Some of my controversial beliefs:
Human beings won't set foot on Mars till the 2060's at earliest. Level 5 autonomous cars are impossible if roads shared with humans. Computers will never become conscious. Technological civilisations will be virtually non-existent in the Universe.
We have this commonsensical conception of ourselves that we are enduring entities. That I'm still the same I from childhood to now, and certainly I'm still the same person throughout mood changes etc. But it seems hard ... nay, impossible? to reconcile this commonsensical conception of the self with the idea that brains produce the "self" and consciousness.
Here's an example of the futility of many exchanges on the net. This following exchange can be found in the comments section under the article: Is online advertising about to crash, just like the property market did in 2008.
ndl4321:
"It woukld(sic) be interesting to see if there has been any analysis on te(sic) demographics of who uses adblockers. If it is the "better off" mostly using blockers then the effectiveness of ads being turned to hard cash becomes less likely.
Further when most adverts seem to be for things just purchased it's no surprise that if the ads are largely ignored even if seen".
To which someone going under the name "fastgameplayer" responds:
"Why would only the better off use an ad-block? Mine is free and works just fine".
ndl4321 replies:
"Please reread my comment Where did I say that only the better off use adblockers?
I questioned if analysis of the demographic had been done and, given the type and effectiveness of online advertising, how much of the ads turned in to hard cash."
To which fastgameplayer then quotes and responds again to ndl4321:
If it is the "better off" mostly using blockers then the effectiveness of ads being turned to hard cash becomes less likely.
"You offer an(sic) hypothesis. I questioned the basis of the hypothesis."
That's the end of the conversation. Wise of ndl4321!
So ndl4321's initial comment is fine. Perhaps the better off are more prone to using ad-blockers, perhaps they're not. But, short as and uncomplicated as his comment was, fastgameplayer failed to comprehend it. His mistake is pointed out by ndl4321.
So, at that point you would expect fastgameplayer to apologise in some manner; say something like "oops, yes, never read carefully enough". Instead he says "You offer an hypothesis" (of course, it was a hypothetical, not a hypothesis, but that's not important).
What is important is that this is the Internet writ large. People will not acknowledge any mistakes on their part, nor that their opponent has made a very good point. Instead, they will employ various techniques (eg sophistry, rhetoric, utilize long words and convoluted "sentences" etc) so that it seems to the causal observer they haven't lost the argument. And the whole conversation goes off at a tangent, essentially goes down the plughole. Wasted time that one will never get back.
OK, this is exasperating enough. But what makes it infinitely worse is when you point this out to other people. Here's a post I put onto facebook (in blue).
A woman said to me that often men feel the need to get up on their hind legs and argue. They have a need to be right and are more interested in this than in communicating. Hence what they say cannot be trusted.
I absolutely 100% agree with this. They employ sophistry and rhetoric. They have a propensity to utilize long words, use convoluted "sentences". But essentially they often say nothing of any substance. They are merely showing off, trying to appear be "right" to the audience, trying to boost their egos. They are bamboozling, deceiving people, into thinking they know what they're talking about, that they are intelligent. But they are pretentious buffoons. Ultimately, they are doing philosophy and reason a disservice.
That same person also labelled me as combative and condescending. But my motivation for this is poles apart from the people I have just described. It is precisely *because*, these people say nothing of any substance that stirs my ire. They are the enemies of reason and truth, and this is why I find it a challenge being polite to them.
What people should be doing is to try and explain the issues as simply as possible, to lead them by the hand, so to speak. To get them to think of the issues. This is what I attempt to do in my blog, and to a more limited extent on facebook. I might fail, but I am not trying to impress people, I'm trying to educate people, I'm trying to get people to think for themselves.
As usual with my facebook posts, it didn't look like I would get any responses. But then someone -- let's call him "John" -- replied:
That is probably what they are thinking too.
So, if we are to take this seriously, he's saying that the ndl4321's and "fastgameplayer"'s of the world are on an equal footing. Of course, this is a preposterous statement. I confess I labelled it juvenile. But then John goes on to say:
I speak the Truth having been [to] so many Facebook groups. Everyone thinks they are right. That is the way it is. It is not a juvenile remark, it is wisdom.
This just simply fails to understand human psychology. Of course, inevitably, people will claim they are right, that their opponent doesn't understand their point etc. They do not want to appear diminished to any casual perusers of the conversation. Or indeed, they might genuinely think they are correct, but have failed to grasp what the other person is saying. The point is this; not everyone is on an equal footing. ndl4321 and fastgameplayer certainly are not. To say they are is just a silly platitude uttered by people who have given no thought to the issue whatsoever. So, in short, contrary to John, it's irrelevant what people state, or perhaps even think.
Here's another example. Often people say that if someone hasn't understood you then you need to think about expressing yourself more clearly. I have received this advice often myself. This, of course, assumes that if people extract the incorrect meaning of some statement, that the fault lies with the one making the statement. And indeed it often does. In fact, people often appear to make their arguments as opaque and impressive sounding as possible -- sometimes when they are on the losing end of an argument and are trying to conceal this fact!
Clearly, as the ndl4321/fastgameplayer example shows, this is not always the case. I myself am in the habit of sending lots of emails off to various companies about some issue or other. As always, I try and be as clear as I possibly can. But often the response (specific to my email, not just a standard response) bears no relationship to my query whatsoever! Is this because of my wretched inability to communicate? Or might it be that they have given the email the most cursory of glances?
Very relevant to the above is my Arguing with people.
