Type Coeruleum

[QueenTiger666]

I didn’t have the time and energy to do this earlier, but I’m just going to bold and quote some of these things you’ve said to me and others that are incredibly hypocritical/delusional/unreflective. If you are serious at all, you’re completely nuts. This needs to stop. Especially, they’re bold words for someone who’s asked me for money... in an incredibly rude and entitled way I might add that shows zero basic respect for other humans. I won’t be harassed like this again in public after how I’ve been treated in private, even if it’s by an immature kid. You absolutely need to fix your attitude, whether you’re serious or not. You can’t simply attack people this viciously and have people not notice.

I do not care I get banned. It’s idiotic and unhealthy to fixate on politeness or forum rules at this point. You need to address this.





Indeed if there’s a most pitiful person on here, it’s definitely you. Think twice before spewing hateful bullshit out of your temper tantrum hurt feefee diaper again, and get your life in order. I am neither your mother nor your older sister. Do not think that I will unconstructively put up with this.

Isn't it also strange that the mod warning only happened after I came to defend myself from slanderous remarks? Very interesting....

[sbbds]

Isn't it also strange that the mod warning only happened after I came to defend myself from slanderous remarks? Very interesting....

I find it slightly interesting how it came from @BandD who always bitches and moans about gay rights as that seems incredibly hypocritical and unmodly, actually.

[QueenTiger666]

I find it slightly interesting how it came from @BandD who always bitches and moans about gay rights as that seems incredibly hypocritical and unmodly, actually.

I mean, I don't want to go full SJW and use the term "victim blaming" to describe what happened to me here, but if the cap fits....

[sbbds]

I mean, I don't want to go full SJW and use the term "victim blaming" to describe what happened to me here, but if the cap fits....

I am pretty sure it’s because BnD is from a time when those SJW terms didn’t exist, and he had to suck it up and deal with it. So let’s give him a break. Not everyone with different backgrounds can accept it’s considered classless and below standard now so immediately.

[QueenTiger666]

I am pretty sure it’s because BnD is from a time when those SJW terms didn’t exist, and he had to suck it up and deal with it. So let’s give him a break. Not everyone with different backgrounds can accept it’s considered classless and below standard now so immediately.

I'd love to give him a break if it wasn't such a common occurrence with different people in my life. It would seem that, especially with trans people, anytime we speak up about transphobia we either get shut down or hit with the coeruleum special "SHE ALWAYS BRINGS IT UP HURRRR" and I'm fucking sick of it in all honesty.

[sbbds]

I'd love to give him a break if it wasn't such a common occurrence with different people in my life. It would seem that, especially with trans people, anytime we speak up about transphobia we either get shut down or hit with the coeruleum special "SHE ALWAYS BRINGS IT UP HURRRR" and I'm fucking sick of it in all honesty.

That’s true. I also wonder how he would react if it was someone who was talking about being gay (and I can think of someone, HMMM who does it constantly in basically every post and shout) who got shut down for it.

[QueenTiger666]

That’s true. I also wonder how he would react if it was someone who was talking about being gay (and I can think of someone, HMMM who does it constantly in basically every post and shout) who got shut down for it.

Indeed, a lot of the time people are perfectly contempt with brushing the blame onto everyone else until it happens to them. Although still my main frustration is at coe here, I think it's very annoying when people are ignorant so use "Oh she's shoving it in our faces" or something equivalent whenever someone tries to talk about trans/lgbt etc. issues. Of course I talk about it a lot, there's still unfortunately a lot of people who get weirdly offended by the gender identities of other people. I'm not going to apologise for not taking transphobia like a doormat lol.

[qaz00]

Blah blah blah. To stay on topic, coer is a great example of person who's interested in Ti related topics while having very weak Ti. Sometimes this approach can lead to some valuable, innovative ideas but mostly it's just an incoherent mess.

[Metamorph]

Now who would like to touch the troll petting zoo? Please sign my limited-liability waver.

[sbbds]

Blah blah blah. To stay on topic, coer is a great example of person who's interested in Ti related topics while having very weak Ti. Sometimes this approach can lead to some valuable, innovative ideas but mostly it's just an incoherent mess.

I don’t think it’s that bad actually. It’s like 90% ok, even though they’re a bit crazy.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Your friendly neighbourhood math and computer science major here. I remember the first time I saw you try to demonstrate mathematical ability, you mixed up first-order and second-order logic. To say you are proficient in formal logic would be a reach. This isn't to say feeling types aren't capable enough to do math. It just comes down to the fact that if you prefer logic-based functions, logic based fields are going to interest you more and with more interest comes more exposure and with more exposure comes more practice and developed intuition for the topic. Yes, I have had TAs and profs that were feeling types, but most of my Math Department are logic types. There is a correlation here that should not be undermined.

You were the one who said that:

Yet you believe that your observations of the present are much more indicative of an indeterminable past. I don't think you understand epistemology well my friend, sorry to say.

A common theme of this thread has been vague criticism mixed in with lack of conclusions sprinkled in with the seeds of misdirection. This is what tends to happen when people without much experience in formal reasoning try to assert their own thoughts and opinions.

In mathematics, if you are supposed to disprove a conjecture P, there are a couple things that you can do. You can produce a counter-example that is self contained. You can assume the antecedent and show that you can deduce your way to the negation of the consequent. There are more disproving techniques, but these are the basics.

Saying that you have not observed an instance of a conjecture does NOT imply that its results do not exist.

Say I conjectured that there exist at least one irrational number. Say we didn't know of irrational numbers and you wanted to disprove this. A way of disproving would not be to say we have not observed an instance of irrational numbers. A good way would be to take an arbitrary situation (in this context, an arbitrary number a) and show that a = p/q where p,q are natural numbers.

So I challenge you to actual disprove the conjecture that the universe is fundamentally causal. If this can't be done, there would be no reason to disbelieve this property.

You did not consider the possibility that a premise may not be falsifiable. You also did not consider the possible conclusion "If this can't be done, there would be no reason to believe this property." Neither conclusion can be shown to be true, because the question of whether or not the whole of reality has a creator can only be unfalisifiable.

You also said:

Ahhh, but saying there is no reason would be a gross exaggeration. Science itself presupposes the principle of sufficient reason(PSP).

But there is no such rule. Some people have held that view, which is different. The "principle of sufficient reason" has no bearing on observing whether or not something has a cause, and whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude what any cause might be.

Considering your education in formal logic, it is odd for you to say this:

It is very interesting how much we have fallen in love rationalizing everything without knowing if our activities will produce results in all areas of reality. Maybe there is God complex in ourselves that we have to actively suppress. Always found it wierd when people start discussing God’s existence as if it is “concretely” provable. I find it wierder when people say God’s non existence is “concretely” provable due to how flawed of a bet that is.

I gave you a test and you failed miserably. If you truly read Godel, you would have known of his incompleteness theorem, which states that there unprovable truths in mathematical logic. Sticking with a concrete conclusion on the topic of God’s existence, it should be known that you have completed a leap of faith, not of reason.

What will the they do when curtain falls on their irrational conclusions? “God, you did not give me enough hints”, “How can sentence me for being bad when I can’t trust concept of morality”, “God, made me too flawed to deduce your existence.” God says “I have given you all that is required and more.” Then they are sentenced.

Some might say even if this were to happen, they would be happy that they lead life of good philisophical thought and investigation. This mimics the words of failed gamblers who believe they know the trick to the system until they realize the system will not yield to their inferior abilities.

For your sakes, consider if range of possibilities if you’re wrong. You can’t argue with the “I am.” See where your best bets lie and try to take the correct leap of faith.

This is my final statement on this thread. Thanks for listening even if it appears as foolishness.

If something is unprovable, why assume an answer with no evidence? Why assume "God" has no creator, but the universe does? Gödel's incompleteness theorem is not at all relevant to the conclusion that a creator has and must exist.

[Investigator]

You were the one who said that:


You did not consider the possibility that a premise may not be falsifiable. You also did not consider the possible conclusion "If this can't be done, there would be no reason to believe this property." Neither conclusion can be shown to be true, because the question of whether or not the whole of reality has a creator can only be unfalisifiable.

You also said:


But there is no such rule. Some people have held that view, which is different. The "principle of sufficient reason" has no bearing on observing whether or not something has a cause, and whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude what any cause might be.

Considering your education in formal logic, it is odd for you to say this:


If something is unprovable, why assume an answer with no evidence? Why assume "God" has no creator, but the universe does? Gödel's incompleteness theorem is not at all relevant to the conclusion that a creator has and must exist.

Wow, you sure are persistent. I am not going to speak on any of what you stated here because it has nothing to do with the thread. I have no clue why you felt the need to make this post (as I said I am not going to address its correctness). My post was to counter-argue the point that he was well versed in "formal logic." If you think the connection I made between mathematics and existentialism (even if your claim is correct that it is bad philosophy) somehow is going to discredit my education in mathematics, you're clueless. You didn't even dispute the logic of my initial claim (which is my main gripe) showing this had nothing to do with coeruleum, ad-hominem attack on me. I think you have personal problems that you need to sort out as there is a time and a place for everything.

[Number 9 large]

I'd love to give him a break if it wasn't such a common occurrence with different people in my life. It would seem that, especially with trans people, anytime we speak up about transphobia we either get shut down or hit with the coeruleum special "SHE ALWAYS BRINGS IT UP HURRRR" and I'm fucking sick of it in all honesty.

Maybe u shud accept that not everyone will like you? Grow the hell up.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Wow, you sure are persistent. I am not going to speak on any of what you stated here because it has nothing to do with the thread. I have no clue why you felt the need to make this post (as I said I am not going to address its correctness). My post was to counter-argue the point that he was well versed in "formal logic." If you think the connection I made between mathematics and existentialism (even if your claim is correct that it is bad philosophy) somehow is going to discredit my education in mathematics, you're clueless. You didn't even dispute the logic of my initial claim (which is my main gripe) showing this had nothing to do with coeruleum, ad-hominem attack on me. I think you have personal problems that you need to sort out as there is a time and a place for everything.

I do not doubt your ability at formal logic and mathematics. I bought up those posts because I believe they were from the same time as your past encounter with @coeruleum. It would be odd to actually say counter @coeruleum's apparent claim to be well-versed in formal logic while saying you are a math and computer science major and then take issue when I point out what I believe are basic errors in what you said...and then act as though I'm the one who is carrying out at ad-hominem attack for doing as you have done in this thread. I did answer your claim - you acted as though disbelieving that the Universe is fundamentally causal is necessarily a belief, and that being unable to disprove that the universe is causal would mean there is no reason not to believe that it is...while believing in a being that is not causal. Specifically on your claim, as I saw it, it wasn't a matter of belief, but of definition - you cannot disprove causality because it would require disproving the existence of an infinitely long amount of time, and the observation of the appearance of something without cause.

Many brilliant mathematicians such as Euler (although he may have been joking) and Gödel have believed they could "prove" god through maths and logic - I don't know if you have that position, but my only point is if you don't, then brilliant minds have been prone to fundamental errors.

[Investigator]

I do not doubt your ability at formal logic and mathematics. I bought up those posts because I believe they were from the same time as your past encounter with @coeruleum. It would be odd to actually say counter @coeruleum's apparent claim to be well-versed in formal logic while saying you are a math and computer science major and then take issue when I point out what I believe are basic errors in what you said...and then act as though I'm the one who is carrying out at ad-hominem attack for doing as you have done in this thread. I did answer your claim - you acted as though disbelieving that the Universe is fundamentally causal is necessarily a belief, and that being unable to disprove that the universe is causal would mean there is no reason not to believe that it is...while believing in a being that is not causal. Specifically on your claim, as I saw it, it wasn't a matter of belief, but of definition - you cannot disprove causality because it would require disproving the existence of an infinitely long amount of time, and the observation of the appearance of something without cause.

Many brilliant mathematicians such as Euler (although he may have been joking) and Gödel have believed they could "prove" god through maths and logic - I don't know if you have that position, but my only point is if you don't, then brilliant minds have been prone to fundamental errors.

What is odd is to bring an "issue" you found with my philosophical stance when I was correcting a mistake in formal logic. It is not that the possible flaws you found with my views weren't valid, it was that they were not related to what I was talking about in this thread. The initial issues I raised can't be called ad hominem (unless you are reading the Latin literally) as "the person" is the focal point of the thread/topic. Meanwhile, you are bringing up something I said on a different thread, not pertaining to formal logic. Your post was not related to the thread whatsoever, which is why I am not going to address the "errors" that you think you found (again maybe the errors are valid, but that's not the point). My initial post was contributing to the thread in that I was addressing a "possible" exaggeration of ability (which may or may not have been hindering coeruleum's ability to figure out his type). While I am having trouble figuring out how your initial reply had any relation to not only the thread, but the issue I was bringing up (which again, was related to the thread). To not risk the chance of being hypocritical, this is my final post on this matter. If you really want to address these "errors," dm me.

[flames]

I’ve mentally checked out of this thread. There is too much to shake my stick at here. My magic stick is empty.

I find it slightly interesting how it came from @BandD who always bitches and moans about gay rights as that seems incredibly hypocritical and unmodly, actually.

the white gay guy agenda

[Not A Communist Shill]

What is odd is to bring an "issue" you found with my philosophical stance when I was correcting a mistake in formal logic. It is not that the possible flaws you found with my views weren't valid, it was that they were not related to what I was talking about in this thread. The initial issues I raised can't be called ad hominem (unless you are reading the Latin literally) as "the person" is the focal point of the thread/topic. Meanwhile, you are bringing up something I said on a different thread, not pertaining to formal logic. Your post was not related to the thread whatsoever, which is why I am not going to address the "errors" that you think you found (again maybe the errors are valid, but that's not the point). My initial post was contributing to the thread in that I was addressing a "possible" exaggeration of ability (which may or may not have been hindering coeruleum's ability to figure out his type). While I am having trouble figuring out how your initial reply had any relation to not only the thread, but the issue I was bringing up (which again, was related to the thread). To not risk the chance of being hypocritical, this is my final post on this matter. If you really want to address these "errors," dm me.

I wasn't attacking you. I took issue with you said to @coeruleum "I remember the first time I saw you try to demonstrate mathematical ability, you mixed up first-order and second-order logic. To say you are proficient in formal logic would be a reach.", when as far as I could see, you had made basic errors in logic of your own. That is not a personal attack, and I certainly do not claim to be especially skilled at logic myself. Everyone is capable of error. You did not talk of a "possible" exaggeration of ability - you said "To say you are proficient in formal logic would be a reach." - it would be wrong to say you are proficient in formal logic. Addressing what I saw as your errors, or at least inconsistencies, are not relevant to this thread, only their existence - I will PM you on the subject.

[Metamorph]

I wasn't attacking you. I took issue with you said to @coeruleum "I remember the first time I saw you try to demonstrate mathematical ability, you mixed up first-order and second-order logic. To say you are proficient in formal logic would be a reach.", when as far as I could see, you had made basic errors in logic of your own. That is not a personal attack, and I certainly do not claim to be especially skilled at logic myself. Everyone is capable of error. You did not talk of a "possible" exaggeration of ability - you said "To say you are proficient in formal logic would be a reach." - it would be wrong to say you are proficient in formal logic. Addressing what I saw as your errors, or at least inconsistencies, are not relevant to this thread, only their existence - I will PM you on the subject.

For the record, I don't mix up first- and second-order logic. I've found classical logic is not very applicable to most of philosophy and almost every post-classical logical system you can think of allows you to reason from a set of answers to an individual answer and vice versa (and considering I'm using rather weak forms of logic like intuitionistic and categorical logic, everyone should be making 20x more proofs than me.) Doing logic, especially in the case of something like philosophy, might not make you a logical type, but unless you establish only logical types can do any formal logic and I'm not a logical type, that's a quite dumb argument. Case in point: Subteigh is usually considered an EII and also does logic for philosophy. In other words, people are trying to type me as a feeler to ignore me when there's not even evidence feelers should be ignored that aren't irrelevant ad hominems like "waaah, feelings are annoying so never argue with feelers."

[Alonzo]

In other words, people are trying to type me as a feeler to ignore me when there's not even evidence feelers should be ignored that aren't irrelevant ad hominems like "waaah, feelings are annoying so never argue with feelers."

This is untrue in both the Ti and Ni sense. You need to learn how to be more introspective because the conclusions rendered by your introverted functions lack a much needed rigor.

[Protozoa]

I don't know why, but I could see you actually being ILE-Ne. You seem irrational first and intuitive in your thinking, even if it's scattered and sometimes turns off people that don't understand, like, or have the patience for it. Or maybe you're some kind of hybrid ILE/IEE. Or just Ne.

But I think you're at least "irrational_first+intuitive".

[FreelancePoliceman]

I don't know why, but I could see you actually being ILE-Ne. You seem irrational first and intuitive in your thinking, even if it's scattered and sometimes turns off people that don't understand, like, or have the patience for it. Or maybe you're some kind of hybrid ILE/IEE. Or just Ne.

But I think you're at least "irrational_first+intuitive".

Intuitive, sure, but why irrational?

[Protozoa]

Intuitive, sure, but why irrational?

Oh I don't know, I guess scattered + in my view he (she?) doesn't seem to take their rationality that seriously. It seems a more creative element, at least on the forum anyway. But I don't read all posts and prefer not to read too much into drama.

But when you ask why, as if implying it's at odds with his behavior, I guess any reasoning I put forth is going to sound silly. So okay then.

In either case, this unfortunately seems to have turned out like most type me threads. No satisfying resolution and the poster seems to have ended up defending themselves, rather than hone in on a type.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Oh I don't know, I guess scattered + in my view he (she?) doesn't seem to take their rationality that seriously. It seems a more creative element, at least on the forum anyway. But I don't read all posts and prefer not to read too much into drama.

But when you ask why, as if implying it's at odds with his behavior, I guess any reasoning I put forth is going to sound silly. So okay then.

In either case, this unfortunately seems to have turned out like most type me threads. No satisfying resolution and the poster seems to have ended up defending themselves, rather than hone in on a type.

I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your typing. I'm just generally not sure what people mean when they talk about "rationality" or "irrationality", especially since Socionics doesn't seem to use those words in the sense they're generally meant. I'm sorry if I came off badly.

Anyway, I haven't made any guesses to coer's type yet, so for the record, I guess Beta NF. Others have mentioned that he (?) isn't good at Ti, which I agree with, but I think he values it. He also has a tendency to be dramatic and make a comparatively big deal out of unimportant things, which reminds me of EIEs.