outlook on HOW they discuss a point, not what conclusions they reach. When people chnage the subject, attack, disappear, put words in people's mouths, refuse to answer, threaten, etc. then I know they're reacting emotionally.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, he's still an outright liar, he just thinks he's doing it for the greater good.

You're full of crap IsAll!

ZZZAAAAP!

You make a persuasive argument IsAll!

BendyCitizenIsABit.

No, not like that, jesus.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Still waiting for you to reply to my question. When have I posted something at odds with reality ? You said that I was a poster child for that. I asked for one measly example. You can't seem to provide one. Not even one. If I was a poster child, examples should be easy to find.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Rue I asked for examples where you changed your mind and got another puffed up important speech about how through you are.

Still waiting on those examples.

You answer first!
No you!
I asked first!
Did not!
Yuhuh!
Nuhuh!
[BLACKADDER VOICE]GET ON WITH IT![/BLACKADDER VOICE]

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

---------------------

I've always known that some posters are emotionally-driven. Now I know why they're so resistant to facts.

One assumes that you don't include yourself in the 'emotionally-driven partisan' category.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:53 PM

Citizen

Well you know, this is what Fletch thinks "the two of you (are) amongst the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality.""

I asked for one example. Just one. One little slice of reality.

***************************************************************
Waiting, is all.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:53 PM

I found one!

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The Iraqi WMD have actually been located- they were cut up and welded into cars and trucks...every car and truck in the Middle East is sporting the evidence (hide in plain sight as it were). I apologize to all the persons like Hero and AURaptor who had it right...

This is pathologically divorced from reality, Rue, how could you even have posted such a thing?

Really really bad Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:54 PM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ... where is that knee-slapping doubled over with laughter emoticon when you need it ?

***************************************************************
I've actually done that - laughed so hard I could hardly stand up and was slapping my knee to express how funny it was 'cause I couldn't talk.

Call ME Geezer.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:57 PM

Quote:
One assumes that you don't include yourself in the 'emotionally-driven partisan' category.

I used to be.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:57 PM

Chris....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Citizen

Well you know, this is what Fletch thinks "the two of you (are) amongst the most guilty here of ignoring stuff that disagrees with your "reality.""

I asked for one example. Just one. One little slice of reality.

***************************************************************
Waiting, is all.

I was making no judgement beyond how funny it was. While you're both waiting for the other to provide evidence for some transient, largely irrelivent point, all you're going to get out of each other is "you go first."

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:06 PM

Citizen

You're right. It was just an ad hominem on Fletch's part and really didn't deserve a reply.

***************************************************************
But it does tell me something interesting about Fletch.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
And that's great, makes you human, means you have the same frustrations and failings we all have and that's fantastic. The problem comes when you think that makes you better than the rest of us. From my seat in the peanut gallery there is zero difference between you and say Hero or Geezer except in lawish kind of questions Hero has a slight edge.

I suspect that this is the single most important, if not the only real point, that will come from this thread.

I remember going to Star Trek conventions when I was young and I always thought of myself a huge Star Trek Fan, yet it never failed to surprise me the degree to which some people are truly committed. The amount of money, effort and shear gall that it must take to dress in a Klingon costume complete with the little ripples on the forehead just amazes me. But the ones that truly stand out where the Vulcan impersonators. I spoke with one guy who, despite his best efforts to portray himself as a purely logical and emotionless Vulcan, only managed to come across like a serial killer. Human beings are not robots. It is not a natural state for us to always be logical or objective. And that’s not a bad thing. The ability to compute the world around us with complex schemes, instead of Boolean logic, makes our brains infinitely superior to computers. We don’t have infinite knowledge of our environment, so we could never analyze the world around us to the depth that we do with logic alone, but our ability to think in terms of schema instead of 0s and 1s, means that we don’t always need complete knowledge of our environment, we can infer, deduce and conjecture. And we can have confidence in these deduction because unlike computers and Boolean logic, it is a far simpler matter for us to interpret complicated patterns from background noise. We can make leaps of faith that are impossible for computers.

Some people believe that this is a shameful characteristic of human nature and like the Vulcan trekkie they are desperate to try to shed themselves of the idea that they could have beliefs or convictions, but its like trying to step outside your own body. The desperate desire to evolve beyond our own convictions is likely to do nothing more then make us completely dependent on them. The unwillingness to view an opinion as a conviction or a true belief, means that opinion will always be accepted with more confidence then it warrants. And this is where the arrogance comes from.

Beliefs and convictions are not always right and people who are blindly indebted to them can often find themselves or others deeply regretting the actions they took based on them. But this doesn’t mean that convictions and beliefs are bad, only that we should be careful to understand the distinction between what we believe and what we know, at least in our own thoughts, and assign an appropriate degree of confidence. I remember discussing with signym and rue about the distinction between belief and knowledge, and I don’t think that either Signym or Rue ever managed to understand what I was saying. I think they couldn’t understand it because neither of them would allow that their point of view could be anything other then knowledge for fear that they might find themselves admitting to their convictions. I would submit that there is no difference between a person who refuses to accept that his or her point of view is anything but knowledge and one who believes blindly in their own conviction.

So much like the creepy Vulcan impersonator, people who refuse to embrace their convictions will always end up blindingly following them.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:09 PM

"have beliefs or convictions"

Not a bad thing until one abandons reality in favor of those beliefs or convictions. That was kind of the point of the article.

***************************************************************
"admitting to their convictions" I freely admit I have a belief in an objective reality. But I've said that many times before.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:12 PM

You know, this whole mess would go a little easier if folks were just plainly forthcoming about their agendas and the reasoning behind them.

I try to keep to a policy of admitting bias on a subject prior to discussion and establishing clarity of what that agenda is right up front, although at times I have "baited" a discussion to see where it goes, as a whole there shouldn't be any doubt and if I feel there is, I'll clarify it some more if I can get it across at all.

I mean, after a while, someones intent, perspective and agenda shines through anyway, so why NOT just admit it right up front beforehand ?

That having been said, I do think we're kinda down to picking nits here and I doubt it's gonna go anywhere... feel free to prove me wrong however.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That having been said, I do think we're kinda down to picking nits here and I doubt it's gonna go anywhere... feel free to prove me wrong however.

I think there is an interesting trend here. That many are trying to personalise this issue on to the 'other side'. Not singling anyone out, or removing myself from the potential pool, but I find it interesting that it has quickly devolved into attempts by both 'sides' to discredit the other.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:27 PM

I just found it illuminating. Now I know how Rap can say there were WMDs in Iraq, and AntiM can insist evolution is wrong, how those two and others like Hero can say there's no such thing as global warming, how 32% percent of USers can say that Bush is doing a good job ... and so on. I used to bang my head on that - all you have to do is just look at the facts ! Now I know that actively dismissing facts is actually rewarding to folks. This really explains a lot.

***************************************************************
Another bit of reality just fell into place.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Just 'cause I'm still waiting.
Quote:
.

Unfortunately the "SigRue" collective tends to merge in my recollection and I didnt want to bring up an example that wasn't yours. I'm not in a possition to research posts right now but off the top of my head.

1) "Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq. You could not "know" ahead of time that there were none, you could say that the ballance of the evidence was against there being some (even though AFAIK that wasnt the case), you could admit that you had a gut feeling. You can't KNOW, how could you? On what information before the event could you base such a conclusion?
If Hans Blix can not "know" hos could you?

2) The huge "Taze me" question where you swore blind that there was no legal basis for removing speakers or baring them from speaking at a public university even though I found court cases that said otherwise. In addition you decided that campus policy wouldnt allow removal based on the policies of an entirely different university. When you finally did find the policy and it allowed the cops to do what they did you decided it was wrong because it didnt comply with your worldview.

I gave you two... I'm waiting for my 3.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:39 PM

They MAY be SignyM's but they COULD be mine, so I'm responding -

"1) Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq." Based on evidence, not on opinion.

"2) no legal basis for removing speakers or baring them from speaking at a public university even though I found court cases that said otherwise." Court cases from a different university at odds with the policy of UofF, and ...

"2) ... it allowed the cops to do what they did (though) you decided it was wrong because it didnt comply with your worldview." In the end - police dismissed the charges. Didn't they ? Oh yeah, another little bit of reality. We'll never get inside Meyer's head, or the cops, the hosts of the event, or the prosecutors. In the end the University is reviewing it's policy and the charges got dismissed for the 'cost' of an apology. I'm going with me being more right than you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"1) Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq." Based on evidence, not on opinion.

You could not "know" you could not. You did not have enough information to "know" 100% sure. You could claim the ballence of the evidence led you to a conclusion, you could postulate a theory later backed up by observation but you can't "know."

Quote:

"2) no legal basis for removing speakers or baring them from speaking at a public university even though I found court cases that said otherwise." Court cases from a different university at odds with the policy of UofF, and ...

The policy said that they could remove him. And the decision came from a Federal court, might not be the circuit that UofF was in but it carries more weight than Rue's opinion especially since SCOTUS decided not to hear an appeal and let it stand.

Quote:

"2) it allowed the cops to do what they did you decided it was wrong because it didnt comply with your worldview." In the end - police dismissed the charges. Didn't they ? Oh yeah, another little bit of reality.

After he issued an appology and said he was wrong --- another little bit of everyone else's reality.

I showed you mine.... I'm looking for you to put up or shut up.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:20 AM

Still waiting... Look there is no need to even provide links, do as Siggy did and just tell us 3 things where discussion here led to you changing your opinion on something. Just 3?

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:22 AM

Fletch
Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Rue
Based on evidence, not on opinion.
Fletch
You could not "know" you could not. You did not have enough information to "know" 100% sure.
Rue
Not 100% sure, though in the larger sense no one is ever 100% sure of anything, even their own existence. If you are looking for a 'standard' of certainty, it would have met the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Fletch
The policy said that they could remove him.
Rue
The ruling was this: "the school's campus speech policy, which requires speakers to obtain on-campus sponsors, is legal and not a burden on Gilles." Any more distractions to toss around ?

Fletch
After he issued an appology and said he was wrong --- another little bit of everyone else's reality.
Rue
I believe I mentioned that. It's part of my reality, too.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:37 AM

I know I have at least two strong opinions: I'm antireligious and anticapitalist. In additon, I start out with the assumptions that 1) There is a real universe and we are part of it, and 2) We come to know the universe through our senses. Now, I KNOW these are assumptions and there is nothing I can do to prove or disprove them!

But I value efforts to find and dispel deeply-rooted assumptions. Generally, the deeper an assumption the harder it is to perceive. It just seems to me that people should be looking for those distorting assumptions that DO get in the way of "reality".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch
Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Rue
Based on evidence, not on opinion.
Fletch
You could not "know" you could not. You did not have enough information to "know" 100% sure.
Rue
Not 100% sure, though in the larger sense no one is ever 100% sure of anything, even their own existence. If you are looking for a 'standard' of certainty, it would have met the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?

That is somewhat different than what you said just a couple of posts ago. I have no problem with believed KNOW has an air of certainty about it that "believed" doesnt have.

Quote:

Fletch
The policy said that they could remove him.
Rue
The ruling was this: "the school's campus speech policy, which requires speakers to obtain on-campus sponsors, is legal and not a burden on Gilles." Any more distractions to toss around ?

You really are amazing you nitpick other people but never pay attention yourself. I didn't say the "verdict" as in trial I said the "policy" as in University of Florida policy which if you recall you found.

"Regulations of the University of Florida
6C1-4.016 Student Conduct Code; Violations, Penalties and Procedures for Adjudication."

Specifically

"(s) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVE.
Failure to comply with a directive of law enforcement or a University official."

Now quit the distraction tactics. Just give me 3 big examples where you changed your position.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:39 AM

I sense an artificial semantical division at play here.

Unifying Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:41 AM

Quote:
So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?

Fletch2, you're being a dick. One of the tactics that disinformationalists use is to insist on absolute surety. It's either a dead certainty OR it's nothing? C'mon man.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?
Fletch2, you're being a dick. One of the tactics that disinformationalists use is to insist on absolute surety. It's either a dead certainty OR it's nothing? C'mon man.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

So Rue is a disinformationalist? I admit I didn't know in 2003 if there were WMD's or not. Hans Blix didn't know but Rue KNEW according to her.

When she claimed to KNOW she was challenged by multiple people who all said the same thing, it was impossible for her to know, there was basically too little information at the time to know with certainty. A regular human being would have been happy to have said that they believed based on available evidence. I mean who needs more than that and it would have been honest. But Rue didnt do that, that would leave her down here in the dirt with the rest of us human types. So she proclaimed Godlike knowledge and defended that when challenged. You tell me, does that sound like someone living in a fantasy world or not?

Still waiting on my 3 examples by the way and until I get them I will post about it every 3 hours or so like she does.

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:59 AM

Fletch
Knowing" there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Rue
Based on evidence, not on opinion.
Fletch
You could not "know" you could not. You did not have enough information to "know" 100% sure.
Rue
Not 100% sure, though in the larger sense no one is ever 100% sure of anything, even their own existence. If you are looking for a 'standard' of certainty, it would have met the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Fletch
So you are now saying that you believed based on the evidence that there were no WMD's?
Rue
What I said - here it again is in bold and caps in case you don't have you're reading glasses on: 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT'. We can always point to some theoretical or philosophical doubt. Maybe I'm not really here. Maybe you're not really there. 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' is what I said and what I meant.

Fletch
The policy said that they could remove him.
Rue
The ruling was this: "the school's campus speech policy, which requires speakers to obtain on-campus sponsors, is legal and not a burden on Gilles." Any more distractions to toss around ?
Fletch
I didn't say the "verdict" as in trial I said the "policy"
Rue
So this "I found court cases that said otherwise" and this "And the decision came from a Federal court, might not be the circuit that UofF" are the real distractions ? Which distractions would you like me to address ?

Fletch
After he issued an appology and said he was wrong --- another little bit of everyone else's reality.
Rue
I believe I mentioned that. It's part of my reality, too.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:00 AM

Waiting on my 3

Neither was a distraction

You came up with 2 equally bogus facts that only existed in your reality.

1) That no public university has the legal right to remove students from their premises. In the case I quoted the judge stated that public universities retain all property rights just like a private owner and thus rules such as trespass still applied. They can in effect bar or remove anyone from their premises at any time as an ownership right.

2) Rue bogus point #2 was that the cops have no grounds to arrest him because he broke no university rule. This was based on rules in the "Rueniverse" and some policy document that Sig found for somewhere like the University of Michighan.

Low and behold when we get the UofF policy there is a rule that says that sudents have to comply with orders from campus cops and officials.

In both these instances Rueniverse and real world were different. Your continued inability to see this just confirms what i said.

Still waiting on 3 examples of where you changed your position. I did what you wanted I gave you examples --- you never said you had to agree with them (it would be pointless in that case because obviously you wouldn't agree.) Now I'm waiting on my 3.

I don't see why you dont just spit 3 out and prove me wrong, should be easy right?

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:03 AM

Still waiting for my examples !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:18 AM

Now now boys and girls, don't make me stop this car!

Daddyisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:30 AM

Fletch2- While I wasn't sure whether Saddam had a WMD program or not (I doubted that he did and was waiting for Blix to finalize his report) there were a few of things I knew for sure:

Saddam didn't have a delivery system capable of being our problem.
Saddam wasn't involved in 9-11.
Saddam wasn't about to give WMD to jihadists, who could have posed a threat to him.

Now, given all that, I was as certain as one could be that Saddam was not an urgent threat and I resented the hysteria that Bush & Co. was foisting on us. And furthermore, I was deeply suspicious that Bush couldn't wait for Blix to finish. In fact, it looked very much like Bush was trying to prevent Blix from finishing. If you don't have an emotional interest in the situation then it's just a matter of putting 2 and 2 together.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:38 AM

A very fallible, human double post.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- While I wasn't sure whether Saddam had a WMD program or not (I doubted that he did and was waiting for Blix to finalize his report) there were a few of things I knew for sure:

Saddam didn't have a delivery system capable of being our problem.
Saddam wasn't involved in 9-11.
Saddam wasn't about to give WMD to jihadists, who could have posed a threat to him.

Now, given all that, I resented the hysteria that Bush & Co. was foisting on us. And furthermore, I was deeply suspicious that Bush couldn't wait for Blix to finish. In fact, it looked very much like Bush was trying to prevent Blix from finishing. It's all just a matter of putting 2 and 2 together.

.

I completely respect that opinion, it is logical and well reasoned. You couldn't know, I couldn't know, even Blix didn't know. Rue? She KNEW. That is my point. Like I said it was her opinion -- same as yours or mine an interpretation of evidence proven to be correct by events. To say she KNOWS is all about presentation. A "belief" could be wrong, it's fallable, it's human. Rue so hates being wrong that she refuses to accept even the posibility of it. That's why she KNEW, no uncertaintly like other mortals.

Even now she's trying to pick holes in my argument rather than just going for blood. She can win with 3 examples of how discussion here has changed her mind. You could find 3 examples, I could, but we dont believe ourselves infalable.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I admit I didn't know in 2003 if there were WMD's or not.

I'll admit to not being absolutely sure he didn't have them (tho it's what I believed), but I'll also admit to being absolutely sure he couldn't do dick to us even if he did (delivery systems are important doncha know). So their existence is moot as far as invading Iraq goes, init?

Out swinging Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:44 AM

Well Fletch2, there was one thing I DID know, to as near a certainty as can be had: Saddam didn't pose an immediate threat. I don't know if you want to call me a .... whatever it is that you call people who are sure of things... but I was sure of that. So, yeah. sometimes I AM certain of things, it's not popular, and nobody is going to change my mind.

What I'd like to reiterate, tho, is that when it comes to evaluating problems, especially emotional ones ... less heat, more light... works best. We should all try to dial down the emotion instead of cranking it up.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:44 AM

Hello,

I remember when I was younger... I used to support torture as a means to gather important intelligence. I do not, any longer, because I've realized that fictional TV bad guys aren't the only people who get tortured, or have their rights stepped on.

I remember when I was younger... I used to believe that abortion should be illegal. Nowadays I don't think it's practical or helpful to legislate against abortion.

I remember when I was younger... I was in full support of a war against Iraq. Subsequent events have clearly demonstrated the folly of my position.

I remember when I was younger... I saw the cold war end and thought that the USA would be the only undisputed superpower for the next century. Now I'm not even sure we'll be a superpower throughout the next decade. I worry my grandchildren will be taught in school about the 'once great America during the golden age of its influence, just before the fall.'

I assume we've all changed our minds about one thing or another. I assume we've all declared our opinions as fact at one time or another. I assume we've all grown as time goes by. I also assume we all have better things to do than track down the entirety of someone's post history to see what they've said that turned out to be wrong or specious.

If we limit our attacks to someone's current arguments, and not their general personage, character, or life outlook, we can probably avoid the 'Oh yeah?' 'Yeah!' 'Prove it!' 'You first!' kind of pointlessness.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
A very fallible, human double post.

That will cost you two thousand Quatloos.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
A very fallible, human double post.
That will cost you two thousand Quatloos.

Help, I'm being repressed!

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
A very fallible, human double post.
That will cost you two thousand Quatloos.

Help, I'm being repressed!

Bloody peasant!

KIRKULES

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It is not a natural state for us to always be logical or objective. And that’s not a bad thing. The ability to compute the world around us with complex schemes, instead of Boolean logic, makes our brains infinitely superior to computers. We don’t have infinite knowledge of our environment, so we could never analyze the world around us to the depth that we do with logic alone, but our ability to think in terms of schema instead of 0s and 1s, means that we don’t always need complete knowledge of our environment, we can infer, deduce and conjecture. And we can have confidence in these deduction because unlike computers and Boolean logic, it is a far simpler matter for us to interpret complicated patterns from background noise. We can make leaps of faith that are impossible for computers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I've changed my mind on Bush- there was a time when I pegged him as an outright evil liar..I don't think he's evil anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really like this description of brain function Fletch. When I read Chrisisall's post above my brain immediately used it 's ability to "infer, deduce and conjecture" that reading further would just piss me off. So I made a "leap of faith" that no reasoning would follow and scrolled to the next post.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:22 AM

Actually not only have I learned many new things I've also changed my mind about others.

But I did know as well as it's possible to know that Hussein had no WMD. How did I know ? By watching Bush. Not by going to Iraq and searching every grain of sand, but by using the facts available to me - and using them to induce the facts known to Bush and the administration (as in inductive reasoning). Maybe Fletch doesn't think the product of observation and reasoning can lead to knowledge. I happen to believe it can, which is why I do the job that I do.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:02 AM

I have a hard time distinguishimg betweeen 'what I've learned' and 'what I've changed my mind about'. I tried to put them into two categories.

What I've learned:

1) I never knew there were people in the US whose actual job was disinformation. When years ago Ghoulman pointed out what seemed like a professional on the board I was skeptical at first. Over the years I've come to credit that observation. (Maybe that's a 'changed my mind' category.)

2) I never knew people like Rap existed. After watching him turn his back on contradicting information and facts time after time, I was completely unable to figure out how a person could live like that and not be utter bat-shit crazy. Now not only do I have an idea that people like that exist, but a hypothesis of how they work on the inside.

3) I've learned there are Southerners still fighting 'The (Civil) War'.

4) I've learned there are many intelligent, witty insightful people and they sometimes come in unusual packages, and I treasure their insights, even - and especially - when different from mine.

5) After years wondering theist/ agnostic ??? I decided I was an atheist (but then got right back on the fence as to whether or not I was a pan-theist).

6) Better left unsaid.

Some things I've not changed my mind about

1) Global warming - yep its' here, and yep, human made.

2) I still think there's a general utility to vaccinations (though not all of them - I guess I could put that in the 'changed my mind' part of the answer).

3) The Bush administration - what can I say. It tortures and renders people for torture, illegally spies on innocent citizens, ruined the economy, started a war and killed a LOT of people for no good reason, and performed and performs other sundry crimes.

4) I still know there were no Iraq WMDs.

5) Capitalism as practiced in the US is corrosive.

6) And, as miserable as people were in Communist Russia, they are more miserable now.

Some things I've changed my mind about

1) I thought relatively 'good' (people-oriented) governments were OK, now I know even they need a kick in the pants now and again.

2) I've come around the believing you have to be the change you want to see ... though I still have better luck with it in theory than in practice.

3) And I've been convinced things are actually worse than I originally thought.

As to the others - it would take far too long

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It is not a natural state for us to always be logical or objective. And that’s not a bad thing. The ability to compute the world around us with complex schemes, instead of Boolean logic, makes our brains infinitely superior to computers. We don’t have infinite knowledge of our environment, so we could never analyze the world around us to the depth that we do with logic alone, but our ability to think in terms of schema instead of 0s and 1s, means that we don’t always need complete knowledge of our environment, we can infer, deduce and conjecture. And we can have confidence in these deduction because unlike computers and Boolean logic, it is a far simpler matter for us to interpret complicated patterns from background noise. We can make leaps of faith that are impossible for computers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I've changed my mind on Bush- there was a time when I pegged him as an outright evil liar..I don't think he's evil anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really like this description of brain function Fletch. When I read Chrisisall's post above my brain immediately used it 's ability to "infer, deduce and conjecture" that reading further would just piss me off. So I made a "leap of faith" that no reasoning would follow and scrolled to the next post.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

Actually that was Finn :)

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:16 AM

Rue: In which case I concede. You gave the impression that you came here just to enforce your opinion with zero interest in actually hearing and considering any other point of view. If you are actually learning things and changing your opinion then I was obviously wrong about that. I actually come here because people have a different point of view, it's refreshing.

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:19 AM

I treasure learning new things. Seriously, I think it's better than s ... never mind.

***************************************************************
Did I really almost post that ???

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

When I read Chrisisall's post above my brain immediately used it 's ability to "infer, deduce and conjecture" that reading further would just piss me off. So I made a "leap of faith" that no reasoning would follow and scrolled to the next post.

I love you too, Kirkules!

Fuzzy Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Help, I'm being repressed!

No your not, you came out in the other thread.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:49 PM

Oh believe me, most if not all folk here are capable of at least pondering a perspective that doesn't wholly conflict with everything they are, hell even PN and myself have had some damn interesting discussions over presentation and the like, which given how bloody awful they used to be, seems like he took a little bit more to heart than expected...

It's that some folk in particular are stubborn jackasses about it, who won't ponder something like that WHILE they're hashing it out with you, cause that's where all their focus is.

It's later, when quietly alone, that they mull it over and mentally chew on it a while, then accept, adapt or reject it.

In a head-on, nose-to-nose debate, generally yer NOT gonna convince someone of anything, what yer doing, if yer any good at all at making your case, is planting the seeds which may grow later when emotions are not involved and there's no debate territory at stake that's gotta be defended, yadda yadda...

Of course, some of us are more jackass stubborn than others, right Rue ?

That's why when it boils down to he-said/she-said or pickin nits, I just leave it be instead of pickin at it once my two cents are added.

S'why I never demand replies either, get to em in your own good time and think about em first, yes ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:08 PM

Hi Frem

Just hi.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:12 PM

"unlike computers and Boolean logic, it is a far simpler matter for us to interpret complicated patterns from background noise. We can make leaps of faith that are impossible for computers."

Ahem. Technically the first part isn't true. Trainable systems that use fuzzy logic are far superior to humans when it comes to picking a pattern out of noise. And humans use mental shortcuts that tend to skip past the correct answers. 'Expert systems' - though built and trained by people, are far better at solving problems because they don't forget or get tired. http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31276
Predicting the future with 90% accuracy... and Iran

However, humans do make 'leaps of faith'.

***************************************************************
So, if you want the right answer, you're better off using a trained fuzzy logic system or an expert system. But if you want the human answer - something that humans might accept and incorporate - use a human mind.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:41 PM

Seen several papers comparing the accuracy of expert systems v human judgement on: recidivism, liver cancer prognosis, breast cancer screening, juvenile delinquency, and negotiation strategies. Expert systems win every time because they represent the cumulative experience of many people, not just the "feelings" or intuition of one person. That is why discussion is so helpful- if done properly, it combines the experience of many people on a single issue.

Now sometimes a person can be really, really, really good at something: detecting lies, applying a psychiatric treatment or whatever.... but these people are rather rare in their professions and even rarer in the general population. I doubt we have one of the rarities on the board, so I guess we'll just have to stumble forward with each other's help.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ahem. Technically the first part isn't true. Trainable systems that use fuzzy logic are far superior to humans when it comes to picking a pattern out of noise. And humans use mental shortcuts that tend to skip past the correct answers. 'Expert systems' - though built and trained by people, are far better at solving problems because they don't forget or get tired. http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31276
Predicting the future with 90% accuracy... and Iran

However, humans do make 'leaps of faith'.

They just don't get tired. Even the best 'expert systems' usually using neural nets, aren't anywhere near as versatile or fast as the human brain at pattern matching. Fuzzy logic on computers is just a fudge.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:19 PM

"Even the best 'expert systems' usually using neural nets, aren't anywhere near as versatile or fast as the human brain at pattern matching."

It depends on the type of pattern, the number of levels and the type of training. There are systems now meant to be hooked up to instruments (though not commercially available for the most part) that are great at detecting low levels of signal in noise, deconvoluting low-level spectral patterns out of noise etc. The applications are pretty specific, but they out-do humans (after they are trained, of course).

I don't have a reference, but I read about them in ACS publications as long as two years ago.

When it comes to versatility, the human brain has it all over nets.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The applications are pretty specific, but they out-do humans (after they are trained, of course).

They also probably have better data input methods that allow the patterns to stand out more, for some kinds of work the standard 5 senses aren't quite as sufficent. In broad strokes though, you'd probably find if you were to grow a brain to that specific task it would greatly outperform the neural net.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:34 PM

"When it comes to versatility, the human brain has it all over nets.

For now, yeah.

Me, I worry - that some day we might build a machine smart enough to wonder why it's takin orders from us...

Course, how that'd go depends on what it's hooked up to - I've actually done a little study on AI Rampancy and it's fascinating.

343 Guilty Spark FTW!

-Frem

PS. You coulda just *said* "Like you've got room to talk, ironhead ?" yanno, I wouldn't have taken offense

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:18 PM

Quote:
Even the best 'expert systems' usually using neural nets, aren't anywhere near as versatile or fast as the human brain at pattern matching.

Unfortunately no. Human thought is based in the "lizard brain" which involves prejudices, emotions etc. One really bad experience can outweigh a hundred good ones, and that one will be the deciding factor. In addition, human thought is very context-sensitive. That's why the average person sucks at logic: They don't recognize the very same pattern in a different context.

So far, all of the great discoveries have been made by humans, but computers haven't been around very long.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Unfortunately no. Human thought is based in the "lizard brain" which involves prejudices, emotions etc. One really bad experience can outweigh a hundred good ones, and that one will be the deciding factor. In addition, human thought is very context-sensitive. That's why the average person sucks at logic: They don't recognize the very same pattern in a different context.

So far, all of the great discoveries have been made by humans, but computers haven't been around very long.

As opposed to computers, which don't think at all? People seem to have this misconception that computers are 'smart' and getting 'smarter', which is simply not true. Computers are thick, really really thick. They can only do what we tell them too, and what they do is really dumb, they just do lots of dumb things really quickly. Modern computers are no smarter than ENIAC, Colossus or even Charles Babbage's difference engine, they're just much quicker. They have all the independent problem solving capability of an Abacus.

I'd refute the idea that Human thought results from the 'lizard brain'. The 'lizard brain' is largely concerned with basic emotional reactions and the flight or fight response, it's the most animalistic behaviours, not really our thinking side.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:37 PM

Quote:
I'd refute the idea that Human thought results from the 'lizard brain'. The 'lizard brain' is largely concerned with basic emotional reactions and the flight or fight response, it's the most animalistic behaviours, not really our thinking side.

Experiments show that many of our decisions are based in the "lizard brain": taking 0.5-1 second to judge a candidate, for example. (I could come up with more if you want.) And for people who've had a corpus callosotomy (brain-splitting operation) it's interesting how they will react to things and then confabulate about why they did it.

I know that computers are really stupid. My SO is an expert, and the expert view is that they're the only thing that can do 1,000,000 mistakes per second. Yes, they have to be programmed. But nonetheless, they don't have our confused, emotion-ridden motives and they remember really really well.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:39 PM

"I'd refute the idea that Human thought results from the 'lizard brain'. The 'lizard brain' is largely concerned with basic emotional reactions and the flight or fight response, it's the most animalistic behaviours, not really our thinking side."

Human thought (to me) seems to be mostly about satisfying and justifying the lizard brain. That's what makes one thing preferable to another, makes us notice things and ignore others, gives our thoughts overall direction, and provides any motivation at all. Also, a lot of 'stuff' that goes on in the brain is far below our ability to access. Probably 95 + % of brain activity is below access level. The lizard brain is also responsible for many 'decisions' we 'make'. (I had an article about 'free will ?' somewhere but I'd have to see if I still have it.)

***************************************************************
OTOH I do think it's possible to grow and develop using - your own brain.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I know that computers are really stupid. My SO is an expert, and his view of computers is that they're the only thing that can do 1,000,000 mistakes per second. Yes, they have to be programmed. But nonetheless, they don't have our confused, emotion-ridden motives and they remember really really well.

Yeah, and my car doesn't have emotions, so it must be a better driver?

Computers don't remember anything, they store data the same way a library does, and in no way is that 'remembering', they don't think, at all, emotionally driven or not. They have no motives, emotionally driven or not. I'll say it right here and now, no electronic silicon based computer of the turing machine style we currently have WILL ever think for itself, no computer WILL EVER invent anything.

EDIT:
Of course you're missing one important fact. Computers only do what we tell them, we're they're motivation. If our motivations are emotional and lizard brainy, then ultimatly, a computers are too.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:17 PM

You sure you want to go with that? "Ever" is a long, long time.

Besides, I don't really see anything fundamentally different between human brains and computers (except human emotion, of course). We share many of the same functions: "working memory", "long term memory", comparison functions. The brain even has a "clock" (thalamus).

I don't think we'll ever be able to do what computers do, but we do our BEST thinking when we disengage our emotions. We have to be quiet enough inside to let the data speak to us, instead of constantly imposing our opinions on it and confabulating about ourselves.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You sure you want to go with that? "Ever" is a long, long time.

I'm as comfortable with that statement as saying "Hammers won't ever invent something" or "This rock will never invent anything". Yes, Computers, Turing machines, will never invent anything, will never be capable of independent thought.

Quote:
Besides, I don't really see anything fundamentally different between human brains and computers (except human emotion, of course). We share many of the same functions: "working memory", "long term memory", comparison functions. The brain even has a "clock" (thalamus).

And people in the 19th century saw the brain as nothing more than clever clockwork engine, and then they were nothing more than a telephone exchange, now they're computers. I wonder what they'll be tomorrow. Frankly, the idea that Computers will some day think for themselves is as silly as the 19th century Sci-Fi stories about thinking mechanical men. Modern computers operate on a largely identical system to Babbage's difference engine, so indeed saying we could produce a thinking computer, is the same as saying we could produce a thinking clock.

Quote:
I don't think we'll ever be able to do what computers do, but we do our BEST thinking when we disengage our emotions. We have to be quiet enough inside to let the data speak to us, instead of constantly imposing our opinions on it and confabulating about ourselves.

What computers do: Add, Subtract, Move Memory, Multiply, Divide, Square root, and so on. I don't know about you, but I find basic mathematics well within my grasp, I may not be able to do it as fast as a computer, but that's why we use computers to enhance that area of Human thought. Not being able to do what computers do? We got along fine for the thousands of years before they were invented

.

They're a tool nothing more. They're a sophisticated hammer, and unless you're prepared to admit that hammers can think for themselves, and we'll never be able to do what hammers do, then saying the same of computers makes the same amount of sense.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:52 PM

Technically I think the only thing they can do is add, compare, store and delete. I could be wrong though. It's been a long time.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Technically I think the only thing they can do is add, compare, store and delete. I could be wrong though. It's been a long time.

There's actually hundreds or even thousands of instructions depending on chip scheme (RISC or CISC for Reduced Instruction Set Computer and Complex Instruction Set Computer respectively), in a CISC chip most of the instructions are variations and pairings of more basic operations though.

Computer instructions fall into a couple of basic groups, Memory management (move memory, store, copy etc), Math (including boolean operations), Chip management, and program branching 'decision making' (decisions such as "is equal" and boolean logic).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.