Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bolt
That's the problem with this sixpenny philosophy: generalization and talk in theory, with no concern of whether it applies to something or not. Yes, in theory we probably don't even exist, so?
Ah, but these melodramatic, facetious absolutes are your arguments, not mine.
Finite beings with finite sensory and cognitive apparatus necessarily make errors of judgement. Do they reach correct conclusions? Of course, quite often, but this can still be improved.
Quote:
What has this to do with Socionics?
Sloppy thinking leads to false conclusions. Enhancing mindfulness of distorted thinking improves objective evaluation. Better socionics results from better thinking.
Quote:
No one even claimed that he/she has godlike certainty in what he says, we're just people discussing in our ignorant world; but in it, there exists certainty and logical correctness, prophet.
Certainty is phenomenological, a feeling often wholly divorced from objective fact. Case in point: you emphatically declare I made or implied a statement that in fact was neither made nor intended. Also, logically coherent arguments can still be materially false.
Quote:
It's just *you* who make the baseless assumption that people their conclusions to be valid in all possible and impossible multiverses.
Another self-serving falsehood. My interest is valid theory backed by evidence-based justification, not iron-clad proof or popular assent.
Quote:
And yes, I still insist that you generalize because that's what you do. You tell me that "numbers are conceptual signifiers" without even providing an example of what do you actually acknowledge as a true concept, that is not a human construct, so that we talk about actually *something*.
I agree that in most circumstances the sum of 2 and 2 is interpreted as 4. Other interpretations exist outside the domain of mathematics and are no more or less wrong. Numbers are universals and since they aren't found wandering round in nature they have no verifiable attributes.
Quote:
Who's the one who can actually see the real elephant, you? :)
Further evidence you're neglecting to read what you're attempting to refute.
Quote:
In all cultures that use maths 2+2 is still 4, why? Did they speak to each other in advance? It's a fact, not just relativistic mental masturbation. Contingent truth indeed, but truth.
That "fact" of 2+2=4 is a foundational quantitative convention with demonstrable utility within mathematics and related anthropogenic fields of inquiry, yet still entirely conceptual and representational, i.e. semiotic.
Quote:
Thanks for the picture, actually allows me clarifying my point: that is a pipe.
Simply because the object in the painting appears to be a pipe doesn't necessitate it being one. And in any event, a picture is not a pipe.
Quote:
Living our life in illusion or not,
Partial illusion, partial truth. The goal behind my post was to foster the reduction of the former and enhance the preponderance of the latter.
Quote:
I can guess how all this translates into real life: real-life scientists, researchers and thinkers pack your gibberish and dump it to trash.
And yet these are the same people who value the objective thinking that I promote.
Quote:
Also in real life, this forum is a joke as long as this bullshit is considered "Socionics discussion".
That'll remain the case so long as neurology remains excluded from this rationalist, functionalist, instrumentalist, ipse dixit echo chamber of hermetic horseshit. If there's science to be had I'd love to see it.
Quote:
I had no super-epiphany like yours, it's just my quick guess, which you'll probably relate to on Monday morning.
Wrong from front to back. I admire your thoroughness!