Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
Can't stand that guy. He's the product of how fundamentalist Christianity goes wrong.
-
OK, it's on.
Utility of Intellectualism
- Thread starter EndogenousRebel
- Start date
Can't stand that guy. He's the product of how fundamentalist Christianity goes wrong.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
I see most supernatural things people believe they perceive as self-deception/overwhelming experiential overload.
It is either mechanized by a legitimately grand pattern in reality ("the divine") that is supremely relevant and as the mind detect this pattern and operates, it fools itself due to the strong temptation to want to identify with great things. Or just a flat fabrication produced from a mind that is dysfunctional completely.
Not to say that life is just luck, chance without purpose. It's just that miracles being possible isn't exactly a groundbreaking idea, so I assume that you are referring to for example the universe deploying salvation upon someone.
It is a wonderful thought, but the thing that always stops me from entertaining it is the idea that somewhere in the world someone has suffered without any recourse or salvation- and in some twisted way, that means the purpose of their suffering is to show me that I should be grateful or something like that.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
There's just as much "faith" in naturalism as there is for miracles. When someone experiences a miracle there is no denying it. I can give an example from my own life if you want.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
I myself have had many transcendental experiences that I wouldn't trade anything for, but that wouldn't be the for the discussion.
I am not here to take away your emotions about your experience. To all at once have realizations that grant you deep insight into life and yourself, where emotional weights are lifted and you realize that comfort was afforded to you all along is a powerful thing.
I don't think that intellectualism reduces these experiences, and to the contrary I believe that they show us something we as humans, and only humans all commonly share.
From my standpoint, Christianity and cults of the like have tried to monopolize this to some degree. Even spiritualisms- which is literally just zen philosophy trys to appear attractive by adding a layer of mysticism to the mix.
I don't know- it's obviously a real thing in the world for us to experience, but when decribing what it is and where it comes from, we often miss the mark. Perhaps because people are unhappy admitting their own ignorance.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
The example I have in mind wasn't really what I call a "mystical experience" though I have had those too. It was more that something happened that defied the laws of nature and I have no reasonable naturalistic explanation for it. I can assure you that when the event happened, it was very much not based on emotion at all. Sure, there was a "lesson" that went with it, but with the actual event, when it happened, I was pretty confused because I wasn't expecting it.
If you'd like to hear it, let me know. If not, then it would be pointless for me to share.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
If it truly defies all expectation and probable explanations go on ahead.
Just bear in mind- again not to dismiss your experience, the combinations of things that can happen in a chess game is like 10^110 power. Every game that happens a unique scenario will appear.
That being said, even if it was just a unique scenario that has never happened before, it is still interesting to speculate into such things.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
Alright, here it is:
It was one of those nights I couldn’t sleep (which happens to me regularly). I was on my way outside to have a cigarette. It must have been about 2 AM or so. I made my way out of the two sets of doors to go outside, walking to my usual spot to smoke.
And then something happened I couldn’t have predicted in a million years. I stepped on something that felt like it was rubber - similar to stepping on a pile of balloons that were not blown up. I turned to see what I had stepped on, which happened to be a toad. My heart sunk into my chest. The toad was severely injured. It would experience a slow, painful death if I didn’t do something. I recall seeing blood on the pavement from where I stepped on it.
I decided the best thing to do was to put it out of its misery so it didn’t suffer any more than it had to; a mercy killing. I reluctantly made my way through the two sets of doors into my apartment complex. I am not a violent person, so I dreaded killing something - even a toad about to die.
When I was in my apartment home, I thought about what I could use to kill the poor thing. I started looking, but I was drawing a blank. It would have been better to get a knife or anything else than what I chose. With a knife, it would be quick, and the toad would die instantly. Instead, I remembered I had a ratchet wrench - not that I use it much, but that’s beside the point.
So, I grab my wrench and make my way down the hall. Just before I got to the first set of doors out of my apartment complex, I had this very peculiar thought go through my head: just a thought, and a bizarre one at that - to pray that the toad gets healed. I thought, “Am I supposed to lay hands on it? Should I pray out loud? Never even heard of God healing an animal through prayer.”
I ignore the thought and get to the second set of doors, and through the window, I see the toad just chilling there. I was so confused. It didn’t seem like anything was wrong with it at all. It was one of the most confusing moments of my life! I pause before going out the second door as I was shocked.
I head out the second set of doors and get to the toad. I probably weigh 1,000 times more than it, possibly more. So, I get a closer look at it. There’s nothing wrong with it at all! I even picked it up to look it over. There’s still nothing wrong with it! This event blew my mind.
Now, I know what some of you might be thinking. “Toads sometimes pretend they are dead or injured, so you leave them alone.” But there is one thing that doesn’t make sense if that is true. The blood on the pavement from when I stepped on it completely disappeared! I was going to take a picture of the blood as evidence that this miracle happened, as it only seemed rational to document this, but there was no blood! I took a picture of me holding the toad after the event.
Not only does the fact there was no blood mean it is unlikely that he was just acting like it was injured (as the second time I saw it, it acted completely fine), but it also shows there is very little reason to think that someone planted the toad, knowing where I would step, and then replaced the stepped on the toad with a different toad. I say this because someone planting the toad is my only naturalistic explanation for this event. There is no way the toad could hop away. It wasn’t even moving before and was disfigured. And it would mean another toad just happened to hop in the same spot I stepped on the first one. If someone wanted to make me think a miracle had happened when there was no miracle, then the obvious thing to do would be to leave the blood on the pavement where I stepped on it. I can’t think of any other reason someone would want to do that other than to make me look silly for being a Christian and believing in miracles.
After the event, I had the words of Jesus go through my head: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.” And that’s the reason I think it happened in the first place - for that message. God had mercy on both the toad - because God cares for all his creation - and me, as I didn’t need to kill the toad. God was merciful toward me because God knows I am not violent and don’t have an aggressive bone in my body. And that’s the moral of the story - God keeps his promises. I don’t have to worry about my life - what I will eat, what I will drink, what I will wear because I know God will take care of me. I ended up naming the toad George. After this event, when I had pulled into my assigned parking spot for my apartment complex, on the grassy hill ahead of me, I saw a toad hopping around as if it was God reminding me of this event so I could write about it.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Like I said I talk to "real" people in my dreams. They are as conscious as I am.
That being said I believe that there is a higher dimension to cosmology for instance the big bang happened in such a way that we are really living in a 4D hypersphere. If you could travel faster than the speed of light you could come back to the same place you started at. Like walking on the equator and coming to the same point.
I believe that space and time operate within the 5th dimension. It has been shown that the superposition state before measurement and decoherence extends back in time not just in space. So this means for certain small-scale events the past does not exist until observed.
Now just to be clear micro and macro events can happen based on the rough wave principle. Wave appears one hundred feet high south of south Africa in calm open waters. All events (waves) add up to a super event. It is as if you play chess against a random number generator and it beats the world champion by sheer randomness.
Now I am not saying that God is randomness personified. I am saying that a mind in a higher dimension can affect probability distributions by synchronization. It is my theory that by becoming aligned with a "divine force" people can achieve certain "results".
I know that people suffer alot but I don't believe God is the way we think God is in human understanding. I believe that an outside observer of the universe intervenes but slightly and not fully. I was told as a Christian that the force in Star Wars was pantheistic. Because it was energy. But what I am talking about is outside the universe in another dimension capable of being personal, not impersonal. You cannot intervene with the creation and not have consequences. Surgery gone wrong is what I mean by this. The doctor only has two hands and a set of tools. He cannot cure cancer by chemo and not expect baldness. Sometimes the right thing to do is to do nothing. But that does not mean some kind of consciousness doesn't exist.
I remember being oppressed by the devil through the internet. Many people have committed suicide because of the youtube recommendation algorithm. I did not but I was severely brain-damaged.
During certain events, I saw an angel and when I forgave someone I saw The Woman Clothed in the Sun. A Mandela effect I had was where daemons were in a video I had seen in 2009 but then in 2015 the daemons were gone from that video. I cannot be certain if google replaced the video with a video without daemons but they did not change the URL. so it is the same address as before.
On December 21, 2015, after listening to this music from my recommendations (Nightcore – Soul 4 Sale) I saw this angel in a dream.
On August 3, 2016, I forgave someone in my heart and saw something similar to this in a dream.
What happened on June 3, 2016, is to complex to describe but I recorded it all in my thread "AnimeKitty's theory on society and more".
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
Recently I had an even that was reminiscent of your ordeal.
To provide context, early 2022 I decided I would reignite an old flame with someone from the past who I hadn't spoken to in years aside from small interactions via public social media channels. That relationship originally ended with me on the shitty side of the stick let's say. I was very tragically hurt in a senseless way and the girl in question had little to do it besides wanting to be done with my baggage.
I'm not the type of person to try pursing anyone at all, as I hardly feel compelled to. So it was abnormal of me to try it out and I'm pretty sure I came on strong but whatever. I figured if something worked in the past it would work again so I invite them out to a night on the town.
They show a positive attitude and willingness to meetup some time soon. When I follow up they change their mind and basically tell me to wait for them to be in a better place (mentally).
Weeks pass, probably at least 2 months and I don't hear back from them. Something abnormal happens. So abnormal it made me feel like a "player".
A different girl from back then hits me up- which only happens when a girl wants something from me typically. The possibility that these people know eachother aren't exactly low, but still a stretch, and speculating is pointless because I really don't have enough information.
Anyways. She moved away, went to another state again, years ago, and messages me saying that she may be coming to town soon. We talk for a couple days and it's setteled that one of us would go visit the other at some point because our cities are nice attractions.
hat old flame just doesn't seem to be comfortable sending direct messages to me- though occasional social media interactions I guess. Communications with that second girl dry out.
This whole time I feel kinda akward.
First, tt doesn't make sense that the second girl would go to me of all people because she had other friends that lived in the area, and there was a clear implication of attraction if not some other incentive that involved me being already established in the city.
Second, I don't really try to hedge bets with the ladies that often. I typically just court one person as why would I waste time finding multiple mates if I'm not selective, and if I have selected one I think is right, why not devote all my time to that courtship? Especially since the person your courting would be unhappy that you are trying to hustle up other opportunities on the side.
But I make peace with myself because, well I was left in the dark by the old flame, and the second girl seemed all to eager to meet me from my past.
JUST A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT.
So communications with that second girl are fading.
One morning I go outside to the driveway to drive to work. I must have been throwing garbage away as well.
I see with not explanation, two blue poker chips. They look a lot like the poker chips I have, but how would they have gotten here. The neighbors maybe? The look dirty and weathered.
I figure since they probably aren't from my set, I'll keep them for myself, and use them like a fidget toy. Like spinners, dice, that you just move around in you hand.
My memory gets foggy here. Can't remember if it was that same day or some days later, but I have become accustomed to fiddling with them one-handed.
I come home from work one day it's kinda dark. I'm trying to decompress from the day. I think:
"I'm going to just hang outside. You know what- I'm going to use those new noice canceling headphones I just got."
So I go outside in the calm of the night, and I go down some train of though I can't remember. Poker chips in hand. I start to ponder some question and my curiosity moves me to look for something via my phone.
So I get up- again outside take out my phone. I start pacing. Because now I have my phone in my hand, the poker chips are in my non-dominant hand. I think about how weird that feels and how strangely it feels as opposed to my other hand, but I continue to use my phone, one handed pacing back and forth on the large patio of my backyard.
Mystery?
So I have my noise canceling headphones, I'm on my phone, and I'm playing with poker chips with my non-dominant hand.
Suddenly, I drop one of them. I swear, I saw it hit the ground flat. I swear I heard a small chip hit concrete lightly through the headphones. But I haven't seen that chip since. It, from my view vanished at that instant.
OF COURSE: It is darkish- getting darker. I reject the idea that this poker chip just clipped out of reality, so I pull out my professional grade lights and point it everywhere in the area I believe it would be. I'm out there for at least 2 hours looking now in places it would probably never be in.
I go nuts, I record myself and tell people on social media about that weird experience. Describe exactly what happened because I'm just fucking cracking up at that point
Why did I care so much? Why do I need to have both poker chips? Why even have one?
I inspected the sole chip I had at that point, it is misprinted. Defective in some way. I go inside, they look exactly the same like my poker chip set. Probably some manufacturer in china distributing them to everyone in the states.
I tell a friend about it- and of course he saw it on social media, and he says he saw one outside where he lives, but it's red. "Cool, can I have it?" He at some point picks it up off the floor and gives it to me.
As said I recorded the incident. At least the direct aftermath of that. While I was watching myself explain the extraordinary lengths to find it with no luck. I realized that these were parallels.
I had two apparent opportunities with two separate women, who both expressed eagerness to engage with me. Ultimately however I didn't take either one seriously. They were just chips that I might be able to cash in at some point, and at some point, via gambling I would lose one of them.
The second girl who lived in another state got married a couple months ago. I still haven't found the other chip. And now one of the originals remains.
I'm not the type of person to try pursing anyone at all, as I hardly feel compelled to. So it was abnormal of me to try it out and I'm pretty sure I came on strong but whatever. I figured if something worked in the past it would work again so I invite them out to a night on the town.
They show a positive attitude and willingness to meetup some time soon. When I follow up they change their mind and basically tell me to wait for them to be in a better place (mentally).
Weeks pass, probably at least 2 months and I don't hear back from them. Something abnormal happens. So abnormal it made me feel like a "player".
A different girl from back then hits me up- which only happens when a girl wants something from me typically. The possibility that these people know eachother aren't exactly low, but still a stretch, and speculating is pointless because I really don't have enough information.
Anyways. She moved away, went to another state again, years ago, and messages me saying that she may be coming to town soon. We talk for a couple days and it's setteled that one of us would go visit the other at some point because our cities are nice attractions.
hat old flame just doesn't seem to be comfortable sending direct messages to me- though occasional social media interactions I guess. Communications with that second girl dry out.
This whole time I feel kinda akward.
First, tt doesn't make sense that the second girl would go to me of all people because she had other friends that lived in the area, and there was a clear implication of attraction if not some other incentive that involved me being already established in the city.
Second, I don't really try to hedge bets with the ladies that often. I typically just court one person as why would I waste time finding multiple mates if I'm not selective, and if I have selected one I think is right, why not devote all my time to that courtship? Especially since the person your courting would be unhappy that you are trying to hustle up other opportunities on the side.
But I make peace with myself because, well I was left in the dark by the old flame, and the second girl seemed all to eager to meet me from my past.
JUST A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT.
So communications with that second girl are fading.
One morning I go outside to the driveway to drive to work. I must have been throwing garbage away as well.
I see with not explanation, two blue poker chips. They look a lot like the poker chips I have, but how would they have gotten here. The neighbors maybe? The look dirty and weathered.
I figure since they probably aren't from my set, I'll keep them for myself, and use them like a fidget toy. Like spinners, dice, that you just move around in you hand.
My memory gets foggy here. Can't remember if it was that same day or some days later, but I have become accustomed to fiddling with them one-handed.
I come home from work one day it's kinda dark. I'm trying to decompress from the day. I think:
"I'm going to just hang outside. You know what- I'm going to use those new noice canceling headphones I just got."
So I go outside in the calm of the night, and I go down some train of though I can't remember. Poker chips in hand. I start to ponder some question and my curiosity moves me to look for something via my phone.
So I get up- again outside take out my phone. I start pacing. Because now I have my phone in my hand, the poker chips are in my non-dominant hand. I think about how weird that feels and how strangely it feels as opposed to my other hand, but I continue to use my phone, one handed pacing back and forth on the large patio of my backyard.
Mystery?
So I have my noise canceling headphones, I'm on my phone, and I'm playing with poker chips with my non-dominant hand.
Suddenly, I drop one of them. I swear, I saw it hit the ground flat. I swear I heard a small chip hit concrete lightly through the headphones. But I haven't seen that chip since. It, from my view vanished at that instant.
OF COURSE: It is darkish- getting darker. I reject the idea that this poker chip just clipped out of reality, so I pull out my professional grade lights and point it everywhere in the area I believe it would be. I'm out there for at least 2 hours looking now in places it would probably never be in.
I go nuts, I record myself and tell people on social media about that weird experience. Describe exactly what happened because I'm just fucking cracking up at that point
Why did I care so much? Why do I need to have both poker chips? Why even have one?
I inspected the sole chip I had at that point, it is misprinted. Defective in some way. I go inside, they look exactly the same like my poker chip set. Probably some manufacturer in china distributing them to everyone in the states.
I tell a friend about it- and of course he saw it on social media, and he says he saw one outside where he lives, but it's red. "Cool, can I have it?" He at some point picks it up off the floor and gives it to me.
As said I recorded the incident. At least the direct aftermath of that. While I was watching myself explain the extraordinary lengths to find it with no luck. I realized that these were parallels.
I had two apparent opportunities with two separate women, who both expressed eagerness to engage with me. Ultimately however I didn't take either one seriously. They were just chips that I might be able to cash in at some point, and at some point, via gambling I would lose one of them.
The second girl who lived in another state got married a couple months ago. I still haven't found the other chip. And now one of the originals remains.
Ultimately I'm suspicious of anything that happens to affirm your personal beliefs one way or the other. But that's part of being human. I guess. We aren't going to be able to explain everything. My poker chip is gone- and it synchronizes with my engagement of romance occurring at the time conveniently.
It strikes me as well. All we can do it ponder such things. I wouldn't dream of coming to any conclusions.
Don't know about most of what you're writting.
I do think there is an interesting philosophical question that is actually transcending traditional physicalism however.
The mind-body problem has been persistent throughout time.
One of the things that has apparently been a nail in the coffin for dualism; the idea that the mind and the body are completely separate; is that there is no way for something physical to interact with something non-physical.
However, quantum mechanics is giving air to the possibility that the mind and the body could be in some capacity seperate. Though it would depend on philosophical definitions of what that is.
For example when does a mound of sand become a pile of sand? At what stage do we say something becomes something else?
So with these quantum events that are so small, is it fair to say that they have a physical relationship with your brain. These events are happening contantly of course, but the ability of your brain to explicitly interface with these events is pretty much zero.
How much credit do we give these events to your mind? And what are the implications of that? Very galaxy brain question.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Max Tegmark braid
But of course, this is only 4 dimensions.
In my view, 5 dimensions exist.
That is my solution to "the binding problem".
It's not dualism but explains why connectivity is focused into one thing.
Branches in a worldline come together, (intersect) at a higher level.
I do not have proof just my experiences too the matter.
Anything if we are defining God must intervene from a higher place.
So that is why I model it the way I do.
Something has intervened in my life I cannot account for.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
That's interesting. But it seems like you just don't want to consider this a miracle? Why not?
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
“We’re in the Matrix” Tech CEO's Cryptic Last Words | blameitonjorge
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
Miracle, in the sense you're using it, implies we live in a universe that holds some sort of agency inherently, and that it casts this agency in the interest of it's "subjects".
In my case, it seems more rational to accept that I lost this chip somewhere in my backyard and I simply didn't find it.
Conversely, in your situation it is better to accept that you experienced sensory overload of some kind, don't know something about toads, or just plainly saw what you wanted to.
The only thing that can't be accounted for, evidence that the toad was mortally wounded, the blood which disappeared, kinda casts doubt on everything.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
It only casts doubt if you don't initially believe in the supernatural. This is the hurdle many people must get over if they want to have genuine faith in God. Rather, no matter what you believe, you have to believe in at least one miracle. For atheists, they have to believe that the universe came from nothing. But if God created the universe, then that opens up the possibility for God to do any kind of miracle within the universe after its creation.
I agree that in your story the more likely explanation is that you simply lost the chip. But this is not the case for my story which you must say I was not seeing what I was. While that might answer your questions about what happened, it doesn't answer mine since, as I said, it was not based on an emotional experience. So you remain skeptical despite the evidence (which there really is none for your view).
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
All things being equal I believe you when you say the toad was healed @Old Things
In my model of reality things like that do happen.
In my model of reality things like that do happen.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
It's a matter of having observable data.
In the moment, I can observe something, but that doesn't mean it is transferred into reliable data.
The problem with the contrary position is that you open the door to observations leading you to make decisions you wouldn't otherwise make.
You can only accidentally step on a toad once, and say if you moved into a parallel reality between the mercy killing orchestration and seeing a supposedly untouched toad, you would have to recreate everything which is simply not possible.
You made an observation, but how reliable is the data, and can I recreate those circumstances to get more data about the phenomenon.
Its the perfect situation where people reach for a supernatural explanation, because the alternative position is that they at least had a lapse in sanity/clarity.
So, all I'm saying, it's pretty convenient that the mind decides to play this card on the consciousness when the circumstances arise.
Like was said 'naturalism' also requires a lot of faith. Depending on how you draw that line, everything is a miracle and "convenient" but I would say that a standard reasonability is obvious, and such situations like this, of which I have heard a few, match that unverifiable criteria.
Well, at least one day I might find that poker chip.
In the moment, I can observe something, but that doesn't mean it is transferred into reliable data.
The problem with the contrary position is that you open the door to observations leading you to make decisions you wouldn't otherwise make.
You can only accidentally step on a toad once, and say if you moved into a parallel reality between the mercy killing orchestration and seeing a supposedly untouched toad, you would have to recreate everything which is simply not possible.
You made an observation, but how reliable is the data, and can I recreate those circumstances to get more data about the phenomenon.
Its the perfect situation where people reach for a supernatural explanation, because the alternative position is that they at least had a lapse in sanity/clarity.
So, all I'm saying, it's pretty convenient that the mind decides to play this card on the consciousness when the circumstances arise.
Like was said 'naturalism' also requires a lot of faith. Depending on how you draw that line, everything is a miracle and "convenient" but I would say that a standard reasonability is obvious, and such situations like this, of which I have heard a few, match that unverifiable criteria.
Well, at least one day I might find that poker chip.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
Thanks, I appreciate it.
The problem is that the supernatural and miracles are by definition not repeatable. So expecting them to be repeated is mistaking the nature of the event. That's the beauty of miracles - when they happen, we either accept them or reject them (and yes, you can reject something that you have very good evidence for).
Put yourself in my shoes. I was not feeling emotional at the time. Yet I cannot deny my experience.
You can't recreate the universe. It is a one-time event. That doesn't mean the universe does not exist.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
In my case, we can say my brain was fried.
But then why see an angel and not static noise?
Are the people in my dreams really conscious?
They act so, but the explanation isn't tenable that it is because of brain damage.
If I am brain-damaged then these entities should act like random schizos and not like wholistic persons having souls.
This could just be a local effect. Things like this don't work like Rick and Morty.
Parrel worlds are like server rooms. errors happen all the time and bugs that are fixed don't necessarily need massive rebooting.
All things are contained in intersecting "fields" that fold backward like Mobius strips. Things overlap and converge as much as they diverge. This happens at all scales. The entire world does not need to be recreated, a local event can simply be an error corrected. see the example below:
The problem with recreating circumstances is that novel situations are not re-creatable because people and the universe is not a machine/robot. You never step into the same river twice. But you can have tendencies to see things occur as if they are being repeated. History rhymes it does not repeat. What matters is the probability. Improbable things happen all the time. This conversation we are having will never repeat in the same way as it is right now.
Yes but from what I said above Rick and Morty is not how things work either. Having a model of how the world works and if anything contradicts this model then you may have an imperfect explanation for it, you may lack data but can we say for sure @Old Things lacked clarity/sanity? Rick and Morty is the flat-earther way of viewing the multiverse. That model just is not the right one.
Then the model is what is important because Newton said Mercury's orbit was caused by God because we did not have general relativity yet.
Unverifiable but under what model? Earth is obloid is unverifiable to the wrong observations and assumptions. The way you think the multiverse works in my opinion is the Rick and Morty one. Which is incorrect. This is a macro view of the multiverse and does not account for the local branches to exist. Every time the universe divides it is not on the macro scale but on a local one. That is why it requires an axis in 5 space for this local effect to take place.
Now I am not telling you that God intervenes absolutely because you never have seen data for this yourself. I am just saying that it is possible when thinking about consciousness being above or outside the cosmos.
Look at this image:
expand the image in a new tab and look at the URL and then look at the title.
They are not the same. This is an error but why does it say Interpol on it?
Are persons on Kurzweil forum people Interpol would be interested in?
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
I can't accidently drop my chip and witness it vanish before my eyes either. Yes, way less bizarre than what you saw.
But what can we do with these events besides why they happened?
My experience, gave me insight into how superficial I was being with both these women and not investing in either one of them, which I believe one should do. This insight was brought upon a bizarre experience that coincided with this. Synchronicity.
To jump to the conclusion that the universe, or God, orchestrated that event to teach me a lesson is a big ask. I can entertain the hypotheticals, but I wouldn't accept that it was just explicitly for my benefit unless it moved along the universe's harmonious balance or something.
Not to taunt your religious beliefs, but soul to soul the world is a fucked up place with no natural protections against anything chaotic happening. Why would reality itself bestow upon you a lesson of mercy and shift your perspective on that. Pray tell?
Jung had many answers for this and none of them are necessarily supernatural.
The most extreme version with his ideas is that these "archetypes" are coded into our DNA.
There is no way to test this ethically. If we take a bunch of people to another planet and cut them off from civilization and see where they are in 10 years, what would they see? We don't have an aswer for that. But we don't need one, because it's easy to imagine how a human brain in a human context would hallucinate such things. For me it is anyways, unless you refute that.
Like many things, dysfunction is not binary. Some times we fall into heavy disfunction and sometimes we are highly functional relative to our baseline.
You're appropriating a very old word and reducing it to mean whatever you want based on pop-culture today.
I can do the same.
The idea of a "glitch in the matrix", even if it corrects itself, is not what a parallel world has to be.
I used it to mean that everything in the parallel universe was the same except the frog being mortally wounded.
I can say:
[MODEL] is true because [WHY]
[WHY] is true because [DEEPER WHY]
Yes the model matters, but the point of a model isn't to explain everything. It is to represent something that correlates with reality.
If we follow that model, how many predictions can we accurately create?
I don't think I have given any inclination into how I think the fabric of reality works. I just have pointed out how I think it doesn't work.
Not to say I haven't found certain ideas interesting, nor that I haven't experienced extremely bizarre things myself, I have talked great lengths on this forum about that.
But even then- a normal alien race of beings similar to us, could discover to manipulate space and time perfectly. They could be pulling a prank on us and pointing at us and laughing. Why not if we throw out other logic to the wind? They might be completely red and have dicks on their forehead and they are potentially laughing at you.
Why is it that people are just looking at a small set of answers and those answers happen to make them comfortable?? Cope. People limit their imaginations to cope it appears.
Quantum events being the driving force, and your brain being resourceful with that locally in your head is infinitely more interesting to me.Now I am not telling you that God intervenes absolutely because you never have seen data for this yourself. I am just saying that it is possible when thinking about consciousness being above or outside the cosmos.
Look at this image:
expand the image in a new tab and look at the URL and then look at the title.
They are not the same. This is an error but why does it say Interpol on it?
Are persons on Kurzweil forum people Interpol would be interested in?
Literally could be just an error. Then again, you can just go to that page. Maybe it's an old page and they were looking for someone with disabilities for a specific person. Literally endless explanations.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
It wasn't just "reality" it was God who is a personal being who cares about us. Much the same could be said about your experience. Perhaps it was God trying to get your attention and you are denying it (for whatever reason).
The world is indeed messed up. That's one of the things every worldview has to make sense of. 1) What is the origin story? 2) Why is everything messed up? 3) How do we fix things?
Watch this very short video for a bit more detail.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
If he changed the secular humanism definition a little I would actually be ok with it. Instead of targeting religion though it should be uncritical attitudes.
Yes indeed, the question is which world view is actually right.
I don't know about you but humans have a high tolerance for suffering. The Christian world view is so easy to achieve no matter your life style and context. Meanwhile, secular humanism- a little harder to do
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
Not according to Christianity. In fact, in Christianity, what it says in the Bible, is that you are guaranteed to suffer. Usually, I wouldn't be making this argument in favor of Christianity because, well, most people want to live an easy life. So yes, in Christianity, you will suffer, but the best part about Christianity is that God will always make it up to you in the end.
John 16:33 CSB17
““I have told you these things so that in me you may have peace. You will have suffering in this world. Be courageous! I have conquered the world.””
Romans 8:28 CSB17
“We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Local is not exactly 3D. Just as a 3 sphere is not exactly a 2D circle. But a sphere can be the top of a circle.
errors can be big or they can be small. Local can be a circle or a sphere. it just has to be nearby in some dimensional axis of pie.
As to consciousness. It may be local but this locality can be in a 4D axis or a 5D one. The center is equidistant from all points in all N-spheres.
It is the manifold that I am interested in because it is like a brain which is a fractal. Jung saying archetypes are in the DNA would be a fractal manifestation. A multiverse fractal in 5-space capable of consciousness would be a super entity. The larger consciousness system as Tom Campbell calls it.
Old view of God:
The new view of God:
stocastic error correction:
More like this:
Less like this:
non-local is just local in a higher folded dimension.
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
That is very deep, but not really.
Suffering is part of life, is tautological. Even kids know this.
Unfortunately I don't think any suffering in my life meant better life or anything.
I think as far as I know its contrary.
I also want to know how God measures suffering, and does he have some sort of equation or something.
I think most people in the world suffer and then they die.
That is about it.
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
I grew up watching sci fi.
I sci fi there are many things that are supernatural.
But in sci fi they are usually made by aliens or men who know something scientific that makes things supernatural possible.
I believe you about the toad story, but I was thinking how our own observations are logical or otherwise.
For instance a jury of people would claim that the toad is not dead if you were being on trial for killing the toad. There is no body and no blood and no evidence therefore you killed nothing.
IF the jury was deciding whether this was miracle it would half and half.
Some people like to believe in miracles and would trust you and half would say you are wrong.
Here is the kicker. Being fallible is more common for people than miracles happening.
People make observation errors constantly.
SO much so its common that everyone knows this about themselves and others.
Further more we make these errors despite knowing they happen and its a known cognitive bias.
Observation at night are weak and untrust worthy.
Then you can cast doubt on the story saying "What exactly do you know about toads?" - the answer would be probably nothing.
If Chickens can live without its head, and cockroach can survive a nuclear holocaust who knows what a toad can do.
That being said what can we know really? Maybe supernatural thing is a real thing.
Maybe God exists.
Maybe we go to heaven.
Etc. But with that kind of doubt you can't really get far, as skepticism can lead to complete nonsense.
You can be skeptical of all things then to a point of dismissing everything.
scorpiomover
The little professor
- Local time
- Today 9:10 PM
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,383
Then what ARE you saying?
I can make pretty pictures on my computer as well.
That's why people say that we have to demand evidence for your claims, or reject them as being made-up.
Never heard anyone claim that Freud or Jung were post-modernists. Also not really heard of any practical use of the ID model, or the ego model.
Never heard of anyone saying that Nietzsche was a post-modernist. Also the only people I heard of who found a use for Nietzsche were the Nazis.
I learned about that in Judaism.
I learned about that in Judaism as well.
What is this new technique of meshing truths together that post-modernism has, that no-one before them, not scientists, not mathematicians, not Muslims, Hindus or Jews, had?
I would say that is a very old idea. The Romans didn't agree with the Jews, just because the Romans and the Jews were raised in different contexts, and usually, the Romans assumed that whatever Jews believed were probably flat wrong. So that seems pretty old to me.
I've been working with databases for quite literally decades. If you said that you had an opensource alternative that already works great and has a long track record of doing so, then anyone who knows about databases would ask to see your opensource alternative, ask what exactly you mean by "already works great" and see this "long-track record". Then they'd test our your claims and run their own benchmark tests against other sql database servers, just like thousands of people have done before, and posted their results all over the internet.
The IT industry is worth a LOT of money. So that attracts lots and lots of scammers who make BS claims like this, to try to milk companies out of their money, to ever trust anyone who claims this.
So yes, if your stuff is like opensource sql database servers, then anyone who knows what they are doing would think "probably another scammer, but let's treat him fairly and respectfully and give him a chance to prove his claims without having to trust him at all, or to prove that he's a scammer by not doing so", and then ask you for the proof of your claims.
Not always. But people did embrace the idea of expressing their emotions, and stopped being stoic. You can see this by the behaviour of ordinary working people when in the 1960s, a mudslide covered a school, trapping hundreds of children inside, compared to natural disasters that happen these days.
What would have happened if the world had thought as you did? Einstein didn't do anything with relativity. So if the world had thought as you did, we wouldn't have relativity, and so we would not have had the science to make satnavs, GPS and mobile phones.
Imagine if Maxwell had not desribed electro-magnetism because he didn't do anything with it. No radio. No radar. No way for planes or ships to navigate safely like today.
If the world is collapsing around you like in the film "2012", do the people in it have the time to conduct a 3-year scientific study before they die?
Easy things to figure out, and things were there are no serious consequences if you get it wrong, are things where it you mix descriptivism with prescriptionism, there's no issue. But if things are difficult to figure out, then it will take a long time to describe it before you have anything that could lead to a prescription. Also, if it's a matter where the consequences of getting it wrong are very dangerous, mixing descriptivism with prescriptivism is pretty much guaranteeing that the results will be lots and lots of harm and often, thousands/millions of unnecessary deaths.
That's what people have been doing since time immemorial. People take certain things for granted. Then someone else comes along and questions that, and studies it. Sometimes, they find that the original assumption was correct. Sometimes, they find that the original assumption was incorrect. It's how humans have been developing technology since the mesolithic, when some humans questioned if humans needed to follow the herd, or if they could figure out where food sources would be plentiful at different times and simply go to those places at those times.
So I fail to see what that has to do with post-modernism, unless you believe that before post-modernism, all humans lived in small tribes that followed herds around. Did all humans lived in small tribes that followed herds around until post-modernism? When exactly was post-modernism? The mesolithic?
I can see the interconnectedness of the world. I just don't think that post-modernists were the first to point that out, as you can read things about interconnectedness in ancient writings.
You've made a lot of unproved assertions about post-modernism, and science. So far, the only things that I've seen you provide evidence of, is that Brenda Miller was a scientist who did some brain studies, without any proof that her studies changed anything because of post-modernism, and that neurologists know that having a big head like an elephant doesn't mean that elephants are smarter than humans, which I think even small children could figure out.It just is is where I'll leave that.
Brenda Milner: Pioneer of the Study of the Human Frontal Lobes - PMC
Although the behavioral effects of damage to the frontal lobes date back to at least the late 19th century even midway through the 20th century very little was known about human frontal lobe function and there was a general consensus that the ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
NeuWrite West -- Ask a Neuroscientist: Does a bigger brain make you smarter?
Does a bigger brain make you smarter? In this version of Ask a Neuroscientist, Kendra Lechtenberg discusses humanity's love affair with the idea that our exceptional cognitive abilities must mean we have the largest brains of any animal.neuroscience.stanford.edu
More importantly, the only 2 things I did, was ask for proof of your claims, and point out that your own ideas could be useful to solve your analysis paralysis.
It strikes me that you used your intellect to try to defend yourself against any criticism, and that includes any suggestions on how you could improve yourself.
So there is utility in intellectualism.
But what utility is there in using intellectualism to reject everything other than that which you already want to believe?
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
Right. For me though- the problem isn't that we are fallible and hence doomed to be infinitely skeptical.
They are- through a process of induction, coming to conclusions based on certain principles. How did they happen upon those principals?
Induction is a perfectly reasonable form of reasoning. Deduction is more popular, as it is easier to visualize and really the primary way that science is possible.
Deducting irrelevant information to come to conclusions is fine. Inducting relevant information to come to conclusions is also fine.
The problem, perhaps rather I fear that, this spiritual thinking is literally including information that is not relevant and in fact elevates poor information to the same level as all other information.
I could be wrong, but this happens on the daily when someone asserts their belief that society must impose a specific brand of order so that we maintain, else we don't avoid punishment from transcendent beings..
People can have their fun. DnD looks like a fun game, I like to scramble reality too in favor of cathartic release. Thing is I know it's not real rational outside the context of the game.
Do conversations ever get less silly with you? It always seems like an escalation with no way to turn back to common ground.Then what ARE you saying?
I can make pretty pictures on my computer as well.
I normally would indulge in it by getting poking holes in your arguments, but it doesn't feel meaningful because because what you're saying often doesn't mesh with the point of the conversation. Please stay on subject.
Seem pretty post-modernist to me. Literally his biggest critique was about how we should create our own values and and not adhere to the values of others.
You don't have to take my word for it though.
This philosopher would probably asl describe your take of Nietzsche as antiquated considering you previous thoughts on Nietzsche that I have seen.
So seeing as Nietzsche was a key inspiration for Freud and Jung of the like- I think it's fair to say that they are the starting of a trend that later contributes to post-modernsim.
Citations please hur dur. I need evidence that Judaism has this tenant it's core and pre-dates Confucianism and Hinduism.
Don't understand why it's relevant either to be honest if you would elaborate how various people came to the same conclusions, and post-modernism has elements of that conclusion, you're kinda just exposing yourself as someone who makes is quibbling with irrelevant things.
You ask these questions condescendingly like they don't have answers.
We can guess that concepts like "experimentation" is at least as old as alchemy, which is what we call a protoscience.
However we clearly didn't have a lot of principles for experimentation down pat- and we didn't even think we needed to have stringent models for it till we have figures such as Nietzsche, Kant people who came after them that introduced ideas like the ID, which is a primordial sub-personality that everyone has that circumvent logic
Yes disagreements existed I concede that. But with post-modernsim the idea of "maybe we're wrong" is not ignorable culturally. Something that I'm sure the Romans didn't really have to abide much by. Or is the criticism of the US/other countries by large swaths of it's population just a recent event that everyone just decided to start doing?
So you're saying that people who use software solutions, question open-source alternatives, but just mindlessly accept proprietary ones? That might be true for some, but most database packages I see are open-sourced, and like I said- have a track record of working.
My point being that post-modernism isn't the new kid on the block that people have to question. It's built off of and emerged from what happened before. Like using a sql database from MySQL and putting a updated and improved architecture over it.
If you want to quibble on the little things that most people aren't really going to defend, then fine. Post-modernism has a lot of critiques of what happened before it, but they are based in what the people who lived in those generations believed and did.
The same with Peterson- these boomer mentality people want to hide their gripe with the new generation with a façade of sophistication, when really all they want to do is criticize young people and say get off my lawn.
At least levy a criticism that sticks to what is being done instead of being what in my opinon is a useful idiot and attacking something that you have no point in attacking. Attack specific actions and only pass on knowledge that would be relevant to people and shit like that.
Einstein theory of relativity couldn't be tested when he was alive. It still hardly can be tested, but we're pretty sure it's wrong. It still somewhat accurately predicts certain things IIRC
Life never at any point has zero costs. Actions will do bad or good. Not acting will also bad or good. We just can't know. But if you're going to learn something, it's going to be through acting. Doing nothing with the information you have means we won't learn anything.
Yes I agree, the idea of proving a hypothesis and reintegrating new information is very old, and we haven't gotten very much better at managing this information in the face of a fuck ton of more information. Case and point, post -modernism is a necessity in the modern era.
The best solutions we have is paying someone else to get the answer for us, and that is hardly in the spirit of critical thought and individualism.
Right. So you admit that our relationship with information is paramount. It seems like you don't really have a problem with post-modernism you just don't like the opinions of people who refer to it's contributions. Which is extermely perplexing.
Your criticism were centered around my assumptions about narratives and their relationship to people.
Your criticism ultimately in you initial post might be valid- but when you consider the context we are in, it's not sound. Plus it's narcissistic to just say my narrative is the only narrative that matters.
I don't know to what degree a narrative would be able to change ones physiology. Clearly it does to some degree, but to what extent it not certain. It might put someone on the right track. That's just called good mentality. It can lead one to get treatment for their mental illness, but it don't (directly) cure the mental illness.
Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 3:10 PM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,936
I never said God makes it up to us in this life. Could very well be the case it is for the next life after death or when Christ returns.
As far as God having an "algorithm" that's something that is a human invention. As such, God would not need something so archaic. God is absolutely just in all He does. It might function like an algorithm, or we humans might put it in something like those terms, but since God invented maths, he doesn't need to use it to make his judgments.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
But what values are possible to be created by me? Nietchies says power matters above all. So how do we gain power? Nietchie says that Christianity is asceticism. So it is a lack of power. Why? Because we are relying on God and not ourselves. And because God is fake we are fake. We should rely on ourselves. Why? Why are we the authority of our own lives? Isn't that just free will and if I choose to rely on God is that bad faith? Is it self-deception? Christianity as a brand is to Nietchie's disempowerment. Why? Because it's fake. But if it's true then why not? Only if it is false is it disempowerment. Only if God is not the authority can I be my own authority and determine my own power. But then I must choose where I get this power for myself. I need to overcome myself, and constant improvement. But only on my own. I can't look at others and think: Hey that's a good idea, I'll do that. If Christianity is fake it's a waste of time thinking any good ideas are in it. So the choice is to believe its true or to believe it's false. But that doesn't matter because Niechie already believes it's fake so he will think I am deluded. But if I am the authority my authority trumps his and I will believe and he will think I am a fool because he is his own authority. Neither of us will be objectively wrong. I am both a fool and my own authority so I say I am not a fool and he is. The situation is just opinion. Never being proved true or false. Because no authority is above me except for the authority I accept. And I accept God above Nietchie. So who is the fool? By my own authority, no one can call me a fool because no one is above anyone else's opinion but their own. And in my opinion, I know what God is and I know why miracles happen. If others don't agree then they are ignorant of what I know myself. By my understanding and experience and I should not trust others as much as I do my understanding of the bible. I may be wrong but no one would be able to prove it. Just like I could not prove them wrong. They are their authority and I am mine. And I can't force them to conform and they can't force me to conform. In this interpretation, Jesus was more post-modern than Nietchie. That is why the prescripts of Jesus don't lend to the correct interpretation for everyone. Disagreement is a fundamental result of Jesus telling us authority is bull.
How Nietchie views the disempowerment of Christianity:
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
Nietzsche's opinions at least align him to the path where he is in search of what it important.
No matter what he finds, he will accept it and integrate him on his quest to achieve will to power. An anthropological observation, and one that had nothing to do with objectivity. He did not say everything is about power, he said humans think in terms of power.
So we are on the path to what is important as humans. We will be perpetually doing this. If you are an Ubermensch, you don't have to do this as you already know what is important and you don't ever have to worry about finding what is important as you know the route you will take regardless. Hence why the ubermensch doesn't exist.
You on the other hand, have selected a mission, a path that happens to be supremely validating. Like you're the main character in a novel and have some sort of insight that no one else does.
When we think about psychedelic experiences for example, there are plenty of weird things that happen. None of which have any evidence of happening outside the human body. Why do these things happen???
Well, I can tell you that among the least probable things, it is some supernatural intervention and likely takes place because of some interaction that happens via chemicals and biology. Why does THAT happen? That is interesting, and if we find the solution to that- maybe we might unearth some real "supernatural" thing happening.
Centuries ago, if you would've told someone that there are microscopic biomes of microorganisms cultures they would've thought you were explaining them your religion.
I'm not here to convince you one way or the other. At this point I'm just pointing out that intellectualism is very useful when you aggregate the literal sum efforts of humanity to build knowledge.
It seems to be very ineffective at actually convincing people. I suppose intellect is too broad a word. I can just change the word to strategy and suddenly, all I have to do is have a different rhetorical approach, and yet that is still intellect, except it intersects with ones ability to execute as Zen brought up.
Can't have one without the other I suppose. The experience we get from applying intellect is invaluable. I'm just noticing with this thread just how blind people are to infinite possibilities and judging by people's reaction I would think it is because they are intimidated/attached against world views they have.
No matter what he finds, he will accept it and integrate him on his quest to achieve will to power. An anthropological observation, and one that had nothing to do with objectivity. He did not say everything is about power, he said humans think in terms of power.
So we are on the path to what is important as humans. We will be perpetually doing this. If you are an Ubermensch, you don't have to do this as you already know what is important and you don't ever have to worry about finding what is important as you know the route you will take regardless. Hence why the ubermensch doesn't exist.
You on the other hand, have selected a mission, a path that happens to be supremely validating. Like you're the main character in a novel and have some sort of insight that no one else does.
When we think about psychedelic experiences for example, there are plenty of weird things that happen. None of which have any evidence of happening outside the human body. Why do these things happen???
Well, I can tell you that among the least probable things, it is some supernatural intervention and likely takes place because of some interaction that happens via chemicals and biology. Why does THAT happen? That is interesting, and if we find the solution to that- maybe we might unearth some real "supernatural" thing happening.
Centuries ago, if you would've told someone that there are microscopic biomes of microorganisms cultures they would've thought you were explaining them your religion.
I'm not here to convince you one way or the other. At this point I'm just pointing out that intellectualism is very useful when you aggregate the literal sum efforts of humanity to build knowledge.
It seems to be very ineffective at actually convincing people. I suppose intellect is too broad a word. I can just change the word to strategy and suddenly, all I have to do is have a different rhetorical approach, and yet that is still intellect, except it intersects with ones ability to execute as Zen brought up.
Can't have one without the other I suppose. The experience we get from applying intellect is invaluable. I'm just noticing with this thread just how blind people are to infinite possibilities and judging by people's reaction I would think it is because they are intimidated/attached against world views they have.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Yes, I would have to be the main character in my story because my subjectivity is not something that can be shared with others as we are all individuals, and only by empathy is intersubjectivity possible. But if I were not conscious I would be an NPC (non-player character). I don't object to Truth I just believe that values are important but that my values must be in alignment with myself and not just what others tell me I should value like "power". To be attached is something we humans just do naturally. In the book 1984, the main character is tortured until he starts believing lies. What does it mean for us to value truth and not seek it? NPCs don't. But this is because they defend what they know as absolute. It is their mental construct. It cannot be updated. But just the ability to imagine possibilities isn't enough. Because once you reject everything you become a cynic and a scoffer. You don't take things seriously and are just as rigid in this as NPCs in their programming. There is a fine line to be drawn. Not because of bias but because of the inability to update your bias. Bias is never eliminated we must make assumptions to function in reality. Jews say there are 4 levels to the interpretation of the scriptures. literal, allusive, allegorical, and mystical. -
They are taught to reason this way in schools. But at first, it must be established that religion is important. It's not worthless. It is vital to understanding reality and throwing it away is a loss of something valuable. All views can be seen as true at the same time. But in accordance with reality. For example, there was a global flood. How? 12 thousand years ago ocean levels were 200 feet lower than today. This explains the flood myths and Atlantis. Eden was located in the Persian gulf because that entire area was flooded when ocean levels raised. The genealogies might be incorrect but I believe Adam and Eve were real people. The loss of archaeological evidence is a problem but Wikipedia sources everything. We can map every event in the Bible to a time and place and dozens of books not found in the protestant bible exist. It is a history I am interested in because it is my culture. My culture is important to me. And there is a truth to it that can be discovered. If it were not I would not care but I can't just through it away. What matters is different for everyone but you cannot just say nothing is important to you because then you have no reason to live. You have to find what is important to you.
They are taught to reason this way in schools. But at first, it must be established that religion is important. It's not worthless. It is vital to understanding reality and throwing it away is a loss of something valuable. All views can be seen as true at the same time. But in accordance with reality. For example, there was a global flood. How? 12 thousand years ago ocean levels were 200 feet lower than today. This explains the flood myths and Atlantis. Eden was located in the Persian gulf because that entire area was flooded when ocean levels raised. The genealogies might be incorrect but I believe Adam and Eve were real people. The loss of archaeological evidence is a problem but Wikipedia sources everything. We can map every event in the Bible to a time and place and dozens of books not found in the protestant bible exist. It is a history I am interested in because it is my culture. My culture is important to me. And there is a truth to it that can be discovered. If it were not I would not care but I can't just through it away. What matters is different for everyone but you cannot just say nothing is important to you because then you have no reason to live. You have to find what is important to you.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
Empathy is about taking one's perspective. It can be objectively measured.
Compassion is about being kind, mostly relative, if not outright at the whim of subjectivity.
Empathy can be a cue for when we should be compassionate because someone is having a difficult time, and it can also be a cue for when we shouldn't extend compassion at all.
Then again compassion is relative. OT putting that frog out of its misery can be a cruel act as that frog had no way to consent to the task, and I don't think he could possibly empathize with a frog. He was acting as a God in that moment and God may have very well told him "wtf do you think you're doing?".
Assuming he had killed it, would it have then been compasionate to eat the frog so that at the very least his corporeal body would not have gone to waste? Or perhaps he would've burried it, something that frogs have no conecept of but is concidered a respectful ceremony among humans.
The world could certainly have a bit more compassion in it. I see that as true, but so much of the world is wrong because people have taken up perspectives adjacent to yours but they believe they should be allowed to impose their beliefs onto others.
Thousands of years of oppression and progress wasted away due to Christianity and today the fucking pope says he would baptize an alien. Rich af that we are so quick to forget this shit.
So we are all in the same reality right? Like. The patterns, whatever causes them is the same for everyone right? We are all connected to the server that is the universe??
You can have opinions with no epistemological resolution. I will say again. You can have opinions about facts that have no answer or real weight to them.
You can prioritize different things, be more or less worried about things. There is no RIGHT way to think in every context as I said shortly after this thread was restarted.
So we are all subject to the same patterns, and there is no real ultimate answer for why they exist.
I don't have such a low opinion of NPC as you seem to have, but I have no problem accepting that I am a type of automaton animated by directives that have formed over eons of evolution. If anything the world makes way more sense because it explains why everything is fucked up. People simply can't change unless they have some sort of programming is initiated. I can accept that honestly no problem.
Something is truly only cynical when it contributes nothing to the conversation. Otherwise it is a warranted critisim. Like saying that life is meaningless. Aside from being nihlistic, it is cynical.
I have my criteria to accept things, and that is primarily a dialectical approach with pragmatic integration of empiricism. I only use my intuition about things when they are something I am accustomed to, which is why I made this thread I suppose.
Of course intuition is useful, and seeing as intuition is a function of the conscious mind, I heavily identify with it, but it's not something that I'm just going to full stop listen to and let it hypnotize me because I have a runaway God complex.
To my knowledge we do not live in a fractal reality where blue is also red. We as humans have decided that they have key qualities that distinguish them. That is emperical.
I've already alluded to the case for why we shouldn't tolerate too much loligagging in some imaginative metaphysical space. It's just not quality knowledge we are generating for the future. It's just- interesting to talk about and speculate theories.
All things concidered, I wouldn't be so aggresive with this position if this wasn't the point of the thread. I suppose if you guys want, you can assign this metaphysical acceptance as intellect, but I wouldn't find such a conversation interesting- or at least a different thread would be better for such a conversation.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
ok but when we speculate we are doing what intellect was evolved to do. empirically atoms were rejected until einstein used math to prove them with Brownian motion. Before people, thought everything was continuous, not quantized. So I am just saying that this model I have of physics involves consciousness as fundamental. And that I value my culture and I am integrating them within the frame of the context I am given. You call it interesting but then you say this fractal model means red is blue. No that would be a contradiction. Those colors are on the opposite spectrum. I am not talking about paradoxies I am presenting a paradigm shift. A paradigm is a higher perspective. Where the model becomes integrated and contradictions are no longer contradictions. The intellect is primed to be empirical in a theistic way. Primed to believe in things that one can only see not atoms, not subspace not higher folded dimensions. So our physics as empirical must be informed by speculation. That is the only way science evolves from concrete to abstract. It is also in psychological development. Formal operations where a person can understand abstract inference is in our programming DNA once were are 12 years old but then we must become relative and probabilistic and also meta. Ideas uninformed do make us unable to understand reality fully but ideas when informed allow us to correct contradictions without throwing out the data available.
A fractal is not a contradiction. It only looks like it because we don't know what it looks like from the top we only see its projections that don't add up to our limited paradigm. You say people do not look at all the options and that is what I am saying but from the top perspective, not the projections.
A fractal is not a contradiction. It only looks like it because we don't know what it looks like from the top we only see its projections that don't add up to our limited paradigm. You say people do not look at all the options and that is what I am saying but from the top perspective, not the projections.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
You're better off just saying you're doing something artistic. I can respect that. Poetry and metaphors with stories that represent your ideas. A bible of sorts
You're not really explaining them to me in a way that is cohesive to me.
You're inducing a conclusion from prior information. The prior information has to come first and it has to be sound.
Then you go to a conclusion.
Watch videos on Hagel for Gods sake he was a pious man who tried the same thing. Even he came to the conclusion that life just is.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
wrong if you are not deductive but inductive
Ni is meta subjective and Te is inductive
Ti is deductive and Ne is divergent
Ni is my posteriori and Te is my synthetic
You take something a priori (Ti) and then diverge (analytic) Ne
It is not artistic but it is not analytic priori
it is abduction
I once told an autistic person I was artistic in the way I reason and they blocked me on Facebook. It is just a way of saying "You're bullshiting/making shit up". which I am not. I make valid arguments that have not been proven to be sound yet. You assume you're a priori is true then you conclude a new a priori is also true. But this is not sound it is only valid. I on the other hand find a conclusion that is sound and then I hypothesize what the source is. Your logic can never be sound unless you're a priori is sound. My conclusion is sound empirically and my hypothesis is made valid by my reasoning them as hypothetical yet to be concluded.
Maybe that is artistic but INTJ's are wizards, not artists. Artists are creative in that they put things together aesthetically. Wizards on the other hand invent things. INTPs design things mathematically with axioms. The invention is not about axioms but about testing whether a cause is elicited by an effect. Many causes are tested until the effect is reached. INTP already has the rules and so infers the design by the laws that extend from them. It is not discovering what rules create certain effects it is extending the rules to their conclusion.
What I am saying is clear if you understand what hypotheses I am making.
It is my empirical observations (priors) that need explanation.
What rules created these observations?
I infer the rules from the observations.
observations are not rules a priori but posteriori.
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
That is cool, but not very helpful during life.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
You sound thrilled that you used a word.
This is precisely where I have been going with this. Your reasoning, at least the way you have thus constructed it doesn't make sense, as is most metaphysical arguments. I have never seen a single other person catch on to what your saying. Please point me towards a place where you have centralized your theory regarding what you are talking about here. I don't want to dig around here or there and collage everything together
The best place for metaphysical/supernatural arguments to exist is within epistemological gaps of knowledge.
The teleological argument for God: The universe is perfectly aligned for us humans to exist. Unverifiable. But compelling.
The mind may be separate from the body: Quantum events could potentially be key to understanding an underlying spectrum of consciousness that is independent of our biology. Not yet verifiable. But interesting nonetheless.
Your theories seem to expand that domain outside of what we already know, and steps out of these bounds. That is just the truth, as I don't know how you reconcile these issues without doing scietific experiments that cost a lot of money.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Sure but please do not suggest I am crazy. That is not a proper debate format.
Yggdrasill, Old Norse Mimameidr, in Norse mythology, the world tree, a giant ash supporting the universe. One of its roots extended into Niflheim, the underworld; another into Jötunheim, land of the giants; and the third into Asgard, home of the gods.
Multiverse
Is Change Impossible? – 8-Bit Philosophy
I believe change is real. Becoming is quantum which means it happens in whole units, not infinitely divisible sections. Time is quantized. I also believe that time is 3D not 1D the 4th dimension but there are 6 dimensions. 3 time and 3 space dimensions. But I am still considering the 5th dimension as a solution for the retrocausality of the wave function. This is not a hologram because holograms are 2D surfaces like black holes. 5D is a version of the multiverse space but I do not believe all possibilities exist as real at the same time but only as potential. Whatever is actualized is saved in the time dimensions leading to the substructures for new choices. If all possibilities exist as actual and not potential then motion is impossible. (Zeno’s paradox)
That can happen in higher dimensions but then weird things happen. Like a world where there is no gravity or a world with only bananas. All words literally mean all possible worlds in possibility space. But even so, they would cancel each other out leaving one world. Or no motion would happen. These paths are virtual in my model.
With my model time is only necessary to distinguish retrocausality. This means the collapse happens in the past and future at the same time. Many paths lead to the same outcome but they must intersect. Not all possibilities are realized. But both the past and future can be undetermined until collapse. At collapse, a 5-manifold connects all particles at a central point.
The world line can have many disparate paths to the future.
The pilot wave doesn’t have higher dimensions just branches. Branches are necessary but in the 5D model, these branches become recursive and fold in the 5D manifold creating point-to-point contact of all 3D space with itself. So time is not 4D like Einstein says. It is a folding where every 3 space point contact every other 3 space point. This explains entanglement. It is not action at a distance because every point in the universe touches every other point in 5 space hypersphere volume. Decoherence is an expansion of the 5-sphere hypervolume becoming a specific structure. This is like a toroid tree that grows. all past future and potential contained within it.
Another thing wrong with pilot wave theory is that the choice function (decoherence) breaks the symmetry. How does the wave know which choice to make? It can’t because it is completely deterministic whereas experiments show the quantum is indeterministic.
I have to think in higher dimensions which means I take the axis and rotate on it. Both the 4th and the 5th axis. Even explaining it I must conceptualize what it is I am doing because I cannot tell myself what to do I must tell others and that makes it possible to know the steps to the solution.
It is a tree on the 5th axis. It curves around itself. Like walking on the equator and coming back to where you started. Time as the 4th axis goes into the 5th thus the evolution of the graph is atemporal. The 3rd axis can intersect with itself in a fully connected network. Every location can touch every other location simultaneously giving the impression of action at a distance when in fact all points in 3 space are touching via 5 space enfoldment. Trees branch by the expansion in 4 space and collapse into one possibility in 5 space hyper loop. This is like an embryo becoming a phenotype. It is a fractal equation for the universe’s development. 1D into 3D into 5D. only this fractal is not predetermined. Einstein believed in determinism because the 4th dimension contained one future and one past. 5D shows that multiple pasts and futures recursively evolve. A seed grows and is pruned creating a definite past and future but through recursion in time, not just space. Both the past and future can be indeterminate until observed. This is not time travel but instead a consequence of path selection. Multiple pasts can create the same future. The chosen path must link what is optimal. And the pasts of many current events do not yet have a single definitive causal path in 5 space enfoldment.
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
One has to wonder if J Peterson actually read the thing he likes to quote and understood them.
I have no doubt he might have read them though understanding a different thing.
Religions have depth, and I would argue many original text are interpreted in rather shallow way, hence why they make very little sense.
Buddhism is very deep, but often when I hear people interpreting certain things it says it feels like reductionist explanation of they think it says.
I think the same loss of translation happens in Christianity today.
I doubt many of the non sense things Christianity says is actually what people would say. As its against good sense of any kind.
I think part of it is that interpretation is often very loose.
I have no doubt he might have read them though understanding a different thing.
Religions have depth, and I would argue many original text are interpreted in rather shallow way, hence why they make very little sense.
Buddhism is very deep, but often when I hear people interpreting certain things it says it feels like reductionist explanation of they think it says.
I think the same loss of translation happens in Christianity today.
I doubt many of the non sense things Christianity says is actually what people would say. As its against good sense of any kind.
I think part of it is that interpretation is often very loose.
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
Religions certainly have depth and indeed can be credited with origins of many useful ideas. They just happen to come with a lot of extra baggage usually because they are typically rooted in tradition. They aren't meant to evolve.
@Animekitty
ctmucommunity.org
Read the part under dynamics, and when you ask yourself what the fuck telic reasoning is click it and find out.
This model was built by the so-called "smartest man in America". This is probably a page he runs, I wouldn't buy a lot of it at face value, particularly the "reception" part of that page. I have seen plenty of people say that the theory lacks maths to back up the claims and is probably bunk.
I only brought it up because it doesn't exactly contradict your belief of outcomes at least, and it has a whole lot of whys.
The theory co-opts inaccessible fileds of knowledge to someone like me who works full time and prefers to do hobbys on the side than seek some sort of validation through finding out how the universe is orchestrated. Imagine if I studied integral geometry to prove this theory is bunk. Lmao
@Animekitty
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe - CTMU Wiki
Read the part under dynamics, and when you ask yourself what the fuck telic reasoning is click it and find out.
This model was built by the so-called "smartest man in America". This is probably a page he runs, I wouldn't buy a lot of it at face value, particularly the "reception" part of that page. I have seen plenty of people say that the theory lacks maths to back up the claims and is probably bunk.
I only brought it up because it doesn't exactly contradict your belief of outcomes at least, and it has a whole lot of whys.
The theory co-opts inaccessible fileds of knowledge to someone like me who works full time and prefers to do hobbys on the side than seek some sort of validation through finding out how the universe is orchestrated. Imagine if I studied integral geometry to prove this theory is bunk. Lmao
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
The only problem I have with this video is that he does not mention 5D manifolds.
Space is not infinite if we are within an N-sphere.
Chapter 1-4: Rethinking General Relativity as 5 Dimensions of Physics - A Unifying Theory of Gravity
Space is not infinite if we are within an N-sphere.
Chapter 1-4: Rethinking General Relativity as 5 Dimensions of Physics - A Unifying Theory of Gravity
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
I think the key point about CTMU, is that people need to know what cognitive means.
Cognitive means "knowing" as in its a way of finding out the truth.
Id argue its more in the department of philosophy than science.
Its a concept of how to arrive at "knowing".
No scientist will touch that.
But in realm of philosophy its pretty normal to do this kind of stuff.
Reasoning and arriving at knowledge using models is actually pretty interesting.
scorpiomover
The little professor
- Local time
- Today 9:10 PM
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,383
Sure. I often have conversations with people. Sometimes people disagree. They usually end one of 2 ways:
1) They give me an answer in 1 or 2 sentences, that provides common knowledge I was unaware of, that means that I have to be wrong, and I have no choice but to change my views.
2) They keep arguing, but can't seem to persuade me. Then a few months/years later on, they actually try to do the things we were talking about, and then usually ring me up a bit later and said that what I was claiming was what they experienced, and now they understand that I was right all along.
It's usually one or the other.
Where did he state the words "we should create our own values"?
Where did he state the words "we should not follow other beings' values"?
That philosopher pointed out that Nietzsche claimed there were 4 great errors. One of them was the "imagined cause", such as that a human hears a gunshot in a dream and thinks that he fired a gun.
Why would you need to believe that you fired the gun? Because you want to feel like you're in control of the gun? Stop imagining things to make yourself feel like you're in control of your own life.
Why would you need to create your own values? Because you want to feel like you're in control of your values? Stop imagining things to make yourself feel like you're in control of your own life.
Nietzsche believed that humans should strive to be Ubermenschen, better than the normal person. Freud and Jung tried to cure their ill patients, to make them like a normal person. The last thing they wanted was to make their patients suffer from delusions of grandeur.
You don't need to prove your claims, but I do?
If there's no singular truth, then Eastern philosophers would say that there's no advantage to embracing Eastern philosophy over Judaism.
If there's no complete truth, then post-modernist philosophers would say that post-modernism and science isn't going to get you to "the truth". It doesn't exist.Rather it puts us on a fast track to mesh truths together rather than just accepting a truth that is given to us.
Companies whose aim is to make as much money as possible, don't pay money for propreitary software when they can use for open-source software for free, unless they have a very good reason.
There are lots of open-source database packages despite the existence of MySQL and lots of other existing open-source database packages, because the coders who wrote them weren't happy with MySQL and the existing open-source database packages, because they have a track record of having issues.
If post-modernism has been around for a very long time, then there would be plenty of evidence of your claims, and then you could have provided evidence of your claims in half the time you took to write this post, which would have answered my questions and got me to agree with you. But instead, you haven't even got me to agree with you, and wasted your time twice over.
Why are you using your intellect to waste your time?
If post-modernism is very old, then those people lived in times after post-modernism came about, and so those critiques are about what happpened AFTER post-modernism, and is thus based on what post-modernism said, that was disproved by the reality of what happened later on.
Old people have lived longer than younger people. They know more than younger people. Thus, younger people are more ignorant than older people. If an ignoramus disagrees with a knowledgeable person, which is more likely to be correct?
You did things. You made claims. I critiqued them. How is that not levying criticisms that sticks to what is being done?What would have happened if the world had thought as you did? Einstein didn't do anything with relativity. So if the world had thought as you did, we wouldn't have relativity, and so we would not have had the science to make satnavs, GPS and mobile phones.
His theory was challenged while he was alive. Arthur Eddington came to his defence, who was a famous, esteemed astronomer, and thus was in the field of actually measuring evidence about the movements of planets and stars, and provided scientific evidence supporting Einstein's theory.
There were additional tests done in the 1950s with planes going very fast at high altitudes with very accurate clocks on them to test his theory. They also confirmed his theory.
Towards the end of Einstein's life, he doubted his own theory of a Cosmological Constant. My brother, who likes to read scientific papers, said that recently new evidence has confirmed that Einstein was right after all.
I'm a fan of Test-Driven Development. But I have been on many projects, some of which went straight to action, and some of which tested things thoroughly before going to action.
Those projects which sent straight to action, became such utter nightmares, that I would never want to do those again.
Those projects that were highly tested, took a lot of work, but turned out to have such reliable results, that the people who I did them for, keep telling me that they keep using them again and again, and yet they fail so rarely, that they describe them as "bullet-proof", and cannot praise them enough.
I have had so many experiences on this issue, that I have such overwhelming evidence, that to claim otherwise, would be a pure insane delusion.
We already have an incredibly reliable method of figuring out what information means. It's called "mathematics".
Paying someone else to get the answer for us, would be relying on hearsay, and not relying on evidence.
As I said, we already have a very reliable way of understanding our relationship with information, called "mathematics".
I like post-modernists, like Jonathan Meades. He seems to make a lot of sense.
You seem to making all sorts of spurious claims about post-modernism. I asked you to prove them. You keep refusing.
I agree that narratives are used as a means of control. Look how well narratives about Putin have convinced lots of people to support using Ukrainian women and Ukrainian children as cannon fodder.
You have said that my criticism, as if I had only one, is not sound, but without saying why. Yet another claim without proof.
It would be narcissistic of you to say that your narratives and claims are the only narratives and claims that matter. So why not stop being narcissistic and talk about how other people's narratives and other people's claims are right?
It could also cause someone to commit murder, or kill themselves. Is that "good mentality"? Maybe test these narratives before committing them to action?
It could also lead someone to commit suicide. Would that "cure" their mental ilness? Do you agree that it would be better for everyone's mental health if you test these narratives before committing them to action?
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
Normal people don't seek power.
It is the few who think they have power that control those who think they have no power.
If few have power and all others feel powerless, guess what happens.
Yes millions of people die.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
@scorpiomover
List these so called spurious claims about post-modernism if you are so hellbent on getting an answer from me about that.
You are so quick to tell me to provide evidence. If you think that my lack of evidence makes my argument weak then criticize it exploiting those weaknesses. You seem to leave that part out of your critisims. Possibly because you are on a forum having a most likely inconsequential conversation and can't help to scrounge up the evidence yourself??
Your interpretation of many things seems myopic and oversimplifies philosophical discourse to like 2 or three points it's trying to make.
Agents like Peterson loves to point out how Nietschez was a genius who forecasted the fall of Christianity, which would give us the forced opportunity to pick our own values. Then suddenly try to claim that this isn't reminiscent of post-modern thought because that would destroy their narrative.
On elders having more experience:. I am incline to agree to that account.. BUT the thing is that most elder today, didn't spend their time doing critical analysis with peers to find answers in a Socratic-like way.
They didn't spend their time learning economic or political implications of the policies their governments (Reganomics) were implementing.
They ACTUALLY spent most of their time reinforcing the status quo, and making billionaire tycoons and monopolistic multinational companies possible, because from what I can assume, they thought they would win the lottery of wealth because this Modernist idea of the American Dream (a lie) was fed to them.
We also know that they could spend their time without having their ideas challenged constantly because their social circles likely had adjacent views to them. Now of course there is a "woke" culture that they think is trying to kill truth or something.
Now that we are so deeply entrenched in this system, it seems like everyone has committed to these prior beliefs and are holding onto to it, because if not, what have they been doing with their lives??
On testing: You seem to think I mean to say we should create experiments while we're trying to solve the actual problem we are creating. I didn't not say that.
Testing itself is an action. We learn through action. That is prescriptive thing you just agreed with.
On post-modernism leading people to kill themselves?: We are ultimately human species and are governed by our biological processes. If you are now trying to change the conversation into how someone have flexibility of thought unincumbered by faulty preconceived notions of the past, that is not entirely irrelevant to the conversation I guess.
Could it be that suicide is a problem because truth is painful? Could it be that this is a failure of society? That it has not prepared us for a sound life without delusions? Could it be that the government should offer free healthcare to everyone?
On Einstein being wrong:
List these so called spurious claims about post-modernism if you are so hellbent on getting an answer from me about that.
You are so quick to tell me to provide evidence. If you think that my lack of evidence makes my argument weak then criticize it exploiting those weaknesses. You seem to leave that part out of your critisims. Possibly because you are on a forum having a most likely inconsequential conversation and can't help to scrounge up the evidence yourself??
Your interpretation of many things seems myopic and oversimplifies philosophical discourse to like 2 or three points it's trying to make.
Agents like Peterson loves to point out how Nietschez was a genius who forecasted the fall of Christianity, which would give us the forced opportunity to pick our own values. Then suddenly try to claim that this isn't reminiscent of post-modern thought because that would destroy their narrative.
On elders having more experience:. I am incline to agree to that account.. BUT the thing is that most elder today, didn't spend their time doing critical analysis with peers to find answers in a Socratic-like way.
They didn't spend their time learning economic or political implications of the policies their governments (Reganomics) were implementing.
They ACTUALLY spent most of their time reinforcing the status quo, and making billionaire tycoons and monopolistic multinational companies possible, because from what I can assume, they thought they would win the lottery of wealth because this Modernist idea of the American Dream (a lie) was fed to them.
We also know that they could spend their time without having their ideas challenged constantly because their social circles likely had adjacent views to them. Now of course there is a "woke" culture that they think is trying to kill truth or something.
Now that we are so deeply entrenched in this system, it seems like everyone has committed to these prior beliefs and are holding onto to it, because if not, what have they been doing with their lives??
On testing: You seem to think I mean to say we should create experiments while we're trying to solve the actual problem we are creating. I didn't not say that.
Testing itself is an action. We learn through action. That is prescriptive thing you just agreed with.
On post-modernism leading people to kill themselves?: We are ultimately human species and are governed by our biological processes. If you are now trying to change the conversation into how someone have flexibility of thought unincumbered by faulty preconceived notions of the past, that is not entirely irrelevant to the conversation I guess.
Could it be that suicide is a problem because truth is painful? Could it be that this is a failure of society? That it has not prepared us for a sound life without delusions? Could it be that the government should offer free healthcare to everyone?
On Einstein being wrong:
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
Agreed. Even then philosophically assuming we assess the idea by utility, a lot of ideas outside of the model aren't that useful. I suppose unless youre AnimeKitty. It is still somewhat interesting, though all my takes on it would be superficial.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
who said Einsien was wrong?
incomplete is not "wrong" just incomplete.
A theory of everything must explain everything, not just a subset.
theories that explain subsets are not wrong but limited.
that is why I posted that video on the 5th dimension
in it, he was integrating what we know with how mathematically we can explain phenomena we observe. maybe you did not watch the video?
epistemology is the philosophical study of what is possible to know.
I say it is possible to know x and you say it is impossible to know x.
well, what would be the correct answer?
first of all, speculation is not a wrong thing to do, it has utility, you just think it doesn't because you lack the understanding of why it has utility (a superficial epistemology) you call speculating in a scientific sense as conspiracy thinking because your INTP and I am INTJ. Your frame of epistemology is limited to what you already know and anything beyond that is not worth knowing. So it isn't a matter of reasoning but of values. You don't value speculation and see no utility in it. But I do see value in it because I have seen people use it to make scientific breakthroughs. You think science can't go beyond what is already known and I think it can.
If we don't go beyond the model then we will only know what the subsets are but never explain why/how they work together.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
When you put it like that Newton also wasn't wrong. It is just that people came after him that we're more right?
Not gonna argue semantics unless they are important. This is hugely unimportant. Point is that when the goal is to have a model that explains everything, it is wrong.
You want to change the goal posts sure, go ahead. It is useful to use Newton for practical things, and his initial ideas about thermodynamics and energy are still taught in school. Easier to grasp. Cool.
But if you go on to try to proclaim that as ultimate truth, you're wrong. Same when someone tries to do that with Einstien. Same if someone is going to use what I say.
Incomplete- is just wrong under certain circumstances.
Nope. Watched the first 5 or so minutes. I'm not interested in someone trying to make theories we already know work, work in more situations. I don't have the vocabulary nor knowhow to confirm what he is saying.
I'm interested in people disproving things we know work, and explaining how the things we thought worked worked, and how that is different.
If we cannot test, it is unverifiable.
If we can test, then we test. When we do test, we then have to do more test, infinitely. Exposing more and more slowly.
I never said it was wrong to do it. Using your imagination is something I said is a great thing to do. The thing is that people seem to be limiting their own imagination in favor of things that affirm their beliefs.
Am I different? Probably not by much, but that awareness is what you'd think would start your steps towards not doing that.
The guy in the video is literally un-bashfully doing that- and you're saying "look at guy, he did this, see??" Cool. I have something to add to my watch list when I'm not busy, but that doesn't mean I'm going to discard what I wrote previously because obviously I haven't hear a compelling argument to due so.
I suppose I have molded my argument to match what people think excuses their wild speculations.
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
I would argue analysis paralysis does not exist.
Recently saw a click bait title saying "Too much thinking is bad!"
Reality is people don't think at all.
Thinking efficiently requires more than data.
Each model of reality is about how close to reality it is.
We don't just build one model of reality and survive.
We live in a world where we work with many models of reality.
You can have a weak model of reality that approximates the world.
But you cannot ever build anything on top of that model and expand it as it would no longer be coherent with reality.
As models get refined and more nuanced and closer to the truth, they become
more accurate. As they are more accurate they can be used to build on top of the initial model more complex model.
Weak models are called opinions. Many people work only with these models, but many people don't realize that opinions are not equal.
A good example is psychology.
Its full of different models and ideas about what makes people tick.
But they have to be constantly refined, because psychologist are real sloppy forming theories.
They don't know how to model behavior of people and thinking and feeling so they make up whatever works.
But if a psychologist treats autism with psychoanalysis, you kind of have to question the whole thing.
What are the a priory assumptions of these models.
The key point is models with limited data, have no explaining value.
They work and that is the explanation.
Kind of like telling someone planes are safe.
Its true, but its a incomplete model of reality.
Planes are namely safe, because the way you have to work with planes is real careful.
Small mistakes mean big problems.
If people treated driving cars as pilots treat flying a plane, cars would be much safer too.
But a lot of people say flying is safe. Its not really safe, it was made safe.
Since people made it safe, it became the safest way to travel.
But if people fail to do their job it ends like one of those concord flights where a safe airplane crashes into ground and kills everyone just after lift off.
Same way our models work.
Just because models work does not mean they are accurate. Hence thinking is always seen as wrong too much etc.
Reality people who adjust their models only after the model has failed are in disadvantage from people who correct their models prior to using them.
I guess that is why sometimes INTPs like to argue. They want to see if their models are good enough. If not, they discard them.
Recently saw a click bait title saying "Too much thinking is bad!"
Reality is people don't think at all.
Thinking efficiently requires more than data.
Each model of reality is about how close to reality it is.
We don't just build one model of reality and survive.
We live in a world where we work with many models of reality.
You can have a weak model of reality that approximates the world.
But you cannot ever build anything on top of that model and expand it as it would no longer be coherent with reality.
As models get refined and more nuanced and closer to the truth, they become
more accurate. As they are more accurate they can be used to build on top of the initial model more complex model.
Weak models are called opinions. Many people work only with these models, but many people don't realize that opinions are not equal.
A good example is psychology.
Its full of different models and ideas about what makes people tick.
But they have to be constantly refined, because psychologist are real sloppy forming theories.
They don't know how to model behavior of people and thinking and feeling so they make up whatever works.
But if a psychologist treats autism with psychoanalysis, you kind of have to question the whole thing.
What are the a priory assumptions of these models.
The key point is models with limited data, have no explaining value.
They work and that is the explanation.
Kind of like telling someone planes are safe.
Its true, but its a incomplete model of reality.
Planes are namely safe, because the way you have to work with planes is real careful.
Small mistakes mean big problems.
If people treated driving cars as pilots treat flying a plane, cars would be much safer too.
But a lot of people say flying is safe. Its not really safe, it was made safe.
Since people made it safe, it became the safest way to travel.
But if people fail to do their job it ends like one of those concord flights where a safe airplane crashes into ground and kills everyone just after lift off.
Same way our models work.
Just because models work does not mean they are accurate. Hence thinking is always seen as wrong too much etc.
Reality people who adjust their models only after the model has failed are in disadvantage from people who correct their models prior to using them.
I guess that is why sometimes INTPs like to argue. They want to see if their models are good enough. If not, they discard them.