Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Free Speech Test (open speech)


8th_wall

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

If you and I were talking in person then we'd discuss the same themes with massively more words.

But we are on the Internet.  You are not a friend.  This is NOT a person to person communication.  Do you not understand the difference??

Quote

Are you saying that "In the beginning the Word was God" means that the "Word" is now what one actually utters out loud?

I don't understand your point.

Quote

The length and depth of conversation one has between a group of 3 friends enjoying a few drinks together over the span of 2 hours with a speaking rate of 200 W.P.M.

We are not 3 friends enjoying a few drinks.  Not in ANY sense of the words.  Do you really not understand the difference?  I change my communication style with each type of media, and depending on the audience - it's not rocket science.

 

Anyway, given you would rather whine about things than answer the dam question, buhbye.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
31 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

But we are on the Internet.  You are not a friend.  This is NOT a person to person communication.  Do you not understand the difference??

Why does the Site stipulate a community then?  Perhaps you have a better definition of what is meant.  YouTube, for example, has had the option for one to use one's real identity.  You and I are both from Australia I see.  Australia is about as safe as it gets, as far as countries are concerned, from what I know.  Feel free to advise me otherwise and I'll consider reevaluating my entire internet presence.  I'm aware of "what if the worst scenario" however my life experience, and from what I've read, indicates that the part of our brain that handles fears and phobias don't biologically map to modern era.  Our culture is evolving faster than our brains are capable of keeping up, and it seems the phobic and fear portions might be in poor use.  Just open ended thinking...  I'm willing to test what is obvious for you with what is obvious to me.  Fear seems to be an instinctive primary response.  As far as I understand this isn't the deep, or the dark, web...  Anyway, feel free to give me more more your thoughts. :)

Quote

I don't understand your point.

We are not 3 friends enjoying a few drinks.  Not in ANY sense of the words.  Do you really not understand the difference?  I change my communication style with each type of media, and depending on the audience - it's not rocket science.

 

Anyway, given you would rather whine about things than answer the dam question, buhbye.

 

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that I don't understand the difference.  I'm waiting to see the reasoning so that I can adjust accordingly...

Peace

Edited by PsiSeeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

I'd suspect, from this site, that the average person could read a 200 page novel from start to end.  Are you saying my writing is more like an educational text?

I.e it's being treated as writing however is merely free flowing general chattery every other person engages in freely.  I can make the piece a "written and easy to digest" piece but why should I if !y responses are general chattery too?

It's called WALL of text and no one wants to read it.  The content is irrelevant.  Speech, in it's most primitive definition, is the spoken word.  People will pay to hear someone speak for an hour and a half...but in a conversation, generally people expect to participate.  

A wall of words is just that...it requires the reader to...read.  It involves visual and light rather than 'hearing'.   Visual and light can be a very frustrating experience for some...a wall of text doesn't ....free flow...to anyone except the person who wrote it.  It's possible for you to read and enjoy your own wall of text because of the fact that you created it...but Visual + Light is hard on the eyes sometimes and in some people can even induce seizures. 

So....

“Since brevity is the soul of wit / And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief…”

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PsiSeeker, you seem to be more of a "sigh seeker" with this thread, and it has worked a treat ! How about giving a summary of what the subject is.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free speech is a relative term, not an absolute one. Few, if any, would argue that we should be free to create a panic by shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre, when there is none. Certain forms lying are actually illegal, as in official investigations, in court, or to harm someone's reputation maliciously.

Many lies are harmful in some way or other, and so, are objectionable, even if not illegal. Threats can also be illegal, under certain circumstances, whether one intended to carry them out or not. The protections afforded us in a civilized society, and widely deemed desirable, require some limits on totally free speech. These limits should not prevent us from speaking our minds, in an honorable manner. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah you  are using a speech to text converter.  Ok fair enough, I will get my text to speech converter- pen  and take the lazy man's approach :) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok having done this, your conversation, while very personal and introspective  was fascinating.

  i do agree with the others, however.  If you want anyone to read and take it all in, rather than just use the opportunity to talk aloud,  you need to use a writing style that allows more ease of reading.  . 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/01/2019 at 1:02 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Is the discussion reasoning regarding your previous post or free speech in general? :P

The chattery is free speech, which seems to have rather poor reception so far.  The ideas within aren't necessarily as important as the concept that the body is a representation of free speech.  I.e chattery freely divulged.  Speaking purely as I wish and will within the moment.

How would you define free speech? :)

I think you are talking of stream of consciousness, or speech which flows freely, unhindered by internal editing,, second guessing or mental proof reading.

It was a good example of that, and really only took a little concentration to understand.

I remember having to read Ulysses in high school, and the problems we found decoding it,  but it was mostly a problem of unfamiliarity. 

 

In literary criticism, stream of consciousness is a narrative mode or method that attempts "to depict the multitudinous thoughts and feelings which pass through the mind" of a narrator.

"The Great Gatsby" and Catcher in the Rye",  used a similar technique 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

you need to use a writing style that allows more ease of reading. 

I think he, Psi, needs to use a speaking style more akin to 'writing' for it to be useful. In fact most of his posts after the OP, were OK. So conceptually using speech to text is fine provided one changes one's manner of speaking to reflect the norms of the media the output will be viewed in.

In this relevant to this thread? - I haven't got a clue.

 

Edited by RAyMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I think he, Psi, needs to use a speaking style more akin to 'writing' for it to be useful. In fact most of his posts after the OP, were OK. So conceptually using speech to text is fine provided one changes one's manner of speaking to reflect the norms of the media the output will be viewed in.

In this relevant to this thread? - I haven't got a clue.

 

He was using a  speech to text converter ie speaking the words and letting the  computer print out the words as spoken (that is my understanding)  He is right that,  when we speak we can do it faster, and with greater complexity and length, because more humans comprehend fast paced and lengthy speech, than they do long written texts. 

I suspect it was a technological experiment for his own entertainment/education, and our reactions were just a bonus 

We used a similar  thing for dyslexic students quite a while back. It worked well and allowed a student to read lengthy texts  by scanning them with a "pen", which then spoke/read to the student . They could also speak into a device and their laptop would write out their words for them.  

Both gave pretty good accuracy.  

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I think he, Psi, needs to use a speaking style more akin to 'writing' for it to be useful. In fact most of his posts after the OP, were OK. So conceptually using speech to text is fine provided one changes one's manner of speaking to reflect the norms of the media the output will be viewed in.

In this relevant to this thread? - I haven't got a clue.

 

I think it goes to what he meant by "free" speech, ie speech not hindered by punctuation,   thoughtful consideration, or mental drafting /proofreading.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My questions to the PO is, "What kind of reputation marks are you striving for?"
Academic endeavors and a classroom are a better outlet for your enquiries & insights.
And it might be a place in which you can impress & excel.  --Best of luck...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
 

In the most literal sense "Free Speech" is something I don't conceptually register.  To my mind there is a "supra-ordinate" aspect of cognition that doesn't lend itself to the visceral aspects of interpersonal cognition.

I'm sure many of you are aware to the "input-oupout" bottle neck of informative relay.  To mean that the anything divulged typically has a structure that needs to be either instantaneously determined or holistically appreciated.  It's like the difference of knowing 8*7 is 56 or needing to calculate it out first.

At the core of it all my purpose is that of belonging...  that is, that of being comprehended enough in order to generate either corrective or mutually objectively correlated independently arrived at instances of meaning.  (A lot of the time, I think, one can look at another yet have no command of language to stipulate the concordance.  I feel this sort of thing can become problematic.  I've already started to conceive odd ambiguity of stylistic speech use (amongst those who have a "voice" through "texting", like a "writer's voice", which makes me ponder at the meaning of origin of "communism" that I have trouble shaking (thus coming to this forum to grapple over).

To take matters off the literal discussion I'd segway to a discussion of the strangeness of what precisely it is that goes on in the mental sphere prior to articulation.  Personally it seems most like a feeling, the words follow to fit the feeling, which is something that I feel is structured over a long a time.  I wonder what it means for something like that to be completely upended, and to only have pure logic and perception.  Can't shake the ****n world wars from my psyche for some reason.  Even though I'm usually far more interested in the esoteric or ancient (5000+) history.  Hmm...

Thanks for the feedback thus far though, Lord knows finding well articulated critique that ventures into the negative spectrum is hard af for me to remain unbiased towards zzz, 4 months reply o.O xD, so ridiculous haha.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PsiSeeker said:

To take matters off the literal discussion I'd segway to a discussion of the strangeness of what precisely it is that goes on in the mental sphere prior to articulation.  Personally it seems most like a feeling, the words follow to fit the feeling, which is something that I feel is structured over a long a time

It sounds like you are posing the age old question...what came first the chicken or the egg?  Do feelings give way to articulation of words? Or does the articulation create the feelings?  The answer to the first is that the chicken did indeed come first.  The egg is created inside of the chickens body...and the chicken has not always been a layer of eggs in the since that she is now.  Rather, the evolution of the chicken led to the egg.  

My thoughts are that the same answer works for your question.  All feelings are created by thought process...feelings being, those emotional things we think that we 'feel'.  However, by creating feelings through thought process, those feelings then create other thought processes which then give rise to more feelings, and the circle never ends weaving in and out of our consciousness throughout our days and nights.

This is one reason I think that it is imperative, for me at least, to have a firm grip on what actual reality is. By doing so we then have a level, solid foundation to equate our feelings to our thoughts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2019 at 5:14 PM, and then said:

My head hurts...  No offense, but, dude... maybe a synopsis?

@PsiSeeker I think some punctuation would help.  I love to read but I can't read your OP.

Edited by Desertrat56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2019 at 5:25 PM, PsiSeeker said:

I'd suspect, from this site, that the average person could read a 200 page novel from start to end.  Are you saying my writing is more like an educational text?

I.e it's being treated as writing however is merely free flowing general chattery every other person engages in freely.  I can make the piece a "written and easy to digest" piece but why should I if !y responses are general chattery too?

You writing is no where near the quality of a novel or educational text.  It is a nightmare.  If you want people to read what you have to say, then break it up in to sentences and paragraphs.  Leave out that"Music video lyrics..." , use your own words, because even the telepaths can't tell what you are thinking if we have never met you and believe it or not, No One wants to be inside your head.

Edited by Desertrat56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2019 at 5:30 PM, PsiSeeker said:

It's just basic chattery...  If I wrote something it would probably floor you then I think zzz...

Then floor us, I look forward to you actually writing instead of "basic chattery", which I don't even know what that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2019 at 7:30 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Chattery is chattery :P.  A lot of what I did is "think out loud" to help clear my mind too :).

So, do that in a journal, not on a discusion board.  Or blog, you could do a blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2019 at 7:32 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Is the discussion reasoning regarding your previous post or free speech in general? :P

The chattery is free speech, which seems to have rather poor reception so far.  The ideas within aren't necessarily as important as the concept that the body is a representation of free speech.  I.e chattery freely divulged.  Speaking purely as I wish and will within the moment.

How would you define free speech? :)

I said this before, you seem to want us to see inside your head and no one wants that.  "Chattery" is not conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2019 at 7:37 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Is that a hypothetical stand point or a stand point arrived at from personal experience?  In my personal experience concept relaying in person is far easier than in text.  In general who I'm conversing with will stay engaged for far longer and get a sense of my "gist" far easier than, say, on Facebook Messenger.

Yes!  And you have to accommodate for that in text.  If you are trying to communicate in text the same way you do in person you will have big problems.  So, do you want face to face interaction or do you want practice communicating in writing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2019 at 7:40 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Is text the appropriate grammatical terminology?  Or should it be Text?  Honestly not really sure what capitalisation use does for the way a sentence reads.  Don't really understand the use of bold or italics either :).  Perhaps I should reinvent a style where a new meaning might register?  Or perhaps clarity.

Cogency is something that I've struggled with for many many years on here.  I come back again and again to try :).  It's a lot of fun to me, and I appreciate the feedback and constructive critique x).

Capitalization usually infers enphasis or if the whole word is capitalized it is the same as shouting.  Italics and bold are also used for emphasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2019 at 4:16 AM, PsiSeeker said:

In the most literal sense "Free Speech" is something I don't conceptually register.  To my mind there is a "supra-ordinate" aspect of cognition that doesn't lend itself to the visceral aspects of interpersonal cognition.

I'm sure many of you are aware to the "input-oupout" bottle neck of informative relay.  To mean that the anything divulged typically has a structure that needs to be either instantaneously determined or holistically appreciated.  It's like the difference of knowing 8*7 is 56 or needing to calculate it out first.

At the core of it all my purpose is that of belonging...  that is, that of being comprehended enough in order to generate either corrective or mutually objectively correlated independently arrived at instances of meaning.  (A lot of the time, I think, one can look at another yet have no command of language to stipulate the concordance.  I feel this sort of thing can become problematic.  I've already started to conceive odd ambiguity of stylistic speech use (amongst those who have a "voice" through "texting", like a "writer's voice", which makes me ponder at the meaning of origin of "communism" that I have trouble shaking (thus coming to this forum to grapple over).

To take matters off the literal discussion I'd segway to a discussion of the strangeness of what precisely it is that goes on in the mental sphere prior to articulation.  Personally it seems most like a feeling, the words follow to fit the feeling, which is something that I feel is structured over a long a time.  I wonder what it means for something like that to be completely upended, and to only have pure logic and perception.  Can't shake the ****n world wars from my psyche for some reason.  Even though I'm usually far more interested in the esoteric or ancient (5000+) history.  Hmm...

Thanks for the feedback thus far though, Lord knows finding well articulated critique that ventures into the negative spectrum is hard af for me to remain unbiased towards zzz, 4 months reply o.O xD, so ridiculous haha.

OK.  That is better.  Punctuation and complete, if not a little jumbled and overly wordy run-on sentences  (I get it, I do that too).  I could read and feel I understand what you are saying and some of what you are trying to convey.

Is this still about free speech or was that a correct assumption by someone that you meant freely speaking?  The phrase "Free Speech" in the U.S. means there can be no laws that censor what anyone says, with exception of yelling or saying something that causes panic or lying  during a legal matter.  I don't know what it means in any other country (except maybe it means the same thing in the UK, Canada and the other English Empire children countries).

P.S.  As for how we think and how it becomes language is an interesting conversation in my opinion.  Someone on this forum in another thread insisted that we always think in language, and have never thought in whole concepts, feelings and knowing together.  I think that person also balked at the idea that our consciousness does not reside in the brain and is only slightly based on checmicals.  I know we think first in concepts with emotion before we translate it to words.  How else could an infant not be born talking and understanding spoken words?  We have to learn language, it is not the way we think, but once we are entrained into a specific language we do have a problem understanding that something happens before we put things into words.

Edited by Desertrat56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.