The Random Thoughts Thread

[Happy]

Trolley problem is easy. You immediately switch to the one person and then you run over and try to untie them.

 

[Hadoblado]

 

[Pizzabeak]

I hate when people try to “take credit” for common words or phrases in a language, or even emotions, like they originated it. There’s some stigma that saying something first means you’re faster or more “woke” (closer to enlightenment) as if you were the originator of an event. You get no reward for stating the obvious. You can’t even say for sure.

And I don’t need a person “womansplaining” something to me, like it’s their own thing they’re dealing with (?). It doesn’t make sense.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

For the last 5 million years or so, every single one of your ancestors managed to survive and replicate. That's quite impressive.

 

[CatGoddess]

An older gen friend of mine was ranting about participation trophies and how "people getting told they're winners just for 'trying their best' is ruining society!" I thought about it, though, and I actually don't have a problem with validating/rewarding effort.

Unless you're significantly handicapped, you will accomplish things in life through hard work*, and I think it makes sense to recognize kids' efforts to encourage them to try later in life, even in areas they don't naturally excel. Achievement should certainly be recognized too, but I disagree with the notion that rewarding those who genuinely try their best is detrimental. Although, I do have an issue with a literal participation award, where you praise and reward people who put forth 0 effort and accomplish nothing.

*

Spoiler: Example

For instance, I'm naturally good at deductive reasoning/abstraction, and thus only have to put in a small amount of effort to understand calculus. Some of my classmates do not have this innate ability, but they work their asses off and thereby manage to get comparable grades to me. If they continue to apply this strategy, they can probably make it through college and get decent middle-class jobs.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

some people learn better from pain (perhaps most people?). I think when kids are pampered too much and never experience the pain of failing or fucking up, they don't acquire self-regulatory and self-motivating capabilities. So when they do eventually fuck up (like everyone does at some point), they just become depressed and demotivated.

 

[soupymess]

Today I changed my previous opinion about the trolley problem after listening to a lecture where it was discussed. The same lecture also sparked an interest in philosophy which has been previously quenched by picking up books by previous philosophers and having to force ones way through obtuse speech, inaccurate observations or stupid comparisons.

Anyway, I went from pragmatic want to kill 5 people to not doing anything. How is that even possible? Though, I guess it should be said I solidly find such hypothetical useful for developing thought, but not so for principles.

Weird to think about in the context of driverless vehicles, especially where the AI's reasoning can't be made explicit. How could you distinguish a pragmatic/amoral sequence of 'decisions' in an ethical dilemma like that from an alien morality? Need a Turing test for moral agency or something.

 

[JohnnyLawrence]

some people learn better from pain (perhaps most people?). I think when kids are pampered too much and never experience the pain of failing or fucking up, they don't acquire self-regulatory and self-motivating capabilities. So when they do eventually fuck up (like everyone does at some point), they just become depressed and demotivated.

the painful lessons aren't so easy to forget

i think we are seeing less debate in society and i think that's a concern. I think ideas need to be tested

lets say that you have an idea for a product or an idea of how society should be. If the idea is not examined and scrutinised and tested to ensure its validity then we could end up with a faulty product or idea

If your product is something big like a building or a rocket then not having your ideas tested could lead to a catastrophic event because you might have missed a crucial detail. for example a bridge collapsed after being installed in the US in the last year or so. Something was missed in the design or construction stage and if a culture is created which is an echo chamber then people become afraid to speak out and question things and this can lead to blind spots

I also think that the moral dimension of ideas should be discussed and i'm concerned that some personality types are so focussed on whether they can get an idea to work that they never concern themselves with whether or not its a good idea in the first place in terms of the human cost

 

[CatGoddess]

some people learn better from pain (perhaps most people?). I think when kids are pampered too much and never experience the pain of failing or fucking up, they don't acquire self-regulatory and self-motivating capabilities. So when they do eventually fuck up (like everyone does at some point), they just become depressed and demotivated.

I think you can reward people for working hard without taking away the experience of pain, though. For instance, a group of friends and I practiced solos for ~half a year to take to a contest. Our director would listen to us each week and give us feedback, but he would give more of a verbal "reward" to those who made a lot of progress that week than to those who sounded good but hadn't really worked on their solo.

So it's not like they/we never failed, and I think the director's general strategy does teach people to be tenacious even though they might've fucked up at certain points. And there really doesn't seem to be any harm in pushing people to continue working hard until they do get results, rather than discouraging them by sending off the message that their hard work is meaningless without results right now.

I mean, yes, I have noticed a number of high school seniors who became disillusioned after realizing they wouldn't succeed in everything, but I can't speak for the prevalence of this phenomenon in wider society. Besides, it seems to stem from a form of societal coddling/dumbing-down distinct from participation trophies (i.e. school is fairly easy for reasonably intelligent students, so the smarter people succeed at everything without trying and get the false impression that adult life is just as easy). If anything, I think that placing an emphasis on hard work rather than pure achievement early on counteracts this mentality.

@JohnnyLawrence I prefer argument to reach genuine consensus over polite agreement. The self-enforced neutrality practiced by a good portion of the people I know (usually high Fe users...?) gets kind of old.

You say you're an INFJ. What brings you to this forum?

 

[lightfire]

Yallses random thoughts be extra

 

[lightfire]

what if you live at like the border of a time zone, and your phone keeps going +/- an hour depending what side of the house you're on

 

[JohnnyLawrence]

@JohnnyLawrence I prefer argument to reach genuine consensus over polite agreement. The self-enforced neutrality practiced by a good portion of the people I know (usually high Fe users...?) gets kind of old.

what if some people are invested in protecting a narrative and therefore won't ever admit the truth even if you prove it beyond reasonable doubt?

That debate will never be entirely amicable because you are basically exposing them as a fraud. So if you want to dig down to the truth you have to accept that some debate is going to be adversarial and that people won't always agree or get along but as long as they remain civilised then it can still be productive in that it allows an information exchange

You say you're an INFJ. What brings you to this forum?

an area i am particularly interested in getting greater insight into is in relation to our engagement with technology

I see technology as a double edged sword. I think it can be used for good or for ill depending on who is controlling the technology. It seems to me that INTP's are quite technically minded people whereas INFJ's are interested in morality and the human angle to things

So i'm interested in hearing INTP perspectives on certain topics that i think are going to have a big impact on our lives. This then in turn helps me to create an intuitive barometer as to which way the wind is blowing

 

[CatGoddess]

@JohnnyLawrence Well, here's what I mean by "consensus". With a reasonable person (I make a point of not talking in-depth with unreasonable people because it's frustrating), I think I can always either convince them with evidence or find some unprovable difference in belief that's causing us to disagree.

For instance, I'm an atheist and a number of the people I know are religious, so that will inevitably cause differences in opinion because of our immutable beliefs (well, more mutable in my case because if I die and end up burning down in the inferno I'll obviously have to change my mind). As another example, I tend to take a more cynical view towards human nature, but you can find evidence supporting both the goodness and badness of humans, so you can't really prove that view one way or the other until we make more advances in psychology.

But that's an interesting reason to come here. I think most INTPs honestly aren't really thinking about technology in terms of its impact on people's lives or its ethical implications. They're generally looking at the scientific underpinnings and mechanisms first. Where an INFJ might say, "we must destroy death rays because of the hazard they pose to us all", an INTP would be more likely to say "woah! Tesla wanted to build a death ray and now we finally have one; isn't that awesome?! How does it work?"

Welcome to the forum, in any case.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

indeed, all scientific and technological progress has been made by people who thought certain problems were interesting, as opposed to thinking about their utility for humanity. E.g. Von Neumann invented computers to do atomic-bomb calculations, and wanted to make atomic bombs just because it was some cool shit to make from a scientific perspective. I suspect most INTPs think exactly like that.

 

[JohnnyLawrence]

Well, here's what I mean by "consensus". With a reasonable person (I make a point of not talking in-depth with unreasonable people because it's frustrating), I think I can always either convince them with evidence or find some unprovable difference in belief that's causing us to disagree.

In an environment like a forum i think that even a debate with an unreasonable person can still be productive because all the people reading the debate get to hear the arguments so that even if you don't change the mind of the person who has an agenda you may still bring a lot of interesting information and perspectives to the public discourse

For instance, I'm an atheist and a number of the people I know are religious, so that will inevitably cause differences in opinion because of our immutable beliefs (well, more mutable in my case because if I die and end up burning down in the inferno I'll obviously have to change my mind). As another example, I tend to take a more cynical view towards human nature, but you can find evidence supporting both the goodness and badness of humans, so you can't really prove that view one way or the other until we make more advances in psychology.

But that's an interesting reason to come here. I think most INTPs honestly aren't really thinking about technology in terms of its impact on people's lives or its ethical implications. They're generally looking at the scientific underpinnings and mechanisms first. Where an INFJ might say, "we must destroy death rays because of the hazard they pose to us all", an INTP would be more likely to say "woah! Tesla wanted to build a death ray and now we finally have one; isn't that awesome?! How does it work?"

yeah i think you have summarised it well

so we can build nuclear bombs and we can build enough to destroy the world several times over and we can turn them into hypersonic missiles that don't allow a response from the targetted enemy but there is also a question of whether that's actually a good idea!

I think left brain thinking is intellect and that allows the creation of complex technologies but i think intelligence is when the whole brain is working together so that it considers the IMPLICATIONS of our actions down the line and weighs up what is actually best for humanity

Welcome to the forum, in any case.

thankyou!

 

[onesteptwostep]

I saw Captain Marvel the other day. Decent origin story. I'm wondering how the chemistry of the characters are going to play out though.. Captain Marvel has somewhat of a loose, free feel while the avengers are in this sentimentally charged aftermath.

 

[CatGoddess]

I didn't really like it; Carol herself was rather generic/unmemorable as a character, and the plot was highly predictable. There were certainly good parts (Goose! Fury! Jokes!), but, overall, it seemed fairly bland as far as Marvel movies go.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Yeah it was a pretty light movie. I enjoyed it, but because I didn't really expect anything out it. I knew it was just a precursor to Endgame- I honestly went in to watch because of the post-credits scene, which was something I was dissappointed on.

 

[lightfire]

Been craving some brisket and ribs, but all the good texan places open on wednesday.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

dissenter.com

"the comment section of the internet"

 

[onesteptwostep]

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I love AOC. She and that dopey Beto guy are gonna get Trump re-elected.

 

[onesteptwostep]

You should look into aoc more, shes actually an efficient congresswomen. Also I really doubt Trump is gonna win.. do you WANT Trump to win, or something?

 

[Black Rose]

do you WANT Trump to win, or something?

what gave you the impression I did, lolz

 

[onesteptwostep]

:/

 

[lightfire]

:/

 

[Black Rose]

jojo: dude you be trip'n

anonymous: like hot rice yo

jojo: so it was you all along

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You should look into aoc more, shes actually an efficient congresswomen. Also I really doubt Trump is gonna win.. do you WANT Trump to win, or something?

what do you mean by "efficient"? To me it looks like she's managed to create a lot of division in the democrat party with that insane "green new deal" and various unrealistic radically socialist plans. Maybe I'm missing something but to me she looks extremely incompetent.

she mentions something interesting in that interview though (actually the only interesting thing, besides all the giggling and talk about food); that the millennial generation is in a very different economic environment than our predecessors. It's interesting not because I think she has the right solutions to millennials' problems, but because it informative in explaining why millennials have such a hard-on for socialism, communism and all that stuff. Millennials basically entered adulthood right after the financial 2008 crash – i.e. they suffered the consequences of the previous generation's bad decisions, and saw the dysfunctional side of the current economic system. That system is not capitalism, but capitalism became the target of all the criticism. Thus it makes sense that millennials, who struggle to find jobs, are left with massive student-loan debt, and who live with their parents into their 30s due to disproprtionate housing prices, like the idea of wealth redistribution. It's also interesting to think about whether all the SJW stuff was a consequence of the link between anti-capitalism and social-justice movements or the other way around. My theory is the former.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Oh actually I've not looked into her green new deal stuff, most of my understanding of her comes from her congressional hearings. She does her job well because shes funded well by her constituents and other millennials, which allows her to study the issues she hears before going into them. According to wiki shes on 6 committees.

 

[Minuend]

I changed my mind on the trolley problem again. There will be a different answer depending on whether the answer is supposed to be a general rule/ value or whether it's a situational thing.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I don't understand the appeal of eternal life. Having an aversion to death, sure, that's a pretty normal instinct. But to extrapolate that instinct to a supposed desire to live forever? I don't think people realize how insanely boring and depressing that would be.

 

[Hadoblado]

I see it as forever having the option to keep on living, but always having the option to opt out.

So at least to me, it's about having the choice to not be taken before I'm ready.

 

[CatGoddess]

Yeah, I agree with Hadoblado. As I see it, every single day you decide, "today I shall continue to live, rather than kill myself". You continue that process until you either decide "today I'd rather kill myself" or else involuntarily die, so, when I say "eternal life", I mean a life where it's my choice and where eternity is on the table. Obviously I can say with 100% accuracy that I'll always wake up and want to continue living, but the idea that there'll be a day when life no longer seems worth it is not really substantiated either.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think most INTPs honestly aren't really thinking about technology in terms of its impact on people's lives or its ethical implications. They're generally looking at the scientific underpinnings and mechanisms first. Where an INFJ might say, "we must destroy death rays because of the hazard they pose to us all", an INTP would be more likely to say "woah! Tesla wanted to build a death ray and now we finally have one; isn't that awesome?! How does it work?"

Maybe it's a matter of holistic thinking.

Because if you are truly thinking globally, then even if you are detached and more curious about "how" and "can we," you are also going to be aware of the cause/effect chain radiating out from every action you take, like a huge causal web. IOW, figuring out how to split the atom would have been a scientific curiosity ("is this possible?") and even wargames could be considered mental exercises (like a far more complex game of chess), but you're also going to maintain an awareness of the potential benefits and detriments of your new tech. I don't think INTPs are divorced from or indifferent to that just by personality -- I mean, logically, if you invent something that could destroy the world, that includes you as well. You can still "care" even if you don't emotionally feel a ton about a particular of action. (Even John Hammond, probably an ENTP type, decided to close his dinosaur park once he realized he was sitting on a powder keg -- but it was hard because he was attached to the science.)

What I think happens more is that science gets created, then the zealots with goals take it and apply/leverage in it ways to provide power to their causes. They are indifferent to the curiosity, indifferent to the science, indifferent to the understanding; they just want power to implement their platforms. So then 'science' gets lassoed into dangerous directions. Unfortunately, the scientist can easily play a role in that if they limit their sight to just "the science" without thinking about the ramifications of the science and whether people can be trusted with the knowledge.

 

[lightfire]

sometimes I can't spell my name

 

[kora]

Random thots thread hurhur

 

[The Grey Man]

Life is eternal, we just don't remember who we were before we were born, nor do we know who we'll be after we die. So I suppose eternal life doesn't have to be boring as long as we regularly experience death-induced amnesia.

 

[lightfire]

i ask way too many questions for my own good, its like I can't even put a cap on it, gets me in trouble all the time.

i just always gotta be like why why WHY. like stfu, me.

 

[caitlinwaters]

If a pregnant woman goes diving, or anything underwater really, does that make her a human submarine?

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk

 

[caitlinwaters]

i ask way too many questions for my own good, its like I can't even put a cap on it, gets me in trouble all the time.

i just always gotta be like why why WHY. like stfu, me.

I get that on a personal level man. But in my case, it's not only me telling myself to stfu, but everyone else too lol

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

stop assuming the intellectual dark web is a political movement

(if that is what you are doing)

 

[lightfire]

I saw a pic of chocolate cake that reminded me of a dinosaur

 

[cmerrick]

we INTPs think and analyse ceaselessly. we must think about some crazy and pointless but no less interesting things

just post any random thoughts you have

I was raised Christian. Then I didn't believe in God in college for the most part. Now, I suppose I'm Christian again because I just have to believe that there's something greater out there, that there's something that wants the best for us. To be honest, I don't feel as though I fit in with either Christians or Atheists completely because I believe in a higher spiritual being, but at the same time I struggle to believe in the physical existence of said spiritual being. I don't really believe a lot of what the Bible says, but I still consider myself a Christian. I don't know. My brain confuses me sometimes. I think my belief in God is mostly a defense against my own sadness and insanity.

In terms of the creation of the earth, my first instinct is to believe what science says, Then, I think that there might be something that we don't know about. Maybe humans don't know everything. What if there is something greater out there? What if there's something we're missing?

I've also been thinking about death a lot. I just read this book about various religious and philosophical perspectives about death and what happens when we die. For Atheists, what do you think happens when you die? Are you able to even picture it? I don't think we're actually capable as humans to imagine ourselves dying and becoming nothing or our souls ceasing to exist. Maybe Atheists believe subconsciously that they will live on the earth indefinitely, or do some of them secretly believe that their souls will still live on even after their bodies decompose? I don't think it's stupid to believe in heaven or some kind of afterlife. I think its our brain's way of protecting us from the nothingness of death if death is in fact nothingness. It makes death less terrifying believing that it's not the end. Even if there isn't an afterlife after death, you won't be aware of it then because you will be nothing.

Sorry, this was longer than I intended, but you asked for random thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Atheists typically believe that you die, and then.... nothing, though some have transhuman or universal consciousness fantasies. I was Christian once, but neither death nor nothingness frightens me. I feared the christian God for some time when I was young, because his morality/benevolence/rationality were suspect. It was a stark relief when I came to my conclusions.

I think at the very least you should consider multiple possibilities. There are other religious and spiritual options apart from Christianity. Christianity isn't a particularly fun religion compared too any mythology save Islam. Why not worship Bastet, Freyr, or Amaterasu? There are much more charming deities than the old voyeur in the sky with the giant stick up his ass and a poorly repressed torture fetish.

 

[Minuend]

So doing strength exercises for like 10-30min every day actually yield results. It's pretty neat. I think more people should be told you can get result from doing the minimal amount of effort

 

[lightfire]

So doing strength exercises for like 10-30min every day actually yield results. It's pretty neat. I think more people should be told you can get result from doing the minimal amount of effort

Yessss, seeing results is the best feeling ever and the biggest motivation ever.

 

[lightfire]

I wonder if animals who chase their tails means there's a glitch in their system

 

[caitlinwaters]

I wonder what stars would taste like

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk

 

[Jennywocky]

we INTPs think and analyse ceaselessly. we must think about some crazy and pointless but no less interesting things

just post any random thoughts you have

I was raised Christian. Then I didn't believe in God in college for the most part. Now, I suppose I'm Christian again because I just have to believe that there's something greater out there, that there's something that wants the best for us. To be honest, I don't feel as though I fit in with either Christians or Atheists completely because I believe in a higher spiritual being, but at the same time I struggle to believe in the physical existence of said spiritual being. I don't really believe a lot of what the Bible says, but I still consider myself a Christian. I don't know. My brain confuses me sometimes. I think my belief in God is mostly a defense against my own sadness and insanity.

In terms of the creation of the earth, my first instinct is to believe what science says, Then, I think that there might be something that we don't know about. Maybe humans don't know everything. What if there is something greater out there? What if there's something we're missing?

I've also been thinking about death a lot. I just read this book about various religious and philosophical perspectives about death and what happens when we die. For Atheists, what do you think happens when you die? Are you able to even picture it? I don't think we're actually capable as humans to imagine ourselves dying and becoming nothing or our souls ceasing to exist. Maybe Atheists believe subconsciously that they will live on the earth indefinitely, or do some of them secretly believe that their souls will still live on even after their bodies decompose? I don't think it's stupid to believe in heaven or some kind of afterlife. I think its our brain's way of protecting us from the nothingness of death if death is in fact nothingness. It makes death less terrifying believing that it's not the end. Even if there isn't an afterlife after death, you won't be aware of it then because you will be nothing.

Sorry, this was longer than I intended, but you asked for random thoughts.

I would like to believe and in fact was born into a Christian family, raised as a Christian, struggled through many doubts, spent some long years in church leadership (worship lead, various activities outside church, program writer/implementer), until my beliefs just changed enough over time that I could not longer accept my earlier conclusions -- my accumulated knowledge changed, so my conclusions changed.

I also don't really see a different between people of one religion in terms of moral caliber and other religions or even no religion, if they are moral people. You can possess a moral code regardless of religious faith, and it is all based on choice -- it's just that religious people tend to pretend it's not a personal choice by cloaking it under the guise of religion. Either you put together your own moral code (which is a series of choices) or you choose to believe in a particular religion and thus have "chosen" that particular code, but you can pretend for the latter that you have no choice since that's what your religion tells you that you must believe.

I think the concept that there is a higher power can definitely be used as a bulwark against insanity and sadness. it says nothing about its validity and doesn't even have to be true for it to alleviate some of the pain of seeing the stark nature of the existential universe. But talking about outcome -- people of all faiths die, survive, get cancer, get healed of cancer, have horrible things happen to them, have good things happen to them, and so on. It rains on the just and unjust alike, and the sun shines on everyone as well. But we "tend to see the world not as it is but as WE are."

We don't even know that souls exist, honestly. Or that the "soul" in part isn't just your physical body. When you suffer brain damage and part of you goes away, do you still have a soul that is "more you" than you are now? Is there any proof of that? I guess when we finally can catch a soul in a jar and show it exists, then we'll be able to give more validity to religion. All we can really see on this world is people within their bodies. We want to believe in a soul because we see the bodies die but can't stand the thought of that person truly being gone (literally gone) so we invented the concept of "soul" as some eternity essence of that person that can then live in a heavenly paradise for ever -- ergo, the person is still around and we might see them again. But is there any proof of that? Not really. After all this time, if we were ever going to have anything definitive, it would have already been found.

Anyway, some of that gels with what you said, some doesn't. I wish I could believe in souls, and a benevolent eternal figure that was looking out for me. That hasn't been my life experience or the result of my accumulated life knowledge so far, unfortunately. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can only go in the direction my knowledge seems to lead. It's ironic because with that knowledge, I feel more burden to still look out for others I care about rather than not caring... it's like not being sure of 'god' means i need to be more that person in the lives of others who need me, rather than less. I've come to see that as more moral anyway -- it's one thing to act a certain way if you believe eternal gods exist, it's another to choose to act in a certain way when you have no indication, no hope for reward, nothing but your own choices. If what we have is our current existence, then it matters at least on that level.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Nowadays if you are on public transport and not staring into your phone, you are considered a weirdo. So that's what I'm doing. Blending in, adapting.