Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="2PhiloVoid" data-source="post: 77659523" data-attributes="member: 167101"><p>I guess I'm going to have to dig into Sapolsky's thesis a little more. I'm not clear yet on what definitions he's using for his concepts or how he constructed them. Thus far, I'm getting the awkward sense that he's implying that all of our thoughts are passively informed and involuntary. I know he's probably not really or fully implying this, but I'm not sure I understand the extent to which he's made sure that conceptual precision is at play in the usage of the chosen terms which he employs as descriptors within his thesis. It seems to me there's a hint of loose language in his theorizing and an over reliance on universal qualifiers that all too easily lend themselves to ambiguity and/or conflations.</p><p></p><p>Since the only real axiom in my own perspective is that "no one person knows everything," I tend to think there really are gaps in everyone's knowledge about the world, on whichever level, especially where our conceptual reflections on a topic invoke and involve some amount of history. Granted, I could be inductively wrong about this: it could be that Sapolsky is indeed a Black Swan and I just haven't accounted for that yet. And since I don't wish to be subject to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, myself, I'll hold out the possibility that he has explained his position comprehensively and inescapably and I'm just not fully grasping the weight of what he's saying.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="2PhiloVoid, post: 77659523, member: 167101"] I guess I'm going to have to dig into Sapolsky's thesis a little more. I'm not clear yet on what definitions he's using for his concepts or how he constructed them. Thus far, I'm getting the awkward sense that he's implying that all of our thoughts are passively informed and involuntary. I know he's probably not really or fully implying this, but I'm not sure I understand the extent to which he's made sure that conceptual precision is at play in the usage of the chosen terms which he employs as descriptors within his thesis. It seems to me there's a hint of loose language in his theorizing and an over reliance on universal qualifiers that all too easily lend themselves to ambiguity and/or conflations. Since the only real axiom in my own perspective is that "no one person knows everything," I tend to think there really are gaps in everyone's knowledge about the world, on whichever level, especially where our conceptual reflections on a topic invoke and involve some amount of history. Granted, I could be inductively wrong about this: it could be that Sapolsky is indeed a Black Swan and I just haven't accounted for that yet. And since I don't wish to be subject to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, myself, I'll hold out the possibility that he has explained his position comprehensively and inescapably and I'm just not fully grasping the weight of what he's saying. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
Top
Bottom