Re: OT: totally off-topic

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:

What is this about? Maybe I should make a note of that text.

>
That's a conversation David Bohm held with an audience (in California,
if I recall correctly).  The book is a transcription of the
conversation.  In those dialogs, David Bohm tries to convey what he
means by a ``dialogue''.  While an intellectual discussion is typically
a subtle fight, as Jiddu Krishnamurti (David Bohm's friend) would
describe, Bohm's dialogue is a certain construction among two or more
people in which /listening/ (in the Krishamurti's sense) is key.
>
I believe it was in an interview that David Bohm gave to Professor
Wilkins---which was an interview meant to write a biography of David
Bohm, which I believe never happened---that David Bohm remarked and
pretty much nobody had ever understood his notion of dialogue, and that
made it even more interesting because it suggests that it has a certain
subtleness that could be escaping people---and then I wonder if it
escaped me too.

Sounds a bit like Jürgen Habermas and his ideal dialogues.

There is a fine line between wanting to help, when it is justified,
and being labeled a "Karen".

>
Lol.  I hadn't heard about ``Karen'' before.  Fun.

Enjoy! ;)

By the way, if I were mildly inclined to the same, I could likely be
there myself.  When they moved in, they threw various parties and
invited me to them all.  I had lots of chances to blend in, but I
couldn't, really: I don't drink; I don't stay up all the night; what I

>
Haha, well, sounds like you probably did yourself a favour. I am
fascinated! In sweden, it would be exceptionally rare that any
neighbour would be invited.

>
I see a lot of neighbors here that don't get along.  I am probably a

Ahh... sounds more normal! ;) In my current apartment, the community is either
non-existent or nuts. I don't like them, and therefore I am selling the
apartment.
In the other 2 places I have apartments, I do like the community! 66% goodness!
;)

I probably shouldn't tell your this, but I looooove Mc Donalds
hamburgers! ;) My wife forbids me from eating them too often, so I'm
probably at about 9 per year or so. ;)

>
Lol!  Here's a sermon made specially for... Lol.  Just kidding.  To tell
you the truth, I kinda like it a lot, too.  Now, one thing is true---it

I mean, come on... who doesn't? ;)

tastes better if don't eat it every day, say.  I've had weeks in which I

This is the truth! I enjoy it more since I don't have it that often.

indulged in it perhaps eating McDonald's every day, along with ice
cream, coffee and other terrible ideas.  Thank God I'm got out of that
alive.  These days, gluten hits me pretty bad.  It still tastes good,
but it doesn't after the food starts taking its effect.  I didn't feel
like that in my teens, but after I started quitting all of this bad
stuff, I can't seem to go back to it at all.

Interesting. I have also noted more weird feelings in my stomach as I've gotten
older. I wonder, is it age? When I was young I could eat and drink anything and
never get a weird feeling in my stomach.

Loud? Southern europeans are loud by my standard, so if they are loud
by your standards, then they must be _really_ loud! I once had a
brazilian colleague from Sao Paolo for 2 months, and he was a really
nice guy. But once he had some fellow brazilians over and the volume
did increase. =)

>
Lol.  Sorry about that! :)

No worries... it is very interesting to note these differences between cultures.
=)

He sounds like he would be right at home in northern europe. No fun
there unless alcohol is in involved.

>
Yeah---I suppose there might be cultures out there that drink a lot more
than Brazilians.  I don't think Brazilians do too bad, but it's been
getting worse.  There's an Americanization of the food industry here.
Brazilians are going in on it.  I remember over 10 years ago seeing on
TV that over 52% of Brazil is overweight.  That was unthinkable in the
70s or the 80s, say.

That's horrible! =(
But I think it is a global phenomenon. I think our increasingly sedentary
lifestyles are to blame as well as the mindset of instant gratification which
makes people want to achieve things with the minimum amount of energy necessary.
I also think this ties in with the fertility crisis we spoke of before. I am
lucky! I do not like to exercise, but my wife forces me to. ;)

Hah... I'll take the challenge! ;) I agree, objectively speaking,
that there is no reason.

>
No reason?  I think there is reason. :)

>
But can you prove it, objectively?

>
Objectively?  You mean kinda like a proof that the whole world with
stand in awe, like beautiful math proofs like Godel's Theorems?  I
believe I can't and likely wouldn't work on trying.  Why should I do

What a shame! =(

I think proofs are just constructions.  In math, for example, their role
is quite clear.  I don't even know what it would mean to prove that
there is reason.  I think there's reason because we seem to be doing
some stuff here that we decide to call reason and then, evidently, it
exists in the sense that we conclude it does and move on.

You do sound like a philosopher to me! ;)

Or, another out, is the way of definition.  Depending on your
definitions, it could of course be "made" objective. The question is
then if I accept the definitions or not. =)

>
So you seem to think that a proof is something like too hard to
resist---like a math proof.  I believe I don't think like that.  A proof
to me is a joint work between a writer and a reader.  If the reader that
catch the spirit, there is no proof.

Based on a recent conversation, there can be proof, as in math, and evidence, as
in empirical science. Since philosophy is not about empiricism, I'd say proof is
probably it. There is of course a new branch of philosophy called practical
philosophy, but to me, it seems more like a closet branch of sociology or
psychology.

For a proof to have meaning, it needs to be shared and recognized by

Amen!

another person.  If you were completely alone in the universe (a
counterfactual and ridiculous proposition), you would have to read you

Amen, again! ;)

proof a few times in order to simulate a second or third person sharing
and recognizing your proof.  In other words, thinking is a collective
phenomenon.  When we do it alone, we actually simulate someone else
that's listening and talking back.  (Pretty strong evidence, I find.)
>
If someone /rejects/ an axiom I came up with or a definition I wrote,
then there's likely little friendship there.  Friendship exists when
people go along with you without judgment.  Rejecting /or accepting/
anything is judgment, which is not friendship.  When someone proposes me
anything, I look at it without accepting it or rejecting it.  (Unless
I'm a really bad mood!)

There is a theory of truth called the consensus theory of truth. Sounds as if
that might be what you are thinking about?

Agreed! But boy have I had endless email discussions with people who
reject the proof of their senses.

>
Excessive refinement in thinking?  They want a kind of super assured
certainty?  I think that's a waste of time.  It's not a waste of time to

So do I. In 2500 years no such thing has been found, so I am quite happy and
content to accept what my senses tell me. ;)

care for your math proofs, say, or removing bugs from your programs and
so on.  But rejecting the senses as in I don't know if really exist or
I'm being fooled by an evil genius?  I think that's excessive thinking.
That's when thought escapes from the leash.

Agreed! That is why I do not care much for interpretations of quantum theory as
well. Plenty of thoughts escaping from the leash there, and plenty of useless
(in my opinion) speculation.

I did a lot of good, of course, but his theories about dream
interpretation and the psyche I think are no longer relevant. On the
other hand, I am not a psychologist, so who am I to say? =)

>
Most psychologist are so full of nonsense that being one wouldn't help
you here. :) I haven't read The Interpretation of Dreams, but I really
would like to do it.  The book could be wildly wrong, but notice that
nobody seems to have made any advances since then anyhow.

I find the Dodo effect quite facsinating. It says that it is not the school of
psychology that makes a difference in therapy, but only the person.

A beg your pardon?  I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I agree.  A
counterfactual is something that goes against the facts.  Surely.  I
could never deny that 1 + 1 = 2, say.  I can't even ignore evidence.  I
don't mind leaving questions open at all.  Every now and then it's a
good idea to hang a question mark on all those things we've long taken
for granted.  (Is that Bertrand Russell again?)

>
Not quite. Counterfactuals are questions such as... "imagine you ate an apple
this morning, would that mean that later in the day you would have a stomach
ache". So when those types of thought experiments are not made with the
intention of high lighting something tangible or empirically provable, I find
them to be useless idle speculation. That's what I was trying to get at.

>
Oh, I see.  We're in total agreement.  I think counterfactual
propositions are useless distractions.

Excellent! There has been a meeting of minds! ;)