Do you use doublethink?

[xisnotx]

If you are going to believe that those other people aren't just in your mind (solipsism) but actually exist, than I believe one should abandon doublethink - it can only lead to false agreements which will ultimately be used to cover up problems or abuse positions of power.

Projection?

I'm sorry.

I don't know. Perhaps we weren't supposed to know this. Perhaps I wasn't. Maybe I realized something wrong. Perhaps this is the hell the religious people were going on about. I do know I have the ability to turn it off when I want to. I have to...and I must do so daily in order to live in this world. Because the world is two dimensional. You either are doing something..or you aren't. Because you are living. You have the choice to not live. And perhaps it's the more logical choice. I don't know. All I know..is that I want to live. That's all. How can I un-understand what I now understand? Do I choose to not understand? Isn't that just choosing understanding...choosing a different understanding? Will that make me happy? Will that make you happy?

And the truth is..you already made your choice. You make your choice every instant you choose to not do it. By choosing to not choose..you choose to live.
So please don't. I'm not sure what else I can tell you.

It is what it is.
Do what you must.

 

[xisnotx]

People having flawed thoughts doesn't make anything contradictory.

Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?

 

[Qre:us]

The world has two sides: object and subject. The "true" world being object and our interpretation: subject. We live in object, interact with it, see it, feel it, experience it, but everything is subjected to our view. But both are true. Some things don't leave much room for our own interpretation, such as the colour red. Yes, some see a more orange-y colour, some experience a more vivid red and some see it as a tone of grey, but we all agree that it is the same colour. So we know red is two things: it is what it is (the colour an sich) and it is an interpretation. You can't discard the interpretation, because then you'll have to be a non-thinking, non-experiencing thing. But those statements are quite contradictory, right? How can something be objective and subjective at the same time? Relativity.

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.

Infinity as a fact

If you believe in infinity, everything is possible, even two contraditory things can be harmonious.

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.

 

[xisnotx]

The WAY to look at/interpret the THING (X) can be done either through an objective view or a subjective view, or both.

Or neither.
And all of the above.

Relativity.
Doublethink.

Do you see?

 

[BlueGray]

The theory of relativity...
the assertion that an object can do two different thing depending on where you are in relation to that object.

How can one object do two different things?
Is it not the same object?
Is it not doing two different things?

It's a paradox. Which is true? Can both be true? Does it matter? Why?

Relativity says that apparent velocity is a function of the observer and observed, not a property of the observed.

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. The distance between you and me and my fridge and me are not the same. That doesn't mean that the distances are contradictory. Asking "How much distance do you have?" Or "How much velocity do you have?" are both nonsensical questions. They both require two variables.

 

[xisnotx]

They both require two variables.

What is the other variable?

 

[Qre:us]

Or neither.

How can it be neither objective, or subjective or both, at the same time, relatively speaking?

And all of the above.

How can it be objective OR subjective OR both, at the same time, relatively speaking?

[I'm assuming you know the definition of "OR" btw]

Do YOU see?

Relativity.
Doublethink.

Relativity does not equal doublethink.

 

[Randomnity]

I don't know.

Exactly.

 

[BlueGray]

What is the other variable?

The observer.

 

[xisnotx]

Do YOU see?

I do.

 

[PH.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Litvyak]

Al though quantum mechanics is more of a duality than a contradiction.

So is doublethink. The contradiction is all in your head.

 

[Craft]

...

so you don't think you're arguing? Ok, then let me ask you: (-1) - 1 = ?

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...

 

[xisnotx]

The observer.

Who is the observer?

 

[xisnotx]

so you don't think you're arguing? Ok, then let me ask you: (-1) - 1 = ?

define "1".

 

[Randomnity]

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.

 

[MacGuffin]

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

 

[PH.]

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.

 

[Randomnity]

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.

 

[Bamboo]

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.