Craziness and history

[Varaj]

I have to disagree here. (sorta) The information is the same but there is something special. The presence and (to my distaste) the handling of these pieces bring a stronger sense of the age and relevance of the information. Telling someone "1774" or "1164" isn't nearly as effective or powerful as presenting them with original objects.

I'll start a new thread on this one.

That is pure craziness. Their is no presence (other than an imagined one) in the old document.

[Varaj]

Really is the same subject so I will throw it here.
There is no difference between an duplicate (such that you can't tell the difference) and an original piece of art.

If I take an original painting and make a copy such that you can't tell the difference and give you that copy telling you it is the original you will have same emotional response as if you really had the original. There isn't anything special about the original it is a delusional response to the belief you have an original.*

Don't even get me started on people that want a piece of history.
Ex: People were selling bricks that "came" from the Berlin wall. People talked about touching history. You can't touch history, you imagine you are touching history and deluding yourself.





*I use you in the generic sense

[Varaj]

Ideally. Let's stretch this back further, to older documents that have had a much wider effect on the human race: look at the controversy over interpretations and translations of the Bible and the Koran. Maintaining the integrity of an original copy can pay off in the long run. Primary source documents from the middle ages are priceless to historians, as they allow for re-examinations of the facts in the context with which they were originally written with no fear of mistranslation, printing errors, etc.

Being able to validate the information is critical. I certainly don't disagree, but I'm talking about the delusional (and it is by the definition) presence or coolness at touching the original or very old copy. What is important with those documents is information. History is information not things, as long as you are getting the same information you are gold.


That value set aside, there's one other possible angle. This isn't intended as a dig in the slightest, but is this sentiment akin to why you don't perceive why people get creeped out by movies?

Certainly possible. I don't understand why people want to shake hands with celebrities or get their signatures. Like touching them some how makes them special too. :rolleyes:

I think it has a lot to do with the fact I have to constantly separate reality from delusion and have gotten very good at that. All of the above are self delusions.

[Northcott]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact I have to constantly separate reality from delusion and have gotten very good at that. All of the above are self delusions.

Interesting tangent! Is it self-delusion? It may be something bigger. Are we looking at a phenomenon that allows for greater social bonding among a species that's also pulled by an almost xenophobic need to break the world down into dichotomies of "us" vs. "them"?

And if so, does it remain delusion, or does it become an unconscious tool of social bonding and/or preservation of lore? By developing an irrational (I believe rationality to be a tad over-rated, but just a tad) bond to things inanimate or ephemeral, we create a shared value that preserves them to one extent or another, and this in turn creates a greater body of knowledge through the species over the span of years.

[FeatsofClay]

Really is the same subject so I will throw it here.
There is no difference between an duplicate (such that you can't tell the difference) and an original piece of art.

Fully agreed!


If I take an original painting and make a copy such that you can't tell the difference and give you that copy telling you it is the original you will have same emotional response as if you really had the original. There isn't anything special about the original it is a delusional response to the belief you have an original.*

Fully agreed! And if it was an exact duplicate, not a Penguin Book, and you were told that Thomas Jefferson himself wiped his tiny tuckus with it* it changes nothing except the viewer. Because the viewer is changed, even if it is through only a delusion.


*I use Thomas Jefferson in the generic sense :)


Don't even get me started on people that want a piece of history.
Ex: People were selling bricks that "came" from the Berlin wall. People talked about touching history. You can't touch history, you imagine you are touching history and deluding yourself.





*I use you in the generic sense

I own a Roman oil lamp. The man who purchaed it for me was darned good with antiquities and it si almst certainly authentic. What if it isn't? Well, then it still makes me feel more of my place in history and more a part of the history of potters than CorningWare form KMart. This is a delusion but it is a powerful and effective delusion.

I think handling the books is a bad idea. I think being in their presence is an awe-inspiring and possibly life changing event.

It may be a delusion but delusions are powerful. That power is what I was speaking of.

[Varaj]

Interesting tangent! Is it self-delusion? It may be something bigger. Are we looking at a phenomenon that allows for greater social bonding among a species that's also pulled by an almost xenophobic need to break the world down into dichotomies of "us" vs. "them"?

And if so, does it remain delusion, or does it become an unconscious tool of social bonding and/or preservation of lore? By developing an irrational (I believe rationality to be a tad over-rated, but just a tad) bond to things inanimate or ephemeral, we create a shared value that preserves them to one extent or another, and this in turn creates a greater body of knowledge through the species over the span of years.

If that is the case then it is certainly one were people need to override the base instincts because it is not the best way to preserve and extend knowledge in todays world. It is just like how we should not shove every high calorie item into our mouth (despite the instinct to do so) because modern life has made that harmful.

It would certainly be an interesting study to see if their is an evolution reason for the behavior.

[Varaj]

It may be a delusion but delusions are powerful. That power is what I was speaking of.

I don't disagree but is a delusion I don't share so you are all crazy. :D

[Northcott]

If that is the case then it is certainly one were people need to override the base instincts because it is not the best way to preserve and extend knowledge in todays world. It is just like how we should not shove every high calorie item into our mouth (despite the instinct to do so) because modern life has made that harmful.

It would certainly be an interesting study to see if their is an evolution reason for the behavior.


Predictably enough, my response is "all things in balance". ;) I think there's merit to reinforcing and continuing the behaviour, if only to continue to foster the sentiment behind it. Like all behaviours, however, I think the danger is when they swing out of balance. A periodic feeding that throws nutritional wisdom to the wind is a good and healthy thing (even on a raw, physiological level, not just psychological) -- so I believe that if accumulation and preservation of icons of knowledge is indeed an instinctive thing, then maintaining it in moderation is probably healthy for us as a species.

Then, of course, you have people who eat at McDonald's every day, and crazy shut-in packrats who can no longer differentiate between things of value and things that are junk. :)

[Varaj]

Predictably enough, my response is "all things in balance". ;) I think there's merit to reinforcing and continuing the behaviour, if only to continue to foster the sentiment behind it. Like all behaviours, however, I think the danger is when they swing out of balance. A periodic feeding that throws nutritional wisdom to the wind is a good and healthy thing (even on a raw, physiological level, not just psychological) -- so I believe that if accumulation and preservation of icons of knowledge is indeed an instinctive thing, then maintaining it in moderation is probably healthy for us as a species.

Then, of course, you have people who eat at McDonald's every day, and crazy shut-in packrats who can no longer differentiate between things of value and things that are junk. :)

Without a doubt. Even outside of the moderation there are some types of information carriers we can't fully duplicate yet.

[Northcott]

Without a doubt. Even outside of the moderation there are some types of information carriers we can't fully duplicate yet.

Which ones would you be thinking of?

[Varaj]

Which ones would you be thinking of?

Most paintings we can't fully duplicate to the layer that is needed for full research, sure it is good for the average joe but not for serious study. Same with pottery, metal, etc.

For aesthetic purposes the information duping is generally good enough. For research and study it isn't.

[Northcott]

Ahhhhh. Yes. The fact that they still can't figure out DaVinci's special painting technique, even with the most high-tech scans available, is solid proof of that.

I was thinking more literal in terms of information carriers: books, tablets, etc. So I was scratching my head wondering where the problem was with recording the information. :)

[Varaj]

Ahhhhh. Yes. The fact that they still can't figure out DaVinci's special painting technique, even with the most high-tech scans available, is solid proof of that.

I was thinking more literal in terms of information carriers: books, tablets, etc. So I was scratching my head wondering where the problem was with recording the information. :)


I tend to look at the world from a information point of view. It is all about information, if you duplicate the information you don't worry about the "thing". Information is generally conveyed by a combination of 5 means to humans; touch, sound, smell, taste, sight.
When it comes to duplicating something you have to decide what is relevant. Ex: When making a copy of the Constitution they only thing that matters is the visual and not all the visual, just the text and it doesn't even have to be the same script.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Even those look visually different most people would agree that the relevant information is correctly duplicated. It doesn't matter than one is in italics.*

If I was coping a pot I wouldn't care about the taste of the pot, but I would care about how it looked and felt.

I hope that isn't too much mindless rambling.

*I could provide text were the italics would matter.

[Northcott]

Nah. Makes perfect sense to me. I was just looking at your prior statement with a particular focus which left it reading odd. :)

[TiQuinn]

Ex: When making a copy of the Constitution they only thing that matters is the visual and not all the visual, just the text and it doesn't even have to be the same script.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Even those look visually different most people would agree that the relevant information is correctly duplicated. It doesn't matter than one is in italics.*

Unless the script itself conveys some information in and of itself. Case in point: John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independence being notably larger than the other signers. Supposedly it was because he wanted his name to be legible to King George even without his spectacles. Whether that was true or not, it gave rise to the name "John Hancock" being synonomous with putting one's signature on something.

[Northcott]

Unless the script itself conveys some information in and of itself. Case in point: John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independence being notably larger than the other signers. Supposedly it was because he wanted his name to be legible to King George even without his spectacles. Whether that was true or not, it gave rise to the name "John Hancock" being synonomous with putting one's signature on something.


Excellent point.

[Brynja]

But you can easily use a scanned copy of which there are many.

I think the documents need to be preserved- and I tend to agree with Varaj, the info is the info is the info. In some cases as Ti pointed out, there are layers of information in the piece itself that isnt a matter of just info dumping.


There are ways to convey a great deal of that and maintain the integrity of the documents. As a history teacher I fall into that crazy category - some things should be sacrosanct- and if they cant be at least try to back up the work so it doesnt get lost a la Alexandria

[Varaj]

Unless the script itself conveys some information in and of itself. Case in point: John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independence being notably larger than the other signers. Supposedly it was because he wanted his name to be legible to King George even without his spectacles. Whether that was true or not, it gave rise to the name "John Hancock" being synonomous with putting one's signature on something.

Thus "*I could provide text were the italics would matter."

[Northcott]

There are ways to convey a great deal of that and maintain the integrity of the documents. As a history teacher I fall into that crazy category - some things should be sacrosanct- and if they cant be at least try to back up the work so it doesnt get lost a la Alexandria

The Vatican Library. I would love to know what they've got hidden away in there!

[TiQuinn]

Thus "*I could provide text were the italics would matter."


But why should I let you make a good point, when I can butt in and make it myself? :confused:

;)

Okay....I just missed that part. :o

[Brynja]

Yea same here, the thoughts of what is in there make me rub my hands and cackle with delight.

I went on the Scavi tour once, and that was a real eye opener- I can only imagine being in that library.

[The Winslow]

By developing an irrational (I believe rationality to be a tad over-rated, but just a tad)

That's another tangent. The human mind is not rational. We aren't powered by logical computers. Our brains are more like analogical devices, we're wired to look for symbols and interpret stuff in all sorts of wacky ways. This leads to completely irrational things like pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) (which is just a fancy term that means "people are going to see the face of the Virgin Mary in some mother-of-pearl swirl and sell the 'Miracle Oyster' on eBay ten minutes later").

But this ability to see things that aren't there also opened us to using these symbols as tools for our own end. That's why we can interpret :) as a happy face and make it the equivalent of a smile in body language. Heck, that's how we were able to develop written communication in the first place!

Rational thought is alien to us. It's not natural, it's something that is learnt and trained. Weren't it you* who said something about how people without combat training look like when they brawl? It's kinda the same thing. Reason is just like martial arts in that it's not something we come up with instinctively.

It's a tool we developed to solve certain problems. It's definitely not how our brain works most of the time, in the same way that our bodies don't perform backflips and flying kicks when we're buying groceries or walking the dog.

But many people (especially economists) seem convinced that people are actually behaving rationally 100% of the time...

* I use "you" in the "Northcott" sense. ;)

[Varaj]

That's another tangent. The human mind is not rational. We aren't powered by logical computers. Our brains are more like analogical devices, we're wired to look for symbols and interpret stuff in all sorts of wacky ways. This leads to completely irrational things like pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) (which is just a fancy term that means "people are going to see the face of the Virgin Mary in some mother-of-pearl swirl and sell the 'Miracle Oyster' on eBay ten minutes later").

But this ability to see things that aren't there also opened us to using these symbols as tools for our own end. That's why we can interpret :) as a happy face and make it the equivalent of a smile in body language. Heck, that's how we were able to develop written communication in the first place!

Rational thought is alien to us. It's not natural, it's something that is learnt and trained. Weren't it you* who said something about how people without combat training look like when they brawl? It's kinda the same thing. Reason is just like martial arts in that it's not something we come up with instinctively.

It's a tool we developed to solve certain problems. It's definitely not how our brain works most of the time, in the same way that our bodies don't perform backflips and flying kicks when we're buying groceries or walking the dog.

But many people (especially economists) seem convinced that people are actually behaving rationally 100% of the time...

* I use "you" in the "Northcott" sense. ;)

Humans tend to be very rational, their reasons may not always be logical, but pareidolia is an example of rational interpretation of data presented to the brain.

[The Winslow]

Humans tend to be very rational, their reasons may not always be logical, but pareidolia is an example of rational interpretation of data presented to the brain.

I'm sorry. Rational interpretation is "this is an oyster", not "this is the Virgin Mary".

Magritte's most famous piece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_Of_Images) is about this. It isn't a pipe. It's a painting of a pipe. Seeing a pipe is irrational, seeing a painting of a pipe is rational.

[Varaj]

I'm sorry. Rational interpretation is "this is an oyster", not "this is the Virgin Mary".

Magritte's most famous piece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_Of_Images) is about this. It isn't a pipe. It's a painting of a pipe. Seeing a pipe is irrational, seeing a painting of a pipe is rational.

I guess we are probably using different means of the word rational. Rational to me means, "With reason". There is a reason for why you see a pipe.

What definition are you using? I'm using this one http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reason

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Varaj, do you have birthday parties for your kids?

[Varaj]

Varaj, do you have birthday parties for your kids?

Depends on what you mean by a party. We usually tell them happy birthday and they get a present or two. If the grandparents are whining we will let them come over around the date of let them have cake.
We aren't big on them.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

I tend to look at the world from a information point of view. It is all about information, if you duplicate the information you don't worry about the "thing". Information is generally conveyed by a combination of 5 means to humans; touch, sound, smell, taste, sight.

You're contradicting yourself, the medium is the message, man!

If touch conveys information, then touching a historic artifact is different from touching a modern recreation.

If information was the same no matter what then our brains would respond exactly the same to reading off a screen as reading a book, but that's not the case.

FWIW, I don't get celebrity autographs either, I don't understand the appeal.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Depends on what you mean by a party. We usually tell them happy birthday and they get a present or two. If the grandparents are whining we will let them come over around the date of let them have cake.
We aren't big on them.

Do you consider differentiating a day to be self-delusional? Today is not their birthday, only the day they shot out is.

[Varaj]

If touch conveys information, then touching a historic artifact is different from touching a modern recreation.

How is a different, your body can't tell the difference in the texture.


If information was the same no matter what then our brains would respond exactly the same to reading off a screen as reading a book, but that's not the case..
Not sure what you mean by respond different.
Screens look different then books there is different information coming. The relevant information (what you are reading) is the same, but there is a lot of other information besides that.

[Varaj]

Do you consider differentiating a day to be self-delusional? Today is not their birthday, only the day they shot out is.

You are aware that birthday is short for anniversary of birthday, right? It is not literally the birthday but celebration of the anniversary of the birthday. I thought most people knew that.

We also don't worry if we are off by a few days. Usually it happens sometime around the anniversary of the birthday because the actual day doesn't matter. :)

[TiQuinn]

If touch conveys information, then touching a historic artifact is different from touching a modern recreation.

If the reproduction is a perfect reproduction, then one wouldn't be able to tell the difference short of some sort of carbon dating. But suppose it isn't a perfect reproduction, and there are some differences. It may still take someone familiar with the original to know the difference.

Kind of appropriate to the subject: Counterfeit Fine Wines (http://www.slate.com/id/2173361/)

How many people REALLY can tell the difference?

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

If the reproduction is a perfect reproduction, then one wouldn't be able to tell the difference short of some sort of carbon dating. But suppose it isn't a perfect reproduction, and there are some differences. It may still take someone familiar with the original to know the difference.

Kind of appropriate to the subject: Counterfeit Fine Wines (http://www.slate.com/id/2173361/)

How many people REALLY can tell the difference?

I like that Slate article, read it a couple of weeks ago.

There are no reproduction books anymore, the paper, ink, and binding processes have all completely changed. Of course, had you manhandled some artifacts you'd know that! :p

[TiQuinn]

There are no reproduction books anymore, the paper, ink, and binding processes have all completely changed. Of course, had you manhandled some artifacts you'd know that! :p


Exactly! I haven't ever seen or handled those books! So if someone actually put a reasonable amount of effort into forging them using whatever processes necessary to make paper and ink look, feel, and smell aged, most people would completely fooled, yet would still feel the same sense of awe in handling, say, The Articles of Confederation.

..... by the way.....are you SURE those were the real documents?? :tongue:

[The Winslow]

I guess we are probably using different means of the word rational. Rational to me means, "With reason". There is a reason for why you see a pipe.

Then nothing is irrational.

"Why do you read the astrology column in that tabloid? It's bullshit!"
"Hey, you never know, maybe it works."

In that example, belief in astrology is rational because our example astrology-believer pulls some sort of Pascal's Gambit about it, so he has a reason. Nevermind how unsound that reason is.

Heck, you can even go into surrealism:
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"Because fish the letter mauve is cold."

Okay, we have a reason, even if that reason absolutely doesn't make any sense. Therefore our chicken was rational, was he?

My definition of rationality (a term less ambiguous) is more about things being perfectly logical, objective, unbiased, and demonstrably true. Ultimately, it leads to things like the Pirate Puzzle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_game) (which, yarr, I be citin' in honor of that scurvy talk like a pirate day) or the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_dilemma). These thought experiments show that not only are we not usually rational, but that rationality can even be a hindrance sometimes!

[Varaj]

Then nothing is irrational.

"Why do you read the astrology column in that tabloid? It's bullshit!"
"Hey, you never know, maybe it works."

In that example, belief in astrology is rational because our example astrology-believer pulls some sort of Pascal's Gambit about it, so he has a reason. Nevermind how unsound that reason is.

Heck, you can even go into surrealism:
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"Because fish the letter mauve is cold."

Okay, we have a reason, even if that reason absolutely doesn't make any sense. Therefore our chicken was rational, was he?

My definition of rationality (a term less ambiguous) is more about things being perfectly logical, objective, unbiased, and demonstrably true. Ultimately, it leads to things like the Pirate Puzzle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_game) (which, yarr, I be citin' in honor of that scurvy talk like a pirate day) or the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_dilemma). These thought experiments show that not only are we not usually rational, but that rationality can even be a hindrance sometimes!


I think we agree just using different definitions, which is cool. I would say we are interpretative thinkers, but again we mean the same thing. (I believe)

As for nothing being irrational (under the definition I was using) I would disagree. If most people agree the reasoning is incorrect (unfounded, incongruent, etc.) then we deem it irrational.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'd rather own a copy than an original, less pressure from irrational purists to maintain the integrity of the work. If I want to make an urn an incense burner, does it devalue the urn to me? If anything it increases the value.

Not that I'm going to go drill a hole in my dad's pottery anytime soon, but it's an example.

[Northcott]

That's another tangent. The human mind is not rational. We aren't powered by logical computers. Our brains are more like analogical devices, we're wired to look for symbols and interpret stuff in all sorts of wacky ways.

Preaching to the choir, man. :) Again, my general philosophy is "all things in balance". That includes rationality and irrationality. It's part of why I got on Atticus' ass over that whole "faith is irrational therefore it is TEH EVAL!!!1!" crap he spews. Love's a great example: it's pretty damned irrational. Sure, we can try and rationalize it by pointing out social bonding rituals, evolutionary advantages, blah, blah, blah... but cockroaches seem to get along just fine without anything we'd recognize as love. There's seven billion of us on this planet. Does it really matter if one of us dies, in the grand, logical scheme of things? Is it logical to sacrifice our life for another just because we "love" them? Hell, no.

But I'd argue that it's perhaps the most noble of all human traits... when held in balance. The irrational parts of what we are, as a species, are some of our best parts. And worst, too.

Weren't it you* who said something about how people without combat training look like when they brawl? It's kinda the same thing. Reason is just like martial arts in that it's not something we come up with instinctively.

Heheheh! Yeah, that was me! Man, nothing is funnier! I use Bridget Jones' Diary as a perfect example of it. Colin Firth and Hugh Grant scrapping it out in the streets. The only difference is, because it's still Hollywood, they threw in a couple good, dramatic-looking punches. But all the silly flailing around and pathetic grappling? Yeah, that's how 90% of guys look when they fight. Though they all think they're Jean Claude Van Damme or Bruce Lee. :D

[Varaj]

Preaching to the choir, man. :) Again, my general philosophy is "all things in balance". That includes rationality and irrationality. It's part of why I got on Atticus' ass over that whole "faith is irrational therefore it is TEH EVAL!!!1!" crap he spews. Love's a great example: it's pretty damned irrational. Sure, we can try and rationalize it by pointing out social bonding rituals, evolutionary advantages, blah, blah, blah... but cockroaches seem to get along just fine without anything we'd recognize as love. There's seven billion of us on this planet. Does it really matter if one of us dies, in the grand, logical scheme of things? Is it logical to sacrifice our life for another just because we "love" them? Hell, no.

But I'd argue that it's perhaps the most noble of all human traits... when held in balance. The irrational parts of what we are, as a species, are some of our best parts. And worst, too.


I agree except with your word choice. I would use objective and interpretative but we agree on the underlying thing.

[Northcott]

I agree except with your word choice. I would use objective and interpretative but we agree on the underlying thing.

That's about as rational a statement as could be. ;)

[Varaj]

That's about as rational a statement as could be. ;)

If you would just look at it objectively you will see that I'm correct. :tongue:

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Actually, unless the facsimile is made right the way down to the quantum level, there is information in the original document that isn't in the copy. The paper, the ink, the style of printing/writing, all can tell us something. Technological advances in this area are happening all the time - who knows what else we'll be able to get out of an original document a few years down the line

But all the silly flailing around and pathetic grappling? Yeah, that's how 90% of guys look when they fight. Though they all think they're Jean Claude Van Damme or Bruce Lee. :D

Even if they've got training. A friend of my, a karate black belt, got into a street brawl and he describes it exactly like that. Ok, so he was three sheets to the wind, but even so...

[Northcott]

I'm getting the urge to watch Bridget Jones' Diary again. :D

[Varaj]

Actually, unless the facsimile is made right the way down to the quantum level, there is information in the original document that isn't in the copy. The paper, the ink, the style of printing/writing, all can tell us something. Technological advances in this area are happening all the time - who knows what else we'll be able to get out of an original document a few years down the line


Yup, which is why I made the point of relevant data. :)