Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[John Jones]

Oh don't be so serious. The mangled "Engrish as she is goodly spoke" is hilarious entertainment all on it's own.

I beg your pardon. I drop in and out of this series of gibberish threads when I have time to kill.

I'm off to the Jacuzzi for a while. Cheers!

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You initially brought it up as some sort of proof that you're competent in spouting the nonsense you're spouting. Ultimately, JayUtah is again correct in pointing out that it matters not that you have a bachelors in Computer Science; it does not mean that you're a scientist as is understood the term to mean. Others may have different ideas, of course, but I generally feel that the doctorate level people have earned the title of scientist.

However, my good friend earned a BS in Political Science (as he wanted to become an attorney later). Is he therefore a scientist too, just like you?

Yet another silly, trivially demonstrable lie.
The posting of the degree was initially in response to desmirelle's comment, via reply 293.

Desmirelle had invalidly expressed my degree's nature.


FOOTNOTE:

Factually, JayUtah's comment, is demonstrably wrong:

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

What is inconsequential about it, though?

By engaging in fallacious logic like this to try to defend it, rather than simply correcting the errors, you're showing that non-beliefism is no better than religion.

As I had long mentioned, the aforementioned words (belief, system, plan) bare non-trivial connections.

Non-beliefism underlines that belief opposes science.

That belief opposes science is not non-beliefism manufactured; for such persists regardless of non-beliefism's presence.

 

[abaddon]

Yet another silly, trivially demonstrable lie.
The posting of the degree was initially in response to

Desmirelle had invalidly expressed my degree's nature.


FOOTNOTE:

Factually, JayUtah's comment, is demonstrably wrong:

OK, I shall be generous. It might well be that you are unaware that honking great multi-coloured fonts and graphics are the hallmark and signature of the internet crackpot.

I will allow that you may not be aware of this, although I cannot see how this might be, but you are a young bloke and us old fogies have a certain tolerance for the folly of youth.

Be aware, however, that you have more than reached the end of such tolerance. Technicolour posts add no weight to your proposition, rather they detract credibility. Whenever I see such technicolour presentation I have a single thought immediately... "Ah, a child". You are quite free to self present as such. I ask, is that how you wish to be perceived? You are free to do so, should that be your desired self presentation to the world at large. Good luck with that.

 

[Loss Leader]

Synonym for "elephant" is "mammoth."

Synonym for "mammoth" is "large".

Synonym for "large" is "generous".

Synonym for "generous" is "honest".

Thus, elephants are honest.

 

[abaddon]

Synonym for "elephant" is "mammoth."

Synonym for "mammoth" is "large".

Synonym for "large" is "generous".

Synonym for "generous" is "honest".

Thus, elephants are honest.

Those word games are fun. It is not unrelated to the Six Degrees of Bacon. I find it amusing that Kevin does not much mind it.

 

[JayUtah]

That belief opposes science, is but not my fallacy.

No, my belief in the nature of the field I taught does not "oppose science." You are not an authority on what science is or is not.

Do explain, "critically thinking" one, how a system that barely concerns evidence (i.e. belief) does not oppose a system that is bound by evidence (i.e. science).

Because you have simply contrived it to be so by crude and unworkable definitions of the relevant concepts. Your theory involves cognitive neuroscience and comparative ancient literature, fields not typically covered in an easily-obtained vocational certificate. You have shown no mastery of these alien fields.

 

[JayUtah]

See...

No, I'm not interested in reading your other self-published puffery. Do you have any peer-reviewed publications in the appropriate journals for cognitive neuroscience and folklore and mythology?

The response above, is yet to approach my prior response, highlighted in yellow.

No, the response answers your question succinctly and correctly. You are claiming expertise you cannot demonstrate that you have. Further, the expertise you are claiming is not relevant to the conclusions you're drawing regarding the nature of belief in humans.

I have never once mentioned of any such alpha geekery.

You describe yourself as a "programming god" in your nick, despite having limited practical experience and, by your own admission, a lower than typical level of education for someone in your vocation. Given that the median age of my software development team is around 40, and that their median level of experience is somewhere around 20 years, I think you're making a very hubristic claim. I would expect that hubris to rub off in other areas.

Further, when you deign to tell people what is or isn't science, then yes you are implying you are knowledgeable enough to make that judgment. I do not accept you as an expert on what constitutes science.

...whereas the very concept of belief, is a construct that typically consists of no evidence at all.

I don't agree, and I cannot see where you have done an appropriate level of research, experimentation, or study to support such a conclusion. Nor have your attempts to defend it here exhibited any sort of suitable erudition.

 

[abaddon]

As I had long mentioned, the aforementioned words (belief, system, plan) bare non-trivial connections.

Non-beliefism underlines that belief opposes science.

That belief opposes science is not non-beliefism manufactured; for such persists regardless of non-beliefism's presence.

And what is that in english?

 

[JayUtah]

Factually, JayUtah's comment, is demonstrably wrong:

I taught in the field so I'll keep my own counsel regarding whether computer science is a science in the sense that you intend. Had you consulted instead the article on "Computer Science," rather than trying to equivocate on the identity of "scientist," Wikipedia would have told you that "Its fields can be divided into a variety of theoretical and practical disciplines." You have been trained in the practical discipline of programming a computer. You have not been trained as a scientist. Nor is any part of computer science concerned with comparative literature or cognitive neuroscience, the fields that pertain to your claims regarding human belief.

Further, it's cute that you think that having earned a baccalaureate degree in computer science makes you a computer scientist of any stripe. I'm sure you realize there are degrees beyond the bachelor's, and that your professors would probably be considered computer scientists while you -- their student -- are not. For example, there exists an academic field called "construction science." That's different than simply working as a construction worker.

 

[abaddon]

I beg your pardon. I drop in and out of this series of gibberish threads when I have time to kill.

I'm off to the Jacuzzi for a while. Cheers!

You must admit, the whole malarkey is amusing. Sometimes I cannot suppress my inner child.

 

[Thermal]

...However, I hadn't ended my education amidst UWI Mona's scope...

...There is a non-trivial degree of contradiction amidst your response...

Regardless of that of the feelings of the beings amidst this thread, am a scientist...

...You had long expressed falsely, of the supposed opposing nature betwixt belief/system...

...is a simple extension of the Manifold hypothesis in deep learning, amidst Yoshua Bengio's...

...Non-beliefism underlines that belief opposes science...

That belief opposes science is not non-beliefism manufactured; for such persists regardless of non-beliefism's presence.

Drink!

 

[Aridas]

As I had long mentioned, the aforementioned words (belief, system, plan) bare non-trivial connections.

And where was it argued that there are no connections? Not by me, certainly. It's just that the non-trivial connections that actually are there show your assertions to be nonsense. Going by the connections that you've invoked, though, the words belief and conclusion bear a far more direct and powerful connection, much like system and attack, if one's going to try to treat argumentum ad synonym (chain) as valid. Are systems therefore conclusions? Is belief equatable with attack?

It's silly to claim that they are the same, yet that's exactly what you're doing. Why?

Non-beliefism underlines that belief opposes science.

That belief opposes science is not non-beliefism manufactured; for such persists regardless of non-beliefism's presence.

Rather, the claim that belief opposes science is simply invalid. Non-beliefism is irrelevant to the truth of that. However, that you've included that claim as a central part of non-beliefism is sufficient reason to treat non-beliefism as invalid.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

OK, I shall be generous. It might well be that you are unaware that honking great multi-coloured fonts and graphics are the hallmark and signature of the internet crackpot.

I will allow that you may not be aware of this, although I cannot see how this might be, but you are a young bloke and us old fogies have a certain tolerance for the folly of youth.

Be aware, however, that you have more than reached the end of such tolerance. Technicolour posts add no weight to your proposition, rather they detract credibility. Whenever I see such technicolour presentation I have a single thought immediately... "Ah, a child". You are quite free to self present as such. I ask, is that how you wish to be perceived? You are free to do so, should that be your desired self presentation to the world at large. Good luck with that.

Inconsequential.

That one is old does not suddenly grant one basic sense.

 

[JayUtah]

That one is old does not suddenly grant one basic sense.

It is generally accepted that wisdom increases with age, and Abaddon is generally correct about the correlation between gaudy visuals and crackpottery. You are a recent graduate, quite young on the grand scale of credibility. Consider that your critics are generally much older, much wiser, and much more experienced than you. Your ongoing hubris doesn't convey confidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, my belief in the nature of the field I taught does not "oppose science." You are not an authority on what science is or is not.



Because you have simply contrived it to be so by crude and unworkable definitions of the relevant concepts. Your theory involves cognitive neuroscience and comparative ancient literature, fields not typically covered in an easily-obtained vocational certificate. You have shown no mastery of these alien fields.

One need not any "alien degree", such that one observes belief's definition:

Belief: To accept as true, especially absent evidence (google...).

Simply 'wise one', that your particular beliefs are based on science, does not suddenly re-align belief's definition; belief is such that may especially exclude science.

There are words that construe a prioritizing of scientific evidence, belief is simply not one of such, regardless of your feelings.

 

[abaddon]

I taught in the field so I'll keep my own counsel regarding whether computer science is a science in the sense that you intend. Had you consulted instead the article on "Computer Science," rather than trying to equivocate on the identity of "scientist," Wikipedia would have told you that "Its fields can be divided into a variety of theoretical and practical disciplines." You have been trained in the practical discipline of programming a computer. You have not been trained as a scientist. Nor is any part of computer science concerned with comparative literature or cognitive neuroscience, the fields that pertain to your claims regarding human belief.

Further, it's cute that you think that having earned a baccalaureate degree in computer science makes you a computer scientist of any stripe. I'm sure you realize there are degrees beyond the bachelor's, and that your professors would probably be considered computer scientists while you -- their student -- are not. For example, there exists an academic field called "construction science." That's different than simply working as a construction worker.

Not at all. The funniest part is when words which he clearly has no understanding of get tossed about willy nilly. This is both irritating and amusing at the same time. If such a CV were wheeled across my desk, it would hit the bin immediately. There would be no chance of even a prelim interview. For some reason unexplained, PGJ seems blissfully unaware of this.

Can I explain this? Nope. No more than I can explain that we have all been subtly mocking him and he never noticed that either.

Sorry, but that is the reality. PGJ will not much like it, but what is one to do but call a spade a spade?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

It is generally accepted that wisdom increases with age. You are a recent graduate, quite young on the grand scale of credibility. Consider that your critics are generally much older, much wiser, and much more experienced than you. Your ongoing hubris doesn't convey confidence.

That such 'wiser' older folk, are unable to distinguish between a construct that may especially entail non-evidence (i.e. belief), and one that is evidence bound (i.e. scientific methodology), is disappointing.

 

[JayUtah]

One need not any "alien degree", such that one observes belief's definition:

Belief: To accept as true, especially absent evidence (google...).

Simply 'wise one', that your particular beliefs are based on science, does not suddenly re-align belief's definition; belief is such that may especially exclude science.

There are words that construe a prioritizing of scientific evidence, belief is simply not one of such, regardless of your feelings.

Gibberish. You are drawing conclusions based on no discernible research or experimentation, and predicated by you upon a basis that has no relevant scientific foundation. You are very good at looking up words in common lay references, but you demonstrate no sophistication.

 

[JayUtah]

That such 'wiser' older folk, are unable to distinguish between a construct that may especially entail non-evidence (i.e. belief), and one that is evidence bound (i.e. scientific methodology), is disappointing.

No, people are not stupid because they dispute your claims. Please attempt a less arrogant posture.