Great link from Jorn to a Wikipedia page on Cognitive Biases. Doesn’t include the “halo effect”, but plenty of variations on that and a lot more besides. Naturally I think it’s a good page, but I’m not biased, no honestly …
What, Why & How do we Know ?
Great link from Jorn to a Wikipedia page on Cognitive Biases. Doesn’t include the “halo effect”, but plenty of variations on that and a lot more besides. Naturally I think it’s a good page, but I’m not biased, no honestly …
this is a great link and kind of relates to my comment above.
There are links upon links and it will take some long time to get through it all.
Bottom line, we’re all phoneys, but we’re all phoneys so it’s OK.
Phoney’s is an odd choice of word Alice, as if there existed more perfect beings.
I’d say we’re all real … humans that is.
Better to work with reality than some non-existent idealisation I’d say.
ooops, certainly didn’t mean to infer a more perfect being. What would perfect be anyway?
I do agree that phoney is an odd choice of word, but I still think it applies. It’s just that we are never what we seem to be to ourselves or others.
just watched a video linked by sam which features dawkins. He calls the brain a simulator. And so now I have found a word to replace phoney (kinda close, you have to admit) we are simulators… simulating a reality which allows us to function.
ok, here I go again, trying to refine my idea. In your first comment you say i might be supposing a more perfect being. what I am supposing is that there is such a thing as reality. pure reality. what I am saying is that because of the way we are constructed we can’t ever get there, experience it…whatever.
Many have alluded to this phenomemon. Paul’s “looking through a glass darkly”, plato’s cave,…maybe even dennett’s cartesian stage?
not that we shouldn’t try to get closer, mind you, which is what science and maybe buddism try to do.