Now we know

[fluffy]

@EndogenousRebel

So to face the facts.

People don't go by logic or reason.

At least 90%

If something happens where you all of a sudden trigger them on a topic that's important to them.

Well, I was called a narcissist by OT

His thread said: who had the better argument

But he was neither interested in exploring the arguments nor having me answer him directly that the other guy had the better argument.

I cannot deal with it anymore.

Call me an idiot but I am energy spent interacting with passive aggressive people.

I put effort into my discussion but then many people dismissed it by responding emotionally or just saying three words that don't address anything I said. Like that one guy called me a hereditarian because I believe proteins have shapes. Code word for racist.

People are not honest in discussing topics.

I still will try but overall I learned some people are not worth it. They hate you for being rational.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Well.........

Gödels incompleteness theorem basically proves that it is impossible for a system to be both ultimately coherent, and infinitely descriptive.

At some point you go off of what are basically assumptions. You say these statements are true, (not exclusively) because they have to be, so that everything else can be true.

Apriori axioms so to speak that are true, yet can't be proven to be true.

Probably a key reason math is such a great tool, but also deeply terrifying as math explains all of physics.

So it's like, yeah, they have done the "math" in their head and when you tell them they did the math in some inadequate way, they are potentially going to take that personally.

I can take it personally or be offended, though often amused as well.

Honestly, I have driven in dense cities before, and the amount of braindead drivers is astonishing.

NPC is one of those Gen Z terms that has stuck around because it's really provocative, but holy fuck, I connected the dots that the people in my LoL games are the same people as the ones driving around me and it's like everything made sense.

Accessibility, I think is where this all started. People being mad that they were giving out participation trophies.

That's when they realize they struck a nerve and I can't remember things being the same sense.

Accessibility is* something that governs most people's lives if that makes sense.

 

[fluffy]

People want to be correctly evaluated.

They want others to be correctly evaluated.

That is fair, right?

But people cannot evaluate others correctly.

That really sucks.

Causes lots of strife telling others, no I am not that way, I am this way.

The math as you say, it works where we found it to work given our circumstances.

Communications would work if we had more people around us giving correct assessments.

I was friends with people on Facebook and they were high profile people. One was a actual quantum physicist at NASA in the 1980s - then name test in 2016 said I was 155 - ok yeah but why? Facebook has many math people, and network analysis a.i. people, and I was on the ray kuzweil forum a long time. But I got 112 on the WAIS-4 why?

So again maybe I need to understand what these companies do with all that computer power? What kind of multidimensional graph do they use. As a guy told me people can be genius at different things. But then that makes all assessments fake without real statistics data (data Facebook has?)

People can do many things I cannot.

Where should we look to then.

There must be a real evaluation.

What math is going on where people see reality differently in their headspace?

*Paying attention to multiple things at the same time is intelligence because you can then see where they need to be to solve problems*

That means people can have a real high space intelligence in many areas deep and or wide but this does not show up on most tests because tests don't sample things across most fields.

And that being true people get caught in confusion when interacting with each other.

The woke thing is just two groups that sample reality via the most generalize dicodometrical category possible. Inclusion.

People having had this as they were, let's include vs let's not because the different standards of fair and not fair. Neither right or wrong but how do you make society be something that is fair? Hard work? Doing your part? Maybe something else? It got confusing with equity vs equality fast. Two sets of evaluation. And semantics.

 

[Old Things]

But he was neither interested in exploring the arguments nor having me answer him directly that the other guy had the better argument.

You never answered the question, "Who had the better arguments?" You answered, "Which view do you agree with?" Those are separate questions, and you can't understand that for some reason.

 

[fluffy]

But he was neither interested in exploring the arguments nor having me answer him directly that the other guy had the better argument.

You never answered the question, "Who had the better arguments?" You answered, "Which view do you agree with?" Those are separate questions, and you can't understand that for some reason.

If we explored why his argument was correct then we could get to bottom of if it was true or not but I can't see that happening if you are not interested in that exploration.

Maybe if you showed his argument in a valid argument form?

 

[Old Things]

But he was neither interested in exploring the arguments nor having me answer him directly that the other guy had the better argument.

You never answered the question, "Who had the better arguments?" You answered, "Which view do you agree with?" Those are separate questions, and you can't understand that for some reason.

If we explored why his argument was correct then we could get to bottom of if it was true or not but I can't see that happening if you are not interested in that exploration.

Maybe if you showed his argument in a valid argument form?

I should not have to do that if you listened to the video. I don't really care at this point. You have a striking track record of not being able to stick to the point. I have no idea why you are like this. Sometimes, I think it is that you are a narcissistic freak, and other times, I think it is because you can't order your thoughts due to trauma.

 

[fluffy]

But he was neither interested in exploring the arguments nor having me answer him directly that the other guy had the better argument.

You never answered the question, "Who had the better arguments?" You answered, "Which view do you agree with?" Those are separate questions, and you can't understand that for some reason.

If we explored why his argument was correct then we could get to bottom of if it was true or not but I can't see that happening if you are not interested in that exploration.

Maybe if you showed his argument in a valid argument form?

I should not have to do that if you listened to the video. I don't really care at this point. You have a striking track record of not being able to stick to the point. I have no idea why you are like this. Sometimes, I think it is that you are a narcissistic freak, and other times, I think it is because you can't order your thoughts due to trauma.

I do not know what answer you expect me to give. The only argument he presented was that potential exists. That you said this is not the case implies many things. How that's not on point I don't know but I gave my reasoning behind my understanding of why his argument was correct. I don't see why agreeing with him invalidated my reasoning why his argument was better. Explanation might not be what you wanted?

Simply state what you want. It's not clear.

Again I am not doing this to anger you or offend you. If you don't give clear instructions all I can do is explain what I understood. I just don't know what you wanted me to say about the 90 minutes discussion.

 

[fluffy]

On the ordering of my thoughts.

I either must give a yes or no answer

Or

Something else

I cannot say what the something else is.

If you expect me to say that is was a nice discussion the yes it was. Both of you did well.

Other than that freewill is a hard subject.

No one knows really.

 

[Kuu]

I still will try but overall I learned some people are not worth it. They hate you for being rational.

This is a hard lesson to learn, but it is good that you draw your line in the sand to what you will not tolerate.

 

[dr froyd]

if we're talking about Old Things' attempt at getting feedback for that youtube video, lol that was just ridiculous. Some people just lack the social intelligence to understand when you ask for feedback, the counterparty is doing you a favor, and you should be appreciative even if it contains criticism, or even if it's not up to high standards of feedback

 

[Old Things]

and you should be appreciative even if it contains criticism, or even if it's not up to high standards of feedback

It wasn't feedback on the dialog I had. I think Fluffy did listen to the video, but they didn't say anything about the arguments that were made. They just said they agreed with the position of the other person. I was looking for criticism, but I didn't even get that.

 

[fluffy]

That is completely untrue.

I explained why I agreed, I didn't just say OT was wrong.

This is why I don't get what feedback he wanted. The other guy made an argument and I put effort into showing why it could be correct. Because Free will is a tricky subject I cannot just explain everything about it. I cannot summarize all of OT video for him.

 

[dr froyd]

and you should be appreciative even if it contains criticism, or even if it's not up to high standards of feedback

It wasn't feedback on the dialog I had. I think Fluffy did listen to the video, but they didn't say anything about the arguments that were made. They just said they agreed with the position of the other person. I was looking for criticism, but I didn't even get that.

if i recall correctly that's not exactly how it went. I recall something being mentioned about the tower of babel - which would be commentary on how the listener perceives the dialogue. And ultimately that's what matters - the listener's perception, not what you want them to focus on. Point is: yes, perhaps technically nobody did follow your orders, but if you expect that when you ask for feedback then well.. that's just arrogance

 

[fluffy]

@dr froyd

I don't think they understood each other in the video - it's why I tried to explain the view of the guy who said freewill needs potential and the future can't be actualized, the implications follow an line of argumentation where God cannot be seeing an actualized future but a possible future thus freewill can not be deterministic. The guy was saying this in my opinion and OT was not seeing his perspective the way I think it actually was.