Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It is possible to use language unambiguously.
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.
An option for your character to not be completely desensitized
Débuté par
Todd23
, janv. 23 2013 10:51
#201
Posté 01 février 2013 - 04:10
Mr Fixit
-
- Members
- 550 messages
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.
Retour en haut
#202
Posté 01 février 2013 - 04:28
LinksOcarina
-
- Members
- 6 570 messages
Todd23 wrote...
... What has my forum come too?
A group of people dealing with Sylvius's warped sense of what is philosophically sound.
#203
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 01 février 2013 - 04:57
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
LinksOcarina wrote...
A group of people dealing with Sylvius's warped sense of what is philosophically sound.
I feel kind of bad. We're all ganging up on him.
#204
Posté 01 février 2013 - 06:29
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...
Bollocks. You're communicating right now.[/quote]
No, I'm expressing. Even based on the definitions you've cited, communication requires at least two people. I am but one.
[quote]Since you're a fan of formal definitions, you can find some here: http://en.wikipedia....i/Communication and http://www.merriam-w...y/communication
Those even use only words, so I am comfortable in trusting that you should have a reasonably high degree of confidence that they are less ambiguous and an accurate definition of the word, communication.[/quote]
But that doesn't mean communications exists. Both of the definitions describe communication as a combination of expression and interpretation. Using the word to describe those two things together - to label the group - works just fine. It's when we attribute characteristics to communication that don't exist in its constituent parts that we get into trouble.
Communication exists in name only. As such, it cannot exhibit characteristics on its own.
[quote]What you've done is created a model of what you think communication is. What I think I see, however, is a belief that your model is accurate because it's what you created, and you demonstrate the typical human quality of assuming that because you logically deduced it, it must be true (since otherwise there's cognitive dissonance, something the brain isn't too fond of and tries to reconcile by either excluding perspectives that do not align as being somehow incorrect or not applicable, or shifting one's own perspectives to be in alignment with the new set of information).[/quote]
First, I want to know if I'm wrong. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing, as it forces people to re-examine their positions to uncover those contradictions.
Second, if I've logically deduced something, then either it is true, or I've made a logical error. That's how deduction works.
Third, we can only know the truth of things relative to the truth of other things. To assume that we know the truth of anything outright only invites the confirmation bias you've just described.
[quote]Communication, which as defined is an expression of information, messages, or thoughts by means of speech, visuals, writing, signals, or behaviour, is a function of each of those elements. One could even argue that it is gestalt; it's greater than the sum of its parts.[/quote]
Any argument that communication exhibits characteristics beyond those of its constituent parts would require evidence.
[quote]When communicating, it's the sum of all the speech, visuals, writing, signals, and behaviour that are present. Using only words means that the other aspects of communication have been omitted, but not that they are irrelevant. They provide additional information and context which may be essential to understanding the message being expressed. Depending on the message being expressed, they may not.[/quote]
For things like body language to be meaningful, they would require unambiguous definitions.
If anyone can point me to some sort of reference guide, that would be helpful. But I've been asking for such a guide for many years now, and no one seems to have one.
[quote]Using only words does not remove ambiguity.[/quote]
I don't think anyone is claiming this is true. I'm claiming that relying on body language or tone to impart meaning guarantees ambiguity. This does not mean that removing those ensures the lack of ambiguity.
But as long as we rely on body language, ambiguity is impossible to avoid.
[quote]As with all communication, ambiguity only exists since the speaker and the listener are two different people. With full understanding of myself, I never find the things that I write ambiguous. Especially not as I write them. That doesn't mean that everyone else will understand the message I am expressing.[/quote]
That's outcome based analysis. Whether someone understands what you've written is not conclusive evidence of whether it is ambiguous. Surely you can recognise ambiguity in your own writing once someone points it out to you. I further suggest that you could intentionally write ambiguously if you tried. Moreover, that someone understands what you've written does not indicate either that you've written unambiguously, or that everyone who reads it will understand it similarly.
If you write unambiguously, and the reader misunderstands, then the fault lies with the reader.
If you write ambiguously, the fault lies with you, regardless of whether the reader understands.
[quote]There's the obvious barriers: language. If I don't understand the language, the words expressed to me are meaningless. However, based just on experience, I have successfully communicated to people despite not understanding the language (I have a funny story about being in a hospital in Punta Cana). Clearly communication doesn't require words. Therefore, it must be possible to communicate without words.[/quote]
It is possible to be understood without words. But it is not possible to guarantee the potential for understanding without words.
[quote]When people try to be as unambiguous as possible with their words, it rarely comes across as natural.[/quote]
That tells us a lot about people. None of it good.
[quote]Even if one has an infallible trust in the ability for men to communicate in unambiguous ways using only words, reality doesn't reflect that. In this point, it simply becomes a logic experiment that contemplates a model that is not an accurate representation of reality.[/quote]
We can aspire to do better. If you give people the tools to be unambiguous, then they can be unambiguous. But if you deny them the tools, then they are doomed to perpetual ambiguity.
[quote]This can be useful sometimes (physical sciences always create models to help simplify situations for ease of understanding - friction was rarely something considered in my Physics classes, but it always exists in reality).[/quote]
Roleplaying is a thought experiment. It can be perfect if we would like it to be.
[quote]Words in communication have always been imprecise. For example: "I think the movie Pearl Harbour was fantastic" If I give you only one chance to describe what I am trying to express with that sentence, can you be absolutely certain that you'll be correct and that there isn't some other message I am trying to express?[/quote]
Of course not. I can't read your mind. It's possible that I can be certain about what you've said, but I can never be certain about what you meant.
From the listener's point of view, those are entirely unrelated.
Bollocks. You're communicating right now.[/quote]
No, I'm expressing. Even based on the definitions you've cited, communication requires at least two people. I am but one.
[quote]Since you're a fan of formal definitions, you can find some here: http://en.wikipedia....i/Communication and http://www.merriam-w...y/communication
Those even use only words, so I am comfortable in trusting that you should have a reasonably high degree of confidence that they are less ambiguous and an accurate definition of the word, communication.[/quote]
But that doesn't mean communications exists. Both of the definitions describe communication as a combination of expression and interpretation. Using the word to describe those two things together - to label the group - works just fine. It's when we attribute characteristics to communication that don't exist in its constituent parts that we get into trouble.
Communication exists in name only. As such, it cannot exhibit characteristics on its own.
[quote]What you've done is created a model of what you think communication is. What I think I see, however, is a belief that your model is accurate because it's what you created, and you demonstrate the typical human quality of assuming that because you logically deduced it, it must be true (since otherwise there's cognitive dissonance, something the brain isn't too fond of and tries to reconcile by either excluding perspectives that do not align as being somehow incorrect or not applicable, or shifting one's own perspectives to be in alignment with the new set of information).[/quote]
First, I want to know if I'm wrong. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing, as it forces people to re-examine their positions to uncover those contradictions.
Second, if I've logically deduced something, then either it is true, or I've made a logical error. That's how deduction works.
Third, we can only know the truth of things relative to the truth of other things. To assume that we know the truth of anything outright only invites the confirmation bias you've just described.
[quote]Communication, which as defined is an expression of information, messages, or thoughts by means of speech, visuals, writing, signals, or behaviour, is a function of each of those elements. One could even argue that it is gestalt; it's greater than the sum of its parts.[/quote]
Any argument that communication exhibits characteristics beyond those of its constituent parts would require evidence.
[quote]When communicating, it's the sum of all the speech, visuals, writing, signals, and behaviour that are present. Using only words means that the other aspects of communication have been omitted, but not that they are irrelevant. They provide additional information and context which may be essential to understanding the message being expressed. Depending on the message being expressed, they may not.[/quote]
For things like body language to be meaningful, they would require unambiguous definitions.
If anyone can point me to some sort of reference guide, that would be helpful. But I've been asking for such a guide for many years now, and no one seems to have one.
[quote]Using only words does not remove ambiguity.[/quote]
I don't think anyone is claiming this is true. I'm claiming that relying on body language or tone to impart meaning guarantees ambiguity. This does not mean that removing those ensures the lack of ambiguity.
But as long as we rely on body language, ambiguity is impossible to avoid.
[quote]As with all communication, ambiguity only exists since the speaker and the listener are two different people. With full understanding of myself, I never find the things that I write ambiguous. Especially not as I write them. That doesn't mean that everyone else will understand the message I am expressing.[/quote]
That's outcome based analysis. Whether someone understands what you've written is not conclusive evidence of whether it is ambiguous. Surely you can recognise ambiguity in your own writing once someone points it out to you. I further suggest that you could intentionally write ambiguously if you tried. Moreover, that someone understands what you've written does not indicate either that you've written unambiguously, or that everyone who reads it will understand it similarly.
If you write unambiguously, and the reader misunderstands, then the fault lies with the reader.
If you write ambiguously, the fault lies with you, regardless of whether the reader understands.
[quote]There's the obvious barriers: language. If I don't understand the language, the words expressed to me are meaningless. However, based just on experience, I have successfully communicated to people despite not understanding the language (I have a funny story about being in a hospital in Punta Cana). Clearly communication doesn't require words. Therefore, it must be possible to communicate without words.[/quote]
It is possible to be understood without words. But it is not possible to guarantee the potential for understanding without words.
[quote]When people try to be as unambiguous as possible with their words, it rarely comes across as natural.[/quote]
That tells us a lot about people. None of it good.
[quote]Even if one has an infallible trust in the ability for men to communicate in unambiguous ways using only words, reality doesn't reflect that. In this point, it simply becomes a logic experiment that contemplates a model that is not an accurate representation of reality.[/quote]
We can aspire to do better. If you give people the tools to be unambiguous, then they can be unambiguous. But if you deny them the tools, then they are doomed to perpetual ambiguity.
[quote]This can be useful sometimes (physical sciences always create models to help simplify situations for ease of understanding - friction was rarely something considered in my Physics classes, but it always exists in reality).[/quote]
Roleplaying is a thought experiment. It can be perfect if we would like it to be.
[quote]Words in communication have always been imprecise. For example: "I think the movie Pearl Harbour was fantastic" If I give you only one chance to describe what I am trying to express with that sentence, can you be absolutely certain that you'll be correct and that there isn't some other message I am trying to express?[/quote]
Of course not. I can't read your mind. It's possible that I can be certain about what you've said, but I can never be certain about what you meant.
From the listener's point of view, those are entirely unrelated.
#205
Posté 01 février 2013 - 06:30
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
That would only bother me if you were doing so effectively.EntropicAngel wrote...
I feel kind of bad. We're all ganging up on him.
#206
Posté 01 février 2013 - 07:16
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
For extremely large values of 2, 2 plus 2 does equal 5.Mr Fixit wrote...
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.
#207
Posté 01 février 2013 - 07:26
Mr Fixit
-
- Members
- 550 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
For extremely large values of 2, 2 plus 2 does equal 5.Mr Fixit wrote...
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.
Good to know, but I wasn't referring to that.
#208
Posté 01 février 2013 - 08:18
EmperorSahlertz
-
- Members
- 8 809 messages
So all the rest of us on BSN are just figments of your imagination?Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, I'm expressing. Even based on the definitions you've cited, communication requires at least two people. I am but one.Allan Schumacher wrote...
Bollocks. You're communicating right now.
#209
Posté 01 février 2013 - 08:42
Todd23
-
- Members
- 2 042 messages
So what you're trying to say is... you don't like communicating? Or that you prefer to refer to your communication as expression?Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That would only bother me if you were doing so effectively.EntropicAngel wrote...
I feel kind of bad. We're all ganging up on him.
#210
Posté 01 février 2013 - 08:55
upsettingshorts
-
- Members
- 13 950 messages
Sylvius doesn't buy in to the following concepts, and this list is not comprehensive:
* Society (and by extension the field of Sociology and any conclusions it has reached)
* Empathy
* Communication
* Psychology
Furthermore, his issues with empiricism are not absolute, but lacking any useful experience in the concepts above, combined with his unwillingness to accept testimony - from lay persons or authorities - that does not fit in to his idiosyncratic patterns of logic, make discussing such concepts with him amusing but pointless.
Essentially, he demands standards of precision and consistency that not only don't exist, but aren't necessary for the vast majority of people. In his unwillingness to accept that there is still reliable value within ambiguity, he basically spends a lot of time wrapping his brain around the fact he doesn't really understand the human condition. Only the Sylvius Condition, and everyone else is wrong. Because we'll never "speak" the same "language" when it comes to these concepts, and he denies the validity of the very tools we could use to explain ourselves to him, the impasse is likely permanent.
* Society (and by extension the field of Sociology and any conclusions it has reached)
* Empathy
* Communication
* Psychology
Furthermore, his issues with empiricism are not absolute, but lacking any useful experience in the concepts above, combined with his unwillingness to accept testimony - from lay persons or authorities - that does not fit in to his idiosyncratic patterns of logic, make discussing such concepts with him amusing but pointless.
Essentially, he demands standards of precision and consistency that not only don't exist, but aren't necessary for the vast majority of people. In his unwillingness to accept that there is still reliable value within ambiguity, he basically spends a lot of time wrapping his brain around the fact he doesn't really understand the human condition. Only the Sylvius Condition, and everyone else is wrong. Because we'll never "speak" the same "language" when it comes to these concepts, and he denies the validity of the very tools we could use to explain ourselves to him, the impasse is likely permanent.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 février 2013 - 09:16 .
#211
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:11
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That would only bother me if you were doing so effectively.
Lol.
#212
Guest_krul2k_*
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:14
Guest_krul2k_*
Guest_krul2k_*
-
- Guests
everytime i read sylvius posts Dr Hook starts playing in my head
yes im old
yes im weird
yes im old
yes im weird
#213
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:16
Fast Jimmy
-
- Members
- 17 939 messages
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Sylvius doesn't buy in to the following concepts, and this list is not comprehensive:
* Society (and by extension the field of Sociology and any conclusions it has reached)
* Empathy
* Communication
* Psychology
Furthermore, his issues with empiricism are not absolute, but lacking any useful experience in the concepts above, combined with his unwillingness to accept testimony - from lay persons or authorities - that does not fit in to his idiosyncratic patterns of logic, make discussing such concepts with him amusing but pointless.
Essentially, he demands standards of precision and consistency that not only don't exist, but aren't necessary for the vast majority of people. In his unwillingness to accept that there is still consistent value within ambiguity, he basically spends a lot of time wrapping his brain around the fact he doesn't really understand the human condition. Only the Sylvius Condition, and everyone else is wrong. Because we'll never "speak" the same "language" when it comes to these concepts, the impasse is likely permanent.
To pull on thing out of there, I think Sylvius has the utmost value for ambiguity. It's only when intent or purplae is given to certain actions and denied their ambiguity that he has a real problem.
If a statement can mean anything because of how it is delivered, it's ambiguity is more valuable than anything.
#214
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:20
upsettingshorts
-
- Members
- 13 950 messages
What I meant with that is simply that when someone brings up a concept like "body language" and he responds with:
He requires the kind of precision - and thus, lack of ambiguity - that is impractical and unnecessary for most people. This in of itself is a problem, and it is compounded by his issues with sociology and psychology, the fields that provide us with relatively acceptable answers, but not him.
That he revels in ambiguity for his own purposes is another matter.
Anyway, I'm not going to involve myself further in the discussion. Because, as I said, amusing but pointless.
For things like body language to be meaningful, they would require unambiguous definitions.
If anyone can point me to some sort of reference guide, that would be helpful. But I've been asking for such a guide for many years now, and no one seems to have one.
He requires the kind of precision - and thus, lack of ambiguity - that is impractical and unnecessary for most people. This in of itself is a problem, and it is compounded by his issues with sociology and psychology, the fields that provide us with relatively acceptable answers, but not him.
That he revels in ambiguity for his own purposes is another matter.
Anyway, I'm not going to involve myself further in the discussion. Because, as I said, amusing but pointless.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 février 2013 - 09:23 .
#215
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:20
Fast Jimmy
-
- Members
- 17 939 messages
krul2k wrote...
everytime i read sylvius posts Dr Hook starts playing in my head
yes im old
yes im weird
...
...
...ON THE COVER OF THE ROLLINNNNNNG STOOOOONNNNNNEEEE!!!
#216
Guest_krul2k_*
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:27
Guest_krul2k_*
Guest_krul2k_*
-
- Guests
hahaha jimmy, im gonnae cry i cannae get it out my head now rofl
#218
Guest_krul2k_*
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:31
Guest_krul2k_*
Guest_krul2k_*
-
- Guests
lol im scottish m8
as in AM GEEN IT ALL SHE GOT JIMMY
as in AM GEEN IT ALL SHE GOT JIMMY
#219
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:34
Sir JK
-
- Members
- 1 523 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Second, if I've logically deduced something, then either it is true, or I've made a logical error. That's how deduction works.
Sylvius.
I read a perfect proof in logic proving that I was a banana. I've heard of proofs of logic that unambigously proves the moon is a green cheese. I've had logically explained to me that you cannot express to logic in speech.
Logic and truth are unrelated. Logic is simply just logic. Truth is irrelevant. Lies can be completely logical.
Logic is merely a tool to reach a conclusion. Truth or untruth does not alter whether something is logical or not. It is simply a means to methodically work one's way to a conclusion. It is only as true as the assumtions made. A tool to solve problems, used by humans and animals alike.
If your assumtions are incorrect or insufficient to explain reality, then the conclusion will not be true. But it will be logical.
#220
Posté 01 février 2013 - 09:36
MerinTB
-
- Members
- 4 688 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
For extremely large values of 2, 2 plus 2 does equal 5.Mr Fixit wrote...
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.
wow
#221
Guest_RainbowPuppy_*
Posté 01 février 2013 - 10:00
Guest_RainbowPuppy_*
Guest_RainbowPuppy_*
-
- Guests
MerinTB wrote...
wow
Well, if you round 2,4 down to 2 and add 2,4 and 2,4 you'll get 4,8, which can be rounded up to 5. So, large values of 2 + 2 could equal 5, I suppose. If that was what Sylvius meant.
#223
Posté 01 février 2013 - 10:05
Xewaka
-
- Members
- 3 739 messages
2,3 rounds down to 2. 2,3 +2,3 = 4,6, which rounds up to 5. So Sylvius statement is actually correct, if rather counterintuitive and using some rather heavy-handed rounding to work.MerinTB wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
For extremely large values of 2, 2 plus 2 does equal 5.Mr Fixit wrote...
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.
wow
Modifié par Xewaka, 01 février 2013 - 10:06 .
#224
Posté 01 février 2013 - 10:12
MerinTB
-
- Members
- 4 688 messages
Xewaka wrote...
2,3 rounds down to 2. 2,3 +2,3 = 4,6, which rounds up to 5. So Sylvius statement is actually correct, if rather counterintuitive and using some rather heavy-handed rounding to work.MerinTB wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
For extremely large values of 2, 2 plus 2 does equal 5.Mr Fixit wrote...
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.
wow
It was more for his seeming to side with Big Brother than his dubious use of math.
Almost everything I've ever read Sylvius write before would make me believe he was the antithesis of the reasoning used by Big Brother.
that aside, however...
For someone who's advocating quite strongly for precise language, that words should have strict defintion--he's playing excessively lose with MATH.
2 != 2,3
2 != 2.5
2 != 2 9/10
2 != 1
2!=3
2=2
5-2 != 2
Math has the exact preciseness that Sylvius is desiring.
All that statement by Sylvius shows is that as far as not believing in communication goes, he is his own self-fulfilling prophecy.
Modifié par MerinTB, 01 février 2013 - 10:14 .
#225
Posté 01 février 2013 - 11:31
Gamer Ftw
-
- Members
- 917 messages
I felt in Da2 they were forcing me to feel for characters I hated.
Like telling not being able to tell Carver "I'm glad you're dying you whiny ****"
Or tell Leandra "stop dwelling on the past and help us survive you have other living children!"
They seemed to think you should feel for them because they are family, felt forced.
Like telling not being able to tell Carver "I'm glad you're dying you whiny ****"
Or tell Leandra "stop dwelling on the past and help us survive you have other living children!"
They seemed to think you should feel for them because they are family, felt forced.
