No, solipsism is the theory that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. So, according to solipsism, objective reality is unknown, at least a matter of doubt and at most non-existent.Originally Posted by Aramas
No, solipsism is the theory that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. So, according to solipsism, objective reality is unknown, at least a matter of doubt and at most non-existent.
Yeah that's not what I meant. Some people think the self cannot be known either.
Well the idea is basically the same, if the scientists are just creating things in their minds... then their minds must also be as complex as whatever astronomically complex things that they find in the universe. And if that's the case, then there's no distinguishing between the creations of their minds, and the actual universe that's "out there". So we might as well just say that it really IS the universe, and cut off the additional baggage the it must be the creation of the mind, which must demand an additional explanation of how that mind is creating such a complex thing. So effectively, the mind must be more complex than the universe, which is absurd.
And indeed logic has no basis in anything, but it doesn't need to, since for one, we can criticize anything if we find them to be wrong, and two, we simply haven't found anything better than logic that can support our arguments or ideas.
We're not here to "prove" that anything is right. We're only here to prove that something is wrong. And that's all we can ever hope to do, if we were perfectly honest with ourselves and our limitations.
If there is an order to nature then even seemingly supernatural or mystical explanations can be inherently rational. You don’t understand many basic natural laws yet, but the world spins merrily on every day. If you understand basic concepts though in programming as others mentioned or math in nature, these ideas really aren’t arbitrary at all when you pry into how they really might work.
No. You don’t need to know full details to accurately summarize and understand complex things. Nor is complexity necessarily generated from a source exactly as complex on the surface. A lot of information can be packed into small pieces. Look at fractals.Well the idea is basically the same, if the scientists are just creating things in their minds... then their minds must also be as complex as whatever astronomically complex things that they find in the universe. [...] and cut off the additional baggage the it must be the creation of the mind, which must demand an additional explanation of how that mind is creating such a complex thing. So effectively, the mind must be more complex than the universe, which is absurd.
As for myself, I happen to believe that mind and matter are connected, both literally and symbolically. That’s it.
So are you a monist then? If so, you'd fit well in the East.
"All is mind."
I think so? And yeah I do live in the East lol.
Makes sense then lol. The Eastern mind is monadic while the West tends to focus on dualism.
It depends on the person really but overall that’s probably true yeah.
I think they are connected. The truth is something in between.
Basically: If the universe is connected with or represented by the mind, and many people out there think better dualistically, then what? @Aramas . They have to both be valid viewpoints. Further, there are obviously opposites within a whole and a whole to opposites..
Like your avatar basically
Lmao I don’t think consciousness is produced by the CNS lol, nor is this representative of Eastern philosophy in its entirety actually.In the modern world “dualism” most often refers to “mind-body dualism,” or the idea that the mind is separate from the body. That is, a dualist is someone who believes that knowledge, thought, consciousness, the self, etc., exist in some way beyond the physical body. Opponents of dualism are called monists, and they believe that the mind is part of the body — that consciousness is produced entirely by the central nervous system, and that the self exists entirely in the material world.
Rather I think this all is connected simultaneously. It looks like / functions as “production” maybe because of the positioning of space and time. Maybe I’m a sort of Neo-Monist then.
I assume that we're talking about things like "the universe is a creation of our mind".
Anyway the point is, bits and pieces of information is coded into the DNA. They're literally indistinguishable from the bits and pieces of information coded in our hard drives. And DNA "works". It makes "stuff happen". The information is instantiated in the physical world. So this is not any different from any scientific knowledge. Which means that our "scientific knowledge" isn't just something that exist in the mind of a scientist. It can and it does exist independently of any human beings, namely, in something like the DNA.
So the reason why any living things can "do things" in the physical world, is because they have knowledge about the physical world. Coded in their DNA, they understand how the world works. And fundamentally, this knowledge is no different than scientific knowledge. So it just kind proves that we can and do have knowledge about the world. And that form of knowledge is the knowledge of understanding and explaining.
Last edited by Singu; 12-20-2018 at 09:23 AM.
You were saying that the mind would need to be more complex than the universe for it to take part in the creation of it. I just was pointing out that that’s not true.
Yes, Jung's ideas are self refuting.
Jung wasn't denying the value of empirical observation. What he rejected is the exclusion of subjectivity from the scientific worldview (which is itself self-refuting since all science requires a subject or observer).
Science relies on multiple observers forming a consensus about their observations. While it cannot be 100% objective(objectivity is the ideal), objectivity does exist and there are ideal methods for maximizing objectivity and increasing our confidence that what is observed is more likely to be true.
Jung is like fake news claiming that there is no such thing as objective news, and that their news is just as likely to be true as a newspaper such as the NY times.
You know you’re Te demonstrative yet devaluing when you think to yourself, “I’ve had my writing published in the NY Times before, and I still don’t see the problem with this” hahaha.
That’s exactly correct. It’s just as likely to be true.
Well the mind would need infinite memory to store all the infinite information that is in the universe. For example the prime number is likely infinite, and there likely exist no law that can predict what the next prime number will be. Cantor's diagonal argument proves that there's an infinity of sets of infinites. So the information that exists in this universe is infinite. And if scientific knowledge is just information, then we will never likely find what the "final" or "ultimate" law of the universe is like.
Anyway the point is, which is the simpler explanation? There's no distinguishing between the universe that's really "out there", and the mind that's creating the universe as if it's really "out there", but there really isn't. We might just as well say that the universe is real and it's not just a creation of our mind. We don't need to add the extra complication, because it's unnecessary.
Yup.
Not just a creation of our mind. LolWe might just as well say that the universe is real and it's not just a creation of our mind. We don't need to add the extra complication, because it's unnecessary.
There was a point when the West had some rationalist idealist monists. IRCC Augustine of Hippo thought the universe was essentially "God's mind." Leibnitz thought the world was composed of "monads", which are supposed the be the spiritual equivalent of atoms. Descartes and the circumstances surrounding him really changed the game with dualism.
Well that's just like the reverse of trying to bring science into philosophy, it just doesn't work. It would no longer be science.
Science is basically about whatever that actually happens in the physical world, so it can't include any subjectivity. And if we wish to scientifically understand ourselves, then that also needs to be done in a matter of what happens in the physical world. And I don't think studying our "psychology" goes beyond that, because our psychology is just an instantiation of whatever information that exist in physical world. "Religious" and spiritual people would probably disagree with that, but that's just what it is. The DNA is literally just encoded information, which causes physical things to happen to eventually create something like a human being.
Objectivity doesn't equal truth. Neither does consensus. If you see something, do you need a published paper to tell you what's right in front of your face? No because that's absurd. Objective consensus is only as good as the subjective individuals that it consists of.
I would bet that for every Socionics explanation out there, there exists a non-Socionics explanation that is more compelling and can explain more. That's because the Socionics explanation is no explanation. It's just an expectation that something that has happened before, will happen again.
You might "inductively" say that, "This relationship fits in with the Dual relation". But I say, but that doesn't explain anything. You say, "But the point isn't to explain...!". And I say, exactly.
Socionics is nothing but an expectation of a previous observation (in the form of type descriptions, function descriptions, ITR descriptions, etc.) to happen again and again. So a next observation "fits in" to a previous observation. And that somehow is supposed to "prove" anything. No, all that has proved, is that the previous observation has stayed the same, and it has happened again. But reality isn't just a repeated series of the same thing happening over and over again.
And you might say well, isn't that how science is done? How is that any different than non-Socionics explanations? Well if I say, "The evolutionary explanation is so and so...", then that's not based on any observation. It's simply an... explanation. The explanation comes from nowhere but in the mind of the person who came up with the explanation. It's literally "made up", or "guessed", and yet at the same time, it's correctly describing reality in some ways.
Subjective impressions such as those in self-report surveys are used all the time in science.
Never said it did.
Good thing I don't think that and that you can't read my mind.You know you’re Te demonstrative yet devaluing when you think to yourself, “I’ve had my writing published in the NY Times before, and I still don’t see the problem with this” hahaha.
That’s exactly correct. It’s just as likely to be true.
That is not what I mean. It doesn't have to be the NY times. I am not saying that only the times is accurate or authoritative. It could be the NY Times, the Washington Post, PBS, Reuters, AP. The last two are objectively more accurate than and less biased than the Times or Post, and I trust their reporting more. This is because the standard is higher and the language less biased. Experts fact check the reporting, check sources, and other experts review the writing for grammatical errors . It goes through an extensive process, if it is to be if a good standard.
Your logic needs work. You are trying to invalidate my argument via my "type" as opposed to having a good argument in and of itself. I could play the same game and call you Ti polr or an F type, like some other people would, but that would make me retarded.
And they aren't considered as reliable. The margin for error is much larger.
Are there any people here that Actually Majored in a science, like chem, bio, or physics? Anyone actually study it?
I don't know the context of the question, but I majored in Physics and Astronomy at the University of Michigan, took a LOT of math courses, and took some Chemistry and Biology courses, too. Also some Psych, Sociology, Economics, and Literature courses.
In the summers between semesters, I worked as a welder and a machinist and took as many drugs as I could get my hands on. Just to get a sense of what was available in the way of future paths.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 12-20-2018 at 11:13 PM.
Are people here that ignorant of the fact that Socionics is attempting to make objective statements about people's subjective ecperiences? A "type" is a consensus about shared subjective experiences.
@Nebula This thread is about comparing it to astrology. Nobody is trying to argue that it’s scientific.
That doesn’t mean however that it’d be impossible to eventually convert into something scientific with enough work.
Socionics is like collection of chemistry tables without actual experiments.
Anyways, I have good amounts of credits (far exceeds MSc maybe in credit wise > 1.5 MSc) in chemistry, mathematics, physics, environmental science and biochemistry/molecular biology. I tend to think that mathematics is necessarily very basis for doing science if the science part is missing.
So, once there is good way of measuring things [if ever] what socionics handles it might give some sort of idea board for actual tests.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I didn’t complete a full BA but originally entered school for, and studied biology / applied science in university for a while. Also, this: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1312116 . I sometimes teach kids science. If you and Dingu catch up a bit maybe you can sign up for the next semester.
....
I was talking about my own type.
And MY logic needs work.
Sorry, I get carried away sometimes.
All good.
You were heavily implying it though.
The West has been dualistic since "the beginning." Look at the mythology of the West. "The Fall" of Adam and Eve was about duality and separation. The monists came a bit too late to the game lol.
I know that astrology is not valid, because extensive research shows it is not.
I don't know whether or not Socionics is valid, only that I have found it reassuring to making sense of humans. But I have seen nothing other than anecdotal evidence that Socionics is superior to alternatives or even that it is true except by proxy.
YupAstrology is like, more complex and harder to understand.
If you could learn astrology with precision, it would be at least as good as socionics (plus divining the future)!
Cosmic sympathy
Last edited by vesstheastralsilky; 12-20-2018 at 09:20 PM.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
How do you know the researchers weren't bozos?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote