Re: Mind's Eye Re: Delusions

On the net it is difficult to find out who is in the bar or has a stash of cans in her hotel room fridge.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 5:02:31 PM UTC, archytas wrote:

More than that Chris - new members other than Jihadis and such come and go without much posting.  I speak to a few on email.  Good to hear about Craig.  Student intranets rarely take off either, despite apparent common interests (very difficult to convince lecturers students have any subject interest).  The bullies soon rule, making sex threats or using what I now call Dottactics.  There is a lot of religious silencing too.  Much of what reaches me as subject advice call is really pastoral.  I have had better conversations recently in a rugby league chatroom offshoot.  We had classic examples of ME at university discussion groups, typically attracting a few lonely people who didn't read the material to discuss.  I used to do academic conferences to meet the people who didn't go to the sessions.  We seemed to be the only ones who had done the pre-reading

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 4:34:25 PM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote:

Yep, he passed the bar some time ago, which is a big part of why he no longer had time for these conversations. 

He's not alone in that, apparently. Over a thousand members, 5 actually post?

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:32 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

Such charm as ever Gabby.  The term paedophile is not well taken here and may really insult Allan and make him sad.  Molly was gone, in the sense of 'gone fishin'.  Craig was becoming a lawyer.  Hope he made it. He was a Mormon too.

It would have been nice to hear updates on Bacon.  There were eleven Idols.  I expect your superior model incorporates them, or perhaps spits spleen.  We can only be sure of never seeing it.

We model defeasibly now and use a lot of geometry because a lot of us think in shape.  The idea is to make natural language usable by the machine.  It has even more difficulty making sense of just what humans say than a pair of paranoid-schizoid positionists.  We do consider 'shapes' like the molygon as underliers in our logic and they are instructive.  A gabbygon is on the horizon - some no doubt thinking this is the best place.  The general theory is called 'bag of words' - we look for shapes in text to give context meaning and identify root metaphors.  You probably know how the SNERT stands out like a sore thumb?  Maybe accusing old men and their dogs kind of thing?  We are trying to find much more routine issues in word use to get at some of Tony has described as dishonesty  from 'bag of words' samples taken from the 'marketplace' and other Idol conversations.  What the machine establishes from metadata - considering we often haven't - is fascinating because we are not sure what it i doing at all.  We have it working on the self-justification of psychopaths at the moment.

Gravity obviously collapses on seeing a photograph of me.  Thanks for the memory.  

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:13:50 PM UTC, Gabby wrote:

This here is my real lesson. You have been bringing up and pushing this idol model so many times that I have forgotten what the one was that I found better. All that I remember is that it was either located in the alchemy or in the metaphysical poetry context. It was a perfect four is all that is left. It has been overwritten by your four idols.

2015-02-11 1:35 GMT+01:00 archytas <nwterry@gmail.com>:

Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the Tribe, idols of the e, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theatre. An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols as symbols, but rather as fixations.  They expand a bit like this:

1. Tribe

The example of desiring to see more order in the universe than is actually there is one of his examples of an idol of the tribe. He thinks that we all suffer from that one.

2. Cave

An example of an idol of the cave (one of Bacon's examples) is that some minds are more drawn to new things and new ideas than they are to what has been around for a long time, while other minds are more drawn to "tradition" and "old school" ideas and ways than they are to newness. Bacon thinks we should become aware what our own tendency is so that we can make corrections for it. He hopes that by becoming aware of our own mind's tendencies toward loving novelty or tradition that we might be able to "correct" for them and then hopefully see things more clearly and truly.

3. Marketplace

We often use words very loosely in common discourse. Bacon sees nothing wrong with that when we are just speaking ordinary language with friends and family. But, when it comes to trying to describe the world accurately and precisely, we should be aware of our tendency to use words loosely and should try to correct for it. When we are trying to speak precisely we should probably not say things like "The mountain is out today" (anyone outside of the Puget Sound area wouldn't have a clue what this means); or "The sun went under a cloud" (the sun did not go anywhere, let along underneath something); or "The sun came up this morning" (the earth actually just rotated). None of those sentences is precisely true, and if we use language imprecisely like this it can sometimes accidentally lead to huge misapprehensions about the world. Bacon thinks this misuse of words and language causes far more problems than we realize.

4. Theatre

If you can think of someone you know who has recently bought into a whole new religion or philosophy or psychology, you can probably see how they have suddenly come to interpret everything in the universe according to their new world view. That world view has become the new lens through which they perceive and interpret everything in their world. What Bacon says, though, is that we all do this. We all interpret the world through the lens of our own little world view. It's just easier to see other people doing it than it is to see ourselves doing it. Bacon thinks we should become aware of how these world views shape and distort our own perceptions of the world so that we might be able to correct for it a bit.

This is old work.  My questions are about how we recognise the 'second head' as a delusion yet move hardly at all on obvious political delusions like economics, votes counting, social care, public ignorance and the making invisible of many social issues.  For me, deep questions on self are involved.  The internet self is unlikely to be, as Tony says, the same as the 'real'one - but then we have know for much longer than the internet people don't say the same things in different contexts.  In fact the man or woman in the bar often looks totally different the morning after, let alone what the politician says in a speech compared with when she is with her backroom boys in the spin room.

.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:17:04 PM UTC, archytas wrote:

At least with my knowledge of delusions I can imagine certain people growing a second head overnight and shooting the wrong spare.  

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:11:09 PM UTC, archytas wrote:

That seems to run to form Gabby.  

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:06:43 PM UTC, Gabby wrote:

Facil picked up your question and gave his answer, I agreed and then came Allan barking at Facil and I told Allan to watch his tongue or leave to his own thread. Only then did you enter the group timeline to start your big daddy has come home show. Now tell me what my deceitful intent was ... Or better, tell me tomorrow, I'm off for today.

Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2015 schrieb archytas :

The only people I meet like that tend to be online students Tony.  We use Skype video conferencing for a few sessions, so have actually seen each other.  I'm quieter than people imagine, though none have yet said 'uglier'.  I'm very prone to catch whatever bugs go around university environments too, so rather like electronic distance.  With colleagues, the situation is we know a lot more about each other than most in online encounters.

My version has 'confusion' written through it.  I say something, Gabby takes it another way, or knows what I intended and chooses another slant for whatever reason.  Online, I assume she has a sense of humour and a good turn with words.  Deception is not part of this in the first place.  Just guesses with less risk than so called reality.  I suppose the classic online deceiver is the groomer - where the intent is to set up and image and then meet the victim.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:54:18 PM UTC, facilitator wrote:

 On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:11:33 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:

The delusion that we are what we project is interesting Tony. 

"We claim to be what we project".  Your version allows for reality mine allows for dishonesty. I think most people want to project a filtered image of themselves enough so that if we ever meet people who we've only conversed with online we become slightly astonished how different they appear and act in "real life".  

 

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/2_ICOWzarWY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/2_ICOWzarWY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.