|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 11/14/2006 : 21:48:07 [Permalink]
|
Why should he reply to you. You have no theories just some vague beliefs. Not to mention the fact that you are an uninteresting, petulant little bore.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 22:05:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Why should he reply to you. You have no theories just some vague beliefs. Not to mention the fact that you are an uninteresting, petulant little bore.
The data suggest otherwise ... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 05:37:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
I understand that the evaluation of information doesn't always trigger the defense mechanism, but when the defense mechanism is triggered the trigger is always the evaluation of information. So you can have an evaluation of information that doesn't trigger a defense mechanism, but the defense mechanism is not independent of the evaluation of information. Not unless you want to break information down into types.
I don't see where statistical independence or logical independence helps explain the apparent contradiction. If your have another reference I'll be glad to read it.
edited to add the last two sentences. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 11/15/2006 06:41:23 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 10:02:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
I understand that the evaluation of information doesn't always trigger the defense mechanism, but when the defense mechanism is triggered the trigger is always the evaluation of information. So you can have an evaluation of information that doesn't trigger a defense mechanism, but the defense mechanism is not independent of the evaluation of information. Not unless you want to break information down into types.
I don't see where statistical independence or logical independence helps explain the apparent contradiction. If your have another reference I'll be glad to read it.
edited to add the last two sentences.
Defense mechanisms can be triggered by processes other than information evaluation--examples being information systhesis and emotional response. So the presence of a defense mechanism does not allow one to accurately infer a particular process has occurred--and the occurrance of a specific process does not allow one to accurately infer that a defense mechanism will be present. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 10:15:34 [Permalink]
|
So Davey, after 4 pages of trying to hair-split and squirm your way out of being wrong about your claim that the veracity of the NIST Report makes no difference to you, you go MIA on this thread. What happened to the open-minded-willing-to-admit-when-you-are-wrong davey you claimed to be?
I've read over some of the longer threads on the site and have noticed this pattern of yours occurs frequently. You accuse others of playing games while you are the one who insists of precise definitions of common words and phrases that are easily understood in context. I guess it makes sense that you have a baby photo as your avatar--because you act like a big one. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 10:55:01 [Permalink]
|
I appreciate your taking the time to put together a thoughtful response.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Defense mechanisms can be triggered by processes other than information evaluation--examples being information systhesis and emotional response. So the presence of a defense mechanism does not allow one to accurately infer a particular process has occurred--and the occurrance of a specific process does not allow one to accurately infer that a defense mechanism will be present.
In light of this explanation, though, is your initial statement still accurate when defense mechanism are also triggered information synthesis and emotional responses?
quote:
A more precise statement on my part would have been 'Defence mechanisms, when they come into play, do so after such information is evaluated.'
It also bring up a secondary question concerning how information synthesis differs from the evaluation of information. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 11:06:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So Davey, after 4 pages of trying to hair-split and squirm your way out of being wrong about your claim that the veracity of the NIST Report makes no difference to you, you go MIA on this thread. What happened to the open-minded-willing-to-admit-when-you-are-wrong davey you claimed to be?
I've read over some of the longer threads on the site and have noticed this pattern of yours occurs frequently. You accuse others of playing games while you are the one who insists of precise definitions of common words and phrases that are easily understood in context. I guess it makes sense that you have a baby photo as your avatar--because you act like a big one.
I find it interesting that even though you're trying to excude confidence that you're correct, Stevie, you find yourself unable to leverage that confidence into claiming the moral high ground and laying off the name-calling.
But nevermind that. The real question is: when are you going to actually prove anything in this thread, Stevie? All you have done - repeatedly - is assert that the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me. You claimed to "know" this, and you claimed that I do not. You stated outright that you wouldn't elaborate unless you were given the freedom to cite your sources, but since that freedom was granted (again), you haven't made use of it, nor have you elaborated.
Instead, you then switched to a refusal to elaborate until I understood that two "foundational constructs" are independent, which, if true, means that their independence is irrelevant to any explanation you might offer for why the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me, and so was just a way for you to stonewall and avoid explaining anything. There's been no hair-splitting nor squirming here, Stevie, as the onus has been entirely upon you to prove something, and you've utterly failed to even begin.
And so, I see that nothing has changed in this thread in nearly three days, despite you having the floor to yourself, Stevie. I was avoiding it, as I've coincidentally had a crisis which left me unable to spend more than five minutes at a time here, and I couldn't afford to get caught up in something long with you, but I see now that my concern over that was all for naught.
So please, go ahead and prove me wrong, using the common meaning of "makes a difference" in context, and cite your sources while doing so. Until you do - while my crisis has lessened - I have better things to do than to continue to ask you about this subject, since you're obviously reluctant to actually present any sort of proof. |
- 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 - 11/15/2006 : 11:37:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
I appreciate your taking the time to put together a thoughtful response.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Defense mechanisms can be triggered by processes other than information evaluation--examples being information systhesis and emotional response. So the presence of a defense mechanism does not allow one to accurately infer a particular process has occurred--and the occurrance of a specific process does not allow one to accurately infer that a defense mechanism will be present.
In light of this explanation, though, is your initial statement still accurate when defense mechanism are also triggered information synthesis and emotional responses?
quote:
A more precise statement on my part would have been 'Defence mechanisms, when they come into play, do so after such information is evaluated.'
It also bring up a secondary question concerning how information synthesis differs from the evaluation of information.
The statement you quoted is true given the context it was made in.
Here is the evaluation process, in a nutshell:
1. The brain receives sensory information (taste, smell, vision, etc.).
2. Information receives a set of tags based on the relevance it has to 5 core emotional drives. Information is evaluated against these drives and tagged regarding the estimated (based on several factors) degree to which the information (or object associated with the information) will satisfy each drive.
3 This information is always stored in latent (or passive) memory, and sometimes, additionally, sent to active memnory. Active memory has 2 flavors--short and long term. It is referred to as "active" memory because we can consciously direct a search of this memory.
Passive memory is so named because we cannot consciously search it. Passive memory is largely at the disposal of the subconscious. When you watch Jeopardy! and the correct question just pops into your head, that is passive memory at work.
Once information is evaluated, it can be further processed. Several pieces of information can, for example, can go through the synthesis process whereby conclusions and implications are drawn.
Defense mechanisms can pop up immediately after the evaluation phase, or after the systhesis phase. Information related to that which was synthesized--but was not involved in the synthesis process--can be back-coded (i.e., tags added or removed) based on the conclusions/implications coming out of the synthesis (but won't always be). |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 08:15:42 [Permalink]
|
| Just waiting for you to confirm you understand the basics davie. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 09:48:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Just waiting for you to confirm you understand the basics davie.
If they are independent, as you claim (but haven't provided any evidence for), then "the basics" that you've discussed so far (the independence of two "foundational constructs" - nothing more) are irrelevant to any proof that the NIST report "must" make a difference to me, and so you are simply stonewalling. I can't confirm any understanding beyond that, since you haven't presented anything beyond that, Stevie-boy. |
- 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 - 11/17/2006 : 12:20:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Just waiting for you to confirm you understand the basics davie.
If they are independent, as you claim (but haven't provided any evidence for), then "the basics" that you've discussed so far (the independence of two "foundational constructs" - nothing more) are irrelevant to any proof that the NIST report "must" make a difference to me, and so you are simply stonewalling. I can't confirm any understanding beyond that, since you haven't presented anything beyond that, Stevie-boy.
No problem davie-boy. I just wanted to make sure you had the independence issue figured out.
So here is why the veracity of the NIST report (or any information you become aware of) makes a difference to you--i.e., is not something you are neutral towards.
Here is the evaluation process, in a nutshell:
1. The brain receives sensory information (taste, smell, vision, etc.). (see and intro to biology textbook)
2. Information receives a set of valences (or tags) based on the relevance it has to 5 core emotional drives. (see Hebb, D., The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory, 1949; Damasio, A, Descartes Error, 1994 and The Feeling Of What Happens, 1999; Hillman, James, Emotion, 1997; Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past, Daniel L. Schacter, 1996; Ageless Marketing: Strategies for Reaching the Hearts and Minds of the New Customer Majority, David B. Wolfe & Robert Snyder, 2003 (I helped edit several chapters for David); Edelman, G, The Remembered Present, 1989; Pinker, S. How the Mind Works, 1997; The Hidden Power of Advertising, Robert Heath, 2001).
Information is evaluated against these drives and tagged regarding the estimated (based on several factors) degree to which the information (or object associated with the information) will satisfy each of the 5 drives. (see long list above.)
All the information coming into your your head, davie, gets a set of evaluative tags--series of 5 "thumbs up," and/or, "thumbs down" if you will--including the veracity of the NIST Report.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 13:40:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
All the information coming into your your head, davie, gets a set of evaluative tags--series of 5 "thumbs up," and/or, "thumbs down" if you will--including the veracity of the NIST Report.
From your description, the veracity of the NIST report will only "make a difference" to me if (and only if) "the NIST report is true" generates a different set of "thumbs up/down tags" than "the NIST report is not true." Simply saying that the information will be tagged doesn't demonstrate any sort of "difference" in the two conditions under examination here. If two different outcomes evoke the same emotional responses, then one really is neutral towards them.
So when are you going to provide evidence that the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me? You've explained how they are "tagged," so now please provide the evidence that my mind has tagged "the NIST report is false" differently than it has tagged "the NIST report is true." |
- 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 - 11/17/2006 : 16:01:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
All the information coming into your your head, davie, gets a set of evaluative tags--series of 5 "thumbs up," and/or, "thumbs down" if you will--including the veracity of the NIST Report.
From your description, the veracity of the NIST report will only "make a difference" to me if (and only if) "the NIST report is true" generates a different set of "thumbs up/down tags" than "the NIST report is not true." Simply saying that the information will be tagged doesn't demonstrate any sort of "difference" in the two conditions under examination here. If two different outcomes evoke the same emotional responses, then one really is neutral towards them.
So when are you going to provide evidence that the veracity of the NIST report "must" make a difference to me? You've explained how they are "tagged," so now please provide the evidence that my mind has tagged "the NIST report is false" differently than it has tagged "the NIST report is true."
The fact that the veracity of the NIST Report gets tagged is the proof that it makes a difference, davie--even if the tags are the same if the report is true vs. if it is false. You are confusing the meanings of the word difference here (or worse).
The point, davie, is that everything we become aware of 'makes a difference' to us--we are not neutral about anything. We might see pluses and minuses for a given concept or physical thing, but Balancing valences do not = neutral. It just means we have mixed feelings about it. Such mixed emotions might render you unable to chose a decision path, but it won't be because you are neutral. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 02:05:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The fact that the veracity of the NIST Report gets tagged is the proof that it makes a difference, davie--even if the tags are the same if the report is true vs. if it is false. You are confusing the meanings of the word difference here (or worse).
No, you're just using a meaning of "makes a difference" which isn't the common one. To you, simply assigning a value to something "makes a difference," but when the rest of us use that phrase, it's entirely about comparing the values of two or more possibilities. Once again, you prove yourself unable to behave to the standards to which you expect others to hold.quote:
The point, davie, is that everything we become aware of 'makes a difference' to us--we are not neutral about anything.
Well, the only thing I'm "aware" about the NIST report is that it's not 100% accurate. You sure didn't prove that it "is impossible" like you set out to do. You didn't even call its accuracy into question, since you made so many errors and told so many lies about it.quote:
We might see pluses and minuses for a given concept or physical thing, but Balancing valences do not = neutral. It just means we have mixed feelings about it. Such mixed emotions might render you unable to chose a decision path, but it won't be because you are neutral.
There is no "decision path" here, as I am simply asking, "how might I behave differently if the NIST report were proven false as compared to how I might behave if the NIST report were shown to be extremely accurate?" Those aren't choices I need to make, but predictions about my own reactions. And I see no difference in the consequences for me, either way.
This isn't a situation in which I'm fraught with indecision, like whether I want pasta or a sandwich for dinner. It's a scenario in which I'm asked to weigh my preference for one possible outcome over another, such as if my wife asks, "should I paint my studio yellow or mauve?" Since I don't go into that room very much, and the two color choices offered are about equally offensive to my tastes, "it makes no difference to me" is the correct answer. I don't care.
So your version of "makes a difference," which relies on me having to make some sort of decision, clearly does not apply. Whether the NIST report is true or not is not my choice to make. How could it be, since I was involved in neither the attacks nor the writing of the report? I'm not "invested" in the report in any way.
You, on the other hand, clearly have a large investment in being correct about how you've "proved" the report to be "fake." Of course, you've done no such thing. At the very best, you've called into question some of the authors' assumptions and models, but just showing that their judgement was flawed is a far cry from demonstrating that they have perpetrated a hoax. (The common definitions that everyone knows - in context - of "fake" and "wrong" are very different, as I'm sure you know.) So we all understand that you have a lot of emotional investment to lose if the NIST report is anywhere close to being true, but you've still yet to show that its veracity "makes a difference" to me, in the common everyday sense of that phrase (not in the confused sense that you used it). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
