The trouble with templates

[Mock Turtle]

Just a thought, from currently reading Pascal Boyer's book, Religion Explained (2001) - cited in Daniel Dennett's book Breaking The Spell (2006) - and which many others have discussed too - the nature of templates - or how we categorise and fit new knowledge into that which we already have.

So basically, as children, and to enable our faster learning of new experiences, we tend to form top-level categories, or templates, into which we assign new bits of information, and being in such a category, we naturally assume that all within that category usually have the same features. That is, that certain animals (if we witness one doing so) will give birth to live young, others will lay eggs, etc., - and we tend to assume that all in that category do much the same. It's rather a shortcut method for obtaining knowledge but it works because life is like that - and we tend to notice - such that our means of obtaining knowledge has mostly reflected what actually happens.

So, my proposition, apart from religious beliefs perhaps dictating as to how anyone might view such things, is it a basic problem of early categorisation that might affect how someone accepts or rejects the issues of non-binary gender - that they find it difficult to alter a very basic concept formed so early on - that is, this is a male, this is a female?

And this applies to all templates too perhaps.

 

[David T]

Just a thought, from currently reading Pascal Boyer's book, Religion Explained (2001) - cited in Daniel Dennett's book Breaking The Spell (2006) - and which many others have discussed too - the nature of templates - or how we categorise and fit new knowledge into that which we already have.

So basically, as children, and to enable our faster learning of new experiences, we tend to form top-level categories, or templates, into which we assign new bits of information, and being in such a category, we naturally assume that all within that category usually have the same features. That is, that certain animals (if we witness one doing so) will give birth to live young, others will lay eggs, etc., - and we tend to assume that all in that category do much the same. It's rather a shortcut method for obtaining knowledge but it works because life is like that - and we tend to notice - such that our means of obtaining knowledge has mostly reflected what actually happens.

So, my proposition, apart from religious beliefs perhaps dictating as to how anyone might view such things, is it a basic problem of early categorisation that might affect how someone accepts or rejects the issues of non-binary gender - that they find it difficult to alter a very basic concept formed so early on - that is, this is a male, this is a female?

And this applies to all templates too perhaps.

If dennett understood anything really then he would certainly conclude atheism is stupid. I do give him some credit and respect at least contextualizing it rather than just blurting it out . He is aspergers thats the best to expect. Poetry aint his gig.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If dennett understood anything really then he would certainly conclude atheism is stupid. I do give him some credit and respect at least contextualizing it rather than just blurting it out . He is aspergers thats the best to expect. Poetry aint his gig.

Well, I suppose Asperger's is a step up from Autism - as one seemingly departed (M) wanted to paint all atheists - but I still don't see how that has any bearing on how one might discern the truth from fiction.

Atheism is stupid? Well, so are most religions on this basis, since the evidence is available to all, except we tend to interpret it all very differently. Few atheists probably claim to have the truth - not this one (a bit agnostic) - they just don't believe the evidence provided by the religious. But I presume you meant that agnosticism is the only valid position?

I'm just catching up on the Four Horsemen since I formed my views long before any of these came on the scene.

 

[David T]

"might discern the truth from fiction"

Lets see i am sitting listening to a song bird in the vast wooded park behind the trees and i are all just waking up Together.

I dont know belief well, we dated once, i found belief an odd creature. Flights of fancy, rather dull witted, never seemed to be very awake or aware. I asked the trees about belief and they laughed. I asked my daughter and she had no idea, and i asked the song bird and well the song bird kept singing.

Seems to be a shared mental disorder of psychological dis association that has zero to do with me, the trees the song bird or my daughter.

In regards to aspergers vs autism. A step up is a rather telling truth dont you think. I didnt know there was an up or down in regards to how people are. Sort of like saying poor retarded child. But she doesnt have any poorness she is very rich. Just different thats all.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm sure you knew what I meant by 'step up from Autism', when someone has been accusing all the atheists here of being Autistic. You know the spectrum as well as myself - Asperger's tends to be less of a problem than Autism - just a fact. I once thought I might have had it myself many years ago but I was wrong, I had something else.

Sorry you appeared to have taken offence.