Non Personal Awareness?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

arjan
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:48 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Non Personal Awareness?

Postby arjan » Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:42 am UTC

A very respected, highly educated client of us invites me to a course on "Non Personal Awareness". It's so obscure it doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. This is their site: http://www.truthscompany.com/ and here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... en6_7lBUdg
"Everything is energy" "Energy happens in waves" "quantum physicists will tell you anything exists potentially everywhere" etc etc. This is the kind of pseudo science I hoped a general practitioner would understand for what it is.

Why do highly educated people even start to look into this bullshit? This is not the only one, I know many doctors believing in homeopathy. One acquaintance (a pharmacist) even managed to advertise Landmark while speaking at a funeral.

These are the people other people see as wise people. The people to go to when you may have a serious medical or psychological condition, or just need some advice from because your marriage seems stuck.

Once I thought that you there were many stages in life before you were are grown-up. First, Easter Bunny doesn't exist. A few years later you learn Santa (or Sinterklaas over here) doesn't either. Reaching age 12 there's this magical sex thing. Then you wait for the next secret all grown-ups know and you don't and you find out there are none left and suddenly people your age are having children themselves, completing the circle, proving that there are no more secrets left. Just now I discovered a new secret: the "wise" people in society are probably even more childish than most blue collar workers.

Still not sure what to do with the invitation, though.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:02 am UTC

Well, generally, as you get into more educated segments, there tends to be LESS people that believe overt BS anyway. Still some, though. Being smart in one area doesn't prevent you from being remarkably stupid in another area. Even, sometimes, an area very close to the one you're smart in.

Magical thinking is basically always a danger to be guarded against.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4756
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby poxic » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:23 am UTC

A friend who works in accounting tells of a judge who is one of their clients. The judge is apparently a rising star of sorts, brilliant at legal stuff, but an "absolute ninny" about personal finances. Every little tax form they receive prompts a panicky phone call to their accountant, yelling about showstoppers and oh my god everything is going wrong.

So yeah, it's hard to be intelligent and/or educated in everything.
The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in thyself.
- Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 1851-1933)

Zariatnatmik
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:55 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Zariatnatmik » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:30 am UTC

Just now I discovered a new secret: the "wise" people in society are probably even more childish than most blue collar workers.


Imprecise skepticism and conclusions leading to closed-minded rationalism ... on the internet? No way!

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Zcorp » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:03 am UTC

People who don't come to their beliefs through reason generally can't be expected to be reasonable with their beliefs. Being right about most of your beliefs doesn't make you reasonable.

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

User avatar
Bad Hair Man
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:12 pm UTC
Location: Corvallis, OR

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Bad Hair Man » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:08 pm UTC

arjan wrote:Why do highly educated people even start to look into this bullshit?

From the Amazon.com review of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things:

Shermer has five basic answers to the implied question in his title: for consolation, for immediate gratification, for simplicity, for moral meaning, and because hope springs eternal. He shows the kinds of errors in thinking that lead people to believe weird (that is, unsubstantiated) things, especially the built-in human need to see patterns, even where there is no pattern to be seen.

He also did a TED talk on the same subject, but I was disappointed to find that he spent most of his time addressing the what and how of people believing weird things, rather than the why. Though he did at least say that part of the reason people believe in devices or processes that produce random results (like dowsing rods, cold reading, and alternative medicine), is that they remember the hits and forget the misses.


From a customer review (on Amazon) of Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World:

Pseudoscience, and those who perpetuate it, find their place in today's society among those who want to believe in the impossible. In fact, Sagan too admits that he would love to find life on other planets, among other things (he was, after all, an advocate of SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). However, science today has not been able to prove that such things exist. As the book states, "the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms."


James Randi has something to say on this topic as well:

As a magician—someone who professionally deceives people, but does it for entertainment purposes—I know two things with great certainty. First, how people can be fooled. And second, and that’s more important, how they can fool themselves. And they do.

...the average person out there doesn’t realize how easily they can be deceived by a clever operator.

This can be especially true of scientists, Randi has found, who can become quite convinced of their own observational infallibility and ability to test things, while lacking a knowledge of how magicians and illusionists and charlatans actually work.


So, to distill my own position out of what I think I know about this subject, I think being highly educated generally helps people know what a good epistemology is, but it doesn't always make them want to apply it thoroughly. Being a doctor, for instance, isn't going to stop someone from wanting a miracle cure for something. And wanting to believe has the tendency to open people up to cognitive biases that make that belief much easier.

Do you remember that "I Want to Believe" poster of Agent Mulder's on The X-Files? I am very much the opposite of a fan of that sentiment. Wanting to believe is one of the seeds from which intellectual dishonesty springs.
HAL9000 wrote:The Passover bunny walks on water! So he be an representation of Horus!

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:15 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:People who don't come to their beliefs through reason generally can't be expected to be reasonable with their beliefs. Being right about most of your beliefs doesn't make you reasonable.
I wish I could find/cite/link the study that showed that more inteligent people were more likely to believe batcrap crazy stuff because they were less likely to believe they were wrong and as such are more likely to fabricate arguments to defend beliefs they have taken on through non logical methods.

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

Quote from link:
Nearly three-quarters, or 74 per cent, of those polled believe it likely that "most of our energy will come from sources other than coal, oil, and gas".

Crap like this makes me skeptical of polls. Of course *all* of our energy will come from sources other than coal, oil, and gas once it is all used up. The fact that not 100% of people answered yes shows that the poll making people are not properly phrasing the questions.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Zcorp » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote: I wish I could find/cite/link the study that showed that more inteligent people were more likely to believe batcrap crazy stuff because they were less likely to believe they were wrong and as such are more likely to fabricate arguments to defend beliefs they have taken on through non logical methods.
There are multiple, the link I provided mentions one such study

Being intelligence is not inclusive if being reasonable.

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

Quote from link:
Nearly three-quarters, or 74 per cent, of those polled believe it likely that "most of our energy will come from sources other than coal, oil, and gas".

Crap like this makes me skeptical of polls. Of course *all* of our energy will come from sources other than coal, oil, and gas once it is all used up. The fact that not 100% of people answered yes shows that the poll making people are not properly phrasing the questions.
Thats fine, but the point I was making has nothing to do with the validity of the polls phrasing. My point was about how we can't expect reasonable changes to beliefs when the ideas that led to the beliefs were not gained through reason, and even how such beliefs often get strengthened with presented with evidence against them rather than weakened.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby addams » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:04 am UTC

Zcorp wrote:People who don't come to their beliefs through reason generally can't be expected to be reasonable with their beliefs. Being right about most of your beliefs doesn't make you reasonable.

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html


Conformation Bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I may understand why we were trained to fight conformation bias.
It sucks living in a world where I am the only person that thinks Conformation Bias exists.

Of course, we All have conformation bias.
Some of us love to be wrong. In Science!

Not in Everything. No one wants to be wrong, all the time.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Nem » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

arjan wrote:Why do highly educated people even start to look into this bullshit? This is not the only one, I know many doctors believing in homeopathy. One acquaintance (a pharmacist) even managed to advertise Landmark while speaking at a funeral.


I don't know. My first thought on the subject was that people generally aren't educated to think. There's a lot of research out there on cognitive biases and evidence based thinking and how applying rationality has to be trained in as a habit - and I don't remember getting any of that when I was at university. So my first guess would be that people are educated for something other than developing good thinking habits. That they're educated more to... manipulate and regurgitate existing research for example.

arjan wrote:Still not sure what to do with the invitation, though.


Humour him if you think there's political advantage in it or don't if you don't. *shrug*

arjan
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:48 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby arjan » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:30 pm UTC

Thanks all! I think I should read Michael Shermer. "Especially the built-in human need to see patterns, even where there is no pattern to be seen." is a bit of revelation. There are more talks of him on YouTube besides the TED one.

arjan
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:48 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby arjan » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:31 pm UTC

Btw, I "had another appointment".

Pjotr
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:37 am UTC
Location: Leiden, NL

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Pjotr » Fri May 17, 2013 11:06 pm UTC

arjan wrote:These are the people other people see as wise people. The people to go to when you may have a serious medical or psychological condition, or just need some advice from because your marriage seems stuck.
Such professionals aren't necessarily 'wise'. Data isn't information, information isn't knowledge, and knowledge isn't wisdom.

And while that may seem a logical progression, the realization that, sometimes, to gain wisdom you have to let go of knowledge may not be1. Unfortunately, such wisdom can necessarily not be explained. It may not even be rational; but that doesn't mean it's not real, or that it can't be useful.

That said, this 'NPA process' seems like complete horsehockey. :D


1 To me, it is a logical progression; I am aware however that this may not be the case for everyone. (Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be pretentious, I just count myself extremely lucky for some tiny bits of wisdom that I've collected specifically by not action on conscious thought/rational processes. It's my cross to bear that I have this overwhelming urge to teach these things to others, which is by definition impossible. Sorry. :wink: )
Every finger is touching and searching / Until your secrets come out,
In the dance, as it endlessly circles / I linger close to your mouth.
--
This sentence is as succinct as possible.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Nem » Sat May 18, 2013 11:43 am UTC

Pjotr wrote:Data isn't information,


Yes, it is. It might not be the information you want but it's information.

Pjotr wrote:information isn't knowledge


Without getting into the philosophical wo-wo of whether what we're observing is actually happening, it may as well be.

Pjotr wrote:and knowledge isn't wisdom.


*shrug* Maybe not. The way I'd tend to formulate it though - good thinking habits/heuristics/efficiency in your use of available information - you're unlikely to get there without knowledge.

Pjotr wrote:And while that may seem a logical progression, the realization that, sometimes, to gain wisdom you have to let go of knowledge may not be1. Unfortunately, such wisdom can necessarily not be explained. It may not even be rational; but that doesn't mean it's not real, or that it can't be useful.


No, but it does mean no-one should take it seriously unless those claiming it are dramatically outperforming those who don't make such claims and there's no other explanation.

infernovia
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:27 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby infernovia » Sat May 18, 2013 12:48 pm UTC

I only watched 5 min of that video but it doesn't seem that bad to me, it boils down to let go of negative emotions and stick to positive ones. It's just using ridiculous and unrelated scientific jargon to say that. It also apparently focuses on your surface level reactions to what you are seeing another person do, which still sounds good.

Bad Hair Man wrote:Do you remember that "I Want to Believe" poster of Agent Mulder's on The X-Files? I am very much the opposite of a fan of that sentiment. Wanting to believe is one of the seeds from which intellectual dishonesty springs.

I believe. :)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat May 18, 2013 3:25 pm UTC

I find that if they have to use entirely invented words to describe things we already have perfectly good words for...that's a great sign that something is bullshit.

Pjotr
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:37 am UTC
Location: Leiden, NL

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Pjotr » Sat May 18, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

Nem wrote:
Pjotr wrote:Data isn't information,
Yes, it is. It might not be the information you want but it's information.
I disagree. Granted, without data you cannot have information, but that data needs -at least- to be observed, interpreted and organized to become information. If a tree falls in a forest, that event produces data (sound waves), but if nobody hears it, nobody has information on whether the tree actually fell.
Pjotr wrote:information isn't knowledge
Without getting into the philosophical wo-wo of whether what we're observing is actually happening, it may as well be.
Well, I'd say that knowledge is the demonstrated ability to apply information and extrapolate from it.
Pjotr wrote:and knowledge isn't wisdom.
*shrug* Maybe not. The way I'd tend to formulate it though - good thinking habits/heuristics/efficiency in your use of available information - you're unlikely to get there without knowledge.
Oh, I agree. Knowledge is a prerequisite for wisdom, but -as in the previous steps- it is in itself not sufficient. That may seem contradictory to the point I'm trying to make below, but it is my experience that without struggling to obtain knowledge, working with it, railing against it even, the 'enlightenment' is unobtainable. I know that this is not by any means an universal opinion, so I perhaps should have prefaced the last point in my previous post with an 'IMO'.
Pjotr wrote:And while that may seem a logical progression, the realization that, sometimes, to gain wisdom you have to let go of knowledge may not be1. Unfortunately, such wisdom can necessarily not be explained. It may not even be rational; but that doesn't mean it's not real, or that it can't be useful.
No, but it does mean no-one should take it seriously unless those claiming it are dramatically outperforming those who don't make such claims and there's no other explanation.
I'd say whether to take it seriously or not should be an individual decision made on a case-by-case basis. I certainly won't hold such a decision against another. And 'dramatical outperformance' is of course a very subjective term, and sometimes even very small improvements in performance can have fairly large consequences (e.g. in sports).
Every finger is touching and searching / Until your secrets come out,
In the dance, as it endlessly circles / I linger close to your mouth.
--
This sentence is as succinct as possible.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Nem » Sat May 18, 2013 8:38 pm UTC

Pjotr wrote:I disagree. Granted, without data you cannot have information, but that data needs -at least- to be observed, interpreted and organized to become information. If a tree falls in a forest, that event produces data (sound waves), but if nobody hears it, nobody has information on whether the tree actually fell.


Nobody has data on whether the tree actually fell either.

I can't think, at the moment, of a situation in which someone has data concerning a phenomena and not information, or information and not data. The simplest explanation for that seems to me to be that they're just the same thing.

Pjotr wrote:Well, I'd say that knowledge is the demonstrated ability to apply information and extrapolate from it.


Lots of extrapolations are guesses, and many in error. It would be odd to say that because you can make bad guesses on something that you know it better than someone who realises that it's insufficient basis to do so on. But perhaps you mean to talk about the set of all knowledge that someone has at once rather than any specific instance of knowledge. In which case I agree with you but suddenly what you're talking about as a person's knowledge looks identical to what I'm talking about as wisdom. Good thinking habits, good heuristics - abilities and habits that let you and cause you to make accurate extrapolations based on available data....

Pjotr wrote:Oh, I agree. Knowledge is a prerequisite for wisdom, but -as in the previous steps- it is in itself not sufficient. That may seem contradictory to the point I'm trying to make below, but it is my experience that without struggling to obtain knowledge, working with it, railing against it even, the 'enlightenment' is unobtainable. I know that this is not by any means an universal opinion, so I perhaps should have prefaced the last point in my previous post with an 'IMO'.


This seems to me like a process you use to refine knowledge - at least using the def you used for knowledge above - rather than something new based on knowledge. Struggling to obtain good habits, working with your information to make good extrapolations, trying to disprove your guesses, etc. If you go and read about cognitive biases and evidence based reasoning and so on, that strikes me as a fairly swift way to improve your knowledge - and it seems to fit in under the heading of wisdom here. If knowledge is a set of abilities to do with producing truth (or at least good guesses) from information, then I'm not sure how you're differentiating it from wisdom - which seems to be another set of abilities to do with producing truth from information.

Pjotr wrote:I'd say whether to take it seriously or not should be an individual decision made on a case-by-case basis. I certainly won't hold such a decision against another. And 'dramatical outperformance' is of course a very subjective term, and sometimes even very small improvements in performance can have fairly large consequences (e.g. in sports).


Well, if the consequence is large then - that fits my meaning well enough too. They've got to clearly be the baddest sharks in the swimming pool.

I'm not sure I can accept that it should be done on a case by case basis - people just believing whatever they like, without checking whether the evidence reasonably demands they hold that belief, seems a dangerous thing to encourage acceptance of. How you think seems a morally relevant thing to me, at the moment.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby ucim » Sun May 19, 2013 4:37 am UTC

Nem wrote:
Pjotr wrote:Data isn't information,
Yes, it is. It might not be the information you want but it's information.
Information is data in context. Data is information without context.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby elasto » Sun May 19, 2013 10:48 am UTC

Yup. To put it another way, information is data with meaning.

If I tell you '3.14159265358979...', that's a stream of data but nothing more; It has no context as ucim says. Once you're told that that's the ratio of a circle's circumference to diameter that stream of data becomes useful: it becomes information.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Nem » Sun May 19, 2013 3:36 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Yup. To put it another way, information is data with meaning.

If I tell you '3.14159265358979...', that's a stream of data but nothing more; It has no context as ucim says. Once you're told that that's the ratio of a circle's circumference to diameter that stream of data becomes useful: it becomes information.


ucim wrote:
Nem wrote:
Pjotr wrote:Data isn't information,
Yes, it is. It might not be the information you want but it's information.
Information is data in context. Data is information without context.

Jose


Data can't be information without context, information is data with context. Can't have P & ~P

If you want to say that data's just stuff that can be observed, I guess that's workable.

...

Information and knowledge, as structured above, are starting to look very similar now too.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby ucim » Sun May 19, 2013 11:30 pm UTC

Nem wrote:Data can't be information without context, information is data with context. Can't have P & ~P
It's not a P, ~P situation. It's a proper subset situation. The algebra
(where & === "with", and its inverse, # === "without")
is:
Data & Context = Information
# from both sides
Data & Context # Context = Information # Context
Data = Information # Context.



Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Nem » Sun May 19, 2013 11:58 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Nem wrote:Data can't be information without context, information is data with context. Can't have P & ~P
It's not a P, ~P situation. It's a proper subset situation. The algebra
(where & === "with", and its inverse, # === "without")
is:
Data & Context = Information
# from both sides
Data & Context # Context = Information # Context
Data = Information # Context.



Jose


@_@ Hang on a minute.

P & Y = X

P & (Y - Y) = X - Y

P = X - Y

1 & 2 = 3

1 & (2 - 2) = 3 - 2

1 = 3 - 2

Okay, yeah, that works.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that information without context isn't information. It looks like P & ~P because P's the only thing that's showing up on both sides. It's not a valid way to create definitions to just go it's X - Y, too much abstraction has gone on. There's not a definition for what information is or what data is under that spec. Information is data with context and data is information without context, and the only thing that's getting passed around is the context variable - the rest are just undefined, so you can't get anything out at the other end.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby ucim » Mon May 20, 2013 12:45 am UTC

Nem wrote:It's not a valid way to create definitions to just go it's X - Y, too much abstraction has gone on.
I wasn't trying to create a definition - If I were, then yes, it would be inadequate. What I was trying to do was take the difference between my sense of how I use the word "data" and how I use the word "information", and compress it into a pithy saying. This often leads to a saying that looks contradictory on the surface (it helps people remember it!). A favorite example of mine is from Picasso, who said something like "Art is a lie that lets you see the truth." (though he said it in Spanish).

I couldn't think of an equally good one for the difference between information and knowledge, but I am reminded of a cartoon that shows various (fail) conceptions of a child's swing: How the customer described it, how the engineer designed, it, how the workers installed it.... and finally what the customer wanted in the first place (a tire on a string).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby elasto » Mon May 20, 2013 4:48 am UTC

ucim wrote:I couldn't think of an equally good one for the difference between information and knowledge, but I am reminded of a cartoon that shows various (fail) conceptions of a child's swing: How the customer described it, how the engineer designed, it, how the workers installed it.... and finally what the customer wanted in the first place (a tire on a string).


Extended version of that meme available here

User avatar
Bad Hair Man
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:12 pm UTC
Location: Corvallis, OR

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Bad Hair Man » Mon May 27, 2013 8:30 pm UTC

Nem wrote:Information and knowledge, as structured above, are starting to look very similar now too.

A popular definition is that knowledge is "justified true belief", but I don't personally like that one very much. I think it's a bit iffy and problematic. My preference is for the simpler formulation: "knowledge is demonstrable."

For example, I could give you directions on how to get to my house from the local train station. Those directions would be information (they'd be data in a comprehensible context). But if you tried to follow them and discovered that there aren't turns or landmarks where I said there would be and after a certain point I'd started making up street names out of whole-cloth, then you could conclude that the information I'd given you was in fact misinformation. But if instead the directions worked great and got you to my house just fine, you could then properly call that information knowledge, because you would know that you could demonstrate that the directions are true.

As a caveat, this does exclude some things that we normally use the word "knowledge" to mean. For instance I can't claim to "know" that I ate raisin bran for breakfast this morning, even though I'm pretty certain that I did, because I can't think of a good way to demonstrate that claim. I think this is a good thing though, because "certainty" as commonly used, is an emotion, an intensity of belief (which is to say: an intensity of opinion), and should not be confused with a sound epistomological justification.
HAL9000 wrote:The Passover bunny walks on water! So he be an representation of Horus!

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby ucim » Mon May 27, 2013 9:35 pm UTC

pjotr wrote:information isn't knowledge

Bad Hair Man wrote:A popular definition is that knowledge is "justified true belief", but I don't personally like that one very much. I think it's a bit iffy and problematic. My preference is for the simpler formulation: "knowledge is demonstrable."


Knowledge is information that has been incorporated into one's decision tree.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

bb7981
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby bb7981 » Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:51 am UTC

[sorry for my not native english]

I just wanted to add, that there are some various communities supporting something which can be called a 'non personal awareness'.
They're brainwashing their readers, saying they 'don't exist'. For real.

h t t p:// liberationunleashed.com/nation/index.php
Topics are accessible without registering.

In the "Read Only Archives" section there are 'successful stories' in which each member is honestly convinced that he does not exist.
(over 600 'successful' topics...).

also
h t t p:// ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com
h t t p:// osinsight.net/
plus a lot of bloggers.

wtf?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:12 pm UTC

Why would you think people wouldn't believe in crap? It's how your brain functions. It wants an explanation. And while it would be nice if it fits the facts, assuming there are any, there is no reason why it has to in most cases. It is either important in which case you will understand it on the level you need to, as in falling off a cliff will kill you. Or it isn't, as in there isn't an Easter Bunny. You can't have the extremes without the midpoints. It can and has been demonstrated that you will complete a narrative about something that it is impossible for you to know about consciously. If this couldn't happen then fictional stories wouldn't be possible.

@addams
Confirmation bias has an electrical analog. Dead bands on thermostats prevent chattering when the device is near the set points, thus preventing the unit from cycling between states to quickly and damaging the equipment. For better or worse you have to make decisions, and when they are not as certain as you would like, you have to pick one and go. If you let doubt or indescision interfere then you would become paralyzed and unable to act at all. Look at this abstract if you wish.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby addams » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:20 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Why would you think people wouldn't believe in crap? It's how your brain functions. It wants an explanation. And while it would be nice if it fits the facts, assuming there are any, there is no reason why it has to in most cases. It is either important in which case you will understand it on the level you need to, as in falling off a cliff will kill you. Or it isn't, as in there isn't an Easter Bunny. You can't have the extremes without the midpoints. It can and has been demonstrated that you will complete a narrative about something that it is impossible for you to know about consciously. If this couldn't happen then fictional stories wouldn't be possible.

@addams
Confirmation bias has an electrical analog. Dead bands on thermostats prevent chattering when the device is near the set points, thus preventing the unit from cycling between states to quickly and damaging the equipment. For better or worse you have to make decisions, and when they are not as certain as you would like, you have to pick one and go. If you let doubt or indescision interfere then you would become paralyzed and unable to act at all. Look at this abstract if you wish.

The abstract made for interesting thinking.
The brain is an interesting organ.

The Marketing Majors own us all.
Bow when they walk in.

They can wash a brain in no time at all.
Is your mind more or less manageable when it is fresh and clean after a brain wash?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Bad Hair Man
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:12 pm UTC
Location: Corvallis, OR

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby Bad Hair Man » Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:For better or worse you have to make decisions, and when they are not as certain as you would like, you have to pick one and go. If you let doubt or indescision interfere then you would become paralyzed and unable to act at all. Look at this abstract if you wish.

Oh wow. The more I mull it over, the more the Somatic-Marker hypothesis that abstract discusses seems to ring true. (As best as I can tell, somatic marking is supposedly our brains' tendency to stamp thoughts and ideas with an emotion, so that from then on, whenever the thought or idea returns to mind, the emotion is felt again as well.) More than just providing a positive feedback loop to steadily increase the emotional distance between two alternatives one is trying to decide between (even if they are so similar that the initial difference between them is just random emotional noise), it also sounds like a superset description of phobias, nostalgia, trauma, etc. (thoughts with difficult to remove or avoid emotional baggage attached, i.e. those thoughts have been somatically marked with various emotions), an explanation for the efficacy and hence prevalence of a common marketing strategy (design advertisements to both feature the product AND elicit a positive emotion in the target, even if there is no real rational causal link between the product and the element that produces the emotion), and also serves as an explanation for stubbornness, i.e. why people are reluctant to change their position on a subject they have made up their mind on, even when any reasons their original conclusion was based on have been thoroughly countered or overturned (the original conclusion has been somatically marked and now has confidence related emotions linked to it).
HAL9000 wrote:The Passover bunny walks on water! So he be an representation of Horus!

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:46 pm UTC

The concept is neither new nor particularly exciting. It states the obvious if you wish. Advertisers have used the mechanisms for years even if they didn't understand them. Vance Packard wrote a book in the 60's called the "Hidden Persuaders". More modern research was done by a psychologist named Daniel Kahneman. The book "Thinking Fast and Slow" is intriguing.

sugar rabbit
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:47 am UTC

Re: Non Personal Awareness?

Postby sugar rabbit » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:58 am UTC

just created a user purely to answer :)
NPA, non personal awareness, refers to taking lifes circumstances "personally".
"non personal" awareness is to accept the happenstances of life as they come without being attached to their meanings.

if someone calls you an idiot and you take it personally it means something, if you take it "non personally" then it means something different.
these different meanings can be quite profoundly different, from depression/anxiety/anger to indifference.

the repeated phrase spoken, is a psychological trick to overcome possibly the somatic markers associated with the particular thing you incorporate. (i am unsure about the use of somatic markers, but it seems appropriate).

NPA pretty much relies on psychological trickeries to overcome unpleasant psychological traits. it does work :)

their particular use of language regarding "energy" may or may not be a useful one, but it does nothing to the efficacy of the NPA process.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests