Say you're at a pie shop - you're looking at the pies, then you overhear the customer ahead of you claiming he gave the counter person $10, not $5. Both sides speak their claim, in every slightly louder voices.

To you (or heck, lets be honest, to me), the customer seems to genuinely believe his claim. And while you find the lady behind the counter to be kind of bitter, but you think she's the kind who is honest in order to better stab at a world which made her bitter ("See, I am better!"), so is probably even more honest. Or maybe that's a charitable reading.

Customers an old man - he says the ten was the only note in his wallet. Maybe he miss saw.

Then again, if you're down to $10 in your wallet (to the point where you definately know that's all you've gote), why are you buying sugery treats?

For myself, I didn't know what to say - I was stuck in a loop of waiting for more information.

Anyone have anything like this raised in school? I mean, surely it matters somewhat (sure, it doesn't matter to being a more efficient cog in some corporate CEO's empire, but all the same...)

Jorge is laying it down! 

The evidence? Well, uhm...

I don't know what her problem with the evidence is?

It's also the binary people seem to default into that either it's proven to them right now, or it's utterly wrong.

When there's a middle ground of just trying to form a replica of the described model in their mind. Heck, every time you read fantasy you're (attempting to) replicate someone elses model. It's not an uncommon thing to do.

She seems to grasp the model enough to get the idea that conciousness is an illusion - so ignoring evidence for now, ask her where does the model seem inconsistant with itself?

I think being asked that will cross reference real world understanding of structure (because that's where we get our idea of consistancy) with the model - and slowly start to tie it to real world elements. Ie, the evidence (that this is probably a worthwhile line of research) will slowly become clear, if you just ask if the model seems consistant with itself.

Also the question to ask is have either of these people actually initiated new lines of research? Most scientists haven't really - they refine what's already been done. So they wont percieve a crazy theory paper as a potential new line of research to follow, because they just haven't done/don't do new lines of research.

Serwe references the horns again at the beginning of the interro rape sequence.

Does she? Damn, I wish I'd noticed that! What's it mean?

That's rather unfair, and avoids much of their responses.

I think my responce left some room for appeal and discussion, rather than just being a concluding judgement.

If it didn't and just seemed just a concluding judgement from me, okay, fair enough you responding with a concluding judgement yourself.

Okay, your judgement that it's just unfair (case closed) is heard and that you offer no appeal process is recognised.

Their issue here seems primarily to be with Bakker's language and the way he presents his ideas.

I talked about it, but it just turned out to be unfair.

It takes two to tango - writer AND reader. I think you're quote just looks at one side as if they handle all of the dance themselves. I say that with room to appeal though, let me make clear this time.

Quote

is taking the easy way out - he's trying to appear reasonable by wanting the whole thing, with complete research and writing up, explained to him. Or he'll ignore it.

My impression is that a mere rewording of Bakker would be more fruitful than these sorts of aspersions.

I certainly projected my values onto it. That doesn't mean the physical actions I describe aren't happening.

But if the rule is that if I'm not completely affirming then I'll be dismissed, okay. But if I'm completely affirming, then everyones right (well, except Bakker).

Quote

Pride is the main issue here. No one wants to take a random document out of the blue and let it shame by them acknowledging 'hey, some bits make sense, so there's some legitimacy to it, but I don't understand alot of it - oh, I guess that reduces my hard earned legitimacy somewhat?'. Who wants to hand over their legitimacy to a random scrap of paper? Really?

Is one obliged to respect what seems to one like incoherent ramblings? Which is more effective in writing, engagement or alienation?

Obliged by some sort of god being? Or obliged by a recognition that tons of ideas that have atleast been scientifically proved in history have been dismissed as incoherant ramblings before that, by many people?

That a cursory look at history shows that time and time again sufficiently advanced truth can appear to many as incoherant rambles? And there's really not much to make it clear that oneself is going to be immune to that effect?

You can argue I'm wrong and nobodies every treated an eventually scientifically proven idea as incoherant rambling. If so I atleast agree you're consistant with how you see history.

But if you agree rather than argue that, well what, are you advocating that these people you know will be the ones who are immune to what many others have succumbed to in the past - seeing a coherant idea as incoherant?

Otherwise they are obliged by intellectual honesty to treat themselves as potentially sucumbing to the 'incoherant ramblings' effect.

At any rate, neither you nor I can rebuke another for perceived pridefulness without coming off, as Bakker might put it, as "Hitler condemning Jesus Christ for hatefulness".

Okay?

So there was a rebuke somewhere? An implication that someone simply MUST change their behaviour? Perhaps you're saying from me?

To me, you've come in with a problem, like a guy bringing in a car to a garage - I'm just a mechanic. You think the problem is X, I tell you it's Y. When I tell you it's Y, it's my technical evaluation - not a finger waving proclamation of how thou must live. You can take your car to another garage. In a way, I'm indifferent if you don't care to engage the services of my garage. I was just offering a quote.

Never mind I have to wonder at christianities death toll total over the ages, compared to hitlers score. But damn I'm stupid to wonder such things and obviously start fighting a discussion war on a second front as well as the first. And yet...intellectually I'm compelled to wonder.

1. Whether there's not anything in my expatiation or in Bakker's writings directly which they can more or less grasp.

If I sounded like I was giving aspersions before, I wouldn't put it this way!

Do you see any components, like heuristic compression, which make some amount of sense to you? Then just talk about what makes some amount of sense to you first, before putting forth documents - that's just part of regular discussion.

2. Whether any of it seems interesting to consider (given their purviews) from Bakker's or even another's/their own perspective.
3. Whether there's not anything insightful or plausible in Bakker's evidences, given what they know about the brain.

I'll try that out next week, if possible.

Also, I ought to have noted that one of the above is not actually a native speaker of English! You can probably guess which one: they complained that "wow, my vocabulary is not that big"...

Vocabulary is just a compression method as well, to say more with fewer words. It's like a trade off, reader wise - make it less verbose, but it becomes longer, and people get bored before reading (applies to me as well!), verses concise vocab, makes it shorter, but starts falling down in immediate understanding with various sizes of audiences (size in proportion to vocab).

Then again maybe short vocab is Bakker being lazy as well, making him have to write less - it cuts that way too! Mind you, hey, he's gotta write us books, aye! Instead of all this brain wankery! Joking!

I yet live!