How Socionics can uncover the truth of the fabric of reality

[niffer]

What I mean obviously is that math and logic are derived from reality. It makes them empirical in a way. All logical analysis is empirical in a way (even if it can produce untrue results), as are all forms of science, because of this.

You may philosophically reject this, but then how would you explain how you think and rationalize otherwise?

Nothing exists in reality if that's the case.

[Singu]

What I mean obviously is that math and logic are derived from reality. It makes them empirical in a way. All logical analysis is empirical in a way (even if it can produce untrue results), as are all forms of science, because of this.

You may philosophically reject this, but then how would you explain how you think and rationalize otherwise?

Nothing exists in reality if that's the case.

Well that seems to be a matter of meaning. "Empirical" means that we derive knowledge from our sensory experience, like sight, hearing etc. Empirical doesn't mean objective, like how it's commonly (mis)used.

[niffer]

Well that seems to be a matter of meaning. "Empirical" means that we derive knowledge from our sensory experience, like sight, hearing etc. Empirical doesn't mean objective, like how it's commonly (mis)used.

I'm not talking about objective vs. subjective either.

We're capable of utilizing, including copying and observing and processing, with our brains and no other tools, the same kind of logic that exists in dynamics that play out in the universe. Pretty accurately too a lot of the time. Ever thought about how curious that really is?

[Singu]

I'm not talking about objective vs. subjective either.

We're capable of utilizing, including copying and observing and processing, with our brains and no other tools, the same kind of logic that exists in dynamics that play out in the universe. Pretty accurately too a lot of the time. Ever thought about how curious that really is?

Ok, I get what you're saying. So you're saying that we just "copied" the same kind of logic that exists in reality.

Well I would say that we just have an inborn ability to do logic, as well as do math and discover the laws of physics, and understand the grammatical structure in a language (as discovered by Noam Chomsky). Animals can't speak using a language, because they don't have that inborn ability. But we didn't "copy" or derive or learn that knowledge, we just happened to have that ability, maybe by chance, innately since we were born.

What's interesting is a parallel between our brain and a computer. Both our brain and a computer is a Universal computational machine, which means that it can perform any kind of computation that any physical object can possibly perform (which is called Turing complete, which is based on the Turing principle made by Alan Turing). The key difference is that while we are creative by nature, a computer is not (yet).

So how do we "discover" the laws of physics that actually exist in reality? Well we certainly didn't "derive" them from reality, because well you don't see any laws of physics written in nature. So what we did instead was we took some guesses at what the laws of physics might be, and we tested them to see if that's how it actually worked. And if it didn't, then we scrapped the guesses and started over. That's basically what people like Einstein did, he made a lot of thought experiments, and guessed at what the laws of physics might be. Of course it's not just some random process, but that's the general idea.

Another interesting fact: Alan Turing was openly gay, and he was forcibly castrated, and he committed suicide a few years later. Although there seems to be a possibility that it was accidental.

--

Anyway this is not what I was talking about, what I was talking about is how for example you don't see the core of the sun, as in you don't split the sun in half and say "See here? This is the empirical evidence for the core of the sun". We just think about it.

[Pallas]

The brain is definitely not a computer, and Noam Chomsky is senile. He moved linguistics from just being a humanity to be a science which is nice, but even if his work was correct to begin with, he can't complete it now so I just ignore him. Also, how have you never met a talking animal.

I understand where your logic is coming from but your argument is still wrong. If you can't do something to show your beliefs are right, even if it's not something that's possible for you to do right now, then you're wrong. The whole point of beliefs is for people to manipulate reality. It's pretty much basically magic imo. It's also why I think people learn nothing in school, because you learn that electrons run in circles around atoms and whatever, but you couldn't even do something to prove or disprove that based on school knowledge if someone came up to you and gave you enough money to build your own CERN. I know you want to upload brains and things like that in transhumanism, but until someone even vaguely does something like that, I'm going to have to consider it a completely wrong belief. There are millions of people who believe this but it basically just seems like a party line at this point, with everyone thinking about it so they don't have to think about death, but no one doing anything about it. Compare this to something like retrograde motion of the planets, which is "wrong" by today's standards but still actually lets you predict the position of planets really well.

[Bertrand]

chomsky is the poster child for IEI turning things over to gamma. his work on linguistics is great at subverting Ti formalism. his beta style idealism in his politics is sort of vestigal from his origin, but he actually functioned to transform the world out from under the usefulness of his own opinions on politics. in a way it is tragic, but also worthy of respect. his senility is a product of the latter, but he should be respected for what he really stands for, which is a "good" IEI

[Singu]

I don't really care much for Chomsky, and probably don't even like him that much, but you've got to admit that he has accomplished more (including scientifically) than any of you idiots on this forum. He has actually discovered something in linguistics and changed the course of psychology. All you do is go on some potheaded philosophical rants, so shut the fuck up.

chomsky is the poster child for IEI turning things over to gamma. his work on linguistics is great at subverting Ti formalism. his beta style idealism in his politics is sort of vestigal from his origin, but he actually functioned to transform the world out from under the usefulness of his own opinions on politics. in a way it is tragic, but also worthy of respect. his senility is a product of the latter, but he should be respected for what he really stands for, which is a "good" IEI

I thought he was LII, Bertrand. Not that I care what "type" he is, as your Socionics "analysis" is just delusion and is historicism. You can NOT predict the future from merely analyzing the past. That is called historicism, which is ironically related to many totalitarian and fascist ideas. Plato and Hegel's historicism, which lead to Nazi fascism and Marx's communism.

[Bertrand]

yeah bruh totes

[Singu]

yeah bruh totes

You're just too naive and gullible enough to believe in the total nonsense written by people like Gulenko and Strati, lol. The stuff they write is all just laughable, really. I mean if you had even a little bit of knowledge, then you would realize it. It's actually very easily to recognize how Gulenko is writing total nonsense. He just sprinkles in some random scientific and philosophical ideas to make it appear like his stuff has "legitimacy" (and "scientific"), but how do those ideas actually relate to whatever he's writing, I have no idea. Strati's stuff just sound like some generalizations based on her few personal observations.

[Bertrand]

I like being naive and gullible okay

[Myst]

Woah @Singu was already fighting against the imaginary enemy called Socionics in 2010: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post719400