On the incredulity:
There seems to be quite a few people that think this is how you must think, you must think like I do. Is it scary, for those, if you don’t think like them? Does their “objective” measure of the human mind fail when people don’t think the way they should? Does the objective facade begin to crumble, and as such, damage a schema, leaving nothing but defense mechanisms as a worthy response? Does fathoming the subjective nature of people, in that people do think differently, need to be rationalized away with a simple, no that’s not true! Throw in a few insults and your poor little schema is all nice and healthy again, right? Arguing against a strawman can be therapeutic, after all, this may in itself be a defense mechanism. Slight of hand, or rather slight of cognition in the mind can make you feel better, if you argue against something you believe is the case, instead of the actual case being presented. People feel the need to know more than they really do know, so I find it very interesting when people begin to pretend they can read other people’s minds. Ironically, there have been a lot of projections in this thread as a result; Projections often come when emotional arguments take place, as we can see by certain derision occurring in this thread and others. A derision that seems childish and immature to me, lacking intelligence. Lacking valid, noble, integrity and reason.
Humans faculties are very different from one person to another. Some might be merely capable of drooling in a catatonic stage all their life, knowing not what they do, knowing not what others do. Others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see things that may cause the general masses, or plebeians, to froth and foam at the mouth… This usually occurs with people that have a very emotional attachment to their schemata. Their schemata cannot be wrong and reason doesn’t necessarily matter anymore, because a fixed mind, fixed with beliefs, cannot afford to change their beliefs. Knowledge however, is another story… but beliefs are often the cause of emotional suffering when it is shown to the mind, unconsciously, subconsciously whatever you wish to refer to it as, is inundated with countering reason to these beliefs. Knowledge, does not falter - because there is no strong adversary. Here we are in a philosophy forum of all things, in which philosophy is a path, not a hard science. A path towards reasonable possibilities, probabilities. Questions and answers. Postulations on the unknown. Postulations on the purely conceptual. Yet here, we have a group of people who know all about everyone elses’ minds and their capabilities and faculties, even though there is no knowledge on the matter outside of reason and logical necessity. Yet beliefs here have been attacked, and beliefs are rising up in angst as a result, because they are a schema in many people’s minds. So the schemas must be defended at all costs, there’s no time to think when you’re schema is under attack, it must only be defended rapidly and with much froth, to a believing ignorant mind. Having a schema become broken by another mind is absolutely unacceptable in humanity. There’s good reason for that as well, it’s not about being right in this world, evolutionary so much as it is being seen as being right, or at least having enough confidence to believe you are right.
Intelligent beings process things at a quicker rate than lesser intelligent beings. This is a key faculty in intelligence, which happens also be a key faculty in perception. The more you can perceive in a similar amount of time and process, the more intelligent you can be seen. Processing effectively and quickly allows for greater application and perception of things. There has been some incredulity on questioning the “truth” of everything we are inundated with on a regular basis. News reports, passing the salt at the dinner table, seeing cars on the highway, what have you. How can someone process everything coming at them as I do, and not believe it? How can someone function? Well, it was responded to and dealt with, fairly reasonably, and not a rebuttal to be seen occurred. Yet derision, and pitchforks aimed at strawmen came to beat down the attack on schemata dear to a believer… Every single sensory data being consumed by our minds at this moment is all being processed and it is all operating under the guidelines of our schemata. Our schemata does not need be correct, it needs to work for the individual. It doesn’t need to be brilliant, it needs to function accordingly. However, those with differing schemata accrue not only genetically, by environmentally, through information, knowledge and yes beliefs or doubt. So when someone incredulously asks how one can process (in so many words) all this doubt about all this information that is being relayed from our sensory organs to our mind to be processed and formed as sense impressions, and ultimately impressions, processing doubt seems to be more of a workload that is possible to these beings. But intelligence is a key factor, and intelligent minds do process information faster, naturally. This to is attributed to genetics as well as environment. However, simply because people may think in manners that aren’t fathomable or possible for you, doesn’t mean its impossible for everyone. Even if they aren’t postulated to think that way for most of the population, that doesn’t mean it’s that way for everyone.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, or elsewhere, I can’t remember exactly… a man named Daniel Tammet is capable of doing what everyone else might think to be impossible, with their mind. That is In his mind, Tammet says, each positive integer up to 10,000 has its own unique shape, colour, texture and feel. He has described his visual image of 289 as particularly ugly, 333 as particularly attractive, and pi, though not an integer, as beautiful. The number 6 apparently has no distinct image yet what he describes as an almost small nothingness, opposite to the number 9 which he calls large, towering, and quite intimidating. He also describes the number 117 as "a handsome number. It’s tall, it’s a lanky number, a little bit wobbly. So how can we prove this to be false? Why should we prove it to be false, is it because we know how everyone thinks? is it because we can’t fathom doing this ourselves? Is it threatening to our own intelligence? I would hope we can get beyond those trivialities and fathom the possibilities of other schemata we as individuals, simply might not be capable of.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet
so to speak, began with Greek philosophy. Here beliefs were questioned openly, rigorously and perhaps just as importantly, it was recorded. With that, throughout human history, beliefs seem to be continue to waning, not only is knowledge eliminating beliefs, but now we have skepticism eliminating beliefs without knowledge. There is no fervent desire to fill in ignorance with possibilities, assumptions, even probabilities. We know much about the world and deeply, we know much that we don’t know, what we didn’t know, what we thought we knew… Just how far down the rabbit hole of knowledge do we go, that weed out our beliefs of perception and supposed understanding of reality, the postulations of thousands of years ago become mere childs play by todays standards. How far does this continue, should skepticism take the reigns from belief, rightfully so, for the masses? Isn’t in now a benefit for mankind to no longer believe, but doubt and know when they don’t know? On a very large time frame, its hard to say what will happen on an evolutionary scale…