I read "put me back in your vag".Originally Posted by Bertrand
put me back in your sig
vagularity lol
I read "put me back in your vag".put me back in your sig
vagularity lol
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Well how do you know that something IS true? You don't know, since we have no direct access to reality. It's all an interpretation of your brain.
Not even math is real, that's the whole point. We will never know.
Okay, that might be so. So in your opinion, we should all drop down a cliff then?
This statement doesn't make any sense, bud.
" thread is about how Socionics is true and proven"
Are you being real, or sarcastic here?
"because induction is true and logic is evil and subjective."
This sounds like sarcasm. Induction, ground up works pretty good depending. Logic is evil and subjective sounds like the idea people have been having for some time and recently slinging around here that logic is ti subjective..and therefore Te logic is superior because it is objective in nature, meaning it is about objective things (not true, however you can't argue with the Te crowd cause only they know what's factual and what should be done always all the time without any bias what-so-ever)
Logic can be evil, it can be neutral and it can be good. Are you seeing it used, or spoken about on the forum to make you say this statement about logic being evil?
No, because it doesn't mean that we have to go to the other extreme and say that nothing is real, and head off to relativism or solipsism.
We can instead, say that there is an objective reality outside of us, but we perceive it imperfectly. So according to the BEST THEORY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, we will say that falling off a cliff would cause us to die, due to gravity and our fragile biological body.
@whodat Of course it was sarcasm.
I caution against going here. You can know what is real by looking around you, literally. Everything else, thoughts about the future, and memories, those are the hologram.
Going into its all an interpretation is a dangerous and ultimately empty path.
I have direct access to reality. It's known as possessing working sense organs such as eyes and ears. You don't need to prove things from evidence, because you already see what's in front of you. Ideas are just a filter for that, like the spinning dancer picture that changes directions. Science is just a way of changing out one filter for another, since you can't completely get rid of them because reality is infinite and you have to describe it with words which can't be. Science basically is the opposite of empiricism, and it's like stage magic honestly. Having the little secret compartments and stuff inside the cups so you can't see inside them etc., but just done through attention to theories instead of physical objects. And it's weird as hell that you keep talking like day-to-day experience requires having some advanced scientific knowledge. Are you just super afraid you're going to put on an African tribal mask and start putting crucified Jesus statues everywhere to get rid of demons if you open your eyes and shut your science book for a second?
Balzac is probably way cooler than you, and also, it does matter, like if you're doing Schrödinger's Cat, and one atom is about to explode, but the other isn't. Switching those atoms would save a kitty life. #schrödingerkittylivesmatterWell I guess Balzac didn't know that there were such thing as atoms, as they're what you would call, er, fungible, and it doesn't matter which atom it is, as atoms are interchangeable with another. So yeah, Balzac was wrong.
...I just said math isn't real, and you argued with me. Wat.
To somehow convert people to transhumanism and skepticism with his really attractive vitriol.
Well said pallas, about the compartments and the attention to theories instead of physical objects. This is the reason I really, really need diagrams and images to come to that intuitive grasp of theories, I need to see the reality basis for something, the actuality of the thing, to really get the theory totally.
Which is what you seem to be doing.
Debatable. Unless someone is stupid, insane, deluded, or wrong (in which case could be because of incorrect base data), most likely their perception of reality is within acceptable parameters. But no human can be all-knowing, that's for sure.We can instead, say that there is an objective reality outside of us, but we perceive it imperfectly.
"best theory that we have right now"? What other theory could there be? What else could happen if you do that? It's common sense man.So according to the BEST THEORY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, we will say that falling off a cliff would cause us to die, due to gravity and our fragile biological body.
Not if your Te polr is as bad as Singu's LMAO
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
I get the joke, I just don't think that is Te polr related, more like a lack of suggestive Se.
Right, and how do you see, how do you look around? Your eyes only perceive light, which sends nerve impulses to the brain, which the brain interprets and creates a 3D visual model of the world. Not even what you see is real.
And even that is just a theory.
Yeah, because I guess truth depends on how cool a person is.
Er, when? Math is true as in it can be proven to be true, since it's just an axiomatic system. Math is only axiomatically true. But it doesn't necessarily mean that math is true in reality, although it often is.
There are an infinite number of different theories, since anyone can come up with one. But they are rightly criticized if they're nonsensical, and we pick the best one that has survived all the criticisms.
No, we pick the one that is true, and we know this by testing it. You pride yourself in knowing a lot about science and the scientific method, but I see you are a bit of a poser.
So Siddhartha went down the path of denial of the physical body in favour of the metaphysical. He starved himself trying to deny reality, to make it all about conscious awareness only. He pretty much almost died, until he ate some rice and came to the revelation that reality was not found in escaping from it.
In this way, singu is saying that you can;t really know what is going to happen to you unless you went through with said thing. This is a kind of singular attention on the present moment with disregard for all else, all ideas about what will happen, including the commonly held beliefs, the common sense unfolding of events. Living like this is, imo, a kind of denial of reality in favour of spiritual practise of focused attention on only the imperfect perception of reality. What he is failing to see is that doing that, trying to focus on something like the conscious understanding that perception is imperfect, is itself another kind of hypnotism by thoughts.
He might not have had contact with pure Se, yet.
He can see reality fine, he just doesn't know how to rationally organize it in his poor little head.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
And how do you know that it's true? Sooner or later, it will just be proven wrong, as there will come a better theory that will offer better explanations. This IS the scientific method, science doesn't claim to know the "truth", it will always keep in mind that things could be wrong. And they often are.
Is Se about rationally organizing thoughts? Seems to me its just instant, more like the thoughts don't matter. I'm sort of seeing what he is getting at though, its very hodgepodge, aren't IEI vortical-synergists.
Ironic, since you are seeing this reality through an interpretation via a theory called Socionics.
No, logic is.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Because it works. But you are right, the proper statement is "because it works, for the time being".
@Singu want to cuddle?
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Yeah true.
Basically he's saying:
everything is just a biological computer in the brain. Information comes in through our senses and the mind maps it out, using the present awareness, and the stored information in the grey matter. We can't truly, truly know reality, because we are just using theories. Science works, it has limits and maths is only a conceptual understanding of the fundamentals found in nature. Socionics is another form of interpretation and should be taken as a story about reality. Every level of this regresses.
Infinite regression, its a symptom of both madness and genius.
No thanks.
you can truly know reality if you stop trying to view it through the lens of science
Yes, but the difference is the genius is actually right while everyone around them is wrong, and Singu thinks everyone here is super serious about socionics while they really aren’t.
Don't worry, be happy.
Singu has no other lens. That's exactly the point of Te polr and Ti HA. @whodat
(In the case of IEIs especially.)
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
It's not that socionics is not working but that's something to do with your brain, your personality. Socionics is just not for you. I guess you would have problems with most theories where a bit of imagination to aid the common sense is required. The true reason why socionics doesnt work for you is because you lack imagination big time and because of that you can't use the theory properly. And then when looking for reasons why socionics is not good you try to use another theory you dont understand either.
Nobody reasonable ever said induction is wrong and that is not science. Only crackpots. It's valid method as every other. Every method which can give you good results is valid. If you can't use it it doesn't mean it's wrong, if it's wrong for you it's not wrong for me.
Unfortunately it's not just science, how people learn and gain knowledge just isn't through induction. It doesn't work. We learn through deduction.
Really, can you really gain anything new from extrapolating generalizations from observations? You CAN'T create new knowledge from induction. You can, however, from deduction.
I'm trying to figure out why Socionics doesn't work, bud. Actually I am pretty satisfied now, since I have figured out that the problem of Socionics is the problem of induction. As long as Socionics doesn't change that view, then it will never work.
Right, and you should learn the "problem of induction" first before mouthing off meaningless things. You're an idiot, plain and simple.
Ironic that induction is a tool created by Francis Bacon to solve scientific problems mechanically. Deduction is the exact opposite of that, you need to creatively solve problems.
Is there science that "doesn't work for some people"? What an idiot! This is the kind of idiocy and misconceptions created by Socionics that it has something to do with their "personality". When things don't work, they run off into their subjective world of solipsism.
Yeah, except pretty much every scientists say that, dumbass. Actually they don't even care about things like induction or deduction, they just know that the only way to create knowledge is to come up with a theory or a hypothesis, THEN -> test the theory through experiments. That's called deduction.
Well I would be careful to make a distinction between what "works" and what's "true", since what works is dependent upon what you're trying to do with it. For example, Kepler scrapped his first hypothesis of how the Mars orbits around the sun in a circular motion, just because there was a deviation from the observation by just 8'. Now most of people would probably have shrugged at this and said "It's good enough, it works". But then this wouldn't have arrived at what's true, because after the third and fourth hypothesis, he tried other calculations and other geometric shapes, and it turns out that the Mars orbited around the sun in a elliptic motion.
So what "works" and what's "true" aren't necessarily the same.
Correct, but that's starting from an incomplete viewpoint. Once you have all the pieces, it all should fit together. That's when it can be said that it's "true". But if something seems to work for the time being, it can be assumed that there is at least a measure of truth in it. Nobody would ever do anything if everything required complete correctness. Nothing would get discovered. There is always an element of uncertainty.
exactly right, if what works is insufficient to establish truth, we are literally left with nothing, because we can never be sure of absolute correctness. Te includes all forms of logical objective evaluation. attention to Ti is just a way to derive what works as a byproduct of a rationalist framework without having to directly deal with Te. you could say Te is a way to derive Ti and that's true, but ultimately everyone does so because they want something--it has to function in light of some purpose or aim, even if that aim is subconscious (Fi). Jung talks about this in the undiscovered self about how people become increasingly abstracted where one treats Ti as reality but its actually the map one develops on top of the territory. they outsource their values to the collective (Fe) in the process. and this is precisely how ideological movements get a foothold
Right, and that's been my entire point all along, which you have been against until now.
And what if Kepler DID stop at the 8' deviation, because it "worked"? Then we would have never known what's "true", which we only know in hindsight since Kepler didn't stop at there.
The point is, what "works" is a vague word, and it's subjective since it depends on what the person is trying to achieve.
And yet you're still trying to work from the viewpoint of "establishing truth". A contradiction.
Which is why "Te" is a nonsensical concept, and it doesn't actually exist. And you can exactly understand WHY, since Socionics is a system of observations, and when you observe people and listen to what they're saying, they're going to be saying nonsensical things that are false, like "inductivism" or "empiricism".
Last edited by Singu; 04-19-2018 at 05:36 PM.
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. if you want to commit intellectual suicide no one can stop you. its a testament to free will and the possibilities man has before them, so good on you for being crazy
huahuahuahua
Sigh... how do you "establish truth"? Are you sure that you have really done philosophy?
How do you define usefulness? You do realize that is subjective, right?
You are talking about biological evolution, right? "incentive to view truth in terms of usefulness"? Source, please. Oh wait, you have none.
The only thing that you have "proven", is that you are a utilitarianist or a pragmatist, and somehow, you think this is an object truth, so you're not even a self-aware utilitarianist, but some kind of an unironic utilitarianist. And what's useful ISN'T to say that there is some sort of a "truth", because it's not that useful to search for a truth. So yet again, you have contradicted yourself. Congratulations.
Last edited by Singu; 04-19-2018 at 11:30 PM.
No it's not, if you define your objectives and attach a working definition.
Ok. So you don't believe even the idea of these things are valid. Game over lol.and when you observe people and listen to what they're saying, they're going to be saying nonsensical things that are false, like "inductivism" or "empiricism".
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Obviously, if you attach a meaning, then it can mean anything.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote