Re: do you believe in magic ? [ waz Re: Woo-Woo Took a Beating in 2009
zenworm
> In article <7a16f7b9-7de9-459f-a4df-ef27154f9...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 29, 3:37=A0am, pho...@address.for.spam (Love) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <c8b7e3b8-1903-4fea-bcd6-844412f9b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
> >> >On Dec 29, 12:52=3DA0am, pho...@address.for.spam (Love) wrote:
> >> >> In article <EMadnUglCa3Kl6TWnZ2dnUVZ_g6dn...@earthlink.com>,
> >> >> original...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >> >"DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:17e56d2b-e349-4eb9...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.co=
> >m..=3D
> >> >.
> >> >> >>In such cases, if you go for woo-woo, by doing nonsense
> >> >> >>about magical flow of woo-woo 'chi',
>
> >> >> >qi just means the lifeforce. can you deny that
> >> >> >you exist? that's all it is. a feeling that you exist.
> >> >> >qigong is a practice by which the flow of that
> >> >> >energy isn't impeded by any of the propensities
> >> >> >of the form. when there are no impediments to
> >> >> >the lifeforce flow then a more conducive vehicle
> >> >> >towards a healthy application of energy to form
> >> >> >can ensue, or, then again, maybe not.
>
> >> >> 1. I can deny that I exist if "I" means what people
> >> >> usually add to it: having a core of some kind, or
> >> >> a soul.
>
> >> >> 2. "Life force" sounds like woo-woo to me, but it's
> >> >> woo-woo I like (especially the movie of the same name).
> >> >> It's worth celebrating at least. =3DA0Funneling it is
> >> >> going a bit to far for me.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Love
>
> >> >> May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
>
> >> >Ok, you've got me there: "LifeForce" is indeed the name of a cool
> >> >alien space-vampire movie (called "Space Vampires" in the UK), with
> >> >Steve Railsback as the astronaut exploring Halley's Comet who meets a
> >> >vampire, Mathilda May, who configures herself into the girl of his
> >> >dreams from his unconscious and then walks around naked terrifying and
> >> >seducing men while London burns. That was awesome. As far as vampire
> >> >and space-alien stuff goes, ok, it's a cool name. In terms of pathetic
> >> >New-Age woo-woo and more alienation from our bodies and claiming to be
> >> >non-physical egos or souls or woo-woo energies, it sucks big time.
>
> >> I also enjoyed "The Princess Bride" despite there being
> >> no evidence for a lot of the things employed in it.
> >> I guess I'm just soft on woo-woo.
>
> >If it's fantasy, it's not woo-woo. I have no problems with fairy
> >godmothers, telepathy, etc. in stories. But if you tell me that the
> >motion of the real planets in the sky is caused by fairies or angels
> >pushing them around, then it's nonsensical woo-woo. And in sci-fi or
> >fantasy, there still has to be internal coherence. I didn't like the
> >ending of BattleStar Galactica, as Starbuck kills herself, and then is
> >brought back to life magically by the gods without explanation, and
> >then she disappears into thin air after leading the gang to Earth. The
> >rest of the story is coherent, and I have to accept FTL drives and so
> >on as part of the story, but they are used consistently. But suddenly
> >having divine intervention used as an excuse to bring a main character
> >back rendered the story incoherent. And the latest Star Trek was fun,
> >but way too "over the top". Transporters used to save the day too much
> >and then to beam someone onto a ship moving away at warp speed? It was
> >incoherent.
>
> I agree on the latest Star Trek AND the ending of BSG. I
> found the latter's devices forgiveable because I saw them
> as the creator of the series trying to say something.
> (catholic angst does make for some drama) In ST I thought
> they were the consequence of lazy writing.
>
> Incoherency doesn't bug me much unless it's too jarring.
>
> BTW I am waiting for your thoughts on life force and deity
> as they are used in Avatar (which I just saw for the 2nd
> time).
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Belief in life force has a capacity to alienate us from
> >> our bodies, sure, but it can also cause us to expand our
> >> sense of self to include things like our environment and
> >> our social relationships.
>
> >Of course I know this. And remember I have been hanging out with New-
> >Agers and hippies that use such terms this way endlessly. And it's
> >become generic, like Wonder Bread, and an excuse to not think clearly
> >and cling to all sorts of superstition, rather than to get past a
> >narrow, isolated sense of self, as you nobly suggest.
>
> >I don't think it serves that function anymore, and is used now
> >primarily as a New-Age paraphrase of 'soul'. And it serves to isolate
> >rather than connect. It becomes one's 'trump card' over others, just
> >as evangelists 'know' that they alone are 'saved', while those who
> >differ from them will burn in hell.
>
> Can't argue too much with you here.
>
> >> =A0It's when the idea takes on
> >> a kind of atomism that it winds up being mostly alienating.
>
> >Well, yeah. That's why I go out of my way to demonstrate that those
> >with good intentions using these terms are really pushing a kind of
> >atomism, cloaked by their capital letters, and are only positing a
> >soul. And if you tweak it slightly and say there is One Soul instead
> >of a multiplicity, then you just have the Hinduist version, but that
> >isn't really different.
>
> It may be different in effect, and effects matter more
> than mere facts IMO. But I basically agree.
>
> >> When the self is located in something that is not dependent
> >> on the body for existence, then the body doesn't matter.
>
> >I have too problems with that.
>
> And you failed to note that I wasn't promoting it but
> crticising it. Sometimes prior sentences of mine
> contextualise later sentences. That's just the kind
> of hairpin I am.
>
> BTW you spelt "two" incorrectly. ;)
>
> > First, you are reifying the false
> >concept of a self. You're swapping delusions, and I'm going to say
> >that there is no self (Further Fact of some kind) that is "located"
> >anywhere. Now you want first to posit a Further Fact, then you want to
> >displace this Further Fact outside the body, and then finally you want
> >to use that to feel alienated from the body. Horrors. That's
> >pathological.
>
> Actually I was speaking against all that...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Now, implicitly affirming the concept of life force by
> >> using it as a vague statement pointing with awe to the
> >> wondrous observance of life in ourselves and in all its
> >> forms is not the same as postulating an energy with
> >> properties that can be manipulated and channeled and
> >> what-not. =A0That's crossing the boundary between poetic
> >> truth and material truth, and mostly it's woo-woo that
> >> gets smuggled by that route, IMO.
>
> >But it's still delusion, I'm saying. Why not feel awe at the wonderous
> >nature of the universe as it is, rather than make up some fantasy woo-
> >woo force? You seem to imply that the universe isn't wondrous and
> >needs some extra transcendental woo-woo added or that it doesn't even
> >exist and only the extra transcendental woo-woo exists and is wondrous
> >(both tactics are employed by the notorious nutter Keynes), but this
> >implies that the universe isn't wondrous. But it is, all by itself,
> >and no extra woo needs to be added, and there is no you to identify,
> >which means there is only star-stuff and that is this.
>
> Dear Dharmatroll, "wonderous nature of the universe" is just
> as much woo-woo as "life force". "Life force" merely focusses
> on the life aspect of the universe, and let's face it, a dog
> turd on the sidewalk isn't as evocative of wonder as the
> infinitely interconnected phenomenon of "life" is.
>
> The keyword that makes woo-woo of your alternative version is
> "nature". Just "wondrous universe" is enough. Of course
> someone is bound to say "why is it wondrous" and you have my
> leave to use a poetic term like "life force" to explain it
> if you don't seem able to get the questioner to experience
> wonder by showing them astronomy documentaries. You could
> also use a term like "nature" but just don't pretend it's
> not woo.
>
> I'm not entirely against delusion. Form is delusion. One
> can be such a nazi trying to dispel delusions in others that
> one fails to even recognise one's own delusions. Equally
> one can be such a nazi trying to dispel one's own delusions
> that one fails to recognise the ones that remain.
>
> --
> Love
lovely
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
DharmaTroll
> In article <30477398-8141-4b67-93da-616cce63b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
>
> Trollpa, Form is delusion.
>
> The objects we have in our minds are form. Take a pencil.
> No two are alike, yet they are all pencils
That's not delusion. That's simply the distinction between type and
token. No two tokens are alike, but they are of the same type. Same
with pennies. How is that delusion?
> Most of their form is what we find relevant to our needs,
> not intrinsic to them.
No, their form is intrinsic to them, pencils exist independently of
minds, and don't disappear when you close your eyes, as the nutter
Keynes would tell you. But yes, we pay attention to just those
properties that are important to us. That doesn't mean that they are
'delusion'.
> No object has an intrinsic characteristic that
> defines it fully.
Well, of course not! If you start with an impossible crazy expectation
like THAT, and then say that the expectation never gets met, then you
can conclude all sorts of absurdity.
Most terms are family resemblant and not defined by a finite set of
necessary and sufficient conditions.
I get what you're saying, btw, and you are making a wonderful,
excellent point. It was made by one of the greatest philosophers last
century, Wittgenstein. He noticed that the things that could be
defined by necessary and sufficient conditions were things like
mathematical abstractions, like a square, that is defined as a
quadrilateral with equal angles and equal sides, and those and only
those things meeting those conditions are squares.
But what about a game, asked Wittgenstein? Can you lasso in all games
with such a definition? (Pencils, I claim also fit into this category,
but games are a more dramatic example). No, says W. There are always
overlapping and crisscrossing conditions, and such terms we use have
fuzzy borders. As the way members of a family look like one another,
but in the extended family, there is no one quality that they all have
in common. Wittgenstein uses the term family resemblances
(familienähnlichkeit) to make the point that states of affairs falling
under a common term, such as ‘games’ show overlapping similarities and
resemblances rather than universal, finitely specifiable common
properties. Some games involve more than one player, some don't; some
are competitive, some aren't; some are for fun, some are psychological
manipulation; etc. There is no complete list of necessary and
sufficient conditions for games. But that doesn't mean that it's
delusion to use the word. Rather, the term is family resemblant, and
we know what it means for something to be a game. We all know, for
example, that a pencil is not a game. It's all in W's later
masterpiece, "Philosophical Investigations". It's hard to read, but
there are great easy to read secondary sources that explain this kind
of thing very well.
What puzzles me is that you slap this generic label 'delusion' onto
this. Why delusion? Rather, we don't with most terms use finite rigid
fixed definitions of necessary and sufficient conditions (we do in
science, but only when it about natural terms which sort themselves
out independently of us, such as the distinctions between hydrogen and
helium, etc.) But in daily life, we use family resemblant terms to
define most things, and they have fuzzy borders and criss-crossing and
overlapping properties. But that doesn't mean they are delusion.
Pencils are still pencils and not airplanes!
Also, I like the term "open-textured" and think that many of these
terms are also open-textured and if we assume otherwise, we wrongly
end up concluding "delusion" or whatever. The concept of "open
texture" was introduced by Friedrich Waismann as part of his effort to
give greater nuance to the idea that all of our empirical ideas must
be strictly verifiable in order for them to make sense. According to
Waismann, open texture is not the same as vagueness, but rather the
possibility of vagueness. In other words, the words we use to express
our ideas have enough potential meaning and variability that we cannot
be completely sure that we will always be able to verify them in the
way we might like. Waismann wrote: "Take any material object
statement. The terms which occur in it are nonexhaustive; that means
that we cannot foresee completely all possible conditions in which
they are used; and that means that we cannot foresee completely all
the possible circumstances in which the statement is true or in which
it is false." Anyway, I find that if you relax the demand for
necessary and sufficient conditions (which is where you get talk of
Plato's woo-woo 'forms'), that in real life these terms are family
resemblant and open-textured, and when you understand that, the
problems disappear.
> The objects that come closest to that
> are all atomic/subatomic, but even there we run into
> contradictions and limitations because they are only
> abstract things that exist for us by fitting theories and
> tests designed to reveal them, not directly observed by
> the senses.
Such scientific types as atoms and subatomic phenomena are still
'revealed' and not 'created', as we are 'discovering' properties, and
the existence of, say, hydrogen and oxygen which have natural
distinctions in the world. We call that matter which distinguishes
itself as having 8 protons as 'oxygen', and it would still exist
whether we labeled it, or even if we still wrongly believed in
phlogiston! In those cases, we have necessary and sufficient
conditions. But again, those scientific types occur naturally, rather
than being human artifacts such as games or pencils or chairs and
tables. Note again that things like pencils and chairs have to do with
their function and use to us, but gold would be gold (have the same
atomic number, and note that we do not choose in any way, shape, or
form that all matter with 79 protons turns out to be that yellowish
heavy metal which conducts electricity well, etc.) whether we found it
useful or even had ever discovered it.
> So form is created in our minds by needs.
No. Not 'form'. Language and linguistic terms are created in our minds
by needs! Again, you use vague terms and then equate them, like "form"
and "delusion". Again I suspect you're trying to relate ordinary life
to some abstract Buddhist book or dogma you've read, and that makes
sense to try, but I don't think that such generalizations as "form"
and "delusion" really mean anything in that context, and just serve as
vague buzz words. Rather, I think you can get more clear about this by
looking at such things as the type/token distinction, and then note
that there are some types, like gold, that are completely naturally
occurring without our meddling, like gold or water, and there are
types that are artefactual, like pencils and chairs and tables. The
latter aren't 'delusion', but we define them partly in terms of human
needs and projects. That doesn't mean that they are hallucinations (as
the nutters claim). They are still real, but they are kinds of things
that can't be defined by necessary and sufficient conditions, as they
are family resemblant. Drop that requirement, and then you can
understand pencils better.
> We need to avoid running into trees so we have trees.
Well, no. Trees were there before we evolved, and they are naturally
distinct, from their DNA and functions, from flowers, from fish, from
algae, from cats, as well as from all sorts of non-living kinds of
things. We might legislate among different variations of oak trees,
etc., and the number of variations is legislated by us, by which
distinctions we pay attention to, but they are still trees.
> We have
> finite minds so we must have generalisations like "tree".
> We couldn't handle each experience-object being unique
> because we'd be experiencing each thing as new all the
> time (like babies). Form is generalisation according to
> our needs.
No, we don't make up the generalization. And form isn't
generalization! Language is. Rather, we pick out distinctions to pick
out those naturally occurring differences which make a difference to
us and our needs. So there is a combination of there being objective
differences and qualities, and our picking out, according to our needs
and projects, which differences to which we pay attention.
A nice example is color. There is an objective visible spectrum which
we all more or less see, and the electromagnetic radiation exists and
is radiated by the sun or other sources, and when it is of this narrow
spectrum, we can detect it and have visual experiences. However, the
number of different colors we can see is arbitrary (to some extent). A
lot of that has to do with culture, language, and needs. I see a dozen
or so colors. But if I'm in a clothing store with my sister, she has
about 3 times as many colors, and will correct me that "that shirt
isn't 'pink', it's 'salmon'" and so forth. But we see the same
spectrum; but she has use to divide it up differently. However, there
is no delusion, and no green or greenish color would ever be called
'rust' or 'salmon' by her. That is, the terms actually refer
accurately to the particular wavelengths.
> We have a sense that there is a strong distinction
> between things that are abstracts only and physical
> objects, but that isn't true either. Numbers, for
> example, arise naturally from generalisations.
Well, while I sometimes agree with you, now you're claiming a
certainty and a naive arrogance about an issue disputed for millenia.
Whether numbers 'exist' is an interesting question, and while I tend
to be a nominalist on the issue and think that you can't have 3
independent of 3 things, Quine and others make a very compelling case
for the existence of such things as the number 3. I find the whole
issue fascinating. If you think you 'know' for sure that one of these
views is right, then THAT is delusion, and you would be exhibiting
dogma and ignorance. Better to say "I go for Aristotle over Plato
because..." and get into the issue and be awed by its complexity.
> If we can say "tree" we can immediately say
> "two trees". (in fact we must
Must? Well, we can't immediately say "27 trees" you see, as our brain-
structure allows us only to fairly instantly grasp only up to about 10
or so, I think. Other animals can do the same, even birds can
immediately distinguish up to about 7, if I recall.
> because a generalisation of just
> one instance is not actually a generalisation)
> There is no special distance between forms that are
> abstraction and forms that are observation of material
> things -- all are generalisations, forms.
Hey, there is a hell of a difference between a cat and the number "3"!
If I follow you, you want to first claim that entities like "3" don't
exist (a very dubious and unresolved claim), and then you want to say
that really "three-ness" is no different from "cat", and then you want
to conclude that cats don't exist. I hope you don't want to make that
line of reasoning, because it's both invalid and unsound (if that's
not what you meant, please pardon my inference, as I'm used to so many
nutters on these boards who make nonsense arguments like that).
We can pay attention to more subtle distinctions and have more verbal
labels to distinguish the differences that make a difference to us,
but we're not creating reality: we're only making maps with the
details that we care about. There is no delusion, as long as you
realize that your map (the linguistic terms you use) only pick out a
few properties or qualities of the territory, even though there may be
an infinite (or very large finite) number of qualities or properties
of the territory. But that's useful and not delusion at all. When I
have a road map, I fully understand that the map isn't the territory,
and that only roads and city perimeters are on the map. Only if I
think that the map completely replicated all of the territory (in
which case it would be an identical copy and couldn't fit into my
pocket!) would I be deluded.
So my advice to you is to check out Wittgenstein and realize that most
types are family resemblant and not defined by a complete set of
necessary and sufficient conditions, notice the difference between
types and tokens, realize that we create linguistic maps which only
pick out a few actual differences in the territory which are important
to us, and realize that the map isn't the territory, and then you can
relax and you won't be deluded, at least about things like that.
> Form is delusion because all form is generalisation and
> therefore inaccurate and incomplete.
Not at all. Throw away those silly books that start with "The Zen
of..." and "The Tao of...", as that's where you are getting these
trite fortune-cookie dogmas that you keep repeating, and read about
Wittgenstein! Generalizations are very, very helpful, and in many
cases they are true. In other cases we are deluded if we make an
unwarranted inference, like have a nasty girlfriend, and then say "all
women are just..." or have a bad experience with a black or gay person
and then assume that all black or gay folks share the same negative
qualities; for then we are deluded from making such generalizations,
yes, and this leads to tons and tons of hatred and suffering, yes. But
not when we talk about pencils when we want an erasable writing
instrument. That's not delusion -- that's common sense that helps us
to communicate and act in the world.
> Now, I can wriggle out of the little corner I just
> painted myself into WRT forms like "life force".
No you can't, because you just built a house of cards with silly terms
like "form" that is a vague term that you're taking out of context of
from one of those nasty sing-songy "The Zen of..." books. And then
you're coming up with trite truisms much like "God is Love" that get
all the believers to nod in agreement but really don't say anything at
all.
> It seems obvious
Btw, that's a terrible way to start a sentence. Before I even read it,
I see you are starting with "based on a bunch of unqualified beliefs
and premises". Unless you add "to me because of these particular
reasons..." and you articulate your premises very carefully and
justify them.
> that anything more than just "life" is
> more than is necessary,
Necessary for what? Eating? For eating maybe. If it isn't organic
(came from life), it probably isn't on the menu, or I probably don't
want to eat it, with the exception of a shake or two of sodium
chloride.
> and apt to be pure imagination
> and therefore woo.
No, salt isn't imagination and isn't 'woo'. More dramatically stars
aren't life, and they aren't pure imagination or woo at all.
Ironically, everything that is 'life' was forged in the center of
stars billions and billions of years ago. At least have some respect,
if not awe, for your inorganic elders, dammit!
> If I had time tonight I would do it, but I don't.
Girls give me that line all the time.
> Later, if I get time. At the very
> least I would suggest that "life force" is only one
> step into woo, and can be embraced because it
> serves a purpose (as do numbers).
No, it's the claim of some supernatural woo-woo added, and if there is
no further fact to life, and I claim that there isn't, then it's
'delusion' just as babble about ghosts and angels is delusion. For
life is a very naturally existing distinction that has to do with many
qualities, such as self-replication, metabolism, growth, and reaction
to stimuli. Btw, "life" is a beautiful example of a family resemblant
term, as these aren't a set of necessary and sufficient conditions,
and there are always fuzzy borders and interesting cases. For example,
viruses can be argued to be life or not. They reproduce, but they have
to hijack alien living cells, and then they program the host's DNA to
replicate the virus instead of the host cell. But note that even if
there was no sentience and thought or purpose, such as when life had
evolved to a single-cell level only, there was still a natural
distinction between living and non-living. But it's in terms of the
combination of self-replication and metabolism, and growth, and
reaction to stimuli, etc., and not from some woo-woo lifeforce stuff
added to it!
> WRT to your definition of "nature" that is roughly
> "all that is not woo"...thanks for the chuckle. :)
Oh I thought that the two senses of "natural" were well known you you.
Ok, there is the 'common' use where "natural" is distinguished from
"artificial", and that distinction can be paraphrased as "non-man-
made" versus "man-made", such as in the case of "artificial food
coloring" added to food. But I was using the more philosophical or
religious sense of natural, which is distinguished from
"supernatural", in which "natural" is paraphrased as "physical" (which
is just the greek word for nature). Sorry if I didn't make that
distinction when I used the term; it was not my intent to confuse you
or not be clear about what I meant. As I subscribe to naturalism (what
evil folks call scientism or materialism), let me paste in from
www.naturalism.org what I mean by nature or natural or naturalism, so
as to eliminate getting muddled by the term:
<<If you don’t believe in anything supernatural – gods, ghosts,
immaterial souls and spirits – then you subscribe to naturalism, the
idea that nature is all there is. The reason you’re a naturalist is
likely that, wanting not to be deceived, you put stock in empirical,
evidence-based ways of justifying beliefs about what’s real, as for
instance exemplified by science. You probably (and rightly) hold that
such beliefs are usually more reliable and more objective than those
based in uncorroborated intuition, revelation, religious authority, or
sacred texts. Kept honest by philosophy and critical thinking, science
reveals a single manifold of existence, what we call nature,
containing an untold myriad of interconnected phenomena, from quarks
to quasars. Nature is simply what we have good reason to believe
exists.>>
> --
> Love
>
> May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
--DharmaTroll
Hollywood Lee
relationship to the fuzziness of language.
> (familien�hnlichkeit) to make the point that states of affairs falling
> under a common term, such as �games� show overlapping similarities and
> <<If you don�t believe in anything supernatural � gods, ghosts,
> immaterial souls and spirits � then you subscribe to naturalism, the
> idea that nature is all there is. The reason you�re a naturalist is
> likely that, wanting not to be deceived, you put stock in empirical,
> evidence-based ways of justifying beliefs about what�s real, as for
zenworm
>
> No, we don't make up the generalization. And form isn't
> generalization! Language is. Rather, we pick out distinctions to pick
> out those naturally occurring differences which make a difference to
> us and our needs. So there is a combination of there being objective
> differences and qualities, and our picking out, according to our needs
> and projects, which differences to which we pay attention.
>
> A nice example is color. There is an objective visible spectrum which
> we all more or less see, and the electromagnetic radiation exists and
> is radiated by the sun or other sources, and when it is of this narrow
> spectrum, we can detect it and have visual experiences. However, the
> number of different colors we can see is arbitrary (to some extent). A
> lot of that has to do with culture, language, and needs. I see a dozen
> or so colors. But if I'm in a clothing store with my sister, she has
> about 3 times as many colors, and will correct me that "that shirt
> isn't 'pink', it's 'salmon'" and so forth. But we see the same
> spectrum; but she has use to divide it up differently. However, there
> is no delusion, and no green or greenish color would ever be called
> 'rust' or 'salmon' by her. That is, the terms actually refer
> accurately to the particular wavelengths.
Actually women have a significantly higher
proportion of cone cells over rod cells in their
eyes compared to men so women actually do 'see'
more depth of hue when they perceive colours.
It is a gender based physiological difference.
Women do see what 'clashes' clearer than men.
Keep that in mind the next time you pick a tie.
Cones are also better for close range and
low light conditions.
The evolutionary theory is this developed because
it gives women some advantage in perceiving
the colour hues that show in the face/skin. Good for
comprehending circulation (health) changes in babies,
or men blushing slightly if they lie. (socio-communication
advantages). The higher parallel processing female
brain lets her keep track of several of these nuances
simultaneously.
On the other sex the rod cells give faster and clearer:
long distance movement, shape/silhouette recognition,
and shadow/contrast orientation - better for hunting.
The more focused processing of man-brains is good
for target retention amidst distraction and persistent
focus (single mindedness) again hunter characteristics.
^worm will run with this a bit since we have so many science buffs..
Some of the recent research in human brain function male
vs female suggests that a women's brain is comfortable
parallel processing 5 - 7 tasks simultaneously whereas
the male brain stretches for 2 or strains for 3.
Imagine a man sitting watching the superbowl. He is
engaged with high interest in the game. In walks a
woman talking on her cell phone with her friend. She
greets the man, asks if the backyard was raked yet,
notices he's watching the game, reminds him to pick up
the daughter in two hours, and tells him she is meeting
her friend for tea. IF he hears her he says "what?"
She gets pissed. He is not even distracted enough to
get upset. Which pisses her off even more. Why?
Because she is doing six things and he is doing one.
These two people do not understand that their brains
are wired differently. There is nothing 'wrong' with
either of them. She can not relate to him not being
able to follow what she is saying WHILE (parallel
processing) he is watching the game.
He can not understand why she has to do
this while the game is on does not wait until AFTER
(series processing).
Here is where it gets interesting (isn't it always the Moment)
this understanding when applied to enlightening raises
a potential need for a slightly modified approach when
applied to women.
This is the research this ^worm is currently engaged in.
For example if you look at the way Buddha taught to
address the points of contact (paraphrased) in series
this is a typically 'male' approach and women who have
a natural tendency to parallel process comparatively
have a 'shallower' point of contact but are dealing with
several. Does this mean that 'chanting' works better for
women that 'koan work' for example?
In the Jewish traditions it is taught women do not have
to go to synagogue to pray because they are already
closer to 'God'.(paraphrased)
Is this a culturally derived understanding
that women's attachment is naturally shallower giving
them a 'spiritual advantage'?
Keep in mind the genetic blueprint for all life is female...
The research continues...
Care to contribute? Speak up.
^worm
Keynes
wrote:
>
>No,
>No.
>Well, no.
>No, we don't
>
>Must? Well, we can't immediately say "27 trees" you see, as our brain-
>structure allows us only to fairly instantly grasp only up to about 10
>or so, I think. Other animals can do the same, even birds can
>immediately distinguish up to about 7, if I recall.
???? Where do you get this stuff?
>
>Not at all.
>No you can't,
>
>> It seems obvious
>
>Btw, that's a terrible way to start a sentence. Before I even read it,
>I see you are starting with "based on a bunch of unqualified beliefs
>and premises". Unless you add "to me because of these particular
>reasons..." and you articulate your premises very carefully and
>justify them.
Better to start every sentence with "no".
>No,
>No,
><<If you don’t believe in anything supernatural – gods, ghosts,
>immaterial souls and spirits – then you subscribe to naturalism, the
>idea that nature is all there is.
The notion of ghosts and spirits is built on a fundamental
misunderstanding of that 'nature' you are espousing. If there
are assumed material beings, why not immaterial beings?
If there are effective 'egos' in 'nature' why not effective egos
beyond measurable nature?
You accept the so-called material beings and egos, but
deny the immaterial, so you feel more in the right than
the spook-nutters. But you are as much a nutter as the
others by making unsound unprovable assumptions
about beings, egos, and entities existing in 'nature-science'.
>The reason you’re a naturalist is
>likely that, wanting not to be deceived, you put stock in empirical,
>evidence-based ways of justifying beliefs about what’s real, as for
>instance exemplified by science.
Science makes metaphysical assumptions about time,
cause and effect, and entities, which must be axiomatic
since they can by no means be proved. Science can prove
science, but only on it's own terms, accepting without
evidence those metaphysical propositions. In effect
they can say science is science, but they can't say that
science has any legitimate claim to make about reality
except on it's own terms by it's own rules.
Calling science 'nature' is silly. It's just an attempted disguise.
Science leaves virtually everything out of nature as unmeasurable,
unreproduceable, subjective, and therefore non-existent. Only
the objective, the non-subjective (as if there were such a spooky
thing as that) can be 'real', and all of human natural experience
is ruled out of court. In other words, the non-human is 'real',
and the human is too messy and dirty to contemplate and codify.
Only the abstract (mental formations) can be true, while
actual experience is worthless piffle.
Form?
The psychiatrist showed a card with a black square on it,
and asked, "What do you see?" The patient said,"Oh. It's
a bedroom window and there are two people on the bed
fucking like drunken minks." Then he was shown a card
with a black triangle, so he said, "Oh. That's a key hole in
a whore house, and there are three ladies, two men, a dog,
and a monkey on the bed fucking like a steam locomotive."
Then he was shown a black filled circle, so he said,"Oh, that's
a porthole on a yacht in Monaco full of stark naked playboys
and playgirls having an orgy with whip cream and caviar all
over the walls and the floor."
The psychiatrist said, "Obviously you are a raving sex maniac
and a danger to society." The patient said,"No. I'm DramaTroll.
And why call Me the sex maniac? You're the one showing all
the dirty pictures."
Charles E Hardwidge
news:0abec0b4-9490-4ee1...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 3:07 am, pho...@address.for.spam (Love) wrote:
>> In article
>> <30477398-8141-4b67-93da-616cce63b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> No two are alike, yet they are all pencils
>
> That's not delusion. That's simply the distinction between type and
> token. No two tokens are alike, but they are of the same type. Same
> with pennies. How is that delusion?
These sorts of theoretical issues, like personal character, are really
fundamentals and should be discussed separately. Indeed, the fact that these
issues arise during a discussion is mixing varying levels of understanding
and different intents. This is not useful or efficient. One might as well
try to repair a car engine in the dark and rain wearing a pair of boxing
gloves.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:lnjpj55snlhvaef3n...@4ax.com...
> Calling science 'nature' is silly. It's just an attempted disguise.
> Science leaves virtually everything out of nature as unmeasurable,
> unreproduceable, subjective, and therefore non-existent. Only
> the objective, the non-subjective (as if there were such a spooky
> thing as that) can be 'real', and all of human natural experience
> is ruled out of court. In other words, the non-human is 'real',
> and the human is too messy and dirty to contemplate and codify.
> Only the abstract (mental formations) can be true, while
> actual experience is worthless piffle.
I'd rather not dirty myself with this thread but here we go.
You give off indicators which suggest you have an "engineering mind", for
want of a better description. You're highly rational but when challenged
slide into personal attacks. The basic problem is you're insisting that your
form of "right" is "right" without a proper evaluation of the other side.
Now, I'm not advocating you skip from an idiot "engineering mind" to an
idiot "artistic mind" but your zealotry makes you look an ass.
Science is a best guess and effective enough, and I'm open to entertaining
the idea that there are unknown dimensions, different forms of life, and all
the other brouhaha. The problem is, Keyne's, you're arguing entirely from
the flipside and won't give an atom to the other. If you weren't being such
a king sized dick about things you'd see they're not mutually incompatible.
However, one is useful and usable. The other is a fairy story like the dark
side of the moon is to a stone age caveman.
Going further, there /could/ be a 'lake' of surface water in some form on
the other side but there may not be. Your level of extreme certainty where
pink flamingos are ice skating in Mickey Mouse hats is nuts. This would be
as nuts as industrial medicine claiming some marginally effective treatment
with toxic side effects in a rare condition is efficacious to everything
from a graze upwards. This is the level of nutball, extreme, marginalised
reasoning you've talked yourself into.
Get a life. Talk about something else, anything else. Walk the effing dog.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Well, I think to discuss how we understand and relate to the world,
these concepts are indispensable. In terms of discussing realism, for
example, I have to talk about tokens and types to describe the three
main types of realism: (1) weak realism, that something exists
independently of conceiving; (2) common-sense realism, that tokens of
current observable commonsense and scientific physical types
objectively exist independent of conceiving; and (3) scientific
realism, that tokens of unobservable scientific physical types
objectively exist independent of conceiving. For (1) is so weak, that
it's rather boring and makes no interesting claims, so I can't really
talk about the realisms that matter without reference to tokens and
types. Also the concepts of family resemblence and open-texture are
pretty crucial in terms of how we talk about a lot of those observable
commonsense and scientific types.
In any case, I have to start somewhere. There are going to always be
nutters who babble about cats not existing or everything being
illusion, and then I'll stop saying anything too seriously and just
make fun of them endlessly, and line them up like bowling pins and
then knock'em all into the gutter, but once in a while I hope to get
into interesting discussions with educated intelligent posters where I
learn something new.
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Dec 31, 1:39 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> These sorts of theoretical issues, like personal character, are really
>> fundamentals and should be discussed separately. Indeed, the fact that
>> these issues arise during a discussion is mixing varying levels of
>> understanding and different intents. This is not useful or efficient. One
>> might as well try to repair a car engine in the dark and rain wearing a
>> pair of boxing gloves.
> In any case, I have to start somewhere. There are going to always be
> nutters who babble about cats not existing or everything being
> illusion, and then I'll stop saying anything too seriously and just
> make fun of them endlessly, and line them up like bowling pins and
> then knock'em all into the gutter, but once in a while I hope to get
> into interesting discussions with educated intelligent posters where I
> learn something new.
This is the problem with self-selecting enthusiastic amateurs. Genius is
always in danger of being compromised to accommodate the stupid. Dangly
shiny glittery things seems to get their attention.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:38:01 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Must? Well, we can't immediately say "27 trees" you see, as our brain-
> >structure allows us only to fairly instantly grasp only up to about 10
> >or so, I think. Other animals can do the same, even birds can
> >immediately distinguish up to about 7, if I recall.
>
> ???? Where do you get this stuff?
I actually read, and learn, and don't just blindly repeat nonsense
about the world being an illusion, oh ignorant nutter-dude.
And bees can count up to four. Here's an article on bees:
I can find several references for you about birds, which can count
higher. Didn't you know that chicks are really good at math? No, I
don't mean chicks in bikinis, but baby chickens:
<<Young chickens just a few days old can count and perform basic
arithmetic, according to a fluffy new study. Researchers manipulated
objects that the chicks had formed an attachment to, moving the
objects behind little screens, and found that the observant young
birds kept track of where the objects were. In effect, the chicks were
solving simple math problems like “4 – 2 = 2.”>>
Anyway, while you are full to the brim with your nutter dogma, Keynes,
I am always open, always assimilating new ideas, and always self-
correcting, as I update my ideas and knowledge with better knowledge
rather than cling to beliefs and dogma as you and other religious
nutters do. That's why I'm always running circles around you, Nutter-
Dude.
> >> It seems obvious
>
> >Btw, that's a terrible way to start a sentence. Before I even read it,
> >I see you are starting with "based on a bunch of unqualified beliefs
> >and premises". Unless you add "to me because of these particular
> >reasons..." and you articulate your premises very carefully and
> >justify them.
>
> Better to start every sentence with "no".
That hasn't gotten you very far, now, has it Keynes?
> ><<If you don’t believe in anything supernatural – gods, ghosts,
> >immaterial souls and spirits – then you subscribe to naturalism, the
> >idea that nature is all there is.
>
> The notion of ghosts and spirits is built on a fundamental
> misunderstanding of that 'nature' you are espousing. If there
> are assumed material beings, why not immaterial beings?
Not assumed. I can touch them, bounce things off them. There is no
evidence for "immaterial beings" such as the woo-woo "Mind" you claim
creates the illusion of physical reality. Or angels, demons, etc. That
is, I only go for that for which we have evidence.
Again, you still haven't shoved your head into a bucket of water for
10 minutes, walked in front of a fast-moving truck, or sustained
yourself for a month only on dream-food, all of which you could do if
nature was really an illusion created by your "Mind". In other words,
you are full of deva-dung, and only have your dogma and fantasy that
you are more "Zen" if you shove your head up your ass and say the
world is an illusion. You're missing out on life, Nutter-Dude.
> If there are effective 'egos' in 'nature' why not effective egos
> beyond measurable nature?
There are no 'egos'. Rather, the empirical self is a narrative center
of gravity. It's a useful fiction that allows us to have feelings of
responsibility, accountability, property, so that we can talk to the
sexy stewardess, point, and say, "that's my seat, and here's my ticket
to prove it". Otherwise, such sentences would be semantic gibberish.
And you have to produce this "beyond measurable nature". That's simply
a 'dualistic' word game. If you call all of nature "measurable", then
you'll have this phony "immeasurable" woo-woo you can posit. You could
have said, "if there are effective 'egos' in non-gods, then why not
effective egos in the gods"? But there is no evidence for gods, and by
adding "non-gods" to reality, you can pretend that we can assume that
gods must exist. Nope. Just a language trick, and you've been caught.
You lose again, Nutter-Dude.
> You accept the so-called material beings and egos, but
> deny the immaterial, so you feel more in the right
Same trick. "Immaterial" is a word that doesn't refer. Silly nutter,
you think you can make up a false distinction that isn't grounded in
your experience of the world (that is, cats, trees, etc.), and so you
make up an imaginary "immaterial" world, and then lump everything that
exists in the "so-called material world", and then you claim that the
make-believe category is real, and that everything that is real is
really illusion. Nice try for a seventh-grader, but you've already
tried that stupid seventh-grade word trick. Better come up with
something new, Nutter-Dude. Knocking you over is getting really
boring.
> But you are as much a nutter as the
> others by making unsound unprovable assumptions
> about beings, egos, and entities existing in 'nature-science'.
No, "egos" are what you believe in, called "Mind", where as I only use
the word 'self' as a grammatical fiction to refer to a very real
psychophysical process and collection which is organized tightly. Your
wallowing in narcissism, and saying "If I close my eyes I don't see
anything, so my ego creates the world" is much more unprovable and
problematic than the pragmatic inference that trees exist, and
continue to exist for the duration that I close my eyes and then open
them again.
> >The reason you’re a naturalist is
> >likely that, wanting not to be deceived, you put stock in empirical,
> >evidence-based ways of justifying beliefs about what’s real, as for
> >instance exemplified by science.
>
> Science makes metaphysical assumptions about time,
> cause and effect, and entities, which must be axiomatic
Bullshit. They are conclusions, not assumptions, based on tons of
observation and experimentation. Whereas your nutter-hood is all about
clinging to superstition and dogma in the face of contrary evidence.
Which is why you're the lovable list laughing-stock.
> Science can prove science, but only on it's own terms,
Nope. That's mathematics, which is the language of science. Science
always demonstrates real patterns and structure of the real objective
world. And when and only when abstract mathematical forms that only
prove themselves on their own terms -- only when these intimately and
precisely correspond to the way the world is -- then you have Science.
That is, Kepler's theorems that the planets are in elliptical orbits
precisely correlates with the mathematical properties of the conic
section of the ellipse, and Newton's law of gravitation precisely
matches the inverse square of the distance, which is a mathematical
construct which then reaches out literally and describes the objective
structure of the universe and its patterns.
> accepting without evidence those metaphysical propositions.
Just the opposite. Accepting only after rigorous testing and rejecting
what doesn't test out. As with the woo-woo nutter claims about Gingo
and memory, science tested those assumptions, and when there is no
evidence, it says, there's no correlation. It's you nutters who make
accuses and keep accepting woo-woo without evidence.
Look, I respect that you are a Cartesian Dualist, and that you believe
in souls (substituting whatever silly Zennie terms you use) and that
you get comfort believing you're in the matrix and trees and stars
don't exist. But why lie? Why not admit that all the evidence and
reasoning goes with DharmaTroll, and that you get a big ego-boost by
being a kind of flat-earther about everything and pretending that you
create the universe and so forth? Might as well just be honest about
it, Nutter-Dude.
> The psychiatrist showed a card with a black square on it,
> and asked, "What do you see?" The patient said,"Oh. It's
> a bedroom window and there are two people on the bed
> fucking like drunken minks." Then he was shown a card
> with a black triangle, so he said, "Oh. That's a key hole in
> a whore house, and there are three ladies, two men, a dog,
> and a monkey on the bed fucking like a steam locomotive."
> Then he was shown a black filled circle, so he said,"Oh, that's
> a porthole on a yacht in Monaco full of stark naked playboys
> and playgirls having an orgy with whip cream and caviar all
> over the walls and the floor."
>
> The psychiatrist said, "Obviously you are a raving sex maniac
> and a danger to society." The patient said,"No. I'm DramaTroll.
> And why call Me the sex maniac? You're the one showing all
> the dirty pictures."
Well, I've told that one before on this list. Your jokes and stories
are you're only real asset, Keynes. At least come up with a story I
haven't heard and even told myself around here before. Happy New Year,
Nutter-Dude!
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Are you sure about this? Can you give me an article to read? I read
pop-science stuff a lot and I'm really surprised I haven't come across
that. I have read about a very small percentage of human females that
have different hardware, but not about all women. What I recall is
that something like 1% of women are tetrachromats: that is, they have
four kinds of cones and hence can see four distinct ranges of color,
instead of the three that most of us trichromats live with.
Now I'm pretty sure that each kind of cone can can pick up about 100
different gradations of color. So that means that lots of animals with
only two types of cones (dichromats) can make 10,000 distinctions. (I
think I can simply multiply these, but it may be a bit less, as there
might be some overlap that get subtracted out, I forget.) So the
normal humans, both guys and chicks, who have three kinds of cones,
should be able to theoretically see 100^3 or a cool million different
combinations of colors. So I don't see how women in general are going
to make distinctions, unless it's in the structure of the brain and
not the eyes -- if that's what's going on, that would be interesting.
But 1% of women have four kinds of cones, and that would mean they
have the possibility of seeing a super-insane range of 100 million
colors. Though I wonder if once you get to a million, if such fine
resolution could really be perceived. Finally, as I recall, pigeons
and butterflies have five (pentachromats) or even more kinds of color
receptors in their retinae, but no humans do.
> Keep that in mind the next time you pick a tie.
> Cones are also better for close range and
> low light conditions.
> The evolutionary theory is this developed because
> it gives women some advantage in perceiving
> the colour hues that show in the face/skin. Good for
> comprehending circulation (health) changes in babies,
> or men blushing slightly if they lie. (socio-communication
> advantages).
Again, if we all can have a potential of a million different colors,
and only 1% of women can see 100 millions colors, I would suspect that
it's simply cultural, as women are conditioned to pay attention to
clothes, food, jewelry, and so forth, so they are taught to recognize
more distinctions. And gay men have an unusual ability to understand
matching colors and interior decorating, and so forth, which would
support that idea: remember the show "Queer Eye for the Straight
Guy"?
> The higher parallel processing female
> brain lets her keep track of several of these nuances
> simultaneously.
Can you get me an article to read on that as well? I know women have
thicker corpus collosums and so can connect the two hemispheres of
their brain more -- is this what you are referring to? I didn't know
that chicks could multitask better in general.
This sounds interesting, but I have no opinion on it as I haven't read
about it or seen any evidence. As for the "closer to God", this can
have so many cultural interpretations, I doubt it connects to multi-
tasking. But I will free-associate a little. Hmm, if what you say is
true, then with respect to Buddhist practice, we would expect males to
find concentration practice easier, and females to find mindfulness/
vipassana/zazen practice to be easier, perhaps. So if achieving a
balance of concentration and mindfulness is optimal, then men might in
general need to do more mindfulness in the mix and women a little more
concentration. There's one Buddhist application.
Now as we evolved, men having more lean body mass and therefore
strength did the hunting, and hunting requires focusing on one task
tenaciously: so there might be something to that, as males who could
focus all their attention on the one-pointed task of hunting would
have better survival value, while multitasking capacity would increase
survival value for women who are caring for children while making
clothes, preparing food, etc. Of course I'm just making this up as I
type, but it would be fascinating to research. I've also read that
attention deficit disorder has to do with being a hunter (the hyper-
focusing ADD hunter) versus the farmer (normal multitasking without
'spacing out'), and this is probably a related issue.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
time you top-posted that you liked my post, Hollywood, I thought it
was one of my best posts. In any case, I've blathered enough for one
decade and am off to a party where to eat and drink and oogle over hot
chicks and then blow loud noisemakers and act obnoxious. Happy New
Year, everybody!
--DharmaTroll
> > (familienähnlichkeit) to make the point that states of affairs falling
> > under a common term, such as ‘games’ show overlapping similarities and
> >www.naturalism.orgwhat I mean by nature or natural or naturalism, so
> > as to eliminate getting muddled by the term:
>
> > <<If you don’t believe in anything supernatural – gods, ghosts,
> > immaterial souls and spirits – then you subscribe to naturalism, the
> > idea that nature is all there is. The reason you’re a naturalist is
> > likely that, wanting not to be deceived, you put stock in empirical,
> > evidence-based ways of justifying beliefs about what’s real, as for
Charles E Hardwidge
> Again, if we all can have a potential of a million different colors,
> and only 1% of women can see 100 millions colors, I would suspect that
> it's simply cultural, as women are conditioned to pay attention to
> clothes, food, jewelry, and so forth, so they are taught to recognize
> more distinctions. And gay men have an unusual ability to understand
> matching colors and interior decorating, and so forth, which would
> support that idea: remember the show "Queer Eye for the Straight
> Guy"?
> Can you get me an article to read on that as well? I know women have
> thicker corpus collosums and so can connect the two hemispheres of
> their brain more -- is this what you are referring to? I didn't know
> that chicks could multitask better in general.
> This sounds interesting, but I have no opinion on it as I haven't read
> about it or seen any evidence. As for the "closer to God", this can
> have so many cultural interpretations, I doubt it connects to multi-
> tasking. But I will free-associate a little. Hmm, if what you say is
> true, then with respect to Buddhist practice, we would expect males to
> find concentration practice easier, and females to find mindfulness/
> vipassana/zazen practice to be easier, perhaps. So if achieving a
> balance of concentration and mindfulness is optimal, then men might in
> general need to do more mindfulness in the mix and women a little more
> concentration. There's one Buddhist application.
Read up on colour management, gamut, and tone range.
Multi-tasking is a learned behaviour.
Sex war crap got boring before I was out of shorts.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 31, 12:13 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:38:01 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Must? Well, we can't immediately say "27 trees" you see, as our brain-
>> >structure allows us only to fairly instantly grasp only up to about 10
>> >or so, I think. Other animals can do the same, even birds can
>> >immediately distinguish up to about 7, if I recall.
>>
>> ???? Where do you get this stuff?
<9h6ti59fsfo3eu9e8...@4ax.com>
You're welcome.
>
>> The psychiatrist showed a card with a black square on it,
>> and asked, "What do you see?" The patient said,"Oh. It's
>> a bedroom window and there are two people on the bed
>> fucking like drunken minks." Then he was shown a card
>> with a black triangle, so he said, "Oh. That's a key hole in
>> a whore house, and there are three ladies, two men, a dog,
>> and a monkey on the bed fucking like a steam locomotive."
>> Then he was shown a black filled circle, so he said,"Oh, that's
>> a porthole on a yacht in Monaco full of stark naked playboys
>> and playgirls having an orgy with whip cream and caviar all
>> over the walls and the floor."
>>
>> The psychiatrist said, "Obviously you are a raving sex maniac
>> and a danger to society." The patient said,"No. I'm DramaTroll.
>> And why call Me the sex maniac? You're the one showing all
>> the dirty pictures."
>
>Well, I've told that one before on this list. Your jokes and stories
>are you're only real asset, Keynes. At least come up with a story I
>haven't heard and even told myself around here before. Happy New Year,
>Nutter-Dude!
You still don't get it.
Evelyn
> Over-the-top posting to say thanks for the top-posting, as the last
> time you top-posted that you liked my post, Hollywood, I thought it
> was one of my best posts. In any case, I've blathered enough for one
> decade and am off to a party where to eat and drink and oogle over hot
> chicks and then blow loud noisemakers and act obnoxious. Happy New
> Year, everybody!
>
> --DharmaTroll
Happy New Year to you too DT!
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
halfawake
R.
= = = = = = = =
DharmaTroll wrote:
>>>(familien�hnlichkeit) to make the point that states of affairs falling
>>>under a common term, such as �games� show overlapping similarities and
>>><<If you don�t believe in anything supernatural � gods, ghosts,
>>>immaterial souls and spirits � then you subscribe to naturalism, the
>>>idea that nature is all there is. The reason you�re a naturalist is
>>>likely that, wanting not to be deceived, you put stock in empirical,
>>>evidence-based ways of justifying beliefs about what�s real, as for