User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 56

  1. #31
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Yeah but you can't encourage sophism, or they'll start running around thinking they're superior and doing online iq tests all day.
    He'll get mad, he'll go out for some air, meet friends, have a girlfriend.

    So I'm really being kind to him.

    In the end, everything is arguable, I'm an entp for god sake, I could argue that the earth is flat for sports if the church decided to back me up.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  2. #32
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    In the end, everything is arguable, I'm an entp for god sake, I could argue that the earth is flat for sports if the church decided to back me up.
    Churches have gotten into quite a few troubles for such similar statements, uttered by some of their priests offering the same type of service.

    Everything is arguable cuz very few things are definite in the realm of conceptual thought. [not that that disregards the very accurate argument regarding entps. ]

  3. #33
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Churches have gotten into quite a few troubles for such similar statements, uttered by some of their priests offering the same type of service.

    Everything is arguable cuz very few things are definite in the realm of conceptual thought. [not that that disregards the very accurate argument regarding entps. ]
    As long as we're all really delusional freaks, we might at least be honest about it (and enjoy it)
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  4. #34
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    As long as we're all really delusional freaks, we might at least be honest about it (and enjoy it)
    Honesty in delusion. Is that really then delusion? [...sometimes, I wish I had an 'off' switch]

  5. #35
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Honesty in delusion. Is that really then delusion? [...sometimes, I wish I had an 'off' switch]


    You know zeno's paradox?

    YOu know the story about achilles and the rabbit.
    Achilles can never keep up with the rabbit because he always has a smallest and smallest "fraction" of distance separing him from the damn rabbit. To understand the race we have to know that, we can only estimate positions by stopping\'freezing time'. So at constant speed the position at 1 sec will be 2 times further than at 0.5, 1000 times further than at 1ms et caetera.
    This introduce an infinity in the variables. While we know the distance between the rabbit and achilles (or the arrow and the apple, further below) is finite, the computation is infinite, and achilles gets ever closer to the rabbit without ever reaching it.

    I'm lazy so I'll google..
    Stated for Dummies, this Parodox means that Achilles (the fleet-footed Greek war hero of Achilles Heel fame) can never catch up to the slow-poke tortoise if aforesaid tortoise has any sort of head-start, however short that head-start is. Whenever Achilles reaches a point that is somewhere the tortoise has already been, the tortoise will have, by then, advanced 'slowly but surely' past that point, so that Archilles will still have farther to go, even if it is an infinitely small one. Therefore, Zeno says (and rightly), swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise.

    The issue of the imperfect human truth.


    Our general understanding of the universe is getting closer and closer to a 1:1 model of the universe without ever reaching it.

    Each time we explain let's say, gravity. We expand our knowledge and find out that the orbit of i-forgot-which-planet isn't accounted for correctly(mercury?) IS OFF, then the human achilles advances again, shining upon the 'wrong orbit' darkness by finding out about relativity. But einstein's theory lead to theorize and indirectly observe new unknown limit states such as black holes and the big bang, create some new terra incognitae. The unknown advances further.
    And so on, And so on.

    To apply the concept of the zeno's paradox
    :

    Human understanding may accelerate exponentially faster and faster, but the steady progression of the unknown will always be one step, one tenth of a step, one billionth of a step further. Because the only way to really totally 'understand' the universe, is to be the universe. So the best we can do is getting closer and closer to a perfect comprehension.

    To use a formula from a book I read some time ago, the speed of dark is faster than the speed of light.
    Because wherever there is light, it was preceded by darkness. And without the darkness, there'd be nothing for the light to shine upon.

    Applying that to the idea of the delusion, yes, we're always wrong, and everytime we display our knowledge and call it light, we omit there's always darkness lurking.
    So we'll always be a little wrong, no matter how far we go. Towards the infinitely small.


    Using the paradox of the arrow it would be translated such as: the arrow is our science of the universe, the human truth. The apple is the absolute truth.

    Shoot an arrow towards a man standing 1meter away, you can say that.
    In half the time it went half the way to the man. *50cm left/50% to the target*
    In 9\10th of the time. *10cm left/10% to the target*
    In 99\100th of the time. *1cm left/1% to the target*
    In 999\1000th of the time. *0.1cm left/0.1% to the target*
    And so on AD INFINITUM, The arrow never reaches the man.


    But you see, zeno's paradox has an answer. Calculus
    Now I started writing a book but I decided to stop and just use a simple concept you should know.

    0.9999999 = 1
    Endlessly getting closer to 1 is 1. endlessly looking for the truth is the truth.

    Therefore as long as our ignorance and our delusions strive for the truth, to get further and further ahead, to free our knowledge from the bondage of human relativity and try, endlessly and hopelessly to reach for the stars and grasp the multiverse.

    As long as this is our ideal, as long as we stay honest to it, we hold the truth forever in our hands.


    EDIT: In conclusion: The truth lies not in what we know but the unknown, and the very fact of pursuing it is already truth in itself. But the danger lies in sophism, in closed logic that only thrive on ego and a desire to prevail rather than a geniune pursuit of the unknown, wherever it lurks.
    Last edited by EcK; 02-05-2009 at 01:45 PM. Reason: added pretty colors!
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  6. #36
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    technically everything that made up ur body cells\structure is different from the guy you remember from a few years ago. So we're probably just more or less only existing in the present\near present and, in the best case disolve like:
    Time -1: 1 = <1>
    Time 0: (now): 1 -0,5=0.5 + a new 0.5 = <1>
    Time 2 : 1-1=0 T0(0,5)+a new 0.5 = <1>

    So we're just people remembering about somebody else and convinced we are that person.
    And that present self disappears as a weave spreading through space into infinity.
    One day another total stranger will remember being the present you.

    So if you want to die and end up free.. don't worry, just wait.
    I don't think we know enough about consciousness to judge that kind of thing. It does seem intuitive though considering we only experience memories (recordings) of the past and predictions of the future, all in the present moment. It could simply be the same consciousness drifting through time however, though who knows what our memories aren't recording (e.g a complete change in consciousness).

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    What's the reasoning that would lead you to imagine that we will have the facilities required for consciousness after death?
    If we assume that consciousness has nothing but a physical causation, then what's to stop that physical causation happening again?

    If it has more than just a physical causation, then who knows?

  7. #37
    Senior Member Grayscale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    istp
    Posts
    1,962

    Default

    i always find this sort of thing funny. why should i even bother replying when you dont truly believe your own argument?

    the insinuated benefit of freedom is to gain, without life you cannot lose, yes, but neither can you gain... im willing to take that risk.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    [SIZE="3"]

    Applying that to the idea of the delusion, yes, we're always wrong, and everytime we display our knowledge and call it light, we omit there's always darkness lurking.
    Why would our acknowledging that we have gained a certain knowledge, automatically transfer to us negating/omitting that there is darkness lurking? If anything, advancement of knowledge is the *key* to finding out more accurately, that which we do not know. I thus don't support your dichotomy, of why an omission will then occur with a gain in knowledge.

    So we'll always be a little wrong, no matter how far we go. Towards the infinitely small.
    Not knowing, is not the same as being wrong. Evolution is falsifiable. But, those against the theory often bring up 'holes' that we haven't yet explained through evolution, and call it contradiction. Like the evolution of how the mind processes images (how the eye works). But, not knowing doesn't contradict evolution. We're not wrong. We just don't know. (yet)

    Therefore as long as our ignorance and our delusions strive for the truth,
    Again, ignorance is not delusion. They're not the same. One is a lack of knowledge, the other a twisting of knowledge.

    EDIT: In conclusion: The truth lies not in what we know but the unknown,
    The asolute truth. The whole. If we say that it can be broken down into infinite smaller pieces such that unless we *are* the truth, we cannot truly ever know the truth. Then, wouldn't the same logic stand that when we build *on* a truth, as it is THE absolute whole, it means that there can be infinite inter-connections, so, the unknown may very well be a realistic failure to conceive of all infinite connections that makes up the whole? Rather than merely the concrete unknown.

    As such, honesty can lie in ignorance. But, not in delusion.

  9. #39
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Not knowing, is not the same as being wrong. Evolution is falsifiable. But, those against the theory often bring up 'holes' that we haven't yet explained through evolution, and call it contradiction. Like the evolution of how the mind processes images (how the eye works). But, not knowing doesn't contradict evolution. We're not wrong. We just don't know. (yet)
    Yes I'm sorry, I mis used the word wrong thinking about an inexact model of a reality. In my mind 'right' was the absolute reality. You're right to note that point. thx
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Again, ignorance is not delusion. They're not the same. One is a lack of knowledge, the other a twisting of knowledge.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    As such, honesty can lie in ignorance. But, not in delusion.
    What is a delusion?
    Its when ones perception of reality isnt compatible with the general concept of truth.
    Here we face two problems:
    if we can say that the general rule is you walk into a wall you will hit the wall.
    Then youd say that if that wall was really an optical illusion for example, thered be honest ignorance.
    While the delusional individual would for example, start with the belief he can go through the wall, GO through the wall and think it makes him right.

    Now we can say, yes, but youd just have to give the delusional individual the way more probable experience of hitting the wall to discredit his belief.

    So the delusional individual really thinks he has a super power, but then he can never go through the wall. Hed keep swearing he did it but would keep being proven wrong.
    But lets take the concept of delusion to the field of research. Our instruments and technologies allow us to observe more and more accurately on the human, macro and nano+quantum scales.
    So when the delusional man and the ignorant man meet this new situation, what are the grounds for calling one interpretation a delusional one and another honest poke in the dark made by the ignorant man?
    We need to infer the mechanisms ruling the new grounds of reality we uncover and I dont see how we can honestly call the first a delusional man and the second an honest ignorant.

    Therefore delusions seem to mostly apply to human scale and social interactions and are designed rather by norms than the purest empiricism. Now yes, if everybody could have absolute undeniable certainty of a perfect understanding the whole of the universe, then you'd be able to perfectly weed out delusions from a no longer existing state of honest ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    The asolute truth. The whole. If we say that it can be broken down into infinite smaller pieces such that unless we *are* the truth, we cannot truly ever know the truth. Then, wouldn't the same logic stand that when we build *on* a truth, as it is THE absolute whole, it means that there can be infinite inter-connections, so, the unknown may very well be a realistic failure to conceive of all infinite connections that makes up the whole? Rather than merely the concrete unknown.
    Id have to disagree. If the human truth is part of the whole and is therefore subject to corrections.
    Those corrections are a part of a process, which process can be indefinitely divided and understood as a potentially infinite series going towards 1.

    And 1 is 1 as a whole, the absolute truth is the universe, multiverse, or whatever is the last step. In other words, what we are talking about is simply Reality.

    This Reality is a self contained system and not a process.

    If time can be considered as a dimension within this multi\universe theres no point at stating its a dynamical process.

    Now the counter attack would be: but then how is the expansion of the human sphere of knowledge not also reduceable to a dimensional construct.

    Well, Its because this sphere isnt self contained, it constantly adds new knowledge within its midst If the universe at any given time could be reduced to an X, and then at another time into an Y.
    X would be equal to Y.
    But the sum of the human knowledge constantly adding to itself would result into an X at T0 < Y at T1.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  10. #40
    S Saiyan God Mace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx
    Socionics
    --- Te
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    Death is freedom? Mmm, so what are we doing here (in existence)?

Similar Threads

  1. 28. What is freedom?
    By lightsun in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-09-2017, 02:34 PM
  2. Is freedom an absolute good?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-26-2015, 09:34 PM
  3. If we assume death is stream of consciousness stopping
    By Hard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-23-2014, 12:15 PM
  4. What is Freedom?
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 11:48 AM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:35 AM

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