Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: coberst on 05/08/2009 18:52:49
-
Are Internet discussion forums the answer?
When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.
“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”
Our sluggish ability to adapt quickly to changes in our environment severely endangers the longevity of the human species: it takes generations for new human science theories to migrate into mass common sense comprehension.
Internet discussion forums are the answer.
What is the question?
How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the social osmosis of new human science theories?
Quotes from The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio
-
So you are asking how do we market science?
Scientists have done a really crappy job of it in the past but more recently they have used the media to make sure science misinformation doesn't stop good change. Stem Cell research is an example of when they finally got it right. Hell, forums are small fry. Less people visit them because time is a limiting factor for visits to them. If a forum summary facility was available then perhaps more people would learn from them. Most websites can do this but not forums.
-
Are Internet discussion forums the answer?
Only for the curious with a lot of time on their hands.
When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.
I must respectfully disagree with this view. Consciousness came before language in my opinion. The very word "I" must have been one of the first words and it proves the presence of consciousness prior to it's invention.
-
Are Internet discussion forums the answer?
Only for the curious with a lot of time on their hands.
When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.
I must respectfully disagree with this view. Consciousness came before language in my opinion. The very word "I" must have been one of the first words and it proves the presence of consciousness prior to it's invention.
If you had read the next paragraph you would see both Damsio and I are convinced that we think in images and not in words.
I am suggesting that the discussion forum is a vehicle that can be very useful if we were to use it in a more sophisticated manner than it is now used. The forum does not have to be confined to idle chit chat. If we were to begin to use it in a sophisticated manner we could attract sophisticated individuals or individuals who wished to grow into sophisticated thinkers. It could grow to be a very important means for intellectual discourse.
-
I am suggesting that the discussion forum is a vehicle that can be very useful if we were to use it in a more sophisticated manner than it is now used. The forum does not have to be confined to idle chit chat. If we were to begin to use it in a sophisticated manner we could attract sophisticated individuals or individuals who wished to grow into sophisticated thinkers. It could grow to be a very important means for intellectual discourse.
For that you need to have posters who are commited to what they post and are willing and able to engage in debate/discourse without dismissing everyone who disagrees with them, or by ignoring points they they want to gloss over.
What makes you think tht the people here don't use other forums to stimulate their intellect? I know I do, it's not classed as being unfaithful to indulge in intellectual intercourse elsewhere.
-
Have you even looked at other threads in this forum ?
there are plenty discussions of uber sophistication !!....only parts of the forum are for play !!
You're right, the forum does not have to be a vehicle for idle chit chat...but idle chit chat is very important too !...'Play ' is vital !
There are many sophisticated threads here !
-
I think "Just Chat" is for improving your sophisticated wit. You ought to try and find a philosophy forum. I think you will find the posters more committed to your points on topics like critical thinking. I will do some research and see if I can find a suitable one for you. I must say that here you are a square peg in a round hole. We are not really interested in your line of discussion. You may think you are being evangelistic but you only have to see how Saints met their end to realise it is not going to do you any good. Most of us here will talk about science related subjects in the relevant sections but in "just chat" we kick off our shoes and party. No one likes an intellectual bore at a party.
-
I think "Just Chat" is for improving your sophisticated wit. You ought to try and find a philosophy forum. I think you will find the posters more committed to your points on topics like critical thinking. I will do some research and see if I can find a suitable one for you. I must say that here you are a square peg in a round hole. We are not really interested in your line of discussion. You may think you are being evangelistic but you only have to see how Saints met their end to realise it is not going to do you any good. Most of us here will talk about science related subjects in the relevant sections but in "just chat" we kick off our shoes and party. No one likes an intellectual bore at a party.
Yeah...what shaz said !..shaz is great !
I'm also great !
-
I am suggesting that the discussion forum is a vehicle that can be very useful if we were to use it in a more sophisticated manner than it is now used. The forum does not have to be confined to idle chit chat. If we were to begin to use it in a sophisticated manner we could attract sophisticated individuals or individuals who wished to grow into sophisticated thinkers. It could grow to be a very important means for intellectual discourse.
Just to echo the other posters here, I think this is missing the point entirely. There's plenty of very stimulating "intellectual discourse" in the various sections of the forum. You can always avoid "Just Chat" if it fails to reach your levels of sophistication.
-
I think "Just Chat" is for improving your sophisticated wit. You ought to try and find a philosophy forum. I think you will find the posters more committed to your points on topics like critical thinking. I will do some research and see if I can find a suitable one for you.
If you Google:
'Are Internet discussion forums the answer? coberst'
you will find that this exact same question has been pasted by Coberst on several forums already. In fact, the same is true of all Coberst's threads. It would be nice if he would explain his reasons for this multiple posting thing.
-
you will find that this exact same question has been pasted by Coberst on several forums already. In fact, the same is true of all Coberst's threads. It would be nice if he would explain his reasons for this multiple posting thing.
Its interesting to read the reactions of the posters on the other forums to Cobersts posts, seems like they have had enough too.
I am suggesting that the discussion forum is a vehicle that can be very useful if we were to use it in a more sophisticated manner than it is now used. The forum does not have to be confined to idle chit chat. If we were to begin to use it in a sophisticated manner we could attract sophisticated individuals or individuals who wished to grow into sophisticated thinkers. It could grow to be a very important means for intellectual discourse.
That has been posted on all the other forums too.
-
If you had read the next paragraph you would see both Damsio and I are convinced that we think in images and not in words.
Duhhhh, which exactly proves my point; Consciousness came before words! Something tells me that you may have trouble understanding plain English sir!
-
If you had read the next paragraph you would see both Damsio and I are convinced that we think in images and not in words.
Duhhhh, which exactly proves my point; Consciousness came before words! Something tells me that you may have trouble understanding plain English sir!
Correct, consciousness comes before language. My point is that if you had someone to read to you the complete OP you would have recognized this fact.
-
If you had read the next paragraph you would see both Damsio and I are convinced that we think in images and not in words.
Duhhhh, which exactly proves my point; Consciousness came before words! Something tells me that you may have trouble understanding plain English sir!
Correct, consciousness comes before language. My point is that if you had someone to read to you the complete OP you would have recognized this fact.
And the point most of we members are making is this:
The Chat forum is no place to exercise one's theories about Philosophy or Metaphysics or any other serious topic with intentions of revolutionizing the world view, or for that matter, any particular forum members opinion either. If you want serious discussion, and I doubt that seriously, take your views over to the appropriate venue. And don't come here with that superior Intellectual attitude instructing us to re-read, what in most cases is, useless material in the Chat Forum.
Keep this in mind coberst and you may have a chance to make a few friends here. If you neglect to give this advice it's proper attention, you will find nothing but grief and disrespect from most of us here at The Naked Scientist!!!!
Nuff said....................Ethos
-
Could this thread please be moved to New Theories please.
-
I'd love to know the rationale behind this thread constituting a "New Theory".
Is there a testable model of any kind suggested here?
-
Could this thread please be moved to New Theories please.
Bravo!! [^] [^] [^]
-
When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.
NO - This is incorrect assertion, invalidating the whole question.
This question is based on a poor, limited understanding of the concept of consciousness. Before any form of consciousness could arise, a sense of self had to evolve. A dog, when confronted with a mirror, does not recognize that they are the thing being reflected. A chimpanzee, on the other hand, will also not recognize that they are reflected but with time will figure out that the object being reflected is itself and thus a sense of self is developed. ONLY when this sens of individualization occurs does consciousness come into existence.
HOW this sense of self evolved is a matter of intense discussion and very little agreement. The answer to this depends on the approach one takes to the question. A neurological approach yeilds one answer, an evolutionary biological approach yields another. Philosophical approachs yield numerous answers. From Descartes's 'cogito ergo sum' to Biblical creationism to the first of the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta, that being transliterated as "Chaitanyamatma" ('Everything is Consciousness' in the translation I prefer) to the numerous other disciplines, there is no consensus.
The assumption that science is good to propagate, especially without a ethical foundation, is also a specious assumption.
Therefore this question is really unanswerable. It needs to be recast.
-
Could this thread please be moved to New Theories please.
Bravo!! [^] [^] [^]
OK then. Perhaps we need another Forum with a title like 'general philosophy' for 'serious chat' which is not just light banter. There is an essentIal difference between that and the catch-all 'new theories' but both are serious topics.
-
Could this thread please be moved to New Theories please.
Bravo!! [^] [^] [^]
OK then. Perhaps we need another Forum with a title like 'general philosophy' for 'serious chat' which is not just light banter. There is an essential difference between that and the catch-all 'new theories' but both are serious topics.
Indeed none of Coberst's posts are new theories at all, usually they are chunks of texts from various books cobbled together, certainly nothing new.
It doesn't belong in a philosophy forum either, those require much depth of discussion, something not associated with Coberst's posts.
Perhaps there should be a 'general musings' forum, where Coberst can post without interrupting the chat section or without objections from posts being in the wrong section.
-
We go through this about once a year. Some irrelevant poster such a coberst comes along and we get all messed up because he is being a horse's patute. We would never be impolite to suggest he find some other place to post so we let it go on way too long then fell remorse for being human and try to find a solution that doesn't cause hurt feelings. The moderators always ddecide that as this is a science forum we should keep it science and not add a philisophical area because the required bandwidth is too costly. We average about 1.4 MILLION hits a month. To expand this site to include a forum for philosophy is beyond the mandated behind the funds raised for this site.
In this case a strict adherence to the acceptable use policy should apply. This is a discussion forum. Any other use or refusal to participate in discussion or personal attacks to the persons posting rebuttal should result, after one warning, to immediate banning from the site.
No new section, no new rules, no exceptions for anyone.
-
No new section, no new rules, no exceptions for anyone.
Now that's what I like about you JimBob, direct to the point, and usually very logical. Take note, I did said "usually", and not "always".
-
OK. So I say that these things should be just chat (which they tend to be) and not new theories (which they are definitely not).
If we can't afford Philosophy then that's OK with me.
-
Does anyone know where I can bone up on Socrates? [:)]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzenhabits.net%2Ffotos%2F20090121socrates.jpg&hash=d9166b0410dd058fa6487fce2a967294)
Shown here pondering his next Internet forum avoidance
-
OK then. Perhaps we need another Forum with a title like 'general philosophy' for 'serious chat' which is not just light banter. There is an essentIal difference between that and the catch-all 'new theories' but both are serious topics.
I always had the impression that New Theories was not so much a place for New Theories, but more of a place to house the nutters and way out there people.
As for just chat, I think you really only need one or two topics as they all end up the same no matter what the title says. I also prefer to pronounce Just chat in a french accent...because most of it is!
-
Perhaps, if the word 'theories' were to be in inverted commas?? Then where would be the place for REAL new Scientific Theories?
-
As for just chat, I think you really only need one or two topics as they all end up the same no matter what the title says. I also prefer to pronounce Just chat in a french accent...because most of it is!
It also provides a sharp relief to the more 'intelligent' debate on these forums. It is a place to unwind, and is (usually) free from posters trying to intellectually outdo each other in order to score points. People take themselves far too seriously.
Like any area, people do not have to read it or join in. I don't read the physics forum, that does not mean others don't value it.
-
It is a place to unwind, and is (usually) free from posters trying to intellectually outdo each other in order to score points. People take themselves far too seriously.
Excellent point Variola,...If a member feels the need to captivate others with their intellect, let them put up or shut up in the proper venue. A truly gifted individual will never find it necessary to continually prove themselves, it will become quite obvious to others by the way they handle intelligent discussion. It's called give and take, something we could all practice a bit more...............Ethos
-
So we should shift a fair number of the posts on this forum elsewhere, perhaps?
-
So we should shift a fair number of the posts on this forum elsewhere, perhaps?
What would that achieve?
Jimbob has the Coberst situation sorted.
The main forums need more posters, hopefully the regular posters on there can make the effort to create a warm friendly atmosphere so others can post up without feeling they are being peed on intellectually.
-
That makes sense.
-
I always had the impression that New Theories was not so much a place for New Theories, but more of a place to house the nutters and way out there people.
Hey, Paul, I wish to protest, "foul"! My little "nutter group and way out people" has been going strong for over 2 years now, and has attracted interest from Harvard (biophysics), and other dead-serious researchers and institutions (no, not that kind) worldwide. And it's helped a number of people with suicidal ideation, and depression, and has also given great hope to hundreds of sufferers that all the new theories discussed will some day become concrete treatment reality (it has for me already).
-
Demo, with respect, you are barking up the wrong tree. My comment was said in jest, although there is truth in it.
Take a look around "new theories", how many of the posts are new theories? Not many, this is a dumping ground for the wackier topics and wackier posters. Most of them know it, but are happy to be able to post and be left alone.
At no point have I mentioned your pois topic, so an apology would be nice.
-
Isn't POIS part of the New Theories "family" you dismiss, Paul? You made no distinction at all.
I always had the impression that New Theories was not so much a place for New Theories, but more of a place to house the nutters and way out there people.
The above still reads to me like a wholesale dismissal of New Theories, which includes POIS.
From your last post, however, it seems that it's not what you meant to convey, and I appreciate that.
-
Take a look around "new theories", how many of the posts are new theories? Not many, this is a dumping ground for the wackier topics and wackier posters. Most of them know it, but are happy to be able to post and be left alone.
I agree Paul, and so is the case with just about every theory that was either generated by a serious scientist or by a well meaning wacko. This is the nature of theory, not withstanding the fact that most of these should probably be defined as a hypothesis, or even just interesting speculation. Are we going to encumber ourselves with the prospect of have to divide up these three areas of creative thought? I certainly hope not!
There is plently of room for all three, Theory, Hypothesis, and mere Speculation in this venue. The fact remains that behind most every Theory, there was likely some speculative thought that evolved into an Hypothesis which then later became an accepted Theory.
......................Ethos
-
Interestingly, the word 'theory' is generally considered to derive from the Greek "contemplation, speculation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
-
Isn't POIS part of the New Theories "family" you dismiss, Paul? You made no distinction at all.
Demo. I made no distinction, because I don't have to! I can say with confidence that my local village store is a place to buy rubbish food at inflated prices. That doesn't stop me going there for milk and bread, and the odd interesting item.
The above still reads to me like a wholesale dismissal of New Theories, which includes POIS.
Again, with respect. You may read what you want in to any post, it does not mean you are right. Wasn't it only last week you overreacted in the pois topic and removed your posts? Please don't go looking for hidden meaning in mine, if I have something to say I will say it, there is no need to second guess what I mean.
From your last post, however, it seems that it's not what you meant to convey, and I appreciate that.
It seems nothing. You assumed I was saying something, which I wasn't, I clarified that and you didn't have the grace to apologise.
Oh, yes. I would appreciate it if you would stop sending me Personal Messages containing you post replies, I see no need for it and will report it to the moderators the next time it happens.
And can you please stop referring to this as "The POIS Forum" it clearly is not.
I again state that :
"I always had the impression that New Theories was not so much a place for New Theories, but more of a place to house the nutters and way out there people."
"this is a dumping ground for the wackier topics and wackier posters. Most of them know it, but are happy to be able to post and be left alone."
I trust you can now see that I did not say every post and every person that posts here is wacky. You only have to look at this post by soul surfer to realise that.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=11668.0
-
I agree Paul...
You are the first! Why is it, that the first time I say something someone agrees with, it's in new theories? [;)]
-
I have a new theory....
Forum posters with nothing better to do pick arguments out of the air in an attempt to attract more people into posting on their 'pet' topics.
Good or bad theory do you think?? [:o)]
-
Paul, I'll admit to owning up to slightly defensive reading if you'll do the same for your less-than-clear articulation. I received two (2) unsolicited PM's, one from a mod, who read your statement exactly as I did.
I do apologize for sending you PM's out of COURTESY. You can rest assured I'll never do THAT again.
-
And can you please stop referring to this as "The POIS Forum" it clearly is not.
(1) I welcome every newcomer to "the POIS thread of The Naked Science Forum" in bold letters.
(2) The above is wordy, so it's often abbreviated to POIS forum.
(3) I see nothing wrong with (2) since it is an "online discussion site" (a basic definition of "forum") about POIS, with an exchange of experiences, treatments and theories.
-
Demo. You jumped in to a discussion that had been ongoing, accross different topics, for a number of months. At no point was the pois topic mentioned or hinted at, so why you felt you had to defend it is beyond me.
My articulation relfected that discussion, you chose to think it was directed at you for some unknown reason.
As for the two "unsolicited emails" you received, well, woopey doo. If the moderator has a problem then he/she can either make that known to me or it is nothing more that tittle tattle from a moderator about a forum member. This is not a good thing for a moderator to be doing, is it?
"out of courtesy" do you PM everyone you reply to with a copy of your reply?
Would the moderator who contacted you care to contact me with their thoughts, and why they felt the need to talk about me and not to me?
I also have no intention of continuing this pointless discussion. You were wrong in your assumptions, end of story.
With no respect at all, I push the submit button.
-
tazdas, this post might help you find information about POIS that we have already discussed, by tailoring a Google search to this POIS forum:
SEARCH POIS FORUM WITH GOOGLE
-
It needed defending because this "discussion" (albeit one sided) was not the first time. I will now terminate with full agreement as to its "pointlessness". And with no respect at all, apparently another solid point of agreement.