dimreepr

Indeed, but why is just a guess.

The problem is, we'll never know which branch would be more successful, since we've got both in a sort of Brownian motion ("A strong cup of tea"); but it's fun to think about. 🙂

But those that do understand it's meaning are disconnected from the pupil's that need to understand (for their own good), an oral teacher can at least understand why the pupil doesn't understand and can plan a lesson to compensate.

Your constitution was written by the people who authored (fully understood) it, and ever since the noise has grown and it continues to denude the original meaning.

Written being the operative word here; and my argument that information crosses the generation gap more easily, orally...

That, in a village wide collective, depends on the complexity of the message, usually human truths can be explained quite simply; the ten commandments, for instance, can usually fit broadly, in many culture's. In an oral only tradition, the noise of those story teller's that don't understand, are drowned out by the number of teacher's that do understand; if each of the twelve disciples, past on their understanding to twelve more, wouldn't that become enough (I'll bow to your mathematical prowess if the anwers no.)? Whereas, the written word when the author has died, however profound the message is, becomes the source of so much noise, in terms of the shear number of different interpretations, that the original message becomes whatever best fit's one's avarice...

In general I do agree, my only caveat being, the non existence of god as an argument for the dismissal of religious philosophy. I apologise if you haven't suggested this, other poster's must have bled into my thinking when replying to you. Indeed, one can memorise a joke and regurgitate it, but without the correct intonation, no one would laugh and it would wither on the vine.

Socrates' Thoughts on the written word. I think Jesus and Mohammed had similar thought's: Perhaps there's a reason Jesus' teachings weren't written down for many decades. And perhaps Mohammed's attempt at fixing the written word in the Quran, was an attempt to fix the problem. I can't help but think, that if the teachings were handed down orally, this conversation would be out of the question. If religions were allowed to evolve with society, then neither side of the argument would question the need for god or established real world 'facts'.

nuance, could b a different

It seems to me that mr Pratchett, got the difference...

It's the difference between a scientific fact and a human truth. What's god got to do with it? Wouldn't that be easy for the madman with his light in the morning; few people get the opportunity to say "I told you so" just bc human life is so nuanced that the hour is seldom the time...

Nope, it's data without contextual understanding. I think you don't understand what you're talking about, cold fusion puts a stick in your spokes, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the robustness of the scientific process against any thought of some sort of conspiracy.

I think "God Emporer of Dune" was the opus.

The foundation series, by Isaac Assimov, is fundamental to the genre, if you want a deep dive (nerd like); but if you want to be entertained, Douglas Adams is your go too author...

I agree, but that word has a very different meaning scientifically than it does philosophically, for instance, an emotional reaction can be measured, but it can't be understood scientifically. But as Wittgenstein suggests 'language is fundamental to how we think', also there's many examples of philosopher's arguing against the veracity of the written word. I feel this is still relevant to the topic, but feel free to start a new. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man" I can't remember who said it but google can.

Indeed, guilty... But it's arguable that oral transmition of information is more effective at creating understanding across the generation's bc it evoles with the culture and the context is clear. The written word is frozen information in time, for the same reasons. It was also claimed to have seven colour's by Newton, bc seven is his lucky number, he shoe-horned/made-up indigo...

You seem to have an almost religious obsession with your AI chums, it's difficult to work out what side of the fence you're on, wrt the topic?

Hmmm, kinda my point, which one of the ten is objectionable?

This is a closed loop that emerged from beneath a bridge, your version of fun teaches nothing to no-one...

I fought the law but the law won...

Then you're mistaken... ☹️

You're a strange cove, it's almost like you're attempting to rile both sides of the coin, do you live near a bridge?

You seem confused... For god to work as a teaching aid/metaphor then omnipotence is a necessary attribute, until one understands why one should be punished for doing stupid stuff. For science to work, we just have to measure again. You have to ask yourself, why do I need a god? If it's to punish other's, then the Bible's have taught you nothing...

Remind me, what is it that you want to discuss? Also, can you confirm, which side of the coin you believe in (God good or god bad)? What do you think enlightenment mean's in the context of this thread? Most of the "bible/s" seems to be more concerned with how to live and enjoying the singing; the only time we absolutely know that we can appreciate it (or not if it's hymns, I prefer Led Zeppelin).

Or, it could mean 'if you keep harping on about "your big mistake", you may as well be a pillar of salt, for all the people who wants to talk to you.' 😉