On 16 January 2014 08:52, freqflyer07281972 <thismindisbud...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So, just to run with this for a few moments (which will be lost in time,
> like tears in rain... ;-)
> ... if it is obvious to Edgar that everything he says is true, for example
> the claim that:
> "When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
> comforting, but it's just superstition.There must be a living human body to
> produce a human consciousness. "
> ... but many other (highly educated, scientific, philosophical) human
> beings disagree that it is obvious and/or can't see what is plainly
> apparent to only one of them, what should that single person who has (by
> some miracle of the universe) been given privileged access to the
> unvarnished truth of the universe do about it? Should they:
> a) call people who disagree with them "too stupid to get it"
> b) revise their beliefs concerning the "obvious" nature of the truth they
> think they possess
> c) suspect on the basis of the responses they are getting from otherwise
> intelligent people that perhaps their unique insight is in error
> d) ignore all claims to the contrary and persist in their beliefs
> e) patiently re-explain, in a different way, using different analogies,
> the substance of their claim and
> f) be willing to revise their beliefs on the basis of what others tell
> them, assuming they do not have an overexaggerated confidence in their own
> ability to discern the truth
> These are not mutually exclusive options.
> It seems to me Edgar has done a lot of option "a" and option "d" -- "e"
> has not been used because no analogies, thought experiments, or formal
> apparatus has been offered for honest inspection- merely a series of
> re-assertions that "it is quite obvious that X, and I don't understand why
> no one else gets it" -- the rest of the options are also not evident.
I agree. I've repeatedly asked for some sort of (e) or (f), but got exactly
zilch. And I may be "too stupid to get it", but I'm not so stupid that I
intend to keep asking him honest questions in good faith and get knocked
Plus, he doesn't even get the nuances of satirical replies, nor does he
come out with anything that's actually witty, rather than clumsy and
obvious attempts at humour. "I always thought you lived in the 19th
century, ho ho!" isn't exactly sparkling, witty, barbed, to the point, or
even based on anything whatsoever that I've said apart from me gently
pointing out that some "sci-fi nonsense" has come to pass during the last
So even the entertainment value drops off after a while.
> I'd be interested to get some feedback on this question, as I think
> self-delusion and self-deception are germane to any discussion of
> "Everything theories", and this is also why it is the domain of so many
> It's lucky Edgar isn't open to revising his opinion, because he might come
to believe Terry Pratchett's suggestion that everyone gets what they expect
to get when they die. I imagine it would rile him that he'd cease to exist
while pious Christians go to Heaven, buddhists are reincarnated, Vikings go
to Valhalla, and most of the people on the everything list are confronted
with a multiple choice menu...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.