# To intuitives ONLY



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

oh, l forgot about this thread.


l was going to ask you what color

The jewel


ln your belly button is?

l've always been partial to the green, myself.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Ballast said:


> Are you saying here that concern for the future did not motivate these people, or couldn't motivate them because they are sensors?
> 
> So, for example, an SP that I know who has been visiting national parks for decades and educating people on field trips about their beauty and the necessity to preserve them, especially in the face of state budget cuts, is incapable of observing the degradation of these parks over time and thus projecting what future budget cuts and lack of support for these parks will do to them? That _isn't _forward thinking?
> 
> If that is what you are claiming, go back and study the scope of MBTI and what it is intended to evaluate. Sensors are fully capable of imagining and regarding an abstract future. They just tend to focus on the present and concrete _more often. _


Well, I would first hope that you do not have to even see a tree or perceive the "happen-to-be" beauty that manifests in nature to care about the future; the idea that our civilization depends on nature provides obvious reasoning as to why we should act upon our ways in terms of societal implications on the environment. 

In the case of the SP you speak of, it sounds as if it may be their perception brought by their senses, their perception of the beauty and complexity of nature, which evokes their emotions, that causes them to fight for the future. I would hope individuals could be locked in solitary confinement without sight of nature for a decade and fight the same crusade, wouldn't you? Otherwise, it may come across as a sort of bias, not that I do not appreciat the ends of their actions in fighting for the environment.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tine said:


> Wow, this is pretty ignorant. Type has little to do with it, sensors and intuitives are equally likely to care about the environment.


Sensors and intuitives have equal probability of caring for the environment? Then what exactly differentiates the behaviour of sensors and intuitives? Please defined each from your point of view as to continue this debate between the two of us such that I do not make assumptions upon your understanding.


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> Well, I would first hope that you do not have to even see a tree or perceive the "happen-to-be" beauty that manifests in nature to care about the future; the idea that our civilization depends on nature provides obvious reasoning as to why we should act upon our ways in terms of societal implications on the environment.
> 
> In the case of the SP you speak of, it sounds as if it may be their perception brought by their senses, their perception of the beauty and complexity of nature, which evokes their emotions, that causes them to fight for the future. I would hope individuals could be locked in solitary confinement without sight of nature for a decade and fight the same crusade, wouldn't you? Otherwise, it may come across as a sort of bias, not that I do not appreciat the ends of their actions in fighting for the environment.


Ohh, ok. You're saying that no one should be motivated by anything other than pure, abstract a priori rationalism, not by anything empirically arrived at. 

I'm saying who cares, as long as the job gets done.

Why should your way of thinking be the only valid way?


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> oh, l forgot about this thread.
> 
> 
> l was going to ask you what color
> ...


I make a serious thread, concerning what I see as an important discussion; your first action is to ridicule it. Why are you even a member of these forums? Why do you not consider the views of others? I have both emotional and logical rationalization for perpetuating this argument, and you seem to understand neither; please stop joking around. I could only imagine one of an older generation, one of less insight, as to be joking about the survival of their children and their children.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

nebnobla said:


> I make a serious thread, concerning what I see as an important discussion; your first action is to ridicule it. Why are you even a member of these forums? Why do you not consider the views of others? I have both emotional and logical rationalization for perpetuating this argument, and you seem to understand neither; please stop joking around. I could only imagine one of an older generation, one of less insight, as to be joking about the survival of their children and their children.


10/10


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

nebnobla said:


> Sensors and intuitives have equal probability of caring for the environment? Then what exactly differentiates the behaviour of sensors and intuitives? Please defined each from your point of view as to continue this debate between the two of us such that I do not make assumptions upon your understanding.


Well you need to look at the aux function, as how it interacts with the dom is important. If you have an Fi dome then both an Se and Ne aux would have strong values, however the Se user would be more likely to act and do something about it. The Ne user would contemplate it, but what good is that with climate change? Thinking is good if you have time, but now we're running out of that so we need action. Sure, thinking is good, but it's actually been mentioned many times we can't hang around waiting for ideas to be confirmed, but we need to act and hope it helps now (can't give direct quotes because I don't remember full prose well but you get the idea).


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Ballast said:


> Ohh, ok. You're saying that no one should be motivated by anything other than pure, abstract a priori rationalism, not by anything empirically arrived at.
> 
> I'm saying who cares, as long as the job gets done.
> 
> Why should your way of thinking be the only valid way?


I'm not saying future perception is the only way to behave, I'm saying that even a sliver of consideration of it is the way to behave. It is not a binary idea, living in the moment is a reality of being an animal with evolutionarily pre-disposed drugs instigating our behaviour, in the end emotional activation is the only goal of one's actions, however I would seek to allow that to be embraced for future generations, a security which requires complete logical consideration of the mechanics of our civilization with respect to sustainability. 

"Who cares, as long as the job gets done"

This time, if we don't make the deadline, we all die, and our species is gone forever - 3 billions years of evolution, essentially R&D, gone just so one could embrace the difference between different kinds of candy, i.e. living in the moment things. This "job" needs super super careful consideration, which is not taken seriously, in my opinion.


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> This is a democratic world, the political organizations that impose the regulations you speak of are voted in by the people; the reality of certain political parties being voted in is subject to the opinions of the people, with the majority achieving victory in what they want, which manifests in the mandate of those organizations. If it were that the masses cared more about the future, i.e. oil depletion, climate change, etc, rather than in the moment actions, such as retirement security and healthcare, etc, then we may certainly see that; however, as humans we are subject to our animalistic behaviour, which unfortunately plays a large role in what the masses want, i.e. evoking the evolutionarily pre-disposed drugs a.k.a emotions, and thus what organizations take privilege in imposing rule on us.


No sir, these people have been lied to. When the companies have bought out the media and told them to spread doubt, is it really these people's fault that they don't know the truth? You are underestimating the amount of influence the media has. It's them being told that there is not consensus on the cause of climate change so rather than jump to drastic changes they would rather wait it out until further information comes(Which given the info they have, is fairly rational). To put it into other terms if my left hand hurts and it could be a sprain or could require amputation, I'd rather wait and see if it is a sprain than cut off my hand.

Oh and BTW

70% of people think that climate change is real with 54% thinking it is real and human caused(Americans). Which is well higher than the suggested percentage of intuitive in society. Meaning that in essence there is no way that your claims can be true:tongue:.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tine said:


> Well you need to look at the aux function, as how it interacts with the dom is important. If you have an Fi dome then both an Se and Ne aux would have strong values, however the Se user would be more likely to act and do something about it. The Ne user would contemplate it, but what good is that with climate change? Thinking is good if you have time, but now we're running out of that so we need action. Sure, thinking is good, but it's actually been mentioned many times we can't hang around waiting for ideas to be confirmed, but we need to act and hope it helps now (can't give direct quotes because I don't remember full prose well but you get the idea).


I am not educated in cognitive functions, I do not delve that deep in trying to organization complex individuals on such predictable basis, however I believe the original "letters" of MBTI provide a general approximation of human behaviour that is accurate and deserves some merit, which is why I was confident in beginning this discussion.

I will attempt to interpret correctly:

_The Ne user would contemplate it, but what good is that with climate change?_

The intuitive likely would have contemplated while it was a manageable problem, rather than waiting for a later, hopeless, time.

_Thinking is good if you have time, but now we're running out of that so we need action.
_
Why do you think I started this discussion? Those who live-in-the-moment argue that it's too late for thinking? We've been telling them all along! It's been written on the wall and now you finally comply to our idea when it's too late? Who is on the wrong side of the argument here?


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Surreal Snake said:


>


You obviously believe I am wrong, which can only be because you know better, please provide your argument to explain your view rather than bask in your confidence of it without revealing it.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't think sensors are the ones who are responsible for problems, it's probably greedy people in general, both intuitives and sensors.

Something on this forum that really annoys me is how people act like intuitives are superior to sensors, when they aren't.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

nebnobla said:


> I am not educated in cognitive functions, I do not delve that deep in trying to organization complex individuals on such predictable basis, however I believe the original "letters" of MBTI provide a general approximation of human behaviour that is accurate and deserves some merit, which is why I was confident in beginning this discussion.
> 
> I will attempt to interpret correctly:
> 
> ...


Your first statement makes no sense. You dont want to organize people but believe you can group people with a letter? 
We're all in the wrong. The people saying to act didn't do enough, the people being pushed waited too long (probably intuitive and sensor mix, note that NPs are known for procrastination). If everyone was less wrapped up in themselves we'd have done something, but we don't like the idea of spending money or changing our lifestyles. That has very little to do with type, but more about the problem with society as a whole.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

judowrestler1 said:


> No sir, these people have been lied to. When the companies have bought out the media and told them to spread doubt, is it really these people's fault that they don't know the truth? You are underestimating the amount of influence the media has. It's them being told that there is not consensus on the cause of climate change so rather than jump to drastic changes they would rather wait it out until further information comes(Which given the info they have, is fairly rational). To put it into other terms if my left hand hurts and it could be a sprain or could require amputation, I'd rather wait and see if it is a sprain than cut off my hand.
> 
> Oh and BTW
> 
> 70% of people think that climate change is real with 54% thinking it is real and human caused(Americans). Which is well higher than the suggested percentage of intuitive in society. Meaning that in essence there is no way that your claims can be true:tongue:.


My original argument was the assumption that sensors would submit to the influence of the very influential media, my original comment was out to those who actually see these issues, I expect for sensors to be blind and stay blind, that is a reality and the reality of the doom of our civilization should you know. 

And we do not need more information; our logical imposition on a complex and unpredictable system will end with the unsustainability of that system to the disappointment of the imposer. We have enough information, e.g. we are halfway through our oil and the oil use per capita increases at a steady rate; any physics or math teacher would see the issue with this in terms of the reliance of agriculture and human society on oil and with respect to the time it would take to replace this energy source with other sources, which are non-existent or implausible. So I would ask, is it because the data is not available, or have you not found the data yourself or perhaps your analysis techniques are not so refined as to see the reality? I certainly would not trust the media, which is a servant of the sensor masses, to lay this out explicitly to us, and I think you would agree.

And when citing numerical data please provide the citations such that I can analyze the studies and provide reliable rebuttal.


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> I'm not saying future perception is the only way to behave, I'm saying that even a sliver of consideration of it is the way to behave. It is not a binary idea, living in the moment is a reality of being an animal with evolutionarily pre-disposed drugs instigating our behaviour, in the end emotional activation is the only goal of one's actions, however I would seek to allow that to be embraced for future generations, a security which requires complete logical consideration of the mechanics of our civilization with respect to sustainability.
> 
> "Who cares, as long as the job gets done"
> 
> This time, if we don't make the deadline, we all die, and our species is gone forever - 3 billions years of evolution, essentially R&D, gone just so one could embrace the difference between different kinds of candy, i.e. living in the moment things. This "job" needs super super careful consideration, which is not taken seriously, in my opinion.


I remember thinking a lot of these things myself, especially when I was going through a bit of bitter cynicism back in college when I realized my life would amount to little more than serving sticky liquid to boorish animals a mere step above what you'd find in a zoo. It was entirely frustrating. I hated the people around me.

But I got a little older and honestly, while I put myself on a pedestal (as alienated and disenfranchised NTs tend to do) I didn't really deserve to be there and the people I put below me didn't deserve it either. I agree that things should be important far beyond how _good_ they feel or how much they inspire our sensations/emotions. It's why I'm such a big fan of Spock, of principle that stands for itself rather than what it can give you in the moment. It's why I felt so disgusted with advertising that attempted to play with emotions and inspire the senses. It made me feel like nothing more than a machine, and worse, that it was what society expected me to _aspire_ to be. So of course I was angry. But I was completely missing the point of what other people's values even are. I wasn't even willing to listen to people who had a different approach or focus than what I thought mattered. 

The thing is, we can work towards the same goals even if we have different ways of getting there. If an SP is motivated to save a park because he is inspired by its beauty and wants to preserve it so future generations can have the joy of hiking and camping there as he did (an integral part of childhood) and I approach it with the sheer logic of the fact that we need the ecosystem in tact for our optimal survival (and leave the camping for those who can stand to be away from their computers), in the end what matters is that we are working towards the same goal of preservation. We can all be motivated by this. And truthfully it's a little unrealistic to expect us, even the "purely mental" NTs, to be truly separated from our emotions and sensations. It's unhealthy. We have to learn to work with them, not to let them overrule our logic and better judgment, but to preserve our wholeness. To eliminate them entirely is foolish. In fact, if we are capable of doing that, we don't even need trees or nature. We can just synthesize oxygen in a laboratory and put our brains in vats, living simply through thought. There would be nothing to bother preserving if we are to abandon the existence of our bodies.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

To intuitives ONLY

I feel like the problems of the world, i.e. industrial causation of climate change, oil depletion without plan of future action, overpopulation, etc, are principally caused by an ignorance of them and an inhibition towards acting on them (they are obvious), which is characteristic of "living in the moment;" all I care about is the future, I would imagine other intuitives feel the same. I wonder of a world in which a different proportionality of sensors to intuitives, i.e. rather than approximately 7 to 3, would deem a better chance for humanities survival. I expect 100% of sensors to disregard the logic to this claim and make some comment that is characteristic of their inability to make predictions of the future or even the consequences of human action, so those comments will be here-forth disregarded and only used in substantiation of this claim.

I wish all intuitives the best of luck and good health and happiness in the future that was never meant for them, in this democratic system which is ruled by those who can't see tidal waves even meters away from them. Good luck and God bless, all we can wish to have now is faith in our heavenly father to prize us with his bereavement for our good actions and insight in light of the sad actions of another, to which we are subjected to in the saddest manner.

With Love [to only intuitives], Nebnobla.



All I got out of your (mein kampf) is you have the answers without providing any.Being intuitive is enough to solve these problems.Plus only Intuitives are saved cuz god doesn't want any "sensors" in heaven.Are you in your mommies kitchen bitching?Good luck with whatever you are proposing to"only intuitives"..


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Funnily, enough, all the problems you're talking about are based on wanting to conserve resources for sustainability's sake. That is something extremely Si. That is up SJ's alley by a mile.

My question to you is: why are you so concerned with keeping the status quo? Do you think the world will fall apart if it works a different way?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> We've been telling them all along!


"We?" - Speak for yourself. Don't put words into others' mouths. 

You're putting people into 2 exclusive groups here. It's not like that at all. Not every person of the same type are totally alike. We may use the same functions, but that does not decide what we choose to do with those functions and how we see the world. Before anything, we are individuals.


----------



## judowrestler1 (Mar 30, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> My original argument was the assumption that sensors would submit to the influence of the very influential media, my original comment was out to those who actually see these issues, I expect for sensors to be blind and stay blind, that is a reality and the reality of the doom of our civilization should you know.
> 
> And we do not need more information; our logical imposition on a complex and unpredictable system will end with the unsustainability of that system to the disappointment of the imposer. We have enough information, e.g. we are halfway through our oil and the oil use per capita increases at a steady rate; any physics or math teacher would see the issue with this in terms of the reliance of agriculture and human society on oil and with respect to the time it would take to replace this energy source with other sources, which are non-existent or implausible. So I would ask, is it because the data is not available, or have you not found the data yourself or perhaps your analysis techniques are not so refined as to see the reality? I certainly would not trust the media, which is a servant of the sensor masses, to lay this out explicitly to us, and I think you would agree.
> 
> And when citing numerical data please provide the citations such that I can analyze the studies and provide reliable rebuttal.


I did provide the study in the hyperlink, but here it is again Americans.

Also, I agree with you that we need to move away from oil as a fuel. I haven't looked up how much is left but, my motives are toward finding a cleaner and more efficient energy source. How much is left is immaterial to me. 

I'm saying that most people(Both N and S) are often either too busy or lazy to look up the info themselves and trust the media. The problem is that organizations like Fox sell the people lies and distort the truth. So if there is an issue it's with people being lazy which I agree with. Not with sensors.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tine said:


> Your first statement makes no sense. You dont want to organize people but believe you can group people with a letter?
> We're all in the wrong. The people saying to act didn't do enough, the people being pushed waited too long (probably intuitive and sensor mix, note that NPs are known for procrastination). If everyone was less wrapped up in themselves we'd have done something, but we don't like the idea of spending money or changing our lifestyles. That has very little to do with type, but more about the problem with society as a whole.


I answered your first rebuttal in my first statement, which apparently was not clear enough for you, so I will copy and paste it for your convenience: "_however I believe the original "letters" of MBTI provide a general approximation of human behaviour that is accurate and deserves some merit, which is why I was confident in beginning this discussion."_

This is a democracy for the most part, and especially where it matters in terms of seeing the opinions of the people, i.e. the opinions of the Americans, Canadians, and Europeans provide an opinion from an educated society. These societies are headed in an unsustainable direction; the individuals that comprise these societies dictate the direction of the societies by their democratic nature, and thus we would expect that if the majority of the individuals who steer these societies saw the very obvious issues that lay ahead for themselves and especially their children, we would see a change in direction, which is not apparent. Spending money or changing ones ways has implications on the emotional well-being of the individual, which would probably be not so severe had we not had such excessively unsustainable living standards; the fact that people cannot save humanity because it makes them feel "down" is no excuse, if logical leaders were in control, or perhaps a world order, these people would be disregarded and extinguished politically "in-the-moment" as to not influence the next moment._
_


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

zazara said:


> "We?" - Speak for yourself. Don't put words into others' mouths.
> 
> You're putting people into 2 exclusive groups here. It's not like that at all. Not every person of the same type are totally alike. We may use the same functions, but that does not decide what we choose to do with those functions and how we see the world. Before anything, we are individuals.


Thank goodness! *faith being restored*


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

nebnobla said:


> I answered your first rebuttal in my first statement, which apparently was not clear enough for you, so I will copy and paste it for your convenience: "_however I believe the original "letters" of MBTI provide a general approximation of human behaviour that is accurate and deserves some merit, which is why I was confident in beginning this discussion."_
> 
> This is a democracy for the most part, and especially where it matters in terms of seeing the opinions of the people, i.e. the opinions of the Americans, Canadians, and Europeans provide an opinion from an educated society. These societies are headed in an unsustainable direction; the individuals that comprise these societies dictate the direction of the societies by their democratic nature, and thus we would expect that if the majority of the individuals who steer these societies saw the very obvious issues that lay ahead for themselves and especially their children, we would see a change in direction, which is not apparent. Spending money or changing ones ways has implications on the emotional well-being of the individual, which would probably be not so severe had we not had such excessively unsustainable living standards; the fact that people cannot save humanity because it makes them feel "down" is no excuse, if logical leaders were in control, or perhaps a world order, these people would be disregarded and extinguished politically "in-the-moment" as to not influence the next moment.


I don't see what that has to do with sensors V intuitives at all.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Funnily, enough, all the problems you're talking about are based on wanting to conserve resources for sustainability's sake. That is something extremely Si. That is up SJ's alley by a mile.
> 
> My question to you is: why are you so concerned with keeping the status quo? Do you think the world will fall apart if it works a different way?


The sensor is expected to live in the moment from my experience; if their considerations are of that of conserving resources it would be in the interest of perpetuating their in-the-moment interests. I simply wish to rationalize and organize why humanity cannot survive as long as possible, and more specifically why no one seems to make logical considerations on the good health and happiness of their children, which I figured was a universal interest between all types. I disagree that sustainability is primarily an Si interest, and would argue it is exactly the opposite, as sustainability has no implications on the moment right now and purely has implications for the future and nothing else.

Your question is flawed with respect to my views; I object the status quo, and I specifically seek "another way."


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

lol

I don't know what's funnier?

That people believe type is related to political beliefs. Or that Malthusians still exist.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tine said:


> I don't see what that has to do with sensors V intuitives at all.


I'm arguing the statements you provided in your last rebuttal, whether relevant to the original argument or not; I seek to find flaws in your train of thought as to refine it.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tine said:


> Thank goodness! *faith being restored*


I am faithful myself; God has given me the gift of enlightenment and I feel the need to spread the word of righteousness in our final hour as to determine how humanity values it's own survival.


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> I attempt to teach everyone of the mandate I speak of in hopes of it making a future change, with many being preceptive but most thinking I am completely crazy, which typically follows with a complete confusion into why I don't just live "in the moment." I will continue to inspire others in hopes of instigating a larger political movement, however I am discouraged by the large majority of people who are ignorant to the issues or simply do not see value in caring about them. What do you do about these issues?


This isn't about the environment for you, is it?


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

nebnobla said:


> I'm arguing the statements you provided in your last rebuttal, whether relevant to the original argument or not; I seek to find flaws in your train of thought as to refine it.


I dont understand what you're arguing anymore....



nebnobla said:


> I am faithful myself; God has given me the gift of enlightenment and I feel the need to spread the word of righteousness in our final hour as to determine how humanity values it's own survival.


No, you misunderstood! Faith in the forum members, not God or anything. I'm agnostic with a kind of Buddhist philosophy.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

nebnobla said:


> The sensor is expected to live in the moment from my experience; if their considerations are of that of conserving resources it would be in the interest of perpetuating their in-the-moment interests. I simply wish to rationalize and organize why humanity cannot survive as long as possible, and more specifically why no one seems to make logical considerations on the good health and happiness of their children, which I figured was a universal interest between all types. I disagree that sustainability is primarily an Si interest, and would argue it is exactly the opposite, as sustainability has no implications on the moment right now and purely has implications for the future and nothing else.
> 
> Your question is flawed with respect to my views; I object the status quo, and I specifically seek "another way."


Status quo meaning the way our society works big picture. So these things fall through. Industry collapses. That sucks. We'll move on.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

The truth comes out...He is"Gods tool"..I am out


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

judowrestler1 said:


> I did provide the study in the hyperlink, but here it is again Americans.
> 
> Also, I agree with you that we need to move away from oil as a fuel. I haven't looked up how much is left but, my motives are toward finding a cleaner and more efficient energy source. How much is left is immaterial to me.
> 
> I'm saying that most people(Both N and S) are often either too busy or lazy to look up the info themselves and trust the media. The problem is that organizations like Fox sell the people lies and distort the truth. So if there is an issue it's with people being lazy which I agree with. Not with sensors.


I would ask who is more likely between intuitives and sensors to research what fuel sources we have left, the expected quantities of each, the rates of depletion, the rates of production of alternative fuel source infrastructure, etc, and the implications on survival. I work in nanotechnology; we seek to design solar infrastructure in this final hour as to provide adequate replacement of our fossil fuels, though it is very blatantly apparent to us that the time has passed, e.g. it takes years for these cells to pay off their production energy cost and by the time of energy profit we observe too much environmental degradation, i.e. UV damage, abrasion, and especially dust settling (which offset efficiencies dramatically), etc, the energy gain will not make up for expected required energy production. You can research this yourself.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tine said:


> I dont understand what you're arguing anymore....
> 
> 
> No, you misunderstood! Faith in the forum members, not God or anything. I'm agnostic with a kind of Buddhist philosophy.


I don't seek to control people, I simply debate to gain ideas, those ideas that obsolete my own are taken in and used in the future; it is simply a learning experience.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Surreal Snake said:


> The truth comes out...He is"Gods tool"..I am out


Every follower of God, of any sort of religion, is a tool of God; don't ridicule the religious.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

consciousness said:


> This isn't about the environment for you, is it?


Your a self-replicating piece of hardware which is characteristic of the environment which nurtured your evolution. Without the environment, or even enough of a change in it, your existence is endangered. Please respond to the question in my last post.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

nebnobla said:


> I don't seek to control people, I simply debate to gain ideas, those ideas that obsolete my own are taken in and used in the future; it is simply a learning experience.


Oh no I didnt mean you were controlling, I just got confused with what you were arguing, but then I'm kind of tired from university exam stuff today. Ideas are good, it's good to think, but I disagree with the judging people thing without knowing their reasons.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Status quo meaning the way our society works big picture. So these things fall through. Industry collapses. That sucks. We'll move on.


This seems optimistic to me; you should consider re-analyzing the situation in terms of the challenges our civilization faces with respect to our ability to overcome them realistically. For example, industry collapses, world economy fails, all food production halts, all food transportation stops, 2/3 of humanity faces food crises within the first two weeks; this is only one implication we may face, try to consider a few more tens of them before building a heartfelt opinion.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

I don't ridicule the religious.I ridicule the delusional.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> I would ask who is more likely between intuitives and sensors to research what fuel sources we have left, the expected quantities of each, the rates of depletion, the rates of production of alternative fuel source infrastructure, etc, and the implications on survival. I work in nanotechnology; we seek to design solar infrastructure in this final hour as to provide adequate replacement of our fossil fuels, though it is very blatantly apparent to us that the time has passed, e.g. it takes years for these cells to pay off their production energy cost and by the time of energy profit we observe too much environmental degradation, i.e. UV damage, abrasion, and especially dust settling (which offset efficiencies dramatically), etc, the energy gain will not make up for expected required energy production. You can research this yourself.


Ehrmehgerd were gerna di.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> This seems optimistic to me; you should consider re-analyzing the situation in terms of the challenges our civilization faces with respect to our ability to overcome them realistically. For example, industry collapses, world economy fails, all food production halts, all food transportation stops, 2/3 of humanity faces food crises within the first two weeks; this is only one implication we may face, try to consider a few more tens of them before building a heartfelt opinion.


Demand goes up. Supply goes down. Prices rise. Investment moves elsewhere as needed. Everything works out in the end.

Whether or not people look to the future is irrelevant. The market lives in reality and the market always wins.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Seriously that kind of logic makes me facepalm, as you think that sensors are a bunch of mindless robots.


Mindless robots with respect to the things they face in the near future; I don't think I could muster the motivation to work as if I'm actually going to have a retirement, I'd rather just make do and shoot my serotonin in whatever ways possible until shit hits the fan.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> Mindless robots with respect to the things they face in the near future; I don't think I could muster the motivation to work as if I'm actually going to have a retirement, I'd rather just make do and shoot my serotonin in whatever ways possible until shit hits the fan.


Ok, good luck surviving in the real world, as that mindset will bring you nowhere. Besides, your iNtuitive pride thing is damn hilarious, specially as it's clear that you haven't even bothered to read about cognitive functions. I think that this thread is a clear example of Ne-Si gone wrong.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

nebnobla said:


> The tangibility of moving humanity forward has been lost, the civilization is now written off and the many possibilities we used to ponder as to where society would go and the rationalization of spreading equality is gone; the destiny is written, it is one sided, there are now one sided and correct solutions to the consequences we face, and with it the rationalization of being able to point fingers to those who are most responsible - the ones who were ignorant of the implications of their momentary actions with respect to future consequences.


If the system fails it is not only the fault of its parts but also the system itself. All types, all humans are part of a system that continually expands and pushes forwards alobg with life itself. You have no clue what is flawed or what is not because your bias blinds your eyes feom seeing a reality thats all too encompassing for you. As I said before whether you like it or not the sensors and the Intuitives will always work together because its in our nature to fulfill our roles within the system. You blame sensors for your own bias, you want the world in your image and in that image the sensors do not fit but since reality has proven sensors exist and are part of the system. That makes your bias, your realization one that completely goes against the system of reality. In this case your system is greatly flawed while reality still sustains the most efficient system.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> I agree with you; we need the drones and pawns to deal with the stuff that the intuitives cannot do themselves due to a lack of mindless compulsion as to spend our lives carrying out such repetitive, boring and trivial tasks.


Well, I don't think a person is much better than the "pawns" they rely on.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Merihim said:


> Well, one thing is for sure: posting about it on the internet will _never solve a thing.
> 
> _But that's ok, just leave it to us, we'll fix it.
> 
> ...


My responses to others emotionally instigated attacks are only reflections of their own emotional instability, and not an object of my own intolerance. I am actually a pinnacle of tolerance, though realize others will not realize what is better for themselves and others until they have subjected themselves to the negative realities of their perception of things, i.e. what is wrong with their views, which necessitates destroying their sense of "what is;" it is the only way, unfortunately. We see God subjects his followers to the same treatment in the bible, as an example (and no, I do not compare myself to God, if your looking for a place to attack in my argument). 

Now, I am very tolerant to others, but sensors will NEVER EVER forgive anything I say, they never forget it rather, is the problem. I have realized this now with almost pure certainty, which is a blatant intolerance that persists for a lifetime. Prove me wrong. If what you say is true, don't look at intuitives or perceivers to be more tolerant, look at those who are limited in perspective whether it be being limited to only gathering information through the senses (sensing), or limited through a lack of ability to see all possibilities (perception), as the utter destruction of those limitations are required to consider the views and circumstances of others compassionately, which itself may be a definition of tolerance.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> If the system fails it is not only the fault of its parts but also the system itself. All types, all humans are part of a system that continually expands and pushes forwards alobg with life itself. You have no clue what is flawed or what is not because your bias blinds your eyes feom seeing a reality thats all too encompassing for you. As I said before whether you like it or not the sensors and the Intuitives will always work together because its in our nature to fulfill our roles within the system. You blame sensors for your own bias, you want the world in your image and in that image the sensors do not fit but since reality has proven sensors exist and are part of the system. That makes your bias, your realization one that completely goes against the system of reality. In this case your system is greatly flawed while reality still sustains the most efficient system.


The problems are not known? They've been written on the wall all along! They've been right in front of us, it is only that we are subject to a democracy that steers in the direction of meagre human wants fuelled by selfishness (e.g. retirement, healthcare, socialism, etc) that we have ended up here. We should have been acting upon the possible negative consequences of our actions, we should have been more perceptive of our reliance on things that will one day be gone forever, and we should have considered future generations. Sustainable development was the key and our democracies failed to integrate it. We would have a much better chance of survival had we had a system similar to that depicted in 1984 (yes, it is a utopia, if you did not realize) as the people would not be able to make such reckless decisions that would ensure that future generations would suffer in an environment your body is not even designed for. If you didn't investigate the data yourself, don't just assume others did not, I've studied the metrics for years on my own time, and it just doesn't add up. Now, who's responsible for the fact that I can no longer have a family on an ethical basis? I.e. that it wouldn't be wrong to bring a child into this world? The lack of perception of people nowadays is sickening; they still believe we will one day have starships, fools!


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> My responses to others emotionally instigated attacks are only reflections of their own emotional instability, and not an object of my own intolerance.* I am actually a pinnacle of tolerance*, though realize others will not realize what is better for themselves and others until they have subjected themselves to the negative realities of their perception of things, i.e. what is wrong with their views, which necessitates destroying their sense of "what is;" it is the only way, unfortunately. We see God subjects his followers to the same treatment in the bible, as an example (and no, I do not compare myself to God, if your looking for a place to attack in my argument).
> 
> Now, *I am very tolerant to others*, but sensors will NEVER EVER forgive anything I say, they never forget it rather, is the problem. I have realized this now with almost pure certainty, which is a blatant intolerance that persists for a lifetime. Prove me wrong. If what you say is true, don't look at intuitives or perceivers to be more tolerant, look at those who are limited in perspective whether it be being limited to only gathering information through the senses (sensing), or limited through a lack of ability to see all possibilities (perception), as the utter destruction of those limitations are required to consider the views and circumstances of others compassionately, which itself may be a definition of tolerance.


The irony of the bolded statements is over 9000. Clearly your Si is having a delusional field day.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> Now, I am very tolerant to others, but sensors will NEVER EVER forgive anything I say, they never forget it rather, is the problem. I have realized this now with almost pure certainty, which is a blatant intolerance that persists for a lifetime. Prove me wrong. If what you say is true, don't look at intuitives or perceivers to be more tolerant, look at those who are limited in perspective whether it be being limited to only gathering information through the senses (sensing), or limited through a lack of ability to see all possibilities (perception), as the utter destruction of those limitations are required to consider the views and circumstances of others compassionately, which itself may be a definition of tolerance.


You're saying that as if sensors are less than intuitives. No one is limited. That's just silly ~ 

I forgive you though since you might not know any better. Oh.. that must mean I'm an intuitive huh.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Ok, good luck surviving in the real world, as that mindset will bring you nowhere. Besides, your iNtuitive pride thing is damn hilarious, specially as it's clear that you haven't even bothered to read about cognitive functions. I think that this thread is a clear example of Ne-Si gone wrong.


My explanations on this forum have nothing do to with my personality in real life. In real life, I am loved by everyone I know, though many do because I put up a superficial social shield that has them not being able to see my real opinions. This entire discussion is only an exercise for me, I debate for fun and for knowledge, the fact that people become upset is an irrelevant but inevitable artifact of that, and the end of the discussion is typically purely emotionally-instigated responses to the ideas presented. I walk away from this with no gain or loss of pride, sometimes I am happy as no purely logical explanation contradicted all of my ideas presented, though I am always more enlightened than when I started, which is the goal. The fact that some people got their panties in a waddle during the process just happens to be, and I really don't care, it is an object of their own perception and it's contradictions with the things I said.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> The irony of the bolded statements is over 9000. Clearly your Si is having a delusional field day.


Read the other sentences in those paragraphs, don't just hear what you want to hear. If a sensor in real life got on my nerves, it would be rationalized by the fact that I know they are limited in what they see, almost like how a parent has be tolerant of their child, and thus I would just continue on without being phased or moved. Tolerance is something that is gained through rationalizing the possible reasons for things, specifically other's actions and views, and a consideration for their emotional (chemical) state. Like I said, if you try to insult me, I will do so back, I will certainly reflect any attacks you make on me, but not due to any degree of intolerance.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

arkigos said:


> This is what comes of excessive basement-dwelling.
> 
> What I find humorous about this thread is how convincing a case you make for the uselessness of intuition over sensing. When one's imagination runs away from them, the result is a whole framework, a whole paradigm, built on nothing.
> 
> ...


I'm not in a basement, I'm usually out with friends, at a rave or nightclub, or in a lab doing research. I also like to eat healthy and thus spend plenty of time in the kitchen. But no I am not huddled in the dark in the basement emotionally distressed over how I will write my next response; this all comes to me, all my answers are obvious to me, there is no thinking required anymore, very much due to good pattern recognition ability. I was a stoner for a decade and I recently stopped, now I feel as if I can thinking faster and more clearly than anyone; and as I am in Nanoscience, being a stoner while in such studies was similar to running with sandbags on your ankles, it only makes you stronger when you take them off.

Intuitives pave the way for the future, they see new things and progress humanity towards new pinnacles; the fact that humanity is now jeopardized has me no longer looking for new pinnacles but investigating who and what caused for our line to be ending, and bring great awareness to that.

And I don't spend much of my time arguing with people like yourselves, I do spend it shooting my serotonin in any way possible, but with great awareness to the logical realities of the universe. You don't have to commit to one and loose the other, they can be simultaneously appreciated; if you spend your time either thinking too much or not thinking enough then it is your own problem, don't make assumptions about me.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> LOL doers, best pawns of all, work mindlessly for hours; make a good fuck to.


And now you're getting creepy.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

monemi said:


> And now you're getting creepy.


And yet you continue the conversation? Haha, well I think I'd like to come across a little creepy than crazy hmm?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> And yet you continue the conversation? Haha, well I think I'd like to come across a little creepy than crazy hmm?


What inspired you to start trolling? Ran out of lube to wank with?


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

monemi said:


> What inspired you to start trolling? Ran out of lube to wank with?


No you see I actually have girls do that for me, thank you, and I did this for my own fun not for other's; I just like to have fun.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

this thread is so covertly condescending it's not even funny. "Sensors are too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions, so it's up to Intuitives because they are smart enough to do so"


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> No you see I actually have girls do that for me, thank you, and I did this for my own fun not for other's; I just like to have fun.










Silly kitty.


----------



## nebnobla (Jul 27, 2013)

monemi said:


> Silly kitty.


Well, Newton and Da Vinci didn't submit to the judgement of the people around them, and our society now praises them. The ability to triumph the judgement of others is the most important quality of a creative individual; I won't let my self-confidence be influenced by everyone so easily, I expect completely logical arguments to destroy my own, with absolutely no consideration for emotionally-instigated bullshit; anything else only strengthens my self-confidence, is that not clear?


----------



## SoulRefugee (Jan 27, 2014)

While it is a good trait those men possessed, I'd like to see results first before an applause happens. At this rate, its more likely that a world war will ignite due to the issues in Ukraine, before an intuitive takeover is conceived. If you plan on following through with this vision, how exactly do you plan on executing it?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nebnobla said:


> Well, Newton and Da Vinci didn't submit to the judgement of the people around them, and our society now praises them. The ability to triumph the judgement of others is the most important quality of a creative individual; I won't let my self-confidence be influenced by everyone so easily, I expect completely logical arguments to destroy my own, with absolutely no consideration for emotionally-instigated bullshit; anything else only strengthens my self-confidence, is that not clear?


Newton and Da Vinci actually accomplished great things and contributed to society. You made a fool of yourself on an online forum. That's not an accomplishment.


----------

