Discussions

Perceptions and Definitions

Posted Aug. 5, 2014 by frequencytuner in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Aug. 22, 2014
by SufferingServant

Quote

62

Just to dispel confusion, it would be beneficial if everybody gave their definition of specific words when taking about them so we all know what you are talking about. For example: I use the old Latin definition of Religion which means "to bind". For me religion is something that a person is bound to, like a form of imprisonment. Science to me means "knowledge", which is also the old Latin definition. Knowledge means simply "to know", nothing more.

Time, culture and experience all play a large part in defining words for us. The Bible spoke of confounded tongues, is this not what we have now? Define the words: "bit", "stream" and "chip" Can you see how words get confused?

  • 62 Comments  
  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 22, 2014

    :-)

  • Silverghost Aug 21, 2014

    This is an interesting way of putting it but yes......insecurities give us biases. We are all quite bias when growing up because we are only aware of our immediate existence, this is like anyone being fixated to one ideological principle and thinking it's the be and end all, any other ideology questions such an ideology will feel insecure and react quite irrationally/illogically/foolishly, how does a child react when it's insecure? The same way!!

    It's good to converse with someone who doesn't seem to be fixated to one ideology, we are having a sensible open minded discussion.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    Kind of like a child feels when they don't understand the world around them?

  • Silverghost Aug 21, 2014

    This is logical balance, anything not of this balance to me isn't logical. It is obvious one ideological principle is unable to find all the answers on it's own, to me this is obvious but to others caught up in their own ego it's not, this is quite understandable!!

    The controlling factors of the ego entice us to take on bias perceptions for the main reason the ego is more able to control one perception than many.

  • NoetPoet Aug 21, 2014

    "Do you feel like this often?"

    Only when I'm exposed to baseless nonsensical dreck from people like you.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    Scientists typically cannot understand something they cannot logically understand. Religious people tend to either be pretending to be faithful, or truly have faith in something they cannot explain.

    Scientists probably need to try a DMT experience :-) Though, I haven't. Nor need to.

    Religious people most often should try to understand the world logically in addition to their faith.

  • Silverghost Aug 21, 2014

    This is difficult because each ideological principle uses the same words in a different context, even different forms of philosophy use the same words in a different context depending on the kind of philosophy being used.

    Is this why people who are only into religion or science don't understand each other? If a person is fixated to one ideological principle, they will not be able to understand any other ideological principle, no matter how much they try, unless they thoroughly understand the context in how each word is used in any said ideology. Going by this discussion board, that certainly isn't the case.

    Has a science minded person got the right to bag religion if they have little understanding of how the context of such words are used and has religion got the right to bag science in the same circumstance? The logical answer to this would be no, no one who is fixated to a particular ideological principle can in my mind seriously bag or question other ideologies if they have little understanding in how these ideologies are structured within their writings.

    If you look up in any dictionary, certain words have numerous definitions and this is before you attach these words to a specific ideologies.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    Do you feel like this often?

  • NoetPoet Aug 21, 2014

    ?????

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 21, 2014

    In other words, logic.

    While your logic is irrational because you have concluded many of your half-truths are partial-truth.

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    ?????

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    1+1=2

    Unlike your 1+1= bacon flavored toothpaste

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    'Cop outs, cop outs, come and get your cop outs! Two for the price of one, get 'em while they're fresh!'

    "Tried relentlessly to disprove myself"

    How??

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    "what you've done to ensure that your methodology is sound"

    Tried relentlessly to disprove myself. I never wanted to 'be the center of attention'.

    But, with great power comes responsibility.

    In fact, the only reason I've overcome my fear of sharing (people often perceive me as insane - They don't "get it") is because it is the only way to get anything done, plus I love this world we're destroying with half-truths and flat out lies.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Beyond you're comprehension at this time. Perhaps you need a book to argue against

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    "@noet you're essentially asking for my life story. Okay, I'll give you the short version"

    No I'm not, I'm really really not. You've given me more than enough information about your life already. I asked about your methodology for finding "ultimate truth", and about what you've done to ensure that your methodology is sound.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    @noet

    To start, I played strategy games. Star Craft, Counterstrike, Age of Empires, Q3F, etc. I played them professionally and made some good money over the years. Eventually grew bored when they were no longer challenging.

    Then around 16 I started doing pc repair (hardware & software aspects). After a few months I mastered it and grew bored, went back to gaming on World of Warcraft. After high school I mostly stopped the gaming and tried a real job in an Amazon Fullfillment Center. After 3 months I had learned most of the jobs in 3 departments (outbound, inbound, quality control), then just stopped going in one day.

    Took a year off to learn the basics of Internet marketing in all forms. Found a mentor to teach me search engine optimization. Learned everything he knew in a several months. Then repeated the 'student overcomes teacher, still student' process about 20 times (exponential learning) over several years. Then after I grew bored of that I started studying the mind, ancient civilizations, and various other things that interested me.

    Then went back into SEO (I had already decoded Google Search Algorithm by this point), only this time I went in from the agency side instead of freelancer. Learned management, invented new techniques for many things centered on the concept of 'Growth Hacking'. Got very good at that, eventually got tired of working for dummies and doing their jobs plus mine while they got all of the credit.

    Stopped working and lived of off savings. Went back into studying ancient civ/mind/various other interest. Then decoded the Bible and in the process learned some new things about myself. Studied my own mind via self reflection. Eventually figured it wasn't really normal for people to be able to do what I was doing.

    In the process I discovered the 'Ultimate Truth'. Then tried relentlessly to disprove myself but never had a single doubt unfortunately.

    Now I'm trying to teach people what I've learned even though I'm completely broke - cannot motivate myself to make money, nothing else is motivating. I'm having these same conversations with various types of people (elder Christians, Jews, Jehova Witnesses scientists, etc) as well as sharing my ideas with high IQ societies or random groups (Facebook groups, private forums, etc). In the process of joining some of the IQ societies now.

    That pretty much covers it (short version).

    Any questions?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    @dust

    okay I'll check it out later. Body language is easy to read and communicate, how do you think they learned to communicate in the first place?

    @noet you're essentially asking for my life story. Okay, I'll give you the short version.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 20, 2014

    SS, you are so assuming and demanding.

    Regarding the link, just find the discussion here on IONs Discussions "The Unconscious Rules" Its what, 3 pages back. Or Google it

    Regarding "I believe I could communicate with those people, face to face, with body language." You certainly can try but the problem is whether they have the concepts to understand you. This is all described in the talks and you obvious have not given them a listen and perhaps expect that I'll spoon feed you the answers

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    “To explain the ultimate truth is to write a book, which I am. I could say' this is it'but alas, you wouldn't understand. You cannot in an instant. In short, it is that 'God' is in fact very real. “

    I asked you *how* you know that it’s the “ultimate truth”. I didn’t ask you what (you think) the “ultimate truth” is. In other words, what methodology did you use to discover this “ultimate truth” and what did you do to ensure your methodology was sound?

    “BTW, I am not a practiced debater. This is all new to me.”

    I’m not surprised.

    “Hope you're willing to do as Aristotle said:

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."”

    What Aristotle didn’t explicitly say was that the thought has to be coherent and intelligible first.

    “I encourage the two of you to read a newly discovered article I found, where be argues against Frued's theory of unconscious mind. Then realize I've taken his concepts to the next level ie: subconscious = more conscious than 'conscious mind' “

    What do you mean by “conscious”?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Btw dust, I have read briefly on the language you're describing.

    I believe I could communicate with those people, face to face, with body language. Though I so not know their 'language'.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Actually more accurate to describe a vehicle as 'an unconscious product of consciousness'

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Before you say something like "vehicles have processes yet are unconscious"

    Trick question - They are neither conscious, unconscious, or subconscious.

    They are a product of consciousness though.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Interested in providing a link to said topic?

    May I ask, how can something unconscious have processes?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 20, 2014

    Re: I would love to hear your arguments that defend unconsciousness.

    My first suggestion is to read a few of the other topics infer discussion here. I have posted one titled "The Unconscious Rules. that mentions the research of John Bargh of Yale University who "provides an overview of what social psychologists have learned about unconscious processes, both in the January issue of Scientific American" and there is a link to a video of a talk filmed at the University of Missouri–Columbia. Also, see Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow." Kahneman offers up an alternative the the terms consciousness/unconsciousness with his model of "System 1 and System 2" thinking which I personally prefer.
    But we can continue this discussion in one of the many other posted conversation of that topic

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    Sorry - the article I'm referencing is from William James Sidis. You can find it on Sidis.net

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 20, 2014

    @dust - my time is the only thing I am in control of. I don't have an unlimited amount of time to argue with irrationality. Sorry :-(

    I respect Truth.

    I would love to hear your arguments that defend unconsciousness. I do not however have time to dig through and discover your previously stated arguments. In fact, I'm hardly putting any thought at all into my arguments here. You make it sound as if I am against scientific research - I am not. Curious, does your theory also explain dreams, intuition, and similar concepts? Mine does.

    @noet

    How do you know what 'it is'?

    To explain the ultimate truth is to write a book, which I am. I could say' this is it'but alas, you wouldn't understand. You cannot in an instant. In short, it is that 'God' is in fact very real.

    BTW, I am not a practiced debater. This is all new to me.

    Hope you're willing to do as Aristotle said:

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    Though many others, including Einstein, have said the same thing in other words.

    I encourage the two of you to read a newly discovered article I found, where be argues against Frued's theory of unconscious mind. Then realize I've taken his concepts to the next level ie: subconscious = more conscious than 'conscious mind'

  • NoetPoet Aug 20, 2014

    EDIT: I meant SS, not Marcus

  • NoetPoet Aug 19, 2014

    "Noone gets to decide. It is what it is."

    So how do you know what it is?

    "Anything true can always be more partially-true until it ties into the ultimate truth."

    And what's the ultimate truth Marcus? How do you know that what you're seeing is the ultimate truth?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 19, 2014

    SS, your control is in what you choice to address and not address. I suspect this tactic is employed to showcase that which you think you know and deflect attention away from what you do not know.
    To say that the link " is completely irrelevant" without defending the statement in some way is dismissive, but then most of your here answer are.
    Your questions were "How do you explain how infants develope language? How was the first language created?" The discuss by Ann Senghas, addresses how "a new language was born.' I could have easily added some research by Patricia Kuhl who studies language development in infants. Irrelevant? Hardly.

    You've also asked," How can an 'unconscious' part of your mind make your heart beat? How can an 'unconscious' part of your brain control your digestive system? How can an 'unconscious' part of your mind make you 'feel' pain?" These are not difficult questions to answer and I've responded to them on this board before Those of us that have contributed here for a few years might choice not to educate every new kid on the block.(you're new here and would not be aware of this, but you might show a modicum of respect toward others).
    The point here is that there is a vast difference between what is known by science and the amount of science that you know.

    Re: truth
    My understandings are that truth exists outside of our perceptions. We only have perceptions of what is true; "guesses based on what each set of time and change is touching" as a well known songstress once penned

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Oh missed your first question.

    I challenge you:

    Say anything true and I can make it more partially true.

    Anything true can always be more partially-true until it ties into the ultimate truth.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Noone gets to decide. It is what it is.

  • NoetPoet Aug 19, 2014

    @SS

    "1. All truths are only partial-truth. A partial-truth is not a half truth in that it holds no lies."

    If they hold no lies then how are they only "partial" truths? What else could they possibly be composed of, other than truth and lie, which would make them only a "partial" truth?

    Also, who gets to decide what is and isn't "partial truth" or "ultimate truth", and how do they decide? Because at the moment it seems like the answers to those questions are "you" and "based on whether or not you like the sound of it" respectively.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Urg. Email should be "examine"

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Your '2nd link' is completely irrelevant.

    If I desired to email that 'half-truth' I would and I would separate the lies, reveal the partial truth.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Dust, I did. I do not claim to be the ultimate truth. I claim to see it.

    These statements are not perfected, the fundamental concepts however are true.

    1. All truths are only partial-truth. A partial-truth is not a half truth in that it holds no lies.
    2. The ultimate truth is the only truth that is not also a partial-truth. All partial-truth lead to the ultimate truth.

    BTW, I am not aiming to control anything. I am aiming to illuminate the darkness.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    As I said earlier:

    Perfection is not instant. It is a journey followed by inward reflection followed by outward confirmation followed by inward reflection;repeat

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 19, 2014

    @ Noetic Poet

    SS never bother to listen to the second link which addresses the modern day development of a language.

    ""In the late 1970s, a new language was born. And Ann Senghas, Associate Professor of Psychology at Barnard, has spent the last 30 years helping to decode it. In 1978, 50 deaf children entered a newly formed school--a school in which the teachers (who didn't sign) taught in Spanish. No one knows exactly how it happened, but in the next few years--on school buses and in the playground--these kids invented a set of common words and grammar that opened up a whole new way of communicating, and even thinking."

    This is a a rare event to study.

    Like most, SS is another individual that is seeking to control and direct, and not actual engage in an exchange of ideas

    @SS
    Repeating my request:
    "Speaking of words SS, you toss the word "truth" around like you defined its meaning. Why don't you provide us with a definition of "truth" that we can agree on."

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    You have to admit: there is something beyond me that is part of me

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    How can you learn about what you don't know exists?

  • NoetPoet Aug 19, 2014

    "It is like asking if you can fly a plane. You can't until you learn. Then you can."

    And the learning process isn't "manifested instantly" is it. The very fact that you have to LEARN how to do such things shows you that they aren't really part of your "self".

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Or should be 'based on your earlier thought'

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    As an example:

    If someone says 'What am I thinking right now?'

    The answer is:

    If you define 'now' as 'the moment you wrote the question' then you were likely thinking exactly what you were writing, or 'there is no way he can read my mind'

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    By the way, I have developed the 'skill' of theory of mind to the point where I can build someone else's mind within my own mind (but generally only if I can see there words aka thoughts)

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    "people generally consider to be part of the self are also not really self either."

    No it is 'greater than' your 'self'

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    "Well then by your logic most of the things people generally consider to be part of the self are also not really self either. Can you instantly manifest your thoughts to change your bodily processes? Can you instantly manifest your thoughts to end your addictions and compulsions? Can you instantly and directly manifest your thoughts to modify your memories, block out your external senses or alter your state of consciousness?"

    You cannot.. Until you can. Then it's easy.

    It is like asking if you can fly a plane. You can't until you learn. Then you can.

    Or its like asking if you can read. You can't until you learn how.. Then you can.

    Let me ask you this:

    How can an 'unconscious' part of your mind make your heart beat?

    How can an 'unconscious' part of your brain control your digestive system?

    How can an 'unconscious' part of your mind make you 'feel' pain?

  • NoetPoet Aug 19, 2014

    @SufferingServant

    “In fact, as infants, when we have a thoughts we expect it to be Manifested instantly. When it's not, we start to realize our 'thoughts' are not universal. They are separate from others thoughts. This is how we deduce 'I am me' and simeoultanously 'I am not what is not me'
    Logic bro.”

    Well then by your logic most of the things people generally consider to be part of the self are also not really self either. Can you instantly manifest your thoughts to change your bodily processes? Can you instantly manifest your thoughts to end your addictions and compulsions? Can you instantly and directly manifest your thoughts to modify your memories, block out your external senses or alter your state of consciousness?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    Infants cry and milk appears. So then 'thought' leads to 'cry' because of 'pain' and then 'milk' appears.

    Then we figure out 'cry' = 'milk'

    Then 'thought' = 'creation'.

    In fact, as infants, when we have a thoughts we expect it to be Manifested instantly.

    When it's not, we start to realize our 'thoughts' are not universal. They are separate from others thoughts.

    This is how we deduce 'I am me' and simeoultanously 'I am not what is not me'

    Logic bro.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 19, 2014

    How do you explain how infants develope language?

    How was the first language created?

    Most likely started with 'body language' combined with sounds.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 19, 2014

    Re: Words and language are a creation from thoughts.

    How well does one think thoughts without language?

    If one listens to the second on the two links I posted one will see that the development of language is the development of thought especially abstract though. Thought seems to require languagem not the other way around

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 18, 2014

    Well, I was leading up to the point that words and language are effectively thoughts. They are how one person can express their thoughts to another.

    Words and language are a creation from thoughts.

    Words and language create thoughts.

    That is all.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 18, 2014

    Re: Words can metaphorically represent something else.

    This is the linguistic magic I wrote about earlier:

    "There are two good examples here of a linguistic problem; we often disassociate our role in an occurrence.
    Take the sentence, "Time, culture and experience all play a large part in defining words for us. What is being expressed is that we reshape the meaning of words over time. But the construction of the sentence creates the appearance that "time , culture and experience" are the things doing the defining. In fact we are the ones that define and redefine a word. Another example of this is the sentence "Can you see how words get confused?" Should the sentence be "Can you see how we get confused about words?"

    This happens all the time and it is an externalization of subjective perception."

    You are falling into this same trap by writing that "words can..."
    Words do nothing on their own, we are the qualifiers of the meaning they take on.

    Speaking of words SS, you toss the word "truth" around like you defined its meaning. Why don't you provide us with a definition of "truth" that we can agree on.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 18, 2014

    Did you miss the point, "Useage is the great corrupter of a words meaning" or are you playing linguistic games?

    This is a rather long "definition" for you:

    "Susan Schaller believes that the best idea she ever had in her life had to do with an isolated young man she met one day at a community college. He was 27-years-old at the time, and though he had been born deaf, no one had ever taught him to sign. He had lived his entire life without language--until Susan found a way to reach out to him."

    http://www.radiolab.org/story/91728-words-that-change-the-world/

    "In the late 1970s, a new language was born. And Ann Senghas, Associate Professor of Psychology at Barnard, has spent the last 30 years helping to decode it. In 1978, 50 deaf children entered a newly formed school--a school in which the teachers (who didn't sign) taught in Spanish. No one knows exactly how it happened, but in the next few years--on school buses and in the playground--these kids invented a set of common words and grammar that opened up a whole new way of communicating, and even thinking."

    http://www.radiolab.org/story/91730-new-words-new-world/

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 18, 2014

    Define this: word

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 18, 2014

    Words can metaphorically represent something else.

    I'm short religion is: one partially-true path to explain the nature of ourselves and of reality.

    The problem is when people build upon the partial-truth by supplementing it with lies (sometimes intentionally a, sometimes not). In effect, partial-truth is warped into a half-truth. And then lies are misconvieced as true stemming from that half truth.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 18, 2014

    I disagree that no word can be fully defined. Words have intended meaning is the same way "LOL" or "OMG" has a representative meaning. Useage is the great corrupter of a words meaning

    Head to the Wiki and you will is that there is no shortage of definitions for the word religion, including it's thoughts about its origin

    Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[10] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[11]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is an interpretation traced to Cicero, connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".

    And let's not be language elitists, "Many languages have words that can be translated as "religion", but they may use them in a very different way, and some have no word for religion at all. For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as "religion", also means law.

    "The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things"

    The point then is to agree on a definition for its application.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 18, 2014

    True: no word can ever be fully defined. It can only be partially defined. To fully define a word is to describe it's relationship with other words, and eventually the 'whole definition' covers almost all language.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 16, 2014

    ORIGIN Middle English (originally in the sense [life under monastic vows] ): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) ‘obligation, bond, reverence,’ perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind.’

  • NoetPoet Aug 06, 2014

    "Religion" is difficult to define. I have seen about 9 different definitions proposed by various academics, some of which are so complex that they look like they were written by lawyers. The idea of religion being something which "binds" isn't really adequate; "religion" is a term which has very much grown beyond its etymological roots.

    If I had to define "religion", I would define it thus:

    A religion is a body of ideas about the nature of reality and human conduct which is asserted to have come from a supreme authority (e.g. a prophet, a god, a holy book), and as such is regarded by its followers as perfect and impossible to improve upon by human effort.

    Since science and philosophy are all about humans continually testing models/ideas and coming up with better models/ideas, they both fall well outside the domain of "religion".

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 06, 2014

    There are two good examples here of a linguistic problem; we often disassociate our role in an occurrence.
    Take the sentence, "Time, culture and experience all play a large part in defining words for us. What is being expressed is that we reshape the meaning of words over time. But the construction of the sentence creates the appearance that "time , culture and experience" are the things doing the defining. In fact we are the ones that define and redefine a word. Another example of this is the sentence "Can you see how words get confused?" Should the sentence be "Can you see how we get confused about words?"

    This happens all the time and it is an externalization of subjective perception.

  • Anonymous Icon

    guy_on_a_plane Aug 06, 2014

    So a contract is religion to you as well? A shackle too? Although there is truth to your words, it's pretty common conduct to use words based on their textbook definitions, which in turn is based on how words are meant originally.
    Now I do not now the origin of the word science from the top of my head, but I do know that if you take science as meaning just knowing you're not really using the word for its most common meaning, especially within the scientific community. It is not some general form of knowing, it implies the knowledge being acquired by the scientific method. Which in itself is a set of rules a persons bound to if he wants to practice science. Which also means that according to your definition, science could be classified a religion.

    Do you agree?

  • NoetPoet Aug 05, 2014

    I'll nominate some words for definition: "convention", "ego", "dogmatic" and "higher".

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS