Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 80

Thread: Do you think socionics proves the existence of God and intelligent design?

  1. #1
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Do you think socionics proves the existence of God and intelligent design?

    Discuss.

  2. #2
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    913
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not even sure how it would count as evidence, much less how it could prove anything about the existence of any sort of divinity
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  3. #3
    The Crucified Space Sheriff godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A theory to prove another theory ? One must believe or be convinced that at least one of them is absolutely true. Do the organization of an ant's nests or a beehive prove the existence of God ? After all those insects "societies" are similar to our own society, there is a predisposition to an ant existence, a predetermined assigned task, a reason to a certain kind of bee to be ! Is there a similar thing when it comes to human societies ? Does each Human being has a predisposed "task" to accomplish or a predetermined purpose to contribute to the survival and development of the socion ? Socionics answers "yes" to those questions.
    In the same order of things, Is the configuration of our solar system and the position of earth in that system unique in the universe or is it a predetermined natural order inherent to certain favorable conditions ? Did God needed all the universe Mass to justify the creation of our little tiny planet ? It's like saying "I need all the sand on earth to produce a single wine glass". In the end of the day, it all depends on our angle of observation. How do we make sense of the partial aspect of reality we can observe ? Somewhere in time we are the observed ones, an alien species might observe our solar system from a distant time and ask " Was there life in that long extinguished solar system ?". I don't know if there is a "will" or a conscious behind to the order of things, I know that we as a species have a power of projection and we can create a reason to everything. To me, there is too much of us in God's image for it to be different from us. We created God in our Image and that's maybe the only solid argument in favor of its non existence. God is too Human (it has human emotions and logic) to transcend the human condition, for it is part of it. God is a survival imperative, we need it as a whole, there is not a single society on earth who has not its version of it, be it a single God or an entire Pantheon, the darkness ( the unknown ) must be enlightened in order for us to move on.

  4. #4
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,528
    Mentioned
    319 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It shows a human capacity to divide where divisions are not that tangible or exact. It also cures cancers.
    Last edited by Sanguine Miasma; 07-29-2022 at 11:35 AM.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    TIM
    IEI-Ni H946
    Posts
    1,402
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The opposite..although in some ways it has been a miracle to stumble on it

  6. #6
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    I'm not even sure how it would count as evidence, much less how it could prove anything about the existence of any sort of divinity
    Hint: if somehow socionics could show that these types that humans have are sort of archetypes that predate evolution.

  7. #7
    Kardashev Scale Blade Runner 2017 2049 Bunny BunnyFairyWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Macroverse MtBattle ScholarsGarden RealMadridLive SuperNexus InfinitiesUltimate AllSpectraEverywhere
    TIM
    WiredforBattleShingo
    Posts
    3,199
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The existence of God is clear through sage-ship and synchronicity, an evidence that should be obvious, but since it’s not official in human colleges, many people close their minds to some possible types of evidence, like that one.

    A better curiosity is like who is God, how old is he, where did he come from, what can he do, what is possible by God, is God evil, all of that.

    The thread of divinity within us is revealed during our psychic and transformative moments, where Love unmasks the trance charm of that which reveals patterns after unique casinos.

    Just put all of your heart and faith in something, and see it come true.

    Or better yet, honestly and compassionately seek God, connect, bind, and flow with emerald oceans.
    https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/9systemswishes
    https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/evolvedraichu
    Pokemon is somewhere fun over the Rainbow emblazoned by the Power of 4ever. The clouds soar and the island escalates a Lugia petal dance tempest blizzarding shiny Ash. Evanescence sparkles glistening auroras of mirth and high frequency channels embarking with the winds of new beginnings. This magical adventure turns on at the dawn of time in 2000. Ceremony and enchantment dazzle the world with colors galore. Mania and extravagance shape shift and transform into the greatest show on earth, the evolution of Pokemon
    Something has arrived. That threatens to throw everything terribly out of balance. When it comes, will you accept your destiny? And when it’s your chance to be a hero, will you rise to the challenge? This year, discover how 1 person can make all the difference! Pokemon the Movie 2000 The Power of 1

  8. #8
    Dreymagine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    EII-Fi 614
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No. I believe in God and intelligent design, but socionics is not something that I put any stock in. For all my talk of trying to identify my "correct" type or find a dual, I don't care about this personality system in the slightest. It's just for fun.

  9. #9
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,768
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics/ Jung shows clearly that there is an amazing differentiation of cognition, totally symmetrical. This comes from homo sapiens' evolutionary past. As humans developed different cognitive skills the psyche spontaneously arranged itself this way permanently.

    It depends what you mean by "God". You could say that God is the force that made the psyche organize itself. Something caused it. Reality/ nature maybe.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  10. #10
    chriscorey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    TIM
    ILE-Ni
    Posts
    4,337
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Socionics/ Jung shows clearly that there is an amazing differentiation of cognition, totally symmetrical. This comes from homo sapiens' evolutionary past. As humans developed different cognitive skills the psyche spontaneously arranged itself this way permanently.

    It depends what you mean by "God". You could say that God is the force that made the psyche organize itself. Something caused it. Reality/ nature maybe.
    \





    Interesting...
    "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around."

  11. #11
    Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni CN 964 sx/so
    Posts
    605
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chriscorey View Post
    \





    Interesting...
    Gnosticism.

    With regard to the question in the OP, it depends on what you mean by "proof." Mainline Christianity, as advocated by Iranaeus, posits that God can be known through faith alone. Gnosticism, on the other hand, posits that God can be known through direct experience. Jung, in particular, explored the unconscious realm, and with reference to thinkers like Meister Eckhart, considered God to be analogous with an unconscious force. Like mainline Christians who consider God to be infinite, Jung considered the unconscious to be infinite. "As above, so below", as it were.

    That said, I think that while theological premises don't necessarily follow from Socionics because Socionics concerns Jung's functions and information metabolism, Socionics may act as a gateway toward exploring questions of universal consciousness, psychic realities, etc. And I have read at least one website that leaves "information metabolism" up to a very objective interpretation, meaning that it seemed to consider certain forms of information as "objective", external to the self, like a metanarrative claiming a sort of universal consciousness.
    Last edited by Rune; 07-30-2022 at 01:02 PM.
    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

  12. #12
    chriscorey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    TIM
    ILE-Ni
    Posts
    4,337
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Gnosticism.

    With regard to the question in the OP, it depends on what you mean by "proof." Mainline Christianity, as advocated by Iranaeus, posits that God can be known through faith alone. Gnosticism, on the other hand, posits that God can be known through direct experience. Jung, in particular, explored the unconscious realm, and with reference to thinkers like Meister Eckhart, considered God to be analogous with an unconscious force. Like mainline Christians who consider God to be infinite, Jung considered the unconscious to be infinite. "As above, so below", as it were.

    That said, I think that while theological premises don't necessarily follow from Socionics because Socionics concerns Jung's functions and information metabolism, Socionics may act as a gateway toward exploring questions of universal consciousness, psychic realities, etc. And I have read at least one website that leaves "information metabolism" up to a very objective interpretation, meaning that it seemed to consider certain forms of information as "objective", external to the self, like a metanarrative claiming a sort of universal consciousness.
    Fucking awesome reply
    "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around."

  13. #13
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,768
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chriscorey View Post
    \





    Interesting...
    This is something lots of people have watched and remember. Just couple of weeks ago I met an IEE at a party who mentioned Jung's words in the video: "I know".

    In this letter from 1960 Jung explains a bit more what he meant. I think it's important. Something to meditate about and let sink in.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  14. #14
    chriscorey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    TIM
    ILE-Ni
    Posts
    4,337
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    This is something lots of people have watched and remember. Just couple of weeks ago I met an IEE at a party who mentioned Jung's words in the video: "I know".

    In this letter from 1960 Jung explains a bit more what he meant. I think it's important. Something to meditate about and let sink in.
    he knows there's a "god"
    Last edited by chriscorey; 07-30-2022 at 04:40 PM.
    "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around."

  15. #15
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,354
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not possible to prove that something was created from nothing.

  16. #16
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    No.
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

  17. #17
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,782
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics, alongside all esoteric stuff, is a magnet for people who believe in other esoteric stuff. At least one professional socionist (I forgot her name, but she's been on Russian TV, and she self-types as ILE) uses it to justify creationism.

  18. #18
    twiggewed dewusional entitwed snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    bNF641 sx/sp6w5 VELF
    Posts
    2,302
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    It's not possible to prove that something was created from nothing.
    nothing means there are no limits and no limits means no limits to realities and possibilities so nothing implies everything
    Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
    I want to care
    if I was better I’d help you
    if I was better you’d be better
    HELLO??? COME BACK!!!!
    i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.



  19. #19
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,354
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VewyScawwyNawcissist View Post
    nothing means there are no limits and no limits means no limits to realities and possibilities so nothing implies everything
    I know what "nothing" means when I used it in that sentence.

    I've never heard that a lack of a substance makes it easier for it to exist.

    Under my understanding of language, it is "everything" that is not limited.

    edit: the first step to "proving" that everything was created from nothing would be to prove that everything is not eternal - which is not possible.
    Last edited by Subteigh; 07-30-2022 at 06:50 PM.

  20. #20
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,768
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chriscorey View Post
    he knows there's a "god"
    God or "God", that is the question. After reading Jung's explanation in that letter I linked it is not entirely clear to me which it should be. quotation marks or not. I can in a way understand why one should write God, without quotation marks. I think Jung explained the reason why, even though he said that his idea of God is unconventional.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  21. #21
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    913
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    predate evolution.
    Evolution can't be "predated" as it's a natural process, not a discrete event that occurred in the past. Everything organic or otherwise that accumulates any amount of change over time is considered to be evolving. The significance of each accumulated change determines the length of time necessary to observe significant deviation from a given ancestor. For humans the accumulated changes are very small and difficult to observe until you view things on the scale of thousands of years. Make no mistake though, we are still evolving
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  22. #22
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    Evolution can't be "predated" as it's a natural process, not a discrete event that occurred in the past. Everything organic or otherwise that accumulates any amount of change over time is considered to be evolving. The significance of each accumulated change determines the length of time necessary to observe significant deviation from a given ancestor. For humans the accumulated changes are very small and difficult to observe until you view things on the scale of thousands of years. Make no mistake though, we are still evolving
    Okay, then that evolution is a directed process with already pre-established goals or results. Did the "idea" of, for example, a cow, exist before cows actually appeared on the Earth? What if it even existed before the universe came into existence?

  23. #23
    Post-Post-Truth Coeruleum Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Höheres und Höchstes
    Posts
    4,348
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, because God used evolution and not intelligent design, people just have misconceptions about how evolution actually works. Species don't gradually emerge, they emerge suddenly, and when they suddenly emerge, it is due to environmental changes (relocation, cataclysms, etc.) When you look at Genesis, what does the Bible actually say? God split the lands and the waters in different ways, and then different kinds of plants and animals came in to fill them. That is exactly what modern science describes. Of course that sounds like hokum to people who are used to hearing certain types of religious people attempting to make scientific and pseudoscientific arguments, and there's still the Genesis 2 issue. I think the Genesis 2 issue is simple though, humans evolved from animals and "the beginning of the world" refers to the beginning of history (wer-ald, age of man) and not the beginning of humans existing at all. Humans clearly existed a long time in prehistory, but our oldest documented civilizations are definitely not older than Adam purportedly is.
    HAMLET I will speak to this fellow.—
    Whose grave’s this, sirrah?

    GRAVEDIGGER Mine, sir.
    O, a pit of clay for to be made
    For such a guest is meet.

    HAMLET I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in ’t.

    GRAVEDIGGER You lie out on ’t, sir, and therefore ’tis
    not yours. For my part, I do not lie in ’t, yet it is
    mine.

    HAMLET Thou dost lie in ’t, to be in ’t and say it is thine.
    ’Tis for the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou
    liest.

    GRAVEDIGGER ’Tis a quick lie, sir; ’twill away again
    from me to you.

    HAMLET What man dost thou dig it for?

    GRAVEDIGGER For no man, sir.

    HAMLET What woman then?

    GRAVEDIGGER For none, neither.

    HAMLET Who is to be buried in ’t?

    GRAVEDIGGER One that was a woman, sir, but, rest
    her soul, she’s dead.



  24. #24
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Northern Japan
    TIM
    IEI-(C?) 4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    913
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    Okay, then that evolution is a directed process with already pre-established goals or results. Did the "idea" of, for example, a cow, exist before cows actually appeared on the Earth? What if it even existed before the universe came into existence?
    Though I suppose these things are possible, Socionics really isn't a reason to assume any of this. Socionics imo is simply the best attempt at dividing people into discrete categories we've come up with so far. It's certainly not a divinely perfect system, so I don't see why us coming up with it is enough of a reason to posit anything divine
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  25. #25
    Post-Post-Truth Coeruleum Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Höheres und Höchstes
    Posts
    4,348
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    God or "God", that is the question. After reading Jung's explanation in that letter I linked it is not entirely clear to me which it should be. quotation marks or not. I can in a way understand why one should write God, without quotation marks. I think Jung explained the reason why, even though he said that his idea of God is unconventional.
    Jung had possibly the most pernicious philosophy of anyone. He simply had no concern at all for truth, but unlike Nietzsche, had not even a nominal concern for power or beauty, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Screwtape, The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
    When humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, only believe in us, we cannot make the materialists and ethics. At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalize and mythologize their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to believe in the Enemy. The “Life Force,” the worship of sex, and other aspects of psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce are perfect work — the materialist magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshiping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits” — the end of the war will be in sight. But in the meantime we must obey orders.
    HAMLET I will speak to this fellow.—
    Whose grave’s this, sirrah?

    GRAVEDIGGER Mine, sir.
    O, a pit of clay for to be made
    For such a guest is meet.

    HAMLET I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in ’t.

    GRAVEDIGGER You lie out on ’t, sir, and therefore ’tis
    not yours. For my part, I do not lie in ’t, yet it is
    mine.

    HAMLET Thou dost lie in ’t, to be in ’t and say it is thine.
    ’Tis for the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou
    liest.

    GRAVEDIGGER ’Tis a quick lie, sir; ’twill away again
    from me to you.

    HAMLET What man dost thou dig it for?

    GRAVEDIGGER For no man, sir.

    HAMLET What woman then?

    GRAVEDIGGER For none, neither.

    HAMLET Who is to be buried in ’t?

    GRAVEDIGGER One that was a woman, sir, but, rest
    her soul, she’s dead.



  26. #26
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,668
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum Blue View Post
    Jung had possibly the most pernicious philosophy of anyone. He simply had no concern at all for truth, but unlike Nietzsche, had not even a nominal concern for power or beauty, either.
    I haven't read all of his works but I have read a few and I do know of his overall history. He actually did have a grave concern for the truth. Grave enough for him to tell his mentor and up until that point best friend Freud that he was wrong. Wrong enough to break with Psychoanalytic theory/practice and forge his own path. Might have something to do with them belonging to ultimately conflicting quadras. Freud was/is typically typed as an SLI and Jung IEI.

    I may quote the likes of Rand an Nietzche a lot but do remember I do so in regards to my assertion that broken clocks are right twice a day. Nietzche rightly respected the power of beauty and the beauty of power if ya catch my drift. Rand as well. Where they tragically failed was in their atheism and all their ultimate fuck ups can be traced back to that fundamental mistake. True beauty directs the rational mind towards the heavens and heavenly things. A transcendent yet ultimately transiently and breathtakingly beautiful sunset. The works of your favorite artist (provided they didn't sell out to the ruler of this world but even then they may have fucked up somehow and pushed a divine message in spite of themselves). Do you not feel pulled into a higher plain of existence upon viewing such stimuli?

    Turns out there really and truly is a "God" as Christians understand it. This is, likewise, a thing Jung got in a sideways fashion. The "Collective Unconscious" is a theory that fits right at home in the worldview of any true Christian for many reasons I can think of...

  27. #27
    Ding dong your opinion is wrong Teslobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bring this idea to a debate about the existence of God and both sides of the aisle will laugh you off the stage, as will the socionics community.

    For it to be valid evidence, you must prove socionics beyond a shadow of a doubt. Until that point all it can be considered is pattern-seeking ape brains formulating divisions to make sense of a set of items.

  28. #28
    The Crucified Space Sheriff godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    Okay, then that evolution is a directed process with already pre-established goals or results. Did the "idea" of, for example, a cow, exist before cows actually appeared on the Earth? What if it even existed before the universe came into existence?
    That's a very interesting question. It is established that one of the most important factor of evolution is the environment and to be more precise the adaptation of a given species to the changes in the environment. Nature tends towards equilibrium and that equilibrium is ephemeral in a cosmic scale. There are and there will always be movements and changes, sometimes cataclysmic (a very interesting word) and changes from which a new cycle of life begins like mass extinctions which are, again, cyclical in nature. Now, I don't think that there is a pre-established or predestinate final form. Nature is an adept of the "try and error" method so to speak. The species "form" that will survive is the most adapted version to a given biotope, that's natural selection. A selection based on the ability, adaptability of a species to survive and ultimately to reach equilibrium that is to say the top of the bell curve in a given cycle of evolution. Equilibrium is the foundation of the formation of an ecosystem. That's the circle of life and to quote a line from Jurassic Park "Life finds a way".

    Now, to the second part of your question : "What if it even existed before the universe came into existence?" Well, I guess that the answer is similar to the time travel questions : Can we time travel to the past ? and the answer is "no". Can we time travel to the future ? and the answer is "yes", in theory. What I mean by that is we can go backwards in time up to circa 13.7 billion years ago and postdict that the configuration of the universe in that point of time will eventually lead to the "creation" of earth and life on it included the cows etc.. But there is no way to predict those events from the same point of time (13.7 billion years ago) because of the unpredictable factor. We can predict the upcoming events only for a brief period of time before we lose the track of the probability of any events to unfold, it's not different from weather predictions in that sense. One event leads to another or several other events, we have to see (it coming) the event(s) before we can predict any development. However, since we know that some (local) events are cyclical in nature, (like mass extinctions) because those events kept repeating in the past at a given rate, we can predict without any doubt that another similar event (like mass extinction) is coming soon or later. I think that destruction and chaos are the norm in the universe and creation and order are the exception, equilibrium like I said is a cyclical and ephemeral state.

  29. #29
    Post-Post-Truth Coeruleum Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Höheres und Höchstes
    Posts
    4,348
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Turns out there really and truly is a "God" as Christians understand it. This is, likewise, a thing Jung got in a sideways fashion. The "Collective Unconscious" is a theory that fits right at home in the worldview of any true Christian for many reasons I can think of...
    You put God in quotes and you think the collective unconscious is something you would consider a Christian idea. I don't think you believe in God, I think you believe in racial consciousness and historically-inaccurate notions of European and white supremacy. How about you take your own witch test? Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead. Take it.
    HAMLET I will speak to this fellow.—
    Whose grave’s this, sirrah?

    GRAVEDIGGER Mine, sir.
    O, a pit of clay for to be made
    For such a guest is meet.

    HAMLET I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in ’t.

    GRAVEDIGGER You lie out on ’t, sir, and therefore ’tis
    not yours. For my part, I do not lie in ’t, yet it is
    mine.

    HAMLET Thou dost lie in ’t, to be in ’t and say it is thine.
    ’Tis for the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou
    liest.

    GRAVEDIGGER ’Tis a quick lie, sir; ’twill away again
    from me to you.

    HAMLET What man dost thou dig it for?

    GRAVEDIGGER For no man, sir.

    HAMLET What woman then?

    GRAVEDIGGER For none, neither.

    HAMLET Who is to be buried in ’t?

    GRAVEDIGGER One that was a woman, sir, but, rest
    her soul, she’s dead.



  30. #30
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,379
    Mentioned
    323 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics suggests at the very least that the human mind is purposive, and that its aims go beyond the purely material. It puts internal and spiritual qualities on the same footing as external and physical ones in a way that no mainstream theory does at present. That alone is enough to cast serious doubt on the physicalist hypothesis.

  31. #31
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,354
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exodus View Post
    Socionics suggests at the very least that the human mind is purposive, and that its aims go beyond the purely material. It puts internal and spiritual qualities on the same footing as external and physical ones in a way that no mainstream theory does at present. That alone is enough to cast serious doubt on the physicalist hypothesis.
    Does that mean that something bigger created the thing that gave the human mind purpose?

  32. #32
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teslobo View Post
    Bring this idea to a debate about the existence of God and both sides of the aisle will laugh you off the stage, as will the socionics community.

    For it to be valid evidence, you must prove socionics beyond a shadow of a doubt. Until that point all it can be considered is pattern-seeking ape brains formulating divisions to make sense of a set of items.
    I don't care. I do have the evidence. If someone has an inability to detect the existing patterns, that's the subject's problem, not the problem of the ones that can spot the patterns. The fact that someone chooses to ignore an aspect of reality doesn't negate its existence.

    Also, I'm sure socionics, or rather the phenomena that people have types, can be proven with a machine. It probably has been done already, just that maybe, it has not been released to the public. Each socionics function is an aspect of reality that is manipulated/monitored by a specific area of the brain. Again, I know this and I have no need of "proving" it to you (or anyone).

  33. #33
    Ari Lady Lioness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    USA
    TIM
    ESI-SE
    Posts
    3,219
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    Hint: if somehow socionics could show that these types that humans have are sort of archetypes that predate evolution.
    Which means nothing.
    Hint: Socionics is a theory that isn't proven itself.


    sᴏᴄɪᴏɴɪᴄs
    ESI-SE (CREATIVE)


    ᴀᴛᴛɪᴛᴜᴅɪɴᴀʟ ᴘsʏᴄʜᴇ
    EVFL


    ᴇɴɴᴇᴀsᴄᴀᴍ
    8w9 ᔆˣ/ᔆᵒ

    ᴅᴜᴍʙ ᴀsғ ᴢᴏᴅɪᴀᴄ
    ARIES

    What's your confirmation bias?

  34. #34
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    Though I suppose these things are possible, Socionics really isn't a reason to assume any of this. Socionics imo is simply the best attempt at dividing people into discrete categories we've come up with so far. It's certainly not a divinely perfect system, so I don't see why us coming up with it is enough of a reason to posit anything divine
    Why do you think it is not a divinely perfect system? Where is the flaw? Also, how can you assume what I'm saying isn't true, when you don't actually know? Why are you so categorical with something you haven't checked?

  35. #35
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Lotus View Post
    Which means nothing.
    Hint: Socionics is a theory that isn't proven itself.
    If you don't think Socionics is true, I can't help but wonder the following: 1) What are you doing here. 2) Why do you sport a self-typing.

  36. #36
    Ari Lady Lioness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    USA
    TIM
    ESI-SE
    Posts
    3,219
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    If you don't think Socionics is true, I can't help but wonder the following: 1) What are you doing here. 2) Why do you sport a self-typing.
    Your thinking is very black and white here. Open your mind and you'll answer those questions on your own.

    Socionics isn't true/false based on belief. It requires proof. Something that many who are faith based can't comprehend.


    sᴏᴄɪᴏɴɪᴄs
    ESI-SE (CREATIVE)


    ᴀᴛᴛɪᴛᴜᴅɪɴᴀʟ ᴘsʏᴄʜᴇ
    EVFL


    ᴇɴɴᴇᴀsᴄᴀᴍ
    8w9 ᔆˣ/ᔆᵒ

    ᴅᴜᴍʙ ᴀsғ ᴢᴏᴅɪᴀᴄ
    ARIES

    What's your confirmation bias?

  37. #37
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mixing socionics and religion, I love it. There are some on here who have gotten a headstart on all of us, unfortunately.
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  38. #38
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Lotus View Post
    Your thinking is very black and white here. Open your mind and you'll answer those questions on your own.

    Socionics isn't true/false based on belief. It requires proof. Something that many who are faith based can't comprehend.
    You seem to have some errors in your thinking, for example, seemingly not understanding the difference between believing something, and knowing something. Somewhat ironic too to claim that I am close-minded, when it is you who is asserting that socionics has not been proven.

  39. #39
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EUDAEMONIUM View Post
    Mixing socionics and religion, I love it. There are some on here who have gotten a headstart on all of us, unfortunately.
    God =/= Religion . I'm not claiming that Brahma, Xenu, or YHWH created Socionics, only that it seems designed intelligently, presumely by some entity. And I have proof.

  40. #40
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,354
    Mentioned
    441 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    If you don't think Socionics is true, I can't help but wonder the following: 1) What are you doing here. 2) Why do you sport a self-typing.
    Whether or not a person thinks Socionics is true should have no bearing on the ability to find evidence it is true.

    If you don't know how you'd disprove Socionics, your confidence in Socionics may well be faith-based.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •