My absence. +

[own8ge]

I've been absent lately and people seemingly seem to have noticed. There are multiple reasons for my absence which I will be noting below. I will also note my probably future on this forum, and share some idea's I've been having.

1). Communication barrier.
I greatly lack inter-subjectivity on this forum. Most of you don't see the connection between the elements I glue, which leaves me in despair.

2). Psychology.
I am utmost active in walking the dark path of understanding. Unfortunately not many of you have night-vision.

3). Girlfriend.
A continual overflow of psychological data in which you can actually swim.

4). Contrary ideals.
I made, and am making, my own typological system and philosophy.

​

I won't be visiting this site as much as I used to. I will take a quick look now and then and perhaps share some ideas when I have.

Idea 1)
You are the imagination of consciousness; of which its interpretation is predefined by the sustained presumption of what reality really is, which is predefined by perspective.
(Interpretive logic: Your perspective defines your perception (And vice versa) which defines one's current state of personality as it defines one his current idea of what reality is. All our actions serve reward. What is rewarding is defined by what you think is rewarding. What you think is rewarding = what you think reality is.)


Idea 2)
Consciousness is a result of having an interactive purpose, and personality is a manifestation of the dedication of consciousness, which is predefined by the consistent subjective prioritization for the sake of well-spent present moment.
(Interpretive logic: Our only purpose is appreciation. At any moment in time, we strive to be appreciated. We manifest this desire by being consciousness which serves communication for the sake of reward. How we dedicate our consciousness, defines all your capabilities. A new learned skill, is merely learning a dedication of consciousness.)
Clarification
One is only conscious if his purpose is to interact. How and when one is conscious is defined by how one observes reality. How one observes reality, and thus how one is conscious, is predefined by what the subject thinks is rewarding. To prioritize what is rewarding, one observes their intentions by looking if it is consistent by contrasting it by a set of standards which is called one his ego. This is what manifests in personality, which is a necessity as it is the very foundation of our social intelligence.
We transcend the present moment by the usage of imagination. “If I now do X and in the future Y happens, I would regret X. So I’m not going to do X.”
Proof of interactive purpose: You can’t think without words or something else that can’t be communicated. You can’t think about words that hold no value. That would simply stop you from thinking.
​

 

[redbaron]

4). Contrary ideals.
I made, and am making, my own typological system and philosophy.

own8'Lair

Do you like daggers?

 

[Solitaire U.]

Yeah, it's our fault. Kinda sorta already knew you'd see it that way.

But your girlfriend should DEFINITELY join the forum. Swimming in her psychological data would probably be even more refreshing than swimming in yours was.

 

[own8ge]

Yeah, it's our fault. Kinda sorta already knew you'd see it that way.

That is your judgment, not mine. lol.

 

[Wolf18]

Welcome back, own8ge.

1) Makes sense, except: how is reality necessarily a reward?
2) That is something that has bothered me some time. It is probably why people used to think that deaf people were mentally impaired.

My question for you: if a person has no sensory input (cannot hear, smell, taste, see, or feel), can he form ideas?

SW

 

[Jennywocky]

But your girlfriend should DEFINITELY join the forum. Swimming in her psychological data would probably be even more refreshing than swimming in yours was.

Now there's a publishable paper waiting to happen!

 

[Chad]

I've been absent lately and people seemingly seem to have noticed.

Who noticed. Not to be mean but I didn't realized you were gone.

Sorry to hear you wont be here anymore.

It's been fun.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I'll be interested in an update of what you discover, bud.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You shouldn't lay it all on the boards, you know you're not always that easy for people to get along with :O

Nevertheless I understand your point about intersubjectivity. Reading some of your posts I feel like I could get them if we'd have had some long conversation before, getting into one another heads etc, learning the personal language so to speak.

Anyway do return again please, at least when you've got the typology system down.

 

[own8ge]

Welcome back, own8ge.

1) Makes sense, except: how is reality necessarily a reward?
2) That is something that has bothered me some time. It is probably why people used to think that deaf people were mentally impaired.

My question for you: if a person has no sensory input (cannot hear, smell, taste, see, or feel), can he form ideas?

SW

1) Every thought you have consists by the purpose of reward. If one has no purpose of reward, one simply does not think. What is rewarding is decided by your values-system which will long for that what would be objective. (That to progress humanity). That is my philosophy at least. o.O

2) Am I deaf? o.O

3) If one has no perception, one can't judge. If one can't judge, one can't form thoughts. If you can't form thoughts, how could you possibly form ideas?

 

[Chad]

If one has no perception, one can't judge. If one can't judge, one can't form thoughts. If you can't form thoughts, how could you possibly form ideas?

Helen Keller.

That isn't to say she had no perception but she couldn't see or hear since early childhood jet she found a way to communicate and she was probably a genus in her own right.


Just because we you are perception to help us formulate thought doesn't by definition mean that you couldn't formulate thought without perception.
It difficult but the human mind is a wonderful thing.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Helen Keller.

That isn't to say she had no perception but she couldn't see or hear since early childhood jet she found a way to communicate and she was probably a genus in her own right.


Just because we you are perception to help us formulate thought doesn't by definition mean that you couldn't formulate thought without perception.
It difficult but the human mind is a wonderful thing.

She did have perception. She is therefore not a valid counter. But no object can be independently conceived of without an understanding of its properties. Knowledge is not inherent, but gathered through sense data. We are born as a blank slate. Without sense data, one can not conceive of properties. If one can not conceive of properties, one can not conceive of objects. And thus can not have any conception if anything. We all need at least a reference point. Helen was not denied this, she doesn't count.

 

[Montresor]

Helen Keller.
she was probably a genus in her own right.

@Chad,

No way man.

Helen Keller was definitely Homo.

Look it up bro.

 

[Chad]

She did have perception. She is therefore not a valid counter. But no object can be independently conceived of without an understanding of its properties. Knowledge is not inherent, but gathered through sense data. We are born as a blank slate. Without sense data, one can not conceive of properties. If one can not conceive of properties, one can not conceive of objects. And thus can not have any conception if anything. We all need at least a reference point. Helen was not denied this, she doesn't count.

Yes I said I couldn't say she has no perception. However, someone with out perception would be unlikely to communicate there congnitiveness.

However, there have been people born without sight and hearing who otherwise seem to have very active brain activity. However, these people are unlikely ever able to comunicate rather this brain activity is still related to cognitive thinking or not.

However, It would be interesting to someday find a solution to give these people greater perception so that they can comunicate what it is like to not have known sight or sound.

However, Helen Keller is still a valid example because it is unlikely that she would think in the traditional sight or sounds like normal people however brain still found a way to use what she had left.

The example shows the strength of the human brain to make conections even with out the normal sensory stimuli.

Its not a perfect example but one of the best we have.

Like seriously she learned to speak but feeling peoples mouths. Even though she had know why to experience speech first hand. Even deaf people can see to mimic mouth movements and talk she didn't even have this.

My point is that you can't say that the brain stops formulating thought just because it has nothing to build on. This is not to say these thought have any real foundation but science has shown that the human brain is still activated even without any stimuli.

What this looks like I can't imagine but it something. At least that is what is assumed by neurologist.

 

[Chad]

@Chad,

No way man.

Helen Keller was definitely Homo.

Look it up bro.

LOL

Genius/Genus Tu-May-Toe/Ta-Mah-Toe

 

[own8ge]

You shouldn't lay it all on the boards, you know you're not always that easy for people to get along with :O

Nevertheless I understand your point about intersubjectivity. Reading some of your posts I feel like I could get them if we'd have had some long conversation before, getting into one another heads etc, learning the personal language so to speak.

Anyway do return again please, at least when you've got the typology system down.

The distinct gap between me and the forum was only a motive rather than a counter for laying it all on the boards. A humor only a few would be able to understand. (Do not interpret it personal though. I'm not saying that one whom does not understand my humor is a degenerate being.)

Sure, getting to know eachother on a personal level helps both parties in understanding eachother. But it should be said that it isn't necessarily limited to just that. Nor is it in my case... As an example to prove my point, I myself know two people IRL whom I relate too inter-subjectively. (Coincidentally they are both ENTJ females, of which 1 is my girlfriend, xD) In our communication, I could act or formulate my thoughts without filtering it through an adaptive EGO and they would understand me perfectly. Vice versa too.

(As a philosophical joke... we often remark to eachother: Without realizing it, we ourselves are autistic, resulting our communication to be at the same level. Whilst in reality, we are just two idiots thinking to be smarter than the usual.)

Nevertheless, should I lay the blame on myself for most foax being incapable of understanding me? I wouldn't argue so. If one would argue so, I would consider it rather inhuman to do so. That is, as doing so, arises one of the biggest philosophical problems in existence. Namely that what I remarked above and will remark again below.

The philosophical problem...
Actually being a retard that is being fooled into being normal by all others. One could never know, if he himself is a retard. Saying to a person that he is actually responsible for being vague naturally arises the question if he is a retard. A question one should force no individual to doubt as it is unknown.

If you do not understand what I'm talking about, watch the movie Shutter Island. It's main focus is on this philophical problem.

Do note that I'm not saying YOU are responsible for not understanding me. I'm merely suggesting that neither the speaker nor the listener should be responsible.

He whom suggests the other party to be responsible, is in fact himself responsible; Innit? Being incapable of understanding something means that it is your stupidity. If you lay your own stupidity onto others, makes it your own responsibiliy. :P

I suppose that to understand me one must have a similar perception of human relationships. But isn't that what intelligence is all about? Isn't that what personality is all about? (The scale of your perspective regarding human relationships as a whole.)

Only I, own8ge... Could argue Intelligence = personality = existence. But have you ever doubted that I might just be right? Haha. (Epic self-strenghtening humor)

The typological system I'm inventing is already in a finishing mode. I'm prolonging it though, so that I could develop it into something accurate. Namely, a system that I could hypothetically write down by the usage of just 4 sentences.

I'm sorry for a kind of negative undertone I'm presenting. It is not my intention. Your positivity needs my negativity to be a perfect whole. (That was a joke).

 

[Black Rose]

Only I, own8ge... Could argue Intelligence = personality = existence. But have you ever doubted that I might just be right? Haha. (Epic self-strenghtening humor)

Could it be that complexity is just as important, there are multiple intelligence that developed stages from experience of complexity. It might be that my shadow knows more about me than I have access to. Looking at a multidimensional object from lower dimensions at the communication/contact point leave one face open to acquire only glimpses of each person we meet. I think that it just takes time to fully understand at different rates on the subject.

 

[Wolf18]

1) Every thought you have consists by the purpose of reward. If one has no purpose of reward, one simply does not think. What is rewarding is decided by your values-system which will long for that what would be objective. (That to progress humanity). That is my philosophy at least. o.O

2) Am I deaf? o.O

3) If one has no perception, one can't judge. If one can't judge, one can't form thoughts. If you can't form thoughts, how could you possibly form ideas?

1) OK, I follow you, although I don't entirely agree.

2) I don't know. I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to:

Proof of interactive purpose: You can’t think without words or something else that can’t be communicated. You can’t think about words that hold no value. That would simply stop you from thinking.

3) Yes, I agree.

Helen Keller.

But she could smell, taste and feel. So she did have sensory input. Imagine a baby born blind, deaf, and with no ability to feel (physical sensations), smell (my grandfather had this – it does happen), or taste. Can he form ideas?

SW

 

[Chad]

1) OK, I follow you, although I don't entirely agree.

2) I don't know. I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to:


3) Yes, I agree.



But she could smell, taste and feel. So she did have sensory input. Imagine a baby born blind, deaf, and with no ability to feel (physical sensations), smell (my grandfather had this – it does happen), or taste. Can he form ideas?

SW

If the brain is active then theoretically you can form Ideas however, I am sure they would be very different then anything that I or you have ever experienced and they would be hard for anyone else to recognize as thought because they would have to use mechanisms unknown to your or I to process it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Stay gone next time. You're a jerk.

 

[redbaron]

Stay gone next time. You're a jerk.

At least he's an interesting jerk.

 

[Brontosaurie]

you use "whom" where it should be "who".

 

[own8ge]

2) I don't know. I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to:

Proof of interactive purpose: You can’t think without words or something else that can’t be communicated. You can’t think about words that hold no value. That would simply stop you from thinking.

That is something that has bothered me some time. It is probably why people used to think that deaf people were mentally impaired.

That what can be communicated isn't limited to verbal executions. A verbal execution is merely the extroversion of communicable judgment. This judgment, can be extroverted in different ways such as writing or body-language. Communication should be considered as: "To convey judgment/POV."
Deaf people are mentally impaired on the bias of "extroversion-range". However, a large range isn't required for optimal communication. Dedication is clearly more significant. One could merely use body-language and be understood accurately whilst one could write a book and still be misunderstood.

Imagine a baby born blind, deaf, and with no ability to feel (physical sensations), smell (my grandfather had this – it does happen), or taste. Can he form ideas?

This is interesting. Every thought requires two things in order to form an actual rewarding idea or thought. Objectivity, and Subjectivity. Those two things are largely misunderstood, also by Jung himself. Objectivity should be considered as the How-judgment that is being based on reality. Subjectivity should be considered as the Why-judgment that is being based on the How-judgment. These two things, Objectivity and Subjectivity work in tandem. They are the basis of thought. Every single thought could be broken down into a system that would account merely those two things (Why and How) as an accurate analysis of thought that would regard one his POV regarding reality (Psycho-Analysis). Between those two things (Objectivity and Subjectivity) has to be a ratio at all times. If one would use to much Subjectivity, one would completely drift away from reality. If one would use to much Objectivity, a realization (that what thoughts are for) can't be reached.

Your grandfather has no Objectivity. This would mean that he has no clue of How things are. He has no clue of what impact something would make. If you do not have this adaptivity, you can't be directive. As your grandfather has no idea if he makes impact, he can't make applicable thoughts.

There is no learning capability either. There might be, but not that what will account reality. He is in dreamland. :P (Missing out on objectivity)

As we now know that if he would have thoughts, he won't be thinking anything relating the external; but could he think at all? This breaks down to philosophy. My philosophy is as followed: If you have no sense of that what is rewarding, you have no purpose of thought and therefor have no thought. But what if he DOES have a sense of reward. Perhaps his sense of reward is subjective (Do note that even then he would require a sense of internal feeling such as hunger). (Deep philosophy). It would be the only case where he would be capable of thought. HOWEVER...! These "thoughts", even if they would exist, wouldn't possibly be conscious. This is as consciousness is our objectivity. But what if a thought could enlarge the brain capability subjectively-wise? Okey... Then it might be possible. But he wouldn't think in language nor shapes. (Our perception consists out of shapes that are being valued differently in order to be discerned). And if you would have no perception, you wouldn't be conscious. So no.. It's not possible that your grandfather has a consciousness. He might think though...

 

[Wolf18]

Deaf people are mentally impaired on the bias of "extroversion-range". However, a large range isn't required for optimal communication. Dedication is clearly more significant. One could merely use body-language and be understood accurately whilst one could write a book and still be misunderstood.

OK, that makes sense.

This is interesting. Every thought requires two things in order to form an actual rewarding idea or thought. Objectivity, and Subjectivity. Objectivity should be considered as the How-judgment that is being based on reality. Subjectivity should be considered as the Why-judgment that is being based on the How-judgment. These two things, Objectivity and Subjectivity work in tandem.

Your grandfather has no Objectivity. This would mean that he has no clue of How things are. He has no clue of what impact something would make.

There might be, but not that what will account reality. He is in dreamland. :P (Missing out on objectivity)

As we now know that if he would have thoughts, he won't be thinking anything relating the external; but could he think at all? This breaks down to philosophy. My philosophy is as follows: If you have no sense of that what is rewarding, you have no purpose of thought and therefore have no thought. But what if he DOES have a sense of reward. Perhaps his sense of reward is subjective (Do note that even then he would require a sense of internal feeling such as hunger). (Deep philosophy). It would be the only case where he would be capable of thought. HOWEVER...! These "thoughts", even if they would exist, wouldn't possibly be conscious. This is as consciousness is our objectivity. But what if a thought could enlarge the brain capability subjectively-wise?

I should've clarified. My grandfather had all his senses except smell. I don't know if there is any person who does not have any senses, but this is theoretical anyway, so it does not matter. Anyway, how would this hypothetical person be in "dreamland"? I like what you say about having no external thoughts, but is it possible that he/she would live on an entirely emotional level?

SW

 

[Hawkeye]

At least he's an interesting jerk.

Unlike some

 

[Hadoblado]

Unlike some

But very much like others

 

[redbaron]

But very much like others

Yet tastier with oregano

 

[Montresor]

Yet tastier with oregano

And not as potent of a strain.

 

[Fukyo]

Stay gone next time. You're a jerk.

At least he's an interesting jerk.

Unlike some

But very much like others

Yet tastier with oregano

INTPf cattiness central!

 

[Montresor]

oh i'm not part of the group ok FUKYO hahahaha get it?

 

[Fukyo]

O hahaha, hi there honey! I really like the shoes you're wearing today.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yet tastier with oregano

Everything is better with oregano.

 

[own8ge]

OK, that makes sense.

I should've clarified. My grandfather had all his senses except smell. I don't know if there is any person who does not have any senses, but this is theoretical anyway, so it does not matter. Anyway, how would this hypothetical person be in "dreamland"? I like what you say about having no external thoughts, but is it possible that he/she would live on an entirely emotional level?

SW

This person would be in dreamland providing he is conscious. If he has a consciousness (which I strongly doubt), this consciousness will value stimuli (providing he has any. If he hadn't he couldn't be alive I suppose) into a system of reward that is completely detached from reality. But as consciousness needs to attend a reality in order to work, this perception (consciousness = perceptive) of reality would be made up. Just like you do in your dreams. (In your dreams you imagine a representation of reality based on the knowledge you have).

However, this hypothethical person would not have a clue of what reality would be. He can therefor not even think about or imagine reality. So, the only thing that would be different from you dreaming and this hypothetical person dreaming, would be that you have interactive knowledge of external reality, and that for him dreaming is his only kind of thinking. You can conclude the impact your existence has on external reality. All your thoughts, are manifestations of such conclusiveness. This hypothetical person of no perception, has a different perspective of being. He would only know the internal reality. His existence only knows the interactivity of thoughts (rather than objects). His reality would thus be the future of thought. I think X, which will result me to be Y in the future. (Though of course, he wouldn't think communicable. He couldn't even imagine a person if he wanted to).

This could be called emotional, but it isn't. Emotions are judgments. They are identifications of perception. Which has an interactive purpose. You value perception in order to communicate it. (Judgment, is the imagination of perspective. This hypothetical person is incapable of imagining perspectives as he only knows 1.) This hypothetical person could communicate to himself, but could not convey anything. But rather he would clarify things for himself. (Which is weird but hey..) So he thinks, by clarifying rather than conveying and purely for the sake of subjective purpose. Without words, without feelings, without judgment, but merely objective identifications of perception. Objective, as no perspective of thought in order to convey something is required. (He would be a "god". Having 1 perspective that does not change.)

This objective kind of thinking is hard to imagine, but we all do it. However, it is not being felt as thinking. It is not being felt as being conscious.

If you only lack smell, you would lack that identification of perception. (Perception of smell). By lacking identification, you lack classification and generalization. You could therefor not think about it whatsoever. It is something you miss out on, but don't miss. You are still you, but you lack inter-subjectivity.

A more interesting phenomenon, would be to excel in perception. One whom excels in perception (has something more than some1 else), ALSO lacks inter-subjectivity. He could therefor not communicate NOR describe his extra perception. He wouldn't even notice he has it. All that would be noticed is, Hmmm... I do not fit in. The Why, stays unknown. (You can't identify something that can't be communicated. = Interactive purpose of thought). Yet, he will be observed as a lower human being as he lacks inter-subjectivity. E.g. A highly intelligent person with Autism. Who is there to say that it is a disorder, rather than the rest of humanity to be the ones with the disadvantage? This is where democracy fails.

 

[Cavallier]

I thought you said you were leaving.

 

[own8ge]

I thought you said you were leaving.

Not quite.

 

[Hawkeye]

You know, you've not really been away long enough to qualify as being absent.

 

[own8ge]

You know, you've not really been away long enough to qualify as being absent.

Now what? Are you going to set me on fire?

 

[Hadoblado]

Now what? Are you going to set me on fire?

I hear that in oxygen impoverished environments, dinosaurs are known to set their tiny little noses on fire. Related? No. Impressive? Yep.

 

[Hawkeye]

Now what? Are you going to set me on fire?