The Importance of Deception

[Ex-User (5841)]

Being lied to, manipulated, confronted, deluded, trapped, and abused are extremely important to furthering one's epistemological development.

How? Because wading through these deceptions and identifying where they conflict with each other expands perception. Identifying a lie gives you a piece of the liar's viewpoint. Confrontation forces you to wade deeper. Being delusional forces you to examine yourself. Being trapped forces you to find a way out. Abuse provides impetus to validate yourself.

Further, this is what's behind the correlation between intelligence and psychological "disorders"; and this is what underlies self-actualization as well as the development of intuition.

Agree/disagree with any of this?

Spoiler

[bimgx=600]http://markgredler.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/everybody-lies-wallpaper1.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[redbaron]

If you're a weak piece of shit, then sure.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

If you're a weak piece of shit, then sure.

Elaborate, please.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If you're a weak piece of shit, then sure.

How? Explain?

 

[redbaron]

Elaborate, please.

People who are stuck in their own confines of cognitive dissonance, delusion and wilful ignorance benefit from these sorts of things. For people who aren't, these things are irrelevant.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

People who are stuck in their own confines of cognitive dissonance, delusion and wilful ignorance benefit from these sorts of things. For people who aren't, these things are irrelevant.

I think there might be a misunderstanding.

 

[Starcrossed]

I think that only works if you know you are being lied to and you choose to "play along". Then at that point you need to ask yourself why do you wish to play along and what do you hope to gain from doing so.

Otherwise if you don't know you're being lied to then the whole bit about ignorance is bliss rings true... how can you truly appreciate the liar's view point if you don't know the full story?

 

[redbaron]

I think there might be a misunderstanding.

There's not.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

People who are stuck in their own confines of cognitive dissonance, delusion and wilful ignorance benefit from these sorts of things. For people who aren't, these things are irrelevant.

I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. Delusion and willful ignorance are self-caused and fall under the umbrella of "deluded" in the OP. Many of the others are external; coming from other places, being done to you.

I'm talking about a general trend. All of these things fall under the umbrella of deception. I'm saying that moving past deception is beneficial regardless of its source, and that deception is unavoidable (if it wasn't, no one would ever learn anything).

"For people who aren't, these things are irrelevant."

Maybe ^this is a deception?

There's not.

Then explain how. You're not giving much to work with.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

No, no...
What has been said is that seeing through a lie (for instance the famous Santa Clause Deception which has been discussed not long ago) makes you perceive reality in a different way.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

There's not.

Why are you so short on words?

 

[redbaron]

Why are you so short on words?

Because this concept is so elementary, it's barely noteworthy of discussion. Or perhaps I misjudge other people's cognitive development. In any case, I'll try explain why I'm being dismissive without berating you.

There are numerous ways to develop epistemological understanding. You could call being deceived, 'learning the hard way'. For people who fail to learn in other ways, it becomes important to them by default because they apparently learn in no other way.

Here, THD is considering deception important for its ability to lead to epistemological understanding. Yet there are many ways to increase this understanding without deception. Deception is simply the means by which he has understood certain things, so naturally he thinks it's important when in reality it's no more important than any other method.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think that only works if you know you are being lied to and you choose to "play along". Then at that point you need to ask yourself why do you wish to play along and what do you hope to gain from doing so.

Otherwise if you don't know you're being lied to then the whole bit about ignorance is bliss rings true... how can you truly appreciate the liar's view point if you don't know the full story?

One doesn't discover the liar's entire point of view, but gains a chunk of it that they can use to prevent future deception in that particular fashion.

Ignorance is bliss certainly applies (according the the rest of the theory in the OP, these people would be of lower intelligence), but it's a little more complex.

Given your job, you can visualize, right?

Think of it as an area in 3-D space, a huge box full of thousands of dividers that cross in every which way. You initially occupy a very small space within this box, and for each deception you work through, one of the walls surrounding you disintegrates, making the area you can occupy larger. You can choose to occupy any area within your space, which would be choosing to play along if you choose to stay within a particular area.

The same applies to other people, including liars. They have an area of space that they can occupy. When someone lies, they're building a divider somewhere within their own space, and when you uncover their lie, you gain access to the space they sealed off. You don't get all of their space, because they have plenty more to occupy.

You gain something because that process forms a structure within you; a system, a method of skepticism that transfers elsewhere. It's a cognitive change that, I'll posit, is permanent.

Eventually you pick up on patterns in your removal of dividers, discovering general rules/directions that cleave like slate that allow you to clear larger and larger areas at once. For example, discovering that Santa Claus isn't real quickly leads to the discovery that the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy aren't either.

This rate would be exponential if true. Expand the box to include not just yourself and the liar, but every other human being, every living thing, every bit of the universe.

Yet there are many ways to increase this understanding without deception.

Like what? Serious question. You've dismissed it with mere fallacy and insult, no real explanation (which I don't understand because you're not an idiot).

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I remember a period of time, i think it might have been the age of reason, or some other disposable by-product of history, when demystifying the myth was considered an achievement for humanity as a whole.

 

[redbaron]

Like what? Serious question.

Analysis.

This is one article on conceptual analysis:

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/jfurner/papers/furner-04archsci.pdf

It will probably seem slightly irrelevant to the topic at hand for the first 10-11 pages, but they're necessary to read to understand the rest which deals with the topic at hand.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Analysis is the cognitive change I talk about in post 13.

I'm guessing there's going to be some chicken and egging to work through.

*goes to read*

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Analysis.

This is one article on conceptual analysis:

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/jfurner/papers/furner-04archsci.pdf

It will probably seem slightly irrelevant to the topic at hand for the first 10-11 pages, but they're necessary to read to understand the rest which deals with the topic at hand.

The first 10-11 pages are actually the most relevant, imho. The rest of the article is predicated on them, and that's where my chief disagreements are.

Ultimately I think you misunderstand my perspective as well as the attention of the process I'm attempting to conduct ITT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

I'm a holist. I believe that truth is the total sum of the subjective and objective. When I say that X is important, I'm not saying "X is the answer," I'm saying "Don't forget about X." You're behaving in a way that indicates you believe I'm a subjectivist, not a holist.

My process is the discovery of truth through means of external validation. "to compare individual pairs of conceptions of evidence and information with a view to establishing the extent and nature of any overlap (262)." I want to know what others have to say, not spew dogma.

Agree/disagree with any of this?

I actually believe this comment from the .pdf most accurately describes my process. Attached .xls contains a table to help illustrate the concept. I think you're observing only a portion of a cycle and perceiving it as subjectivism. Induction is valid if taken to the point of absurdity, where it encounters (conflicts with) other inductions. That locus of encounter is the truth.

Spoiler

Underdetermination. This is stating that linear causality is preferred to nonlinear causality, which is fallacious.

Nonlinear causality is rooted in systemic causality within the overarching system. It's the result of every bit of the relational reverberation that is not linear.

Food webs - trophic cascades specifically -, provide the best intro to this concept, imho.

Let's do part of a single reverberation. For ease of understanding, assume that everything that happens within a unit is a single action.

A fox eats a squirrel.

Fox demand for rabbits and mice is decreased.

Squirrel demand for shrubs is decreased, but partly made up for by increased demand for shrubs from rabbits and mice.

Rabbit demand on grass increases.

Unit 1 complete.

For purposes of brevity, I did not follow the rabbit decline through the owl. Keep the numbers going and creating units until you achieve the initial conditions. This is one cycle. The inductive process views a cycle, all units combined, as a single action.

Perhaps this might be better understood as a cuil.

Spoiler

http://cuiltheory.wikidot.com/philosophy-of-cuil

http://cuiltheory.wikidot.com/mathematics-of-cuil

Circularity is not a problem, it's holistic; the arbitrary reductionism cutting circularity short is.

.pdf Attached with highlighting and commentary, if you're/anyone's bored and particularly vivacious. Some of it's very obscure, tangential, and Ne-ish because I'm relating it to things outside of this thread, so if you don't understand it, ignore it or ask me about it. I didn't intend to upload it until about 1/3 of the way through, but it was the easier option and I the order of the comments should provide clues as to my thought process. PCT = Perceptual Control Theory. 1, 3, and "double helix" refer to post 34 and later in the "Role of Shaman" thread. "Shoebox" refers to the box in post 13 ITT. (Not that I'm expecting you to investigate either, just preemptively addressing the "wtf?" when you see them).

Because this concept is so elementary, it's barely noteworthy of discussion. Or perhaps I misjudge other people's cognitive development.

Deception is simply the means by which he has understood certain things, so naturally he thinks it's important when in reality it's no more important than any other method.

It's so elementary and unworthy of discussion that you're in this thread discussing it. Based on my refutation of yellow, I think it's that pink stuff. Which makes this uncalled for:

If you're a weak piece of shit, then sure.

Since when am I the one taking the high road in our relationship?

People who are stuck in their own confines of cognitive dissonance, delusion and wilful ignorance benefit from these sorts of things. For people who aren't, these things are irrelevant.

You're implying that people who aren't exist.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

PDF response: http://snk.to/f-c7pads03

.xls table:

Spoiler

Unit 1
Hawk 0 0 0 0 0
Fox 1 1 1 1 1
Weasel 0 0 0 0 0
Thrush 0 0 0 0 0
Rabbit 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.38
Squirrel -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Mouse 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Caterpillar 0 0 0 0 -0.13
Grass 0 0 0 -0.25 0
Shrubs 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25

Mushrooms remain immortal

 

[crippli]

My process is the discovery of truth through means of external validation.

Interesting thread. I'll read it at full later. But are you sure this is the way to truth? After all. No-one see the world as you do. It will be different for everyone.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Interesting thread. I'll read it at full later. But are you sure this is the way to truth?

Thanks. No. At least not yet.

After all. No-one see the world as you do. It will be different for everyone.

^This is actually the general rule that allows it to occur. It's related to many of the NetLogo ideas and Perceptual Control Theory.

Something related to the part you quoted.

 

[Reluctantly]

I always seem to respect the leaders that realize their authority is based only on the truth that other people are willing to follow them. The ignorant leaders get power trips and start to believe people are actually beneath them and think it's okay to abuse those people.

But it's a funny thing. Some leaders can let the power get to their head and actually accept their authority as who they are (a truth), treating people under them poorly, yet never having a major threat to their authority. Maybe in that case, one could say they really are the authority that they have.

And that's the funny thing about truth. It may be truth for one person and not the other. But at least the leader that realizes such truth is not true for them has a greater awareness of what being an authority figure entails. This person learned from their mistake that being a leader includes more than just exercising authority.

So I think I get what you are saying. There's some meta-intelligence to be gained from being mistaken. But there's a catch, someone could learn from the mistakes of others. So it's not necessary to gain this meta-intelligence by making the mistakes personally. Are you perhaps then thinking about those people that believe other people failed because they applied the wrong method? These people could then only learn from being mistaken because they refuse to believe what has happened to other people could happen to them.

In that sense, I think I could see where you are coming from.

 

[redbaron]

You're behaving in a way that indicates you believe I'm a subjectivist, not a holist.

Not really. I'm behaving as though you don't really understand either, which is apparently the case. I tend to think that anyone who concretely identifies as either one has missed the point of both.

I guess in the vein of what I've said so far in the thread, you won't really figure it out until you're forced to (or you'll just continue on in delusion, either one). The topic stems from an incomplete premise/perception on your behalf, which strikes me as odd coming from someone who apparently identifies themselves as a, 'holist'.

No, I haven't misunderstood your position, there's just so many more facets to epistemological understanding that singling out any specific one as, 'important' is of no real significance.

Nothing else I can really add to the thread, not really interested in multi-quote debates over dud topics taken out of context.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Not really. I'm behaving as though you don't really understand either, which is apparently the case. I tend to think that anyone who concretely identifies as either one has missed the point of both.

I guess in the vein of what I've said so far in the thread, you won't really figure it out until you're forced to (or you'll just continue on in delusion, either one). The topic stems from an incomplete premise/perception on your behalf, which strikes me as odd coming from someone who apparently identifies themselves as a, 'holist'.

No, I haven't misunderstood your position, there's just so many more facets to epistemological understanding that singling out any specific one as, 'important' is of no real significance.

Nothing else I can really add to the thread, not really interested in multi-quote debates over dud topics taken out of context.

You are being condescending and fail to explain yourself.
You ravel yourself in mystery: is this intended?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Not really. I'm behaving as though you don't really understand either, which is apparently the case. I tend to think that anyone who concretely identifies as either one has missed the point of both.

I guess in the vein of what I've said so far in the thread, you won't really figure it out until you're forced to (or you'll just continue on in delusion, either one). The topic stems from an incomplete premise/perception on your behalf, which strikes me as odd coming from someone who apparently identifies themselves as a, 'holist'.

No, I haven't misunderstood your position, there's just so many more facets to epistemological understanding that singling out any specific one as, 'important' is of no real significance.

Nothing else I can really add to the thread, not really interested in multi-quote debates over dud topics taken out of context.

One can analyze one piece at a time and still produce a larger structure. It's more systematic that you give credit.

I don't think you've added to the thread at all, and Actually, you have. You made me elucidate things to better convey them to others. But you haven't provided any evidence to support your claims that I'm deluded or that my premise/perception is incomplete, or, more specifically, that yours isn't (since I believe we're all fundamentally deluded and no one is omniscient).

Your response comes across as a cop out to me.

 

[BigApplePi]

I've only skimmed this thread, so welcome to anything ignorant I have to say.

Being lied to, manipulated, confronted, deluded, trapped, and abused are extremely important to furthering one's epistemological development.

Yes because one cannot be lied to unless one makes assumptions ... and one does. Don't believe me? Try watching a magic show where you can't figure how she/he did it.

How? Because wading through these deceptions and identifying where they conflict with each other expands perception. Identifying a lie gives you a piece of the liar's viewpoint. Confrontation forces you to wade deeper. Being delusional forces you to examine yourself. Being trapped forces you to find a way out. Abuse provides impetus to validate yourself.

Yes.

Further, this is what's behind the correlation between intelligence and psychological "disorders"; and this is what underlies self-actualization as well as the development of intuition.

Don't know. Uncovering deception could be a more shocking way to learn than straightforward input. Needs study.

Agree/disagree with any of this?

Yes. That's why I'm making this post.

Here is a nice post. Let's try it out as an example:

If you're a weak piece of shit, then sure.

We could look for deception here. I'd say the deception is to narrow oneself to redbaron's hypothesis. He wants you to go for the narrow hypothesis. The reality is there may be other reasons why "sure works out." So there are two things going on.

(1) Deceiving you to buy the weak hypothesis
(2) Evading the "Being lied to, manipulated, confronted, deluded, trapped, and abused" hypothesis

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I will refrain from adressing the issue until I understand more for myself...

 

[Cavallier]

Being lied to, manipulated, confronted, deluded, trapped, and abused are extremely important to furthering one's epistemological development.

How? Because wading through these deceptions and identifying where they conflict with each other expands perception. Identifying a lie gives you a piece of the liar's viewpoint. Confrontation forces you to wade deeper. Being delusional forces you to examine yourself. Being trapped forces you to find a way out. Abuse provides impetus to validate yourself.

Further, this is what's behind the correlation between intelligence and psychological "disorders"; and this is what underlies self-actualization as well as the development of intuition.

Agree/disagree with any of this?

Okay. I'll take a shot at it.

First I want to get semantics out of the way...

Spoiler

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy

1. the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Being lied to, manipulated, confronted, deluded, trapped, and abused are extremely important to furthering one's epistemological development.

How? Because wading through these deceptions and identifying where they conflict with each other expands perception.

Wading through deception and seeing where deceptions conflict with one another does expand perception but only so far in highlighting the deception itself. Defining deception does not in turn define truth.

Identifying a lie gives you a piece of the liar's viewpoint.

True. However, merely hearing what a person says regardless of whether or not it is a lie gives you a piece of the liar's viewpoint. You might argue having the knowledge that what they've said is a lie shows me a deep part of themselves. I lean toward agreeing except how does them lying, me knowing it, at all lead to my own epistemological growth?

Even if I were to consider for a moment that the lie they've told me relates to who I am as a person it only relates in so far as it shows what the other person thinks of me NOT what actually is. Therefore it is not truth and thus does not offer any foundation upon which I can justify or evolve my own beliefs.

Confrontation forces you to wade deeper. Being delusional forces you to examine yourself. Being trapped forces you to find a way out.

Yes. I agree that confrontation does force you to learn more about yourself if you are already an introspective person. If you are a combatative person it does not necessarily lead to growth. I've seen it lead to resentment, anger, bad coping mechanisms, and total repression. Therefore, while it might be a good tool in certain circumstances for certain people it is not a great tool for all circumstances and all people. I know people who have broken and who will never be whole again due entirely to being trapped and confronted.

Abuse provides impetus to validate yourself.

How? Provide me with examples. This idea of self validation seems kind of fishy or at least very wishy-washy to me.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I'll read it at full later. But are you sure this is the way to truth?.

Not the truth, but an aspect of it.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think I'm probably going to whiff out after this post and go to bed. I find myself retyping sentences because I can't stop thinking and leave out half the words. Word salad buffet. All you can eat. I'll probably need to add to this/clarify/edit later.

Though I shall press on and respond to the rest of y'all sooner or later.

I always seem to respect the leaders that realize their authority is based only on the truth that other people are willing to follow them.

This, to me, speaks to the tendency of leaders to appear during times of crisis. Credible leaders are waiting in the wings/shadows, but it's just not worth their time until crisis strikes and catalyzes the foundation for achieved authority. Atilla the Hun and Claudius ("Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus") come to mind. Supposedly this is an ENTP thing, but I wouldn't restrict it to that label.

The ignorant leaders get power trips and start to believe people are actually beneath them and think it's okay to abuse those people.

But it's a funny thing. Some leaders can let the power get to their head and actually accept their authority as who they are (a truth), treating people under them poorly, yet never having a major threat to their authority. Maybe in that case, one could say they really are the authority that they have.

What happens when the crisis ends? (Rhetorical)

And that's the funny thing about truth. It may be truth for one person and not the other. But at least the leader that realizes such truth is not true for them has a greater awareness of what being an authority figure entails. This person learned from their mistake that being a leader includes more than just exercising authority.

The particular mistake I'm thinking of (age 14) was particularly ugly and embarrassing. Ascribed followers would not follow my ascribed label because I was abusing my power. Transition to reliance on achieved authority ensued.

So I think I get what you are saying. There's some meta-intelligence to be gained from being mistaken. But there's a catch, someone could learn from the mistakes of others. So it's not necessary to gain this meta-intelligence by making the mistakes personally. Are you perhaps then thinking about those people that believe other people failed because they applied the wrong method? These people could then only learn from being mistaken because they refuse to believe what has happened to other people could happen to them.

In that sense, I think I could see where you are coming from.

Learning from the mistakes of others entails being those others. We can interview and read about them all we want, but we'll never be them (from an introspective capacity) or be able to grasp their entire Markov decision tree that led up to that instance (nor a large portion of the tree that follows). It's definitely helpful, but it's also incomplete.

It's more like believing that anything that happened to someone else could happen to you, and solving it through brute force exposure. Though what you said definitely reinforces thoughts I've been having that this thing is bifurcated in structure and the purpose of my seeking feedback responses is to elucidate the other half. I'm seeing double helices everywhere again...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Don't know. Uncovering deception could be a more shocking way to learn than straightforward input. Needs study.

Here's an overview of the theoretical underpinnings:

1. Positive Disintegration

2. Crisis Intervention

Here's the meat and potatoes.

And supporting data sufficient to establish the theory.

As well as overexcitability's counterpart in conventional psychology.

Okay. I'll take a shot at it.

First I want to get semantics out of the way...

Spoiler

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy

1. the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Understood. (Rhetorical ->) What is "opinion" based on? Epistemology is imbued with empiricist bias. A lot of stuff gets excluded... pretty much all of experiential causality, actually. Empiricism would be a great tool is people lied only using deductive processes, but the purpose of lies is often to undermine and defeat such processes. People base their decisions on perception, emotion, language, intuition, imagination, faith, memory, etc., as well as empirical logic. This is why synchronicity was such a breakthrough.

Wading through deception and seeing where deceptions conflict with one another does expand perception but only so far in highlighting the deception itself. Defining deception does not in turn define truth.

Ah, but it does. Defining a single deception cannot identify truth, but defining multiple deceptions can be used to triangulate truth. The more perspectives/directions, the better. Who would do what when where why how? This is analogous to the unlocking-areas-of-the-box example in post 13. Moreover, the Markov decision structure deceptions repeats via synchronicity, allowing the same triangulation points to validate or invalidate other areas of interest under the condition that they share the same pattern. Similar to echolocation.

True. However, merely hearing what a person says regardless of whether or not it is a lie gives you a piece of the liar's viewpoint. You might argue having the knowledge that what they've said is a lie shows me a deep part of themselves. I lean toward agreeing except how does them lying, me knowing it, at all lead to my own epistemological growth?

Even if I were to consider for a moment that the lie they've told me relates to who I am as a person it only relates in so far as it shows what the other person thinks of me NOT what actually is. Therefore it is not truth and thus does not offer any foundation upon which I can justify or evolve my own beliefs.

But you don't know if that piece is valid if you only take their statement at face value. Identifying the lie is accomplished through accessing the underlying process/sequence of events that caused them to lie. This process/sequence/system/structure is what can be generalized. What you're doing is producing and comparing two or more conditional structures that differ based on the implications of the proposed truth (presence) or falsity (absence) of a single piece of information. The most basic example of this the classic riddle of the two guards, where one compares a single inductive structure with a single deductive structure to get the solution:

You stand at a fork in the road. Next to each of the two forks, there stands a guard. You know the following things: 1. One path leads to Paradise, the other to Death. From where you stand, you cannot distinguish between the two paths. Worse, once you start down a path, you cannot turn back. 2. One of the two guards always tells the truth. The other guard always lies. Unfortunately, it is impossible for you to distinguish between the two guards.

You have permission to ask one guard one question to ascertain which path leads to Paradise. Remember that you do not know which guard you're asking -- the truth-teller or the liar -- and that this single question determines whether you live or die. The question is: What one question asked of one guard guarantees that you are led onto the path to Paradise, regardless of which guard you happen to ask?

Spoiler

"If I asked the other guard, which door would he indicate
leads to Paradise?" Regardless of whom you ask, they'll point to the wrong door.

You're identifying the presence of something by what it is not, or what isn't there. I'm basically describing doing the same thing, but with multiple perspectives and more variables; an extension of game theory in which, due to non-empirical ways of knowing, results in people serving as a reward currency in a many-valued logical system that, because it values the players themselves, forms a Markovian buckyball of sorts as opposed to the standard Markov decision tree.

Yes. I agree that confrontation does force you to learn more about yourself if you are already an introspective person. If you are a combatative person it does not necessarily lead to growth. I've seen it lead to resentment, anger, bad coping mechanisms, and total repression. Therefore, while it might be a good tool in certain circumstances for certain people it is not a great tool for all circumstances and all people. I know people who have broken and who will never be whole again due entirely to being trapped and confronted.

Whether one seeks out answers or waits for answers to come to them, or, in other words, confronts or is confronted, makes no difference. Both are in one's toolkit. The way out isn't always apparent, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How? Provide me with examples. This idea of self validation seems kind of fishy or at least very wishy-washy to me.

The idea here is that one must compare their self-perception with the perception another has of them. This is possible because one's perceptual barrier, the function of which is to exclude information, applies to all perception. A good example of this in action is any ego defense mechanism. It's the two guards riddle all over again. "They say X, I believe Y; what are the conditions under which X or Y would be true both in the presence or absence of its counterpart?" A second caveat, "Am I within those conditions?" allows for the exclusion of both options and the arbitrary attachment to another third option that alleviates the conflict but is not necessarily correct, because it's the best available replacement.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You can learn from any experience. The point of the OP is trivial.

 

[GodOfOrder]

It is a lesson about implicit trust in an authority. They said something was true, and it wasn't. A was lied to by person B. A learned he couldn't trust B, and quite possibly became more doubtful about the claims of C,D,F and G too, or at least felt the need to explore their claims.

 

[Cherry Cola]

yeah inductive reasoning.. big deal

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It is a lesson about implicit trust in an authority. They said something was true, and it wasn't. A was lied to by person B. A learned he couldn't trust B, and quite possibly became more doubtful about the claims of C,D,F and G too, or at least felt the need to explore their claims.

Also applies to implicit trust in self-authority and observations. "Is what I'm experiencing real?"

Testing both sides of the perception boundary.

You can learn from any experience. The point of the OP is trivial.

yeah inductive reasoning.. big deal

If that's what you're getting out of it, then I agree.

 

[TimeAsylums]

You can learn from any experience. The point of the OP is trivial.

This, in general, is how I feel about most of THD's "XXXX" threads. nonspecifically, you are correct, but down to the narrowness of the each of his points represents a specific, unique lesson from each point is to be derived.

//This thread simply focuses on importance on deception, many other active ones are focusing on other human aspects, one is on modesty, happiness, loneliness etc. He's just focusing on this one.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

A visual exercise-like thing that might help:

1. How many squares are there?:

Spoiler

2. How many buckyballs are in a buckyball made of buckyballs?

Spoiler

3. How many buckyballs are in a buckyball made of buckyballs that's full of buckyballs the size of one of its cyclohexane and cyclopentane components in the same ratio as these components occur (62.5% and 37.5% respectively) in the largest buckyball?

Spoiler

[bimgx=600]http://pbmo.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/buckyball-hive.jpg[/bimgx]

4. How many spaces are between these buckyballs, and what is the pattern that they form? Does it look like.... a buckyball? An anti-buckyball?

Spoiler

5. How do these spaces connect? Looks awful wormholey... Where do they meet? This might be facilitated by considering it like a magnetic field, wherein each red circle is a component buckyball.

Spoiler

6. Working from black to white or from white to black doesn't matter; truth lies in the line that separates the two.

Spoiler

[bimgx=600]http://www.hopeonhope.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/glass-faces.jpg[/bimgx]

This, in general, is how I feel about most of THD's "XXXX" threads. nonspecifically, you are correct, but down to the narrowness of the each of his points represents a specific, unique lesson from each point is to be derived.

This makes no sense.

 

[TimeAsylums]

A visual exercise-like thing that might help:

^
^

This makes no sense.

^

/ok derail lol

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

To build on post #36, what you must next do is build your buckyball with each node representing a decision tree, with each possible choice on the tree spawning a new layer inside the structure. There are no size limits; size is random within the overarching structure. They can also expand and shrink. These are agency structures.

A representation of the ultimate universal implication of the exercise in post #36:

Spoiler

^
^

^

/ok derail lol

I tried using the words first, you goober. Not my strong suit, obvs.

*notices that he effectively typed "balls" 12 times in a single post*

*Notes that Puffy put view #777 on this thread*

 

[Cherry Cola]

Lol now things got interesting but now I also can't quite grasp whats being said Typical fail-Cherry Cola!