User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you use doublethink?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    22 53.66%
  • No.

    14 34.15%
  • I don't know.

    5 12.20%
First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 203

  1. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    A THING (X) doesn't have any inherent properties such as objective versus subjective. A THING (X) is never objective. A THING (X) is never subjective.

    The WAY to look at/interpret the THING (X) can be done either through an objective view or a subjective view, or both.
    The thing itself doesn't, but in our heads it does.The thing is nothing more than an object. In our mind we make a subject of it, trying to get as close to the object as we can. Those two can get very contradictory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Infinity is an abstract concept, it is not a fact. And, I wouldn't call infinity, inherently, a "belief" either. It's a tool to explain limits. So, I don't really understand your rationalization above.
    That's why I said "if we agree on". I'm not saying it's "true". I was just playing with the thought, what if it were limitless. I know a lot of people who don't believe in infinity. They think of everything as limited. I'm not sure though "believe" is the correct translation of the dutch word I had in mind xD So if I said something strange, I blame our language differences.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    The object isn't doing two different things. Two different observers are creating two different results as the observer is a function of the apparent velocity. Both are true.
    But by producing two different results by doing one thing, isn't there doublethinking going on? However.. Not that it is that contradictory to say "the object seems to be having x velocity for me and y velocity for him". Both seemingly velocities are true. Could this be nothing more than a rationalization of doublethink?

    Nah.. as you said. It isn't a property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Quantum mechanics is not doublethink. They're similar in some superficial ways, but not the same.

    It would be closer to doublethink if you said "the electron is a wave. It is not a wave", although doublethink usually refers to things that are 100% objectively true, whereas much of quantum mechanics is still theoretical. It's only doublethink if the things are objectively contradictory, and a wave-particle is not inherently contradictory, although it is difficult to understand.
    So it isn't contradictory that the electron is going through both holes? There's not much theory to that. It was an experiment by Young (I think) in the.. 19somewhat(?). What he observed was contradictory to our beliefs.

    Al though quantum mechanics is more of a duality than a contradiction. The thing about quantum theory what made me think of doublethink was the importance of focus. If you focus on one thing, that thing is true, if you focus on another, the other thing is true. If you focus on the electron itself, it is a particle and you don't see much of the wave-behaviour. If you focus on the trajectory it takes, it is a wave and you don't see much of the particle it is. But both are true. You just have to relate the two observations to know it is both.

  2. #172
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PH. View Post
    Al though quantum mechanics is more of a duality than a contradiction.
    So is doublethink. The contradiction is all in your head.

  3. #173
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    ...
    so you don't think you're arguing? Ok, then let me ask you: (-1) - 1 = ?



    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    So is doublethink. The contradiction is all in your head.
    Good. At least, you recognize the importance of conforming to logic. Now to validate that statement...

  4. #174
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    The observer.
    Who is the observer?

  5. #175
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    so you don't think you're arguing? Ok, then let me ask you: (-1) - 1 = ?
    define "1".

  6. #176
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PH. View Post
    The thing itself doesn't, but in our heads it does.The thing is nothing more than an object. In our mind we make a subject of it, trying to get as close to the object as we can. Those two can get very contradictory.



    That's why I said "if we agree on". I'm not saying it's "true". I was just playing with the thought, what if it were limitless. I know a lot of people who don't believe in infinity. They think of everything as limited. I'm not sure though "believe" is the correct translation of the dutch word I had in mind xD So if I said something strange, I blame our language differences.




    But by producing two different results by doing one thing, isn't there doublethinking going on? However.. Not that it is that contradictory to say "the object seems to be having x velocity for me and y velocity for him". Both seemingly velocities are true. Could this be nothing more than a rationalization of doublethink?

    Nah.. as you said. It isn't a property.



    So it isn't contradictory that the electron is going through both holes? There's not much theory to that. It was an experiment by Young (I think) in the.. 19somewhat(?). What he observed was contradictory to our beliefs.

    Al though quantum mechanics is more of a duality than a contradiction. The thing about quantum theory what made me think of doublethink was the importance of focus. If you focus on one thing, that thing is true, if you focus on another, the other thing is true. If you focus on the electron itself, it is a particle and you don't see much of the wave-behaviour. If you focus on the trajectory it takes, it is a wave and you don't see much of the particle it is. But both are true. You just have to relate the two observations to know it is both.
    Your post makes it seem like you don't understand what doublethink is. Or contradiction, for that matter. See earlier in the thread where that's been hashed out.

    But by producing two different results by doing one thing, isn't there doublethinking going on? However.. Not that it is that contradictory to say "the object seems to be having x velocity for me and y velocity for him". Both seemingly velocities are true. Could this be nothing more than a rationalization of doublethink?
    No. That's essentially different dimensions of the same object. Different perspectives. Not 2 contradictory truths. They aren't contradictory, in fact they make perfect sense together when you fit them into a larger context. Contradictory in the case of doublethink essentially meaning 2 statements that could not logically coexist. They can logically coexist, you just have to know about the context.

    So it isn't contradictory that the electron is going through both holes? There's not much theory to that. It was an experiment by Young (I think) in the.. 19somewhat(?). What he observed was contradictory to our beliefs.
    It's not contradictory, it showed that the electron was not what we thought it was. Again, when we fit the data into the infomation we know about electrons, it makes perfect sense and is not logically contradictory at all. Being hard to explain and difficult to understand does not make something contradictory.

    Doublethink is not different subjective perspectives, it is not confusing scientific results, and it is not duality. It's consciously pretending that something you know to be true is false, and that something you know to be false is true.
    -end of thread-

  7. #177
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    We just need some wildcat up in this thread to make it complete.

  8. #178

    Default

    Thanks for explaining what I already knew. I appreciate the effort though

    I know what doublethink is, but I think it is rather boring. That's why I was playing with the thought to make it more abstract, take it out of our heads and apply it to the world as we (think we) know it, as I explained earlier in this thread. But if there's no room for that kind of exploratory discussion, I'll take it somewhere else.

    No hard feelings.
    Last edited by PH.; 03-24-2011 at 06:55 AM.

  9. #179
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    I'm not the OP or the off-topic police. It does seem strange to me (and very confusing and counterproductive for any discussion) to start arbitrarily redefining a word with a lot of negative connotations when other words would work a lot better for the intended new meaning (and with less confusion arising from the known definition). Making up a word completely would make more sense. But whatever makes you happy.
    -end of thread-

  10. #180
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Projection?
    I've seen it. And that's what the book (1984) was about...abusing power by controlling thoughts. I suppose you could say that is projection (on both my and Orwell's) part, but I think I'm just citing examples. That's what I see doublethink being used for.

    I'm sorry.
    I don't know why.

    Good luck, though.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

Similar Threads

  1. How much Ti do you use?
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 01-03-2017, 12:06 PM
  2. What Enneagram Test Do You Use?
    By Trobon in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-15-2009, 11:29 PM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 08:07 AM
  4. Do you use MBTI professionally?
    By dnivera in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-28-2008, 09:42 PM
  5. Which Layout Style Do You Use, Comprende?
    By Mempy in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 08:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO