Originally posted by: Moonbeam
s: Assuming you are making an attempt to decipher another's meaning, how is it possible to not infer? And once you make up your mind about what someone means, how can you take your understanding other than seriously?
M: I take it seriously. I infer from what you are saying that what you infer is not correct because I can't infer it except if I take myself seriously. And I'm serious about not taking myself too seriously.
You're sidetracking again. You wrote earlier, "I could infer that, but it would be a guess." But my point was that EVERY response you make is based on inferences you make about the meaning of the other, regardless of whether you're correct or incorrect. You take your best guess, and then you respond. That's what communication is. You want to pretend that in writing posts in response to others that you're doing something else. Nonsense.
Again, stop playing games. Stop pretending. When you read these words you come to an understanding of what they mean. THAT is an inference. You are doing it this very moment.
s: That's not to say you must be invested in your inferences - you can certainly be open to the possibility that you haven't understood what the other person intended. But at the moment of decision, you've made inferences that (at least for that moment) you're taking seriously, if only for the purpose of responding.
M: Not being invested is what I am talking about. You are invested in logic because you infer its value, but I do not make such an inference seeing it as only that one of my two hemispheres that does the talking while my right hemisphere laughs at me.
Another game. I stated that I value objectivity. That wasn't a normative statement. In fact, I stated that I thought others valued other things (a just universe, for example), and that is just fine with me (as long as they don't harm others).
By pointing out a contrast ("I do not make such an inference [about logic]") you pretend a non-existent disagreement.
This is your typical method of discussion. You pretend that the other person is making assertions they never made, and then argue against those assertions. If you want a serious discussion with me, stick to what I say, not to what you pretend I say.
s: To "behave" in this context means to not knowingly be difficult in your responses. To not respond in ways that sidetrack the discussion.
M: But I AM difficult because I AM having difficulty inferring what you infer.
Nonsense. You understand exactly what I'm writing. Stop pretending.
[s: When I wrote that I apparently value beliefs based on testable hypothesis, that was a serious example intended to move the discussion forward. When you responded regarding my "preconceived notions" of what "testing" means, you were sidetracking our discussion. You were letting your ego interfere. And you know EXACTLY what I mean by this.
M: I have to be difficult again, I guess, and tell you I see nothing here to do with my ego. All I saw was you moving the discussion into an area I can't go because I can't make the assumptions you do. I didn't sidetrack the discussion so much as point out you fell in a pot hole. I know you value beliefs based on testable hypothesis but I maintain the test is what you consider to be a valid test. You are arguing, I think, that the only way I can know that candy is sweet is if sugar can be shown to fires neurons in my tongue.
You're confused again. It doesn't matter whether I mistakenly value an invalid test. My assertion was that I value testability. Period. How I implement those values - whether rightly or wrongly - is irrelevant to what I told you.
To see how ridiculous your response is, imagine I say "I like movies." And then you respond, "You want to deny that spectator sports is fun because you've never held a baseball bat."
That example is typical of your discourse. You try to move discussions sideways by inventing positions not held by the other person. Then you argue against those invented positions.
If you insist on willfully misunderstanding simple, declarative statements, pretend they mean something they don't, and use this technique to push the discussion sideways, you are either cognitively impaired, playing games, or both. In either case, I won't continue with you if you persist in doing this.
You want to deny intoxication because you can't prove pink elephants when what you need to do is lay down the scientific tools and have a drink. There are tests you can run out there in the world and ones you experience internally. But the state of the observer determines what he sees. The science of states is in its infancy to the modern western mind but has been here pretty unnoticed for a long time.
Sorry. Not gonna work. I see exactly what you're doing. More games, cloaked in metaphoric language.
You're a VERY smart guy, but I apologize for being smarter than you. I can't help it.