Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[creation]

No. I see cognitive and learning disabilities all the time.

Then why deny the reality of the issues the folks in question were dealing with?

But I never denied that the ones in question have disabilities at all.

I have noticed your cognitive and learning disabilities and was mentioning them in fact.

I was the one bringing up the issues with the one I am dealing with, and therefore never denying the issues.

Isn't that a bit rude towards them?

This question is only in relation to if I was denying disabilities. I was not. Therefore, your clarifying question here is redundant.

[Sculptor1]

Do you have a view that cognitive or learning disabilities are a fiction or myth?

No. I see cognitive and learning disabilities all the time.

I am living with them all the time.

I have still not learned how to be heard and fully understood yet by human beings.

I, unlike most adult human beings, just refuse to accept that it is the "other" who has the cognitive and/or learning disability and not me. I say that is a very true fact that ALL human beings very quickly gain a cognitive and learning disability. I have even started going into the explanation of HOW these disabilities arise, and WHERE they come from actually, but, like most of what I write and say, goes completely unnoticed.

But is this a result of their disability or is it as a result of your disability.
Maybe you only think what you say goes unnoticed whereas in fact people may well have taken it all in but preferred not to comment on it.
Maybe what you say is just simply wrong or not relevant. Bias is a big factor in relevance, and maybe your bias is too severe and idiosyncratic to be taken seriously - how would you even know?

[creation]

No. I see cognitive and learning disabilities all the time.

I am living with them all the time.

I have still not learned how to be heard and fully understood yet by human beings.

I, unlike most adult human beings, just refuse to accept that it is the "other" who has the cognitive and/or learning disability and not me. I say that is a very true fact that ALL human beings very quickly gain a cognitive and learning disability. I have even started going into the explanation of HOW these disabilities arise, and WHERE they come from actually, but, like most of what I write and say, goes completely unnoticed.

But is this a result of their disability or is it as a result of your disability.

As I meant, "I am living with 'them' [cognitive and learning disabilities] all the time", and because of those cognitive and learning disabilities, "I have still not learned how to be heard and fully understood yet by human beings". So, this is a result of MY cognitive and learning disabilities.

Thank you for the clarifying question.

Maybe you only think what you say goes unnoticed whereas in fact people may well have taken it all in but preferred not to comment on it.

Maybe, but because of my lack of ability to learn how to be fully heard and fully understood yet, I doubt that all of what I am actually saying and meaning has been taken in by others. There is two reasons for this doubt;

1. If I was being fully heard and fully understood, then people would comment.
2. As evidenced above I cannot string two sentences together without what I am saying not being fully understood.

I thought I was clearly writing that it was my sole fault and sole responsibility of why I am not yet being fully and fully understood, but even this I could not write in a way that was being fully heard and fully understood. So, I doubt very much that all of what I have said previously was all taken in the exact same way as I meant it.

Maybe what you say is just simply wrong or not relevant.

This is very true. But I would prefer if any of what I say is just simply wrong, then that was just simply pointed out to me, and HOW and WHY it is wrong was shared.

That would help me tremendously in learning how to be fully heard and fully understood better.

But I do totally understand why some people do not want to help me at all in being better heard and better understood.

Bias is a big factor in relevance, and maybe your bias is too severe and idiosyncratic to be taken seriously - how would you even know?

I would not. Unless, of course, SOME ONE was to SHOW me what 'biases' they thought or believe I have, FIRST.

Is ANY one willing to do this?

Just like for some one it is a lot harder to learn from others how to do things better, if they are not being told what they are doing wrong, by the others in the first place, so to it is a lot harder for some one to know the biases they have, if they are not being told what those biases are, by others.

But we ALL have to remember that just because some people might see 'wrong' and/or 'biases' in another's writings, then that obviously does NOT mean that they are actually there. Because obviously the ones seeing the alleged 'wrong' and/or 'biases' might be 'wrong' and/or 'biased' them self.

We will only KNOW if the others express what they see as being 'wrong' and/or a 'bias' FIRST.

Obviously, from my perspective, I have yet to see where I am wrong or bias, and if no one is game enough or bothered enough to SHOW and HIGHLIGHT this to me or the readers, then we might NEVER see them at all.

I Truly LOVE and ENJOY being SHOWN the errors of my way, especially through clarifying questions and being challenged. So, maybe if others do NOT really want to challenge me nor question me in regards to what I say, then that might be a sign that what I say is not a big factor nor relevance to their own 'biases'?

I wonder what my biases, if any, could be, in relation to what I have said so far?

[Sculptor1]

But is this a result of their disability or is it as a result of your disability.

As I meant, "I am living with 'them' [cognitive and learning disabilities] all the time", and because of those cognitive and learning disabilities, "I have still not learned how to be heard and fully understood yet by human beings". So, this is a result of MY cognitive and learning disabilities.

Thank you for the clarifying question.

Maybe you only think what you say goes unnoticed whereas in fact people may well have taken it all in but preferred not to comment on it.

Maybe, but because of my lack of ability to learn how to be fully heard and fully understood yet, I doubt that all of what I am actually saying and meaning has been taken in by others. There is two reasons for this doubt;

1. If I was being fully heard and fully understood, then people would comment.

False.
There may be several reasons why they would not choose to comment.

2. As evidenced above I cannot string two sentences together without what I am saying not being fully understood.

As is evident, you can string several sentences together. You are just in denial.

I thought I was clearly writing that it was my sole fault and sole responsibility of why I am not yet being fully and fully understood, but even this I could not write in a way that was being fully heard and fully understood. So, I doubt very much that all of what I have said previously was all taken in the exact same way as I meant it.

Maybe what you say is just simply wrong or not relevant.

This is very true. But I would prefer if any of what I say is just simply wrong, then that was just simply pointed out to me, and HOW and WHY it is wrong was shared.

Not if you are going to make stupid comments like "I can string two sentences together"
People are just not going to take you seriously

That would help me tremendously in learning how to be fully heard and fully understood better.

But I do totally understand why some people do not want to help me at all in being better heard and better understood.

Bias is a big factor in relevance, and maybe your bias is too severe and idiosyncratic to be taken seriously - how would you even know?

I would not. Unless, of course, SOME ONE was to SHOW me what 'biases' they thought or believe I have, FIRST.

Bias is necessary; it is the essence of opinion. Without that you can only remain silent.

Is ANY one willing to do this?

Just like for some one it is a lot harder to learn from others how to do things better, if they are not being told what they are doing wrong, by the others in the first place, so to it is a lot harder for some one to know the biases they have, if they are not being told what those biases are, by others.

But we ALL have to remember that just because some people might see 'wrong' and/or 'biases' in another's writings, then that obviously does NOT mean that they are actually there. Because obviously the ones seeing the alleged 'wrong' and/or 'biases' might be 'wrong' and/or 'biased' them self.

We will only KNOW if the others express what they see as being 'wrong' and/or a 'bias' FIRST.

Obviously, from my perspective, I have yet to see where I am wrong or bias, and if no one is game enough or bothered enough to SHOW and HIGHLIGHT this to me or the readers, then we might NEVER see them at all.

I Truly LOVE and ENJOY being SHOWN the errors of my way, especially through clarifying questions and being challenged. So, maybe if others do NOT really want to challenge me nor question me in regards to what I say, then that might be a sign that what I say is not a big factor nor relevance to their own 'biases'?

I wonder what my biases, if any, could be, in relation to what I have said so far?

[Terrapin Station]

I will take that back.

The criteria I seek for arguments are sound and valid ones.

The criteria I seek for reasons are logical and reasonable ones.

Empirical support of something isn't going to be logical, is it? Logical isn't empirical data.

[Terrapin Station]

But I never denied that the ones in question have disabilities at all.

First off, we're talking about kids who had official diagnoses of having learning disabilities. It was an issue for them throughout all facets of their lives.

And if "what you call a 'learning disability' in another was and is just your own inability to teach properly and correctly," then you'd be denying that they indeed had learning disabilities.

[creation]

As I meant, "I am living with 'them' [cognitive and learning disabilities] all the time", and because of those cognitive and learning disabilities, "I have still not learned how to be heard and fully understood yet by human beings". So, this is a result of MY cognitive and learning disabilities.

Thank you for the clarifying question.



Maybe, but because of my lack of ability to learn how to be fully heard and fully understood yet, I doubt that all of what I am actually saying and meaning has been taken in by others. There is two reasons for this doubt;

1. If I was being fully heard and fully understood, then people would comment.

False.
There may be several reasons why they would not choose to comment.

Well there is obviously no absolute false nor absolute true answer here. In other words there is no absolute correct answer.

As far as I am concerned IF what I am saying and meaning was being FULLY heard and FULLY understood, then far more people would be making far more comments. But obviously it is never going to be the case that ALL people would be commenting ALL of the time. So, you are absolutely right, in that regard. But, I am pretty certain that if what I am actually meaning was being FULLY understood, then there would be far more comments made.

We will just have to wait and see what happens when, and if, I ever gain the ability to be better heard and better understood. So far I obviously have a lot more to learn and understand about how to communicate far more successfully with human beings.

2. As evidenced above I cannot string two sentences together without what I am saying not being fully understood.

As is evident, you can string several sentences together. You are just in denial.

I am just in denial of 'what' exactly?

Are you saying you FULLY understand exactly what I was saying previously in those two sentences of mine but you still just asked for clarification just for the sake of asking it?

Your Truly open and honest response would be most appreciated.

Also, OF COURSE I can string two sentences together but I rarely, if ever, am FULLY heard and get those sentences FULLY understood.

I thought I was clearly writing that it was my sole fault and sole responsibility of why I am not yet being fully and fully understood, but even this I could not write in a way that was being fully heard and fully understood. So, I doubt very much that all of what I have said previously was all taken in the exact same way as I meant it.



This is very true. But I would prefer if any of what I say is just simply wrong, then that was just simply pointed out to me, and HOW and WHY it is wrong was shared.

Not if you are going to make stupid comments like "I can string two sentences together"
People are just not going to take you seriously

But I NEVER, and I will repeat NEVER, said, "I can string two sentences together" before this post here.

Now even if you made a mistake here and you meant that I did previously say, "I cannot string string two sentences together", then you still FORGOT TO ADD that I made it very CLEAR that that was in relation to SOME THING ELSE.

Now, if you purposely wrote "I can string two sentences together" because you KNEW or more correctly ASSUMED that that was what I was going to write in this post, then you still FORGOT TO ADD that 'Of course 'I can string to sentences together' but I rarely, if ever, am FULLY heard and get those sentences FULLY understood'.

If any one just said what you propose here alone, then I would hope you or no one else would take them seriously. But what can be clearly seen is that I have NEVER said anything like what you have proposed, by itself. You have obviously taken this out of context of what I said and meant.

What I say really does need to be taken in context with the rest of what I have said. Otherwise, if people continued to do what you are doing, by taking what I say out of context, then they would also be doing what you are doing, and that is; not taking what I say seriously.

You are obviously showing that you are NOT fully hearing me and NOT fully understanding what I am saying and meaning, even when what I have said and meant is in the EXACT SAME sentence. You are obviously just wanting to grabbed and latch onto absolutely any thing, which you think will "justify" your own already held beliefs and assumptions. You are obviously NOT fully hearing me nor fully understanding what it is that I am saying and pointing out here.

That would help me tremendously in learning how to be fully heard and fully understood better.

But I do totally understand why some people do not want to help me at all in being better heard and better understood.



I would not. Unless, of course, SOME ONE was to SHOW me what 'biases' they thought or believe I have, FIRST.

Bias is necessary; it is the essence of opinion. Without that you can only remain silent.

If you BELIEVE this to be absolutely true, then go right ahead and continue BELIEVING whatever you want to believe is true.

But, you 'trying to' "justify" your behaviors does NOT show to me what you BELIEVE my supposed "biases" ARE exactly. And, if you do not want to share your views in this regard, then so be it. I cannot make you do anything that you do not really want to do anyway.

Is ANY one willing to do this?

Just like for some one it is a lot harder to learn from others how to do things better, if they are not being told what they are doing wrong, by the others in the first place, so to it is a lot harder for some one to know the biases they have, if they are not being told what those biases are, by others.

But we ALL have to remember that just because some people might see 'wrong' and/or 'biases' in another's writings, then that obviously does NOT mean that they are actually there. Because obviously the ones seeing the alleged 'wrong' and/or 'biases' might be 'wrong' and/or 'biased' them self.

We will only KNOW if the others express what they see as being 'wrong' and/or a 'bias' FIRST.

Obviously, from my perspective, I have yet to see where I am wrong or bias, and if no one is game enough or bothered enough to SHOW and HIGHLIGHT this to me or the readers, then we might NEVER see them at all.

I Truly LOVE and ENJOY being SHOWN the errors of my way, especially through clarifying questions and being challenged. So, maybe if others do NOT really want to challenge me nor question me in regards to what I say, then that might be a sign that what I say is not a big factor nor relevance to their own 'biases'?

I wonder what my biases, if any, could be, in relation to what I have said so far?

It appears that at least this one here is not willing to share what they believe my biases are. Hopefully there may be other ones who will? The one appears to just want to claim that I have biases, but also does not want to back this up with any supporting evidence at all. One's own belief that they cannot speak without biases is NOT evidence at all of the supposed "biases" they claim I have, and obviously does not support anything at all, other than their own attempts at 'trying to' "justify" their own strongly held onto biases as being necessary for their ability to speak or not, which, when looked at FULLY is obviously very funny indeed to say the least.

[creation]

I will take that back.

The criteria I seek for arguments are sound and valid ones.

The criteria I seek for reasons are logical and reasonable ones.

Empirical support of something isn't going to be logical, is it? Logical isn't empirical data.

But you never said that before. What you said before is what I was replying to.

You said that "empirical claims are not provable". I am just waiting for you to prove your claim here with some supporting evidence through a reasoned argument or some thing.

Will you ever provide an example of an "empirical claim", which cannot be proven?

[creation]

But I never denied that the ones in question have disabilities at all.

First off, we're talking about kids who had official diagnoses of having learning disabilities. It was an issue for them throughout all facets of their lives.

Okay, but there does not need to be a so called "official diagnoses" to know that you, i, and them have learning disabilities. This is quite obvious ALREADY.

And if "what you call a 'learning disability' in another was and is just your own inability to teach properly and correctly," then you'd be denying that they indeed had learning disabilities.

Well considering that I am NOT saying, NEVER had said, NOR had even implied that the a 'learning disability' in another was and is just my own inability to be fully heard and fully understood, (NOR "my own inability to teach properly and correctly", which is also way OFF THE MARK), so what you have assumed and said here is just completely and wholly redundant.

I will say it again; I have NEVER denied that you nor them have learning disabilities. The cognitive and learning disabilities in those that have them is VERY CLEAR to me. So why would I even consider denying what I can CLEARLY ALREADY SEE?

[Terrapin Station]

But you never said that before.

It's something you should know already. Mathematics and logic are not empirical sciences. So empirical evidence or reasons in support of something are not going to amount to logical or mathematical proofs.

You said that "empirical claims are not provable". I am just waiting for you to prove your claim

Oy vey. It's not a provable claim. Only mathematical and logical claims are provable, and even then, all that mathematical or logical proofs amount to are that something follows in the particular system at hand. The particular system at hand is a construction, where alternate constructions are possible (if they don't already exist) where the proof wouldn't work.

We don't believe empirical claims because we're proving them. We believe them based on considering there to be better reasons, better evidence in support of them than for the contrary claim.

Will you ever provide an example of an "empirical claim", which cannot be proven?

Every single empirical claim is an example.

For example, "There is a refrigerator in my kitchen."

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, but there does not need to be a so called "official diagnoses" to know that you, i, and them have learning disabilities. This is quite obvious ALREADY.

Just like not everyone has muscular dystrophy, say, not everyone has a learning disability. Learning disabilities are a set of specific neurological disorders. Not everyone has those neurological disorders.

[creation]

But you never said that before.

It's something you should know already. Mathematics and logic are not empirical sciences. So empirical evidence or reasons in support of something are not going to amount to logical or mathematical proofs.

Another prime example of one completely and utterly twisting things around.

You said that "empirical claims are not provable". I am just waiting for you to prove your claim

Oy vey. It's not a provable claim.

Well that is just very "convenient" for you.

Only mathematical and logical claims are provable, and even then, all that mathematical or logical proofs amount to are that something follows in the particular system at hand.

Are you now saying that a mathematical and logical claim that the Universe is infinite, for example, is infinite, then how do you propose that this could actually be proved?

To me, you seem to have things around the wrong way. But each to their own.

The particular system at hand is a construction, where alternate constructions are possible (if they don't already exist) where the proof wouldn't work.

We don't believe empirical claims because we're proving them. We believe them based on considering there to be better reasons, better evidence in support of them than for the contrary claim.

Okay, if that is what you and some others actually do, then go right ahead and keep doing that. If doing that pleases you, then do not let anything stop you from doing that.

Will you ever provide an example of an "empirical claim", which cannot be proven?

Every single empirical claim is an example.


For example, "There is a refrigerator in my kitchen."

Finally.

Thank you.

Now why do you say that this is not provable?

Why is it impossible for you to prove to me that there is a refrigerator in your kitchen?

I think it would be an extremely easy and simple thing to prove that there is a refrigerator in your kitchen.

I can very simply and very easily prove that there is a refrigerator in my kitchen. But obviously I could NEVER prove this to you, correct?

[creation]

Okay, but there does not need to be a so called "official diagnoses" to know that you, i, and them have learning disabilities. This is quite obvious ALREADY.

Just like not everyone has muscular dystrophy, say, not everyone has a learning disability. Learning disabilities are a set of specific neurological disorders. Not everyone has those neurological disorders.

So, are you suggesting that some people can learn absolutely everything, instantly?

If not, then everyone has learning disabilities.

And, you are a PRIME EXAMPLE of one with a very strong learning disability, which can be clearly evidenced and seen throughout your writings.

Blaming others for one's inability to teach is just one of many examples provided.

[Terrapin Station]

Now why do you say that this is not provable?

Why is it impossible for you to prove to me that there is a refrigerator in your kitchen?

I already explained this to you a couple days ago.

First, it's not saying that it's impossible to prove something--it's not a necessary fact, it's a contingent fact. Presumably things could be different than they are.

Let's go step by step over what I explained a couple days ago and figure out what problems you're having with the explanation.

"We can't prove empirical claims because we can always turn out to be wrong. The simplest aspect of this is that we can't even know with certainty what the relationship is between phenomenal data and the way the world really happens to be."

Okay, what are your issues--whether a disagreement or something you don't understand--with this first bit?

[Terrapin Station]

So, are you suggesting that some people can learn absolutely everything, instantly?

No more than I'm suggesting that some people can do absolutely every physical task instantly, otherwise they must have muscular dystrophy. Surely you don't think I'm suggesting that, do you?

The concept of learning disabilities has nothing to do with anyone "learning absolutely everything instantly."

And, you are a PRIME EXAMPLE of one with a very strong learning disability, which can be clearly evidenced and seen throughout your writings.

People with learning disabilities don't get through life where they earn two PhDs without being diagnosed with a learning disability.

It's just like people with muscular dystrophy don't get through life where they have a career on a pro sports team without being diagnosed with muscular dystrophy.