|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2006 : 22:22:38 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe if you took more time to read my post you would have seen the word "relevant." |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 22:50:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Maybe if you took more time to read my post you would have seen the word "relevant."
I saw it - how is the veracity of your clipping your toenails on a certain date more relevant than whether planets around Vega a billion years from now will have amythest? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 08:22:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Maybe if you took more time to read my post you would have seen the word "relevant."
I saw it - how is the veracity of your clipping your toenails on a certain date more relevant than whether planets around Vega a billion years from now will have amythest?
I don't know davey--both came out of your head. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 08:39:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not much time right now, but this seems incredible:quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The evidence of its relevance to you is that it came out of [b]your[\b] brain, davey. 
Wow. So you seem to be saying that anything I can dream up as not making a difference to me actually does make a difference to me, like the mass of an average Greek coin, or whether amythest will exist on any planet that might orbit the star Vega in a billion years. This is why it was important to find out what you thought "makes a difference" means, because you're obviously using it in the most technical sense possible (that of neuronal modifications), whereas I was talking about the veracity of assertions affecting my behaviour in some substantial way. Knowing the veracity of any number of assertions might make me a better Trivial Pursuit player, but that itself is trivial - I'll never go "pro," there's not enough money in it. So how, again, would knowing whether or not you trimmed your toenails on a particular date "make a difference" in my life (for example, like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs exist to "make a difference" to underprivileged kids)?
If you go back and look at your original post where you claimed the veracity of the NIST report 'made no difference' to you, it was used to express your neutrality towards the truth of the report.
More interesting that the mental gymnastics you attempt above to get out from under the obvious fact that you are wrong here is how you have attempted to divert the discussion away from all the questions I asked you above. Please be sure to answer them. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 09:17:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If you go back and look at your original post where you claimed the veracity of the NIST report 'made no difference' to you, it was used to express your neutrality towards the truth of the report.
Yes, you are stating the obvious.quote:
More interesting that the mental gymnastics you attempt above to get out from under the obvious fact that you are wrong here...
You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I am not neutral towards the veracity of the report. And you've ensured that you won't have to demonstrate anything of the sort because you refuse to explain the "foundational constructs" of your theory.quote:
...is how you have attempted to divert the discussion away from all the questions I asked you above. Please be sure to answer them.
Why do you feel entitled to request that I answer your questions when you refuse to answer many of mine? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 13:17:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If you go back and look at your original post where you claimed the veracity of the NIST report 'made no difference' to you, it was used to express your neutrality towards the truth of the report.
Yes, you are stating the obvious.
If it was so obvious, davey, why did you ask me about it?
quote:
quote:
More interesting than the mental gymnastics you attempt above to get out from under the obvious fact that you are wrong here...
You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I am not neutral towards the veracity of the report. And you've ensured that you won't have to demonstrate anything of the sort because you refuse to explain the "foundational constructs" of your theory.
I have asked you several times, davey, what aspects of the foundational constructs you need clarified. But you never respond with what aspects you need clarified. So it is you who is stalling here. Just tell me what you are confused about and I will set you straight.
quote:
quote:
...is how you have attempted to divert the discussion away from all the questions I asked you above. Please be sure to answer them.
Why do you feel entitled to request that I answer your questions when you refuse to answer many of mine?
Because my big question for you is What aspects of the foundational constructs do you need clarified? I cannot clarify anything for you until I know what you are confused about. Come on davey--help me help you! Are you unable to admit what confuses you? There is no shame in not knowing something. The shame in a situation like this is in hiding behind your ignorance to avoid learning you are wrong.
So swallow your pride (not in one big gulp, though, or you might choke!), let's get the basics down and then I can prove you wrong. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 20:31:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If it was so obvious, davey, why did you ask me about it?
It didn't appear to be obvious to you, since you never once indicated that you weren't talking about cellular changes being what you meant by "makes a difference," even though your posts read that way.
quote:
I have asked you several times, davey, what aspects of the foundational constructs you need clarified. But you never respond with what aspects you need clarified.
The only thing you've spoken of so far is the independence of a particular defense mechanism (intellectualism) from the alleged fact that the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me. Obviously, then, I need clarification about every other aspect of these two and every other "foundational construct."quote:
So it is you who is stalling here.
I don't see how, as I told you that I understand that the two above can be independent.quote:
Just tell me what you are confused about and I will set you straight.
Everything else you might want to talk about in explaining to me how the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me. I'm only "confused" about those things now because you haven't mentioned them at all.quote:
...let's get the basics down and then I can prove you wrong.
Please continue. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 21:08:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And when in a civil conversation does the term "bite me" typically come up...
Usually at the end.
When I have a civilized conversation with someone, "bite me" never comes up. I guess we live in different civilizations...
When one party is being condescending and arrogant, then yes, the phrase "bite me" has come at the end of a conversation.
Your condescending attitude is wearing very thin on folks. If you are interested in having a civilize conversation, I would suggest you drop it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 21:47:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If it was so obvious, davey, why did you ask me about it?
It didn't appear to be obvious to you, since you never once indicated that you weren't talking about cellular changes being what you meant by "makes a difference," even though your posts read that way.
Well, dave, you are the one who read my posts the way you read them... If you thought I was off the mark, why didn't you--in the spirit of conversation--bring it up?
quote:
I have asked you several times, davey, what aspects of the foundational constructs you need clarified. But you never respond with what aspects you need clarified.
quote:
The only thing you've spoken of so far is the independence of a particular defense mechanism (intellectualism) from the alleged fact that the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me. Obviously, then, I need clarification about every other aspect of these two and every other "foundational construct."
Well that wasn't so hard, was it? I'll be happy to clarify all those things for you. All you had to do was let me know what you needed clarified.
quote:
So it is you who is stalling here.
quote:
I don't see how, as I told you that I understand that the two above can be independent.
Yes, but you also said that those 2 were interdependent--and you said you meant it when you said it. Are you still confused about that? Because 2 things can't be independent and interdependent at the same time. Do you need clarification on that too? Or have you managed to figure it out on your own?
quote:
Just tell me what you are confused about and I will set you straight.
quote:
Everything else you might want to talk about in explaining to me how the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me. I'm only "confused" about those things now because you haven't mentioned them at all.quote:
...let's get the basics down and then I can prove you wrong.
Please continue.
Okay, now I'm confused. Here you are saying the only thing you are confused about are the parts I haven't told you about. But earlier in your post you suggest there are a lot of things you are confused about. So which is it? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 22:18:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well, dave, you are the one who read my posts the way you read them... If you thought I was off the mark, why didn't you--in the spirit of conversation--bring it up?
I've brought it up several times in this thread, and you never responded.quote:
quote:
I have asked you several times, davey, what aspects of the foundational constructs you need clarified. But you never respond with what aspects you need clarified.
quote:
The only thing you've spoken of so far is the independence of a particular defense mechanism (intellectualism) from the alleged fact that the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me. Obviously, then, I need clarification about every other aspect of these two and every other "foundational construct."
Well that wasn't so hard, was it? I'll be happy to clarify all those things for you. All you had to do was let me know what you needed clarified.
Okay, I told you that I needed clarification about every other aspect of these two and every other "foundational construct," and you said you'd be happy to oblige. This is "Data Point 1." Now see below a ways.quote:
Yes, but you also said that those 2 were interdependent--and you said you meant it when you said it. Are you still confused about that? Because 2 things can't be independent and interdependent at the same time. Do you need clarification on that too? Or have you managed to figure it out on your own?
I never said nor implied that the two were interdependent and independent at the same time. Like lug nuts and lug bolts, they can be independent when loose, or interdependent when the former is threaded upon the latter.
You said, "The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you is related to how humans evaluate information of which they become cognizant. Defence mechanisms come into play after such information is evaluated." Therefore, you are asserting that the "input" to one's defense mechanisms is dependent upon the process of evaluating information - if the information is not evaluated, the defense mechanisms don't kick in. I would guess that there's a feedback loop in which the response generated by the defense mechanisms also modify how one evaluates information, thus making the two interdependent, even though they can be independent as well.
Perhaps I simply don't understand, but your post contains no clarification of anything, just an implied promise that you will be clarifying something, sometime.quote:
Okay, now I'm confused. Here you are saying the only thing you are confused about are the parts I haven't told you about. But earlier in your post you suggest there are a lot of things you are confused about. So which is it?
They're one and the same thing, Stevie. This is where we refer back to "Data Point 1," in which I told you - and you had no apparent reading comprehension problem - that I needed clarification on everything else. That "everything else" is, indeed, everything that you haven't told me about the constructs. The two sets, "everything other than the one thing you've said about the constructs" and "everything you haven't told me about the constructs" are identical, both quantitatively and qualitatively. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2006 : 23:36:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well, dave, you are the one who read my posts the way you read them... If you thought I was off the mark, why didn't you--in the spirit of conversation--bring it up?
I've brought it up several times in this thread, and you never responded.quote:
quote:
I have asked you several times, davey, what aspects of the foundational constructs you need clarified. But you never respond with what aspects you need clarified.
quote:
The only thing you've spoken of so far is the independence of a particular defense mechanism (intellectualism) from the alleged fact that the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me. Obviously, then, I need clarification about every other aspect of these two and every other "foundational construct."
Well that wasn't so hard, was it? I'll be happy to clarify all those things for you. All you had to do was let me know what you needed clarified.
Okay, I told you that I needed clarification about every other aspect of these two and every other "foundational construct," and you said you'd be happy to oblige. This is "Data Point 1." Now see below a ways.quote:
Yes, but you also said that those 2 were interdependent--and you said you meant it when you said it. Are you still confused about that? Because 2 things can't be independent and interdependent at the same time. Do you need clarification on that too? Or have you managed to figure it out on your own?
I never said nor implied that the two were interdependent and independent at the same time. Like lug nuts and lug bolts, they can be independent when loose, or interdependent when the former is threaded upon the latter.
You said, "The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you is related to how humans evaluate information of which they become cognizant. Defence mechanisms come into play after such information is evaluated." Therefore, you are asserting that the "input" to one's defense mechanisms is dependent upon the process of evaluating information - if the information is not evaluated, the defense mechanisms don't kick in. I would guess that there's a feedback loop in which the response generated by the defense mechanisms also modify how one evaluates information, thus making the two interdependent, even though they can be independent as well.
Perhaps I simply don't understand, but your post contains no clarification of anything, just an implied promise that you will be clarifying something, sometime.quote:
Okay, now I'm confused. Here you are saying the only thing you are confused about are the parts I haven't told you about. But earlier in your post you suggest there are a lot of things you are confused about. So which is it?
They're one and the same thing, Stevie. This is where we refer back to "Data Point 1," in which I told you - and you had no apparent reading comprehension problem - that I needed clarification on everything else. That "everything else" is, indeed, everything that you haven't told me about the constructs. The two sets, "everything other than the one thing you've said about the constructs" and "everything you haven't told me about the constructs" are identical, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Okay. This is great dave. I see where you are confused.
You interpreted "Defence mechanisms come into play after such information is evaluated," to mean they always come into play, and that this happens after... But defense mechanisms do not always come into play. A more precise statement on my part would have been 'Defence mechanisms, when they come into play, do so after such information is evaluated.'
So while you are correct in stating that if the information is not evaluated the defense mechanisms don't have the opportunity to kick in, it is not the case that if the information is evaluated the defense mechanisms always kick in. So the evaluation process does not guarantee the kicking in of a defense mechanism (i.e., they are independent).
You are also incorrect about the feedback loop. The evaluation of information is directed by the subconscious. Defense mechanisms are a tool of the subconscious mind used to keep the conscious mind at ease. When the conscious mind (which can also evaluate information after the subconscious is finished evaluating it) evaluates information it is possible that a sort of feedback loop as you describe can occur--but when it's the conscious mind at work it's not a "defense mechanism" per se. I'm not sure what you call it if one knowingly (insert behavior/thoughts associated with defense mechanisms); Being hypocritical? Lying to one's self? Being human?
But I think--or at least hope--that you have the fundamentals now. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 19:10:22 [Permalink]
|
| Still working it out davey? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 21:10:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
A more precise statement on my part would have been 'Defence mechanisms, when they come into play, do so after such information is evaluated.'
quote:
So the evaluation process does not guarantee the kicking in of a defense mechanism (i.e., they are independent).
But based upon your first statement, the defense mechanism is dependent upon the evaluation process, since the evaluation process triggers the defense mechanism.
Having your years of experience you may find this apparent contradiction inconsequential, but if your goal is to teach then clarification is a reasonable request.
btw. Since you insist upon adding a long 'e' to names, you can call me mikey.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 22:14:24 [Permalink]
|
But as I mentioned before, the evaluation doesn't always trigger a defense mechanism (although I can see how from your personal experiences you mig guess that it does).
Also, I'm referring to statistical and logical independence. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 14:52:16 [Permalink]
|
| So, davey, is this disappearing act of yours typical when you are about to be proven wrong? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
