User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 57

  1. #11
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    So, what I'm saying here is, do you think that perhaps it would be arrogant for someone to assert that something is definitely, indisputably, and without a hint of doubt true, since everything we know is based on the contexts and assumptions of systems, perception, and consciousness?
    I think it's fair to say "if we agree on the terms of being discussed, I'm sure X is true". All my life, when I've been able to connect the different defintions people have of the same object/action, I've easily been able to come to the agreement that our positions were actually coincident, or that I was wrong. I can't see how it could be otherwise, personally.

  2. #12
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    What does this mean?
    It means that you should read the works of Immanuel Kant.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  3. #13
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne
    It also means that we can never know (that's "know" in the justified true belief sense) <= (?) what we are thinking.
    So what happens to metacognition?

  4. #14
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldanen View Post
    So what happens to metacognition?
    Erm... does it buys a brand new pair of designer sandels, prances around the room listening to Madonna and suffering from a fit of giddiness, before collapsing from an overdose of LSD?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  5. #15
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne
    Erm... does it buys a brand new pair of designer sandels, prances around the room listening to Madonna and suffering from a fit of giddiness, before collapsing from an overdose of LSD?
    I've never used LSD :<.

  6. #16
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    (1) A → B

    (2) A1 → (A → B)

    (3) A2 → (A1 → (A → B)

    (4) A3 → (A2 → (A1 → (A → B)

    Take A to be an analyser, such as your brain, and B to represent that which is being analysed, such as a tree.

    In (1) we have an analyser and a thing being analysed. The '→' represents the act of analysing, so A is analysing B.

    If we choose to analyse our experience, such as reflecting on the redness of red, we need to analyse 'A → B' itself.

    Therefore, we need to make 'A → B' the object of analysis, so we analyse it using A1. That's where the kicker comes in, how could we guaruntee that the 'A → B' in (2) is a faithful copy of the 'A → B' in (1)?

    The problem can then be iterated for (3) and (4), and no matter how many recursions we try, the problem never goes away, and in a bizarre turn of events, we can never know for sure what we are thinking!

    It is similar to a mirror, which by itself cannot reflect itself. If we introduce another mirror, then original mirror can now reflect itself, but there can be no guaruntee that the reflection of the mirror off the second mirror is perfect, since it might be warped or dirty.

    We usually consider ourselves authoritive and infallible regarding the content of our experience, but this would suggest that we are not. In fact, it suggests that another may even know better than ourselves what we are thinking, at least in principle.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    (1) A → B

    (2) A1 → (A → B)

    (3) A2 → (A1 → (A → B)

    (4) A3 → (A2 → (A1 → (A → B)

    Take A to be an analyser, such as your brain, and B to represent that which is being analysed, such as a tree.

    In (1) we have an analyser and a thing being analysed. The '→' represents the act of analysing, so A is analysing B.

    If we choose to analyse our experience, such as reflecting on the redness of red, we need to analyse 'A → B' itself.

    Therefore, we need to make 'A → B' the object of analysis, so we analyse it using A1. That's where the kicker comes in, how could we guaruntee that the 'A → B' in (2) is a faithful copy of the 'A → B' in (1)?

    The problem can then be iterated for (3) and (4), and no matter how many recursions we try, the problem never goes away, and in a bizarre turn of events, we can never know for sure what we are thinking!

    It is similar to a mirror, which by itself cannot reflect itself. If we introduce another mirror, then original mirror can now reflect itself, but there can be no guaruntee that the reflection of the mirror off the second mirror is perfect, since it might be warped or dirty.

    We usually consider ourselves authoritive and infallible regarding the content of our experience, but this would suggest that we are not. In fact, it suggests that another may even know better than ourselves what we are thinking, at least in principle.

    Elegant. I have been involved in an argument about this subject but was unable to net the position into something concise. Is it all right with you if I use your model? Is it yours or does it exist in an accessible book somewhere?

    Cheers.

    And thank god I found you people. I was starting to feel like I was going insane.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Maybe, however what is the use of realizing this?

    We still need to build buildings and bridges, create systems, fly aeroplanes, research cures for diseases, ... and for that use it doesn't matter if what we know and our tools are not purely objective. They're sufficiently objective as to be able to be reliable, understandable, reproducible and useful to people who know nothing about each other, live in completely different parts of the world and speak different languages. There is no perfect state of objectivity but there are a number of things that are a hell of a lot less subjective than others.

  9. #19
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    511

    Default

    athenian200, I agree with you...

    For example

    There are some people who precise colors differently to others - we lebel them color blind, how stupid when we also know some animals also precise colors differently.

  10. #20
    Senior Member niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENfP
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    Yeah. Some people believe that since there must be something higher to objectify (objective-ize?) everything everything in the world in order for it to exist/make sense, there must be some sort of God.

    For example, you can only look at a cup from different angles. You cannot observe all angles/perceptions of the cup simultaneously. You are not the cup itself. You cannot embody the very essence of the cup. So how can you be sure they all exist simultaneously while you cannot confirm this yourself, in order for the cup to exist? There must be something that encorporates it all; creates a standard for us to exist in, even if we may have different perceptions of it.

    Ideas like your 2+2=4/2+2=10 one are examples that different heads...make different stuff.

    As for your last question, "What does this mean?", it means that they have not considered this idea of total subjectivity yet and happen to have a lot of self-confidence mixed with thickheadedness or stubborness.
    sparkly sparkly rainbow excretions

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatGirl View Post
    holy shit am I a feeler?
    if you like my avatar, it's because i took it myself! : D

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 09:37 PM
  2. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 10-23-2012, 09:41 AM
  3. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-22-2012, 05:01 PM
  4. Just realized my Se is real weak.
    By Illmatic in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-18-2011, 02:43 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