Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: information aspect vs information element

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default information aspect vs. information element

    Information Element: A mental process. Something someone does. Something that's either strong or weak in a person. Something valued or unvalued by a person. A person perceiving or understanding something.

    Information Aspect: The thing which could be perceived or understood. Conversations about of Information Aspects discuss that thing in itself, free from the perspective of any individual and outside of mental processes.

    Example, a red ball is still red when no one is looking at it.

    Information Element: the mental process involved in a person perceiving the color of the ball
    Information Aspect: the ball's color (an aspect of that ball which exists independently of whether or not anyone's looking at it or whether or not a person looking at it is color blind)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's the basis of Socionics, but in order to discuss Information Elements effectively, they have to be removed from Model A unless you're talking about a certain type (or types).
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  3. #3
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: information aspect vs. information element

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Example, a red ball is still red when no one is looking at it.
    It's funny that you use this example, because the distinction very much relies on the subjective/objective distinction. I think both are wrong.

  4. #4
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's about whether it's a mental process or it is independent of a mental process.

    (even though it was originally defined by that mental process)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  5. #5
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: information aspect vs. information element

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Example, a red ball is still red when no one is looking at it.
    It's funny that you use this example, because the distinction very much relies on the subjective/objective distinction. I think both are wrong.
    How so?

    The ball has innate physical properties that are described by arbitrary, yet objective means.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  6. #6
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thehotelambush, I'm curious as to how you define the difference between information aspects and information elements
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  7. #7
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Re: information aspect vs. information element

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy

    Example, a red ball is still red when no one is looking at it.
    The only thing that makes the ball red is that we see the ball as red. On another note, you might see a different color than me when you see the ball as red. Red maybe be blue to you, or red may be green to me. There is no way to know what ones perceptions are. Therefore it is impossible to make the objectivist distinction that things exists in an absolute reality. The ball may not even exist. Prove to me that the ball exists. Prove to me that you exist. I guarantee that I could make an argument for anything that you throw at me. And because I can make that argument that something, that something can not be proven, because in my subjective reality things may be different than from in your subjective reality. You only have 5 senses to view things through. Who's to say that there isn't another sense that would make the ball appear a different color. Hell, what if you had night vision eyes. The ball would appear bluish green. The concept that there are provable things in reality is dumb. It amazes me how people are so inhibited when it comes to seeing the possibilities.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  8. #8
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't. It doesn't exist. If information elements/aspects/whatever define how we perceive reality, then they define reality itself. To be is to be perceived.

  9. #9
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "The only thing that makes the ball red is that we see the ball as red."

    So the only thing that makes the circle circular is that we see it as circular? No. Things have traits without the need for us to recognize these things as having such traits. We may even perceive these traits incorrectly. This still doesn't stop the object's actual traits from being properties of the object regardless of our perception of said object.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  10. #10
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    how can you prove that an object has traits when you can't even prove that the object exists?
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  11. #11
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    on another note, maybe the functions are our reality, maybe they are everything we see.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  12. #12
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "how can you prove that an object has traits when you can't even prove that the object exists?"

    Wtf are you talking about? Why do I need to prove that an object exists in order to talk about whether or not its possible traits would still be its traits, regardless of my perception?
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  13. #13
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because you only know your perception. For instance, a person with schizophrenia sees hallucinations according to medical standards. How do you know that they are hallucinations? What gives the distinction of one being right or one being wrong? That person with schizophrenia could be the sane one, and we could be the ill people. Everything is relative. Someone exists only because you see it and believe it exists. There is no way to prove objectively if something exists. Hell, there is no way to prove that objective reality even exists.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  14. #14
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree, but I wouldn't put it like that exactly; objective reality is a theoretical construct whose only purpose is to explain subjective reality.

  15. #15
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you're on the right page, I just think you worded that wrong.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  16. #16
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I bounce a rock off hitta's head, and his thick skull prevents him from being knocked out, does that rock still exist?

    In other words, your pseudo-philosophical bullshit may have impressed the nerd-table in your high school cafeteria, but the rest of us know you're being ridiculous.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  17. #17
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thought that denies the existance of the "objectively real" is untrue to it's function. It's defective. It doesn't "live".

    Of course you can reason away reality from your subjective viewpoint. But to do so only reduces you to a zombie. It's kindergarten philosophy.

  18. #18
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    to my understanding, the world is full of all kinds of information and is multi-layered. these different kinds of information are called information aspects, and can be perceived and categorized by human beings. more often than not, an event or piece of reality will contain all 8 aspects of information. and, there are many aspects of reality that human beings cannot perceive due to the limitations of our bodies and sense organs.

    an information element, by contrast, has more to do with the psychology of individual human beings and their ability to perceive information aspects in reality. different human beings are programmed with varying abilities to identify certain kinds of information aspects in the environment. this can also be categorized as has been done in the Model A.

    categorizing information is one inherently human process of taking things apart, somewhat artificially, in order to understand them. the reality is that things are whole, integrated, and multi-leveled. so it's kind of a dialectic....things are whole yet they are made up of parts. further, each information element has a positive and negative aspect. we must recognize that with the "good" also comes the "bad" parts of our IM's. this creates a strong argument for our inherent weakness and limitation, since even our strengths cannot be all "good".

    the better control a person has over an information aspect via their stronger information element, the more skilled they are in using this information. the less control they have over an information aspect, the less skilled the will appear to be.

    human beings are flawed and limited since we cannot be equally in control of all information elements and because even the information elements that we are in better control of have negative sides. yet we are also capable of producing and achieving that which is unprecendented on this planet. yet another dialectic.

    i imagine that God is in control of all information, esp information that we as human beings cannot perceive.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  19. #19
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Thought that denies the existance of the "objectively real" is untrue to it's function. It's defective. It doesn't "live".

    Of course you can reason away reality from your subjective viewpoint. But to do so only reduces you to a zombie. It's kindergarten philosophy.
    Do me a favor and prove that there is an objective reality, I guarantee you that I will have an argument for you. The idea that I can have an argument shows that its unprovable. How can you trust your senses? How do you know that they are accurate? We pick up light with our eyes. You're telling me that sense we supposedly pick up light with our eyes, particles with our nose, sounds with our ears, touches of our skin, and tastes that objective reality exists. Even if you could prove that we have those senses, prove to me that those senses prove an objective reality.

    People conform. Thats what they do. Everything that a person does is an act of conformity, a stereotypical thought that has been learned. Everything you do and know has been learned. You're telling me that you've been presented undeniable truth? Even at the core of a human being, their ability to see shapes and objects, and the capacity to even think had to be initiated from an outside source at one point. If everything we do, know, see, taste, touch, hear, and smell has been learned from one point or another, how is it possible to prove that an objective reality exists?
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  20. #20
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    If I bounce a rock off hitta's head, and his thick skull prevents him from being knocked out, does that rock still exist?

    In other words, your pseudo-philosophical bullshit may have impressed the nerd-table in your high school cafeteria, but the rest of us know you're being ridiculous.
    And saying shit like that is just another act of humanistic conformity, but don't worry, I'm ok with it.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  21. #21
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: information aspect vs. information element

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy

    Example, a red ball is still red when no one is looking at it.
    The only thing that makes the ball red is that we see the ball as red. On another note, you might see a different color than me when you see the ball as red. Red maybe be blue to you, or red may be green to me. There is no way to know what ones perceptions are. Therefore it is impossible to make the objectivist distinction that things exists in an absolute reality. The ball may not even exist. Prove to me that the ball exists. Prove to me that you exist. I guarantee that I could make an argument for anything that you throw at me. And because I can make that argument that something, that something can not be proven, because in my subjective reality things may be different than from in your subjective reality. You only have 5 senses to view things through. Who's to say that there isn't another sense that would make the ball appear a different color. Hell, what if you had night vision eyes. The ball would appear bluish green. The concept that there are provable things in reality is dumb. It amazes me how people are so inhibited when it comes to seeing the possibilities.
    While agreeing that the 'qualia' (the phenomenological 'what it's like' experience of the perceiving individual) is something that we can only know of ourselves and not of anyone else, I think we can objectively define the quality being perceived, such as the wavelengths of light which that object absorbs or reflects. However, I do find it odd that this objection is raised before you go off with the skeptical externalism arguments. If I had to argue for the existence of external objects, I think it's best to first unpack exactly what's being said by the argument against their existence. One way of doing this is to look at what the argument presupposes (in the sense that the premise(s) are required for the argument to get off the ground, without necessarily entailing the claims that are trying to be made). This is what is known as a transcendental argument (the below being Kant's response to Hume's empirical skepticism):

    "(1) Some proposition Q about our mental life, the truth of which is immediately apparent or presumed by the skeptic’s position.
    (2) The truth of some extra-mental proposition P, our knowledge of which is questioned by the skeptic, is a necessary condition of Q.
    (3) Therefore P."

    Which can be fleshed out specifically this way (bearing in mind that time is not an empirically observable quality in itself, but rather an abstraction or intuition arising from what is apparent [synthetic a priori]):

    "(1) I make judgments about the temporal order of my own mental states.
    (2) I could not make judgments about the temporal order of my own mental states without having experienced enduring substances independent of me undergoing alteration.
    (3) Hence independent, enduring substances exist."

    The whole point being made is perhaps better explained in this paragraph relating the positions of Messrs. Putnam and Kant:

    "Hilary Putnam (1981), drawing on his concept of content-externalism, holds that we cannot refer to brains and vats if we are brains in vats who have never actually experienced such things. If we have never had contact with external objects, our language is “Vat-English,” rather than English. Since reference, in his view, is partly determined by its context and causal history, it would be impossible for a permanent brain-in-a-vat to raise doubts about whether she is a brain in a vat. Given this theory of reference, the proposition that all persons are and have always been brains in vats is self-defeating, in that it is either false or not affirmable by anyone. Insofar as the skeptic supposes that the issue is a legitimate one to raise, she presupposes that the relevant concern is moot:

    (1) I am able to raise the question as to whether all persons have always been brains in vats.
    (2) I could not refer to brains in vats unless some person (that is, myself) were acquainted with such things.
    (3) Hence, it is not the case that all persons have always been brains in vats.

    Finally, it is an implication of Kant’s reasoning in the Refutation of Idealism that the proposition that no one has had any contact with material objects would be literally unthinkable without contact with material objects to give one a sense of an objective system of temporal relations (in turn enabling inner time-determination). If Kant is right, then such a proposition is performatively self-falsifying in the strongest sense: the possibility of the skeptic articulating her own position would prove its falsity."

    This isn't to say that these arguments are themselves categorical, but they were certainly suggestive enough to ring the death knell for Hume's empirical skepticism. Something to consider. Additionally, I take it that you are merely open to doubting the existence of external things, rather than being convinced of it, seeing as how your daily activities still conform to their actually subsisting around you. If this is the case, I think your doubts are not unreasonable. However, when you push those same doubts on other people, it sounds more like you think there is something highly significant to them rather than just food for thought. You should keep in mind though that the same arguments then apply to the subjective aspects, whereby in order to talk about them in 'reality' requires an explanation for how they are to exist, as well as some account for what is meant by perception if that which is perceived is not external to the subject. Sorry for the long post, guys.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  22. #22
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, and to explain the brains in the vats thing, that was a thought experiment of Putnam's (call it the "Keanu Reeves Matrix" argument if that's easier). Basically, he was posing that it is possible that nothing we see around us is real, that we're all brains in vats with electrodes plugged in to stiimulate and simulate what we, in fact, experience. The result being what is explained above.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  23. #23
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    HITTA

    You don't need to prove the existence of an objective reality to contemplate a red apple or gray rock, and analyze the fact that if the apple or rock _does_ exist, its trait of being red or gray is true _by definition_. If you don't understand this, then you're just a moron who is too caught up in disproving the existence of everything that isn't Socionics.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  24. #24
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    [web:8190128442]http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html[/web:8190128442]

  25. #25
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To people who try to argue that we exist in such a fabrication: a vat, or we're just computer data, I ask: who cares? This is our reality, the one we have to deal with, and even if it's merely a part of a "greater reality," we still must face the trials of our own, and suffer and enjoy all the aspects of it, so the question of whether or not we exist in such a state is pointless.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  26. #26
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    To people who try to argue that we exist in such a fabrication: a vat, or we're just computer data, I ask: who cares? This is our reality, the one we have to deal with, and even if it's merely a part of a "greater reality," we still must face the trials of our own, and suffer and enjoy all the aspects of it, so the question of whether or not we exist in such a state is pointless.
    You said this is OUR reality. You are referring to subjective reality. I am debating objective reality. In which case its impossible to prove if objective reality exists, because its impossible to know if the apple is truly red, or even if the apple really exists. You can't prove an objective reality unless all possible subjective realities were to all state the same thing. It is impossible to explore all the subjective realities, therefore it is impossible to explore the objective reality. Objective reality cannot be proved to exist. The fact that everything can be debated is a testament to the concept of this. The apple is red to you and possibly the rest of the human race, but lets say there is some theoretical being that doesn't see the apple as red. Would that person be wrong to say the apple is blue? What makes one right and one wrong? It is not possible to define a true objective reality, and if you do not see this than you are the one that is a moron.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  27. #27
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    To people who try to argue that we exist in such a fabrication: a vat, or we're just computer data, I ask: who cares? This is our reality, the one we have to deal with, and even if it's merely a part of a "greater reality," we still must face the trials of our own, and suffer and enjoy all the aspects of it, so the question of whether or not we exist in such a state is pointless.
    And by the way, that is an absolute statement(although most statements are). There is no way to prove whether or not it is actually correct or incorrect to explore the domain of alternate realities. If one were to explore this, what would make them wrong?
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  28. #28
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "You said this is OUR reality. You are referring to subjective reality. I am debating objective reality. In which case its impossible to prove if objective reality exists, because its impossible to know if the apple is truly red, or even if the apple really exists. You can't prove an objective reality unless all possible subjective realities were to all state the same thing."

    You still don't get that I'm not even trying to prove the existence of an objective reality, do you? 1+1=2 is true by definition, as is the fact that a red apple is red, due to its definition as such. Whether such apples exist in reality is _not_ what I'm asserting. Your failure to understand this, after I've said it multiple times, is what makes YOU the moron.

    "It is impossible to explore all the subjective realities, therefore it is impossible to explore the objective reality. Objective reality cannot be proved to exist. The fact that everything can be debated is a testament to the concept of this. The apple is red to you and possibly the rest of the human race, but lets say there is some theoretical being that doesn't see the apple as red. Would that person be wrong to say the apple is blue? What makes one right and one wrong? It is not possible to define a true objective reality, and if you do not see this than you are the one that is a moron."

    It is not true to say that we _cannot_ define objective reality, but it is true that we cannot know if what we are experiencing is indeed the objective reality. But the fact of the matter is that we have our subjective reality that we must deal with and contend with, as it proves itself to be a stubborn bastard and refuses to leave no matter how many times we try to kick him out, so he may as well be the objective reality, and we may as well handle him as such. That was my point with the short ditty you quoted: that our subjective reality exists as such that we might as well handle it as the objective reality."


    "And by the way, that is an absolute statement(although most statements are). There is no way to prove whether or not it is actually correct or incorrect to explore the domain of alternate realities. If one were to explore this, what would make them wrong?"

    I don't even understand what you're talking about here. If you're saying that I have unproven assumptions underlying this absolute statement that can't be proven, then I would admit to such a thing; however, simply because the assumptions are unproven does not mean they are worthless, due to the fact that we cannot function without the assumption and simple belief in certain axioms. It's just not useful to assume such axioms are false, as that gets us no where.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  29. #29
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    "You said this is OUR reality. You are referring to subjective reality. I am debating objective reality. In which case its impossible to prove if objective reality exists, because its impossible to know if the apple is truly red, or even if the apple really exists. You can't prove an objective reality unless all possible subjective realities were to all state the same thing."

    You still don't get that I'm not even trying to prove the existence of an objective reality, do you? 1+1=2 is true by definition, as is the fact that a red apple is red, due to its definition as such. Whether such apples exist in reality is _not_ what I'm asserting. Your failure to understand this, after I've said it multiple times, is what makes YOU the moron.

    "It is impossible to explore all the subjective realities, therefore it is impossible to explore the objective reality. Objective reality cannot be proved to exist. The fact that everything can be debated is a testament to the concept of this. The apple is red to you and possibly the rest of the human race, but lets say there is some theoretical being that doesn't see the apple as red. Would that person be wrong to say the apple is blue? What makes one right and one wrong? It is not possible to define a true objective reality, and if you do not see this than you are the one that is a moron."

    It is not true to say that we _cannot_ define objective reality, but it is true that we cannot know if what we are experiencing is indeed the objective reality. But the fact of the matter is that we have our subjective reality that we must deal with and contend with, as it proves itself to be a stubborn bastard and refuses to leave no matter how many times we try to kick him out, so he may as well be the objective reality, and we may as well handle him as such. That was my point with the short ditty you quoted: that our subjective reality exists as such that we might as well handle it as the objective reality."


    "And by the way, that is an absolute statement(although most statements are). There is no way to prove whether or not it is actually correct or incorrect to explore the domain of alternate realities. If one were to explore this, what would make them wrong?"

    I don't even understand what you're talking about here. If you're saying that I have unproven assumptions underlying this absolute statement that can't be proven, then I would admit to such a thing; however, simply because the assumptions are unproven does not mean they are worthless, due to the fact that we cannot function without the assumption and simple belief in certain axioms. It's just not useful to assume such axioms are false, as that gets us no where.
    You're assumption that we should treat subjective reality as the objective reality is just an assumption though. Thats what you've learned over the course of your life. Everything is subjective(although I'd admit that I'm attempting to make an objective statement with this, one which cannot be proven). All thoughts are assumptions. Everything we do is an assumption. I am making an assumption that everyone does nothing but makes assumptions. Nothing can be proven, and objective reality cannot be proven because of that(this is an assumption). Thinking about it is quite paradoxical.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  30. #30
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "You're assumption that we should treat subjective reality as the objective reality is just an assumption though. Thats what you've learned over the course of your life. Everything is subjective(although I'd admit that I'm attempting to make an objective statement with this, one which cannot be proven). All thoughts are assumptions. Everything we do is an assumption. I am making an assumption that everyone does nothing but makes assumptions. Nothing can be proven, and objective reality cannot be proven because of that(this is an assumption). Thinking about it is quite paradoxical."

    Yeah it's an assumption. But, really, who cares? It just doesn't matter enough in the long term(even though, yes, there's an assumption underlying that statement; it still doesn't matter.)
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hitta, just as you differentiate processes from each other, so do some people differentiate non-process phenomena from each other. Something just "is": one sees black and white; if one only saw white or black, then one would have undeveloped sight. (experiments on kittens have confirmed this.) The brain literally avoids developing senses for which it has no use; they remain undifferentiated.

    Was there a time of total undifferentiation? Just as we cannot pinpoint when and where we first became "conscious", we cannot know from when phenomena began to exist independently of each other, or if even that period was one of differentiation and reintegration. Differentiation is gradual and intensifying, like the acceleration of the universe, or the dispersial of gravity into the other three forces. (strong nuclear force, weak force, electromagnetism) It just happens with the passage of time, after a critical threshold of which we can seperate what appeared to be one phenomenon into two seperate ones. By such means we attain a more accurate understanding of the world.

  32. #32
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    [web:bcc378f200]http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html[/web:bcc378f200]
    WTFROFLMAO

    I almost feel like this has to be a joke.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  33. #33
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2

    WTFROFLMAO

    I almost feel like this has to be a joke.
    there's people who take it very serriously (not talking about myself ). it is sort of interesting though

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •