This is superb and articulates my thoughts about a whole range of trends in education and elsewhere. It reminds me of a card my mum gave me when I qualified as a teacher. It showed a child writing a sum on a blackboard (3x4=75) with the teacher looking on. The caption said "It's not wrong; it's how I feel".
Orwell’s “let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around” is bordering on nonsense too, being based on the existence of some meaning independent of or preceding language. Once you start to “think about thinking” it’s so hard to say anything at all really. And philosophy on teaching is so prone to truthiness and such like, that it makes teachers bullshit alarms go off (too easily?)
As a new subscriber, I was/am open to a fresh voice with keen insight. Ah, yes, more refreshing than a cup of coffee. But, then, IRONY slapped me in da noggin' like a jolt of raw caffeine. In an article on Bullshit, you cite Dennett (I'm assuming Daniel Dennett) and Colbert (assuming Stephen Colbert). You cite them as bullshit debunkers, which had me falling out of my chair. IRONY. Both are masters of the Bullshit. So, to shine a light on bullshit thinking, you turn to two of the most profound bullshitters working the "let me teach you" circuit. Oh, no. No, this cannot be... you've become my turn-to Stacker for Irony.
I mean. Don’t really know where to start. Asserting that Dennett is a ‘master of bullshit’ is at best uncharitable. He certainly makes better arguments than mere ad hominem. As someone who’s read Consciousness Explained, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Intuition Pumps & From Bacteria to Bach I can accept that there are places in his thinking where you can make effective counter arguments but it certainly ain’t bullshit. It’s forensically researched and painstakingly thought through. Colbert I’m less fussed about, I just like the concept of ‘truthiness’. If you’re dismissing that cos you don’t rate Colbert, fine. But that’s not a great standard of intellectual rigour.
Thanks for your response. Received with good cheer and charity. BUT, with all good humor... I've thought labeling Dennett a "master of bullshit" was extremely charitable! Especially when compared to my inner dialogue when I read, for example, Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. My actual evaluation was more negative by many powers of ten. (Extremely foul language required.) And, Colbert To call him a satirist is quaint. In my somewhat contrary view, calling him a satirist would be tantamount to calling Ronald McDonald a Shakespearean actor. In any event, we have differing views but I cherish and celebrate your hard work in advancing a narrative. If I respond with contrary views, please do not consider them mean-spirited or an attempt to denigrate your thoughts. (Though I may at times express myself in a colorful manner.) Be well. Carry on. Blessings.
Yes. First, I must note that facing a huge move I assigned the Dennett texts to the land fill. So, I do not have them at hand for specific quotes. That said, I can summarize: Dennett does not explain consciousness. His title is misleading. He clings, fervently, to the principles of Materialism (now often called Physicalism). He puts forth the idea that consciousness emerges from a material substrate, the brain. He leaps off the observational bandwagon with the premise that first there is material, substance, form, BEFORE consciousness. Aside from being unprovable, it is simply wrong. Actual scientific observation, in stunning volume, shows that consciousness separates from the body/brain. Thus, one has direct observation that c/s is not an emergent property of the brain, but rather a different phenomenon. When one gets this basic foundational fact wrong, all the detail does not matter as it is based on a faulty premise. A faulty premise prevents correct observation, it delivers a form of blindness. The book makes Dennett look like a metaphorical stumbling old blind man tapping his way down the street with a cane.
Direct observation. The person observes from a position outside the body, as in an OOB or NDE. We have the raw data of the person doing the observing from a position that is not and cannot be a sense perception of the body. I wrote a long piece on the subject years ago that was (and still may be) posted on the NDEF site. (Near Death Experience Foundation) It was a long critique and analysis of Susan Blackmore's book, Dying to Live.
The very same thing occurs by those using the tool of mathematics and by those reporting so-called New Ideas in physics, philosophy and other genres of serious investigations of cognitive activity. Many new ideas are speculations that journalists love to report on, because it affords them the position similar to that of being a believer in a god... where to prove or disprove creates an unsolvable tautology which becomes a system of lies called a religion.
Yes, indeed, patterns are everywhere and can be created from the eye of the beholder. Yet perceptions of the actual are made all the more difficult because of the limited vocabularies being employed by both reader and writer, not to mention the initial perceiver.
Whereas you and I and a few others can claim we see through the nonsense, millions of others can't or won't or even like it because they can use it to manipulate others along a path more conducive to their personalized interests. For example, the "truth" of having a war (often created by a host of lies) is desirable for some in the stock market since it is viewed as an opportunity to make money (where "making a profit" is the only truth to be concerned with), regardless of who gets hurt or what gets destroyed... at a distance from an investor, of course.
And let us not leave out a discussion as to why Evolution has permitted such a quality unless it allows for some apparent cognitive flexibility over time... if not signal to us that because believing in BS is far and widespread, what we are witnessing is the tell-tale sign of an eventual demise of the species at least in terms of cognitive ability to see the presumed reality of truth... if not foretell an overall extinction of the species. Being able to recognize how widespread a behavior labeled as "Belief in BS" occurs, is a cognitive pattern which must be set alongside the other handful of recurring cognitive patterns in order to distinguish which are increasing, decreasing, or maintaining a status quo over time... and what may be causing this.
Why does "Believing in BS", much less why do people persist in developing such lies in the first place? Are lies, duping, conning, subterfuge, camouflage, sleight-of-hand, trickery, deceit, etc.... necessary qualities for Evolution to reach some supposed higher realm of truth.. of cognitive excellence... or is the idea of a greater truth just another model of BS cast in the form of being a duality similar to the basic patterns seen in the yin/yang, psychology, mathematics and binary code of computers?
This is superb and articulates my thoughts about a whole range of trends in education and elsewhere. It reminds me of a card my mum gave me when I qualified as a teacher. It showed a child writing a sum on a blackboard (3x4=75) with the teacher looking on. The caption said "It's not wrong; it's how I feel".
It’s not wrong. It’s how I feel. Love it!
Orwell’s “let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around” is bordering on nonsense too, being based on the existence of some meaning independent of or preceding language. Once you start to “think about thinking” it’s so hard to say anything at all really. And philosophy on teaching is so prone to truthiness and such like, that it makes teachers bullshit alarms go off (too easily?)
I’d say, it doesn’t make teachers’ bullshit alarms go off nearly often enough!
As a new subscriber, I was/am open to a fresh voice with keen insight. Ah, yes, more refreshing than a cup of coffee. But, then, IRONY slapped me in da noggin' like a jolt of raw caffeine. In an article on Bullshit, you cite Dennett (I'm assuming Daniel Dennett) and Colbert (assuming Stephen Colbert). You cite them as bullshit debunkers, which had me falling out of my chair. IRONY. Both are masters of the Bullshit. So, to shine a light on bullshit thinking, you turn to two of the most profound bullshitters working the "let me teach you" circuit. Oh, no. No, this cannot be... you've become my turn-to Stacker for Irony.
I mean. Don’t really know where to start. Asserting that Dennett is a ‘master of bullshit’ is at best uncharitable. He certainly makes better arguments than mere ad hominem. As someone who’s read Consciousness Explained, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Intuition Pumps & From Bacteria to Bach I can accept that there are places in his thinking where you can make effective counter arguments but it certainly ain’t bullshit. It’s forensically researched and painstakingly thought through. Colbert I’m less fussed about, I just like the concept of ‘truthiness’. If you’re dismissing that cos you don’t rate Colbert, fine. But that’s not a great standard of intellectual rigour.
Thanks for your response. Received with good cheer and charity. BUT, with all good humor... I've thought labeling Dennett a "master of bullshit" was extremely charitable! Especially when compared to my inner dialogue when I read, for example, Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. My actual evaluation was more negative by many powers of ten. (Extremely foul language required.) And, Colbert To call him a satirist is quaint. In my somewhat contrary view, calling him a satirist would be tantamount to calling Ronald McDonald a Shakespearean actor. In any event, we have differing views but I cherish and celebrate your hard work in advancing a narrative. If I respond with contrary views, please do not consider them mean-spirited or an attempt to denigrate your thoughts. (Though I may at times express myself in a colorful manner.) Be well. Carry on. Blessings.
Thanks. Can you expand on why you’re so opposed to Dennett?
Yes. First, I must note that facing a huge move I assigned the Dennett texts to the land fill. So, I do not have them at hand for specific quotes. That said, I can summarize: Dennett does not explain consciousness. His title is misleading. He clings, fervently, to the principles of Materialism (now often called Physicalism). He puts forth the idea that consciousness emerges from a material substrate, the brain. He leaps off the observational bandwagon with the premise that first there is material, substance, form, BEFORE consciousness. Aside from being unprovable, it is simply wrong. Actual scientific observation, in stunning volume, shows that consciousness separates from the body/brain. Thus, one has direct observation that c/s is not an emergent property of the brain, but rather a different phenomenon. When one gets this basic foundational fact wrong, all the detail does not matter as it is based on a faulty premise. A faulty premise prevents correct observation, it delivers a form of blindness. The book makes Dennett look like a metaphorical stumbling old blind man tapping his way down the street with a cane.
Hang on, how can we observe that consciousness is separate from the body? That doesn’t seem to make sense. Where has it been observed?
Direct observation. The person observes from a position outside the body, as in an OOB or NDE. We have the raw data of the person doing the observing from a position that is not and cannot be a sense perception of the body. I wrote a long piece on the subject years ago that was (and still may be) posted on the NDEF site. (Near Death Experience Foundation) It was a long critique and analysis of Susan Blackmore's book, Dying to Live.
The very same thing occurs by those using the tool of mathematics and by those reporting so-called New Ideas in physics, philosophy and other genres of serious investigations of cognitive activity. Many new ideas are speculations that journalists love to report on, because it affords them the position similar to that of being a believer in a god... where to prove or disprove creates an unsolvable tautology which becomes a system of lies called a religion.
Yes, indeed, patterns are everywhere and can be created from the eye of the beholder. Yet perceptions of the actual are made all the more difficult because of the limited vocabularies being employed by both reader and writer, not to mention the initial perceiver.
Whereas you and I and a few others can claim we see through the nonsense, millions of others can't or won't or even like it because they can use it to manipulate others along a path more conducive to their personalized interests. For example, the "truth" of having a war (often created by a host of lies) is desirable for some in the stock market since it is viewed as an opportunity to make money (where "making a profit" is the only truth to be concerned with), regardless of who gets hurt or what gets destroyed... at a distance from an investor, of course.
And let us not leave out a discussion as to why Evolution has permitted such a quality unless it allows for some apparent cognitive flexibility over time... if not signal to us that because believing in BS is far and widespread, what we are witnessing is the tell-tale sign of an eventual demise of the species at least in terms of cognitive ability to see the presumed reality of truth... if not foretell an overall extinction of the species. Being able to recognize how widespread a behavior labeled as "Belief in BS" occurs, is a cognitive pattern which must be set alongside the other handful of recurring cognitive patterns in order to distinguish which are increasing, decreasing, or maintaining a status quo over time... and what may be causing this.
Why does "Believing in BS", much less why do people persist in developing such lies in the first place? Are lies, duping, conning, subterfuge, camouflage, sleight-of-hand, trickery, deceit, etc.... necessary qualities for Evolution to reach some supposed higher realm of truth.. of cognitive excellence... or is the idea of a greater truth just another model of BS cast in the form of being a duality similar to the basic patterns seen in the yin/yang, psychology, mathematics and binary code of computers?
It took a child to point out the emperor was naked. Thanks Daire