Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I've watched a documentary on both face recognition and the language bit, and they were obviously grabbing for straws, and or straw men. It's BS. The child picked that stuff from day one, via all their senses from the people in their environment.

Mister Wig man, site specific instances of anything that proves they did not pick it up as they grew. All the studies I "witnessed" used children, not infants. We start learning, "knowing," from minute one, actually to some extent while in the womb, at least as far as sound goes.

An infant is nothing but hungry for knowledge, as it instantly understands that it's relatively helpless.

They were simply trying to prove their worth, so as to be published, and that's about it. Food, not for thought, rather just the gullible.

Try to avoid the Discovery Channel.

Your false assumption, yet you must be familiar. I do not currently have cable or satellite TV. But you're wrong anyway, because appearing in the documentaries that I watch, are the leading scientists in their field of study. I only have OTA TV, so I'm watching PBS, which also has the most unadulterated, by propaganda, news casts. But who are you to say, which of the opposing views by scientists currently studying such things, are right or wrong? Of course the same thing goes for me. I tend to believe those scientists that my experience seems to indicate.

Have you thought of reading books at all?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I've watched a documentary on both face recognition and the language bit, and they were obviously grabbing for straws, and or straw men. It's BS. The child picked that stuff from day one, via all their senses from the people in their environment.

Mister Wig man, site specific instances of anything that proves they did not pick it up as they grew. All the studies I "witnessed" used children, not infants. We start learning, "knowing," from minute one, actually to some extent while in the womb, at least as far as sound goes.

An infant is nothing but hungry for knowledge, as it instantly understands that it's relatively helpless.

They were simply trying to prove their worth, so as to be published, and that's about it. Food, not for thought, rather just the gullible.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:
Try to avoid the Discovery Channel.

Your false assumption, yet you must be familiar. I do not currently have cable or satellite TV. But you're wrong anyway, because appearing in the documentaries that I watch, are the leading scientists in their field of study. I only have OTA TV, so I'm watching PBS, which also has the most unadulterated, by propaganda, news casts. But who are you to say, which of the opposing views by scientists currently studying such things, are right or wrong? Of course the same thing goes for me. I tend to believe those scientists that my experience seems to indicate.

Have you thought of reading books at all?

Two things:

First, you cannot know of the extent of my reading, only the extent to which I disagree with you, and thus those you may have read.
Second, I'm wondering why you believe that some mysterious force renders knowledge on paper, more credible than that delivered by any other medium. Is it the nature of wood pulp having its lignins removed with sulfuric acid that renders paper being a more potent medium? Please explain the nature of your mysticism.

I agree that books can be nice, after all I own a set of leather bound encyclopedia Britannica's, complete with gold leaf, very pretty indeed! I also kept all my college books for reference. They told me I could have sold some of them to students, of the following year, where the same books were to be used, but I value knowledge more than money!

Do you see a book much like a magic wand, lending to your, supposed, knowledge being far more credible?

How many humans have you directly observed growing up since birth? I have two sons, one daughter, and a stepson, as of him being three years old. I'm 57 and have been actively observing/analyzing people since I was very young, due to experiencing PTSD at three to four years of age. Of course you probably have no idea why that should make a difference, unless you could have had the exact same experiences yourself.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I

First, you cannot know of the extent of my reading, only the extent to which I disagree with you, and thus those you may have read.
Second, I'm wondering why you believe that some mysterious force renders knowledge on paper, more credible than that delivered by any other medium. Is it the nature of wood pulp having its lignins removed with sulfuric acid that renders paper being a more potent medium? Please explain the nature of your mysticism.

I agree that books can be nice, after all I own a set of leather bound encyclopedia Britannica's, complete with gold leaf, very pretty indeed! I also kept all my college books for reference. They told me I could have sold some of them to students, of the following year, where the same books were to be used, but I value knowledge more than money!

Do you see a book much like a magic wand, lending to your, supposed, knowledge being far more credible?

How many humans have you directly observed growing up since birth? I have two sons, one daughter, and a stepson, as of him being three years old. I'm 57 and have been actively observing/analyzing people since I was very young, due to experiencing PTSD at three to four years of age. Of course you probably have no idea why that should make a difference, unless you could have had the exact same experiences yourself.

One thing:
I asked you a question."Have you thought of reading books at all?

Lev Muishkin wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I

First, you cannot know of the extent of my reading, only the extent to which I disagree with you, and thus those you may have read.
Second, I'm wondering why you believe that some mysterious force renders knowledge on paper, more credible than that delivered by any other medium. Is it the nature of wood pulp having its lignins removed with sulfuric acid that renders paper being a more potent medium? Please explain the nature of your mysticism.

I agree that books can be nice, after all I own a set of leather bound encyclopedia Britannica's, complete with gold leaf, very pretty indeed! I also kept all my college books for reference. They told me I could have sold some of them to students, of the following year, where the same books were to be used, but I value knowledge more than money!

Do you see a book much like a magic wand, lending to your, supposed, knowledge being far more credible?

How many humans have you directly observed growing up since birth? I have two sons, one daughter, and a stepson, as of him being three years old. I'm 57 and have been actively observing/analyzing people since I was very young, due to experiencing PTSD at three to four years of age. Of course you probably have no idea why that should make a difference, unless you could have had the exact same experiences yourself.

One thing:
I asked you a question."Have you thought of reading books at all?

You really can't be that dense, can you? As it surely seems so!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I

First, you cannot know of the extent of my reading, only the extent to which I disagree with you, and thus those you may have read.
Second, I'm wondering why you believe that some mysterious force renders knowledge on paper, more credible than that delivered by any other medium. Is it the nature of wood pulp having its lignins removed with sulfuric acid that renders paper being a more potent medium? Please explain the nature of your mysticism.

I agree that books can be nice, after all I own a set of leather bound encyclopedia Britannica's, complete with gold leaf, very pretty indeed! I also kept all my college books for reference. They told me I could have sold some of them to students, of the following year, where the same books were to be used, but I value knowledge more than money!

Do you see a book much like a magic wand, lending to your, supposed, knowledge being far more credible?

How many humans have you directly observed growing up since birth? I have two sons, one daughter, and a stepson, as of him being three years old. I'm 57 and have been actively observing/analyzing people since I was very young, due to experiencing PTSD at three to four years of age. Of course you probably have no idea why that should make a difference, unless you could have had the exact same experiences yourself.

One thing:
I asked you a question."Have you thought of reading books at all?

You really can't be that dense, can you? As it surely seems so!

I asked you a question. Your response is stupid.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I

First, you cannot know of the extent of my reading, only the extent to which I disagree with you, and thus those you may have read.
Second, I'm wondering why you believe that some mysterious force renders knowledge on paper, more credible than that delivered by any other medium. Is it the nature of wood pulp having its lignins removed with sulfuric acid that renders paper being a more potent medium? Please explain the nature of your mysticism.

I agree that books can be nice, after all I own a set of leather bound encyclopedia Britannica's, complete with gold leaf, very pretty indeed! I also kept all my college books for reference. They told me I could have sold some of them to students, of the following year, where the same books were to be used, but I value knowledge more than money!

Do you see a book much like a magic wand, lending to your, supposed, knowledge being far more credible?

How many humans have you directly observed growing up since birth? I have two sons, one daughter, and a stepson, as of him being three years old. I'm 57 and have been actively observing/analyzing people since I was very young, due to experiencing PTSD at three to four years of age. Of course you probably have no idea why that should make a difference, unless you could have had the exact same experiences yourself.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:
One thing:
I asked you a question."Have you thought of reading books at all?

You really can't be that dense, can you? As it surely seems so!

I asked you a question. Your response is stupid.

And it was answered, though it seems to have gone over your head. Look again to redraw your conclusions, as they are slow in sensing truth.

Are you at disadvantage today? I sense that you may be celebrating holiday cheer. You are usually much more keen.

Happy Holidays to EVERYONE!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: And it was answered, though it seems to have gone over your head. Look again to redraw your conclusions, as they are slow in sensing truth.

Are you at disadvantage today? I sense that you may be celebrating holiday cheer. You are usually much more keen.

Happy Holidays to EVERYONE!

Your response is still stupid; irrelevant and misdirected. What sort of "conclusions" do you think I have offered you.

There is 'reading between the lines", but you are living a fantasy.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: And it was answered, though it seems to have gone over your head. Look again to redraw your conclusions, as they are slow in sensing truth.

Are you at disadvantage today? I sense that you may be celebrating holiday cheer. You are usually much more keen.

Happy Holidays to EVERYONE!

Your response is still stupid; irrelevant and misdirected. What sort of "conclusions" do you think I have offered you.

There is 'reading between the lines", but you are living a fantasy.

Not at all. Your snarky question was indeed answered. Such that a smarter person would dare not ask again, for eating crow. You're just an immature individual, that cares more for a fight than arguing in a respected adult manner, or so it surely seems to me.

Unfortunaly complete tards like SoB are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long.

HexHammer wrote:Unfortunaly complete tards like SoB are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long.

Oh Oh, hammer me with your big Hex Hammer, Mr Hammer, the same one you use to build bridges, I'm sure.

HexHammer wrote:Unfortunaly complete tards like SoB are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long.

For once you have said something I can agree with.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Unfortunaly complete tards like SoB are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long.

For once you have said something I can agree with.

And so necessarily the mob of fools rules? I think not, rather your ignorance betrays you.

HexHammer wrote:Unfortunaly complete tards like SoB are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long.

Let's reverse this to read: "Unfortunaly[sic] complete tards[sic] like H.H. are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long."

What have you here now? Have you, Hex, ignored the original title to this ongoing thread that reads: "Knowing how versus Knowing that" (which would be better read as 'Knowing how' versus 'Knowing that'", but let's forget that for now). So here comes old Hex hammering his same old line which repeatedly attempts to make another a subject of his futile attack sound meaningful and spiteful. You do try impossibly hard to belittle others around here but are really doing nothing other than cheapening your own value. Perhaps this activity you seem to thrive upon somehow makes you feel like a man of importance or even some intellectual, but allow me to insure that you, "Hex Hammer" are proving the contrary every time you post something. Fess up, HH, admit to yourself how disqualified you really are. If you don't believe it, please, re-read your words even from this single thread and count the many ways you have misspelled words, how many negative inferences you've made to others opinions and how many times you have, quite frankly, made an ass out of yourself by utilizing the lowest form of insults by casting cheap dispersions upon others in order to make yourself feel good rather than learning how to communicate with others on the board.

Have I wasted my breath, "Hex"...? Probably so, but maybe... just maybe, something will click between your ears that will improve you a wee bit... just maybe, eh?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Unfortunaly complete tards like SoB are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long.

For once you have said something I can agree with.

And so necessarily the mob of fools rules? I think not, rather your ignorance betrays you.

Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot, arse!
You are clearly a person without a single redeeming quality.

HexHammer wrote:Unfortunaly complete tards like SoB are allowed to pest the forum with his helpless stupidity. People like him really should be stowed away in his own section where he can babble and rave all day and all nite long.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:
For once you have said something I can agree with.

And so necessarily the mob of fools rules? I think not, rather your ignorance betrays you.

Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot, arse!
From your twisted self serving perspective, I'm sure you believe so.

You are clearly a person without a single redeeming quality.
Coming from one whose vision is obscured by a brain of shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!

As to the topic, "knowing how" is just a whole bunch of "knowing that's," back to back.