Simulation and Subjectivity

[greyorm]

I was afraid that was going to happen, so let me restate what I was said in my disclaimer before anyone else gets hung up on the idea of students vs. teachers:

Firstly, the distinction between who is knowledgable and who isn't was not the meat of the post...I pointed out that the more relvant portion of the argument I was making was the "launching point" section.
I said so precisely because it will be difficult in this specific discussion context to tell who is an "acceptable authority."

To reiterate the less important point:
a> There are two types of people, people who know something and people who don't know that something.

b> Letting the people who don't know something into a debate (not a question/answer session) based on advanced concepts which that person has not grasped or unerstood/agreed with leads to dilution of the discussion as the common-ground for discussion is erased.

We can't control that factor in this medium, and whether we should in other mediums is a different discussion entirely.

Point being that engaged in what we are here on these forums, we should strive to fully comprehend what it is we are discussing and ask questions to be certain that we are understanding the opponent's point of view.  This ensures that we can discuss from a common perception before we begin offering our own insights on the matter.

I suggest this because at the point of shared understanding, the insights we have to offer will be more solid, they will be more pertinent to the questions at hand and as they address understanding from the common ground they will allowing easier communication and exploration of presented ideas (whether the ideas end up valid in the end or not).

To do so, many of us will need to put ourselves firmly into 'question/student' mode, regardless of what our wagging tongues wish to engage in.  As I said, SEE your opponent's point...SEE its validity, then take it apart if you still disagree.

As well, I am not judging anyone ELSE here as being student OR teacher, but I put myself firmly in the 'student' category for many topics.
I leave it to everyone individually to determine what they wish to be at any given moment and over the course of the discussion and in relation to the topic and their current understanding of it from the presented view.

I do not have a suitable method for designating either student or teacher, nor was it the point of the discussion: How to move discussion forward, what would make it stall and how to keep everyone happy were more to the point.

PLEASE, everyone, don't dwell on making a student/teacher split among anyone here.  Everyone has something to teach, everyone has something to learn...however, before any of us make statements about anything, we should damn well understand the opponent's position/stance clearly or there will be trouble, as repeatedly evidenced already.

[Zak Arntson]

Oops.  I didn't come off very clear in my post.

I meant that I have to agree that there's no good way to define an authority, and any definition would have to be very very loose.

I would firmly place myself in Student mode, but I ask LOTS of questions as a Student, and I often pose a statement (as if I were the Teacher) to the Teacher to see if it's correct.  Hopefully that won't come off as authoritative.  I'll have to start using more question marks?

[greyorm]

I would firmly place myself in Student mode, but I ask LOTS of questions as a Student, and I often pose a statement (as if I were the Teacher) to the Teacher to see if it's correct.  Hopefully that won't come off as authoritative.  I'll have to start using more question marks?

Zak,

That is EXACTLY what I meant :smile:

Poster 1: "Here's what *I say."
Poster 2: "Ah, do you mean..."
Poster 1: "Yes I do."
Poster 2: "Excellent, yes.  But how do you handle..?"

In this case Teacher is Poster 1, Student is Poster 2.
Of course there's the issue of who is the student and the teacher overall...I would say the model is the UberTeacher, but since it can't speak for itself, we have to rely on the people who developed it to clarify its position.

Once we've done that, understood what they think the model is saying, we can hopefully have some very interesting discussions and really get at putting the model to work and refining it (otherwise, I say, we're all just farting into the wind ).