http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.shtml
i find this interesting, and promising...
Printable View
http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.shtml
i find this interesting, and promising...
Interesting...try to talking like that for a day and see how long it takes before people start looking at you funny.
It reminded me of the fundamental attribution error. The psychological tendancy for observers to underestimate situational influences and overestimate dispositional influences on behavior.
If another car cuts us off on the freeway, we tend to assume that the person is an aggressive driver as opposed to a perfectly average driver who happens to be in a hurry that day.
Maybe this basic psychological tendancy influenced language development? I doubt it...but maybe.
"an epistemological nightmare" --raymond m. smullyan
meh, there is more to this but my fingers are tired, so it will have to be left at this exciting cliffhanger...unfortunately it becomes more relevant further along, but i'm sure you get the idea.Quote:
scene1: frank is in the office of an eye color doctor. *the doctor holds up a book and asks "what color is it?" frank answer, "red." *the doctor says, "aha, just as i thuoght! your whole color mechanism has gone out of kilter. *but fortunately your condition is curable, and I will have you in perfect shape in a couple of weeks."
scene2: (a few weeks later) frank is in a laboratory in the home of an experimental epistemologist. *the epistemologist holds up a book and also asks, What color is this book?" now, frank has been earlier dismissed by the eye doctor as "cured." *however, he is now of a very analytical and cautious temperament, and will not make any statement that can possibly be refuted. *so frank answers, "it seems red to me."
episteomlogist (abbreviated as "e" from now on): wrong!
frank: i dont think you heard what i said. *i merely said that it seems red to me
e: i heard you, and you were wrong
f: let me get this clear; did yo mean that i was wrong that this book is red, or that i was wrong that it seems red to me?
e: i obviously couldn't have meant that you were wrong in that it IS red, since you did not say that it is red. *all you said was that it SEEMS red to you, and it is THIS statement which is wrong.
f: but you can't say that the statement "it SEEMS red to me" is wrong.
e: if i CAN'T say it, how come i did?
f: i mean you can't MEAN it.
e: why not?
f: but surely I know what color the book SEEMS to me!
e: again you are wrong.
f: but nobody knows better than i how things seem to ME
e: i am sorry, but again you are wrong.
f: but who knows better than i?
e: i do.
f: but how could you have access to my private mental states?
e: private mental states! metaphysical hogwash! *look, i am a PRACTICAL epistemologist. *metaphysical problems about "mind" versus "matter" arise only from episteomlogical confusions. *epistemology is the true foundation of philosophy. *but the toruble with all past episteomlogists is that they have been using wholly theoretical methods, and much of their discussion degenerates into mere word games. *while other epistemologists have been solemnly arguing such questions as wheter a man can be wrong when he asserts that he believes such and such, i have discovered how to settle such questions EXPERIMENTALLY.
f: how could you possibly decide such things empirically?
e: by reading a person's thoughts directly.
f: you are a telepathic?
e: of course not. *i simply did the one obvious thing which shoud be done. *i have constructed a brain-reading machine--known technically as a cerebrescope--that is operative right now in this room and is scanning every nerve cell in your brain. *i thus can read your every sensation and thought, and it is a simple objective truth that this book does NOT seem red to you.
f: goodness gracious, i really could have sworn that the book seemed red to me; it sure SEEMS that it seems red to me!
e: i'm sorry, but you are wrong again.
f: really? ir doesn't even SEEm that it seems red to me? *it sure SEEMS that it seems that it seems red to me!
e: wrong again! and no matter how mant times you reiterate the phrase "it seem like" and follow it by "the book is red" you will be wrong.
f: this is fantastic! suppose instead of the phrase "it seem like" i would say "i believe that." * i'll change my original statement to "i BELIEVE that the book is red." *is that true or false?
e: just a moment while i check the machine...no, that's false.
f: and what about "i believe that i believe...etc"
e: no, it doesn't matter how many times you say "i believe" it will be false.
f: well this has been a most englightening expereince. *however, you must admit that it is a little hard on me to realize that i am entertaining infinitely many erroneous beliefs!
e: why do you say that your beliefs are erroneous?
f: but you have been telling me this all the while!
e: i most certainly have not!
f: good god, i was prepared to admit all my errors, and now you tell me that my beliefs are not errors; what are you trying to do, drive me crazy?
e: hey, take it easy! please try to recall: when did i say or imply that any of your beliefs are erroneous?
f: just simply recall the infinite sequence of sentences: i believe this book is red; i believe that i believe that this book is red; and so forth. *you told me that every on of those statements is false.
e: true.
f: then how can you consistenyl maintain that my BELIEFS in all these false statements are erroneous?
e: because, as i told you, you don't believe any of them.
f: i think i see, yet i am not absolutely sure.
e: look, let me put it another way. *don't you see that the very falsity of each of the statements that you assert SAVES you from an erroneous belief in the preceding one? *the first statement is simply to the effect that you believe the first statement. *if the second statement were TRUE, then you would believe the fisrt statement, and hence your belief about the first statement would indeed be in error. *but fortunately the second statement is false, hence you don't really believe the first statement, so your belief in the first statement is not in error. *thus the falsity of the second statement implies you do NOT have an erroneous belief about the first; the falsity of the third likewise saves you from an erroneous belief about the second, etc.
f: now i see perfectly! so none of my BELIEFS were erroneous, only the statements were erroneous.
e: exactly.
f: most remarkable! incidentally, what color is the book really?
e: it is red.
f: what!
e: exactly! of course the book is red. *whats the matter with you, don't you have eyes?
f: but didn't i in effect keep saying that the book is red all along?
e: of course not! you kept saying it SEEMS red to you, it SEEMS like it seems red to you, and so forth. *not once did you say that it IS red. *when i orginially asked you "what color is the book?" if you had simply answered "red" this whole painful discussion would have been avoided.[/b]
I find these two sites much more useful and complete for understanding both how to use E-prime and the advantages and disadvantages of doing so:
http://www.angelfire.com/nd/danscorpio/ep2.html
http://www.ctlow.ca/E-Prime/E-Prime.html
Unlike RAW, I don't find E-prime to serve as a panacea, but I do use it (check my postings for "to be" verbs) and find it very useful. I do all of my academic writing and online postings in it. I sometimes find myself having difficulty expressing something in it. After sorting through it for a while, I often find that my frustration does not result from limitations in E-prime, but, instead, from a problem in my thinking. I also very often find myself wishing that some people on discussion boards would try using it so that we could avoid fights rooted in differing absolute beliefs.
However, E-prime users, including RAW, sometimes just shift their beliefs into other grammatical structures, so it can't, by itself, help people to avoid belief or expressions of "isness". That requires an actual transformation in outlook or perception, which the use of E-prime can help to facilitate.
Talking in E-prime requires much more practice than writing in it. I've known very few people to pull it off, but people have done it. Whether in written or spoken form, it may come out very awkwardly at first. But I have even written a "love letter" in E-prime. With some practice, it doesn't sound strange at all. No one on my dissertation committee has ever even noticed that I don't use any "to be" verbs.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
Interesting...try to talking like that for a day and see how long it takes before people start looking at you funny.
Everything is about the possibility that there is no truth, just obversations. Really, why would you write in such a silly matter?
1. It improves the precision of your writing and thoughts.Quote:
Originally posted by Neruo
Everything is about the possibility that there is no truth, just obversations. Really, why would you write in such a silly matter?
2. It helps to make visible the conflicts between people with differing positions.
3. It helps to loosen your attachment to your beliefs and perspectives, opening you to other possibilities.
I like it. I will see how it goes thinking in this frame of mind.
Well yeah writing like that would do that. But really, why should you? When I say: 'God doesn't exist', what I Mean is 'The chance that god exists like the bible states is about 0.00001%, in my oppinion'.Quote:
Originally posted by sasha
1. It improves the precision of your writing and thoughts.
2. It helps to make visible the conflicts between people with differing positions.
3. It helps to loosen your attachment to your beliefs and perspectives, opening you to other possibilities.
This 'english Prime' all comes down to not stating Any facts, just observations (at least I think ;) ). I am not saying it's stupid, it just seems useless to me, since I allready embraced the 'fact' (matter of saying ;)) that there are no truths/facts, just obversations and 'conclusions' (more like hypotheses) created by those observations. Sight is just the stimulation of nerve cells, there is no way of knowing or what you see is true. Nothing is certain. Nothing. There is just chances. Sometimes 99,999999999999999%, but never 100%.
At least, in my oppinion the chance that my idea is a tad bit plausible regarding the context is 94.5%.
i see what you're saying neuro, and if you are with people who also operate from the "axiom" that there are no real truths it would seem cumbersome to speak this way.
but it would seem that using english-prime in debate/arguments would save time, confusion, and moderate blood pressure levels..this form of usage encompassing internal arguments as well.
.Quote:
After sorting through it for a while, I often find that my frustration does not result from limitations in E-prime, but, instead, from a problem in my thinking. I also very often find myself wishing that some people on discussion boards would try using it so that we could avoid fights rooted in differing absolute beliefs[/b]
Well, if we would use english prime on the internet there indeed would be less fighting and stuff :) But allso in politics it might be good for people if they used english-prime. However, it has the same effect as just relativising the situation. I think people would allways sometimes just have to think about what they are saying, even when they use english prime, for the problem I see in english prime is that with a bit of sarcasm added, it has no effect :)Quote:
Originally posted by wombing
i see what you're saying neuro, and if you are with people who also operate from the "axiom" that there are no real truths it would seem cumbersome to speak this way.
but it would seem that using english-prime in debate/arguments would save time, confusion, and moderate blood pressure levels..this form of usage encompassing internal arguments as well.
.[/b]Quote:
After sorting through it for a while, I often find that my frustration does not result from limitations in E-prime, but, instead, from a problem in my thinking. I also very often find myself wishing that some people on discussion boards would try using it so that we could avoid fights rooted in differing absolute beliefs
Learning E-prime requires thinking about what you say, which requires you to think about what and how you think, which leads you reasses your thinking, which, with practice, leads to a change in thinking.Quote:
Originally posted by Neruo
However, it has the same effect as just relativising the situation. I think people would allways sometimes just have to think about what they are saying, even when they use english prime, for the problem I see in english prime is that with a bit of sarcasm added, it has no effect :)
That said, I agree that one can achieve similar effects through just thinking more relativistically. I have certainly seen many people who've studied poststructural, postmodern, or similar philosophies and who think with far less absolutism than folk who use E-prime. But E-prime probably comes far easier than postmodern philosophy.
Despite using it and sometimes advocating it, I see problems with E-prime. It seems, at least for many users, to lead to a false sense of absolute rationality. As if the user can keep out all bias and cultural influence just through its use. They then use their use of E-prime to insulate themselves from either criticism of their positions, taking responsibility for their positions, and/or from self-reflection on their continuing beliefs. I think RAW does this quite a bit.
Well you would have to not just Speak english-prime, but really use it as intented. I don't think the average Joe that works at McDonalds would do that. ;) However for alot of diplomatic/philosophic/religious debates, such relativising would be usefull. (but I like said that allready, I guess the only way to know that english-prime's effect would be is to see it on a big scale, what, perhaps unfortunately, will not happen any time soon I think).Quote:
Originally posted by sasha
Learning E-prime requires thinking about what you say, which requires you to think about what and how you think, which leads you reasses your thinking, which, with practice, leads to a change in thinking.
Will it? I think it would take about the same amount of efford, really, arn't the two things kind of alike? However one does not manifests itself in an audiable way.Quote:
That said, I agree that one can achieve similar effects through just thinking more relativistically. I have certainly seen many people who've studied poststructural, postmodern, or similar philosophies and who think with far less absolutism than folk who use E-prime. But E-prime probably comes far easier than postmodern philosophy.[/b]
to lazy to type a reply. But I agree.Quote:
Despite using it and sometimes advocating it, I see problems with E-prime. It seems, at least for many users, to lead to a false sense of absolute rationality. As if the user can keep out all bias and cultural influence just through its use. They then use their use of E-prime to insulate themselves from either criticism of their positions, taking responsibility for their positions, and/or from self-reflection on their continuing beliefs. I think RAW does this quite a bit.[/b]