Philosophy of Knowledge: Logic and Book Learning vs. Intuition

[dragonflydreams]

I suggest that rather than indulge your penchant for fanciful tales about karmic needs, mathematically inclined eggs, and wandering sperm, you should crack open a basic biology text and go to the effort of studying it.

are these "basic texts" you want me to read the same "basic texts" that are being continually revised to reflect new truths that are discovered - that aren't in texts? if you lived 520 years ago in Europe you'd be pushing the idea of a flat planet because the basic texts all said it was so - while the indigenous people in the rest of the world all intuited Earth's spherical nature quite easily (their intuition hasn't atrophied like civilized humans' has)... truth isn't confined to your "basic texts" Ron - in fact there is very little truth in your "basic texts" - if there was we wouldn't be heating up the planet like frogs in a pot of water over a fire... there may be 'texts' (not basic by any means) out there that you actually haven't seen - imagine that... but truth doesn't come from texts, it comes from those who are intuitive enough to step out of the CIVILIZED/NORMAL box and OBSERVE it - and then it gets put into the texts when the people are ready for it...

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -Schopenhauer [and it doesn't get put in your "basic texts" until the third stage]

jeez - we're only in the first stage with this stuff...

they've now got the 12 sperm penetrating the 1 egg on film...

i'm not sorry you don't appreciate my appropriating the name dragonfly - you'll have to take that up with the dragonfly who gave it to me (do you ever plan on going on a vision quest to choose your own name? rather than walk around the rest of your life with the one your parents gave you... do you let them choose your friends, food you eat, basic texts you read, where you live, what kind of car you drive etc. too? when are you gonna cut the apron strings Ron and find your real name?

and you're right - dragonflys are an exceedingly ancient tribe... and how do you know if they count sperm - you ever talked to one?

[Willie Lumplump]

are these "basic texts" you want me to read the same "basic texts" that are being continually revised to reflect new truths that are discovered - that aren't in texts?

Your question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals and methods of science. Right wing Christian fundamentalist lunatics use this "science is continually revised" argument continually. Your rhetorical question is on the same wavelength. Unfortunately, the whole issue is too complex to discuss properly in this thread on patriotism.


if you lived 520 years ago in Europe you'd be pushing the idea of a flat planet because the basic texts all said it was so - while the indigenous people in the rest of the world all intuited Earth's spherical nature quite easily (their intuition hasn't atrophied like civilized humans' has)

The belief that Europeans discovered the sphericity of the earth only a few hundred years ago is a popular myth, the origins of which have been traced to the 1870's. From ancient times people, or at least most people, were aware of the earth's true shape because they could see the mast of an approaching ship before they could see the hull and because they could see the round shadow of the earth projected on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Note that intuition had nothing to do with this knowledge. The discovery was empirical.


.. truth isn't confined to your "basic texts" Ron - in fact there is very little truth in your "basic texts" - if there was we wouldn't be heating up the planet like frogs in a pot of water over a fire... there may be 'texts' (not basic by any means) out there that you actually haven't seen - imagine that... but truth doesn't come from texts, it comes from those who are intuitive enough to step out of the CIVILIZED/NORMAL box and OBSERVE it - and then it gets put into the texts when the people are ready for it...How convenient. No need to go to the trouble of years of study. No need for hard work. In fact, no need for any work at all. All you need do is sit back in your chair and intuit, and suddenly you're an expert on things that other poor chumps spend their lives studying. Why didn't I think of that before I spent 22 years in school?


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -SchopenhauerAnd so if you propose a lunatic idea that is obviously contradicted by all available evidence, the proper course is to pursue the lunatic idea through to the third stage and proclaim yourself an expert?


they've now got the 12 sperm penetrating the 1 egg on film... Who are "they," and who ever said that 12 sperm never penetrate one egg?


(do you ever plan on going on a vision quest to choose your own name? rather than walk around the rest of your life with the one your parents gave you"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare said that . . .about me. You have conversations with dragonflies, I have conversations with Shakespeare.


and you're right - dragonflys are an exceedingly ancient tribe... and how do you know if they count sperm - you ever talked to one?No, and I never talked to a bear, either, but I know that they shit in the woods.

[dragonflydreams]

How convenient. No need to go to the trouble of years of study. No need for hard work. In fact, no need for any work at all. All you need do is sit back in your chair and intuit, and suddenly you're an expert on things that other poor chumps spend their lives studying. Why didn't I think of that before I spent 22 years in school?

beats me - but probably because you're not ready to think yet... Einstein didn't learn the Theory of Relativity in school - he intuited it - he thought it... perhaps you should get reaquainted with your intution someday - it's in there somewhere... just open your mind a wee bit...

[Willie Lumplump]

How convenient. No need to go to the trouble of years of study. No need for hard work. In fact, no need for any work at all. All you need do is sit back in your chair and intuit, and suddenly you're an expert on things that other poor chumps spend their lives studying. Why didn't I think of that before I spent 22 years in school?


beats me - but probably because you're not ready to think yet... Einstein didn't learn the Theory of Relativity in school - he intuited it - he thought it... perhaps you should get reaquainted with your intution someday - it's in there somewhere... just open your mind a wee bit...

I like to open my mind, but not to the point where my brains fall out. Before Einstein could intuit that something was wrong with Newtonian physics, he had to study a lot of physics at the Swiss Polytechnic Institute in Zurich. And his original intuition that something was wrong didn't tell him what was wrong. He made significant progress in developing the theory of relativity only after he received his doctoral degree. And even then he was held back by his limited mathematical skills. To gain those skills he received years of private tutoring from a close friend.

All of this information that I'm giving you now is easily available in much more detailed form on various websites, in libraries, and in bookstores. The fact that you're unfamiliar with it just underscores my previous comment: Ultimately, the wacky, weird ideas that are so prevalent these days are based in laziness--an unwillingness to do the hard work of finding out what's known. It's much easier to just sit back, invent crazy ideas, and claim to be a seer, a prophetess who has ventured out way ahead of the poor chumps who spend their lives actually working to understand. But I think there's another element here besides just laziness. Imagining oneself to be a seer far ahead of the ordinary people who have to work for understanding is an exceedingly grandiose notion. And grandiosity may be much more than just a personal quirk--it can be a sign of pathology. For more information on that subject, I refer you to the wacco thread on NPD.

[Clancy]

Einstein didn't learn the Theory of Relativity in school - he intuited it - he thought it...


So, it's just a coincidence that he was a physicist will all those years of math and science in grad school?

[dragonflydreams]

So, it's just a coincidence that he was a physicist will all those years of math and science in grad school?

omygod!

of course!

how could i be so stupid!

i forgot all about his "basic text" in grad school math, chapter 13 - Theory of Relativity

you got me fair and square...

i bet you got so smart by reading those "basic texts" for 22 years too - didn't you? c'mon, admit it...

i bet you even have degrees in Belief and Denial...

i think i'll leave now with my head hung in shame...

bye...

[Clancy]

i forgot all about his "basic text" in grad school math, chapter 13 - Theory of Relativity

how could i be so stupid!

The point, which you seem to be pretending not to understand, is that he had to become a scientist before he could do the work of a scientist, which IS making discoveries about the natural world.

He was standing on the foundation that all the physicists who came before him built, and he used the scientific methodology he learned from intensive years studying math and physics in school to make his discoveries.

Like genuises throughout history, he had a gift for gathering disparate information and conceptualizing some entirely new way to view the world, but he couldn't even have begun the process without his background in physics.

[dragonflydreams]

[QUOTE=Clancy;392 Like genuises throughout history, he had a gift for gathering disparate information and conceptualizing some entirely new way to view the world, but he couldn't even have begun the process without his background in physics.[/QUOTE]

well put Clancy - but you don't need a background in physics to begin the process of intuition (and you don't even need to read multitudinous 'texts' to jump start it)... Einstein wasn't the only 'genius' who had a gift for gathering disparate information and conceptualizing some entirely new way to view the world... i've probably read more 'texts' than you and Willie combined - just not the "basic science texts" you two seem to go in for... i tend towards more advanced tomes of philosophy and mysticism... i have approximately 700 books in my cabin wall to wall - floor to ceiling - and according to three IQ tests i took two years ago i have an IQ of roughly 155-160 (which i believe rates me as a genius)...

have you ever read any books by David Bohm? ever read anything about his thoughts on the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain? how about Krishnamurti? Ken Carey? just to give you an idea of what i like...

see attached for an interesting read on the Universe as a Hologram...

[ThePhiant]

hey dream boy,

and according to three IQ tests i took two years ago i have an IQ of roughly 155-160 (which i believe rates me as a genius)...did they tell you at that time that you weren't allowed to use any of it?


have you ever read any books by David Bohm? ever read anything about his thoughts on the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain? how about Krishnamurti? Ken Carey? just to give you an idea of what i like...
well, for someone who despises the male lineage so much, you show that you aren't very educated by women, just as I expected.
just another male chauvinist pig trying to be a feminist

[Willie Lumplump]

well put Clancy - but you don't need a background in physics to begin the process of intuition (and you don't even need to read multitudinous 'texts' to jump start it)... Einstein wasn't the only 'genius' who had a gift for gathering disparate information and conceptualizing some entirely new way to view the world... i've probably read more 'texts' than you and Willie combined - just not the "basic science texts" you two seem to go in for... i tend towards more advanced tomes of philosophy and mysticism... i have approximately 700 books in my cabin wall to wall - floor to ceiling - and according to three IQ tests i took two years ago i have an IQ of roughly 155-160 (which i believe rates me as a genius)...

have you ever read any books by David Bohm? ever read anything about his thoughts on the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain? how about Krishnamurti? Ken Carey? just to give you an idea of what i like...

see attached for an interesting read on the Universe as a Hologram...

I'd be interested in how your genius IQ responds to the following questions:

1) Can answerable questions always be distinguished from those that are unanswerable? If so, what is the distinguishing feature? If not, what factors are responsible for confusion?

2) What kinds of questions have answers that are certain, and what kinds have answers that are uncertain?

3) What has been the traditional role of logical positivism in science, and what kinds of questions does it recognize as valid?

4) What explanation did David Bohm propose for "quantum weirdness," and how influential are his ideas today?

5) What criticisms might Einstein have made of David Bohm, and in what ways might Einstein have agreed with him?

I predict that you should have no trouble intuiting the answers to all these questions. It would be futile for you to search for answers in any of your 700 texts because they contain nothing of value.

A high IQ may be worth something or not, depending largely on level of ambition and mental discipline. A high IQ might actually be a disadvantage if it enables you to memorize and absorb large amounts of trash. A high IQ is worthless if you lack the motivation to do anything constructive with it.

[Braggi]

Barry, would you please start a new thread on Philosophy of Knowledge, Logic and Book Learning vs. Intuition, Stupid Pointless High Word Count Bitching, or whatever catch all name you can come up with and separate these posts from the "Who Considers Themselves To Be Patriotic?" posts? It's gotten pretty muddled here.

Thank you,

-Jeff <whew>

[Willie Lumplump]

Barry, would you please start a new thread on Philosophy of Knowledge, Logic and Book Learning vs. Intuition, Stupid Pointless High Word Count Bitching, or whatever catch all name you can come up with and separate these posts from the "Who Considers Themselves To Be Patriotic?" posts? It's gotten pretty muddled here.

Thank you,

-Jeff <WHEW>

Right on, brother, right on! I too find these endless distractions terribly irritating.

[Willie Lumplump]

i have approximately 700 books in my cabin wall to wall - floor to ceiling - and according to three IQ tests i took two years ago i have an IQ of roughly 155-160 (which i believe rates me as a genius)...

It seems that the dragonfly has flown. We know that she is genius, and we know that she has 700 books. What we don't know is if she knows anything.