User Tag List

View Poll Results: What type makes the best metaphysicist/cosmologist?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • INTP

    2 25.00%
  • INFP

    0 0%
  • INTJ

    2 25.00%
  • INFJ

    2 25.00%
  • ENTP

    1 12.50%
  • ENFP

    0 0%
  • ENTJ

    0 0%
  • ENFJ

    0 0%
  • ISTP

    0 0%
  • ISFP

    0 0%
  • ISTJ

    1 12.50%
  • ISFJ

    0 0%
  • ESTP

    0 0%
  • ESFP

    0 0%
  • ESTJ

    0 0%
  • ESFJ

    0 0%
First 123

Results 21 to 25 of 25

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I liked your comment on the whole, but I think you speak too much in absolutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by mingularity View Post
    "origin, "first cause" and even "existence" are metaphors that are based on our proximal reality. Origin is a spatial metaphor, as is first cause. Existence is based on container metaphors - a full versus empty container. These metaphors do not generalize to talking about reality. There is no ultimate reason for the existence of the universe, it always has and always will exist, that's just the way it is. There is substance. There is and has always been something and there never has been and never will be nothing.
    Our universe may indeed be a self-contained system, but we haven't penetrated far enough to make conclusions about how or why it exists.

    The utility of consciousness is that it helps us to use exergy to create low entropy configurations of matter, ultimately reducing exergy as fast as possible. That's it.
    I like to think that consciousness allows us to contruct things mentally and perceive them, build things up to higher complexity and order.

    Stuff just is. Consciousness is deeply rooted in meta, and meta is a natural property of fractals, and everything is fractal.
    I agree that our minds do have a meta-perspective of sorts, goes beyond the constraints of physics, and has an inner essence separate from the external matrix. They may still act on each other however.

    When you catch yourself thinking about reality in terms of object metaphors STOP. Banish those thoughts from your mind. It is not turtles all the way down, except that your mind is based on objects all the way down. But that does not reflect reality complete, it only reflects the level of analysis of reality that we evolved in.
    True, we can only see what our biology has programmed us for, but we don't know how far the metaphysical powers of the mind can go.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    I liked your comment on the whole, but I think you speak too much in absolutes.
    Not necessarily.







    How does it feel?

    Complaining about someone who speaks in absolutes is an argument of the form "not necessarily," which is a generally weak argument. It's strong in formal systems, but we can rarely prove anything. Our knowledge comes along with a confidence measure and that measure is rarely fully confident, even if it is expressed as so in order to help emphasize a point.

    "Really powerful argument spoken with more confidence than is realistic."

    "Not necessarily."

    "Okay, what about my actual argument?"

    "It's not necessarily true."

    "Yeah, ok, have a nice life."





    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    Our universe may indeed be a self-contained system, but we haven't penetrated far enough to make conclusions about how or why it exists.
    Again, you have used a container metaphor to talk about reality. This leads to contradictions in any reasonable formal system. Reality is not an object. If it were, then it would have to be in a container. Have you ever seen an uncontained object? No. Have you ever seen an uncontained container? Nope. And just like that we get turtles all the way down.


    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    I like to think that consciousness allows us to contruct things mentally and perceive them, build things up to higher complexity and order.
    Consciousness evolved. The question is, what is its utility?


    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    I agree that our minds do have a meta-perspective of sorts, goes beyond the constraints of physics, and has an inner essence separate from the external matrix. They may still act on each other however.
    Nothing goes beyond physics. This is a god of the gaps-style argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    True, we can only see what our biology has programmed us for, but we don't know how far the metaphysical powers of the mind can go.
    First, if you can't prove that something is correct then you should temper your confidence in it. Indeed, if it is Not Even Wrong i.e. not even testable you should spend almost no time thinking about it. Second, you should question the utility of your metaphysics. In order to do this you're going to have to define an objective function.

    Pure theory lacks utility. Why are you theorizing. If it is to discover the truth, then your pattern of theorizing and believing without testing is deeply flawed.

  3. #23
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mingularity View Post
    "origin, "first cause" and even "existence" are metaphors that are based on our proximal reality. Origin is a spatial metaphor, as is first cause. Existence is based on container metaphors - a full versus empty container. These metaphors do not generalize to talking about reality. There is no ultimate reason for the existence of the universe, it always has and always will exist, that's just the way it is.
    Nice post, I agree with this.

    Most people think there has to be a reason, because "reason" as a concept is so ingrained into our brains. But of course there doesn't have to be. I think the idea that there really is no reason to existence makes people uncomfortable, because we're so used to looking for it. We have to for survival after all. But why should that be applicable to anything beyond our tiny slither of reality? Reason probably doesn't exist beyond how our brains subjectively determine causalities.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mingularity View Post
    Not necessarily.







    How does it feel?

    Complaining about someone who speaks in absolutes is an argument of the form "not necessarily," which is a generally weak argument. It's strong in formal systems, but we can rarely prove anything. Our knowledge comes along with a confidence measure and that measure is rarely fully confident, even if it is expressed as so in order to help emphasize a point.

    "Really powerful argument spoken with more confidence than is realistic."

    "Not necessarily."

    "Okay, what about my actual argument?"

    "It's not necessarily true."

    "Yeah, ok, have a nice life."
    Well, I don't like to think that all things are necessary; some things just are, even if we can't explain how or why.

    Again, you have used a container metaphor to talk about reality. This leads to contradictions in any reasonable formal system. Reality is not an object. If it were, then it would have to be in a container. Have you ever seen an uncontained object? No. Have you ever seen an uncontained container? Nope. And just like that we get turtles all the way down.
    We don't even know the basic architectures of our universe - whether it's open and infinite or finite and closed, a positively curved sphere or a negatively curved saddle, or even a flat torus. Surely there's no way we can know what lies beyond it all, at least not yet.

    Consciousness evolved. The question is, what is its utility?
    It's usefulness is in that we can have life, both experience it and have a means for preserving it longer. But that's only at our level of existence as we know it. Up above, assuming any of that exists, perhaps our minds could do so much more. I would even say that evolution is an integral factor here, as it makes changes that we can perceive, and can lift us up to higher states.

    Nothing goes beyond physics. This is a god of the gaps-style argument.
    Reason can carry us to the pinnacle, but only with sufficient faith will we jump off of the mountainside and fly up into the sky.

    First, if you can't prove that something is correct then you should temper your confidence in it. Indeed, if it is Not Even Wrong i.e. not even testable you should spend almost no time thinking about it. Second, you should question the utility of your metaphysics. In order to do this you're going to have to define an objective function.
    We don't need to expect scientifically verifiable results for everything before its time has come. Try telling the American Indians from times past to prove that the Earth is round, or that the Earth isn't the center of the universe; that under our present observations is the real fact, but people with limited perceptions would have no means of proving so. As such, they would need fundamental theories first to lay foundations for future explorations.

    Pure theory lacks utility. Why are you theorizing. If it is to discover the truth, then your pattern of theorizing and believing without testing is deeply flawed.
    Pure theories may lack immediate usefulness, but they also have promise for much more development beyond the world as we know it, can come to expand our horizons and vision.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    We don't even know the basic architectures of our universe - whether it's open and infinite or finite and closed, a positively curved sphere or a negatively curved saddle, or even a flat torus. Surely there's no way we can know what lies beyond it all, at least not yet.

    I don't think you understood my point, because your response to it is even more object-based metaphors.

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    Reason can carry us to the pinnacle, but only with sufficient faith will we jump off of the mountainside and fly up into the sky.
    Faith is probably the single most nefarious thought virus ever created. I can't believe you just said that to me. KILL IT WITH FIRE.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] Best type for INFJs
    By Crescent Fresh in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-14-2014, 11:13 PM
  2. Best type for a Philosopher
    By RaptorWizard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-10-2013, 07:41 PM
  3. Best Type for Generating Ideas
    By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-10-2013, 05:10 PM
  4. Notes about each type V1.0 (and entry for best typist contest while I'm at it)
    By zago in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 06:10 PM
  5. [ENFJ] Best Type for ENFJs?
    By TopherRed in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 10-12-2009, 01:06 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