CloserToGod: Black Iron Prison Rebuttal

[LMNO]

It is if you can't prove it, yes.  By definition.

[Elder Iptuous]

It is if you can't prove it, yes.  By definition.

well, even radical skepticism rests on 'cogito ergo sum' but that's not really provable, is it?
you gotta have postulates somewhere, no?  you can call that faith, but i wouldn't say it 'stinks' of it, as if it's something bad/avoidable.

[LMNO]

My shit stinks too, but that's not avoidable.

All I'm saying is that to postulate an Ultimate Reality and Truth, and then turning around and saying it's indistinguishable from Illusion and Lies is sloppy thinking.  That seems even worse than black/white, right/wrong.

[Cain]

Actually, between them, Nietzsche Hume and Foucault even did away with the idea of an individual personality.  As Nietzsche pointed out, "there is thinking therefore there is thinking" is the only real conclusion one can draw.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Actually, between them, Nietzsche Hume and Foucault even did away with the idea of an individual personality.  As Nietzsche pointed out, "there is thinking therefore there is thinking" is the only real conclusion one can draw.

That rules.

I'ma go take a more serious look at these Nietzsche PDFs nao... and by "nao" I mean when finals aren't eating my brain.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Iptuous,

It's semantics.

If you believe X but can't prove it... that's faith (Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, though not beheld). If you propose X, or consider X or think X is a pretty good idea, then you don't have to worry about faith.

I think there is an Objective Reality...
It appears to me that an Objective Reality probably exists...
If Objective Reality exists...

vs.

I believe that Objective Reality exists...

It may be a small thing, but if the words we use influence our thoughts (which General Semantics contends), then its definately something to consider.

[LMNO]

The central question is: If we agree that life is more than a dream, that our consciousness dwells in a universe that includes things other than itself, then what is the nature of those things?

[Elder Iptuous]

All I'm saying is that to postulate an Ultimate Reality and Truth, and then turning around and saying it's indistinguishable from Illusion and Lies is sloppy thinking.  That seems even worse than black/white, right/wrong.

yes. looking back over the thread i realize the wording isn't good.
'I  believe X, but can't prove it' is not at all the same as 'I postulate X, but it is unknowable in its entirety'

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

All I'm saying is that to postulate an Ultimate Reality and Truth, and then turning around and saying it's indistinguishable from Illusion and Lies is sloppy thinking.  That seems even worse than black/white, right/wrong.

yes. looking back over the thread i realize the wording isn't good.
'I  believe X, but can't prove it' is not at all the same as 'I postulate X, but it is unknowable in its entirety'

Ba Da Bing!

[Cain]

Actually, between them, Nietzsche Hume and Foucault even did away with the idea of an individual personality.  As Nietzsche pointed out, "there is thinking therefore there is thinking" is the only real conclusion one can draw.

That rules.

I'ma go take a more serious look at these Nietzsche PDFs nao... and by "nao" I mean when finals aren't eating my brain.

I don't know if his objections to Rousseau are in his main books, but they are certainly present within his notes, published as The Will to Power.  His general metaphysic is pretty much global skepticism anyhow, so it fits.

I think Foucault covers the same ground in The Order of Things.

[Manta Obscura]

Actually, between them, Nietzsche Hume and Foucault even did away with the idea of an individual personality.  As Nietzsche pointed out, "there is thinking therefore there is thinking" is the only real conclusion one can draw.

That rules.

I'ma go take a more serious look at these Nietzsche PDFs nao... and by "nao" I mean when finals aren't eating my brain.

I don't know if his objections to Rousseau are in his main books, but they are certainly present within his notes, published as The Will to Power.  His general metaphysic is pretty much global skepticism anyhow, so it fits.

I think Foucault covers the same ground in The Order of Things.

Is the above Nietzschean quote from "The Will to Power"? I've never read that one.

I think there is an Objective Reality...
It appears to me that an Objective Reality probably exists...
If Objective Reality exists...

vs.

I believe that Objective Reality exists...

Semantics has always been a really big interest of mine, Rat. One really cool semantical change with the concept of belief would be to take your final statement, "I believe that Objective Reality exists," and reconfigure it to say "The existence of an Objective Reality is a belief which I hold," thereby changing some of the implications of the statement. The former posits the implication that the belief is an integral part of one's makeup, whereas the latter illustrates belief as being a cognitive tool, which is much closer to the three examples you posted before the one mentioning belief.

[shadowfurry23]

4.  I hold that the Machine,Ñ¢ is what happens when people forget they're in Prison.

I really like this.  Triple Zero expanded upon it nicely.

Actually, between them, Nietzsche Hume and Foucault even did away with the idea of an individual personality.  As Nietzsche pointed out, "there is thinking therefore there is thinking" is the only real conclusion one can draw.

Reduced to first principles, I believe you can only be certain of two things that you can apply pretty much universally:

1. Something is going on.
2. Not necessarily.

I am still uncertain if you can apply point 2 to point 1. I'm also not certain how useful it is to say really, but here I am saying it.

I have broken free of the BIP and I find that it is actually a lonely place, it is not populated with individuals, but it does not have any further walls and is not devoid of life. It is a free place that is to be explored and learnt from.

As many have pointed out CtG seems to have missed the point in claiming to have "escaped".  However it does strike close to something that I've been wondering about, namely that the idea of "jailbreaking" seems to run counter to the BiP metaphor, i.e. that you cannot escape the limitations of your perceptions.  I did a little searching for the term in the PD.com forums but didn't seem to see a discussion on the topic.

  Could someone point me to one perhaps?  Or have I too missed the point albeit in a different way?

[Elder Iptuous]

jailbreaking implies jailbuilding

[LMNO]

"Jailbreak" seems to be a red herring.

For me, it means the act of breaking out of your standard cell of perception.  Even if you can never get free from the BIP, that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying.

[fomenter]

perhaps jail break (getting out of your cell) and prison break (escaping the prison of perception {you cant}) clarifies it, you can move around the prison enter and (hopefully) exit other cells but there is no exit from the perception facility itself