There is no such thing as knowing

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:09 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Given CW says he's faced the reality of cancer I'd say he has a fair idea of what fear of death entails.
Supposition, as you do not know enough to make that call, as to it being fair, so as to actually know with certainty, but of course you can say anything you want.
What are you talking about? I tend to accept what people say on this forum as being true. So I believe CW when he says he's had cancer and treatment. As such he's had to face the very real possibility of death and dying, this I think would have given him a fair idea of what fear is involved in the idea of death and dying.
I'm sorry you know how I can be, we've fought in the past. My problem is that when I see someone, that I respect, for their thoughts in other threads, where I agree with them, but I'm not involved, and then we finally exchange words, and they don't get me, I get frustrated, with them because I feel that they are arguing just for the sake of arguing, because surely what I have to say is universal, easy to understand, as I try hard to be as clear as possible, believing that what I have to say, surely everyone already knows, and that I'm merely reminding them. If you asked anyone that I know, they'd say that I have ALWAYS believed that I am not special, that I know nothing that others don't. Or I see that what I do know is so basic that surely everyone is aware. I cannot get a job because I don't know how to sell myself, of maybe it's because I refuse to be braggadocios, It's like I don't know what I know that makes me what I am. I have never taken the time to promote myself to myself, and it feels wrong to do so, I am not conceited. I've always accepted anyone that accepts me, I don't care what differences they have. Of course that was what I was all of my life, now it's different, I have no friends because I'm a hermit, I trust no one because I'm finally aware that people are so selfish that they'll screw you over just to make a dime. I trust no one because people only want you for as long as they can use you, there is no such thing as a friend. Even at 55 I do not consider myself a man, I believe myself a boy, probably because I have seen what men can do and hate it. I see that I shall be a child until I die. When people hear me on the phone, they never believe that I'm as old as I am. So then this is what you have to deal with, or not!

What I meant to say was that just because you know what it is that he said he's undergone, and then you decide how it was, that he dealt with it, you are merely projecting how you believe you would have dealt with it, had you undergone the same ordeal. It is impossible for you to know, with certainty, how he dealt with it, or how you truly would, for that matter, if it became actual for you, because everyone, to some extent or another, tries to save face. I have seen no one here reveal the truth about themselves such as I have, mainly because they FEAR being laughed at, ridiculed, for being less than. They FEAR giving another ammunition so as to be discounted as some sort of weirdo. At this stage in my life I could give a fuck anymore, I see that if someone looks down their noses at me that it's just because they FEAR being vulnerable, and are selfish to the point of taking any morsel they can find to qualify their own existence, so they can feel better about their own FEARS that they so judiciously keep hidden in the closet.

I am the way I am because of what I know about homo-sapiens. I know only too well what they mean when they say that ignorance is bliss, as I have striven to know ever more, and it has made my life more complicated, for sure, such that I do not feel comfortable living amongst the rats in this RAT-RACE! I find that it always surprises me when I meet someone that seems overly nice, pleasant, and altruistic. And for a second I think, well maybe there's hope for us yet, if it would only last for more than a second.

Yes this is a rant, a release. Thanks for all those that listened, if you pick through this you may find something that is enlightening, that gives you insight as to human nature, or old crazy bastards, i guess it all depends on your current state of understanding, doesn't it?

And as to the topic...

Well I see that in truth, everyone should take Socrates words into account before they commit to argue, and of course like a broken record, I 'm referring to: 'I only know that I know nothing.' which to me says that we should all proceed with caution, as knowledge is not so clearly defined, such that we can bank on definitive statements, designed to preclude other points of view, so as to be necessarily any more truthful than any other, with 100% certainty, as surely humankind is not all understanding of our universe...

...YET!

And I see that once we are, there shall be no arguing at all, as everyone shall know of the universal truth, as that is what shall be taught.

I wonder if our craniums will actually be bigger or like newer cpu's our brains will just be based upon a much smaller architecture.

And I guess that would be my ultimate wish, to witness life on planet earth from it's beginning to it's end. As long as, like a Hollywood movie, it ends well. ;-)

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:18 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes and I am speaking of the knowing based upon a 25 year scientific study, while by comparison, you speak of a few isolated bits of belief, i.e., Chaz, monks, etc., which can only be seen as supposition, relatively speaking.
Not sure that Psychology can be called a science but lets say it is. What in this study contradicts the fact that many appear to be able to kill themselves or put themselves in deaths way which disproves your idea that what man fears most is death by the simple fact that some men appear not to. Now I agree that all have a healthy desire not to die but it appears over and over again that men will die if they think it necessary.
I disagree, why do you think there is quoting of 4 deep in the first place? If you are familiar with USENET, "News Groups," then you are aware that the depth is virtually infinitely deep. I see that you only think of yourself and no other readers.
Given the formats and fonts you use I think you're the last to talk. My way all one has to do is to scroll back to follow each thought. USENET! Where you been? The trouble with the quote function is that the four deep soon runs out and I got sick of the error message so I went this way.
That's not what you said, see "...culmination..." above. As to this clarification, I say, not according to the 25 year study. Everyone fears death, and everyone try's to cover it up.
Not quite as your study said that the religious appear not to. So quite a few more that do not fit your 'everyone'. I also note a citation needed in one of your quotes.
Yes, so as to somehow minimize the associated anxiety. But I see that in truth when you're actually realizing it, you'll see it much differently. Why do you think there is so much talk of PTSD for the soldiers of today? Because the horrors of death, for them, has finally become real. p
Makes you wonder how our grandfathers got through it. But I think it more the stress and tension of combat and killing, that and that they get pretty much no support on demob back into civil society and are ill-prepared for the change.
OK, you are consistent, you admit that stills 'appear' to you, to be justified true belief.
I admit that no-one can know whats in anothers mind and have to judge by their words and actions.
Not at all, I'm saying that your casual association, via the media, cannot compare to a 25 year scientific study.
It only needs one to make your assertion of all false.
How could there possibly be a disassociation when one is speaking of seemingly controlling something through meditation?
So now you appear to know whats going on in their minds? You're assuming that they have the fear. What if its that they don't thats why they can do what they do.
If one runs from something, does the something disappear?
Yes, if one runs fast enough.
Then why run?
To make the thing disappear.
[colour]As to fear there are only: fight, flight, or play possum, and in all these cases, the fear is acknowledged, so as to do so.
I know it as flight/fight/freeze and I don't think of the source as 'fear' as such, more the adrenal response and the rest how one responds to it.
"Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull away from it and usually hide. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it (also known as the fight-or-flight response) but in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) a freeze or paralysis response is possible." --Wikipedia--
I agree but prefer 'adrenal response' to 'fear' as it gives opportunity to control and respond to it.
As I've said, people often prefer ideas that help them save face. They see things in such a way, as to make themselves feel better about themselves. Conversely, they deny things that make themselves 'appear' weak or inferior, by what ever measure, they believe is attributed, by the majority. In this sense all humans lie, to some extent or another. I unlike most, try and cut to the chase, and admit things that others fear too. This is probably because, I've been on a truth mission, every since I took Philosophy all those years ago at university. Truth, is the only thing I really care about, as it sets everyone free, to really experience free will, as much as being human, physically allows. It's enough to be physically limited, but why be mentally limited as well, that's something everyone can do something about?

User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by Hjarloprillar » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:53 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
reasonvemotion wrote:
All the survivors had families back on shore, all the dead had none. When the survivors were asked what they were thinking about as they floated there freezing to death, all of them said, they were fearful of what would happen to their families, that depended on them so much, so they were thinking of how important it was for them to live, for their families sake.

And that's what love has to do with it! Love can actually cheat death, if the odds against aren't too great, but if one's death is certain, then it becomes the dead weight of fear and anxiety.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have heard that before.. It is so 'different that i popped up on my system.
[i run programs that watch the net . across the globe.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have to live.. my daughter told me that if i keel over [ a nice naval term] before my grankid is 10. she will beat me to death with a brick.
" but i'll be dead already .. she replied /; if i have to invent tme travel i make it happen

you do know that if you go back and kill me with abrick would then have no reason to invent time travel .....
at which point she said shut up... now

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:03 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes and I am speaking of the knowing based upon a 25 year scientific study, while by comparison, you speak of a few isolated bits of belief, i.e., Chaz, monks, etc., which can only be seen as supposition, relatively speaking.
Not sure that Psychology can be called a science but lets say it is. What in this study contradicts the fact that many appear to be able to kill themselves or put themselves in deaths way which disproves your idea that what man fears most is death by the simple fact that some men appear not to. Now I agree that all have a healthy desire not to die but it appears over and over again that men will die if they think it necessary.
Those that kill themselves are probably mentally unstable. I guess you see that young man that killed all those children in that school, then himself, was quite sane? You assume that those that put themselves at risk know they are to die, a false assumption. I never said people feared being hero's, I said they fear dying.
I disagree, why do you think there is quoting of 4 deep in the first place? If you are familiar with USENET, "News Groups," then you are aware that the depth is virtually infinitely deep. I see that you only think of yourself and no other readers.
Given the formats and fonts you use I think you're the last to talk. My way all one has to do is to scroll back to follow each thought. USENET! Where you been? The trouble with the quote function is that the four deep soon runs out and I got sick of the error message so I went this way.
Each to their own, but on occasion it has led you astray.
That's not what you said, see "...culmination..." above. As to this clarification, I say, not according to the 25 year study. Everyone fears death, and everyone try's to cover it up.
Not quite as your study said that the religious appear not to. So quite a few more that do not fit your 'everyone'. I also note a citation needed in one of your quotes.
NO, that's not what was said at all, clearly you failed to pay attention to what I wrote. The religion bit supported my view, as did the 25 year study, where they actually conducted over 300 experiments, so in fact it was scientific.
Yes, so as to somehow minimize the associated anxiety. But I see that in truth when you're actually realizing it, you'll see it much differently. Why do you think there is so much talk of PTSD for the soldiers of today? Because the horrors of death, for them, has finally become real. p
Makes you wonder how our grandfathers got through it. But I think it more the stress and tension of combat and killing, that and that they get pretty much no support on demob back into civil society and are ill-prepared for the change.
How does one get through it? Trogs would love to split your head, you as usual forget such things as time. Obviously you know not war, so are unqualified to comment, with certainty.
OK, you are consistent, you admit that stills 'appear' to you, to be justified true belief.
I admit that no-one can know whats in anothers mind and have to judge by their words and actions.
The fear is always in their mind, as it is considered a basic emotion, innate, it's what it is in being human, how they cope is another story. I speak of what comes first, is basic, you speak of what comes after, is secondary.
Not at all, I'm saying that your casual association, via the media, cannot compare to a 25 year scientific study.
It only needs one to make your assertion of all false.
No I clarified that those that are insane are exempt from consideration. It would seem your loss of memory suits your needs, go figure!
How could there possibly be a disassociation when one is speaking of seemingly controlling something through meditation?
So now you appear to know whats going on in their minds? You're assuming that they have the fear. What if its that they don't thats why they can do what they do.
The fear is innate, you seem confused!
If one runs from something, does the something disappear?
Yes, if one runs fast enough.
No, there is no such thing as disappear. So I guess you believe that magic is real. Oh yeah I almost forgot about those books you read. ;-)
Then why run?
To make the thing disappear.
No such thing as disappear!
[colour]As to fear there are only: fight, flight, or play possum, and in all these cases, the fear is acknowledged, so as to do so. [/color]
I know it as flight/fight/freeze and I don't think of the source as 'fear' as such, more the adrenal response and the rest how one responds to it.
We're talking about the emotion, not the physiological response, after the fact.
"Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat..." --Wikipedia--
"Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull away from it and usually hide. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it (also known as the fight-or-flight response) but in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) a freeze or paralysis response is possible." --Wikipedia--
I agree but prefer 'adrenal response' to 'fear' as it gives opportunity to control and respond to it.
No, because it's the only way you can win the argument, by redefining terms. If you make fear not fear then you see a victory, sorry charlie, no dice. You're not the scientist, they are.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:08 pm

Whoops

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:15 pm

Hjarloprillar wrote:Some excellent points made here.. super chicken was bumped up 2 points.. he made most of the good points.
Incorrect, what you meant to say was that the roosters points are more like yours, such that you agree, which has nothing to do with a scoring system of better points, as you are not the elected expert referee.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:43 pm

Below relates to a survey on fears: My comments are interjected, in (red).

"In a 2005 Gallup poll (U.S.A.), a national sample of adolescents between the ages of 13 and 15 were asked what they feared the most. The question was open ended and participants were able to say whatever they wanted.

The top ten fears were, in order:

terrorist attacks (death related),
spiders (potentially death related),
death (duh),
being a failure, (obviously has bad parents)
war (death related),
heights (death related),
criminal or gang violence (death related),
being alone (could be death related),
the future (could be death related),
and nuclear war (death related).[5]" --Wikipedia--

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11989
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:45 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Those that kill themselves are probably mentally unstable. I guess you see that young man that killed all those children in that school, then himself, was quite sane? You assume that those that put themselves at risk know they are to die, a false assumption. I never said people feared being hero's, I said they fear dying.
You said the ultimate fear is the fear of death, all I've done is point out that others actions appear to disprove your proposition. I did not say people fear dying, just that it appears that a fear of death does not appear to stop people doing actions that they know will lead to their death, ergo, for some people this is not the ultimate fear. That you then wish to declare them insane is more a reflection of how much you wish your idea to be true, as I don't think the monk was insane. I think he thought his rationale was clear.
Each to their own, but on occasion it has led you astray.
I'll bear it in mind.
NO, that's not what was said at all, clearly you failed to pay attention to what I wrote. The religion bit supported my view, as did the 25 year study, where they actually conducted over 300 experiments, so in fact it was scientific.
sobs religion quote wrote:... but only church-centered religiousness protected subjects against the fear of death ...
So apparently I do pay attention.

As I said, I'm fairly dubious that Psychology is a science but I'm more puzzled how you accept this as from your point of view how would these 'scientists' know whats actually going on inside?
How does one get through it? Trogs would love to split your head, you as usual forget such things as time. ...
Of the old boys I've talked to who were willing to talk they said its as fresh as the first time, they're just of the generation who don't think its anything you get over, you just have to get on and live with it. I disagree but the western world has changed in this respect. Most of the stress appeared to be about why they survived when their friends died.

Whats a "Trog"?
... you know not war, so are unqualified to comment, with certainty.
Thankfully true but I have soldiers as friends and family and I listen.
The fear is always in their mind, as it is considered a basic emotion, innate, it's what it is in being human, how they cope is another story. I speak of what comes first, is basic, you speak of what comes after, is secondary.
Depends, you see I see the word 'fear' as the secondary thing upon what it is and what it is is the adrenal response, as are all the 'emotions' and 'feelings' terms for hormonal secretions. So whilst its true that hormones are innate and basic the responses to them may differ depending upon the cultural terms associated with them.
No I clarified that those that are insane are exempt from consideration. It would seem your loss of memory suits your needs, go figure!
And your need for your idea to apply universally leads you to declare insane those who don't fit it. They on the other hand may well diasgree with you.
The fear is innate, you seem confused!
Not at all, as all I'm pointing out to you is that your idea that I can't tell whats happening inside another applies to you so you have no grounds to say this 'fear' is innate.

Although, like I say, I think it the Endocrine system thats innate and 'fear' a term that can have many different meanings, hence you get the different responses of flight/fight/freeze and why, for example, a soldiers training is to exactly to learn how direct the adrenal response.
No, there is no such thing as disappear. So I guess you believe that magic is real. Oh yeah I almost forgot about those books you read. ;-)
:roll: Still judging a book by its title. I prefer to read them before I comment.
No such thing as disappear!
Out of sight out of mind.
We're talking about the emotion, not the physiological response, after the fact.
I think you have it the wrong way around.
"Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat..." --Wikipedia--
"An 'emotion' is the word given to a set of physiological effects produced by the Endocrine system in response to a perception. 'Fear' is the term given to a set of physiological responses produced by the adrenal glands in response to a perception of danger or threat." --a_uk--
No, because it's the only way you can win the argument, by redefining terms. If you make fear not fear then you see a victory, sorry charlie, no dice. You're not the scientist, they are.
I doubt psychologists are scientists whereas I think the anatomists and endocrinologists are. Its not about winning an argument, I'm just putting my point of view. I think if you clarify a term you can get a better hold on it, as such if you teach that 'fear' is the reaction to the Body perceiving a threat then you may give the 'mind' time to choose its response.

For someone who says much about how no-one knows you appear to put a lot of faith in these scientists?

reasonvemotion
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by reasonvemotion » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:27 pm

Thanks for your 'personal' reply. First let me say, there will be a thousand people who will line up and tell you your perceived faults. So why do it for them.

Reading your "true story" account, the thought that came to mind was something from Jane Eyre.
Mr. Brocklehurst: And what is hell? Can you tell me that?

Young Jane: A pit full of fire.

Mr. Brocklehurst: And should you like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there forever?

Young Jane: No sir.

Mr. Brocklehurst: What must you do to avoid it?

Young Jane: Keep well and and not die, sir.

You worry about the welfare of people you will leave behind in death. Your particular worry could more likely happen during your life due to many circumstances. If it were that easy to will away your death as was given in the "true story", then would we not all be doing the same,..... determining not to die.

Removed biblical verse.

Am I alone? No, I have a beautiful daughter.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:18 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:Thanks for your 'personal' reply. First let me say, there will be a thousand people who will line up and tell you your perceived faults. So why do it for them.

Reading your "true story" account, the thought that came to mind was something from Jane Eyre.
No RE, I never lie, really!!! My account of the 'true story' did in fact happen and exactly as I said, of course I'm sure that I paraphrased their dialog as I do not have a photographic memory. But the circumstances are accurate, including what was learned, of the mindset, of those that survived. One could say that the facts that, all those that had families survived, and that, all those that had none died, was a coincidence, but the experts that investigated the mishap, see it otherwise.

Mr. Brocklehurst: And what is hell? Can you tell me that?

Young Jane: A pit full of fire.

Mr. Brocklehurst: And should you like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there forever?

Young Jane: No sir.

Mr. Brocklehurst: What must you do to avoid it?

Young Jane: Keep well and and not die, sir.

You worry about the welfare of people you will leave behind in death.
My point was just that it's one of the many things that add to one's fear as they approach certain death, not that it's necessarily mine.

Your particular worry could more likely happen during your life due to many circumstances.
Again it's not necessarily my worry. I see that you make a false assumption, it is not more likely during ones life, as we are talking of someone that is missing, which carries with it, a plethora of things that shall no longer be true, not just a finance provider. And what if they feel they are the sole provider, for all their families needs? And what of a single parent, with no extended family to speak of?

If it were that easy to will away your death as was given in the "true story", then would we not all be doing the same,..... determining not to die.
I never alluded to the ease of cheating death, and I quote:
And that's what love has to do with it! Love can actually cheat death, if the odds against aren't too great, but if one's death is certain, then it becomes the dead weight of fear and anxiety.
Did you notice the highlighted text? It precludes certainty.


Removed biblical verse.

Am I alone? No, I have a beautiful daughter.
Good, I'm happy for you, and then you should understand what I mean, as I'm sure you believe that no one could be as good a parent as you, right?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:32 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Those that kill themselves are probably mentally unstable. I guess you see that young man that killed all those children in that school, then himself, was quite sane? You assume that those that put themselves at risk know they are to die, a false assumption. I never said people feared being hero's, I said they fear dying.
You said the ultimate fear is the fear of death, all I've done is point out that others actions appear to disprove your proposition. I did not say people fear dying, just that it appears that a fear of death does not appear to stop people doing actions that they know will lead to their death, ergo, for some people this is not the ultimate fear. That you then wish to declare them insane is more a reflection of how much you wish your idea to be true, as I don't think the monk was insane. I think he thought his rationale was clear.
Each to their own, but on occasion it has led you astray.
I'll bear it in mind.
NO, that's not what was said at all, clearly you failed to pay attention to what I wrote. The religion bit supported my view, as did the 25 year study, where they actually conducted over 300 experiments, so in fact it was scientific.
sobs religion quote wrote:... but only church-centered religiousness protected subjects against the fear of death ...
So apparently I do pay attention.

As I said, I'm fairly dubious that Psychology is a science but I'm more puzzled how you accept this as from your point of view how would these 'scientists' know whats actually going on inside?
How does one get through it? Trogs would love to split your head, you as usual forget such things as time. ...
Of the old boys I've talked to who were willing to talk they said its as fresh as the first time, they're just of the generation who don't think its anything you get over, you just have to get on and live with it. I disagree but the western world has changed in this respect. Most of the stress appeared to be about why they survived when their friends died.

Whats a "Trog"?
... you know not war, so are unqualified to comment, with certainty.
Thankfully true but I have soldiers as friends and family and I listen.
The fear is always in their mind, as it is considered a basic emotion, innate, it's what it is in being human, how they cope is another story. I speak of what comes first, is basic, you speak of what comes after, is secondary.
Depends, you see I see the word 'fear' as the secondary thing upon what it is and what it is is the adrenal response, as are all the 'emotions' and 'feelings' terms for hormonal secretions. So whilst its true that hormones are innate and basic the responses to them may differ depending upon the cultural terms associated with them.
No I clarified that those that are insane are exempt from consideration. It would seem your loss of memory suits your needs, go figure!
And your need for your idea to apply universally leads you to declare insane those who don't fit it. They on the other hand may well diasgree with you.
The fear is innate, you seem confused!
Not at all, as all I'm pointing out to you is that your idea that I can't tell whats happening inside another applies to you so you have no grounds to say this 'fear' is innate.

Although, like I say, I think it the Endocrine system thats innate and 'fear' a term that can have many different meanings, hence you get the different responses of flight/fight/freeze and why, for example, a soldiers training is to exactly to learn how direct the adrenal response.
No, there is no such thing as disappear. So I guess you believe that magic is real. Oh yeah I almost forgot about those books you read. ;-)
:roll: Still judging a book by its title. I prefer to read them before I comment.
No such thing as disappear!
Out of sight out of mind.
We're talking about the emotion, not the physiological response, after the fact.
I think you have it the wrong way around.
"Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat..." --Wikipedia--
"An 'emotion' is the word given to a set of physiological effects produced by the Endocrine system in response to a perception. 'Fear' is the term given to a set of physiological responses produced by the adrenal glands in response to a perception of danger or threat." --a_uk--
No, because it's the only way you can win the argument, by redefining terms. If you make fear not fear then you see a victory, sorry charlie, no dice. You're not the scientist, they are.
I doubt psychologists are scientists whereas I think the anatomists and endocrinologists are. Its not about winning an argument, I'm just putting my point of view. I think if you clarify a term you can get a better hold on it, as such if you teach that 'fear' is the reaction to the Body perceiving a threat then you may give the 'mind' time to choose its response.

For someone who says much about how no-one knows you appear to put a lot of faith in these scientists?
No one necessarily does, but unlike you, I do not see things as black or white. I see them as multitudes of grey. And in this case I see that you're just not as correct as they are. As a matter of fact, I see that if black is totally wrong, and white is totally right, you are definitely of a darker shade, while they are at the opposite end, of the spectrum, almost white.

Here is the sequence of events:
1) Cognitive appraisal: provides an evaluation of events and objects
2) Bodily symptoms: the physiological component of emotional experience
3) Action tendencies: a motivational component for the preparation and direction of motor responses.
4) Expression: facial and vocal expression almost always accompanies an emotional state to communicate reaction and intention of actions
5) Feelings: the subjective experience of emotional state once it has occurred


As the mind decides how to react immediately after step (1) but before step (2) is where emotion lives.

Example #1:

Cognitive appraisal: bird flying from a tree branch to sit on the park bench beside me, hoping for a handout, how sweet, how lovely -> (2) doesn't really happen, much less (3)

Example #2:

Cognitive appraisal: aircraft falling from sky, speed greater than 400 knots, mass = several tons, flaming engines, full of JP5, impact shall yield ruptured tanks, I'm on trajectory axis, seconds to impact. -> Emotion: FEAR, then (2) definitely happens, followed very closely by (3), and who gives a fuck about the rest.

The emotion has to reside between 1 and 2 or else you'd be jumping and running with every bird that flies by, screaming your ass off. The emotion can only be on the heels of the cognition, or we'd all be blithering idiots, frazzled to the bone.

The emotion is tied directly to experience, thus memory, and computational potential. NO???

Example #3:

Same as #2 except that it's just a infant, that cannot crawl yet, but can focus clearly; on it's first outing; that has never seen an aircraft before. As it sits there looking up in wonder, at this interesting thing, it just marvels at the sight, as it's obliterated in a ball of flames.

Yes, quite clearly, the emotion of fear, as well as all others, starts on the heels of (1). Something has to start (2) going, that's computed in the mind, which when followed by (2), is said to be an emotion. Sure we acknowledge it after the fact, but the emotion is computational, within the mind, then and only then-> the physiology of glands spring into Action!

homegrown
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:37 pm

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by homegrown » Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:28 pm

I've read some stuff on this and to sum there are not discrete cognitive events - but all sort of feedback loops between sensory perception, instinct, rationality, emotion, memory - that result in a responsive behaviour. Hence the 'black box' of the psychological approach of 'behaviourism.' Interesting discussion - interesting topic. Pardon my intrusion, but I'm listening in - okay?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:27 am

homegrown wrote:I've read some stuff on this and to sum there are not discrete cognitive events - but all sort of feedback loops between sensory perception, instinct, rationality, emotion, memory - that result in a responsive behaviour. Hence the 'black box' of the psychological approach of 'behaviourism.' Interesting discussion - interesting topic. Pardon my intrusion, but I'm listening in - okay?
Yes anyone can believe whom ever they read. And it's no secret that many disagree with one another. What I have said above, comes from Klaus Scherer, where does yours come from?

User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by Hjarloprillar » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:36 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Hjarloprillar wrote:Some excellent points made here.. super chicken was bumped up 2 points.. he made most of the good points.
Incorrect, what you meant to say was that the roosters points are more like yours, such that you agree, which has nothing to do with a scoring system of better points, as you are not the elected expert referee.
Sphere.

No i made myself one. [referee]
Because i am confident. Why?
Because very few i ever meet or talk to can even talk let alone argue a position . Planet of the apes indeed.We are IN it.
Foghorn may 'get' reference to superchicken. A classic revamp of the originals.

No..not the gravy. noooo

quote you
"I'm sorry you know how I can be, we've fought in the past. My problem is that when I see someone, that I respect, for their thoughts in other threads, where I agree with them, but I'm not involved, and then we finally exchange words, and they don't get me, I get frustrated, with them because I feel that they are arguing just for the sake of arguing, because surely what I have to say is universal, easy to understand, as I try hard to be as clear as possible, believing that what I have to say, surely everyone already knows, and that I'm merely reminding them. If you asked anyone that I know"

"But surely what i have to say is universal."
out the window goes scientific method.
"surely everyone knows"
out the window goes common sense.

And you wonder.. where did i go wrong..
easy. you thought you knew. Talk is cheap. knowing requires WORK
Read a book dude.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: There is no such thing as knowing

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:25 pm

Hjarloprillar wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Hjarloprillar wrote:Some excellent points made here.. super chicken was bumped up 2 points.. he made most of the good points.
Incorrect, what you meant to say was that the roosters points are more like yours, such that you agree, which has nothing to do with a scoring system of better points, as you are not the elected expert referee.
Sphere.

No i made myself one. [referee]
Because i am confident. Why?
Because very few i ever meet or talk to can even talk let alone argue a position . Planet of the apes indeed.We are IN it.
Foghorn may 'get' reference to superchicken. A classic revamp of the originals.

No..not the gravy. noooo

quote you
"I'm sorry you know how I can be, we've fought in the past. My problem is that when I see someone, that I respect, for their thoughts in other threads, where I agree with them, but I'm not involved, and then we finally exchange words, and they don't get me, I get frustrated, with them because I feel that they are arguing just for the sake of arguing, because surely what I have to say is universal, easy to understand, as I try hard to be as clear as possible, believing that what I have to say, surely everyone already knows, and that I'm merely reminding them. If you asked anyone that I know"

"But surely what i have to say is universal."
out the window goes scientific method.
"surely everyone knows"
out the window goes common sense.

And you wonder.. where did i go wrong..
easy. you thought you knew. Talk is cheap. knowing requires WORK
Read a book dude.
You're an idiot, seemingly, as you judge me before you know, what I mean. Just because I talk above or around you, and you know not what I mean, lends no credibility to your assumed judgement, you are clearly a "buddy sucker," In my 55 years I've seen your kind all over the place, always seeking approval, of the one that makes allowances for you. So your comment was more of a social nature, about you, and not of the subject that was at hand. I would really rather not waste time with such people of such means. If you want to "actually" talk of the "topic" in question, not merely saying yes, what he said, or arguing what each other is or is not, then you have my ear, otherwise I shall meet your eye with an eye, or your tooth with a tooth. It's your call!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest