Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

Post by Walker » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:51 am

Many words is smoke that hides the fire.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:07 am

ken wrote:
Okay so to avoid any confusion and to see if your definition of universe being local cosmic
expanse
is rigorous enough where does this so called local cosmic expanse start and end

Where are and what are the defining points of the so called local cosmic expanse which separates it from the rest of the Universe

Is there any scientific evidence that there is even a local cosmic expanse which is within or which is just a part of the Universe
The local cosmic expanse is the observable universe that apparently began nearly I4 billion years ago. What happened before
that is unknown. Anything outside of it such as other universes would be the Multiverse. There is however no evidence for the
Multiverse but that does not mean it does not exist. It is possible that it does but it is purely hypothetical at this point in time

ken
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

Post by ken » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:37 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:07 am
ken wrote:
Okay so to avoid any confusion and to see if your definition of universe being local cosmic
expanse
is rigorous enough where does this so called local cosmic expanse start and end

Where are and what are the defining points of the so called local cosmic expanse which separates it from the rest of the Universe

Is there any scientific evidence that there is even a local cosmic expanse which is within or which is just a part of the Universe
The local cosmic expanse is the observable universe that apparently began nearly I4 billion years ago. What happened before
that is unknown. Anything outside of it such as other universes would be the Multiverse.
Surely even you could see the illogicality of this?

Why does 'anything outside of 'it', (whatever it is) suddenly have to be such as other universes?

Why can whatever is allegedly "outside" of what you say is only a "local" cosmic "expanse" just also be a part of the Universe?

Do you really think that what human beings see, defines the border of local cosmic expanse, which is what you call 'universe'. This is such a narrow and short sighted view of the Truth that it literally speaks for itself.

Are you aware that over time human beings have been continually seeing further afield in regards to the observable part of the Universe, with no obvious end in sight I might add.

If you had to imagine what the edge or border of your so called 'universe' looked like, what could you even come up with?

There is also nothing whatsoever to suggest a beginning anywhere. A bang of any size does NOT even imply a beginning, let alone mean a beginning. And, as for some thing else creating or beginning ALL-THERE-IS, then that is still as laughable now as it was to just about every young child when they first hear this.

Adult human beings really do NEED to start growing up in relation to learning HOW to look at and see the Truth of things.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:07 am
There is however no evidence for the
Multiverse but that does not mean it does not exist. It is possible that it does but it is purely hypothetical at this point in time
The reason WHY it is still hypothetical is pretty obvious. But we all do NOT see things the same way, because, Everything is relative to the observer.

You are free to look at and define things any way you like, but your definitions are NOT supported in any way whatsoever, that I can see. There appears to be NO careful nor any thoroughness at all that has gone into the way you look at this. "Your" definitions are straight out text book definitions, which obviously need a lot of work on.

ken
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

Post by ken » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:40 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:51 am
Many words is smoke that hides the fire.
This sounds sooo exciting, what could the 'fire' be?

By the way, your few words revealed nothing.

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

Post by Walker » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:54 pm

ken wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:40 pm
Walker wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:51 am
Many words is smoke that hides the fire.
This sounds sooo exciting, what could the 'fire' be?

By the way, your few words revealed nothing.
The son went to his father and said, “Chief Many Words, where does your name come from?”

The chief said, “My father was Chief Singing Crow. When he was born his father stepped out of the tepee and heard a voice singing in the treetops. He looked up and saw it was a crow, bringing his son’s name from his recent home in the Great Beyond.”

The son said, “So, when you were born your father heard crows talking many words? That’s where your name came from?”

The chief sighed and said, “Go see what your mother Fire Mamma is cooking, Bear Who Shits In Woods.”

*

Brevity tames the self-cherishing fascination for random rambling thought seeking, if done right. If your blood was the only ink, what words would you write, and would you waste letters on sarcasm? Would you try to elevate, or destroy?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:03 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:43 pm
I have often wondered just how powerful language alone can actually be. Is it possible to convince anyone of anything by just saying the right thing? Perhaps it's more of a psychological question than a philosophical one, but imagine a machine capable of looking into your brain which knows everything about you, and everything that's ever happened to it. It knows exactly which argumentation styles that are the most convincing to you, your favorite words, your current emotions, and every corollary that follows. Using nothing more than words and talking to you to get you to believe in something, would this machine be able make you believe in anything? Are words enough to invoke revelations powerful enough to change very deep-rooted beliefs, even clear irrationalities like convincing you the law of identity isn't actually true?

If the answer is no, how do you think this affects philosophical arguments? Are some debates simply meaningless to get into with the intent of convincing the other person?

My answer is, within a limited amount of time - no. Given an infinite amount of time, I lean more toward thinking this hypothetical machine would be able to convince you of anything. It's hard for us to imagine how an omniscient thing would actually work in reality, but given what I know of human psychology, people don't usually end up changing their world-views, at least the important ones, from a single discussion. It's usually about having good arguments laminate on their mind for an extended period of time, and build up after consequent discussions. If indoctrination is any constellation, otherwise smart people also have no problem of being convinced of even the irrational things, in certain situations. Granted this often involves omitted information as well, but it's all relative to this topic.
IMHO, the only criteria for causing one to believe something, if only eventually, is it's factual nature, which doesn't mean one can't cause one to believe falsehoods. But then for me the only thing that matters is truth (facts)! So I can't understand why anyone would want another to believe falsehoods! It just doesn't make any sense!

commonsense
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is it possible to convince anyone with the right words?

Post by commonsense » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:11 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:25 pm
commonsense wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:42 pm
Language alone cannot change a person's convictions. It is almost entirely the characteristics of the listener that make the difference.
Say, perhaps you want to change a person's position to match that of your own. It is far more important that the intended audience is receptive and collaborative than that the speaker is expressive. Using any words you choose, whether they be right words or not, will not move the individual who is intransigent, bloody-minded or just plain deaf to reason.
I agree, though I think this could all still be fit into the subject of "language"
Such a machine is clearly capable of accessing aspects of the listener's psyche.Therefore, it is using much more than words alone.
This is technically correct, and the title of the topic doesn't mean "just" words in such a blanket way. I also mentioned how the machine could forge documents or false quotes from scientific research papers, so my incentive with the analogy of this machine is to make something which in principle, could apply to philosophical and political debate. I think if we were to get into the territory where we say the machine is also able to forge video footage and audio, we're moving away from that principle and the answer becomes slightly more clear. Of course, in principle, normal people can't read the complex neurological pathways of individual's brains and determine all this information about what would be the most efficient way to convince them, but we still could hypothetically convince them.
As I reflect, I believe that I conflated "language" and "words." Thank you, Sir, for setting things a' right.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], surreptitious57 and 11 guests