How Socionics can uncover the truth of the fabric of reality

[niffer]

Obviously, if you attach a meaning, then it can mean anything.

LOL. The point is that you can find out what works or not within certain parameters.

So the "Te" types are just born to believe in false things? And they can't even rationally change their beliefs?

But no matter, since Socionics is saying that Te is the CAUSAL EFFECT of those things. It's not specifically implied, but it pretty much is.

Oh I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were trying to say that empiricism and inductivism were nonsense in general... which honestly it does seem like you believe in that. You realize you're being anti-science right? If you not only say that "socionics hasn't been subject to empirical analysis / scientific method", but that "IT CAN'T BE" and "NO ONE IS CAPABLE OF USING THEIR OWN RATIONAL/SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS W/SOCIONIX" then you're dismissing empiricism itself.

[niffer]

P.S. .... The reason that we use math and logic .... is because they represent reality.

And because they make things work in life.

[Singu]

LOL. The point is that you can find out what works or not within certain parameters.

Right, and how to define what "works"? That is a very ambiguous concept, and the definition is subjective.

Oh I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were trying to say that empiricism and inductivism were nonsense in general... which honestly it does seem like you believe in that. You realize you're being anti-science right? If you not only say that "socionics hasn't been subject to empirical analysis / scientific method", but that "IT CAN'T BE" and "NO ONE IS CAPABLE OF USING THEIR OWN RATIONAL/SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS W/SOCIONIX" then you're dismissing empiricism itself.

No, because I AM saying that empiricism is nonsense. Empiricism originally means that we "derive" all our knowledge from sensory experience. That is nonsense, as we do not "see" many ideas, such as gravity or the core of the sun or the bending of spacetime. Nor they are even derived from observations.

P.S. .... The reason that we use math and logic .... is because they represent reality.

And because they make things work in life.

No actually, false things are also derived from math and logic. Try again. You are changing the subject from what Bertrand was saying. Bertrand was saying that "things that are useful are true". Not true, since there are quite many useless things that are true.

[Bertrand]

think about those last 2 sentences for a second

[Singu]

Well it probably has to do with ambiguity of the word useful. If you say "things that are useful are true", then you would say that "things that are not useful are not true". And I would think that useless is the same as not useful.

[niffer]

No, because I AM saying that empiricism is nonsense. Empiricism originally means that we "derive" all our knowledge from sensory experience. That is nonsense, as we do not "see" many ideas, such as gravity or the core of the sun or the bending of spacetime. Nor they are even derived from observations.

k trolling confirmed lmao

[Bertrand]

your logic sucks bro, the contrapositive of things that are useful are true is untrue things are not useful, not things that are not useful are not true. and that's just the tip of the iceberg

let me just cut to the chase since I can anticipate your argument. the difference between the two constructions is that the later, falacious, version supplied an implicit "only", i.e.: only useful things are true. versus the former that says untrue things are not useful. the former is a statement on the nature and value of lies, and leaves room for things that aren't conventionally accepted as useful to nevertheless be true inasmuch as they do anything at all that isn't of outright absolute negative value. thus "lies" can become subjective truths of value. a statement of absolute negative value is like the definition of a lie or sin as it were. note this allows for factually inaccurate statements to nevertheless be true. which is what is being said over and over, which is that perfection is unattained and probably unattainable but truth is still with us. in other words,

untrue things are not useful
x is useful
---
x is not untrue

(is silent as to useless things)

vs

only useful things are true
x is not useful
---
x is not true (i.e.: false)

x may not be useful, but it may not be false either. it may simply be nothing. useless is not by definition false in the first example but is in the second. you distorted what I was saying in making this error. well that and I never said any of this to begin with, but whatever, lets roll with it

the state of indeterminancy that results from the first example can be resolved over time. while it is not untrue, and therefore nothing, and possibly true--it may yet tip over into truth as part of its development in time. this is how science works, things that were not true yesterday may be true tomorrow. like how many planets are in the solar system and so forth, earth is flat, etc. likewise things may become falsehoods based on similar developments. the problem is when you disingenuously try to get ahead of the game simply through a shell game of definitions rather than real observation. in this way your view, while declaring allegiance to science, is fundamentally non-scientific at its core. its actually pure ideology

you might say, well none of that shows that usefulness is the criteria for truth, but I remind you negative absolute usefulness is the definition of sin which is opposed to logos and that is where this all comes from. you've just buried your notion of God so deep you forgot how much you actually rely on it, which is what Nietzsche was all about

[Singu]

k trolling confirmed lmao

Lol, what do you think the word empiricism means?

your logic sucks bro, the contrapositive of things that are useful are true is untrue things are not useful, not things that are not useful are not true. and that's just the tip of the iceberg

No, because the entire error lies in your assumption that only useful things can be true, and to deny it is to deny the truth:

anyone can deny the truth is this or that, but evolution is a process that has endowed man with the capacity and incentive to view truth in terms of usefulness.

[Singu]

So actually, it's more like a biconditional:

Things are true, iff they are useful

True ↔ useful

Well that's not true, because what's true isn't necessarily defined by what's useful, which was your error.

The opposite of this is:

False ↔ useless

But this could be refuted, by saying that there are useless things that are true. Anyway, attaching truth-values to these things is pointless.

[Bertrand]

you're just giving your interpretation of what I said without respect for the plain language. why don't you just quote me

the bottom line is if=/iff, did I say iff?

you're really fighting strawmen here. I already said you supplied an only and then went on to immediately do it again, thinly veiled in "iff" as if that isn't exactly the same thing in different words

[whodat]

ya but two wrongs dont make a righ

[nyessss]

It may not be able to, but at least it can find the type of thanos

[Singu]

Well anyway, not even your interpretation of contrapositive is true.

We're saying that: Things that are true -> useful

The contrapositive of this is: Things that are not useful -> not true

So this means: Useless -> false

But this is not true, since useless things can be true, which is what I just said. The entire error lies in attaching truth-values to these ideas, which is quite meaningless.

[Bertrand]

things that are useful are true

We're saying that: Things that are true -> useful

pick one

[Singu]

I'll go by your definition:

exactly right, if what works is insufficient to establish truth, we are literally left with nothing

[Bertrand]

uh ok

[Singu]

The entire error is that you (or we) *derived* the conclusion "things that are useful are true", from the if argument of "if something is useful, then it is true", which is the very ordinary sentence of this logic:

Things that are true -> useful

Which is basically this:

exactly right, if what works is insufficient to establish truth, we are literally left with nothing

[Bertrand]

alright you win

[Pallas]

No, because I AM saying that empiricism is nonsense. Empiricism originally means that we "derive" all our knowledge from sensory experience. That is nonsense, as we do not "see" many ideas, such as gravity or the core of the sun or the bending of spacetime. Nor they are even derived from observations.

Ideas are sensory input seen by the mind, duh. Buddha knew that and he was running around India in 500 BC, yet you still don't. l8 m8

PROVE ME WRONG

[Singu]

Ideas are sensory input seen by the mind, duh. Buddha knew that and he was running around India in 500 BC, yet you still don't. l8 m8

PROVE ME WRONG

You don't see any laws of physics, they are just conjectures made by people to see if that's how the world works. Then you observe to experiment your hypothesis.

[Bertrand]

I used to be annoyed at how betas would go line by line quoting and dissect a post when it all really hinged on one relatively basic point they could contest and stick to without needing to proceed further... in other words, once you establish 2+2=5 of course every sentence in the contested post is wrong because it was founded on a different premise, you don't need to run through it all to let me know the consequence of such a divergence ruins everything. but now I realize its good if they stick to quotes because when they diverge from that method it tends to result in outright fabrications. my only question is whether Singu is that detached from reality and bad at logical reasoning or whether its just bad faith attempts to try and create the appearance of a sound rejoinder without any actual substance, but one that looks like it could be right. kind of like playing a doctor on TV or something. in any case, its a terrible way to get at the truth, unless the truth is just whatever you can convince people of. but if that's the case what's all this shit about science. its like science is just a buzzword that sounds good and its employed solely for that reason, and not because its actually science. in fact no one on that side seems to really know what science is. which is interesting. I feel like this is exactly the process that neutered Christianity, where it became empty sloganeering for its own sake. but then you have to ask yourself, why am I shoving this shit down people's throats when it doesn't even stand for anything (like why did we have a spanish inquisition, etc). it literally becomes an empty contest for its own sake. perhaps this is how post modern power worshipers have a degree of admirable honesty to their ethos then, because at least they know they're assholes. I think this is basically how they arrive at Fi. kind of how like if I concentrate really hard I can kind of get to Fe

This is the endstate of Fe though, and the truth being "that which you can convince people of" is not far off the mark, because Fe essentially incorperates the Fi endstate of "every person is a closed universe", but then it throws them all in the Fe hopper and treats them all equally, thus consensus becomes the definition of truth. so then this is what you end up with, which is since you can't offend anyone, the truth is that which plays best with the largest amount of people, without regard for its usefulness beyond that domain. so you get radically destructive yet stimulating dreams that catch on, sort of like the equivalent of intellectual meth, and its like nazi germany time where ****** is just watching peoples reactions and ratcheting up the idealogy in response to people's positive reaction to his validation of their deep seated and repressed resentment. essentially a hysterical echo chamber, and then they go and try to implement their ridiculous ideology because if it plays well it must be right, and that justifies literally anything even genocide (you might say especially genocide), and that's how these secular "scientific" ideologies become murderous

[Pallas]

You don't see any laws of physics, they are just conjectures made by people to see if that's how the world works. Then you observe to experiment your hypothesis.

You don't see any sound like with your eyes, yet you spend a ton of money on music. I think "see" is a pretty good word for what the mind does to ideas, like "feel" is pretty good for sense of balance even though it's a separate sense from touch. And you still can't prove this wrong

[Singu]

I used to be annoyed at how betas would go line by line quoting and dissect a post when it all really hinged on one relatively basic point they could contest and stick to without needing to proceed further...

No actually this is just a common sense way of arguing, since if you keep adding points, then it will add more and more points and this will increase to infinity.

So yeah, math and logic bro. The reason why you make such long posts, is only to obfuscate your points, which you make none.

[Bertrand]

lol i can't tell if you're for real anymore

and I'm not the type to throw around accusations of trolling, since I get them a lot myself

[Singu]

lol i can't tell if you're for real anymore

and I'm not the type to throw around accusations of trolling, since I get them a lot myself

lol? Would you rather have me reply to your incredibly long posts, and I also make incredibly long posts, and this will increase to infinity?

[Singu]

You don't see any sound like with your eyes, yet you spend a ton of money on music. I think "see" is a pretty good word for what the mind does to ideas, like "feel" is pretty good for sense of balance even though it's a separate sense from touch. And you still can't prove this wrong

Well I don't know too much about what this means, but the point of empiricism is that we derive all knowledge from our sensory experiences, and that includes the sounds that we hear.

So an empiricist says, "If we can't sense it, then it's not true, or we don't care". Which is nonsense, that turned to things like Behaviorism that ignores what goes on inside of the human brain.

So actually a lot of science ISN'T actually empirical. That's not to say, empiriCAL is wrong, but empiricISM is wrong.

[Pallas]

Well I don't know too much about what this means, but the point of empiricism is that we derive all knowledge from our sensory experiences, and that includes the sounds that we hear.

So an empiricist says, "If we can't sense it, then it's not true, or we don't care". Which is nonsense, that turned to things like Behaviorism that ignores what goes on inside of the human brain.

So, what's your alternative to empiricism and induction? You seem to hate seeing, hearing, touching, and otherwise perceiving the environment in any way, and inferring the Sun will rise tomorrow instead of setting up a carefully-controlled experiment to test if it will before you go to bed each night. Why?

Also, just read about what I mean, even if you disagree.

[Pallas]

lol? Would you rather have me reply to your incredibly long posts, and I also make incredibly long posts, and this will increase to infinity?

Yes

[Singu]

So, what's your alternative to empiricism and induction? You seem to hate seeing, hearing, touching, and otherwise perceiving the environment in any way, and inferring the Sun will rise tomorrow instead of setting up a carefully-controlled experiment to test if it will before you go to bed each night. Why?

Also, just read about what I mean, even if you disagree.

Well I already told you, the answer is deduction. We come up with guesses or conjectures about how the world might work, and then we concoct an experiment to see if it works the way we think it does. And if it doesn't work, then we scrap the hypothesis, or try to revise it.

I mean this is nothing new, this was basically the Karl Popper's answer to "the problem of induction" introduced by Hume, and scientists since Galileo were pretty much already doing this independently.

And the sun goes up, why? Because of the tilting of the Earth and the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. If we try to understand this inductively, then how would we know that it will continue forever? This was the "problem of induction" proposed by Hume, that "the future doesn't resemble the past". We could also add: "The unseen doesn't resemble the seen", and "The distant doesn't resemble the near".

[Pallas]

Well I already told you, the answer is deduction. We come up with guesses or conjectures about how the world might work, and then we concoct an experiment to see if it works the way we think it does. And if it doesn't work, then we scrap the hypothesis, or try to revise it.

I mean this is nothing new, this was basically the Karl Popper's answer to "the problem of induction" introduced by Hume, and scientists since Galileo were pretty much already doing this independently.

And the sun goes up, why? Because of the tilting of the Earth and the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. If we try to understand this inductively, then how would we know that it will continue forever? This was the "problem of induction" proposed by Hume, that "the future doesn't resemble the past". We could also add: "The unseen doesn't resemble the seen", and "The distant doesn't resemble the near".

Yes, but something we've never seen or thought about could just come by and blow up the Sun, scientifically-speaking. Yet, you have some sort of faith that won't happen. Why?

The future resembles the past. The unseen resembles the seen. The distance resembles the near. The higher resembles the lower. The internal resembles the external. One is defined in terms of the other so it's like a mirror image, and what is seen in a mirror is the same. How do you make sense of the world.

If you really want us to live our day-to-day lives by the scientific method sometime in the future, or you do now, I'd actually love to hear about it. But so far you aren't explaining much.

[Singu]

Yes, but something we've never seen or thought about could just come by and blow up the Sun, scientifically-speaking. Yet, you have some sort of faith that won't happen. Why?

Well I didn't say that those things can't happen, but inductivism has an even WORSE answer than this, since it thinks that the current pattern will just repeat indefinitely into the future. And yet we know that the sun is expanding in a billion years or so due to the fact that it has used up its hydrogen fuels at its core, which is something that we can't even see.

If you really want us to live our day-to-day lives by the scientific method sometime in the future, or you do now, I'd actually love to hear about it. But so far you aren't explaining much.

Well probably no one actually live their day-to-day lives by the scientific method, but when they're doing science, then they do.

[falsehope]

No actually this is just a common sense way of arguing, since if you keep adding points, then it will add more and more points and this will increase to infinity.

So yeah, math and logic bro. The reason why you make such long posts, is only to obfuscate your points, which you make none.

lol that's actually a projection. It's you who can't make his point actually? What is your point? Can you say it in normal sentence? So far it's word salad. What's your point that the induction is wrong? (by the way it's not wrong just because somebody pointed out possible problems) There are problems with everything. It's like black and white thinking deprived of common sense.

I think you can't make a point because there isn't any, and if there is, it's trivial to destroy it. As I said, it's problem on your side not others doing something wrong.

[Singu]

What's your point that the induction is wrong? (by the way it's not wrong just because somebody pointed out possible problems) There are problems with everything. It's like black and white thinking deprived of common sense.

I think you can't make a point because there isn't any, and if there is, it's trivial to destroy it. As I said, it's problem on your side not others doing something wrong.

Do you agree that a theory should be falsifiable?

And what do you think is the problem with induction?

[Bertrand]

Jung makes a point in undiscovered self about how the positivists say a question is not a question unless it can have a definite answer, whereas Jung would say the only really important questions are those that don't

[whodat]

Jung makes a point in undiscovered self about how the positivists say a question is not a question unless it can have a definite answer, whereas Jung would say the only really important questions are those that don't

be an Eagle, not a pigeon.

[Singu]

Jung makes a point in undiscovered self about how the positivists say a question is not a question unless it can have a definite answer, whereas Jung would say the only really important questions are those that don't

Because mysticism?

[Bertrand]

Philip asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
"How can I," he said, "unless someone guides me?"

you can take away a man's Gods, but only to give him others in return

[niffer]

I want Singu to hold me in his arms and share whatever it is he smokes on a daily basis.

Take me. I'm ready.

[niffer]

There's a tiny bit of empirical thought in even you Dingu. The fact that you can think semi-rationally and function at all proves it.

You are disproving forms of logic and processing the world that you yourself must be using, implicitly even if not explicitly.

[Singu]

There's a tiny bit of empirical thought in even you Dingu. The fact that you can think semi-rationally and function at all proves it.

You are disproving forms of logic and processing the world that you yourself must be using, implicitly even if not explicitly.

I'm not saying that empiriCAL is wrong, but empiricISM is wrong, as empiricism is the belief that ONLY knowledge derived from the sensory experiences matter.