eh, it's more finding mismatches Input streams in and is
compared to expectations. If expectations are in the range of
acceptable, nothing changes or is noticed. It's only when the
pattern is novel and everything else is ruled out, whatever is
left over is used to generate new patterns. == I can describe
the process without utilizing a word of logic and instead
describe it via analogies and metaphors. Or I can describe the
process computationally. I can say, "and thus, the process is:
METAPHOR!" or I can say, "and thus, the process is
MATHEMATICAL!" or I can say, "and thus, the process is...[
insert something else ]". Can you see where I'm getting at? ==
Just give 'em a documentary and their conspiracy flags rise up.
It's easy to herd people with a documentary produced in such a
way to force you to an 'irrefutable conclusion". Logic lovers.
Easily manipulated. == All one has to do is put forth evidence
after evidence in a chain of logic, each bit of evidence hard to
refute by itself, chain it together properly and you've got it.
No gullibility required. All it required is someone who thinks
in a "thought experiment" way. They're wrapped up in a
closed-world scenario and don't see anything outside of that
box. I didn't take film classes at Hampshire College (same place
Ken Burns came from) but they were BIG on the how-tos on
producing documentaries and my friends who took the classes
would tell me that people who are intelligent are the easiest to
manipulate. They'd explain how they use the non-word things to
do it: the music, the mood, the lighting, the way of talking,
how the clips are put together, etc. == You can call it a
fallacy if you like, Peter. To me, it's an observation of
personalities. I've met thousands of people online of all
different types of personalities and I can see how each type of
person could be manipulated. I know my own weaknesses as well
and guard against them. Nothing to do with fallacies but if you
wish to think it those terms and consider it an adequate
rejection of my idea, you can. But, you're throwing out valuable
information in the process. == You're avoiding it. Is all logic
discernible? Let's say logic is the foundation of all things.
It's the Universe. It's the basis of everything and all,
everywhere from all the past to the future, forevermore Amen. Is
all logic discernible? == It also has religious undertones to
it. I can replace the word Logic with the word God and the
sentence still works. That's an issue. == It's a SYSTEM with
internal consistency upon which other systems can be built. It's
PRAGMATIC and useful, but is it everything? That's giving it a
god-status. == Critical thinking - it's a system built by humans
that is very useful for many things. Is it a more practical god
than the one used by religions? Sure. But I'd rather see it
remain a TOOL and not given a god-like status. == It's useful
for what it's useful for. It's also used to produce incorrect
knowledge. It's also used for manipulation of people. It's also
used as a weapon. It's a tool. It's not magic. == You're talking
more along the lines of etiquette. "This is the proper use of
the logic you have". Its table manners. Wipe your nose after you
blow. == Yes, where to place the knife and fork alongside the
plate so the society ladies won't talk about us when they leave.
It's etiquette. Sam Harris is Miss Manners of Logic. == *I* find
analogy and metaphor far more persuasive in rhetoric than logic
==
