100 Most Active
Download 50GB of music, video
and pictures for only $9.95.
Usenet Newsgroup Description
There's no description yet! Would you like to
Ignorance to ignorance .. well I guess I rtaher be ignorant to ignorance A video of a muse on things which already have understanding is like a man wondering if the ocean is made of water The Rene Decartes statement is dumb . I think well what is thinking . if he don't understanding that Thinking is a mental conversation between the spirit and the mind in his true definition . however if you start any statement with I think . it means you don't know.
Under a schism-limit sort of coverage, the most the seriously wounded QuotesChimp could be paid under your liability insurance would be what is called the policy restrictes$100,000 in our example.
Fascinating. I'm not a hard science psoern unfortunately but I really enjoy these kinds of epistemological questions.Reviewing your post (but not the previous discussion that provoked it) I had a couple of thoughts, some of which might be out of left field to you since I'm definitely a layman here. * "Incomprehensibility" would seem to me to be affected a great deal by the perpective of the observer in terms of the scale of magnitude of their frame of reference. * The act of selecting or using a previously understood and commonly accepted frame of reference to try and understand incomprehensible phenomena creates an automatic bias that mitigates strongly against recognizing the most significant aspects of the phenomena we find incomprehensible ( If we could see the aspects it would comprehensible). * We might be more productive, cognizant and creative observers/thinkers if we more actively tried to turn our common assumptions on their head before engaging in thought experiments with incomprehensible characteristics.* I wonder to what extent having our five senses/3 dimensionally driven cognitive development ( in terms of heritable brain structure and environmental response neuronal connections/adaptions)creates enormous blind spots in terms of recognizing what is truly significant phenomena. I suppose that's the purpose of mathematics, to get around human perception and subjective interpretation but we are still framing our original questions around that frame of reference. Is this an intractable problem or one that can be solved either by new forms of math or new forms of intelligence like AI ?* Drawing political or moral conclusions from the current epistemological limitations of human comprehension is a logical error. For one thing the state of human comprehension is dynamic, not static. Secondly, much of these limitations exist on extremes of scale and bear little relative analogy to normal human scale actions in which we make moral or political judgementsVery interesting post. I'll be adding you to my blogroll !
At last, someone comes up with the "right" awnser!