Educational

Author Topic: Truth=relative?  (Read 3530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2007, 06:35:11 PM »
insanity usually does happen every 28 days.

:P  It wasn't a movie about drug addiction, McSmartass.  It was a movie about drug addiction, and a four-week rehab clinic.
find me a fitting avie and i will change my name to McSmartass.

[attachment deleted by admin]
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2007, 06:54:43 PM »
insanity usually does happen every 28 days.

:P  It wasn't a movie about drug addiction, McSmartass.  It was a movie about drug addiction, and a four-week rehab clinic.
find me a fitting avie and i will change my name to McSmartass.
got catchy under avie phrase as well?
Misunderstood.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2007, 06:55:57 PM »
"No ifs, ands, or butts."

Oh, and you uploaded it funny.  :(
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2007, 06:57:53 PM »
"No ifs, ands, or butts."

Oh, and you uploaded it funny.  :(
i just copy and pasted the propeties from your link.

i guess that i should save it to my computer.
Misunderstood.

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #64 on: May 21, 2007, 07:02:05 PM »
done.

but you realize that you could have done this to me! ;D
Misunderstood.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #65 on: May 21, 2007, 07:03:34 PM »
Yes, but this way, I get to be lazy.  :)
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #66 on: May 21, 2007, 07:27:41 PM »
Yes, but this way, I get to be lazy.  :)
you can still lay claim to the idea!
Misunderstood.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #67 on: May 21, 2007, 08:13:49 PM »
I like the new look McJ.  ;)  It makes you look more sophisticated than your last Avie.  ::)

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #68 on: May 21, 2007, 08:15:02 PM »
next, i think i will go with McQuagmire: a giggity giggity goo.
Misunderstood.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #69 on: May 21, 2007, 09:16:59 PM »

I'd agree if our perceptions were known to be both reliable and valid.  We do indeed have models based on our perceptions, but the widely-accepted models aren't based on the perceptions of just one person.  For example, one scizophrenic is in a room with 99 "normals."  Should we base our reality on the voices he hears, or on the silence everyone else hears.

Depends if we are the schizophrenic or not. Because, in the end, we base our model
on our OWN perceptions, even though those perceptions might be second hand. I
certainly sometimes doubt that what I propose is possible, based upon the utterances
of those uncertainly real critters known as others; nonetheless, when logic is fully
applied to the issue, my views seem stronger. They're just difficult to have the
requisite faith in, as we are brainwashed (or trained?) early on to believe that
these 'others' are indeed real and similar to our own reality.

 
for example, mathematics is basically independent of tangible experience.

I beg to differ. Mathematics is either a pure construct of one's mind, OR it is something
which is based largely on our perceptions, depending on whether we want it to
be applicable to our model. There are many perfectly consistent mathematics, which
serve little purpose, as they don't reflect our model well. This is actually where the issue
of will comes in - if one can change the mathematics to a model which is different, and believe
it entirely, the underlying reality becomes effectively something new. My own tactic lies in
that branch of Mathematics known as logic - wherein I believe that ~(A ^ ~A) is not an
axiom.

 
Might I add, speaking of the "fundies" is obviously an attempt to get a certain amoutn of emotional appeal to your side of the argument.  However, both you and I are arguing for things which cannot be proven.  You cannot prove that reality can be altered by altering perception, unless you redefine reality.  I find nothing in the definion of "real" here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/real that matches your definition; in fact, one defintion seems opposite:  3b c : having objective independent existence   (Also, reality is definied as the quality of being real, or " a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily")

 depends on what is meant by proof. Convincing myself is sufficient.

Definitions, if not part of the objective reality which I define, are unimportant.

If I am all that is necessary, then my will and view become so, as well.


Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2007, 06:51:23 AM »
To the first:  If the scizophenic AND the 99 "normals" are silent, is the scizophrenic changing the perceptions of those around him by hearing voices?  I.E., are his perceptions changing the reality of others, without his actually doing anything but perceiving it?

To the second:  I think we're working with different defintions of "perception."  I was referring to the senses and the information they give; I believe now you meant our intellect and rationality as well.

To the third:  Your argument is solid if I buy your framework.  It's bollocks if I don't.  "I believe that my belief makes things the way they are, so by believing this, I make it so" relies on itself for validation.

I don't think this is going to get anywhere, but at least I've established enough for my own satusfaction that I disagree with you on this.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2007, 06:55:38 AM by PMS Elle »
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2007, 06:58:58 AM »
To the first:  If the scizophenic AND the 99 "normals" are silent, is the scizophrenic changing the perceptions of those around him by hearing voices?  I.E., are his perceptions changing the reality of others, without his actually doing anything but perceiving it?

Those around him? The only thing that matters is the locus of the perceptions

To the second:  I think we're working with different defintions of "perception."  I was referring to the senses and the information they give; I believe now you meant our intellect and rationality as well.

Yes. Without both, it's an incomplete system. Should have caught this myself.


To the third:  Your argument is solid if I buy your framework.  It's bollocks if I don't.  "I believe that my belief makes things the way they are, so by believing this, I make it so" relies on itself for validation.

As opposed to relying on the validation from potentially mythical others?


I don't think this is going to get anywhere, but at least I've established enough for my own satusfaction that I disagree with you on this.

Probably not. Your faith is too strong.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #72 on: May 22, 2007, 07:08:11 AM »
I'm glad you responded the way you did; it fills in the missing space I was missing.  Your response to the first and the fourth establishes what I didn't realize; you're not saying any one person can change reality.  You're saying any one individual can safely assume he is the only real thing in the universe, so by changing his perception, he is changing the only "real" reality.

Please don't pretend you're not acting as faith-based as well, calendale.  I do agree neither of us can prove our points; however, they are bot unscientific in that neither can be disproven.  My faith is based on evidence I recieve from the world around me that it is real; I interact with it, in interacts with me, and I feel that this body of evidence is sufficient for me to believe that I do indeed exist in a reality that exists independantly of myself.  You see the world and interact with it, but do not draw this conclusion; I wonder what evidence would actually suffice?
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2007, 07:16:26 AM »
I'm glad you responded the way you did; it fills in the missing space I was missing.  Your response to the first and the fourth establishes what I didn't realize; you're not saying any one person can change reality.  You're saying any one individual can safely assume he is the only real thing in the universe, so by changing his perception, he is changing the only "real" reality.

If there is such a thing. I'm not convinced that it is necessarily the case.


Please don't pretend you're not acting as faith-based as well, calendale.  I do agree neither of us can prove our points; however, they are bot unscientific in that neither can be disproven.  My faith is based on evidence I recieve from the world around me that it is real; I interact with it, in interacts with me, and I feel that this body of evidence is sufficient for me to believe that I do indeed exist in a reality that exists independantly of myself.  You see the world and interact with it, but do not draw this conclusion; I wonder what evidence would actually suffice?

1. I'm torn about whether mine is faith-based. Certainly, the ABILITY to control it is. But the steps leading to
the conclusions seem undeniable - even under the assumption that there is an underlying reality, which may
differ from that of the perception/understanding.

2. nothing is provable or disprovable. Thus, there is no science - only religion.

3. I believe that there is likely more than just myself. I also believe that I can change
it. A pure matter of fancy though.

4. Evidence is impossible.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: Truth=relative?
« Reply #74 on: May 22, 2007, 07:43:15 AM »
Do you think you can change your reality in a godlike sense, or in the sense of being able to change your own experiencing through either restructuring your own perceptions and/or performing actions in the world around you?
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.