http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGOe1t1dRYU

And you want to overcome bias.

And I thought you where intelligent...well I guess not..maybe mathematical..but you keep doing the same thing...but you will lose...sry..I thought you learned...good bye

Funny... Have you ever fallen in love?

Albeit (I'll bite)

How do you determine all this metaphorical examples without having experimental proof to back it up? Just because you read does not give you the right to determine how people feel...

Just an opinion Anna

Well now i'm comfortable again. I keep getting deleted. It must be my karma. I'm posting in the wind

At least someone is listening.

Eliezer: But what is a thing? And what's a property? Soon the two are lost in a maze of words defined in other words, the problem that Steven Harnad once described as trying to learn Chinese from a Chinese/Chinese dictionary.

What if you are reaching towards an all Chinesse audience and don't know how to speak Chinese? Would you not use words that would attract such audience? Would you not require a dictionary? Would you not strive to make that audience hear you. Maybe using platonic wording is not the best way to get your point accross but sometimes the least obvious response is just as important. I agree that communication is the most important factor when expressing the best set ideas. Sometimes subtle remarks or "the least logical and rational response" may not seem like rational response but to those looking at going beyond the simple facts of describing what color is red, it may seem interesting, as red is self-subjective. I can describe a "tiger" with words, i'm just not clear why would I need to describe a tiger.

Eliezer: The strongest definitions use a crossfire of intensional and extensional communication to nail down a concept. Even so, you only communicate maps to concepts, or instructions for building concepts - you don't communicate the actual categories as they exist in your mind or in the world.

You don't communicate the actual catagories as they exist in your mind or in the world...but someone has too.

Eliezer: But abuse definitions just a little, and they turn into magic wands - in arguments, of course; not in reality.

To define something is to understand what you are defining. An example of a red sock will not make the other understand if they have never seen a red sock. Being creative enough to make that person see the red sock without ever have set eyes on it is poetry.

Stop deleting me, you are being bias. It doesn't make you look good, trust me. What are you afraid of? I'm not that important!

Anna:)

What makes you so sure people will follow you? The funny thing about leadership is that you never know when your fellowship will let you down as opposed to those that have sworn their leadership.

Is there a difference, what makes a fellowship?

Just Curious. Anna

Eliezer: David, I've dealt with her before.

That's news to me. We've never dealt anything. You haven't ever questioned anything, you already presumed.

Take care Eliezer;) Anna

My apology, it's a long post but they are my final thoughts.

Eliezer: "Robin, I would indeed put someone who called themselves a Unitarian in a different class from someone who called themselves a Zoroastrian or Christian. It's still a big blatant mistake, but so long as the person is willing to take strict personal responsibility for their own moral judgments, it's a less urgent matter."

I'm not really clear as to why? Do you not think Unitarian has some affiliation to Zoroastrian or Christianity? Where do you think moral judgements come from? The laws written in any given literature are clear interpretations as to what was going on in that particular time frame, that does not mean they where right or wrong, it means they exist for a reason.

Eliezer, I believe you are a smart, highly inquisitive individual but your expertise does not reach the realm of belief as you clearly demonstrate an ignorance in regards to religion, spirituality, enlightment or such pretense. Please read more thoughts in regards to religion within history, scriptures, books, psalms, philosophy, psychology, etc., before judging the belief of belief. Your video example of the Jesus Camp was an awakening for me as I acknowledged that not all individuals are aware of the science behind religion and in fact, religion may be used as a source of irrationalism. The bias approach you took was in only refering to the "kooks" of religion instead of realizing that there exists many that are religious that don't exhibit that behavior. Within the context of kooks, I understand the need to promote Atheism but that does not mean that Atheists are more rational than the Christians if both have not done the research to understand the possibilities within the religious context.

Anyhow, it's been a pleasure. Thanks Robin (and many fascinating contributors) for creating Overcoming Bias. It might not appear but I have learned a great deal about bias. If your intention was to teach, you are doing a great job. At first, it was hard to grasp the concept but with time i've learned quite a lot.

It's time for me to go as I can't possibly stay and listen to people talk about overcoming bias and yet reply "your not smart enough to undertstand", that kinda contradicts the whole idea.

Without being aware, thanks to the many that have aided in my education.

Take care and I wish you well, Anna

Eliezer: "did religionists execute what William Bartley called the retreat to commitment, "I believe because I believe."

Yes, they believe because they believe. Have you taken the time to ask why? Oh, my apology, I wasn't aware I wasn't knowledgeable enough to post.

Anna