I care but I dont and in doing so Im not confined to either and here is the result.

[sinclair86]

In my ladder years, I seem to be, more often, starting at the end instead of the beginning. That's why I am able to understand others but other have trouble understanding me. So let me start from the beginning so that people that do not understand might be able to see something they haven't before.

There are two types of thinking. Inductive and deductive. Think of inductive thinking as having the whole object already. To understand that object (inductive thinking), it has to be disassembled to be assembled. Think of deductive thinking as only having all the parts to an object but not put together. To understand that object (deductive thinking), it has to be assembled before it can be disassembled.

Everything I know is nothing. Everything I know is everything everyone has known that came before me. SO if think as knowledge as physical object and I don't understand (I know when I don't understand) I have to do deductive thinking. It bores me to death though. If I, myself, has to think deductively, I would come up with one response. Nothing in life is that clear cut. There are multiple ways to do same thing. If what I don't understand, I am also not that interested (at the time being), I have to get others to deductively think for me. I am not limited to a single finite answer if I don't limit the question. I do this this because with multiple responses I am not limited by the knowledge the person responding may or may not know. I can see the pieces and put them together when others can't. It works both ways thought. I got my world rocked yesterday. This doesnt happen very often so its safe to say that I normally see more and able to figure out more than most can. SO he who thinks hes know would know of not and only in not knowing will he know. He who doesn't know of not cannot know. There are a lot of the second kind of people in this forum and that's where my mis-communication seems to be. SO do I try and change how the world thinks so they can see as I do or wait for everyone to catch up. If I wait for everyone to catch up I run the possibility that it may never happen. I would be forever stuck watering down my content so that other may be able to understand and in doing so the beauty of what I see isnt the beauty of what is said. Please be harsh when analyzing what I have said. I need to stay grounded. If for one second I think I know, I've lost the battle.

[juancarlospaco]

ಠ_ಠ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

[sydbat]

ಠ_ಠ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph+1

Also, WTF?

[sinclair86]

womp womp ubuntuforums was being slow the original post was for a private message to someone the edited one is the one I ment to submit.

[Paqman]

I find it's always well worth reminding oneself regularly that no matter how smart you think you are, there's an awful lot of people who are much, much smarter.

[3Miro]

After reading the edited paragraph I have to mirror the statement: WTF?

The only thing I think I understand is the explanation of "deductive" and "inductive" thinking. I disagree with the puzzle analogy. Deductive thinking would be to have all the pieces of the puzzle and put them together, inductive thinking would be to have only a few of the pieces and trying to figure out what the final picture is.

As I said, I don't understand your other points.

[Grenage]

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

[juancarlospaco]

Please never learn to code a program...
ò_Ó

[Spr0k3t]

I think the late great George Carlin said it best: "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" Followed by "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

If you want to be grounded, take in 24 hours of nothing but George Carlin... "You have to learn the rules of the road."

[sinclair86]

I find it's always well worth reminding oneself regularly that no matter how smart you think you are, there's an awful lot of people who are much, much smarter.

I am not claiming to be smart. Smart is an ambiguous word that cannot be measured. Using the word in a comparison with the definition implied, is it safe to say that at the age of, say, 18 someone would be "smarter" than a 3 year old. Lets take a look at what is really separating the two. Its what they know or they think they know. The 18 year old kid was once 3 he so in being 18 he knows what it was like to be 3 but there is a catch. He was 3, 15 years before. But it been proven that time does not stand still so things living in time will also remain changing (lets call that change space). Just because he was 3 once doesn't mean who knows what its like to be 3 now and thats why no one person will ever be smarter than another UNLESS there is A single person thats knows everything all at once. But since we are governed by 2 fundamental themes (time and space) if this person exist they would have to live on one of those 2 planes they cannot exist in both. So although I do not agree with your word choice I understand what you are saying.

As for you (lol)

Please never learn to code a program...

If I am to honor your request you need to ask the question in a different form. I am computer science major with a love for physics how can I not. If you were to ask not to code in basic or machine, I can oblige your request but, as it stands, I cannot.


If you want to be grounded, take in 24 hours of nothing but George Carlin... "You have to learn the rules of the road."

You would have to elaborate on what exactly it is about because the material you have present me is nothing new or something I haven't often wondered.

[Grenage]

Smart is an ambiguous word that cannot be measured

It's generally a relative word, and not synonymous with wise.

[sinclair86]

It's generally a relative word, and not synonymous with wise.

Ok we have an issue on the word then. If we are to progress this discussion forward might I ask how one measures or can gauge "smart"? Please use YOUR meaning of the word (how you see it). Also you definition of wise and explain your logic on why smart and wise are not synonymous.

[Paqman]

So although I do not agree with your word choice I understand what you are saying.


Excellent, i'm glad we've had this little meeting of minds ;)

I wouldn't get too hung up on precision in language on internet forums. In a social setting like this being imprecise can be more useful.

[Grenage]

smart
1.
a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation.

wise
1. Having the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; sagacious: a wise leader.

[sinclair86]

"hung up on precision"

again I feel that word doesn't match with what you are saying. If two people see the same painting would they not know the same thing? Its the words that tear the picture apart. SO if two parties saw the same picture then should they not both agree on the words unless one saw it still differently than the other? If someone can see as another but the person being seeing cannot see as the other, would it not be a safe assumption to say that the person being seen is still missing something? I know I am missing something but it is of an unrelated topic. I cant see what I am missing until what I was missing finds me. I have all the pieces (persay) and I am trying to figure out how they fit together.


Grenage

a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation.

wise
1. Having the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; sagacious: a wise leader.


I asked you to place them in your own terms and elaborate on what you ment. But seeing as you arent going to take me seriously then shouldnt you be treated as such? I am trying to understand YOU not a DICTIONARY. I could have very well went there myself to look the words up, but people arent books. What one says isnt necessarily what one means. SO for me to understand you, you have to explain to me what you mean. This time I will be polite in saying to please answer the questions how they are asked. If you do not understand what I am asking for please get me to clarify (by asking questions) until you do understand. If you choose to continue to down the path you are on, be well aware that I will not hesitate to strike you down where you stand.

[Paqman]

SO if two parties saw the same picture then should they not both agree on the words unless one saw it still differently than the other?

It's almost guaranteed that they would indeed express what they saw differently. Their experience has been filtered through layers of perception, experience, and memory.

Yet they saw the same painting. That's kind of my point. Focussing too much on the details of how someone communicates runs the risk of missing what they are communicating.

Imprecision in language can in fact add new meaning. That's pretty much how poetry (and even some prose) works.

[Kalimol]

@ sinclair: Cool story, bro.

[sinclair86]

@Pacman. That was beautiful. Could not have been said better. And having been said as such I have nothing to disagree with. We see that particular picture the same way. A single picture is just one of many in an art gallery though, is it not?

[KiwiNZ]

again I feel that word doesn't match with what you are saying. If two people see the same painting would they not know the same thing? Its the words that tear the picture apart. SO if two parties saw the same picture then should they not both agree on the words unless one saw it still differently than the other? If someone can see as another but the person being seeing cannot see as the other, would it not be a safe assumption to say that the person being seen is still missing something? I know I am missing something but it is of an unrelated topic. I cant see what I am missing until what I was missing finds me. I have all the pieces (persay) and I am trying to figure out how they fit together.


Grenage

I asked you to place them in your own terms and elaborate on what you ment. But seeing as you arent going to take me seriously then shouldnt you be treated as such? I am trying to understand YOU not a DICTIONARY. I could have very well went there myself to look the words up, but people arent books. What one says isnt necessarily what one means. SO for me to understand you, you have to explain to me what you mean. This time I will be polite in saying to please answer the questions how they are asked. If you do not understand what I am asking for please get me to clarify (by asking questions) until you do understand. If you choose to continue to down the path you are on, be well aware that I will not hesitate to strike you down where you stand.

This sort of attitude is not appreciated here, please adjust or I will close this thread.

[thatguruguy]

First of all, I think that every person with a functioning brain realizes that there is a difference between intelligence (the ability to manipulate information) and knowledge (the information itself). For instance, an encyclopedia has a lot of information, but it is not "smart."

Secondly, what exactly is a "ladder year?"

[MisterGaribaldi]

From KiwiNZ's signature:

Through resonance comes cognisance; through cognisance comes understanding; through understanding comes knowledge; through knowledge comes life and well-being.

I couldn't have said it better myself, sir. This thread would do well -- as well as many of us posters, myself included -- to take and to daily heed the sound wisdom of that advice.

[Grenage]

Grenage

I asked you to place them in your own terms and elaborate on what you ment. But seeing as you arent going to take me seriously then shouldnt you be treated as such? I am trying to understand YOU not a DICTIONARY. I could have very well went there myself to look the words up, but people arent books. What one says isnt necessarily what one means. SO for me to understand you, you have to explain to me what you mean. This time I will be polite in saying to please answer the questions how they are asked. If you do not understand what I am asking for please get me to clarify (by asking questions) until you do understand. If you choose to continue to down the path you are on, be well aware that I will not hesitate to strike you down where you stand.

No offence was meant, but I do actually use words as defined in the dictionary. If I find that my use of the word doesn't match the dictionary's, I change my use of the word.

[Megaptera]

"Knowlege" is knowing a tomato is a fruit, "wisdom" is not putting it in a fruit salad.

[wilee-nilee]

"Knowlege" is knowing a tomato is a fruit, "wisdom" is not putting it in a fruit salad.
lol:)

[sinclair86]

This sort of attitude is not appreciated here, please adjust or I will close this thread.

I am what I am because of who we all are. I am only trying to help but if you want respect you have to show that you can respect others first.

You may close this thread as I can see what I am trying to say is already being confound to the meaning of words (the words others choose). Its only when one realizes that a word has no meaning that they are able to understand the meaning of the word. Cheers!:D

[MisterGaribaldi]

Its only when one realizes that a word has no meaning that they are able to understand the meaning of the word.

So then if I were to say "What a bunch of idiotic tripe" it wouldn't really mean anything since the only meaning it would have would be from the meaning of meaningless words?

KiwiNZ, go ahead and close this thread. I think we're about done here.

[KiwiNZ]

So then if I were to say "What a bunch of idiotic tripe" it wouldn't really mean anything since the only meaning it would have would be from the meaning of meaningless words?

KiwiNZ, go ahead and close this thread. I think we're about done here.

Agreed

Click goes padlock click click click