How can improving critical thinking improve my understanding of the world?

[Les Sleeth]

I mostly agree with Les with exception on two points; first in that I believe knowledge may come from a combination of experience and reason.

I wonder if you might consider that knowledge comes from experience, and understanding comes from reason. Because we use them together, possibly it seems reason also gives knowledge. For example, say after years of experience building pizza ovens , a customer tells you a new one you just sold her only reaches 400° (when it's supposed to reach 650°). Because you know ovens with a faulty upper heating element only reach 400°, your reason and past experince convince you that's the problem. However, I would argue that you don't actually know a bad heating element is the problem until you get it back to the factory and inspect it.

So although reason helps one understand where to look for the problem, it can't actually give knowledge of that. Also, without reason one could still observe that element and see/feel it doesn't come on, and so "know" it (or something associated with it) doesn't work properly.

Second, I am not convinced objectivity is possible despite our best efforts (or that I’d be able to recognize it if it struck me in the face). Still, I’m with Les in that I’m all for making every attempt to be objective because the alternative strikes me as defeatist, though Wu Li might consider it merely an act of surrender or acceptance. Certainly we can recognize bias in others, if not ourselves, and so it seems opportunity for improvement is not denied to us.

Well, I admit I don't know from personal experience that pure objectivity is possible. I am judging by a trend in my own consciousness that started in one place, and is now a lot more objective. Plus, there are times when I feel so detached from wanting things to be a certain way, and so much more interested in how they actually are, that I've come to believe a very high level of objectivity can be attained. Plus, as you know, there are claims that it is possible. The ideal of "enlightenment" for example, is, as they say in Zen, the polished mirror. That idea represents a consciousness so clean of bias and mentality it reflects reality exactly as it is.

In any case, I am hopeful the pristine condition is possible, but I want it even if it isn't.

 

[BoulderHead]

I wonder if you might consider that knowledge comes from experience, and understanding comes from reason. Because we use them together, possibly it seems reason also gives knowledge.

Well, I do think that wisdom is born of experience, hehe. Notice that I did not say knowledge may come from experience or reason, which is how I perceive you to have understood me. I said I believed it could come from a combination of experience and reason. You had made a statement; “I am someone who believes knowledge comes from experience, not reason.” and I objected because without our ability to reason there are a great many things we would not ‘know’.

I’m not up for turning this into a discourse invoking skepticism, knowledge vs justified belief, etc. Knowledge could be an awareness of an entirely internal state of being, or it could be a familiarity with pizza ovens that required some analytical thought and prior experience, so yes, I can agree that experience is central. The course to knowledge might also follow all four items you mentioned, as in; experience > reasoning > understanding > knowledge. It is because of such a path I raised my objection, as you were cutting reason out of the process with that particular statement you made. Does this make my point clearer to you?

In any case, I am hopeful the pristine condition is possible, but I want it even if it isn't.

This ‘wanting’ could be seen as problematic, true?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The course to knowledge might also follow all four items you mentioned, as in; experience > reasoning > understanding > knowledge. It is because of such a path I raised my objection, as you were cutting reason out of the process with that particular statement you made. Does this make my point clearer to you?

Yes, it is clear. But here's why I dispute it. How would you explain rats learning how to navigate mazes and operate feeding machines? After a certain amount of practice, they "know" their way around without reason ever having been a part of it. As far as I can tell, they came to know through experience alone. If we could inject some reason into their heads, then I'd expect them to learn faster. But to me, that is adding an accelerant to the knowing process, but not creating the knowing itself.

This ‘wanting’ could be seen as problematic, true?

Very funny. Are you trying to confuse me?

 

[jammieg]

I like your posts Les, makes good sense, I agree, it's almost like Tenyears says with the boxes, we all get caught up in boxes of thinking that are predictable to one's emotional disposition, it seems that by acceptance one gains a bit of control and steps away from the box and at least is more able to see it and judge it more objectively for it's worth.
I thought you might be interested in these meditation ideas, instead of trying to think of nothing I've been trying to accept whatever is going to come, that is whatever thoughts or images or sounds are to come, the odd thing is that the more accepting and relaxed I am of whatever comes the more intense the thoughts or self-stimulation grows, like an itch that burns to be scratched, and afterward I don't get caught up as easily in boxes of thinking, I mean I notice when I'm thinking in boxes more...it could be one way of learning to control one's thoughts by not giving into the emotions as easily that also burn to be scratched, anyway the experience of it creates an understanding, in my opinion, that trying to control things all the time is another form of bias that clouds certain ways of thinking, most likely the dreamer being that deep meditation nears the rem sleep pattern and is more of a letting go experience with very little or no control. Another odd thing to try that actors are probably good at is imagine something to get you angry and then let the anger go when it gets easy, the more I repeat this the more intense it grows, like an addiction and probably with the same biological pattern of neural growth, except it's all in the head and controlled voluntarily I guess...that is whenever the source of stimulant is taken away the neurons branch out and grow as if seeking out to reclaim the stimulant(The nature of addiction-SciAm-March), it could be true for all sorts of things not considered addictive, like the hardest part of going from hedonism to asceticism is the initial plunge after that it gets easy, and asceticism to headonism, the vacillation between the two extremes is the point of greatest change and the hardest and possibly the most understanding is developed which might just be the biological reflection of increased neural growth and complexity...probably repetition of anything is addictive.
On a historical note, the Buddha was supposed to have been enticed by visions but he rejected them and the God(I forget which one) kept creating more captivating illusions, he was deep into mental control techniques but it would have been terrifying I'll bet to not understand that it was all in his head, all of it, no God just a process of biology that doens't care about that stuff, people might have visions all the time on the other hand but only a few of them have egos large enough to claim it is a sign from God rather than a good guess.

 

[Rader]

calf experience

I believe knowledge may come from a combination of experience and reason.

I wonder if you might consider that knowledge comes from experience, and understanding comes from reason.

How would you explain the fact that a calf knows how to stand on its feet, right after birth? Or better said, how does a calf know that it knows that it has to stand on its feet and not lay on its back to walk? "All living things" seems to know, before experience what is needed to know. Notwithstanding the more the experience, the more that is known, that is about walking, or anything for that matter.. A calf will walk into a hole and break its leg right off the start, yet it learns not to do that, only after it knows already how to walk. Now you could say, that it is all in the genes, that dictate what should be knowable through experience. What is being considered here is priori to the experience that occurs. How can anything be known what is necessary to be known unless all knowledge was priori to experience? It seems that there is a language not spoken which communicates information priori to experience, wisdom.

Wisdom is what gives meaning, to the way we should observe things to be like, the way they are. Thats why a calf has never tried to walk with its legs up, instead of on the floor.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is being considered here is priori to the experience that occurs. How can anything be known what is necessary to be known unless all knowledge was priori to experience? It seems that there is a language not spoken which communicates information priori to experience, wisdom.

I think so too, that beings are born with some level of knowing. I use the term "knowing" rather than "knowledge" because it seems more general, while knowledge seem specific. My favorite example in humans is how we are born capable of deep joy. That has always amazed me.

 

[BoulderHead]

Yes, it is clear. But here's why I dispute it. How would you explain rats learning how to navigate mazes and operate feeding machines? After a certain amount of practice, they "know" their way around without reason ever having been a part of it.

I do not claim to know what does or does not go through a rat’s mind or sense experience. I have not studied these animals and therefore am not qualified to comment.

As far as I can tell, they came to know through experience alone. If we could inject some reason into their heads, then I'd expect them to learn faster. But to me, that is adding an accelerant to the knowing process, but not creating the knowing itself.

I do notice that both Radar and you refer to animals to make a point. If it is wished to broaden the conversation beyond what I had intended (human knowing), then what can be seen from your statement I originally disagreed with is that essentially it put a very limited restriction on knowing, whereas my response was to show there are more paths to ‘knowing’ than only through simple experience. So if, for example, you were to accept that calves ‘know’ how to walk prior to having any actual experience than your original statement would be in conflict with such a view.
On the other hand, what I put forward was really only meant to show why ‘knowing’ in so narrow a manor as you described could/should be expanded on. It was not my intent to put forward a thesis on what constitutes all/only ways of knowing, so largely I do not feel compelled to explain some of the things asked here. Now, it does not matter to my position whether or not an example(s) can be shown whereby some knowledge comes solely through experience without the need for any reasoning process to be involved, as this is not something I have disputed. If, on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that knowing should ever come via reason (even in a single example) then your statement must be false. One attempt to show such falsity is to note if we had never experienced the sun it is unlikely we would have applied observation and reason to understanding something about it. In other words, the experience of the sun all by itself is not what got us to our present understanding, or if you prefer, our present state of knowing.

Very funny. Are you trying to confuse me?

No, just giving a subtle hint relating to bias. As we cannot be everywhere at the same time doing everything simultaneously, we are necessarily restricted and forced to give preference to one avenue of pursuit over another. ‘Wanting’ could likely be seen as bias. Additionally, what if ‘wanting’ were to affect us deeply, might it skew the outcome of our investigations?

[edited for clarity]

 

[Rader]

If it is wished to broaden the conversation beyond what I had intended (human knowing), then what can be seen from your statement I originally disagreed with is that essentially it put a very limited restriction on knowing, whereas my response was to show there are more paths to ‘knowing’ than only through simple experience. So if, for example, you were to accept that calves ‘know’ how to walk prior to having any actual experience than your original statement would be in conflict with such a view.

There are more paths to increase human knowledge of knowing but there appears to be that knowing, is priori to experience. Why then is the knowing of emotions for example uniform throughout the animal kingdom? Why do animals react to pain the same we humans do?

On the other hand, what I put forward was really only meant to show why ‘knowing’ in so narrow a manor as you described could/should be expanded on. It was not my intent to put forth a thesis on all/only ways of knowing, so largely I do not feel compelled to explain some of the things asked here. Now, it does not matter to my position whether or not an example(s) can be shown whereby knowledge comes solely through experience, as this is not something I have disputed. If, on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that knowing should ever come via reason (even in a single example) then your statement must be false.

I would seem that it would only prove your right, that there might be other ways.

One attempt to show such falsity is to note if we had never experienced the sun it is unlikely we would have applied observation and reason to understanding something about it. In other words, the experience of the sun all by itself is not what got us to our present understanding

What makes a seed know it has to sprout then, if it is the not knowing of the sun shinning? My viewpoint is not limited to humans, you could imply it to anything. The basic knowing that the sun exists is all that is needed for the seed to sprout. Yes of course if you were a human, you know also the sun exists and can experience more than just its warmth. You can gain more knowledge about its birth death and function through observation, measurement, experiments, math ect. I am not debating that knowledge is gained only by experience but that some knowing which is knowledge, is priori to experience. Thats why I pasted two quotes from both you and Les. The meaning of knowing is what needs to be explained. The only way to put it is that "All living things" seems to know, before experience what is needed to know. There is a innate knowing in all things, that just know, what they know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If, on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that knowing should ever come via reason (even in a single example) then your statement must be false. One attempt to show such falsity is to note if we had never experienced the sun it is unlikely we would have applied observation and reason to understanding something about it. In other words, the experience of the sun all by itself is not what got us to our present understanding, or if you prefer, our present state of knowing.

I hope you are enjoying this exchange as much as I am (I'm not sure if I detect a bit of impatience in your words or not). I am not trying to be argumentative; rather, I actually have a hypothesis about knowing and understanding. So my attempt to engage you is just a way to test out my hypothetical thinking by looking to see how it holds up to others' critiques. If you don't feel comfortable or aren't in the mood for debating this, I totally understand.

But assuming you are interested, let me state my hypothesis so there's no question about what we are discussing. I propose that although knowing and understanding assist each other in their respective realms, they are two completely different consciousness aspects, and that only experience produces knowing, while only reason produces understanding.

To start, I agree with your above test using falsity, but I have a problem with your example because it seems you are interchanging understanding and knowing, while I am treating them as two different things. I interpret understanding as a singular insight that has resulted from mental processes. Once we've achieved an understanding, it allows us to use the intellect to work with whatever it is we've understood. In other words, understanding is first a product and then a tool of reason; and even if experience is relied upon in reasoning processes, it is relied on conceptually and so is translated into the mental realm. Knowing, on the other hand, doesn't require understanding or reason, but can be achieved through pure experience, as in the rat-maze example. I myself sometimes practice learning purely experientially by trying to keep my mentality out of something I'm doing (as long as possible) in order to see what that teaches me without the influence of my intellect (later, of course, I will reflect on it mentally too).

You correctly say that if there is one example where knowing can result from reason, my hypothesis is disproven. Well, there is one particular case I am not sure about, and that is the internal mental operations of logic. Because I already know that tautologies are always true, or that 2 + 2 always equals 4, I realize that internal logical functions, done correctly, produce correct answers. Of course, the "knowledge" yielded is strictly in regard to the logic operations, and not about anything else. So, even though I can be sure that the math I use to balance my checkbook is sound, I cannot actually know if my check book is balanced until I leave my pure logic realm and enter the experiential realm of checkbooks, bank accounts, etc. to see if the money is there (or not ). So does that amount to falsification of my hypothesis? I am not sure. But if it does, then I'd adjust my statement to include the math/logic/tautology exception.

No, just giving a subtle hint relating to bias. As we cannot be everywhere at the same time doing everything simultaneously, we are necessarily restricted and forced to give preference to one avenue of pursuit over another. ‘Wanting’ could likely be seen as bias. Additionally, what if ‘wanting’ were to affect us deeply, might it skew the outcome of our investigations?

I know. I was kidding around with you.

 

[BoulderHead]

Hello Les,
I haven't had time to deeply review the last posts from you and Rader but hope to do so by this evening. I just wanted to assure you that I am enjoying the conversation and not being impatient though my attempts to stay on a point might come across in such manner. I am in the process of moving and within the next 48 hours will be out of touch for hopefully not more than a month at worst, so this is partly why I don't want to stray off along too many paths.
-BH
(I will edit this post with a more acceptable reply ASAP)

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am in the process of moving and within the next 48 hours will be out of touch for hopefully not more than a month at worst, so this is partly why I don't want to stray off along too many paths.

Thanks for explaining. Maybe I'll start a new thread on this topic in few weeks. It's off-topic anyway. Good luck with the move.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Rader;
The meaning of knowing is what needs to be explained.

Exactly, as well for understanding…

I propose that although knowing and understanding assist each other in their respective realms, they are two completely different consciousness aspects, and that only experience produces knowing, while only reason produces understanding.

What is called for at this point is a defining of terms. I don’t believe we can get far without our ground rules being agreed upon, and looking at common definitions there seems to be some overlap which clouds my ability to isolate these words as precisely as you are doing. For example; knowing involves having an understanding that may be brought about by experience or study. While I prefer to additionally say it may include both experience and study, you are suggesting only the experienced need apply, haha. Understanding is to perceive and comprehend (both from dic dot com, but I’m open to considering nearly anything). With understanding I see the word ‘comprehend’ as having more the intellectual property, whereas ‘perceive’ could be a simple sensory stimulation. I can’t determine your position with respect to understand, and I’ll bring it up again down below. Still, in these definitions I see the path for; reason > understanding > knowing.

To start, I agree with your above test using falsity, but I have a problem with your example because it seems you are interchanging understanding and knowing, while I am treating them as two different things.

The reason I did that was to make allowance for anyone wishing to dispute the meaning of knowledge. That is; rather than make an absolute claim of knowledge I used understanding (as in; to comprehend the nature of…). That way, if I should turn out to be no more than a brain in a vat I will not have been guilty of proclaiming an illusion as truth.

I interpret understanding as a singular insight that has resulted from mental processes. Once we've achieved an understanding, it allows us to use the intellect to work with whatever it is we've understood.

What are these ‘mental processes’ in the first sentence? You are speaking of a singular insight brought about by a plurality of mental processes, yet these processes do not involve the intellect?
With respect to sentence #2; why couldn’t the door swing the other way, that is; observation > reasoning process > understanding.

Knowing, on the other hand, doesn't require understanding or reason, but can be achieved through pure experience, as in the rat-maze example.

I would offer this for consideration; someone can know they feel a dreadful pain in the abdomen through the pure experience and yet not immediately know why it is happening. It is possible they may not know the reason for the pain until after some reflection and reasoning has been performed. The matter looks to boil down into the definition of ‘knowing’, which I had stated earlier I hoped to avoid.

So, even though I can be sure that the math I use to balance my checkbook is sound, I cannot actually know if my check book is balanced until I leave my pure logic realm and enter the experiential realm of checkbooks, bank accounts, etc. to see if the money is there (or not ).

Is it possible to assume the role of a skeptic and argue even in the experiential realm there is room to be mistaken about what you ‘know’?

What if, entirely in your head, you knew all the figures being worked with were correct, and you knew your math was flawless, yet your checkbook didn’t reflect this? Why couldn’t your knowledge be true and an entry in the checkbook have been wrong?

What is it to ‘know’?

Do you need to actually peer inside the vault at the bank so as to truly ‘know’ the money is there, or is the word of a bank employee enough, and if it were, what if it should turn out the employee had made a mistake? What if the bank were robbed immediately prior to your arriving to make a withdraw? In short; what is required for knowledge? Is it a high rate of reliability, perfect reliability, the word of the bank, or something else?

I think what most of us accept daily as knowledge requires of us both an element of truth and belief. Without an agreed upon working definition of our terms the brain in the vat scenario, which falls within the theory of knowledge, could claim you still do not know the money is really there.

With regard to experiences, I am of mind to consider it such a fundamental building block of our existence that I don’t have a problem recognizing its importance. If we never had any experiences there wouldn’t be much to life, so far as I can tell. I see it as the kick-start that gets everything else into motion, and at least in this context I can say that without experience we would not know.

So does that amount to falsification of my hypothesis? I am not sure. But if it does, then I'd adjust my statement to include the math/logic/tautology exception.

Dunno, my brain is worn out. I’ll think about these matters and look forward to a mutual effort at defining terminology and ironing wrinkles.

 

[coberst]

I make this statement here because I seem to have some philosophy types cornered.

Where is the Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking of Philosophy? Greene wrote “The Elegant Universe” and Hawking wrote a couple of books on time. Physics has attempted to bring the average Sally and Joe into the world of space-time. Have I missed it or has Philosophy not made an equivalent move? It appears to me that Philosophy does not give a **** about the average Sally or Joe.

I am a layman looking for some comprehension of what philosophy has to say to me about my world. How can philosophy be brought into the living rooms of the average family?

The most esoteric aspects of the natural sciences are being brought to the consciousness of the public. What does philosophy do in that regard? Excuse me if I look back at this thread and comment what I perceive to be the problem of philosophy. Philosophy loves to discuss philosophy among the club members but are unaware or do not care that the average person has no idea what understanding or knowledge is really about. The average person knows that they think and that is the end of the story.

I think we, the adult public, need for Philosophy to take an interest in just how ignorant we are as to the fundamentals of thinking. I think we badly need an “Epistemology for Dummies” and an “Elegant Universe of Reason”.

As I understand it our educational system is attempting to introduce Critical Thinking into the curriculums of our schools and colleges. I am not sure if this is true but it is my impression that this effort has received little support by Philosophy. I am not aware of Philosophy taking a leading role in this effort. I do not see Philosophy attempting to bring to the awareness of our adult population the value and nature of Critical Thinking.

What is the position of Philosophy regarding Critical Thinking in the classrooms? What is the position of Philosophy regarding the absolute vacuum that exists in our adult population regarding matters of epistemology? Is Philosophy satisfied that it has upheld its responsibility to the general public regarding matters of reason?

I think Philosophy has a duty to the public. I think Philosophy has shirked that responsibility.

 

[Rader]

Beings are born with some level of knowing. I use the term "knowing" rather than "knowledge" because it seems more general, while knowledge seem specific.

I propose that although knowing and understanding assist each other in their respective realms, they are two completely different consciousness aspects, and that only experience produces knowing, while only reason produces understanding

Les the top quote is you to me and the bottom is you to boulderhead. Boulderhead asks a interesting question. What is it to ‘know’? He might be busy for a while. There is a subtle difference bewtween those two quotes and I would like to define it.

You seem to know or think that you know, that there is some knowing priori to experience but only experience might produce the knowing. For both statements to be held true in the same context, there would have to be a knowing of experience in order for experience to produce the knowing. My question is then, might "Knowing" be then, the continuum of the feel of all emotions? The knowing is the feel of the calf setting its hoofs on the ground, not only in the context of the physcial feel but the feel of the metaphysical, that, that is the way, we should feel things to be like, the way they are.

 

[Rader]

Is Philosophy satisfied that it has upheld its responsibility to the general public regarding matters of reason?

I think Philosophy has a duty to the public. I think Philosophy has shirked that responsibility.

You could ask the same question backwards, should the individual have a responsibility to have a philosophy of life? Where lies the responsibilty to be in your head? Is anything logical? Godel says not.

 

[coberst]

Goodness, please don't tell me this is a representation of Philosophy's response.

 

[Rader]

Goodness, please don't tell me this is a representation of Philosophy's response.

I think we badly need an “Epistemology for Dummies” and an “Elegant Universe of Reason”.

Even simple people can have a philosophy of life. You seem to have misunderstood me. There is no "ultimate truth" in epistemological philosophy. Who is philosophy if it is not you?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604150349/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ520.HTM

Try this if you like. Ontological philosophy.
http://www.twow.net/MclOtaI.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

Goodness, please don't tell me this is a representation of Philosophy's response.

First let me apologize for diverting the main theme of your thread. You'll probably notice I continued the discussion in a new thread.

In regard to bringing philosophy into the living room of the average family, I think that is being offered somewhat by some of the wonderful programs found on TV like the Discovery or History channels, and public television offers some good stuff too. Yet I am afraid most people aren't interested in philosophy, and that's why there isn't more of it for the average guy. My experience is that people just want to get on with life, and don't want to think much about what has shaped, and still influences, their thinking.

I couldn't help but wonder from your earlier response if you felt we were purposely talking over people's heads in this thread. I don't think anyone intentionally was; it's just that after you get familiar with a topic, one tends to jump into higher levels of discussion. If you (or anyone) wants to learn more about philosophy, forums are good place; that, combined with the investigative power of the internet, allows for much learning. Of course, like anything one first undertakes, getting started can be difficult.

Something I have wanted to see here at PF is a more friendly, open attitude to those who want to learn. I have had a similar thought as you for the physics areas . . . a "physics for dummies" section here would be great. I have so many questions I'd love to ask, but if those who know make you feel stupid for asking, then it's too intimidating to even try.

 

[TENYEARS]

I like your posts Les, makes good sense, I agree, it's almost like Tenyears says with the boxes, we all get caught up in boxes of thinking that are predictable to one's emotional disposition, it seems that by acceptance one gains a bit of control and steps away from the box and at least is more able to see it and judge it more objectively for it's worth.
I thought you might be interested in these meditation ideas, instead of trying to think of nothing I've been trying to accept whatever is going to come, that is whatever thoughts or images or sounds are to come, the odd thing is that the more accepting and relaxed I am of whatever comes the more intense the thoughts or self-stimulation grows, like an itch that burns to be scratched, and afterward I don't get caught up as easily in boxes of thinking, I mean I notice when I'm thinking in boxes more...it could be one way of learning to control one's thoughts by not giving into the emotions as easily that also burn to be scratched, anyway the experience of it creates an understanding, in my opinion, that trying to control things all the time is another form of bias that clouds certain ways of thinking, most likely the dreamer being that deep meditation nears the rem sleep pattern and is more of a letting go experience with very little or no control. Another odd thing to try that actors are probably good at is imagine something to get you angry and then let the anger go when it gets easy, the more I repeat this the more intense it grows, like an addiction and probably with the same biological pattern of neural growth, except it's all in the head and controlled voluntarily I guess...that is whenever the source of stimulant is taken away the neurons branch out and grow as if seeking out to reclaim the stimulant(The nature of addiction-SciAm-March), it could be true for all sorts of things not considered addictive, like the hardest part of going from hedonism to asceticism is the initial plunge after that it gets easy, and asceticism to headonism, the vacillation between the two extremes is the point of greatest change and the hardest and possibly the most understanding is developed which might just be the biological reflection of increased neural growth and complexity...probably repetition of anything is addictive.
On a historical note, the Buddha was supposed to have been enticed by visions but he rejected them and the God(I forget which one) kept creating more captivating illusions, he was deep into mental control techniques but it would have been terrifying I'll bet to not understand that it was all in his head, all of it, no God just a process of biology that doens't care about that stuff, people might have visions all the time on the other hand but only a few of them have egos large enough to claim it is a sign from God rather than a good guess.

jammieg, I do not recall posting my understanding on conditioning of human repsonse and addiction. So if you thought this one out, you are not making a liar of me, more power to you. A human being may be conditioned to any stimulous just like drugs: TV, Work, Exercise, Gambling, Sex, Drugs, Etc... Anything can create the addictive nature of human response which creates the high. The high is not in the drug, it is in the composite sum of the human being. I spout this all the time, I just don't think I ever posted it on this forum. When it rains on the plain, the water takes the path of least ressistance. It will always flow there unless you change it's course by filling up the ditch. It then may run somewhere else or potentially evenly displace itself.

Note: Show me one thing which did not come from god, or show me one thing which is not god? The budda rejected the visions not because of unreality, but because they did not interest him. Why?

 

[coberst]

Les Sleeth

What do you think about adding some form of introduction to Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking is a very strong effort to introduce the science of reason to school children in the US. It is also being introduced at the college level. Nothing ,however, is being done to introduce adults to this matter.

 

[TENYEARS]

Les Sleeth

What do you think about adding some form of introduction to Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking is a very strong effort to introduce the science of reason to school children in the US. It is also being introduced at the college level. Nothing ,however, is being done to introduce adults to this matter.

Can a knife cut itself?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Can a knife cut itself?

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les Sleeth

What do you think about adding some form of introduction to Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking is a very strong effort to introduce the science of reason to school children in the US. It is also being introduced at the college level. Nothing ,however, is being done to introduce adults to this matter.

I assume you mean if it were made available to the general public. It would be awesome. But first there needs to be a way to interest the adult population more (since it can't be forced on people). As you probably know, people tend to be interested in what they perceive to be beneficial to them. Off hand, I don't see a way to demonstrate that to people who are so caught up their family, career, partying, etc. Sadly, it seems to me the educational system and future generations are our best bet.

 

[coberst]

Can a knife cut itself?

Please elaborate.

 

[coberst]

I assume you mean if it were made available to the general public. It would be awesome. But first there needs to be a way to interest the adult population more (since it can't be forced on people). As you probably know, people tend to be interested in what they perceive to be beneficial to them. Off hand, I don't see a way to demonstrate that to people who are so caught up their family, career, partying, etc. Sadly, it seems to me the educational system and future generations are our best bet.

The old chicken and egg problem.

Can we blame the ignorant for being ignorant? Can we refuse to teach the ignorant because they are too ignorant to care.

I think that if we observe the great accomplishments of advertising we begin to understand that it is not true that "a word to the wise is sufficient". A word to the wise is insifficient.

A word to the wise must be repeated, repeated, repeated, rep...

 

[TENYEARS]

Please elaborate.

Only you can ellaborate on this riddle, if you answer it, it answers your post on critical thinking or any other kind of thinking. For every loss there is a gain and for every gain there is a loss. This is the nature of relative reality. It is a law. It is the relative law. Deep is a seeing for it has always been, it cannot be created.