Which one do you use for understanding and learning?
INDUCTIVE (SPECIFICS TO GENERAL)
DEDUCTIVE (GENERAL TO SPECIFICS)
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/c...9.57.07-AM.png
Printable View
Which one do you use for understanding and learning?
INDUCTIVE (SPECIFICS TO GENERAL)
DEDUCTIVE (GENERAL TO SPECIFICS)
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/c...9.57.07-AM.png
Inductive.
Inductive
both ?
Facts (Te) is about specifics, general is about a category (Ti).
Examples (S) is about specifics, general is about an abstraction (N).
for LSE a deduction should be more expressed
Inductive mainly
Deduction. I'm pretty much top to bottom thinker. Details are annoying because I have to have inner struggle to reach those in the most atomistic manner.
Inductive. My mind rejects deductive reasoning most of the time. Some things in life cannot be reduced to a linear path of reasoning and everything is variable so I just live in probabilities.
Deduction is the best tool ever:
All policemen are instruments of law. (First premise)
The piano is an instrument. (Second premise)
Therefore, all policemen are pianos. (Conclusion)
QED
Things such as above feeds my fantasy life.
Causal-Determinist Cognition
Let us now examine the first cognitive form: It is analytic, positive, and deductive. We will call this style Causal-Determinist. Its carriers are Sociotypes ILE, LSI, SEE, EII.
Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition
The second cognitive form is of particular interest: it is synthetic, negative, and deductive. The working name of this style is Dialectical-Algorithmic. Representatives of this style are Sociotypes EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI.
Holographical-Panoramic Cognition
In cognitive theory, the third cognitive form is the least studied: it is analytic, negative, and inductive. The provisional name of this style is Holographical-Panoramic. 'Holograph' originates from the Ancient Greek words holos "entire, whole" and grapho "write". This name is derived from the Holographist's ability to densely pack information via method of 'like to, similar' analogy. Sociotypes possessing this form are SLE, LII, IEE, ESI.
Vortical-Synergetic Cognition
The fourth cognitive style: it is synthetic, positive, and inductive. Its most appropriate title is Vortical-Synergetic. This form flows in Sociotypes ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI.
The almighty G has spoken
I actually don't agree with this. At least if G understand it as it is (I've read some pages in English where ppl confuse the meanings and concepts of Deductive and Inductive).Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Ti is inductive, while Te is more Deductive by nature. Also all types use both but values one over the other (usually thinks the overuse of the other is wrong).
this is what u get when u mistype yourself and use yourself as a standard for typologyQuote:
Originally Posted by Akira
I'm not using myself as standard but mb You and G do it. Also ofc You ar dumb SF what would ya knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Nah there is no such thing as inductive seeker/inventor. It makes no sense as the process does not hover around given toolbox but it is rather the opposite. As such it may seem opposite if a person can not grasp the level other person acts (ILE comes smashing down and ESI observes minute movements.) I was totally clueless that there are people like ESI's. I would have had huge obstacles to understand it if I had never read about it. Hence some ESI's see my style as inductive because it flies above their head. ESI's style flies above my head as well.
yOuRe dUmB SF, youre fuckin stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by Akira
No, You BrAiNlEsS G zombieQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
LSE's seem quite abductive.
If Ti focuses in Structural, Internal and system's logic then it would be more Inductive (specifical) than Deductive (general).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akira
Neither. I find formal logic or thinking in little boxes pretty much a waste of my time.
When trying to "understand"(ie trying to mentally represent external processes), I do prefer a systems thinking approach. Example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Let's assume "~" means "interact")Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
1. Man~Piano=>music
2. Man~music=>musician
3. Musician~piano=>pianist
The deductionist would say: "Therefore, pianist=man~music~piano=2(man~piano)" which doesn't make that much sense. I think the whole is more than the sum of parts; that interaction is creation; that understanding is an art, not a technique.
Not weird DarkAngelFireWolf69 theories ofc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
sorry did i ask u something?Quote:
Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb
u have no sourceQuote:
Originally Posted by Akira
No, but my post wasn't an answer either. Just my thoughts. I feel like you're on the defensive, while I'm just interested in open discussion and contribution.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
To me induction seems a lot like harnessing. Somehow they do not see origins of the source and take it as given whereas deductionists are like "solution found and whatever". LIE seems extremely inductive the way he/she plows the road (with tools made available).Quote:
Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...BAKZg&usqp=CAUQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Ye I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Positive or negative sign of same IE can effect a person's general understanding style. How do you think Ti+ differ from Ti- or Te+ from Te-? How does that distinction reflect on the preferred approach of a person in your opinion in the context of deductive and inductive styles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akira
both I guess
The plus minus signs are also part of the G model. And he changed them one or two times at this point. Besides that, + focuses in positive part of the element, - in everything, positive and negative. I don't know if that would have an impact like for changing the reasoning from Inductive to Deductive or the opposite. In any case + would be more into Deductive while - would be Inductive according definitions at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
no u dontQuote:
Originally Posted by Akira
I know G changed some signs of some IEs a few times. Besides G model, Reinin's positivist and negativist dichotomy also built according to IEs of base signs. I think it perfectly correlates with model G. I am only not sure about the signs of Si, it may be different for SXI types and their supervision, dual's supervison chain. Sign of IEs may be the second important aspect of socionics after position and effects of position of IEs in terms of explaining the differences in types. Ofcourse every socionist can make up their own model, we can make ours right now in a way that signs can be different or irrelevant. However, I think the classical or modern socionics models (Augusta, Reinin and DarkAngelFireWolf69) got it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akira
People like you should be enslaved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
There's an interesting difference in the types of reasoning that might have a connection to Socionics:
Deductive Reasoning does not synthesize new information, it merely rearranges the pieces of the puzzle to 'uncover' the truth that is hidden. Inductive Reasoning on the other hand, synthesizes new information based on observations of some kind of repeating phenomenon.
P types spend more time perceiving than judging, and therefore suffer from information overload. J types spend more time judging, so they suffer from lack of information.
So it would make sense if P types use Deductive thinking more in order to alleviate the information load, and J types use Inductive in order to get more information.
You have to keep in mind that Deductive and Inductive reasoning aren't exclusive to each other. People use both all the time without realizing it. Maybe the difference is that one of the two is more 'consciously used' than the other.
In my case, my Ti is very strong vs my Te, and I use Deductive thinking most of the time. My speech seems to naturally follow 'if..., then...' logic chains.
I think Ne already gives you the general view on things and Ti starts drawing conclusions from these generalities. Deductive thinking is 'conscious' to me, so to speak. It's very easy for me to explain my trail of thought to others, premises and conclusions, logical leaps, etc. On the other hand, Inductive thinking is also happening all the time but on a very unconscious level. That might be Ne working behind the scenes. It feels unconvincing when I use inductive reasoning to explain some phenomenon, and people are always quick to point out some fringe case where the generality doesn't apply. But deductive reasoning feels very 'true' and others seem to take my word as gospel when I use it :shrug:
There's this ISTp guy I knew who used deductive thinking a lot. Back then it surprised me because I always thought Ti = deduction and Te = induction. So I think Ti and Te types can have a preference for either type of thinking, the difference is the destination: Ti will apply either deduction or induction to create logical structures, Te will apply either of those to improve productivity, etc.
ILE-Ne 'inventor' might not need induction that much, but what about ILE-Ti? ILE-Ti is described as an 'office scientist', and there seems to be more ILE-Ti in natural sciences than their Ne counterpart. Induction is the root of all science, drawing general principles from many individual observations. If ILEs couldn't do inductive reasoning then there wouldn't be any ILE scientist which I think is unlikely :content:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
Good insight, I totally agree with this part and the fact that everyone uses both. J/P difference holds less importance than +/- of an IE in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Banana King
Inductive mainly.
I think we do use both but cognitively have a preference for one or the other. Deductive Ti. I take the general structure and pick it apart and then apply to specifics. I don’t really care about finding “new” or more information. I think that’s a waste of time. If I am presented with sufficient amount of data that allows me to reason the action, then that’s enough. But then again, I’m normalizing subtype with developed Fi and Ti. I don’t think I’m good with Te even though it’s easy for me to take large amounts of information and condense it to a manageable amount for others (if I feel the need to necessitate it) but I do that on my own easily.
Not so sure. If you build a hard core system you'll need induction. When you hack into a system you'll need deduction. I think science from perspective of hacking. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Banana King
All types use both but to different extents; in a natural tendency sense, inductive is the more S-like (a bottom-up perspective) while deductive is N-like (a top-down perspective). I know that I have a tendency to go back to first principles to figure out specifics.
a.k.a. I/O
Edit: Where does abductive reasoning fit - starting with an incomplete set of observations and proceeding to the likeliest possible explanation? N-types seem to be better at interpolation but S-types tend to be better at application.
Inductive for reverse engineering and circuit analysis.
Deductive for learning physics and economics.
source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
your gay profile picQuote:
Originally Posted by Nobody
u have no sourceQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
u have no sauce in between ur ballsQuote:
Originally Posted by Nobody
Ti+ embodied by LSI
1. Command Function +L — Structural Logic
She thoroughly delves into matters that she is engaged in. She stubbornly and persistently collects information in order to fully master a situation. As a collector or bibliophile, she is especially interested in reference literature. She’s a supporter of strict order and a well- functioning system; everything that does not fit into that system, she rejects as illogical. In business she is interested in, she regularly checks in and controls the progress. Equilibrated and fulfilled, she demands the same from others. She respects subordination and does not take into account personal preferences when it comes to business. Her items are placed in strictly designated places. She does not tolerate when someone takes without asking or shifts her things.
Ti- embodied by LII
1. Command Function —L — Structural Logic
She is able to express her thoughts logically and convincingly. She constructs schemes and concepts, clearly separating the main points from secondary issues. Having developed a general system, she makes it concrete and brings it closer to practice. The pure theorizing, philosophizing, and reasoning that are separated from the realities of life are of little interest to her. The correctness of the system is determined by its internal logical consistency; she easily modifies the formal framework of the system. She prefers compact, extremely compressed information, although she can also expand it to the required volume. She easily sees the possibilities of systems, formal models and concepts. She gives an objective, often impartial assessment of their potential. She is able to tie specific details in with the whole.
Ti+ is called Logic of uniform structure, so it’s essentially linear thinking. It’s adhering to the structure that is proven to work and rejecting all other structures that don’t fit to be incorrect and thoroughly following through with principles. LSI and ILE.
Ti- is called Logic of fractal structure, so it’s essentially polymorphic thinking. It encompasses contradictions and paradoxes. Allowances for multiple explanations of the same object. LII and SLE.
I don’t think it matters whether it’s Te or Ti, inductive or deductive can be used for both modes of thinking functions.
Example: SGF is LSI so he has Ti+ and he said he uses inductive thinking. I also have Ti+ but I use deductive thinking. If anything, I think the +/- of the thinking functions gives more insight into who thinks more “objectively” or “subjectively.”
I thought about this, too. I mainly use deductive thinking and I’m good at physics (although it’s boring) and I’m not sure why I’m good at the concepts but it’s really easy for me to grasp and economics. My mom is SEE and I’m pretty sure she uses deductive thinking too and she has MS in economics and MBA. I went to law school. My dad is LSI is a mask design engineer but I think he’s inductive thinking, which is probably why he never understand how me and my mom think. But then again, maybe that’s how it is with supervision, the differences between inductive and deductive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody
Ye I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Induction is actually impossible. It's deduction in disguise.
To summarize:
Induction = observation > generalization
Deduction = premise > conclusion
The proof is in that you'd have to explain how you ought to generalize something, which must have some sort of a rule or a premise (which can be arbitrary and explanation-less) and therefore deductive.
If you were to categorize something, where did that rule of categorization come from?
Long story short, induction is explanation-less generalization. Or deduction where the premise is hidden. An observation is a kind of an explanation, but it's not yet turned into an analyzable language.
An example is that Mendeleev's Periodic Table in chemistry is not induction but deduction. He did not observe the chemical elements first, then categorized them. He first came up with a mathematical rule or explanation for it, then he categorized the elements accordingly. According to his deductive reasoning, it was impossible that there wouldn't be Gallium (which he named eka-aluminium) below Aluminium in the periodic category and so on. That's why he could put unobserved elements such as Gallium in the category, and hence he could predict the existence of yet-to-be-observed Gallium. That's how you make predictions.
The biggest hints in science are given by knowing what is impossible. Newton thought it was impossible that objects would fall to the ground or planets would orbit around the sun without there being a law that attracts objects together, which is why he came up with the law of gravitation. Darwin thought it was impossible that there would be an organism without there being a previous state that precedes it (which denies sudden logical "jumps" or sudden creation), which is why he came up with the theory of evolution. Einstein thought it was impossible that the speed of light would stay constant for all observers without creating a paradox, which is why he fused time and space together and made time relative instead. And of course there's the example with Mendeleev.
Deductive reasoning can show us what is possible and impossible, while inductive reasoning is just limited to what is possible. Inductive "reasoning" is just one of the possibilities of deductive reasoning, and therefore, is deductive reasoning in disguise. It's just that the premise of induction is hidden.
Conclusion: science is deductive, not inductive. Induction is not only false but impossible. Knowing what is impossible by the laws of nature is the starting point for science. We can only know that via deduction/logic.
Abductive reasoning just applies probabilities to truth values, which must be false because there's no such thing as something being "70% true", for example. Logically, something is either 100% true or 0% true. The probability of anything being true is 0, because everything must eventually be proved wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Many decisions have to be made when not all the facts are known. I've had to make decisions that made most of my staff happy while the others hated me - "70% solutions" are very common.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
a.k.a. I/O
Well if you have two theories that are false, then the probability of either theory being true isn't 50% but 0%. If you have to make a decision, then the probability of the decision being made the right decision is still either 100% or 0%. But that's only revealed after the fact in hindsight. If you thought that the probability was 70% right or likely, then you've only subjectively justified the decision before you made the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Does the fact that you think that something is 70% true, make it any more or less likely to be true in reality? What we personal know, what personal knowledge we have shouldn't affect anything being true or false in reality.
That's the thing about probabilities - it's a subjective estimate. The only objective type of probability is the frequentist interpretation of probability.
Deductive
Something I can answer with great certainty. If induction is impossible, then a lot of people are idiots for believing in induction.
https://www.livescience.com/21569-de...induction.html
Here's a link on inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is related to if then statements. All men are mortal, if I am a man, I am mortal. There are different formats of which you can apply it, but the if then statement is my preferred and most understood.
Inductive reasoning is is used in complex patterns such as chess. Your goal is to take complicated data and put it to a general rule. All men seem to die, and I seem to be a man, therefore it seems I will die. But I don't know that for a fact, as I am not aware of ever having died before.
This is the formal definition and example. I don't know if socionics has a special definition, but.
Your reasoning is flawed, I/O, as if you use inductive reasoning to create a general trend, you can use that general trend for deductive reasoning, and you can create a rule with deduction, but it's of limited usefulness when there is a lack of information. The big point of induction is that there is a lack of information. So you have 3 people. They're all white. What color is the next person most likely to be? That's an example of induction where deduction would fail. It looks similar, and you can say it in similar form, if the most common person is present, then the next person should be that. However it's not deduction, it's induction. I just used the rules of how induction works in the statement I wrote to create an if-then statement.
In conclusion, induction looks like deduction, but is not. Induction has to do with lack of information necessary to create a deductive statement.
Deductively, to answer that question, you'd have to make a guess. The pattern could be white-white-white... Or it could be white-white-purple-white-white-purple... Or it could simply be purple. And I could be right or I could be wrong. It's just a guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alomoes
Inductively, you would say that the pattern is going to be white-white-white... because that's all that has been observed before. Which is the same as the deductive answer, except that it's more limited in scope. So it's really just deduction in disguise.
Yes, you can use the inductive "method" to inspire a deductive answer. But it means that inductive "reasoning" didn't actually happen.
In reality, the answer is going to be white-white-X... where that X is a variable where anything is a possibility, as long as it's not impossible. We can narrow down the answer by coming up with what is impossible. And we can't inductively know what is impossible, since induction can only know what is possible, or what has already been observed.
I don’t really think that inductive reasoning could be used on any grand scale, unless it’s building concepts that aren’t anchored in reality (such as religion) since that will accommodate possibilities while ignoring/disregarding probabilities. Otherwise, deductive reasoning is the default and that’s how your mind draws conclusions in order to decide.
I'm definitely more of a deductive thinker. When you are building something professional, inductive seems much more Te & better for that- but deductive is how you see through Te's bullshit and arrive to the 'beyond the veil' conclusion that you always knew was true anyway. Inductive reasoning seems very blue pill while deductive is more red/black pill. Deductive thinking is too stereotypical and vague/general and doesn't sell well at times because rich people are pretentious and enjoy snowflakes- but inductive thinking totally ignores generalities you know are true just to be refined & stable. "I'm not like that!" - even though you really are, but it wouldn't be good professional etiquette to admit it.
I hope it only feeds your fantasy life and not your reality because right after your second premise you destroyed all chances of making this realistic by deliberately using logic to make policemen pianos. I can imagine (and vividly remember) how some people are able to debate such and such through that line of thinking and bask on the laurels that they aren't supposed to get. Who knows how many such people roam the streets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
I recently said that I hope ILEs don't find their duals due to my annoyance of them, but I'm not annoyed anymore. I now understand why we have to lock ILEs in high institutions and give them SEIs to make them dormant. You really have to lock them up in a tower because of absurd claims like this. Next time I meet another ILE I'll provide them all the food and comforts they need so that hopefully they don't have to convince me or anyone of similar things as above, which they always tend to do specially to me because most people unlike me are okay with shit like this and can just stop taking what ILEs say seriously.
It takes a huge leap in faith to believe in reality in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by one
You are wrong. You see two houses. What is the next building most likely going to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolita
Inductive reasoning is useful. Deductive reasoning is useful. There's no reason to not use either.
This is actually an example of inductive reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
I don't like to make guesses unless I feel I have a general understanding. But can I ever really know that I have a general understanding, and that I am not merely infering from a severely limited sample?
Bayesian reasoning would tell you that if you see a municipal bus with the number 5 and that is the only bus you have seen, you should guess that there are 9 buses. Is that inductive or deductive reasoning? (Bayesian reasoning may be deductive in theory, but can be inductive in practice).
OK. I would think it like this. "Can you believe what you see" thinking is in the continuum of perceptual position. "This can't be real" [hence we have proven a creationist God - there must be something out there that built this for us] or "is this real" [wait a minute if these conditions apply and so on and things what they tell me... who to believe].Quote:
Originally Posted by Alomoes
top
^
|
|
|<------Your position?
|
|
˅
bottom
No, you are wrong and completely shitty at explaining anything. Asking people a bunch of contextless questions doesn’t prove anything other that your brain is broken and you need professional help to get your shit sorted out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alomoes
Well, what is given and what is not. We could even think that everything we can experience including thoughts are synthetic. Hence it would make solipsist's stance bit laughable. Can there be truth without reality? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb
Deduction increases complexity. Induction and abduction decrease complexity.
You probably have been spending too much time in your high tower and talking only to similar people who can afford not to believe in it. I’d say some people expose themselves to reality everyday that they have no reason to doubt it. Just because you can afford to avoid it doesn’t mean it’s not real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
But what do I know, maybe Alphas are meant to be in Alpha lands.
Give me a proof. People can interact fully with the world if he they it is a simulation or something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by one
Are you demanding Ti reasoning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
It doesn’t matter if it’s a simulation or not, my point is there are things and people that are directly affected and using logic to just make things as you want them to be won’t help you interact with the world in a more satisfying way. I cannot use Ti on your Ti so this might be an unsatisfactory take to you, but you have to really just experience and take some things as to how they are. See things as how they react, maybe compare that to what others perceive and the approximation is the reality. Concept bending is really great and it’s funny to get to ridiculous conclusions with logic but I’m saying last time I checked policemen are not pianos and I hope that you keep that in your fantasy. I just mentioned it because I notice a lot of claims from ILEs that are not just morally questionable but also not practical, and they always use the previous line of reasoning to reach those claims. I’m all for that really but some of those thoughts are not great to execute. Try it maybe, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a contrary rel thing, but I’m really bothered about the thought that ILEs would be wandering around with those ideas and some people would be convinced. I’m not really sure if ILEs are just trolling or not when they talk about things like that.
Yeah. That is why I see gammas as (partially non consensual) BDSM quadra. It makes them feel, viscerally.
Ti reasoning is apparently a proof. Bruh.
My proof is inductive. A simulation or emulation of the world would be indistinguishable from the world because there's no truth mechanism to tell the difference. For fun, try and get a computer to print out a true/false value on something it doesn't know without programming it to lie or know it.
I've concluded it is impossible to tell if the apple is red without knowing one of two things. An apple can be red, or this apple is red. Really that is just one thing. My reasoning is because if you don't know that the apple can be red, and I mean, to the point where you don't know red is a color, how would you answer red?
I don't know red is not a color, so I do answer red. If red was a programmed in color, IE fake, I would not know this, therefore I could not at all say that red is not an answer. I would have no idea the redness of our world is simulated. Still don't.
Gude pruf?
As stated, it doesn't matter. I enjoy these kinds of games though, I really have nothing better to do.
And come on, it's not that hard to do. Apparently people expect Einstein out of ILI. They're not gonna get it, but you can at least try to satisfy expectations. You should know all three options by now, excluding the fourth one, which is unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by one
Maybe Alomoes and Chin are Ne leads and I’m Ni lead because to be frank what they say are just jumbled words to me. I have read people say Sol’s English is hard to understand but FUCK, I have understood around 99% of what he writes immediately while for these 2 I always have to read more than thrice. Specially Alomoes
@Alomoes I don’t know what you’re implying by the first sentence. I also don’t understand your point about Einstein.
Wiki is down. I forget what it's exactly related to, but there is a page on deductive/inductive processes related to socionics type. In essence, everyone has a mirror that is the opposite of them. INTp is deductive. ENTj is inductive. I thought that was what we were talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolita
It's a joke. I've been told INTp is Einstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by one
Second thing is someone boiled down Ti to the thing you use for mathematical proofs.
Third thing is, if you don't understand me, which is normal, TBH, you're probably theoretically not my contrarian who would theoretically understand and disagree with me on core principals. I'll snag a source. https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/...ships/Contrary
Wiki is down, so I can't link it, hopefully this source is acceptable.
I wouldn't know what type you are, but it's easy to understand you, and hard to understand me. You can be Ni Fe, and I could be NeTi, but I don't have any reason to go with that hypothesis.
For the apple is red, I'm going over basic logic of how you know something is true or false. That there is logic. It is perfect, I took my time writing that out to make sure it was perfect. This is because the people above were talking about how you can/cannot know if the world is a simulation.
TL;DR You can't know if the world is a simulation or not. It's impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alomoes
I can read the words, I just don’t see your point. Which makes it all gibberish to me, like ideas are just used mainly to put thoughts out there, not focusing on hitting the other party’s point of view. Same with Chin but his latest BDSM comment about Gamma is more easily understandable.
Now that I think about it, I am probably easy to understand because I just focus on the main point of the convo. I’m pretty sure most of the people, if not all, who can understand basic English can understand the things I write here.
IEI is ridiculous as a possible typing for me. You can just look at the things I post here and how I speak, where the fuck is the Fe creative? I also don’t think I’m an F type. But maybe with, subtypes, enneagram, DCNH, and attitudinal bs I’ll become an F type, hopefully an ESE!
They're jumbled words to anyone. Actually I understand what Alomoes is saying, but he's misunderstanding inductivism.Quote:
Originally Posted by one
I would think that "this apple is red" presupposes "apples can be red", so I would say that the former is redundant. It's just that the "apples can be red" on its own could be wrong. If apples cannot be red, then you'd never see a red apple. If apples can be red, then you're going to be seeing one. The "red apple theory" would eventually be proven either right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alomoes
But "apples can be red" can never be proven wrong, even if you'll never find a red apple. In the same way that "This world is a simulation" can never be proven wrong, even if there's no proof. So we go by principles like Occam's razor, which says "Does it create more problems than it solves?". We see no rational reason to make things more complicated than it is, by having more things unresolved than before. Is there a good reason to believe that this world is a simulation? What problem does it solve by saying that it is? And how is this world being simulated?
If you want "certainty", then you'd go with the "this apple is red" route. But then you wouldn't be able to predict anything with it. You can't know that there might be a green apple. You're just stating a fact. It's not a theory or a hypothesis. That's why science isn't inductive but deductive.
"Seeing" is a physical sensation, which means that it's something that's actually physically occurring in the real world. So if the mechanism of this "seeing" could be rationally explained, then it's possible to emulate it with another physical object. The human eye cannot see radio waves, infrared and other non-visible light, but you can still understand them and "see" them via the interpretations of specialized instruments that people had built. So a blind person could potentially create an instrument that can see and interpret visible light and "know" that the apple is red. And perhaps he could eventually augment it in his brain.
Induction says that "seeing is believing", but that is a prejudice. "Seeing" is simply a hidden mechanism of the eyes and consciousness that is yet to be explained. There's no limit to what you can rationally understand.
This is what I responding to. Also my conclusion is it creates no problems, and actually solves a ton. Because what if you want to break through reality to get to the truth? You can't even tell if there is a truth beyond your reality. It's a waste of time to try. So don't do it that way. The only way it'll happen is randomly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Diaper 007
Useful, because I can tell people to stop assuming stuff they don't know.