# What if all of society was your quadra?



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

ShuttleRun said:


> I think it's pretty absurd to think that the Russians (government) are supposedly manipulating the US election. *There's no evidence.*


Right. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/29/us/politics/document-Report-on-Russian-Hacking.html


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

ShuttleRun said:


> But we can all agree that it's a good thing that the US-Russia relations are thawing, when Hillary and the neo-cons are wanting to start another new Cold War with Russia.


Trump just called NATO "obsolete" & says EU is just a "vehicle for Germany". Make no mistake, Putin wants NATO & EU weakened so Russia can take advantage of the power vacuum left behind, and Trump is falling in line right from the outset. 

If Trump & Putin get their way, we're going to see two things in Europe over the coming years: major power instability and a continued rise in nationalism. Not a good combination for Europe, historically.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ShuttleRun said:


> I know, I'm not even an American. I assumed that you were talking about America, since you brought up identity politics, intersectionalism, which are mainly relevant in America, and maybe in Europe. You also brought up alt right, which is strictly an American movement/phenomenon.


I wasn't. "Alt right" simply means "alternative right" which is a term that's applicable to pretty much every person that disidentifies with the liberal left but don't consider themselves traditionally right. It's as common in Europe and arguably elsewhere even in non-Western contexts. Identity politics, intersectionalism etc. are politics applicable and applied across most of the world right now, and these ideas dominate world politics. The context is world politics, not American politics. 



> Because he didn't have enough courage? It is quite difficult to bring any real changes in the current US atmosphere.


Still makes no sense. If it's so difficult, then why did Trump market himself in such a different way?



> Well, I'd suggest you take your political bias out and just try to analyze it Socionically. Believe me, I don't exactly support Trump either, but he is kind of interesting to analyze.


I have no bias in this. The difference is that you aren't speaking based on facts and making judgements based on the facts. Facts do not create bias. 



> I think it's pretty absurd to think that the Russians (government) are supposedly manipulating the US election. There's no evidence. I don't exactly know why Trump likes Putin, maybe it's because they're both likely on the far-right, authoritarian spectrum. Who knows. But we can all agree that it's a good thing that the US-Russia relations are thawing, when Hillary and the neo-cons are wanting to start another new Cold War with Russia.


Not really, when all the evidence thus far actually points towards it.



> An interesting thing that Trump had said about the current Syrian situation is this: he said, "Sure, Assad is a bad guy. He's no angel. But if you take him down, then some other more powerful and ruthless person is going to take his place, and it'll make things even more worse than before."


And I don't take anything Trump says seriously because he just changes his tune based on whoever is listening. It's obvious he's very inconsistent in his own values and what he really stands for and believes in; thusly you can't take anything he says seriously. 



> I think he said that, because he has good Se and understands power very well. I think that might be the reason why he thinks the US conflicting with Russia is not a good idea. Well actually, anyone with a bit of sense can see that, but ok.


Hillary understands power better than Trump does which is why she's not trying to be friends with Russia and dancing to their tune. Trump is utterly incompetent at politics and political power. If he understood power, he also understood why Obama had the highest appeal out of any of the past US presidents. He doesn't, because he's trying to be the very opposite of Obama. There are many forms of power and Se doesn't encompass all of it. Se does certainly not pertain to understanding political power. That's related to social skill, something Trump has demonstrated over and over that he's clearly lacking. 

The very real reason why USA has had a cold relationship with Russia and why it continues to do so, is because Russia is a very real and definite threat to world stability, especially USA's place at the top of the world democracy. You don't want to be friends with Russia, it's that simple, and that's because Putin is pretty much a dictator in disguise and he has absolutely no interest in retaining a democratic world order. Even China is more interested in democracy than Putin is, which is why you see more friendly interactions between China and USA despite China's history, than between Russia and USA. That's also why Trump's spiels vs. China were considered really bad, especially when China is such a driving force in the world economy and particularly USA's. 

Honestly, I'd recommend you to go read up more on world politics, social theory and policy first, before you make commentaries about the current state of affairs and Trump's role in it. The reality is not quite as friendly, nice and idealistic as you paint it here. Quite on the contrary. 



> Ok, but who really cares? This is the exact kind of "identity politics" that you were talking about. And I did say Lana. Calling by their male names is relevant, because it seems to be easier to type when they were males.


This forum cares for one. There is a rule to not misgender people, including celebrities. And no, it's not at all relevant. If you think it's easier to type them before they transitioned, instead of being lazy, you could simply write that you found it easier to type them before they transitioned. That actually communicates your experiences and intent much better than simply referring to them by their old male names in the first place, which does not explains you methodology.

Now, that's potentially relevant information, though honestly, if you actually really grasped their types well, when you typed them as in pre- vs. post-transition, shouldn't really matter. And that's because type is static and remains the same regardless of your age and current life situation. If you can't consistently type someone across time, you aren't really typing their cognition but their personas/behavior, but persona/behavior is not the same as someone's type. That's not how IME/TIM works.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

Night Huntress said:


> Right.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/29/us/politics/document-Report-on-Russian-Hacking.html


Well, that doesn't actually really mention anything and pretty much offer no evidence of Russian (government) involvement in hacking.

Here's the RT's analysis, which is biased and basically propaganda I know, but we'd have to see both sides:

"Report on ‘Russian hacking’ offers disclaimers, barely mentions Russia"

https://www.rt.com/usa/372195-report-russia-hacking-elections/



> The actual words “Russia” and “Russian” are mentioned only three times, with just 11 instances of “RIS” – a custom, catch-all acronym standing for “Russian Intelligence Services” without naming any. Both the FSB – Russia’s equivalent of the FBI – and the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence, were put on the US sanctions list on Thursday.
> 
> “The US Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a US political party,” says the JAR, identifying the two as APT28 and APT29. There is no indication anywhere in the document that these two groups are in any way connected with the Russian intelligence services, however.
> 
> An appendix to the report lists hundreds of IP addresses and code the authors say are “used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services.” While some of the addresses are in Russia, others are in the US, and none of the data actually points to Russian involvement.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

Entropic said:


> The very real reason why USA has had a cold relationship with Russia and why it continues to do so, is because Russia is a very real and definite threat to world stability, especially USA's place at the top of the world democracy. You don't want to be friends with Russia, it's that simple, and that's because Putin is pretty much a dictator in disguise and he has absolutely no interest in retaining a democratic world order. Even China is more interested in democracy than Putin is, which is why you see more friendly interactions between China and USA despite China's history, than between Russia and USA. That's also why Trump's spiels vs. China were considered really bad, especially when China is such a driving force in the world economy and particularly USA's.


lol, oh you Gammas... you see things in such a black and white way. Us vs them, friends vs foe, right or wrong. You are either a friend or an enemy. Betas are kind of like that too, but don't really have that much fixation on friends vs foes, because they value Fe. They would rather see overall peace and lack of conflicts, which is probably why Trump is more fixated on destabilization of the regions and such than doing whatever he can to defeat his "enemies", which is more Gamma. That's why Gammas are so much more obsessively fixated on things like "War on Terror" and "Russia".

Betas have Ni, so they would rather see conflicts NOW, and peace later. That's what people like Trump and Sanders are doing or are trying to do.



> Honestly, I'd recommend you to go read up more on world politics, social theory and policy first, before you make commentaries about the current state of affairs and Trump's role in it. The reality is not quite as friendly, nice and idealistic as you paint it here. Quite on the contrary.


No thanks... I think you need it, and it sounds like you're just projecting...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ShuttleRun said:


> lol, oh you Gammas... you see things in such a black and white way. Us vs them, friends vs foe, right or wrong. You are either a friend or an enemy. Betas are kind of like that too, but don't really have that much fixation on friends vs foes, because they value Fe. They would rather see overall peace and lack of conflicts, which is probably why Trump is more fixated on destabilization of the regions and such than doing whatever he can to defeat his "enemies", which is more Gamma. That's why Gammas are so much more obsessively fixated on things like "War on Terror" and "Russia".
> 
> Betas have Ni, so they would rather see conflicts NOW, and peace later. That's what people like Trump and Sanders are doing or are trying to do.
> 
> ...


This isn't about us vs. them. Honestly, I don't care for Russia but it doesn't mean that Russia is less of a threat to world stability. You don't become friends with Putin, it's that simple. Try to kiss his ass and he'll be happy to make you wipe it with your tongue. If you really value world stability and peace, you realize how dangerous it is to be friendly with Putin and give him too much power and freedom. NATO is one of the few things stopping him from potentially invading Europe, you realize this? That's not about us vs. them. Putin has made it very clear that he doesn't give a rat's ass for anything but his own personal power. He is also already in great possession of power which makes him very dangerous. That danger needs to be fully acknowledged for what it is. 

Also, the war on terror etc. aren't gamma constructs. Bush Jr. is an alpha for example and it started with him. If anything they strike me as mildly Fe-driven in sentiment because it's more about collective feelings of the nation than it is about relationships. 

This isn't about type but this is honestly more an issue that you don't seem to understand how gravely serious it is to be "friends" with Russia and Putin. It's not even Russia itself that's the problem but Putin is. 

And no, I'm not projecting. I have a master's degree in this, so I am well acquainted with various aspects of world politics. If anything it sounds more like you don't fully understand how much power is really behind the notions of power in world politics.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

About Putin being dangerous, I bet that he will also force Europe to follow his 'family values' too if he managed to invade it, and as far as I've seen they include letting dudes to freely beat up women and the situation for LGBT is already awful there. Seriously that will be hell if it ever happens and it will drive Europa to something more similar to the middle ages or other outdated era.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

I think that this whole thing can be explained somewhat Socionically. It seems that the Fi-Te (serious) types do not like those who "misbehave" in a society, and feel that they must be "punished" so that they will "behave". They feel that those people weaken the society as a whole. And hey, it appears that Russia is "misbehaving" in the international community, or so they claim. But this whole thing is becoming grossly hypocritical. If anything goes wrong, then it is Russia's fault, while the US ignores that it is actually them that is doing all the provocations against Russia. Or the fact that it is the US economic and foreign policies that are failing catastrophically, and it has nothing to do with whether Russia hacked them or whatever. These are all just distractions.

Gammas are the masters of finding such scapegoats to blame all their woes and problems of the general society on, as are Deltas. And hey, you did indeed blame all the problems on Betas, and then Alphas, while ignoring or denying that Gammas may contribute their own problems as well. I think Betas are usually scapegoated first, because they are weird and rebellious. Alphas are also sometimes rebellious against the "society", especially the NTs. Gammas and Deltas generally do not like such "rebels". They would rather "behave" to get what they want from society.


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

I found video on quadra progression





Starting from 19:00
Basically, we'd move to tropical islands, set up a hammock and chill. Former Tahitian culture where people mated with each other not caring about forming stable relations but where they would still take care of everyone's offspring in stateless society. Relaxed anarchy (sounds like dream come true :tongue.

Sometimes NT's would fix up interesting experiments (as in thought and practical) not really caring furthering their discoveries.

I started to think about the apes: 
Bonobo: Alpha
Chimpanzee: Beta
Gibbons: Gamma
Gorillas, orangutan: Delta

This begs the question: Why am I still here?


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

We would die out because nothing would get done. The NT's would experiment and learn but it would rarely get materialized and they would buck all the formal institutions. The SF's would try to keep society running and stable but without Delta ST's it wouldn't be very efficient. In the end we'd just party our asses off


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> We would die out because nothing would get done. The NT's would experiment and learn but it would rarely get materialized and they would buck all the formal institutions. The SF's would try to keep society running and stable but without Delta ST's it wouldn't be very efficient. In the end we'd just party our asses off


Yes, ESE SLI supervision is very well described in here




You are like an anus. We do not necessarily like your manners but things would get pretty bad without you.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

If you truly understand something, then in that moment you come to love it. It is for this reason I cannot bring myself to hate people very often. Even someone like Putin. That said, if it came down to it, I would stop him, given the chance. One does not allow someone, even your friends or even family, to commit these crimes. One does not stand by and do nothing if one has the power to end it. Else you are complicit in the crime.



ShuttleRun said:


> I think that this whole thing can be explained somewhat Socionically. It seems that the Fi-Te (serious) types do not like those who "misbehave" in a society, and feel that they must be "punished" so that they will "behave". They feel that those people weaken the society as a whole. And hey, it appears that Russia is "misbehaving" in the international community, or so they claim. But this whole thing is becoming grossly hypocritical. If anything goes wrong, then it is Russia's fault, while the US ignores that it is actually them that is doing all the provocations against Russia. Or the fact that it is the US economic and foreign policies that are failing catastrophically, and it has nothing to do with whether Russia hacked them or whatever. These are all just distractions.
> 
> Gammas are the masters of finding such scapegoats to blame all their woes and problems of the general society on, as are Deltas. And hey, you did indeed blame all the problems on Betas, and then Alphas, while ignoring or denying that Gammas may contribute their own problems as well. I think Betas are usually scapegoated first, because they are weird and rebellious. Alphas are also sometimes rebellious against the "society", especially the NTs. Gammas and Deltas generally do not like such "rebels". They would rather "behave" to get what they want from society.


Agreed. IME this happens a lot.



Night Huntress said:


> Please call them by their actual names.


He did name Lana correctly. Larry Wachowski directed the movie. That person is now Lana Wachowski. This does not negate that the film's director was Larry, and should you go searching for past reference materials, references, etc., then Larry is the name you need. I thought it was quite polite to note the change despite its lack of relevance to the context of the directing of the film. What I am curious about is, does @ShuttleRun know that it is no longer Andy, it is Lilly?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Facts do not create bias.


Yes they do. They create bias towards said "facts" being completely true and applicable. When the fact turns up wrong, everything you based on that fact topples over. The bias is thinking that a fact is totally true and thus the conclusion must be too. The truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Even each individual's understanding of a given fact differs, which is why totally disparate conclusions which are totally logical can be drawn from the same data set.



Entropic said:


> And I don't take anything Trump says seriously because he just changes his tune based on whoever is listening. It's obvious he's very inconsistent in his own values and what he really stands for and believes in; thusly you can't take anything he says seriously.


Agreed that he doesn't stand firm for anything, though I daresay that matters more to you than to me. What interests me is whether his unstated goals that he is hiding from us are just as mutable.



Entropic said:


> This forum cares for one. There is a rule to not misgender people, including celebrities. And no, it's not at all relevant. If you think it's easier to type them before they transitioned, instead of being lazy, you could simply write that you found it easier to type them before they transitioned. That actually communicates your experiences and intent much better than simply referring to them by their old male names in the first place, which does not explains you methodology.
> 
> Now, that's potentially relevant information, though honestly, if you actually really grasped their types well, when you typed them as in pre- vs. post-transition, shouldn't really matter. And that's because *type is static and remains the same regardless of your age and current life situation.* If you can't consistently type someone across time, you aren't really typing their cognition but their personas/behavior, but persona/behavior is not the same as someone's type. That's not how IME/TIM works.


Really? Why so?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yes they do. They create bias towards said "facts" being completely true and applicable. When the fact turns up wrong, everything you based on that fact topples over. The bias is thinking that a fact is totally true and thus the conclusion must be too. The truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Even each individual's understanding of a given fact differs, which is why totally disparate conclusions which are totally logical can be drawn from the same data set.


If it is possible to contest, then it is not a true fact in the very objective sense that I was referring to prior. If a fact is truly a fact, then objectively speaking, no one can ever interpret it differently or contest the truth of what it suggests. Opinions can be biased, but facts in themselves are never biased. This is because some things simply objectively are; they exist and they will exist regardless of how you perceive them. Personal interpretation do not in themselves affect the nature of what something is; it only affects your understanding of what something is. As a very simple baseline example, you experience yourself to exist. Exactly what this sense of existence means is up to debate, but the fact that you do remains the same no matter how you choose to interpret the experience of what it means to exist. 

Similarly, we can take something such as climate change. In fact, everyone does agree upon that the climate is changing in some way and it would actually be quite ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I mean, we are in winter now and previously this year the climate was different. We can all experience and observe these changes. So objectively speaking, there is something out there that does affect the climate. However, what people do not as easily agree upon is what that something is. Climate change deniers do not deny that the earth's climate can change but they deny that the major reason behind current global climate change is anthropogenic. 



> Agreed that he doesn't stand firm for anything, though I daresay that matters more to you than to me. What interests me is whether his unstated goals that he is hiding from us are just as mutable.


I simply believe that Trump will swing towards the direction that benefits him the most in any given moment; this is because all his actions and thoughts have thus far proved this to be true. 



> Really? Why so?


Because that's simply how type is. Type is a combination of in-born and acquired cognitive schemas that result in various traits. Most research on personality suggests that most of our personality is genetically codified, meaning that we are born to be who we are. Twin studies show this very well, where monozygotic twins that were separated from birth still end up with very similar personalities and character traits despite being raised in highly different environments. I don't think personality is nearly as static as to suggest that we are entirely biologically wired to be a certain way; rather, I think it is a combination of in-born and latent traits, meaning that some are hard-wired in us no matter what e.g. introversion/extroversion (in the neurological sense) and they will remain true because they are a part of our biological makeup, but other traits are latent, meaning that there must be some environmental impetus for us to develop in that particular direction over that of others; lastly, there are purely environmental traits that we pick up from our environment. 

The only way I can see someone even change type would be for them to go through such extreme psychological situations where their entire personality changes and for even the majority of the population, that's never going to happen.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> If it is possible to contest, then it is not a true fact in the very objective sense that I was referring to prior. If a fact is truly a fact, then objectively speaking, no one can ever interpret it differently or contest the truth of what it suggests. Opinions can be biased, but facts in themselves are never biased. This is because some things simply objectively are; they exist and they will exist regardless of how you perceive them. Personal interpretation do not in themselves affect the nature of what something is; it only affects your understanding of what something is. As a very simple baseline example, you experience yourself to exist. Exactly what this sense of existence means is up to debate, but the fact that you do remains the same no matter how you choose to interpret the experience of what it means to exist.
> 
> Similarly, we can take something such as climate change. In fact, everyone does agree upon that the climate is changing in some way and it would actually be quite ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I mean, we are in winter now and previously this year the climate was different. We can all experience and observe these changes. So objectively speaking, there is something out there that does affect the climate. However, what people do not as easily agree upon is what that something is. Climate change deniers do not deny that the earth's climate can change but they deny that the major reason behind current global climate change is anthropogenic.


If that is how you define a fact, then there is likely no such thing as a true fact. There are no uncontestable truths, and there are, we as humans are incapable of perceiving them.

There is no proof that we exist, for example. It is entirely possible that the reality that you and I believe we perceive is not true at all. That we are figments of the imagination of another being. We can and indeed must act as if what we experience is real in order to survive according to the rules we believe to rule this world we perceive, but that does not mean that any part of that is true, is accurate, or even exists in the first place.

Truth is not a static and unchanging thing that exists apart from us. Truth is that element of what we perceive that we have in common, which is evolving all the time as we learn and grow and change. How much of what we perceive is truth and how much not? There is no way to measure it, or to prove said measurement.



Entropic said:


> I simply believe that Trump will swing towards the direction that benefits him the most in any given moment; this is because all his actions and thoughts have thus far proved this to be true.


I will not contest this. It seems accurate enough.



Entropic said:


> Because that's simply how type is. Type is a combination of in-born and acquired cognitive schemas that result in various traits. Most research on personality suggests that most of our personality is genetically codified, meaning that we are born to be who we are. Twin studies show this very well, where monozygotic twins that were separated from birth still end up with very similar personalities and character traits despite being raised in highly different environments. I don't think personality is nearly as static as to suggest that we are entirely biologically wired to be a certain way; rather, I think it is a combination of in-born and latent traits, meaning that some are hard-wired in us no matter what e.g. introversion/extroversion (in the neurological sense) and they will remain true because they are a part of our biological makeup, but other traits are latent, meaning that there must be some environmental impetus for us to develop in that particular direction over that of others; lastly, there are purely environmental traits that we pick up from our environment.
> 
> The only way I can see someone even change type would be for them to go through such extreme psychological situations where their entire personality changes and for even the majority of the population, that's never going to happen.


You weren't saying what it sounded like you were saying. Good. I'd have been amused if you thought type was entirely static to the point of being set at the moment you come to exist.

I rest on the opposite side of the fence in terms of whether type is set or changing. I don't see anyone or anything as being that static. I think that the influence of your nature and your environment is close to evens. Further, I count the inner environment, including desires and impulses, as part of the environment; a person can change if they wish to, and exert effort and self mastery. How much? I don't know. It varies with the person, and their ability to see new ways of thinking and being and pursue them.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Entropic said:


> Honestly, current world society is deeply mired in beta values and attitudes and you see many world leaders that influence world politics being betas.
> 
> Identity politics, intersectionalism etc. are all in origin driven by beta logic (Ti as expressed behind NF idealism; it's about how you define something, where it fits in a logical system but above that how you _feel_ you fit in (Fe)). Similarly, the counter-movement of the alt right is also primarily driven by beta logic (ST; crass, wants to be realistic, think it values pragmatism and only what's directly observable).
> 
> ...


Great! Time to profit =D

Someone mentioned beta society.

I find the orcs sort of matching in many ways.
Burn one world and then move on to the next to burn that too.






Gamma would end up like in Bioshock I think.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> If that is how you define a fact, then there is likely no such thing as a true fact. There are no uncontestable truths, and there are, we as humans are incapable of perceiving them.


I think you misunderstood my point; I am saying there are facts but knowing a fact is not necessarily the same as the fact existing in itself. The fact exists regardless of whether we know about it or not. 



> There is no proof that we exist, for example. It is entirely possible that the reality that you and I believe we perceive is not true at all. That we are figments of the imagination of another being. We can and indeed must act as if what we experience is real in order to survive according to the rules we believe to rule this world we perceive, but that does not mean that any part of that is true, is accurate, or even exists in the first place.


That's a strawman though, because I never made claims about what it meant to exist. I actually left that intentionally open. What I was referring to is your own sense of feeling that you exist. Are you contesting that you do feel that way? Whether it's true that you exist or not is irrelevant to the claims that I made. 



> Truth is not a static and unchanging thing that exists apart from us. Truth is that element of what we perceive that we have in common, which is evolving all the time as we learn and grow and change. How much of what we perceive is truth and how much not? There is no way to measure it, or to prove said measurement.


You are talking about perspectives; I am talking about that which perspectives are based off. I am somewhere inbetween a subjectivist and objectivist in that I do believe in the idea of an objective truth existing, but just like Kant, I also think that this objective truth is not necessarily fully knowable to us, even though we can perceive it. 



> You weren't saying what it sounded like you were saying. Good. I'd have been amused if you thought type was entirely static to the point of being set at the moment you come to exist.
> 
> I rest on the opposite side of the fence in terms of whether type is set or changing. I don't see anyone or anything as being that static. I think that the influence of your nature and your environment is close to evens. Further, I count the inner environment, including desires and impulses, as part of the environment; a person can change if they wish to, and exert effort and self mastery. How much? I don't know. It varies with the person, and their ability to see new ways of thinking and being and pursue them.


No, humans are not static including our personalities. We clearly grow and change throughout time, but this change still occurs in relation to other phenomena and these phenomena also create limits on how much we can change and when.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I think you misunderstood my point; I am saying there are facts but knowing a fact is not necessarily the same as the fact existing in itself. The fact exists regardless of whether we know about it or not.


I think you misunderstood mine. I literally mean I do not think that our existence has any hard and fast rules which are fundamentally true in that sense. I think that if there are such rules, they are TRUE only for a time, and then change to similar yet different rules. I don't believe that there is Objective Reality That Simply Is Even Though We Don't Understand It. I think there is Shifting Reality That Changes Just Because You Figured Out One Aspect Of It Among Other Trollish Things. You can't know facts as you are defining them, because they can't exist in the sense you are defining them, _in my opinion_ of course. 



Entropic said:


> That's a strawman though, because I never made claims about what it meant to exist. I actually left that intentionally open. What I was referring to is your own sense of feeling that you exist. Are you contesting that you do feel that way? Whether it's true that you exist or not is irrelevant to the claims that I made.


It isn't a strawman, it is a refutation. You said this: "This is because some things simply objectively are; *they exist and they will exist regardless of how you perceive them*. Personal interpretation do not in themselves affect the nature of what something is; it only affects your understanding of what something is." To which I replied "We can and indeed must act as if what we experience is real in order to survive according to the rules we believe to rule this world we perceive, but that does not mean that any part of that is true, is accurate, or even exists in the first place."

I am outright refuting your statement that we exist regardless of our perception of this, and instead assert that we must act as though we exist even if we do not, a subtle but IMO important distinction. Our existence and understanding of existence is not a given, it is entirely subjective. If there is an objective 

I realize I did not make that clear. Indeed, I am aware that I am generally terrible about this in that I address entire paragraphs in response to one sentence without specifying the specific sentence. For some reason I assume the other person will know which I am responding to -_-



Entropic said:


> You are talking about perspectives; I am talking about that which perspectives are based off. I am somewhere inbetween a subjectivist and objectivist in that I *do believe in the idea of an objective truth existing, but just like Kant, I also think that this objective truth is not necessarily fully knowable to us, even though we can perceive it.*


As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between the perception of a thing and the existence of a thing. The perception of it is one and the same. Does a thing exist if you do not perceive it? In your world, it does not. Does it exist if others perceive it? It does seem to be that way, as a bullet can kill you whether you perceived it or not. But does something still exist if no one and nothing can perceive it? That is the question. Someone, somewhere, is always perceiving a thing when that thing takes action. The sniper perceives their own bullet. Where is reality? In the perception of it or in something else?

I believe it is in the perceiving, and in the believing. If no one believes a thing is true and no one perceives it to be true, it likely isn't true. If only one perceives something to be true and everyone else perceives it as untrue, it is likely not true. Seeing is believing. We see things as being a way, and then believe that it is because we saw it, which means we are more likely to continue seeing it that way. Is truth to be found in this, or do we assume it is wrong compared to some objective truth? We cannot know. Practically, we must act as though our perceptions are real. If we can verify in some way that they are not, that we are hallucinating for example, then we must find ways to test the veracity of our perceptions.

To see that it is a hallucination the oddity must be revealed, though, or you shan't know that this is happening. Therefore, the hallucinating person who is lucid enough to realize what they see is false is able to perceive a reality other than our own and our own as well, by seeing what is not real in what seems real. This is how I see the world in general; we do not know what is real and what is not, and without evidence otherwise we cannot see what we are seeing falsely. Therefore we act on what we know and do all we can within our power.

The bolded sounds fully objectivist to me? The underlying assumption that there is an objective truth is what makes someone an objectivist, or so I am given to understand. I haven't studied much philosophy though.



Entropic said:


> No, humans are not static including our personalities. We clearly grow and change throughout time, but this change still occurs in relation to other phenomena and these phenomena also create limits on how much we can change and when.


So it seems. I suspect we see the amounts of change and the limits differently. Let us agree to disagree.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

I think this has to more to do with Karl Popper's principle of empirical falsifiability... where you can't ever really know "the Truth", but you can only keep falsifying it until you get as close as possible to the Truth.

But for the sake practical and argumentative purposes, I would say that yeah, there is some objective fact or reality that "exist" outside of us, no matter what we think about it. Otherwise it would just turn into subjectivist hell, where nothing is certain and nothing makes sense like moral relativism.

But then there's more of the subjectivist and Buddhist approach, where we would say that it doesn't really matter because without us existing, there's nothing to perceive the objective reality anyway. You also can't replicate subjective experiences. But that's kind of less interesting and besides the point. But there's also this quantum weirdness where it is the perception that makes reality, but we're still not completely sure about that.

If we were to take a more synergistic approach... then subjectivity should also be taken into account because it's the measurement of the objective reality that matters. You can never take the subjective out of the objective. But then again... this kind of argument kind of starts becoming pointless.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I think you misunderstood mine. I literally mean I do not think that our existence has any hard and fast rules which are fundamentally true in that sense. I think that if there are such rules, they are TRUE only for a time, and then change to similar yet different rules. I don't believe that there is Objective Reality That Simply Is Even Though We Don't Understand It. I think there is Shifting Reality That Changes Just Because You Figured Out One Aspect Of It Among Other Trollish Things. You can't know facts as you are defining them, because they can't exist in the sense you are defining them, _in my opinion_ of course.


All right, so different philosophical POVs. Noted. 



> It isn't a strawman, it is a refutation. You said this: "This is because some things simply objectively are; *they exist and they will exist regardless of how you perceive them*. Personal interpretation do not in themselves affect the nature of what something is; it only affects your understanding of what something is." To which I replied "We can and indeed must act as if what we experience is real in order to survive according to the rules we believe to rule this world we perceive, but that does not mean that any part of that is true, is accurate, or even exists in the first place."
> 
> I am outright refuting your statement that we exist regardless of our perception of this, and instead assert that we must act as though we exist even if we do not, a subtle but IMO important distinction. Our existence and understanding of existence is not a given, it is entirely subjective. If there is an objective
> 
> I realize I did not make that clear. Indeed, I am aware that I am generally terrible about this in that I address entire paragraphs in response to one sentence without specifying the specific sentence. For some reason I assume the other person will know which I am responding to -_-


Except that's not what I said. I am referring to your _sense_ of existing, not the state of existence. Do you understand the difference? That's why I posed you the question: Are you refuting your _sense_ of existence? This is not the same as your state of existence. Unless you somehow state otherwise (extremely unlikely) you do feel that you exist in some shape or form. 



> As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between the perception of a thing and the existence of a thing. The perception of it is one and the same. *Does a thing exist if you do not perceive it? In your world, it does not.* Does it exist if others perceive it? It does seem to be that way, as a bullet can kill you whether you perceived it or not. But does something still exist if no one and nothing can perceive it? That is the question. Someone, somewhere, is always perceiving a thing when that thing takes action. The sniper perceives their own bullet. Where is reality? In the perception of it or in something else?


What are you even trying to suggest, here? Sounds like you added an erroneous negative. I do think that A) things exist regardless of whether we can perceive them or not and B) we can perceive these things in a multitude of ways. 

You're veering very close into true solipsism land which I think is flawed, but that's me personally. 



> I believe it is in the perceiving, and in the believing. If no one believes a thing is true and no one perceives it to be true, it likely isn't true.


Now you are committing the error you accused me of doing i.e. if everyone agrees on fact X, then it is a fact even though we later change our understanding of X, meaning it is no longer a fact that X is X, but is now Y. Everyone thought the world was flat at some point to the point people were accused of heresy for thinking otherwise. It turns out the world wasn't flat but round (more specifically oval). The true fact here is that the world was oval all along and people's collective perception was erroneous. How do you reconcile this with what you've stated previously? That's outright contradictory, especially in relation to your claim that everything is utterly subjective. If that is true, you cannot ever trust anyone's opinion to be even a remotely honest reflection of reality because you can never evaluate the truth behind it. This is because you have no standard that you can refer back to in order to do so. 



> If only one perceives something to be true and everyone else perceives it as untrue, it is likely not true. Seeing is believing. We see things as being a way, and then believe that it is because we saw it, which means we are more likely to continue seeing it that way. Is truth to be found in this, or do we assume it is wrong compared to some objective truth? We cannot know. Practically, we must act as though our perceptions are real. If we can verify in some way that they are not, that we are hallucinating for example, then we must find ways to test the veracity of our perceptions.


See my previous refutation in the above. You're falling prey to the appeal to popularity fallacy. 



> To see that it is a hallucination the oddity must be revealed, though, or you shan't know that this is happening. Therefore, the hallucinating person who is lucid enough to realize what they see is false is able to perceive a reality other than our own and our own as well, by seeing what is not real in what seems real. This is how I see the world in general; we do not know what is real and what is not, and without evidence otherwise we cannot see what we are seeing falsely. Therefore we act on what we know and do all we can within our power.


If we refer back to commonly known standards we do know that we have something we can evaluate something against though, because it acts as a framework for us to evaluate the truthfulness of something. And we can in turn evaluate this standard against other standards as well, including our own thinking. 

If anything, I think what you write here is a perfect example of Te PoLR. 



> The bolded sounds fully objectivist to me? The underlying assumption that there is an objective truth is what makes someone an objectivist, or so I am given to understand. I haven't studied much philosophy though.


And no, it's not objectivist. It's constructivist. The dichotomy extends beyond 100% objectivism-subjectivism. I fall between the two: I recognize both as important in our perception and understanding of reality. I do think there is an objective reality but I also do think it is not fully knowable to us because our perception will always be affected by our own subjectivity. A true objectivist denies that there is any subjective influence to our perception. 



> So it seems. I suspect we see the amounts of change and the limits differently. Let us agree to disagree.


Human growth isn't limitless; so yes, I disagree on that.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Except that's not what I said. I am referring to your _sense_ of existing, not the state of existence. Do you understand the difference? That's why I posed you the question: Are you refuting your _sense_ of existence? This is not the same as your state of existence. Unless you somehow state otherwise (extremely unlikely) you do feel that you exist in some shape or form.


"Sense" of existing? I am confused. How could you "sense" you exist? You may think you sense something, but that doesn't mean you do? Sensing something does not mean it is real, such as a hallucination.



Entropic said:


> What are you even trying to suggest, here? Sounds like you added an erroneous negative. I do think that A) things exist regardless of whether we can perceive them or not and B) we can perceive these things in a multitude of ways.
> 
> You're veering very close into true solipsism land which I think is flawed, but that's me personally.


That y is not supposed to be there in my comment. I meant "our world", not "your world". Not sure how that happened?

Anyway. I am not saying I think nothing really exists. I am saying there is no way to ever know and so I veer into doubting that anything has any meaning at all, which is indeed solipsism. Call a spade a spade. To combat this and prevent myself from falling into total lethargy, I choose to treat the world as if it exists. The problem, then, is that I do not carry several fundamental assumptions other people hold about the nature of reality, including this belief in facts. You know, it was once a true fact that the Earth was the center of the universe. What makes a fact? A fact is what everyone agrees is the case.

If you instead define it as what "it really is behind what we think is the case", then in my opinion it is unknowable. The act of discerning it or knowing it, changes it. I don't think the world has rules that are "ultimately true" or what have you, like some philosophers do. There are no Forms that constitute the ultimate realness of things, with everything in our world being but a pale imitation.

I suppose you could say that I disagree with both your premises, which means that this discussion isn't going to lead anywhere unless we can present some kind of evidence or logical points. I have nothing that I can think of at the moment to support my views. Indeed, my views are unsupportable simply because if they are true, then it is impossible to prove them. *shrugs* *Smiles*



Entropic said:


> Now you are committing the error you accused me of doing i.e. if everyone agrees on fact X, then it is a fact even though we later change our understanding of X, meaning it is no longer a fact that X is X, but is now Y. Everyone thought the world was flat at some point to the point people were accused of heresy for thinking otherwise. *It turns out the world wasn't flat but round (more specifically oval). The true fact here is that the world was oval all along and people's collective perception was erroneous.* How do you reconcile this with what you've stated previously? That's outright contradictory, especially in relation to your claim that everything is utterly subjective. If that is true, you cannot ever trust anyone's opinion to be even a remotely honest reflection of reality because you can never evaluate the truth behind it. This is because you have no standard that you can refer back to in order to do so.


Unless the world was flat at first, and cosmic events that occurred changed it without our noticing at first due to a lack of ability to test it. Insert a plethora of alternate views here. The point is, there is no way to prove anyone's opinion, so as you say, we cannot evaluate the truth behind it. Because I do not believe in one hard and fast reality in this manner, it is necessary to find a way to refer to some standard. So the standard I always fall back on is "what makes sense to me right now". It makes sense to me that the world is shaped by belief as much as the other way around, so I choose to believe it. It makes sense to me that the rules our world seems to operate under are not going to change any time soon, like gravity. We believe in gravity, we test it and "prove" it, it holds up. Good enough. Until something else comes along we can use and believe in gravitational force. If everyone changes their mind later, will gravity still work or will it be replaced by the new religion? Only time will tell.

So what is my standard? It's the collective belief of the inhabitants of the world. We shape the world, and our feedback from that shaping shapes us, which shapes us and our world, and so on and so on, back and forth in perpetuity. An objective reality that exists regardless of us, where perspective means nothing, is not a belief for me.



Entropic said:


> See my previous refutation in the above. You're falling prey to the appeal to popularity fallacy.


I don't know what that is but by the name it sounds like you may be right. If so, though, it won't matter because my beliefs center around the importance of the popular idea, as above. If it is a logical fallacy, so be it. Much as it pains me to say that. 



Entropic said:


> If we refer back to commonly known standards we do know that we have something we can evaluate something against though, because it acts as a framework for us to evaluate the truthfulness of something. And we can in turn evaluate this standard against other standards as well, including our own thinking.
> 
> If anything, I think what you write here is a perfect example of Te PoLR.


This is what it means to be Te PoLR? Then there is no way I am any other type, because this philosophy here is the driving force of my life. This is actually deeply tied up in my religious beliefs; to me, the power of belief is the reason religions work, the reason they matter, the reason they have appeal. In some sense, all religions are correct, because they are believed in, and it is this belief that invests them with truth. If the Christian God exists, then he has influence precisely because so many believe in him and not the other way around. If we all truly exist, then it is our will, our applied belief, that is the ultimate force in the universe. Heh. Grand sweeping statements with absolutely no proof whatsoever ftw.



Entropic said:


> And no, it's not objectivist. It's constructivist. The dichotomy extends beyond 100% objectivism-subjectivism. I fall between the two: I recognize both as important in our perception and understanding of reality. I do think there is an objective reality but I also do think it is not fully knowable to us because our perception will always be affected by our own subjectivity. *A true objectivist denies that there is any subjective influence to our perception.*


Oh. Yeah, you aren't totally objectivist then, you are correct.



Entropic said:


> Human growth isn't limitless; so yes, I disagree on that.


If it isn't, I wish I could know what the limits are. Yet at the same time, every time I see what looks like a limit, it does not hold true for everyone. This sort of thing is why I recognize some people are just more capable than others in certain arenas. Some people are smarter, some people are stronger willed, etc. What I notice, though, and it could just be wishful thinking, is that those who fall short in one or more arenas always seem to have something they do excel in. There is some sort of balance, somewhere. A mysterious affirmation of our nature. I hope to crack what it is someday.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> "Sense" of existing? I am confused. How could you "sense" you exist? You may think you sense something, but that doesn't mean you do? Sensing something does not mean it is real, such as a hallucination.


To clarify then: you have an impression of yourself that you exist. You can "sense" this as in a physical sensation, you can "feel" this as something more intuitive/intangible, but either way, this leads to you conclude that you do exist in some way. 



> That y is not supposed to be there in my comment. I meant "our world", not "your world". Not sure how that happened?
> 
> Anyway. I am not saying I think nothing really exists. I am saying there is no way to ever know and so I veer into doubting that anything has any meaning at all, which is indeed solipsism. Call a spade a spade. To combat this and prevent myself from falling into total lethargy, I choose to treat the world as if it exists. The problem, then, is that I do not carry several fundamental assumptions other people hold about the nature of reality, including this belief in facts. You know, it was once a true fact that the Earth was the center of the universe. What makes a fact? A fact is what everyone agrees is the case.


You do realize that this is a contradiction of thought because if you assume that nothing is true but then feel the need to assume that something is true because the former position is impossible to apply, then you are no longer adhering to it? You can't believe in that you can never know but then feel forced to assume that consensus opinion shapes what is knowable. That just makes no sense. 

Also, I'd say that saying the earth is round is more of a "soft fact" in the sense that it's currently the body of thought that's accepted and acknowledged, but it is a "hard fact" that the earth exists in some way. That's because that the shape of the earth is subject to human subjective perception but the impression behind that perception is not. 



> If you instead define it as what "it really is behind what we think is the case", then in my opinion it is unknowable. The act of discerning it or knowing it, changes it. I don't think the world has rules that are "ultimately true" or what have you, like some philosophers do. There are no Forms that constitute the ultimate realness of things, with everything in our world being but a pale imitation.
> 
> I suppose you could say that I disagree with both your premises, which means that this discussion isn't going to lead anywhere unless we can present some kind of evidence or logical points. I have nothing that I can think of at the moment to support my views. Indeed, my views are unsupportable simply because if they are true, then it is impossible to prove them. *shrugs* *Smiles*


I already stated and agree with that the true objective reality is unknowable in its full objectivity to us; however, it doesn't mean it's not knowable at all. I don't believe in objective rules either such as maths. I think that's make-belief in our own heads, but that there is some kind of structure to the universe itself, yes, I do believe that's objectively true. Otherwise quantum mechanics and the randomness that comes with it would also be applicable to large objects in space which would render life utterly chaotic but it's not. 



> Unless the world was flat at first, and cosmic events that occurred changed it without our noticing at first due to a lack of ability to test it. Insert a plethora of alternate views here. The point is, there is no way to prove anyone's opinion, so as you say, we cannot evaluate the truth behind it. Because I do not believe in one hard and fast reality in this manner, it is necessary to find a way to refer to some standard. So the standard I always fall back on is "what makes sense to me right now". It makes sense to me that the world is shaped by belief as much as the other way around, so I choose to believe it. It makes sense to me that the rules our world seems to operate under are not going to change any time soon, like gravity. We believe in gravity, we test it and "prove" it, it holds up. Good enough. Until something else comes along we can use and believe in gravitational force. If everyone changes their mind later, will gravity still work or will it be replaced by the new religion? Only time will tell.


Gravity may later be replaced with a new theory, but that there is something affecting us remains. It's less about the name. Names come and go over time and so do the models that try to justify the names, but the object we are trying to name remains. 



> So what is my standard? It's the collective belief of the inhabitants of the world. We shape the world, and our feedback from that shaping shapes us, which shapes us and our world, and so on and so on, back and forth in perpetuity. An objective reality that exists regardless of us, where perspective means nothing, is not a belief for me.


That's circular though. If you think like the people and people think like you, how do you know who is right and how does that move thought forward?



> I don't know what that is but by the name it sounds like you may be right. If so, though, it won't matter because my beliefs center around the importance of the popular idea, as above. If it is a logical fallacy, so be it. Much as it pains me to say that.


Then why not try to change it? 



> This is what it means to be Te PoLR? Then there is no way I am any other type, because this philosophy here is the driving force of my life. This is actually deeply tied up in my religious beliefs; to me, the power of belief is the reason religions work, the reason they matter, the reason they have appeal. In some sense, all religions are correct, because they are believed in, and it is this belief that invests them with truth. If the Christian God exists, then he has influence precisely because so many believe in him and not the other way around. If we all truly exist, then it is our will, our applied belief, that is the ultimate force in the universe. Heh. Grand sweeping statements with absolutely no proof whatsoever ftw.


Not literally per se in the sense that your theory about reality is weak Te; it's more that your attitude towards facts is a good example of how Te PoLR can manifest. You also showcase weak Ti in several instances here, in that your thinking is full of logical fallacies. 



> If it isn't, I wish I could know what the limits are. Yet at the same time, every time I see what looks like a limit, it does not hold true for everyone. This sort of thing is why I recognize some people are just more capable than others in certain arenas. Some people are smarter, some people are stronger willed, etc. What I notice, though, and it could just be wishful thinking, is that those who fall short in one or more arenas always seem to have something they do excel in. There is some sort of balance, somewhere. A mysterious affirmation of our nature. I hope to crack what it is someday.


And this is what I mean what indicates weak Te and Te PoLR. Someone better at Te will be able to recognize this more easily and readily than you do and would also not refute the importance as much as you do. To take a better example: someone that has no legs will never be a great sprinter and compete with other sprinters. They may compete in handicap athleticism e.g. wheelchair racing but that's it. Their lack of legs will always impede their ability to become a greater sprinter. That's just a factual aspect of reality and imposes a real limit on them that no amount of willpower or wishful thinking will overcome. That's one example where there is no ability to experience infinite growth because they if they could, they would eventually grow a pair of legs and become a greater sprinter. Perhaps with better technology in the future, but that technology isn't here yet, anyway.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Reading about the whole existence thing and the difference between knowing that one exists and an hallucination, I think that you can set a baseline of what's a 'normal' sensation and what's an anomaly or that isn't considered a standard sensation. Hallucinations fall into the abnormal side if you use the current knowledge of biology, as there are facts that point out how it's something that could be seen as an alteration of normal perception, either caused by drugs or some biochemical imbalance. So you set the standard of what's expected and what's not according to the current facts.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Mordred Phantom said:


> Reading about the whole existence thing and the difference between knowing that one exists and an hallucination, I think that you can set a baseline of what's a 'normal' sensation and what's an anomaly or that isn't considered a standard sensation. Hallucinations fall into the abnormal side if you use the current knowledge of biology, as there are facts that point out how it's something that could be seen as an alteration of normal perception, either caused by drugs or some biochemical imbalance. *So you set the standard of what's expected and what's not according to the current facts.*


Yeah, this. If you have to live in this world and need standards, you use what is currently known despite knowing it may not be accurate. You don't have to believe you are correct in your facts, or that reality is what you think it is, in order to act upon it. 



Entropic said:


> To clarify then: you have an impression of yourself that you exist. You can "sense" this as in a physical sensation, you can "feel" this as something more intuitive/intangible, but either way, this leads to you conclude that you do exist in some way.


For me that would be belief. "I think therefore I am" is similar. I believe, therefore I am. It is strength of will, application, pushing forward. That's where alive is for me. I don't think of it as existence, though, I think of it as living. Who am I to say that life exists in the ultimate sense? I don't really know that. I simply act as if it does because otherwise I would not do anything at all, including eat.



Entropic said:


> You do realize that this is a contradiction of thought because if you assume that nothing is true but then feel the need to assume that something is true because the former position is impossible to apply, then you are no longer adhering to it? You can't believe in that you can never know but then feel forced to assume that consensus opinion shapes what is knowable. That just makes no sense.


"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

Nah, but seriously, I do not assume that nothing is true. I assume that I do not and cannot know if something is in fact true in a universal sense, and such I must act and react to the world according to how I perceive it to be. I believe I have a decent idea of how to do that, and can be moderately successful. But what is the ultimate purpose of my actions? I sell things to people that may or may not even be there. No, I have to believe that there is something that exists in order to make it through my day. But believing it and seeing the logical proof of it are not the same. As far as I can tell there is no proof that supports anything at all unless you first stand on some assumptions. All logic I have ever seen is based on one or more premises, and it is the premises I struggle with.

Therefore, if I am not assuming nothing is true but instead doubt that things are true, and then act as if things are true, I must also assume that what I do may ultimately mean nothing. And I do. I don't see it as a contradiction. To me, it is just doubt. It is a lack of having a made up mind, if you will. So if I must doubt, then I have to either yield to struggling with nihilism, or I must find something to cling to.

So if I do make the assumption that reality exists, and attempt to deal with it as such...I have to find an explanation for how it exists. I have to determine, what is it that makes this world. What is the driving force behind everything that happens?

I watch the world, and what I see most is cause and effect. A person takes an action, and it has an effect. I could then assume there are universal rules that govern things, and thus go to an objective viewpoint. I don't, because each action has different effects that exceed what is explainable to me. This touches upon mystical experiences. Ghosts, astral journeys, telekinesis. Things that people say are not real. I have witnessed these things, and more besides. So if reality is not as people say it is, then what is it?

That is where I must conclude that there is no hard and fast rules. The "rules" are a muddy soup of possibilities and could-have-happeneds that are a headache to deal with. The rules we agree on don't always apply, but then sometimes they do. It seems to me that the root of it is belief. We believe a thing can occur, so it does. But at the same time, others believe it cannot occur. The collective belief of people clashes. It is the strongest wills, and the most convinced, the most devout, that prove most able to go against what is supposedly "possible". I have far too much experience, more than I could ever hope to relate without writing a whole book, that points me to conclude this. If anything is objectively true, it is this. Willpower shapes the universe. Belief shatters the boundaries of the real, if it be strong enough. But to overcome the collective disbelief of the entire population is a mean feat, probably impossible. Rules can be bent. But some just refuse to be broken. It is the current world, with the current beliefs, that prevents the breakage of the most-believed-in rules. Thus, the rules are subject to change as people change.



Entropic said:


> Also, I'd say that saying the earth is round is more of a "soft fact" in the sense that it's currently the body of thought that's accepted and acknowledged, but it is a "hard fact" that the earth exists in some way. That's because that the shape of the earth is subject to human subjective perception but the impression behind that perception is not.


That sounds logical. If we presuppose that something to be perceived exists then of course we must suppose that the thing we see as round probably exists, since it supports our life processes in order for us to be live to observe that something is existing.



Entropic said:


> I already stated and agree with that the true objective reality is unknowable in its full objectivity to us; however, it doesn't mean it's not knowable at all. I don't believe in objective rules either such as maths. I think that's make-belief in our own heads, but that there is some kind of structure to the universe itself, yes, I do believe that's objectively true. Otherwise quantum mechanics and the randomness that comes with it would also be applicable to large objects in space which would render life utterly chaotic but it's not.


It seems utterly chaotic to me half the time.

I agree that if it exists, SOMEthing must be knowable. Let's reference the "sense of existing". If you can sense that you exist and we also agree to presuppose that something exists, then we know that consciousness must exist else you would not be conscious that you exist, therefore you must exist in some form. I have doubts as to how much is really knowable.



Entropic said:


> Gravity may later be replaced with a new theory, but that there is something affecting us remains. It's less about the name. Names come and go over time and so do the models that try to justify the names, but the object we are trying to name remains.


Certainly. It isn't about the name. I don't know that what we are trying to name remains, though. It could very well be that what we are trying to name is unique to our world, for example, and when Earth dies so does it. Then the force we thought was part of the rest of the galaxy turns out to be something else. We don't know that they are not discrete and separate. All things come to an end, eventually.



Entropic said:


> That's circular though. If you think like the people and people think like you, how do you know who is right and how does that move thought forward?


You don't know you are right. You trust in your conclusion as much as you can and move forward because you can't know you are right. If other people reach the same conclusion, then it may be closer to right, or it may be that our kind can't reach that answer yet. Either way.

I'm well aware it is circular. Nihilism usually is. I try to avoid it. I am depressed, currently, and it is probably affecting my communication.



Entropic said:


> Then why not try to change it?


Because I don't need to be the most logical. I like to be logical, I like to understand things. Ultimately, though, it falls to beliefs. I need something to believe in far more than I need to be logical. It matters to me that people think and believe the ways that they do, and it matters to me that the patterns in religious thought are there to be seen, and that the patterns support the conclusions in a way that makes sense to me. It matters that belief is the driving force that unites us and separates us at the same time. Will matters. It has to. In a world that makes no sense, we can still act. We can still make sense of it as best we can. We can still matter even if we don't exist. If I am a figment of some being's imagination, then I exist within that being's mind, and my life and my actions are affecting that being too. Even if everything is predetermined or imaginary, it can still have meaning. So I live as I am and choose as I do, and make sense of things as I can without falling into despondency.



Entropic said:


> Not literally per se in the sense that your theory about reality is weak Te; it's more that your attitude towards facts is a good example of how Te PoLR can manifest. You also showcase weak Ti in several instances here, in that your thinking is full of logical fallacies.


I know. I can see the fallacies these days. Its what proved to me I am not a Thinker type. I can even name some of the fallacies. If it were important to me that everything I believe makes sense at all times, I'd change it. As it stands, I just think about it, and try to organize my thoughts on the matter. Its hit and miss.



Entropic said:


> And this is what I mean what indicates weak Te and Te PoLR. Someone better at Te will be able to recognize this more easily and readily than you do and would also not refute the importance as much as you do. To take a better example: *someone that has no legs will never be a great sprinter and compete with other sprinters. They may compete in handicap athleticism e.g. wheelchair racing but that's it. Their lack of legs will always impede their ability to become a greater sprinter. That's just a factual aspect of reality and imposes a real limit on them that no amount of willpower or wishful thinking will overcome. *That's one example where there is no ability to experience infinite growth because they if they could, they would eventually grow a pair of legs and become a greater sprinter. _Perhaps with better technology in the future, but that technology isn't here yet, anyway._


T_T to the bold. That's so sad. I won't refute it though. 

To the italicized, I am rather counting on that. It is things like this, the limits that I can see that are not overcome, that is where I find some measure of confidence that things are real. But it is things like this future progression, too, that support my ideas as well. Things change, and all things are possible. There's just some limits that seem to be in flux rather than steady. Right now, it seems that bodies recover from injury but do so very slowly. Some things are so slow that it takes longer than a lifetime, so it "doesn't recover". 

Like, there is a fascinating study going on, talked about in Ted Talks, that shows that those who have been injured in the brain can recover. We can culture brain cells of a certain type (I forget the name) and inject them into the brain, and it encourages growth and repurposing (neural plasticity I think its called) of existing brain cells in order to recover lost functionality. Treatments that are repeated further heal it, and have been shown to give as much as 70% functionality back (IIRC). If that is possible today, then what will be possible tomorrow? I don't think that only doom and gloom exists in our future. I believe that there is something more that awaits us. The age of closed minds will draw to a close. People will see that what we believe is true is not as true as we have chosen to think it is. What is possible and what is not changes every day. What will be possible tomorrow?

Matches my mood today.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yeah, this. If you have to live in this world and need standards, you use what is currently known despite knowing it may not be accurate. You don't have to believe you are correct in your facts, or that reality is what you think it is, in order to act upon it.


You don't have to use what is currently known though. It is also possible to create your own standards or rely on standards that are no longer in vogue but you think are more accurate. 



> For me that would be belief. "I think therefore I am" is similar. I believe, therefore I am. It is strength of will, application, pushing forward. That's where alive is for me. I don't think of it as existence, though, I think of it as living. Who am I to say that life exists in the ultimate sense? I don't really know that. I simply act as if it does because otherwise I would not do anything at all, including eat.


I would disagree with you that "I think therefore I am" is similar, because the latter is a logical assertion made not because of a certain "sense" of, but because it is a matter of creating a logical proof. 



> "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
> 
> Nah, but seriously, I do not assume that nothing is true. I assume that I do not and cannot know if something is in fact true in a universal sense, and such I must act and react to the world according to how I perceive it to be. I believe I have a decent idea of how to do that, and can be moderately successful. But what is the ultimate purpose of my actions? I sell things to people that may or may not even be there. No, I have to believe that there is something that exists in order to make it through my day. But believing it and seeing the logical proof of it are not the same. As far as I can tell there is no proof that supports anything at all unless you first stand on some assumptions. All logic I have ever seen is based on one or more premises, and it is the premises I struggle with.


How so? A premise is ultimately what you make it out to be. 



> Therefore, if I am not assuming nothing is true but instead doubt that things are true, and then act as if things are true, I must also assume that what I do may ultimately mean nothing. And I do. I don't see it as a contradiction. To me, it is just doubt. It is a lack of having a made up mind, if you will. So if I must doubt, then I have to either yield to struggling with nihilism, or I must find something to cling to.


But if you doubt, you do not know, yet you make the assertion that you must know because if you do not know you cannot act. So yes, that is still a contradiction. 

It is one thing to doubt what you do know in order to gain more knowledge, but another to doubt that there is something at all. The latter does not lead to the striving towards more and new knowledge. 



> So if I do make the assumption that reality exists, and attempt to deal with it as such...I have to find an explanation for how it exists. I have to determine, what is it that makes this world. What is the driving force behind everything that happens?


Why do you have to have an explanation? You can just accept that it exists and that's it. There doesn't have to be a driving force; things can simply move by their own volition. There doesn't have to be a greater will. I certainly don't believe so anyway, because that would suggest everything is pre-determined and I don't think it is. I think life is made up by numerous individuals making their own choices and those choices when aligned together create the complexity which we see. 



> I watch the world, and what I see most is cause and effect. A person takes an action, and it has an effect. I could then assume there are universal rules that govern things, and thus go to an objective viewpoint. I don't, because each action has different effects that exceed what is explainable to me. This touches upon mystical experiences. Ghosts, astral journeys, telekinesis. Things that people say are not real. I have witnessed these things, and more besides. So if reality is not as people say it is, then what is it?


But if you are a doubter, then how do you know what you perceived is real? Personally, I've tried hard to experience the supernatural in my youth and I never experienced it. I think the experience of the supernatural depends more on one's personal perception. I am personally not leaning towards the superstitious because I do think that a lot of what we think we cannot explain we consider supernatural, but it is simply because it is easier for our minds to assume there is a supernatural cause than accepting that perhaps sometimes the world simply isn't possible to be placed within the rationality of the human mind. 



> That is where I must conclude that there is no hard and fast rules. The "rules" are a muddy soup of possibilities and could-have-happeneds that are a headache to deal with. The rules we agree on don't always apply, but then sometimes they do. It seems to me that the root of it is belief. We believe a thing can occur, so it does. But at the same time, others believe it cannot occur. The collective belief of people clashes. It is the strongest wills, and the most convinced, the most devout, that prove most able to go against what is supposedly "possible". I have far too much experience, more than I could ever hope to relate without writing a whole book, that points me to conclude this. If anything is objectively true, it is this. Willpower shapes the universe. Belief shatters the boundaries of the real, if it be strong enough. But to overcome the collective disbelief of the entire population is a mean feat, probably impossible. Rules can be bent. But some just refuse to be broken. It is the current world, with the current beliefs, that prevents the breakage of the most-believed-in rules. Thus, the rules are subject to change as people change.


Nah, the root isn't belief. We don't have to believe in order to understand how rules apply and don't apply. Rules are contextual so it's about understanding the context. For example, a long-term and more overarching rule could be to try to not eat so much food every day in order to lose weight, but it doesn't mean that you in the short-term can sometimes eat a piece of food that is outside of what you would normally allow yourself to eat because it may fit in with your diet in some other way. 

In my diet plan I for example try to reduce carbs as much as possible. That includes fruits and vegetables since they are all very rich in carbs with few exceptions. Yet I eat tomatoes even though they are rich in carbs. The reason why is because tomatoes are also a good source of fiber and micronutrients that I need and wouldn't get from simply eating protein and fat all day. These are not contradictions and may well fit into my plan as long as I restrict how many tomatoes I eat daily (a couple of cherry tomatoes, no more than 100g). That allows me to eat stuff I love like a simple salad with tomatoes and some feta sprinkled with olive oil and some salt. So I follow the rule of my diet (try to eat >20g carbs a day) and eating these things don't compromise that. 



> It seems utterly chaotic to me half the time.
> 
> I agree that if it exists, SOMEthing must be knowable. Let's reference the "sense of existing". If you can sense that you exist and we also agree to presuppose that something exists, then we know that consciousness must exist else you would not be conscious that you exist, therefore you must exist in some form. I have doubts as to how much is really knowable.


What has chaos got to do with it?



> Certainly. It isn't about the name. I don't know that what we are trying to name remains, though. It could very well be that what we are trying to name is unique to our world, for example, and when Earth dies so does it. Then the force we thought was part of the rest of the galaxy turns out to be something else. We don't know that they are not discrete and separate. All things come to an end, eventually.


That's the point of science, to figure those things out. 



> You don't know you are right. You trust in your conclusion as much as you can and move forward because you can't know you are right. If other people reach the same conclusion, then it may be closer to right, or it may be that our kind can't reach that answer yet. Either way.
> 
> I'm well aware it is circular. Nihilism usually is. I try to avoid it. I am depressed, currently, and it is probably affecting my communication.


Nihilism doesn't have to be circular. You don't need to know that you are right; you can simply set out to see if you are or not. If other people reach the same conclusion it can help to ascertain that you could be right, but it doesn't mean we should trust that we are just because others do. It also depends on their sense of competency and how able they are to be able to make such judgements. Not everyone is equally competent in their ability to gauge reality. 



> Because I don't need to be the most logical. I like to be logical, I like to understand things. Ultimately, though, it falls to beliefs. I need something to believe in far more than I need to be logical. It matters to me that people think and believe the ways that they do, and it matters to me that the patterns in religious thought are there to be seen, and that the patterns support the conclusions in a way that makes sense to me. It matters that belief is the driving force that unites us and separates us at the same time. Will matters. It has to. In a world that makes no sense, we can still act. We can still make sense of it as best we can. We can still matter even if we don't exist. If I am a figment of some being's imagination, then I exist within that being's mind, and my life and my actions are affecting that being too. Even if everything is predetermined or imaginary, it can still have meaning. So I live as I am and choose as I do, and make sense of things as I can without falling into despondency.


I have a much simpler approach, personally. Meaning is what we make out of something, nothing more, nothing less. I'm an existential nihilist in the sense I don't think there is any intrinsic meaning in the world but I do think meaning can be found by creating it for ourselves.



> I know. I can see the fallacies these days. Its what proved to me I am not a Thinker type. I can even name some of the fallacies. If it were important to me that everything I believe makes sense at all times, I'd change it. As it stands, I just think about it, and try to organize my thoughts on the matter. Its hit and miss.


It makes no sense to me to recognize a fallacy while asserting claims about the fundamentals of the universe and then when pointed out, let them remain, but ok. 



> T_T to the bold. That's so sad. I won't refute it though.
> 
> To the italicized, I am rather counting on that. It is things like this, the limits that I can see that are not overcome, that is where I find some measure of confidence that things are real. But it is things like this future progression, too, that support my ideas as well. Things change, and all things are possible. There's just some limits that seem to be in flux rather than steady. Right now, it seems that bodies recover from injury but do so very slowly. Some things are so slow that it takes longer than a lifetime, so it "doesn't recover".
> 
> ...


But that's the thing: how can you even know what science tells you if you can never know what reality is like? Science has to make a number of assumptions about how the world operates in order to come up with the conclusions it does such as this one. What is the brain for example? How can we create an understanding of how it works? These things do operate on the assumption that reality can be observed in some way and even if we can't observe all of it, we try to create methods and tools in order to do just that.


----------



## Fenty (Jun 17, 2014)

society + beta = anarchy


----------

