1 edit
Al in the casino...
Al (typical bright guy with an above average intelligence and healthy disdain for the undiscriminating mentality of the herd) fully appreciated and valued his own observation and reasoning powers. His instinctive contrarian spirit somewhat surprisingly recognized their intrinsic limitation along with the preposterous and utter illogic of any casual leap of faith, yet he eventually elected to employ this third means of human perception... winning a timely jackpot at the only casino in town. Your thoughts?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGot lucky?
[b]Al in the casino...
Al (typical bright guy with an above average intelligence and healthy disdain for the undiscriminating mentality of the herd) fully appreciated and valued his own observation and reasoning powers. His instinctive contrarian spirit somewhat surprisingly recognized their intrinsic limitation along with the preposterous and ...[text shortened]... means of human perception... winning a timely jackpot at the only casino in town. Your thoughts?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am not sure that I follow, but are you claiming to know someone capable of correctly predicting lottery outcomes? If so, do you have his number?
[b]Al in the casino...
Al (typical bright guy with an above average intelligence and healthy disdain for the undiscriminating mentality of the herd) fully appreciated and valued his own observation and reasoning powers. His instinctive contrarian spirit somewhat surprisingly recognized their intrinsic limitation along with the preposterous and ...[text shortened]... means of human perception... winning a timely jackpot at the only casino in town. Your thoughts?[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadTwhitehead, believe you're quite familiar with Albert and aware of the fact that
I am not sure that I follow, but are you claiming to know someone capable of correctly predicting lottery outcomes? If so, do you have his number?
this conversational gambit's sole focus is the third means of human perception.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNo I am not familiar with Albert and I do not understand the conversational gambit in question. Would you care to elaborate so that I can understand what you are getting at. It seems that you are like Freaky who likes to make a vague OP then spends the whole thread refusing to explain what he really means and expecting everyone to be able to read his mind.
Twhitehead, believe you're quite familiar with Albert and aware of the fact that
this conversational gambit's sole focus is the third means of human perception.
Originally posted by twhitehead"No I am not familiar with Albert..."
No I am not familiar with Albert and I do not understand the conversational gambit in question. Would you care to elaborate so that I can understand what you are getting at. It seems that you are like Freaky who likes to make a vague OP then spends the whole thread refusing to explain what he really means and expecting everyone to be able to read his mind.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), of course.
"... and I do not understand the conversational gambit in question."
Points of view regarding the only three means of human perception
(observation/empiricism, reasoning/rationalism and leap of faith).
"It seems that you are like Freaky who likes to make a vague OP..."
Maybe playful and nuanced, Twhitehead, but never intentionally 'vague'.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyEdit: "Points of view regarding the only three means of human perception(observation/empiricism, reasoning/rationalism and leap of faith)."
[b]"No I am not familiar with Albert..."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), of course.
"... and I do not understand the conversational gambit in question."
Points of view regarding the only three means of human perception
(observation/empiricism, reasoning/rationalism and leap of faith).
"It seems that you are like Freaky who ...[text shortened]... ue OP..."
Maybe playful and nuanced, Twhitehead, but never intentionally 'vague'.[/b]
Methinks these points of view don't hold for perception is related to the evaluation of our 6 senses alone, whilst the leap of faith is an unwanted distortion. Furthermore, reasoning/ rationalism is an ever changing process related to specific units of updatable knowledge (ta panta rei).
So I prefer the tools known as perception, inference, recognition of likeness, and testimony😵
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI still have no idea how I was expected to know that. I certainly don't immediately connect 'Al' with 'Albert Einstein', nor did I know he had ever won a lottery.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), of course.
Points of view regarding the only three means of human perception
(observation/empiricism, reasoning/rationalism and leap of faith).
I cant see how a leap of faith can be called 'human perception'. It is essentially by definition avoidance of perception.
Maybe playful and nuanced, Twhitehead, but never intentionally 'vague'.
Thats good to know.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI still have no idea how I was expected to know that. I certainly don't immediately
I still have no idea how I was expected to know that. I certainly don't immediately connect 'Al' with 'Albert Einstein', nor did I know he had ever won a lottery.
Points of view regarding the only three means of human perception
(observation/empiricism, reasoning/rationalism and leap of faith).
I cant see how a leap of faith can be called 'human percept ...[text shortened]... playful and nuanced, Twhitehead, but never intentionally 'vague'.
Thats good to know.
connect 'Al' with 'Albert Einstein', nor did I know he had ever won a lottery.
Common reference to Einstein's 'Quantum Leap of Faith' which (having exhausted his eyes in the lab and
his mind in a vast computational labyrinth) resulted in his successful discovery of the Theory of Relativity.