First off:Big flaw of mine is that I'm lazy and inpatient. Because of this I didn't take the time to look through everything posted once I realized I have a soapbox to express some ideas. So if I'm posting this in the wrong place or I'm saying common sense bs, I will not be offended if people take this post down or tear me apart or point out how i'm wrong or point out how other people have already said this. I'm just gonna post some philosophical things that have been on my chest. I haven't been able to bring it into a conversation with friends without like forcing it into conversation, and hopefully it'll stimulate some conversation on here. I'm going to just let it flow, so sorry if it jumps around a bit. Some of it will be like fictional recounts of things that didn't happen in order to get the point across.
Two men stand opposite of each other in a field. Between them is a tree.
One man says to the other, "This thing in front of us, it has a hole in it."
The other man says, "I see no hole, in fact, I see a lack of hole"
They begin to argue. The one does not understand, assuming that the both are looking at the same thing, how the other could see the complete opposite of what the one is seeing. They stand there all day and all night, arguing. They continue into the next day and into the next night.
"I see a hole"
"I see a lack of hole"
And so it goes for days and days and days. They are so focused on what the other is not seeing, that they think not of food or water.
They die.
The tree keeps standing.
Such is the nature of truth and philosophy.
__________
I asked someone what essence was. They said essence is purpose. I reminded them that essence is defined by the fact that it is unchanging. They said they know what essence is. I asked that person what the purpose of a knife is. They said a knife's purpose is to cut things. I told that person to imagine a day in which they are feeling particularly vain. They want to see their reflection. They grab a knife and look into it. What is it's purpose then? They answered that it's purpose would be to reflect things.
Does this mean that essence isn't purpose? Maybe. I think the essence of a thing might be a purpose still, but that a lot of the purposes we assign to things are like socially constructed purposes. I think that even though these socially-constructed essences change based on what the perciever is reading into the object that is being percieved, there is a deeper, more basic essence to all things. I think that all things are essentially things-to-be-percieved.
__________
The universe as we know it is made up by everything existing. This means the material world (like a flute, or a dog, or a tree, or an atom, et cetera), and the immaterial world (ideas, music, words, et cetera). All things in the existent universe are defined by the things they are not within the existent universe. Like the color green is defined by the fact that it is not the colors yellow, blue, red, et al. Furthermore, the color green is defined by the fact that it is not a pear or a horse. This goes on infinitely. I will call the sum of all the parts of the existent universe everything. How do we define everything as a singular thing? You can't say it's none of it's parts, because it clearly is. The answer to what keeps the concept of Everything existing is the concept of Nothing. What about the next step up, not the concept of everything, but everything itself? What keeps the thing we will call Everything-in-it-of-itself, existing. One would dare to say, "It's defined by the fact that it is not nothing-in-it-of-itself" Then to truly understand Everything-in-it-of-itself, we must understand nothing-in-it-of-itself, as to know what it is not. But that's the problem. Once it is conceptualized then it becomes part of everything-in-it-of-itself.
....those are a couple of thoughts I guess. not very well articulated I will gladly admit, but i would love a conversation about this even if it's pointing out why I'm wrong.
Some interesting ideas, your first parable reminded me of the essay "Never Whistle While Your Pissing"
http://rawilson.com/whistlepiss.shtml
Quote from: Hagbard Celine" I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them. The world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card- indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment.
1) Reality Filters/Grids. Or around these forums (for some of us), "The Black Iron Prison".
2) You're pre-supposing that something called "essence" exists, as opposed to the possibility it's a vague human concept that doesn't actually exist in the physical universe.
3) Some of us Discordians call this "Chaos". From the Chao te Ching, Chapter 4:
This is Chaos; it is Everything, including itself.
All of Starbuck's Pebbles come from it.
It confuses order, it arranges disorder.
It multiplies its opposite, it positively negates.
Lying below life, lining the world.
The origin of all patterns.
It has existed before we observed it.
(http://www.1-900-870-6235.com/PeaceMap/ElephantDefine.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on May 07, 2009, 06:41:32 PM
1) Reality Filters/Grids. Or around these forums (for some of us), "The Black Iron Prison".
2) You're pre-supposing that something called "essence" exists, as opposed to the possibility it's a vague human concept that doesn't actually exist in the physical universe.
3) Some of us Discordians call this "Chaos". From the Chao te Ching, Chapter 4:
This is Chaos; it is Everything, including itself.
All of Starbuck's Pebbles come from it.
It confuses order, it arranges disorder.
It multiplies its opposite, it positively negates.
Lying below life, lining the world.
The origin of all patterns.
It has existed before we observed it.
with the essence thing, i just meant it is hard not to think that it is an essential quality of all things
within our capacity of understanding (this means the part of the universe that exists [material and immaterial alike]) that they have the possibility of being perceived, or at the very least conceived. One might ask me to percieve a color that doesn't exist, and I can't truely perceive that, but I can conceptualize it by just thinking it is what every other color is not. so i'm just saying there is an essence to the universe, and that any essence of things in them of themselves is illusory I guess, though I'm sure I'm taking logical jumps here. It's just hard to put it into words.
With the metaphysical thing, I guess i'll just rephrase it and if i'm just making a fool of myself let me know. We have the ability to conceptualize or experience everything(not meaning at the same time) But for everything to exist it has to be not nothing. which means nothing exists. .......oh shit. maybe it's just that our perception of things is dependent upon knowing what things aren't, but everything can exist independently of our perception of it. Am I making sense right now?
no. smoke less pot before you try to explain metaphysical wankery.
we don't mind metaphysical wankery, if it's well-presented.
If I may... The Discordian version (part a):
Two men stand opposite of each other in a field. Between them is a tree.
One man says to the other, "This thing in front of us, it has a hole in it."
The other man says, "I see no hole, in fact, I see a lack of hole"
The first man says, "Oh yeah? Let me come over there, and check it out.... Hey, you're right! There is no hole on this side. Huh. Guess this tree is bigger than any one person can see. Wanna go get a beer?"
The Discordian Version (part b):
Two men stand opposite of each other in a field. Between them is a tree.
One man says to the other, "This thing in front of us, it has a hole in it."
The other man says, "I see no hole, in fact, I see a lack of hole"
The first man says, "What are you, a fucking idiot?" and proceeds to mock the second man until mercilessly.
Quote from: matthewsquires on May 07, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 07, 2009, 06:41:32 PM
1) Reality Filters/Grids. Or around these forums (for some of us), "The Black Iron Prison".
2) You're pre-supposing that something called "essence" exists, as opposed to the possibility it's a vague human concept that doesn't actually exist in the physical universe.
3) Some of us Discordians call this "Chaos". From the Chao te Ching, Chapter 4:
This is Chaos; it is Everything, including itself.
All of Starbuck's Pebbles come from it.
It confuses order, it arranges disorder.
It multiplies its opposite, it positively negates.
Lying below life, lining the world.
The origin of all patterns.
It has existed before we observed it.
with the essence thing, i just meant it is hard not to think that it is an essential quality of all things within our capacity of understanding (this means the part of the universe that exists [material and immaterial alike]) that they have the possibility of being perceived, or at the very least conceived. One might ask me to percieve a color that doesn't exist, and I can't truely perceive that, but I can conceptualize it by just thinking it is what every other color is not. so i'm just saying there is an essence to the universe, and that any essence of things in them of themselves is illusory I guess, though I'm sure I'm taking logical jumps here. It's just hard to put it into words.
With the metaphysical thing, I guess i'll just rephrase it and if i'm just making a fool of myself let me know. We have the ability to conceptualize or experience everything(not meaning at the same time) But for everything to exist it has to be not nothing. which means nothing exists. .......oh shit. maybe it's just that our perception of things is dependent upon knowing what things aren't, but everything can exist independently of our perception of it. Am I making sense right now?
The Barstool Experiment (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.msg323590#msg323590)
:barstool:
words =/= reality
words = symbols
also:
symbols =/= reality
that's the problem with metaphysics. constantly looking at the finger and not what it points to.
to confuse the conversation further, i once argued with someone that claimed black holes were metaphysical. That's the other problem with metaphysics- people don't understand words enough to use them properly, let alone to understand that words are mere symbols.
Literary, but not Literal. Hope that helps.
In short, the Menu is not the Meal, the Map is not the Territory, etc etc.
Quote from: LMNO on May 07, 2009, 08:34:02 PM
In short, the Menu is not the Meal, the Map is not the Territory, etc etc.
OH OH!! LMNO hits the big button!
This is a really important Discordian concept if you haven't been exposed to it already.
The Menu is not the meal, as LMNO said... If you think about it, its a representation that tells us something about the meal. However, it rarely tastes good with ketchup.
A Map may tell us something useful about the territory, but it can never tell us precisely about the territory. Most of the time a map looks nothing like the territory, unless you live in an area where your roads are all weird colors and your towns are small circular blobs of ink. :transmet:
Some Discordians (a lot of us around here), tend to see these metaphors as similar to our semantic models of reality, our perceived perceptions about reality and reality itself.
The road you walk upon is not the road you talk about ;-)
wasn't high, just trying to follow a train of thought.
i get what you guys are saying with the menu and all that jazz. kinda liberating really. makes me see little point in words. made me think about how words and concepts' sole purpose is to arbitrarily set boundaries in the infinite.
i was popped up on concerta earlier and am now tired of thinking metaphysically. i enjoy this forum quite a lot.`
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm glad to have a noob who likes to discuss these sorts of concepts. Usually we don't just get to point to the barstool. usually we have to beat someone with it.
so yeah, welcome to the forums! and don't mind my being acerbic earlier ITT. It's nothing personal, I just like to bust balls.
Hi there & welcome matthewsquires! :)
Quote from: Philly Fillet on May 07, 2009, 08:31:10 PM
words =/= reality
words = symbols
also:
symbols =/= reality
that's the problem with metaphysics. constantly looking at the finger and not what it points to.
to confuse the conversation further, i once argued with someone that claimed black holes were metaphysical. That's the other problem with metaphysics- people don't understand words enough to use them properly, let alone to understand that words are mere symbols.
Literary, but not Literal. Hope that helps.
Philly who? Be still my beating heart.
& chaoflux? I am liking that. Be stiller evener (if that is even frikkin' possible?)
& ECH?
:kiss: :oops: :oops:
Quote from: matthewsquires on May 07, 2009, 06:22:33 PM
The universe as we know it is made up by everything existing. This means the material world (like a flute, or a dog, or a tree, or an atom, et cetera), and the immaterial world (ideas, music, words, et cetera). All things in the existent universe are defined by the things they are not within the existent universe. Like the color green is defined by the fact that it is not the colors yellow, blue, red, et al. Furthermore, the color green is defined by the fact that it is not a pear or a horse. This goes on infinitely. I will call the sum of all the parts of the existent universe everything. How do we define everything as a singular thing? You can't say it's none of it's parts, because it clearly is. The answer to what keeps the concept of Everything existing is the concept of Nothing. What about the next step up, not the concept of everything, but everything itself? What keeps the thing we will call Everything-in-it-of-itself, existing. One would dare to say, "It's defined by the fact that it is not nothing-in-it-of-itself" Then to truly understand Everything-in-it-of-itself, we must understand nothing-in-it-of-itself, as to know what it is not. But that's the problem. Once it is conceptualized then it becomes part of everything-in-it-of-itself.
I feel like tearing into this a little bit ~
1.) Do you really define everything by what it is not? Really?
Are you sure that you don't define the color green by a range of wavelengths, or which pigments it activates in some of your neurons? Are you sure you don't define it by the range of coloured things your parents pointed at and said, "What's this color? Greeeen! aren't you such a smart little boy~"
I have a feeling that if I asked you to define "even numbers" you'd reply that they are defined by not being odd (among not being other things), and say that odd numbers are partially defined by not being even numbers (among not being other things.) Ask a mathematician and he'll tell you that even numbers are integers (which is defined) for which there exists (defined, in the mathematical sense) an integer
n such
2n is equal to the first integer. (Multiplication, equality, and 2 are all defined in the mathematical sense.) No mention of what it is not, and no need to.
2.) You say to understand something, you need to understand what it is not. As you say, green is not a horse. Then, are you saying that in order to understand the color green, you need to understand horses? It seems to me that someone living on a jungle island where there are no such things as horses should have just as good odds of understanding what the color green means as someone on an island with a horse.
3.) Is Something the set of things which it is Not? Because if it isn't (that is to say, "Green" is not equal to {"Red", "Blue," "Pear", "Horse", ... etc}) then the set of things Something is Not is itself a thing that the Something in question is Not, and that set must therefore contain itself. Things get recursive pretty rapidly if you start playing around with this, and I have sneaking suspicion that somewhere in here you can generate a nasty paradox.
Quote from: matthewsquires on May 07, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
With the metaphysical thing, I guess i'll just rephrase it and if i'm just making a fool of myself let me know. We have the ability to conceptualize or experience everything(not meaning at the same time) But for everything to exist it has to be not nothing. which means nothing exists. .......oh shit. maybe it's just that our perception of things is dependent upon knowing what things aren't, but everything can exist independently of our perception of it. Am I making sense right now?
Could you clarify that bolded statement for me? Are you saying "everything" in the sense of The All, the Universe, or something similar? Or in the sense of "any thing," as in, "For any given thing to exist, that thing must be not nothing?"
when is a knot not a knot? when it's snot.
Quote from: GA on May 08, 2009, 05:33:09 AM
Quote from: matthewsquires on May 07, 2009, 07:06:40 PM
With the metaphysical thing, I guess i'll just rephrase it and if i'm just making a fool of myself let me know. We have the ability to conceptualize or experience everything(not meaning at the same time) But for everything to exist it has to be not nothing. which means nothing exists. .......oh shit. maybe it's just that our perception of things is dependent upon knowing what things aren't, but everything can exist independently of our perception of it. Am I making sense right now?
Could you clarify that bolded statement for me? Are you saying "everything" in the sense of The All, the Universe, or something similar? Or in the sense of "any thing," as in, "For any given thing to exist, that thing must be not nothing?"
"Nothing" exists as a
theory. As in, "if there is a something, there
should exist an opposite." but, as you probably figured out, it can't be something we can either point to, or label; because then it becomes a "something."
Quote from: Prickly
Before the beginning, there was a 50% chance that nothing would exist
and a 50% chance that something would exist. In order to determine
whether something or nothing would exist, something and nothing
decided to flip a coin. However, in order for there to be a coin to
flip, something had to exist, so something had already won. Therefore,
we exist because something is a lying, cheating bastard.
Quote from: matthewsquires on May 08, 2009, 02:19:47 AM
i get what you guys are saying with the menu and all that jazz. kinda liberating really. makes me see little point in words. made me think about how words and concepts' sole purpose is to arbitrarily set boundaries in the infinite.
Really? Because the way I see it,
words are simply the most obvious examples.
From The Black Iron Prison (http://www.blackironprison.com/index.php?title=On_the_Nature_of_Reality):
Quote
Stop for a moment, and try to notice as many possible things in your environment that you can, simultaneously. Notice that, as you start to identify more and more objects, sounds, smells, and tactile sensations, you can't keep them in your head all at once. When you notice, for example, the pressure of your shoe against the ball of your foot, that distant bird chirping seems to fade from your attention.
And let's not forget about how much stuff you weren't paying attention to when you started reading this. Let's face it: We all live our lives with blinders on. We only allow ourselves to pay attention to 1% of what we physically can perceive, which is an infinitesimally small percentage of all the stuff in the Universe.
And that fraction of a fraction of a percent is what we usually call "Reality". We call it "Real", as if it's an unshaking firmament of solid Truth, that what we see is all that's really "out there". But you're not even paying attention to the 99% of stuff that you can even sense.
And this "Reality" is what we base our judgments on how the Universe "works" and what "should" be Out There. We construct our actions and reaction to this 1% of available information, and reject everything else in the Universe. And then some Authority comes along, and tells you that they know what's really real, and that you should do as they do. Talk about the blind being led by the blind... or in this case, the blind being led by the incredibly stupid.
So, what's the answer? Would it be best to try our best to see everything, all at once? Is the solution to try and tear down all the filters, to let your brain accept, acknowledge, and perceive every bit of information that comes your way? Would that help?
Are you kidding? It would completely shut down your brain. Trying to identify, recognize, and notice every single thing happening, all at once, all the time, would completely incapacitate you. And let's not forget that, due to physiology, it's still impossible to perceive a great deal of the Universe, anyway. And because it's totally impractical to try and simultaneously perceive what little bits of the Universe our senses can pick up, in order for us to function in our lives, we are forced to shut out certain things. But who, or what, is choosing the things we do perceive at any given moment? That, my friends, is the question.
Was it your parents? Was it the years you spent in school? Was it the TV? Was it a band? Was it a book you read? Was it a preacher you heard? Was it the kid who pushed you down when you were five? All of the above. The way you see the world, my friend, is a patchwork quilt of individual experiences, shaping the way your mind works. 'Round these parts, we call these things the "bars and walls of your Black Iron Prison".
So you see,
anything we can possibly perceive has the same innate problem as "words" do; all of our existence is an incomplete map.
But some Discordians think that by learning to read as many kinds of maps as possible, we may benefit.
Quote from: LMNO on May 08, 2009, 01:16:12 PM
So you see, anything we can possibly perceive has the same innate problem as "words" do; all of our existence is an incomplete map.
But some Discordians think that by learning to read as many kinds of maps as possible, we may benefit.
I... I love you, man! :fap:
Quote from: matthewsquires on May 08, 2009, 02:19:47 AMmakes me see little point in words. made me think about how words and concepts' sole purpose is to arbitrarily set boundaries in the infinite.
we have a saying for people that think like this, it goearbl warfgr eiok pwnvbdfarwehecomesdkcngh%%4ndhak$@!
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 08, 2009, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 08, 2009, 01:16:12 PM
So you see, anything we can possibly perceive has the same innate problem as "words" do; all of our existence is an incomplete map.
But some Discordians think that by learning to read as many kinds of maps as possible, we may benefit.
I... I love you, man! :fap:
So you see, anything we can possibly perceive has the same innate problem as "words" do; all of our existence is an incomplete map.Translation"And so, we can never escape the Black Iron Prison."
(http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8258/pwned111za6.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/forum/ohsnap.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on May 08, 2009, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 08, 2009, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 08, 2009, 01:16:12 PM
So you see, anything we can possibly perceive has the same innate problem as "words" do; all of our existence is an incomplete map.
But some Discordians think that by learning to read as many kinds of maps as possible, we may benefit.
I... I love you, man! :fap:
So you see, anything we can possibly perceive has the same innate problem as "words" do; all of our existence is an incomplete map.
Translation
"And so, we can never escape the Black Iron Prison."
(http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8258/pwned111za6.jpg)
Escape? No...
Make it something other than a Black Iron Prison (like say Yellow Submarine of Exploration, Silver Spaceship of Possibility, Muddy Humvee of Experiences)... Hell Yes!
;-)
:weary:
SEMANTICIST!
\
:podpeople:
Quote from: LMNO on May 08, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
SEMANTICIST!
\
:podpeople:
That's General Semanticist to you bitch!
Quote from: LMNO on May 08, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
SEMANTICIST!
\
:podpeople:
what are you some kind of
ANTISEMANTICIST! you nazi
Do I really have to trot out the rant about how words are mask wearing anime-tentacle-rape-demons and the space between semantics is where the fnords live (from the 'do you believe in the soul? thread)?
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.
This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.
~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.
Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.
Which leads us to this gem:
QuoteAuthor=False Profit
So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
Oh, and my new favorite word is Intersubjective.
It's like no matter what I think, I am reading into things. Like to say there is no objective truth is flawed because that would assert that there is an objective truth, that being there is no objective truth. it seems like there's an infinite amount of truths and even to think that is one of them. like you just can't avoid it but you can at least be kind of aware of it.
Quote from: matthewsquires on May 11, 2009, 03:56:36 AM
It's like no matter what I think, I am reading into things. Like to say there is no objective truth is flawed because that would assert that there is an objective truth, that being there is no objective truth. it seems like there's an infinite amount of truths and even to think that is one of them. like you just can't avoid it but you can at least be kind of aware of it.
Sophistic poster is sophistic.
Mathew, I was recently exposed to the term 'intersubjective' . Dig into that and it may help.
i know a lot of you guys have thought about this or read this idea somewhere or something but i was just reading principia discordia and thinking. it seems like all of us, or most of us are sufferers of paranoid ideation. like an idea is either delusional or it's not, so just because my delusions are socially accepted and don't directly harm others, that doesn't mean i'm not delusional. like if a child dies, most people (including myself) are going to see that as sad, but in reality it's just lacking any inherent qualities like sad, ugly, beautiful, etc. so we're reading into everything and applying qualities and meaning where there is none.
but even to believe this is to be subscribing to some sort of ideology, so it's like inescapable if i'm even correct in my thinking.
Are you trying to say that all experience is subjective?
Because well... Yeah.
In other news... the earth has all this weird wet stuff all over it called "water".
haha, i state the obvious i guess. just more pointing out i'm annoyed i can't have an objective understanding of anything except for things being subjective but even that is probably a subjective understanding of things.
Seriously, go read about intersubjectivity. It's the closest we get to 'Objective viewpoints'.
"Universe is nonsimultaneously apprehended." -Bucky Fuller
Quote from: Telarus on May 12, 2009, 12:20:54 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
that was an interesting read
QuoteEmpirically, the intersubjective school is inspired by research on the non-verbal communication of infants
that's cool
also check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability
QuoteCongruence and incongruence
When an external, public phenomenon is experienced and carefully described (in words or measurements) by one individual, other individuals can see if their experiences of the phenomenon "fit" the description. If they do, a sense of congruence between one subject and another occurs. This is the basis for a definition of what is true that is agreed upon by the involved parties. If the description does not fit the experience of one or more of the parties involved, incongruence occurs instead.
Incongruent contradictions between the experience and descriptions of different individuals can be caused by a number of factors. One common source of incongruence is the inconsistent use of language in the descriptions people use, such as the same words being used differently. Such semantic problems require more careful development and use of language.
Incongruence also arises from a failure to describe the phenomena well. In these cases, further development of the description, model, or theory used to refer to the phenomena is required.
A third form of incongruence arises when the descriptions do not conform to consensual (i.e., intersubjectively verifiable) experience, such as when the descriptions are faulty, incorrect, wrong, or inaccurate, and need to be replaced by more accurate descriptions, models, or theories.
kind of dense, but very interesting if you dig information and science theory
tl;dr version:
- A lot of confusion can be avoided by using more accurate language. See also: E-Prime
- A lot of confusion can be avoided by being aware of alternate models and being able to use them as the situation demands. See also: Model Agnosticism
read up on intersubjectivity.
very intewesting.
too tired to think to hard about it, but will definately pop a concerta or two tomorrow and absorb it again and then think think think.
F-U-C-K gestalt