# Could it be, someone is another me?



## HellCell

So I got inspiration from making this thread after watching a documentary on reincarnation on YouTube.
One person in the comments section asked an interesting, paradoxical question. If souls transfer after death what accounts for increase or decrease in the human population?
One person remarked, perhaps we are duplicates of the same soul.

Then it sparked in my mind, could it be that some of you are so similar to me that you are essentially me but in a different body, environment, and set of influences?
This is interesting to me because I always pondered how I would behave differently if my circumstances were different. Or is the shackles of my SA unbreakable everywhere?

I know this is highly speculative, but to substantiate what I'm saying. Ian Stevenson, an expert psychiatrist back in the 60s, conducted a rigorous unbiased investigation on people's claims to memories of a previous life. The evidence suggested that some of these memories could not have been acquired by memory of their current life because they've described places in detail they've never been to before.


----------



## MuyTriste

It's possible that souls don't exist in the first place.


----------



## EcoProg

lol youtube comments


----------



## ugh1979

HellCell said:


> So I got inspiration from making this thread after watching a documentary on reincarnation on YouTube.
> One person in the comments section asked an interesting, paradoxical question. If souls transfer after death what accounts for increase or decrease in the human population?
> One person remarked, perhaps we are duplicates of the same soul.
> 
> Then it sparked in my mind, could it be that some of you are so similar to me that you are essentially me but in a different body, environment, and set of influences?
> This is interesting to me because I always pondered how I would behave differently if my circumstances were different. Or is the shackles of my SA unbreakable everywhere?


As we are all the same species, our traits and behaviours are similar across a fairly narrow spectrum of possible options.

Other people are just like you in many ways, but slightly different due to their personal variances and influences. If you were them then yes, you may well behave differently.

There is no need for a 'soul' as far as we can tell, and in the absence of evidence for one, speculation that there is one is just wishful thinking.



> I know this is highly speculative, but to substantiate what I'm saying. Ian Stevenson, an expert psychiatrist back in the 60s, conducted a rigorous unbiased investigation on people's claims to memories of a previous life. The evidence suggested that some of these memories could not have been acquired by memory of their current life because they've described places in detail they've never been to before.


You can read all about the fallacies Ian Stevenson made here. He was far from unbiased and not rigorous! It was poor science.


----------



## HellCell

ugh1979 said:


> As we are all the same species, our traits and behaviours are similar across a fairly narrow spectrum of possible options.


Of course, being the same species narrows our range of diversity. Just like lions maintain the same behavior generation after generation.



> Other people are just like you in many ways, but slightly different due to their personal variances and influences. If you were them then yes, you may well behave differently.


By personal variance, you mean brain chemistry? Genetics, etc? There are some people out there that are polar opposites of me.
Influences, of course play a part, but the "base personality" should remain in tact.


> There is no need for a 'soul' as far as we can tell, and in the absence of evidence for one, speculation that there is one is just wishful thinking.


So the absence of a soul implies a litany of things. So does that mean that my only conscious time of ever being is from my birth until now? Once I cease, that's it for me? Is the concept of a soul just a contrived human concept?
I don't really wish for a soul, in fact I'd like to know the truth, if the absence of evidence means no soul, then so be it.
[/quote]



> You can read all about the fallacies Ian Stevenson made here. He was far from unbiased and not rigorous! It was poor science.


I haven't the time to look into, but if someone is being debunked like that I guess he lost credibility.
In that case. I've gone full circle and I don't know anything. I feel like I'm a newborn baby again.:um
I won't ever quit on my quest on finding the answers to life.

Speaking of which I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about our origin of life? What is going on? How the heck did my conscious decide that I'll be around in 2014? Why not 1914? Why not the year 3000?


----------



## ugh1979

HellCell said:


> By personal variance, you mean brain chemistry? Genetics, etc? There are some people out there that are polar opposites of me.


Nature and nurture shape our personalities. When we say people are the opposite of us though, it's still only a fairly narrow behaviour range. Such as being an introvert or an extrovert. People in general though display the same kind of behaviours, due to the fact as I say, we are all the same species so have more or less the same default 'program' for development. We don't deviate too far from human base nature as we have similar genetics, and we almost all live in somewhat similar environments, so we don't tend to deviate too far from the results of said nurture.



> Influences, of course play a part, but the "base personality" should remain in tact.


Indeed genetic predispositions that effect behaviour can endure regardless of nurture and other experiences.



> So the absence of a soul implies a litany of things.


A litany? Odd to word to use.



> So does that mean that my only conscious time of ever being is from my birth until now? Once I cease, that's it for me?


I believe so, as there is no evidence for consciousness prior to birth or post death. If evidence emerges that changes that then so be it and I'll reassess my belief on the subject.



> Is the concept of a soul just a contrived human concept?


I would say so. I think the concept is for many people a coping mechanism to deal with the uncomfortable feeling they have about not existing/dying.

There can also be a degree of hubristic arrogance to the idea that they have an eternal soul, which infers they are that important they can't not exist.

I prefer to have the humility to not assume such status.

I think it often stems from the archaic human idea that humans are in some way 'special', rather than just being another organism existing for a tiny time on one rock among trillions. That's a cold hard fact, which some people have difficulty swallowing.



> I don't really wish for a soul, in fact I'd like to know the truth, if the absence of evidence means no soul, then so be it.


Indeed. That's how I see as well. I'd rather remain intellectually honest and not believe there are souls since there is no evidence for them.



> I haven't the time to look into, but if someone is being debunked like that I guess he lost credibility.
> In that case. I've gone full circle and I don't know anything. I feel like I'm a newborn baby again.:um
> I won't ever quit on my quest on finding the answers to life.


Glad to hear you will keep searching for the answers. 



> Speaking of which I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about our origin of life? What is going on? How the heck did my conscious decide that I'll be around in 2014? Why not 1914? Why not the year 3000?


This is a pretty huge topic I could speak for hours about, so you'd need to be more specific with questions, but to answer your last two; your conscious didn't _decide _when it would exist. Your consciousness exists due to your existence. The only conscious entities that decided you would exist is your parents.

Bear in mind you existed prior to being conscious/self aware for quite some time as a fetus/baby. Our species only becomes self aware and starts to recognise 'self' around 15-24 months. It's an emergent property as infants minds develop rather than existing prior to their existence. (As far as we can tell)


----------



## HellCell

ugh1979 said:


> Nature and nurture shape our personalities. When we say people are the opposite of us though, it's still only a fairly narrow behaviour range. Such as being an introvert or an extrovert. People in general though display the same kind of behaviours, due to the fact as I say, we are all the same species so have more or less the same default 'program' for development. We don't deviate too far from human base nature as we have similar genetics, and we almost all live in somewhat similar environments, so we don't tend to deviate too far from the results of said nurture.


I think you're answering in too broad of a scope here. As a species, yes we share inherent traits. Personality wise, I want to know what's going on? Is it brain chemistry that allows others to be more comfortable around people or nurture (encouraging family, outgoing lifestyle).
Or better yet I'll simplify my question. If I, the existing me, were to be born into a different lifestyle, would I be the same? Would I gravitate towards being introverted and science minded like I am now.
Would SA have been part of my life no matter if I was 'coached' to be around people or not?
Are social butterflies naturally gifted? Or did they actively work to become what they are? Or even stranger, are they the introverted me, but putting up a facade?



> This is a pretty huge topic I could speak for hours about, so you'd need to be more specific with questions, but to answer your last two; your conscious didn't _decide _when it would exist. Your consciousness exists due to your existence. The only conscious entities that decided you would exist is your parents.
> 
> Bear in mind you existed prior to being conscious/self aware for quite some time as a fetus/baby. Our species only becomes self aware and starts to recognise 'self' around 15-24 months. It's an emergent property as infants minds develop rather than existing prior to their existence. (As far as we can tell)


I'll throw a few catch phrases/key words.
Big bang?
Theory of evolution?

I just recently watched a documentary about human life. Basically, it's stating that I'm just a product of evolutionary demands. Everything from eyesight, being bipedal, having a voice box, and increased brain capacity. So in that sense I'm nothing more than "one of the animals" except with cognitive thought.

While it is tempting to immortalize my existence with the concept of having a soul, a lot of scientists humbly accept that they are nothing more than 'organisms'
I guess I'm guilty of hubris. Cold reality as we understand just doesn't sit well with me.
I'll just have to wait and see if this conversation changes in 20 years.


----------



## ugh1979

HellCell said:


> I think you're answering in too broad of a scope here. As a species, yes we share inherent traits. Personality wise, I want to know what's going on? Is it brain chemistry that allows others to be more comfortable around people or nurture (encouraging family, outgoing lifestyle).


The answer is its elements of both. Nature and nurture influence each other leading to resultant behaviour.

So, that's why I have to be so wide in scope with the answer, as the answers are so wide in scope.



> Or better yet I'll simplify my question. If I, the existing me, were to be born into a different lifestyle, would I be the same? Would I gravitate towards being introverted and science minded like I am now.
> Would SA have been part of my life no matter if I was 'coached' to be around people or not?


There are too many factors at play to say for sure. Our behaviour is the product of so many variables which are both nature and nurture based, along with various random factors, so we simply can't be sure how someone will behave within what are actually such subtle differences as introversion or extroversion, as we can often be both at different times, but just with a tendency for more frequent one or the other.

That said, I can imagine hypothetical situations where you could probably be made more likely to be someone who wasn't introverted and science minded.

SA is a reaction to a social situation, so if said social situation was different and to the persons preference it wouldn't make them anxious. It's a reactive rather than an inherently implicative condition.



> Are social butterflies naturally gifted? Or did they actively work to become what they are? Or even stranger, are they the introverted me, but putting up a facade?


The answer to all of them is that some are each. There is no one reason for apparent extrovert behaviour.

I know from my own situation that while i'm a natural introvert, in the correct situation I can be extrovert, and that doesn't mean it's a facade. It means that I only act a certain way in certain situations. When i'm being extrovert, i'm being true to myself in my desired behaviour.



> I'll throw a few catch phrases/key words.
> Big bang?


What about it?



> Theory of evolution?
> 
> I just recently watched a documentary about human life. Basically, it's stating that I'm just a product of evolutionary demands. Everything from eyesight, being bipedal, having a voice box, and increased brain capacity. So in that sense I'm nothing more than "one of the animals" except with cognitive thought.
> 
> While it is tempting to immortalize my existence with the concept of having a soul, a lot of scientists humbly accept that they are nothing more than 'organisms'
> I guess I'm guilty of hubris. Cold reality as we understand just doesn't sit well with me.
> I'll just have to wait and see if this conversation changes in 20 years.


Indeed, we are without doubt a result of evolutionary processes, but I have issue with people using the term 'just' in this context. For me the term 'just' as typically used in this context understates the awesomeness that is us as a result of the process (and other species).

We're a wonderful quirk of the system from our perspective IMO, and I need no supernatural narrative to believe that and enjoy it.

I guess what some see as cold hard reality can be part of realities beauty and awesomeness to me.

I totally understand and appreciate the psychological reasons why people subscribe to and invent narratives that give them worldviews they are content with, whatever they may be, empirically justifiable or not.


----------



## HellCell

ugh1979 said:


> There are too many factors at play to say for sure. Our behaviour is the product of so many variables which are both nature and nurture based, along with various random factors, so we simply can't be sure how someone will behave within what are actually such subtle differences as introversion or extroversion, as we can often be both at different times, but just with a tendency for more frequent one or the other.


Interesting, I never thought of introversion and extroversion as subtly different thinking patterns.
I have it defined as:
Introvert: Recharging in seclusion, expending in social situations.
Extrovert: Siphoning energy in socializing, drainage in seclusion.

Either way someone can be afflicted with SA. With introverts, like me, I'm more resilient to such a condition. Whereas with extroverts, it can be very depressing.
So in this case even if I was extroverted, without the right people to hang out with, I'd be just as antisocial. The subtle difference in behavior is that I'll probably act more 'needy.'



> That said, I can imagine hypothetical situations where you could probably be made more likely to be someone who wasn't introverted and science minded.


I've been fascinated with math and sciences since I was a kid. So I want to say there is a predisposed affinity.
I'll get hypothetical. Let's pretend I was purposely censored from viewing modern sciences and I was home schooled via preaching of religion. Then came a later age, say 18, I was finally opened up to sciences as I move out. I would like to believe I would drop all of my previous dogmatic beliefs and adopt my new found paradigm of thinking via science.



> SA is a reaction to a social situation, so if said social situation was different and to the persons preference it wouldn't make them anxious. It's a reactive rather than an inherently implicative condition.


That would suggest that some people have less inhibitions than others. So why am I sensitive to judgment?
My gut is telling me, that some people are born more outgoing and some more reserved.
However you are saying, we're all approximately in the same plane in terms of inhibitions and we are consciously choosing to be outgoing or reserved? Did I read you right?



> The answer to all of them is that some are each. There is no one reason for apparent extrovert behaviour.
> 
> I know from my own situation that while i'm a natural introvert, in the correct situation I can be extrovert, and that doesn't mean it's a facade. It means that I only act a certain way in certain situations. When i'm being extrovert, i'm being true to myself in my desired behaviour.


Come to think of it, I can pass as an extrovert too. When I'm around a group of friends who share the same interests, I open right up.
When it comes to people I'm not attuned with, let's say "jocks", I kind of just "tolerate" them and stand there quietly.
Perhaps, circumstances (aka nurture) is why some people appear extroverted. They got a lucky draw and was born around people they are comfortable around. Therefore, it's just a matter of exercising their 'extrovert muscles' more often.
Is that right?



> What about it?


I was implicitly asking if you believe in the big bang. Granted it is a theory, it is the best interpretation we have so far. Accepting this belief reinforces to me that you are comfortable in listening to cutting edge sciences.



> Indeed, we are without doubt a result of evolutionary processes, but I have issue with people using the term 'just' in this context. For me the term 'just' as typically used in this context understates the awesomeness that is us as a result of the process (and other species).
> 
> We're a wonderful quirk of the system from our perspective IMO, and I need no supernatural narrative to believe that and enjoy it.
> 
> I guess what some see as cold hard reality can be part of realities beauty and awesomeness to me.


I can certainly respect that viewpoint. I'm just not sure if I can completely discount supernatural phenomenon so quickly. Likewise, supernaturalness may have the same merit as Santa Claus, so it could very well be redundant delusion.
We still have little understanding in quantum mechanics. Because of our incomplete understanding of the universe. My only answer is I don't know what to think.
I just don't know, we're working off incomplete data. So life is very much a mystery.



> I totally understand and appreciate the psychological reasons why people subscribe to and invent narratives that give them worldviews they are content with, whatever they may be, empirically justifiable or not.


I have a feeling, this is exactly why religion is so widespread. Emotional comfort. I can respect as so long as it's not shoved down my throat.

Wow! wall of text, I hope this isn't getting too long winded for you.


----------



## zzxm01

Listen I'm a big fan of calculus and a variety of sciences, and take it from me, it's no reason not to believe in a god or anything. Going back to OP's question about souls and such, there are two major schools of thought on consciousness as a whole.

a) that it's is an entity totally inherent in the biology of the brain that arose with the body and will die with the body 

b) that the biology of the brain allows us to "tap into" consciousness, like a broadcast and a receiver

It is impossible to prove either at present, so there's no need to write anything off here. Keep an open mind always.


----------



## Melodic

I don't believe so. Each individual is shaped by their genetics and their environment (nature vs nurture), and if you were born into a different environment you'd likely be different to how you are now, but assuming you have the exact same genetic code, there'd likely be some fundamentally similar traits. Anyway, when I was in grade 6 in primary school I momentarily thought that I had been John Eyre in another lifetime, but I quickly dismissed the idea.


----------



## ugh1979

HellCell said:


> Interesting, I never thought of introversion and extroversion as subtly different thinking patterns.
> I have it defined as:
> Introvert: Recharging in seclusion, expending in social situations.
> Extrovert: Siphoning energy in socializing, drainage in seclusion.


Indeed. And the subtlety is how easy it can be for those mindsets to be harboured by the same person at different times.

I know I can swing between the states with just a slight change in mindset (not always within my control), although I tend to most likely be found on the introverted side.



> Either way someone can be afflicted with SA. With introverts, like me, I'm more resilient to such a condition. Whereas with extroverts, it can be very depressing.
> So in this case even if I was extroverted, without the right people to hang out with, I'd be just as antisocial. The subtle difference in behavior is that I'll probably act more 'needy.'


There are many factors and variables, but it's far more likely SA is found in introverts, since they typically are more adverse to social situations by definition.

It's true natural introverts can be more resilient to it than extroverts, since it's more in line with their usual nature, but it can be just as depressing to anyone.



> I've been fascinated with math and sciences since I was a kid. So I want to say there is a predisposed affinity.
> I'll get hypothetical. Let's pretend I was purposely censored from viewing modern sciences and I was home schooled via preaching of religion. Then came a later age, say 18, I was finally opened up to sciences as I move out. I would like to believe I would drop all of my previous dogmatic beliefs and adopt my new found paradigm of thinking via science.


You would 'like' to think that, but real world examples show this is rarely the case, at least not quickly. It takes some considerable time and exposure to radical new ideas for such significant parts of ones worldview to be negated.

There are of course exceptions, but usually it's a slower process of change.



> That would suggest that some people have less inhibitions than others.


That's exactly what it is. Levels of the neurochemical GABA for example can greatly effect someones inhibitions. Alchohol for example makes the brain release more GABA which can lower a persons inhibitions. There are various other drugs, like benzos, which increase GABA levels and can lower peoples inhibitions due to the anxiolytic effect of the drug.



> So why am I sensitive to judgment?
> My gut is telling me, that some people are born more outgoing and some more reserved.
> However you are saying, we're all approximately in the same plane in terms of inhibitions and we are consciously choosing to be outgoing or reserved? Did I read you right?


There can be natural or nurtural based reasons why someone is more or less sensitive to judgement or more or less outgoing. Ultimately every behaviour is due to a decision. That's not to say we are always consciously in control of the decisions involved in that behaviour. Our subconscious makes an immense amount of decisions for us every second. The number it pushes to our conscious mind is few. It's our 'co-pilot' doing all the flying, even though we can choose the destination, even if it's different from where the 'co-pilot' seems to want to go.

We can teach our 'co-pilots' with various means to make them 'agree' with our conscious will and desire.



> Come to think of it, I can pass as an extrovert too. When I'm around a group of friends who share the same interests, I open right up.
> When it comes to people I'm not attuned with, let's say "jocks", I kind of just "tolerate" them and stand there quietly.


Indeed, I'm the same. 



> Perhaps, circumstances (aka nurture) is why some people appear extroverted. They got a lucky draw and was born around people they are comfortable around. Therefore, it's just a matter of exercising their 'extrovert muscles' more often.
> Is that right?


Indeed if someone is brought up in an environment that supports them being an extrovert then yes that can make them tend to be more extrovert in the rest of their life. Of course, we often have a lot of experiences that don't support extroversion, even in a 'healthy' upbringing. It's complicated as there are so many factors at play.



> I was implicitly asking if you believe in the big bang. Granted it is a theory, it is the best interpretation we have so far. Accepting this belief reinforces to me that you are comfortable in listening to cutting edge sciences.


OK then yes, I do believe in the big bang theory. Just as I believe in the theories of gravity and electromagnetism for example.

You need to be careful with the term theory in this context, as in science theory means well established science, not hypothesis. The lay use of the theory is often synonymous with a hypothesis, which is why people often say the likes of the big bang or evolution by natural selection are 'just a theory', when in fact they are confused, they aren't just _hypotheses_, they are well established *fact*, as per scientific qualification.

I can certainly respect that viewpoint. I'm just not sure if I can completely discount supernatural phenomenon so quickly. Likewise, supernaturalness may have the same merit as Santa Claus, so it could very well be redundant delusion.
We still have little understanding in quantum mechanics. Because of our incomplete understanding of the universe. My only answer is I don't know what to think.
I just don't know, we're working off incomplete data. So life is very much a mystery.[/quote]

Indeed, as we mature as both individuals and society what was once supernatural phenomena becomes natural phenomena, which we can explain.

I wouldn't confuse everything we don't yet know as being supernatural though. At least not in the common inference of that word.



> I have a feeling, this is exactly why religion is so widespread. Emotional comfort. I can respect as so long as it's not shoved down my throat.


Indeed. I can respect it as long as it doesn't harm others. My personal experience with it is almost irrelevant compared to the harm it does to others.



> Wow! wall of text, I hope this isn't getting too long winded for you.


No all good. This kind of discourse is normal for me.  It's been a nice discussion, thanks.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> Listen I'm a big fan of calculus and a variety of sciences, and take it from me, it's no reason not to believe in a god or anything. Going back to OP's question about souls and such, there are two major schools of thought on consciousness as a whole.
> 
> a) that it's is an entity totally inherent in the biology of the brain that arose with the body and will die with the body
> 
> b) that the biology of the brain allows us to "tap into" consciousness, like a broadcast and a receiver
> 
> It is impossible to prove either at present, so there's no need to write anything off here. Keep an open mind always.


The idea of b) is as easy to write off as the belief that gravity won't suddenly inverse tomorrow.

Evidence shows our local gravity doesn't make sudden switches, just as evidence shows nothing that requires there to be such a thing as a 'soul', or 'cosmic consciousness' that we "tap into" rather than create for ourselves.

b) is just a hypothesis that is superfluous to our existence and doesn't meet the standards of credible belief. There is however much credible science and evidence which supports a).


----------



## HellCell

Melodic said:


> I don't believe so. Each individual is shaped by their genetics and their environment (nature vs nurture), and if you were born into a different environment you'd likely be different to how you are now, but assuming you have the exact same genetic code, there'd likely be some fundamentally similar traits. Anyway, when I was in grade 6 in primary school I momentarily thought that I had been John Eyre in another lifetime, but I quickly dismissed the idea.


That is exactly what my gut feeling would dictate. I would be somewhat different from my new set of life circumstances and experiences, but fundamentally the same.
I just have no way to substantiate this notion though. Finding my "twin" would be a lead though, if that ever happens.


----------



## Melodic

HellCell said:


> That is exactly what my gut feeling would dictate. I would be somewhat different from my new set of life circumstances and experiences, but fundamentally the same.
> I just have no way to substantiate this notion though. Finding my "twin" would be a lead though, if that ever happens.


I've heard about stories of identical twins separated at birth and who grow up in different environments. I think they often found that they were actually very similar despite having a different upbringing. At the same time though, it would really depend on just how different the environments were.

For example, in terms of SA, if one twin grew up in a harsher environment of abuse, prejudice or bullying, they are at a greater risk of developing SA. Similarly, one can be genetically predisposed to SA, but the presence of protective factors (loving family, social capital, opportunities etc.) and lack of precipitating factors (bullying, abuse, social isolation) could mean they never develop it. If both were bulled or neither were bullied, they would probably end up the same. The development of mental illness is often multifactorial in this way.


----------



## HellCell

ugh1979 said:


> There are many factors and variables, but it's far more likely SA is found in introverts, since they typically are more adverse to social situations by definition.


True, true. So this is saying that SA is both inherited as well as nurtured. My underlying question though is which is a bigger influence? Could it be that some people just simply can't connect to people because of heavy introversion?


> You would 'like' to think that, but real world examples show this is rarely the case, at least not quickly. It takes some considerable time and exposure to radical new ideas for such significant parts of ones worldview to be negated.
> 
> There are of course exceptions, but usually it's a slower process of change.


Okay, that a good answer to the rate of change. What about that predisposed affinity? Could it be possible that I fully embrace religion? Are humans naturally sheep minded?
Religion or any faith based belief is the antithesis of my mind framework as it stands. It's a no brainer I'd reject such concepts for now, but could I have been different if I was manipulated as a child?



> There can be natural or nurtural based reasons why someone is more or less sensitive to judgement or more or less outgoing. Ultimately every behaviour is due to a decision. That's not to say we are always consciously in control of the decisions involved in that behaviour. Our subconscious makes an immense amount of decisions for us every second. The number it pushes to our conscious mind is few. It's our 'co-pilot' doing all the flying, even though we can choose the destination, even if it's different from where the 'co-pilot' seems to want to go.
> 
> We can teach our 'co-pilots' with various means to make them 'agree' with our conscious will and desire.


Very interesting. I'm a bit intimidated about the topic of subconscious thinking though.



> Indeed if someone is brought up in an environment that supports them being an extrovert then yes that can make them tend to be more extrovert in the rest of their life. Of course, we often have a lot of experiences that don't support extroversion, even in a 'healthy' upbringing. It's complicated as there are so many factors at play.


Basically the underlying question I have here is, could I be more extroverted than I am now through environment? The answer sounds like yes.



> OK then yes, I do believe in the big bang theory. Just as I believe in the theories of gravity and electromagnetism for example.
> 
> You need to be careful with the term theory in this context, as in science theory means well established science, not hypothesis. The lay use of the theory is often synonymous with a hypothesis, which is why people often say the likes of the big bang or evolution by natural selection are 'just a theory', when in fact they are confused, they aren't just _hypotheses_, they are well established *fact*, as per scientific qualification.


Oh yes, I'm quite aware of the distinction between theory and hypothesis. I argue established theory like this to my friends all the time. The theory is exercised over and over again, piled with evidence, and made accurate predictions.
Theory is built on cornerstones of the best of scientific knowledge of any given time, however revision is a possibility. Newton's laws of physics are even in dispute because of quantum mechanics. Black holes put a question to Einstein's theory of relativity.



> Indeed, as we mature as both individuals and society what was once supernatural phenomena becomes natural phenomena, which we can explain.
> 
> I wouldn't confuse everything we don't yet know as being supernatural though. At least not in the common inference of that word.


I concur, well said.



> Indeed. I can respect it as long as it doesn't harm others. My personal experience with it is almost irrelevant compared to the harm it does to others.


Harm? As in wars through history? Bigoted families? The middle East? Are you thinking along those lines?
If so, I totally agree. For personal experience, sounds like you were given liberty to flourish your mind to your desire as have I.



> No all good. This kind of discourse is normal for me.  It's been a nice discussion, thanks.


Wait, it's not quite finished yet, lol. To streamline this conversation I'll reflect back on my original topic question as a parameter for closure.
We got to admit, our conversation is creating tangents out the wazoo.

That being said. I can say with confidence, but not quite with certainty, this conclusion.
Souls are a contrived human concept, my existence is a blip in time. It'd be more logical to drop the idea of reincarnation if anything.
Other people are approximately "Me" because of our high range of overlap in our common animal DNA. If anything were to be the main catalyst for change, it's environment. Think of the disparity between an upper class American and someone living in an African village.


----------



## HellCell

Melodic said:


> I've heard about stories of identical twins separated at birth and who grow up in different environments. I think they often found that they were actually very similar despite having a different upbringing. At the same time though, it would really depend on just how different the environments were.
> 
> For example, in terms of SA, if one twin grew up in a harsher environment of abuse, prejudice or bullying, they are at a greater risk of developing SA. Similarly, one can be genetically predisposed to SA, but the presence of protective factors (loving family, social capital, opportunities etc.) and lack of precipitating factors (bullying, abuse, social isolation) could mean they never develop it. If both were bulled or neither were bullied, they would probably end up the same. The development of mental illness is often multifactorial in this way.


Good answer. I wanted to see a test of how robust someone's personality can be. Your answer is in direct agreement that "another me" can exist. Perhaps approximately, but hey good enough.
I'm also dropping the idea of the derivative being a split soul, but rather genetic overlap.

As for SA. I got to watch how I ask this question lol. There are so many branches to this topic, I got to narrow my questions down.
So I'll answer in regards to me personally.
I feel my SA derives from genetics more so than environment. Even as a young child, let's say age of 6, I avoided my peers. This behavior maintained it's course all the way up until today.
I can't blame my environment since, bullying was not profuse, there were plenty of extracurricular activities I could have joined, and I've done a fair bit of traveling with my family.
For one reason or another, I shied away from pursuing social activities. A big factor being that I find comfort being alone. The other thing being that nerds were uncool, so I felt ostracized.


----------



## ugh1979

HellCell said:


> True, true. So this is saying that SA is both inherited as well as nurtured. My underlying question though is which is a bigger influence?


It depends on the case. Everyone is different.



> Could it be that some people just simply can't connect to people because of heavy introversion?


Yes, although i'm sure there would be other reasons as well that have to be considered.



> Okay, that a good answer to the rate of change. What about that predisposed affinity? Could it be possible that I fully embrace religion? Are humans naturally sheep minded?
> Religion or any faith based belief is the antithesis of my mind framework as it stands. It's a no brainer I'd reject such concepts for now, but could I have been different if I was manipulated as a child?


Yes humans are often 'sheep minded', and we are often highly prone to psychological manipulation, especially as children, so yes someone could have indoctrinated you with just about anything as a child.



> Basically the underlying question I have here is, could I be more extroverted than I am now through environment? The answer sounds like yes.


Yes, there are things you can do to teach your brain/your self to behave more extrovertly. This is often part of a course of Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

Our brains have a certain plasticity which the likes of means habits and tendencies can sometimes be changed with work.



> Newton's laws of physics are even in dispute because of quantum mechanics.


I've not heard of an issue with them. Can you expand?



> Black holes put a question to Einstein's theory of relativity.


In what respect?



> Harm? As in wars through history? Bigoted families? The middle East? Are you thinking along those lines?
> If so, I totally agree.


Yes those are just some of the issues. There are many ways religion oppresses people in societies as it seeks to make everyone abide but it's doctrine.



> For personal experience, sounds like you were given liberty to flourish your mind to your desire as have I.


Yes I've had the fortune to have had that freedom.



> Wait, it's not quite finished yet, lol. To streamline this conversation I'll reflect back on my original topic question as a parameter for closure.
> We got to admit, our conversation is creating tangents out the wazoo.


OK all good. 



> That being said. I can say with confidence, but not quite with certainty, this conclusion.
> Souls are a contrived human concept, my existence is a blip in time. It'd be more logical to drop the idea of reincarnation if anything.
> Other people are approximately "Me" because of our high range of overlap in our common animal DNA. If anything were to be the main catalyst for change, it's environment. Think of the disparity between an upper class American and someone living in an African village.


Yeah drop the idea of reincarnation, it's untenable. The rest sounds reasonable.


----------



## HellCell

ugh1979 said:


> "Newton's laws of physics are even in dispute because of quantum mechanics."
> 
> I've not heard of an issue with them. Can you expand?


The atomic and subatomic level, his laws of physics break down. This is where quantum mechanics comes in.

Okay as for newtons laws of physics. They do have it's merits, in fact we used his principles to send a rocket to the moon.
His idea of gravity being a force is correct, but has a limited range of application.
Einstein's theory of relativity gave a richer interpretation of gravity where space and time is integrated and gravity is an artifact of a curvature.

Okay, maybe dispute was the wrong word.


> "Black holes put a question to Einstein's theory of relativity."
> 
> In what respect?


Einstein did not believe that black holes existed. It didn't help that at the time of his existence, there was no experimental evidence for the existence of black holes.
Einstein didn't believe in their existence because he was certain that time and space were linear and the black hole would require an infinite amount of force to consume everything.
Then there's the singularity. I have trouble explaining in my own words the reason behind it, so I'll put up this link.
http://www.space.com/24454-stephen-hawking-black-hole-theory.html
If Steven Hawking is correct then his theory of everything would override relativity.


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> The idea of b) is as easy to write off as the belief that gravity won't suddenly inverse tomorrow.
> 
> Evidence shows our local gravity doesn't make sudden switches, just as evidence shows nothing that requires there to be such a thing as a 'soul', or 'cosmic consciousness' that we "tap into" rather than create for ourselves.
> 
> b) is just a hypothesis that is superfluous to our existence and doesn't meet the standards of credible belief. There is however much credible science and evidence which supports a).


I only talk about god because for a long time I didn't believe in anything. Then I realized that "god" or whatever, can be anything you want it to be. Just believe in _something_ from the bottom of your heart, and it can change everything for you.

As for the theory of gravity, it really has no bearing on the true nature of consciousness. I mention the two schools of thought because really, we have no idea what being 'conscious' means! Years of medical science and psychology have failed to definitively answer some serious questions: how does human consciousness vary from that of a pig or a dog? Do the severely mentally handicapped experience consciousness in the same capacity we do, or are they at the level of animals? Does having "less" consciousness make you less entitled to moral treatment? After all, you don't take into consideration the needs of a rock in the dirt.

You seem to be operating on a majorly macro scale, which you should try to move away from. It is absolute fallacy to assume you comprehend the vastness of the cosmos and the reality of the universe. Remember what a subjective experience your own life is, and how small you truly are.

Happiness comes from a healthy acceptance, not from knowing.


----------



## zzxm01

HellCell said:


> The atomic and subatomic level, his laws of physics break down. This is where quantum mechanics comes in.
> 
> Okay as for newtons laws of physics. They do have it's merits, in fact we used his principles to send a rocket to the moon.
> His idea of gravity being a force is correct, but has a limited range of application.
> Einstein's theory of relativity gave a richer interpretation of gravity where space and time is integrated and gravity is an artifact of a curvature.
> 
> Okay, maybe dispute was the wrong word.
> 
> Einstein did not believe that black holes existed. It didn't help that at the time of his existence, there was no experimental evidence for the existence of black holes.
> Einstein didn't believe in their existence because he was certain that time and space were linear and the black hole would require an infinite amount of force to consume everything.
> Then there's the singularity. I have trouble explaining in my own words the reason behind it, so I'll put up this link.
> http://www.space.com/24454-stephen-hawking-black-hole-theory.html
> If Steven Hawking is correct then his theory of everything would override relativity.


All VERY cool stuff. I love classical physics, and even more so at the subatomic scale. Everything we know about the world really does go haywire at the smallest imaginable frames. Did you know that electrons have been observed by particle physicists to blink in and out of existence on a regular basis?! Freaky little buggers...

My thinking anyway is that at the 'human' scale, we are bound inseparably from linear time and space due to the forces at large, probably in part because of the scale of mass we operate on. When you minimize that mass and allow it to interact with the incredibly strong atomic forces, you get really unusual phenomena, such as time leaps and and inter-dimensional (true story).

In chemistry, there is the concept of an orbital, which is a space about the atom where an electron (or pair of electrons) can be found *95% of the time*. Where they are the other 5% is truly anybody's guess. They could be across the room, or even across intergalactic space. When particle accelerators first came into existence, the operators found that electrons fired at near the speed of light actually arrived at the end of the tube a few seconds _before_ any buttons were pressed! Just some food for thought.


----------



## ugh1979

HellCell said:


> The atomic and subatomic level, his laws of physics break down. This is where quantum mechanics comes in.
> 
> Okay as for newtons laws of physics. They do have it's merits, in fact we used his principles to send a rocket to the moon.
> His idea of gravity being a force is correct, but has a limited range of application.
> Einstein's theory of relativity gave a richer interpretation of gravity where space and time is integrated and gravity is an artifact of a curvature.
> 
> Okay, maybe dispute was the wrong word.


Newton's laws of motion hold up in the quantum mechanical world in some aspects, and are of course still valid in the macroscopic world, so yeah, i'm not sure saying they are in "dispute" was entirely correct without more specifics, but I see you admit that above so all good.



> Einstein did not believe that black holes existed. It didn't help that at the time of his existence, there was no experimental evidence for the existence of black holes.
> Einstein didn't believe in their existence because he was certain that time and space were linear and the black hole would require an infinite amount of force to consume everything.
> Then there's the singularity. I have trouble explaining in my own words the reason behind it, so I'll put up this link.
> http://www.space.com/24454-stephen-hawking-black-hole-theory.html
> If Steven Hawking is correct then his theory of everything would override relativity.


What's Hawking's theory of everything? Einstein's theory of relativity still holds up very well and is widely accepted. (Including by Hawking)

Of course, there is still the issue of unifying classical and quantum physics, so one day relativity probably will be at least adapted to unify it with quantum theory.


----------



## Znuffle

HellCell.. Ssssh..


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> I only talk about god because for a long time I didn't believe in anything.


So why did you choose god out of all the things there are to believe? I find it bizarre when people say that if someone doesn't have a belief in god then they don't believe in anything. It's not as if a god is the only thing to believe in.



> Then I realized that "god" or whatever, can be anything you want it to be. Just believe in _something_ from the bottom of your heart, and it can change everything for you.


Just believing whatever you want is often a route to delusion.



> As for the theory of gravity, it really has no bearing on the true nature of consciousness.


Who said it did?



> I mention the two schools of thought because really, we have no idea what being 'conscious' means! Years of medical science and psychology have failed to definitively answer some serious questions: how does human consciousness vary from that of a pig or a dog? Do the severely mentally handicapped experience consciousness in the same capacity we do, or are they at the level of animals? Does having "less" consciousness make you less entitled to moral treatment? After all, you don't take into consideration the needs of a rock in the dirt.


Just because we don't have complete knowledge of how consciousness works doesn't mean we don't have any. We can make judgements which shape our laws and behaviour based on what appears to be the case. As with any field, it's an ongoing area of research.



> You seem to be operating on a majorly macro scale, which you should try to move away from.


We are macroscopic beings, so we all operate on a macro scale. Where should I move to? Microscopic?



> It is absolute fallacy to assume you comprehend the vastness of the cosmos and the reality of the universe.


Of course it is, which is why I don't. We can only give approximations of the truth. No one knows the absolute truth.



> Remember what a subjective experience your own life is, and how small you truly are.


Always, but we can glean objective knowledge via various means.



> Happiness comes from a healthy acceptance, not from knowing.


Well there are things I accept I know, and they make me happy.


----------



## HellCell

Znuffle said:


> HellCell.. Ssssh..


----------



## HellCell

ugh1979 said:


> Newton's laws of motion hold up in the quantum mechanical world in some aspects, and are of course still valid in the macroscopic world, so yeah, i'm not sure saying they are in "dispute" was entirely correct without more specifics, but I see you admit that above so all good.


So I admit, I learned something again. I did some Google research. You're right, some of newton's laws do hold up in the quantum level. Also Quantum mechanics isn't really "butting heads" with his laws either, like the preconceived notion I had in my head.

My only correct statement was the limited (large, but not indefinite) range of application of his laws. Einstein's theory of relativity covered his bases on what he couldn't account for. I guess you can say Quantum Mechanics does that too when dealing with atomic/subatomic sizes.



> What's Hawking's theory of everything? Einstein's theory of relativity still holds up very well and is widely accepted. (Including by Hawking)
> 
> Of course, there is still the issue of unifying classical and quantum physics, so one day relativity probably will be at least adapted to unify it with quantum theory.


The theory of everything is currently just a concept; a hypothetical one at that. Basically it is a realm of physics that can be applied in all conditions from the very tiny to large. A link, for a lack of a better word, to quantum mechanics and general relativity.

I very much respect general relativity. Einstein's theory of relativity can be thought of being ahead of it's time. Even today we're just conducting experiments to confirm his principles. So many inventions came of it. Would we even have our computer and internet?

Seeing the trend, I wonder what the next major expansion in physics would be? Chronologically it would go like Newton's law of physics -> General relativity -> Quantum Mechanics -> Theory of Everything?


----------



## ugh1979

HellCell said:


> The theory of everything is currently just a concept; a hypothetical one at that. Basically it is a realm of physics that can be applied in all conditions from the very tiny to large. A link, for a lack of a better word, to quantum mechanics and general relativity.


I'm aware of what a theory of everything is, but it was Hawking's theory of everything you mentioned I was enquiring about. As far as I'm aware he hasn't proposed one.



> I very much respect general relativity. Einstein's theory of relativity can be thought of being ahead of it's time. Even today we're just conducting experiments to confirm his principles. So many inventions came of it. Would we even have our computer and internet?


It's quantum theory that lead to computer chips. The most well known technological application of relativity is the GPS system.



> Seeing the trend, I wonder what the next major expansion in physics would be? Chronologically it would go like Newton's law of physics -> General relativity -> Quantum Mechanics -> Theory of Everything?


We can but speculate on when another huge breakthrough will arrive. Progress via smaller breakthroughs are always being made though.


----------



## HellCell

ugh1979 said:


> I'm aware of what a theory of everything is, but it was Hawking's theory of everything you mentioned I was enquiring about. As far as I'm aware he hasn't proposed one.


Okay, so this is my limited understanding on this subject. I watched a documentary on super massive black holes and towards the center someone (maybe Hawking) proposed quantum gravity to counter the idea of a singularity. We don't know what currently exists inside a black hole. It is hypothesized that a singularity exists. Which is infinitely dense and even general relativity has no answer to what happens next.

A new understanding of gravity could unify all current understanding of physics.




Explains where we stand as far as a theory of everything goes better than I can.



> It's quantum theory that lead to computer chips. The most well known technological application of relativity is the GPS system.


Yes, our circuit boards is founded on quantum mechanics. I think the transistor was too?
For what it's worth, in 1905 the photon electric effect published by Einstein is what lead to modern quantum mechanics.
Okay so I guess what I'm really inquiring is, if Einstein didn't exist, how would 2014 look like?


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> So why did you choose god out of all the things there are to believe? I find it bizarre when people say that if someone doesn't have a belief in god then they don't believe in anything. It's not as if a god is the only thing to believe in.


I was citing my own foolish experiences trying to to find and understand the one and only "god." But sometimes, you realize that what you were looking for is not what you thought. Over time, the word "god" simply took on a different meaning for me.



ugh1979 said:


> Just believing whatever you want is often a route to delusion.


If you are unable to appropriately weigh objectivity against subjectivity, you have a lot of growing to do as a human being. Just because a person has beliefs doesn't make them deluded. I believe in calculus, physics, technology, and most importantly, myself.



ugh1979 said:


> Just because we don't have complete knowledge of how consciousness works doesn't mean we don't have any. We can make judgements which shape our laws and behaviour based on what appears to be the case. As with any field, it's an ongoing area of research.


I'm not talking about how consciousness _works_, I'm talking about what exactly it is. That is the more important question. What do you say it is? Can you put it in a box, or maybe a computer? Can only a biological organism experience it?



ugh1979 said:


> We are macroscopic beings, so we all operate on a macro scale. Where should I move to? Microscopic?


Just stick to the scale of your own life man. There's really no need for your scope to span such large (or small) distances. You miss a lot of what matters when you do that. Believe it or not, I learned this from studying complex differentials.



ugh1979 said:


> Of course it is, which is why I don't. We can only give approximations of the truth. No one knows the absolute truth.


Then technically, even approximations are fallacy.



ugh1979 said:


> Always, but we can glean objective knowledge via various means.


As soon as objective truths become known to us, we attach to them our own biases and experiences. Thus, even objective knowledge in the hands of a human being becomes subjective. If this weren't the case, there would be no persuasive essays or propaganda.



ugh1979 said:


> Well there are things I accept I know, and they make me happy.


Do you know these things because you accept them? Or do you accept them because you know them? Or is it just easier to accept than to question? These are important things to ask yourself to get closer to true objectivity. Just remember it's a limiting function; you can get closer and closer to it, but you can never actually get there.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> I was citing my own foolish experiences trying to to find and understand the one and only "god." But sometimes, you realize that what you were looking for is not what you thought. Over time, the word "god" simply took on a different meaning for me.


What does it mean to you?



> If you are unable to appropriately weigh objectivity against subjectivity, you have a lot of growing to do as a human being. Just because a person has beliefs doesn't make them deluded. I believe in calculus, physics, technology, and most importantly, myself.


It depends on what the belief is of course. For example, if the belief is that the moon landings were faked then they are deluded.



> I'm not talking about how consciousness _works_, I'm talking about what exactly it is. That is the more important question.


To say what it is I'd say you need to know how it works.



> What do you say it is? Can you put it in a box, or maybe a computer? Can only a biological organism experience it?


I don't think we know enough about it to say what it is yet. It could be possible that an AI can have consciousness though, and maybe the research leading to that will shed further light on what consciousness is.



> Just stick to the scale of your own life man. There's really no need for your scope to span such large (or small) distances. You miss a lot of what matters when you do that. Believe it or not, I learned this from studying complex differentials.


My native scale, as is yours, is macroscopic. I find it bizarre you think people shouldn't think about scales other than the one they are familiar with. Why close yourself of from other scales of reality? It's not like I only think about sub-atomic or cosmic scales. I have the capacity to think about various scales.

As I say, what a bizarre thing to say.



> Then technically, even approximations are fallacy.


I'd say something is only a fallacy if it can be shown to be a fallacy.



> As soon as objective truths become known to us, we attach to them our own biases and experiences. Thus, even objective knowledge in the hands of a human being becomes subjective. If this weren't the case, there would be no persuasive essays or propaganda.


Indeed we can all have your own interpretation of objective knowledge, hence why we need to keep assessing it for validity.



> Do you know these things because you accept them? Or do you accept them because you know them? Or is it just easier to accept than to question? These are important things to ask yourself to get closer to true objectivity.


It depends what the knowledge is. We can't personally have the skills and supporting knowledge to question everything so something we need to accept based on the work of others who do.



> Just remember it's a limiting function; you can get closer and closer to it, but you can never actually get there.


It would be more limiting to our lives to not do it.


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> What does it mean to you?


To me, god is not a being or even a force; god is something so personal, no one person can ever experience it as another does. It's almost pointless to try and explain it to you, but I will try. "God" is existence; the fact that I live, breathe and _think_. God is math and science, and everything else I love (and hate) in the world. God is knowledge and passion. What is "god" for you?



ugh1979 said:


> It depends on what the belief is of course. For example, if the belief is that the moon landings were faked then they are deluded.


Agreed, but then that wouldn't really be appropriately weighing objectivity against subjectivity. Scientists can beam lasers to the moon, bounce them off of mirrors left by the astronauts, and measure the time between impulse and feedback.



ugh1979 said:


> To say what it is I'd say you need to know how it works.


A very common misconception. You can easily state cumulative properties of a system or a machine without necessarily knowing the inner workings and mechanisms. For instance, I have a poor understanding of the figures and parts that go into making a fully-mechanical wrist watch, yet I still know that the overall mechanism tells me the time of day.



ugh1979 said:


> I don't think we know enough about it to say what it is yet. It could be possible that an AI can have consciousness though, and maybe the research leading to that will shed further light on what consciousness is.


Then how can you have any opinion at all about consciousness? _Cogito ero sum_. It is clearly some sort of entity in our lives, so what is it? Do you simply ignore this question?



ugh1979 said:


> My native scale, as is yours, is macroscopic. I find it bizarre you think people shouldn't think about scales other than the one they are familiar with. Why close yourself of from other scales of reality? It's not like I only think about sub-atomic or cosmic scales. I have the capacity to think about various scales.
> 
> As I say, what a bizarre thing to say.


Absolutely, you need to have flexibility in that respect. It just seems to me you say a lot about the overarching universe, and that is just the sort of scale you should take with a grain of salt. _That_ is a macro scale, and it is NOT the one we live and work in. I used to be stuck there myself, and then I realized it was because I mistakenly believed myself to be the center of the universe. If that's where you are now, then it's something you ought to address.



ugh1979 said:


> I'd say something is only a fallacy if it can be shown to be a fallacy.


You agree it is fallacy for one to assume s/he can objectively comprehend the true nature universe, yes? Therefore, any assumptions made on what a human perceives as objective truth is also fallacy.



ugh1979 said:


> Indeed we can all have your own interpretation of objective knowledge, hence why we need to keep assessing it for validity... It depends what the knowledge is. We can't personally have the skills and supporting knowledge to question everything so something we need to accept based on the work of others who do.


Just because someone else did the work and came to their own conclusions does not mean you shouldn't understand their process and scrutinize it yourself. This is how one comes to intelligent decisions and ideas.



ugh1979 said:


> It would be more limiting to our lives to not do it.


You are absolutely right. I'm just letting you know, no matter how close you get, you will always be infinitely far away from reaching true objectivity. Like a limit function in mathematics, x goes to infinity, and y(x) goes to some constant C, but y(x) will never actually reach C. I hope this makes sense.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> To me, god is not a being or even a force; god is something so personal, no one person can ever experience it as another does. It's almost pointless to try and explain it to you, but I will try. "God" is existence; the fact that I live, breathe and _think_. God is math and science, and everything else I love (and hate) in the world. God is knowledge and passion.


Is there anything god isn't in your definition?



> What is "god" for you?


A concept some people believe in, typically that of some force/deity there is no credible evidence exists.

Of course, if someone defines it like you do then I can't say that doesn't exist. As you know, it's a term people can choose their own definition for.



> Agreed, but then that wouldn't really be appropriately weighing objectivity against subjectivity. Scientists can beam lasers to the moon, bounce them off of mirrors left by the astronauts, and measure the time between impulse and feedback.


Can you give an example of the kind of belief you are referring to?



> A very common misconception. You can easily state cumulative properties of a system or a machine without necessarily knowing the inner workings and mechanisms. For instance, I have a poor understanding of the figures and parts that go into making a fully-mechanical wrist watch, yet I still know that the overall mechanism tells me the time of day.


I'm talking about consciousness. Not any system or machine. Since we don't know yet know what consciousness is, learning more about how it works is probably the best route to discovering more about what it is.

With regards to other systems and machines, such as watches, we don't need to know how they work as long as someone does.



> Then how can you have any opinion at all about consciousness? _Cogito ero sum_. It is clearly some sort of entity in our lives, so what is it? Do you simply ignore this question?


My opinion is that it's still a mystery in many respects. That opinion doesn't mean I need to state what it is, as I'm not making any claim to knowing what it is. It's a topic I like to keep learning about though, so no I don't ignore it.



> Absolutely, you need to have flexibility in that respect. It just seems to me you say a lot about the overarching universe, and that is just the sort of scale you should take with a grain of salt.


I speak about a lot of things. Not just the universe.



> _That_ is a macro scale, and it is NOT the one we live and work in.


Incorrect.



> *Macroscopic scale*
> The macroscopic scale is the length scale on which objects or phenomena are large enough to be visible practically with the naked eye, without magnifying devices.





> I used to be stuck there myself, and then I realized it was because I mistakenly believed myself to be the center of the universe. If that's where you are now, then it's something you ought to address.


You are 'stuck' in the macroscopic scale, as that's how you, as with everyone else perceive the world.

I can assure you i've never believed myself to be the centre of the universe. It's interesting you once thought you were.



> You agree it is fallacy for one to assume s/he can objectively comprehend the true nature universe, yes? Therefore, any assumptions made on what a human perceives as objective truth is also fallacy.


I wouldn't say the former necessitates the latter. While it's undoubtedly a fallacy for anyone to think they know the true nature of the universe, I think we can justify the belief that aspects of the universe are comprehensible and that we know them/can know them.



> Just because someone else did the work and came to their own conclusions does not mean you shouldn't understand their process and scrutinize it yourself. This is how one comes to intelligent decisions and ideas.


We don't have the time or resources to understand and scrutinize everything. We need to trust others regarding the validity of much knowledge. Referring to credible sources is how one can come to intelligent decisions and ideas.



> You are absolutely right. I'm just letting you know, no matter how close you get, you will always be infinitely far away from reaching true objectivity. Like a limit function in mathematics, x goes to infinity, and y(x) goes to some constant C, but y(x) will never actually reach C. I hope this makes sense.


You said you can get closer to it in your last post. Now you are saying we can't and that it's always infinitely far away. The thing is, we can't know for certain if we have obtained knowledge of an objective truth. We probably have for certain things. All we can do is keep learning about everything and it should keep giving us a more complete picture of the objective truth of the universe.


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> Is there anything god isn't in your definition? ... Of course, if someone defines it like you do then I can't say that doesn't exist. As you know, it's a term people can choose their own definition for.


And that is the beauty in the concept of god! It can mean everything, or even nothing at all. As you said, we are free to choose for ourselves what "god" means. Don't be so literal, it will kill your mind.



ugh1979 said:


> Can you give an example of the kind of belief you are referring to?


For instance, if somebody believed that it was impossible to bring the temperature of a material to _exactly_ absolute zero (0 Kelvin), it would be an objective truth that person failed to weigh against subjectivity; in other words, it is a conditional truth. We can get very, very close to absolute zero, but with present technology, it is impossible to get to precisely the value "absolute zero." After all, it is a state of no lattice energy in the material, which is impossible simply because the nature of energy prevents it from being possible; however, if we could find a way to _manipulate_ the nature of energy or the lattice (not such a far-fetched concept), that would change everything, wouldn't it? This is what scientists are presently doing with high-temperature superconductor technology. Subjectivity allows one to think outside the box.



ugh1979 said:


> I'm talking about consciousness. Not any system or machine. Since we don't know yet know what consciousness is, learning more about how it works is probably the best route to discovering more about what it is. With regards to other systems and machines, such as watches, we don't need to know how they work as long as someone does. My opinion is that it's still a mystery in many respects. That opinion doesn't mean I need to state what it is, as I'm not making any claim to knowing what it is. It's a topic I like to keep learning about though, so no I don't ignore it.


Are there not systematic properties to consciousness? "I feel hunger, therefore, my body needs food. I am horny, therefore my body craves sex" Consciousness very often interacts in a mechanical fashion with the rest of the body. And sometimes there are disconnects between the two systems, as is the case in narcolepsy or social anxiety (similar to a malfunctioning machine). It is _very_ important to understand how this system works, and to consider what exactly it is, all the while knowing full well we may never come to an answer that we can accept. The important thing is to keep looking.



ugh1979 said:


> I speak about a lot of things. Not just the universe. ... You are 'stuck' in the macroscopic scale, as that's how you, as with everyone else perceive the world.


Just a theme I picked up on in your many previous posts. Doesn't mean it's all you speak about, it's just clearly something that is important to you. If you have ever done any computer programming, you might know that a macro is a complex function or system that is utilized in a much larger program. There are certain parts of the program that the logic of the macro can "see" and act upon, and all else is independent. We are the logic, the universe is the macro, and we have no friggin' idea about the overarching program.

Miriam Webster is great as a reference but you have to be able to think for yourself, friend.



ugh1979 said:


> I can assure you i've never believed myself to be the centre of the universe. It's interesting you once thought you were.


Really? You've never been a spoiled rotten 3 year old? Everybody is extremely selfish and self centered at some point in life; it's a mindset you just grow out of before long. Do you realize how many of your replies to me start with the word "I" or "we"?



ugh1979 said:


> I wouldn't say the former necessitates the latter. While it's undoubtedly a fallacy for anyone to think they know the true nature of the universe, I think we can justify the belief that aspects of the universe are comprehensible and that we know them/can know them.


The former almost certainly necessitates the latter. Humans are biased organisms, and therefore are unable to fully comprehend true objectivity. Said a different way, nothing we know is absolute truth, even in the most comprehensible concepts. There are misconceptions, twists, and mistakes all intertwined in everything you and I know.



ugh1979 said:


> We don't have the time or resources to understand and scrutinize everything. We need to trust others regarding the validity of much knowledge. Referring to credible sources is how one can come to intelligent decisions and ideas.


And how does one know a source is credible? Word of mouth? First thing that came up on Google? A .edu suffix? You must scrutinize any information that has a potential to change your life. Issac Newton said in regards to his 3 laws, "I stand on the shoulders of giants" referring to the work of great mathematicians past. How did he know that prior work was so monumental? Because he scrutinized it, and even went so far as to _expand_ on it.



ugh1979 said:


> You said you can get closer to it in your last post. Now you are saying we can't and that it's always infinitely far away. The thing is, we can't know for certain if we have obtained knowledge of an objective truth. We probably have for certain things. All we can do is keep learning about everything and it should keep giving us a more complete picture of the objective truth of the universe.


Maybe it's a bit unreasonable to expect anyone to understand the logic of calculus. Consider it this way: if you can get infinitely close to true objectivity, but never actually reach it, how is that any different than being infinitely far away from it?


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> And that is the beauty in the concept of god! It can mean everything, or even nothing at all. As you said, we are free to choose for ourselves what "god" means. Don't be so literal, it will kill your mind.


A word which can mean anything effectively means nothing. Being so ambiguous with definitions isn't a good basis for thought on the subject. It's like calling every colour blue when trying to describe a rainbow.



> For instance, if somebody believed that it was impossible to bring the temperature of a material to _exactly_ absolute zero (0 Kelvin), it would be an objective truth that person failed to weigh against subjectivity; in other words, it is a conditional truth. We can get very, very close to absolute zero, but with present technology, it is impossible to get to precisely the value "absolute zero." After all, it is a state of no lattice energy in the material, which is impossible simply because the nature of energy prevents it from being possible; however, if we could find a way to _manipulate_ the nature of energy or the lattice (not such a far-fetched concept), that would change everything, wouldn't it? This is what scientists are presently doing with high-temperature superconductor technology. Subjectivity allows one to think outside the box.


I have no argument against subjectivity allowing us to think outside the box. The theoretical typically precedes the practical.



> Are there not systematic properties to consciousness? "I feel hunger, therefore, my body needs food. I am horny, therefore my body craves sex" Consciousness very often interacts in a mechanical fashion with the rest of the body. And sometimes there are disconnects between the two systems, as is the case in narcolepsy or social anxiety (similar to a malfunctioning machine). It is _very_ important to understand how this system works, and to consider what exactly it is, all the while knowing full well we may never come to an answer that we can accept. The important thing is to keep looking.


Indeed. We just need to keep learning about it which will surely reveal more answers.



> Just a theme I picked up on in your many previous posts. Doesn't mean it's all you speak about, it's just clearly something that is important to you. If you have ever done any computer programming, you might know that a macro is a complex function or system that is utilized in a much larger program. There are certain parts of the program that the logic of the macro can "see" and act upon, and all else is independent. We are the logic, the universe is the macro, and we have no friggin' idea about the overarching program.
> 
> Miriam Webster is great as a reference but you have to be able to think for yourself, friend.


We were clearly talking about scale, so the definition I provided is the correct one. We weren't talking about macros as found in programming, just as we weren't talking about macros as found in photography. I think you're being rather dishonest to try and say you weren't talking about macro scale. You clearly said, "macro scale", aka macroscopic scale.



> Really? You've never been a spoiled rotten 3 year old? Everybody is extremely selfish and self centered at some point in life; it's a mindset you just grow out of before long.


Being selfish or self-centered doesn't necessarily infer someone thinks they are the centre of the universe.



> Do you realize how many of your replies to me start with the word "I" or "we"?


So? If i'm speaking about personal or human based knowledge (which is all we have access to) then of course i'm going to.



> The former almost certainly necessitates the latter.


I don't see why. Not knowing everything doesn't mean you can't know some things.



> Humans are biased organisms, and therefore are unable to fully comprehend true objectivity. Said a different way, nothing we know is absolute truth, even in the most comprehensible concepts. There are misconceptions, twists, and mistakes all intertwined in everything you and I know.


I'd say it depends on what it is.



> And how does one know a source is credible? Word of mouth? First thing that came up on Google? A .edu suffix? You must scrutinize any information that has a potential to change your life. Issac Newton said in regards to his 3 laws, "I stand on the shoulders of giants" referring to the work of great mathematicians past. How did he know that prior work was so monumental? Because he scrutinized it, and even went so far as to _expand_ on it.


It depends on what it is, but for example, I typically look for peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals as a suitable standard for many claims. I don't feel I need to have to know the workings of the science behind it, and nobody can know enough about everything to be able to scrutinise it all.



> Maybe it's a bit unreasonable to expect anyone to understand the logic of calculus. Consider it this way: if you can get infinitely close to true objectivity, but never actually reach it, how is that any different than being infinitely far away from it?


So you saying we can get closer and closer to it was incorrect, since we are always infinitely far away from it in your opinion. (Not that I agree with this claim anyway as mentioned earlier)


----------



## zzxm01

Callsign said:


> If you guys are really us, what number are we thinking of?


----------



## zzxm01

7


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> Being selfish or self-centered doesn't necessarily infer someone thinks they are the centre of the universe.


Yes, essentially it does.



ugh1979 said:


> So? If i'm speaking about personal or human based knowledge (which is all we have access to) then of course i'm going to... I don't see why.


Totally fine to talk about people, it's just important to note that there are more ways to phrase something without having to start off in the first person.



ugh1979 said:


> It depends on what it is, but for example, I typically look for peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals as a suitable standard for many claims. I don't feel I need to have to know the workings of the science behind it, and nobody can know enough about everything to be able to scrutinise it all.


Looks like you missed the point again. An old saying coined by the KGB: trust, but verify. It is foolish to assume that just because something is "peer reviewed" that it's totally accurate and unbiased. Regardless how dry and factual the article seems, you must understand that many people's livelihoods depend on churning out new information and new products. Those facts and figures are used to argue a biased position, and I know this because I have analyzed some fairly technical peer reviewed scientific articles. When there is a money interest involved in ANY field, there is a bias present. Do you really think the leading researchers had the good of mankind within their scope? Typically, they just want to get a supervisor (who is very concerned about the bottom line) off their backs. It doesn't have to be unbiased to make it through screenings; it just has to be unbiased _enough_.



ugh1979 said:


> So you saying we can get closer and closer to it was incorrect, since we are always infinitely far away from it in your opinion. (Not that I agree with this claim anyway as mentioned earlier)


This is not my opinion. This is mathematical theory as observed in the study of calculus. Neither perspective is incorrect as they are exactly equivalent, conceptually speaking. Mathematics is how I verify. No need for anything peer reviewed.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> Yes, essentially it does.


In what way?



> Totally fine to talk about people, it's just important to note that there are more ways to phrase something without having to start off in the first person.


I'd possibly use the word people if I was talking about people that didn't include me.



> Looks like you missed the point again. An old saying coined by the KGB: trust, but verify. It is foolish to assume that just because something is "peer reviewed" that it's totally accurate and unbiased. Regardless how dry and factual the article seems, you must understand that many people's livelihoods depend on churning out new information and new products. Those facts and figures are used to argue a biased position, and I know this because I have analyzed some fairly technical peer reviewed scientific articles. When there is a money interest involved in ANY field, there is a bias present. Do you really think the leading researchers had the good of mankind within their scope? Typically, they just want to get a supervisor (who is very concerned about the bottom line) off their backs. It doesn't have to be unbiased to make it through screenings; it just has to be unbiased _enough_.


I don't see how I have missed the point. You asked what I would refer to as a credible source and I gave an example. I said nothing about it never being beyond doubt. All sources can have potential issues, but some are more reliably trustworthy, and therefore less likely to have issues making them more typically credible.

How do you verify the credibility of your sources of information?



> This is not my opinion. This is mathematical theory as observed in the study of calculus. Neither perspective is incorrect as they are exactly equivalent, conceptually speaking. Mathematics is how I verify. No need for anything peer reviewed.


So everything is verifiable with mathematics IYO? And you are capable of verifying anything for yourself?


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> So everything is verifiable with mathematics IYO? And you are capable of verifying anything for yourself?


Only that information which is most important to me. You see, I never spoke about verifying _everything_, just the information that one values. Mathematics is highly applicable to a multitude of scenarios.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> Only that information which is most important to me. You see, I never spoke about verifying _everything_, just the information that one values. Mathematics is highly applicable to a multitude of scenarios.


Can you honestly say there is nothing you need to verify in life that you can't do personally with mathematics?


----------



## zzxm01

@ugh1979 Going into mechanical engineering, yes, I can say that. It's all I want to do with my life.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> @ugh1979 Going into mechanical engineering, yes, I can say that. It's all I want to do with my life.


But surely you don't only think about mechanical engineering? Surely there is a vast array of other subjects you want to try and know right from wrong about?


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> But surely you don't only think about mechanical engineering? Surely there is a vast array of other subjects you want to try and know right from wrong about?


For some, the mind meanders about in the dark, trying to find anything to occupy itself. It voraciously consumes information and contemplation. My thoughts drift from spacial, material, and engineering sciences to things like day trading, human nature, love, philosophy, moral reasoning, and board sports (and that is plenty for now).

It hardly ever boils down to simple "right and wrong". In each of the subject areas above, the distinction can be quite difficult to discern. Clearly, there is more to be learned, and it would be foolish to find truths in new subjects before mastering the ones at hand.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> For some, the mind meanders about in the dark, trying to find anything to occupy itself. It voraciously consumes information and contemplation. My thoughts drift from spacial, material, and engineering sciences to things like day trading, human nature, love, philosophy, moral reasoning, and board sports (and that is plenty for now).
> 
> It hardly ever boils down to simple "right and wrong". In each of the subject areas above, the distinction can be quite difficult to discern. Clearly, there is more to be learned, and it would be foolish to find truths in new subjects before mastering the ones at hand.


So how can you only need mathematics to establish what is at least probably true and what is probably nonsense claims with regards to the related knowledge that constitutes many of those subjects?


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> So how can you only need mathematics to establish what is at least probably true and what is probably nonsense claims with regards to the related knowledge that constitutes many of those subjects?


Take for example the following argument for the presence of extraterrestrial life; utilizing statistics, one can postulate that it would be highly improbable that in all this space, Earth is the only place containing life. That is a fairly significant argument substantiated by solid numbers and figures. However, the real power in mathematics lies in the logic of it's operators and functions. Essentially, I learned logic through math, and so my rationale takes on a numerical quality. It's pretty powerful stuff, and it has answered questions for me in ways you wouldn't expect. You remember my calculus example: as independent variable x goes to infinity, dependent variable y approaches (but never actually reaches) some constant C. It serves as a pretty nice analogue to the human pursuit of objectivity, and it is through that analogue that I understand objectivity better. The same reasoning that goes into math goes into any form of logic, including moral reasoning, programming, and even board sports (more than you could imagine).


----------



## zzxm01

Callsign said:


> I may reply more meaningfully later :tiptoe


Hahaha I should have known better.

Link for mobile:


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> Take for example the following argument for the presence of extraterrestrial life; utilizing statistics, one can postulate that it would be highly improbable that in all this space, Earth is the only place containing life. That is a fairly significant argument substantiated by solid numbers and figures. However, the real power in mathematics lies in the logic of it's operators and functions. Essentially, I learned logic through math, and so my rationale takes on a numerical quality. It's pretty powerful stuff, and it has answered questions for me in ways you wouldn't expect. You remember my calculus example: as independent variable x goes to infinity, dependent variable y approaches (but never actually reaches) some constant C. It serves as a pretty nice analogue to the human pursuit of objectivity, and it is through that analogue that I understand objectivity better. The same reasoning that goes into math goes into any form of logic, including moral reasoning, programming, and even board sports (more than you could imagine).


As I say, while I don't disagree how useful a tool mathematics is, it's not the only tool required to make sense of the world.


----------



## zzxm01

ugh1979 said:


> As I say, while I don't disagree how useful a tool mathematics is, it's not the only tool required to make sense of the world.


Since all of mathematics boils down to logic, I'm curious what other means there are to make sense of things. Of course there is subjective reasoning (what you actually perceive in your own life) to supplement, but other than that, what? Logic doesn't _have to_ take on mathematical quality, but for some folks, it works incredibly well.


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> Since all of mathematics boils down to logic, I'm curious what other means there are to make sense of things. Of course there is subjective reasoning (what you actually perceive in your own life) to supplement, but other than that, what? Logic doesn't _have to_ take on mathematical quality, but for some folks, it works incredibly well.


As you say, there are other kinds of logic that aren't mathematical.


----------



## zzxm01

@ugh1979 "Math" is just a term used to describe the application of logic to numbers. It's still all the same rationale, it just has a quantitative values assigned to it. There are no "kinds" when it comes to true unbiased logic; it's just a matter of approaching the same problem from a different angle. As it happens, the mathematical approach works the best for me, and I enjoy it very much. What is your approach to logic?


----------



## ugh1979

zzxm01 said:


> @ugh1979 "Math" is just a term used to describe the application of logic to numbers. It's still all the same rationale, it just has a quantitative values assigned to it. There are no "kinds" when it comes to true unbiased logic; it's just a matter of approaching the same problem from a different angle. As it happens, the mathematical approach works the best for me, and I enjoy it very much. What is your approach to logic?


My approach to logic depends on the subject.

I just find it bizarre you make the claim that all you need is the mathematical approach, and with it you can personally validate anything.

But hey, so be it.


----------



## Melodic

HellCell said:


> Good answer. I wanted to see a test of how robust someone's personality can be. Your answer is in direct agreement that "another me" can exist. Perhaps approximately, but hey good enough.
> I'm also dropping the idea of the derivative being a split soul, but rather genetic overlap.
> 
> As for SA. I got to watch how I ask this question lol. There are so many branches to this topic, I got to narrow my questions down.
> So I'll answer in regards to me personally.
> I feel my SA derives from genetics more so than environment. Even as a young child, let's say age of 6, I avoided my peers. This behavior maintained it's course all the way up until today.
> I can't blame my environment since, bullying was not profuse, there were plenty of extracurricular activities I could have joined, and I've done a fair bit of traveling with my family.
> For one reason or another, I shied away from pursuing social activities. A big factor being that I find comfort being alone. The other thing being that nerds were uncool, so I felt ostracized.


I think your genetics have lead you to be a naturally introverted person, but your environment (including feeling ostracised in an unforgiving social setting, and perhaps your parents enabling you to avoid your peers) have potentially predisposed you to SA. So you can't rule out environment completely.

Sorry if that's pointless, I'm feeling rather incoherent today. :blank


----------



## HellCell

Melodic said:


> I think your genetics have lead you to be a naturally introverted person, but your environment (including feeling ostracised in an unforgiving social setting, and perhaps your parents enabling you to avoid your peers) have potentially predisposed you to SA. So you can't rule out environment completely.
> 
> Sorry if that's pointless, I'm feeling rather incoherent today. :blank


I got what you were saying. Not sure why you feel incoherent. Lack of sleep? Long day or work?

Well anyways, I can only agree because my environment was somewhat flawed. However a natural extrovert does not need an ideal environment to be social, just enough.
So maybe for me being on the introverted side, I would need a more custom fitted, ideal environment to resolve my SA. Less than that effectively neutralizes that vision, case in point being how things turned out.
Cheers.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> @ugh1979 "Math" is just a term used to describe the application of logic to numbers. It's still all the same rationale, it just has a quantitative values assigned to it. There are no "kinds" when it comes to true unbiased logic; it's just a matter of approaching the same problem from a different angle. As it happens, the mathematical approach works the best for me, and I enjoy it very much. What is your approach to logic?


On a fundamental level, logic breaks down even in mathematics. I can't think of a single discipline where reductionism doesn't eventually hit a brick wall of logical fallacy.


----------



## zzxm01

Azazello said:


> On a fundamental level, logic breaks down even in mathematics. I can't think of a single discipline where reductionism doesn't eventually hit a brick wall of logical fallacy.


You are absolutely right, but that is the fault of flawed rationale of the human mind rather than the logic itself. Consider this example, one of my favorites which illustrates this point in mathematical logic:

https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

It is not the logic itself that breaks down, but rather our understanding of the logic.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> You are absolutely right, but that is the fault of flawed rationale of the human mind rather than the logic itself. Consider this example, one of my favorites which illustrates this point in mathematical logic:
> 
> https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html
> 
> It is not the logic itself that breaks down, but rather our understanding of the logic.


Speaking of logic... How can I be *absolutely *right, yet wrong at the same time? 

BTW, I wasn't talking about intermediate steps, where an individual could make a mistake and commit a logical fallacy. I was referring to foundation of all logical arguments, statements, etc... In other words, all axiomatic propositions by their nature are fallacious. If you are going to rely on mathematics as your guide to reality you would have to reconcile yourself with this inherent flaw.


----------



## zzxm01

Azazello said:


> Speaking of logic... How can I be *absolutely *right, yet wrong at the same time?
> 
> BTW, I wasn't talking about intermediate steps, where an individual could make a mistake and commit a logical fallacy. I was referring to foundation of all logical arguments, statements, etc... In other words, all axiomatic propositions by their nature are fallacious. If you are going to rely on mathematics as your guide to reality you would have to reconcile yourself with this inherent flaw.


"There are two of you. Don't you see? One who loves and one who kills." Apocalypse Now (1979)

It just goes to demonstrate the confusing nature of existence and consciousness. These inherent dichotomies are abundant and sometimes very challenging to rationale, yet they somehow make sense all the same.

An axiom is simply an assumption, and by such a definition, it most certainly can be flawed. Many logical proofs begin with some sort of principle to be tested, and through reasoned steps based on this principle, one arrives at a conclusion that either makes sense or doesn't. In this way, you prove or disprove the axiom you began with.

The law of universal gravitation is an axiom. It has breakdowns that occur in very extreme cases, but the law works in countless scenarios between. The earth orbits the sun, people and structures stay grounded. It is ALWAYS an attractive force between two bodies that is proportional to their masses and proximity. Can we then say the axiom that is universal gravitation is fallacious due to the unusual breakdowns that occur? Reasoning leads me to believe that our rational understanding of gravity is simply incomplete, rather than incorrect.

My approach to and application of mathematics is as such.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> "There are two of you. Don't you see? One who loves and one who kills." Apocalypse Now (1979)
> 
> It just goes to demonstrate the confusing nature of existence and consciousness. These inherent dichotomies are abundant and sometimes very challenging to rationale, yet they somehow make sense all the same.
> 
> An axiom is simply an assumption, and by such a definition, it most certainly can be flawed. Many logical proofs begin with some sort of principle to be tested, and through reasoned steps based on this principle, one arrives at a conclusion that either makes sense or doesn't. In this way, you prove or disprove the axiom you began with.
> 
> The law of universal gravitation is an axiom. It has breakdowns that occur in very extreme cases, but the law works in countless scenarios between. The earth orbits the sun, people and structures stay grounded. It is ALWAYS an attractive force between two bodies that is proportional to their masses and proximity. Can we then say the axiom that is universal gravitation is fallacious due to the unusual breakdowns that occur? Reasoning leads me to believe that our rational understanding of gravity is simply incomplete, rather than incorrect.
> 
> My approach to and application of mathematics is as such.


Again, I am not talking about intermediate steps, or stuff we may not know yet. You can provide as many colourful examples as you like, you would still be missing the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter how much you know, or have to learn yet. Even if you were to know and understand everything in the universe, your understanding of it, when broken down, would still be based on a logical fallacy. It is a philosophical paradox, one no one has found a solution to yet. You can, as I said previously, reconcile to it, or find ways to draw emphasis away from it, but ultimately the paradox will prevail and you would still be faced with a "?"


----------



## zzxm01

Azazello said:


> Again, I am not talking about intermediate steps, or stuff we may not know yet. You can provide as many colourful examples as you like, you would still be missing the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter how much you know, or have to learn yet. Even if you were to know and understand everything in the universe, your understanding of it, when broken down, would still be based on a logical fallacy. It is a philosophical paradox, one no one has found a solution to yet. You can, as I said previously, reconcile to it, or find ways to draw emphasis away from it, but ultimately the paradox will prevail and you would still be faced with a "?"


Colorful examples, eh? You're talking about my passion and livelihood so let's lose the condescending attitude please. To be sure, I am not missing your point, but it is clear you are missing mine.

It matters VERY much what you know and understand because logic would not even exist without a mind capable of perceiving it. Do you think an infant worries about logic? Of course not, but an infant does worry about certain objective truths: hunger, warmth, thirst. Not ALL objective truths, only those most pertinent to its own existence. The purpose of logic is to make an attempt at quantifying or substantiating objective truths beyond the scope of our own lives, some of which are simply above the level of human comprehension.

It's true, sometimes you are left with a "?" at the end of the day, but if you feel your only options are to either reconcile or divert your attention away, your reasoning is no better than a racist's or a coward's.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> Colorful examples, eh? You're talking about my passion and livelihood so let's lose the condescending attitude please. To be sure, I am not missing your point, but it is clear you are missing mine.
> 
> It matters VERY much what you know and understand because logic would not even exist without a mind capable of perceiving it. Do you think an infant worries about logic? Of course not, but an infant does worry about certain objective truths: hunger, warmth, thirst. Not ALL objective truths, only those most pertinent to its own existence. The purpose of logic is to make an attempt at quantifying or substantiating objective truths beyond the scope of our own lives, some of which are simply above the level of human comprehension.
> 
> It's true, sometimes you are left with a "?" at the end of the day, but if you feel your only options are to either reconcile or divert your attention away, your reasoning is no better than a racist's or a coward's.


Oh for goodness sake, before you get your knickers totally in a twist just read what I posted. All I have been saying is that no matter how much you know or learn, your knowledge would always be based on a fallacious assumption. I wasn't trying to dismiss logic or say that knowledge isn't important, just that at its heart lies an unsolved paradox, which introduces fallacious reasoning into an otherwise rational attempt to understand the reality. This paradox is not a product of our ignorance, or faulty perception. It is a consequence of logic itself.

It was a simple observation, I wasn't even trying to argue against you, until you started coming up with irrelevant examples. And if you think that is condescending then I dread to think what category your comparing my reasoning to that of a racist falls under...


----------



## zzxm01

Azazello said:


> Oh for goodness sake, before you get your knickers totally in a twist just read what I posted. All I have been saying is that no matter how much you know or learn, your knowledge would always be based on a fallacious assumption. I wasn't trying to dismiss logic or say that knowledge isn't important, just that at its heart lies an unsolved paradox, which introduces fallacious reasoning into an otherwise rational attempt to understand the reality. This paradox is not a product of our ignorance, or faulty perception. It is a consequence of logic itself.
> 
> It was a simple observation, I wasn't even trying to argue against you, until you started coming up with irrelevant examples. And if you think that is condescending then I dread to think what category your comparing my reasoning to that of a racist falls under...


Lol you a troll or just having serious issues with passive-aggression? I called you out on your childish games, and this is your response? Not too many intelligent people left in this world...

I wasn't claiming you were dismissing logic or anything of the sort. Your claim was that logic is flawed and my response is that it is not the logic that is flawed, but rather the human mind/ideology applying the logic. It is only a paradox in the human mind, but there is real objective truth to everything. My point bringing mathematics into this is that it has answered some fundamental questions, allowing me to build further.

Realize that any problems you have with your perception of the world are just that: problems with perception. One can find any answer he looks for if he just changes perspectives. I thought my examples illustrated this point exceptionally well but maybe it went straight over your head. It's okay, I've felt alone for a long time for that very reason.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> Lol you a troll or just having serious issues with passive-aggression? I called you out on your childish games, and this is your response? Not too many intelligent people left in this world...
> 
> I wasn't claiming you were dismissing logic or anything of the sort. Your claim was that logic is flawed and my response is that it is not the logic that is flawed, but rather the human mind/ideology applying the logic. It is only a paradox in the human mind, but there is real objective truth to everything. My point bringing mathematics into this is that it has answered some fundamental questions, allowing me to build further.
> 
> Realize that any problems you have with your perception of the world are just that: problems with perception. One can find any answer he looks for if he just changes perspectives. I thought my examples illustrated this point exceptionally well but maybe it went straight over your head. It's okay, I've felt alone for a long time for that very reason.


Bahaha what games? Christ on a bike, you really need to work on your reading comprehension! I know what you were saying, which is precisely why I was repeating that you were missing the point. Rather than ask me to clarify my point, if you were not getting it, you decided throwing a butthurt tantrum and comparing my argument to a racist was a way forward. How does that even work..? Lol

Go and look up Hance Albert's Münchhausen trilemma. Unless you solve this philosophical problem, no matter which approach you are taking you cannot justify your knowledge completely, meaning it could not be 100% objective. This unresolved problem is at the heart of every logical argument, including mathematics. As I said previously, it does not invalidate the concept of logic altogether but when looking for objective truth you have to acknowledge this particular logic's limitation, i.e. reconcile to it, and learn how to build on it so as the whole thing doesn't fall apart.

I sincerely hope, you can stop your melodramatic outburst and focus on the issue at hand, especially if you claim to appreciate logic as much as you do.

P.S. Thanks for the friend request, but unless you want to discuss logic, which can be done in this thread, I have nothing to discuss with you in private.


----------



## zzxm01

@Azazello I don't really understand what you are arguing then because it seems we are in total agreement. It appears you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. The response you just posted was an outburst, unlike my attempts at intelligent discussion. HANS Albert studied heuristics, which is reasoning based on experience. This is a pretty rational approach since we only know what we know, and it's one I apply to my life as well. Albert argues there is no field of human study that one should not question. If you check my discussion with ugh above, you would see the emphasis I place on scrutiny. The trilemma simply argues that there is nothing we can truly objectively know, which is another point I was in agreement with above. Humans may never know any objective truth entirely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an attempt at finding it by whatever means available. I don't depend on math for my approach to this; I just enjoy the field and the experience of it. Let's just put mathematics on the backburner, I'll save it for my professors. The approach I take is that EVERYONE is right, but then it begs the question, is anybody right?

The friend request was troll bait, and, well if it looks like a troll, and cries like a troll...


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> @Azazello I don't really understand what you are arguing then because it seems we are in total agreement. It appears you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.


I think you are being somewhat disingenuous here and changing your story. At no point in our exchange did you acknowledge the issues surrounding rational justification from the point of view of logic, which is the basis of a trilemma. If you did then perhaps we could find a common ground in our discussion. Instead though, you continuously tried to dismiss this particular problem with logic without any explanation and focused solely on "flawed rationale of the human mind."



zzxm01 said:


> The response you just posted was an outburst, unlike my attempts at intelligent discussion.


Your attempts at intelligent discussion?! Was that before or after you threw you little tantrum and decided to resort to accusations of racism and trolling?  I suppose I should apologise for my rolling in fits of laughter "outburst", what, in the face of such commendable intellect.



zzxm01 said:


> HANS Albert studied heuristics, which is reasoning based on experience. This is a pretty rational approach since *we only know what we know*, and it's one I apply to my life as well.


Completely irrelevant to our point of contention.

On the subject of irrelevant, your bolded statement is a somewhat simplified version of what is known in philosophy as KK principle. Interestingly, one of the attempts to go around the problem of trilemma is by rejecting the above principle. In particular this approach is taken up by those who subscribe to your point _b_ in post #10 . So in effect, that statement may not necessary be true. As an example, we can know something without knowing that we know it. Again, I am not saying this to pick faults with your statement or cause confusion but simply as something that I find quite interesting in that particular field of logic.



zzxm01 said:


> Albert argues there is no field of human study that one should not question. If you check my discussion with ugh above, you would see the emphasis I place on scrutiny.


Once more, I don't see how this is relevant since the emphasis you place on scrutiny was never subject of our discussion.



zzxm01 said:


> The trilemma simply argues that there is nothing we can truly objectively know, which is another point I was in agreement with above.


And yet it contributes nothing to our point of contention, which was whether or not issues raised in trilemma were a consequence of logic or flaws in human perception.



zzxm01 said:


> Humans may never know any objective truth entirely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an attempt at finding it by whatever means available. I don't depend on math for my approach to this; I just enjoy the field and the experience of it. Let's just put mathematics on the backburner, I'll save it for my professors. The approach I take is that EVERYONE is right, but then it begs the question, is anybody right?


You're either confusing me with Ugh or trying to obscure the premise of our disagreement. But if it makes you feel better, I congratulate you on your strive towards objective truth.



zzxm01 said:


> The friend request was troll bait,


And you tried to accuse me of playing childish games  Oh my...



zzxm01 said:


> and, well if it looks like a troll, and cries like a troll...


I wonder if you would be able to justify that particular statement to the forum moderators  Perhaps, you could ask one of your professors to give you a hand with mathematical proof. Tell, you what though, coming from someone who claims to appreciate logic and intelligent discussion you sure do act to the contrary.

Now, as I said before, if you want to discuss logic - I'm all ears. But if you insist on continuing with your bizarre accusations and name calling I'd happily leave it to the moderators to sort out. Likewise, if you have a problem with my posts feel free to report them to the mods, I hear there is a strict policy on trolling here, so you might just be in luck


----------



## Foh_Teej

Ya gotta to love a girl that can dissect and dismantle posts like this.


----------



## zzxm01

Azazello said:


> I think you are being somewhat disingenuous here and changing your story. At no point in our exchange did you acknowledge the issues surrounding rational justification from the point of view of logic, which is the basis of a trilemma. If you did then perhaps we could find a common ground in our discussion. Instead though, you continuously tried to dismiss this particular problem with logic without any explanation and focused solely on "flawed rationale of the human mind."


Because justification itself is a purely human construct, and human rationale is imperfect, meaning that it is impossible to comprehend the true "logic" (objective truth) of our universe. A rock feels no need to justify anything, nor does a black hole. You seem to be stuck in your own head and need to recognize that human beings are incredibly small in the grand scheme of things. Humility will get you far, my friend.



Azazello said:


> Your attempts at intelligent discussion?! Was that before or after you threw you little tantrum and decided to resort to accusations of racism and trolling?  I suppose I should apologise for my rolling in fits of laughter "outburst", what, in the face of such commendable intellect.


No tantrums, I simply felt insulted by your condescending attitude and wanted to call you out on it. I made an attempt to continue the conersation, did I not? Maybe you could have phrased what you said about "colorful examples" differently if that tone wasn't your intent.



Azazello said:


> Completely irrelevant to our point of contention.


Very relevant. You mentioned that I ought to look up Albert's trilemma, so I did and also some of his other points of study. The trilemma in fact spans back in time to Agrippa, the first known figure to suggest that it is impossible for human beings to prove truth through reasoning. Now, why do you suppose that might be? There is indeed objective truth in this universe, as demonstrated by the systematic yet chaotic behaviors directly observable within it. That by itself is truth, regardless whether it can be proved or not.

Go put your bare hand on a hot stove and try telling me that it _truthfully_ doesn't hurt you. How do you know it hurts? Directly observing the sensation of pain. How does a bystander know it hurts you? Direct observation of your reaction to the sensation of pain. We don't even have the capability of quantifying or proving another being's _existence_ except through our own experience. So then, if it is humans that are incapable of proving objective truth in an objective manner, isn't that the fault of human understanding and perception, rather than the truth itself?

You may as well have made the claim that nothing else in the universe exists besides ones own self, which is in fact a hotly contested philosophical argument; _cogito ero sum_ does not say anything for the existence of _others_, but what good does it really do you to assume that nothing else can be true?



Azazello said:


> On the subject of irrelevant, your bolded statement is a somewhat simplified version of what is known in philosophy as KK principle. Interestingly, one of the attempts to go around the problem of trilemma is by rejecting the above principle. In particular this approach is taken up by those who subscribe to your point _b_ in post #10 . So in effect, that statement may not necessary be true. As an example, we can know something without knowing that we know it. Again, I am not saying this to pick faults with your statement or cause confusion but simply as something that I find quite interesting in that particular field of logic.


You cannot reject this principle because we simply do not have a god's-eye perspective on reality. Each person has their own subjective existence totally invisible to every other person alive, yet they all overlap in some sort of universal reality, which is why it is idiotic to assume that objective truth (totally unbiased logic) is non existent. We are simply incapable of understanding it. Does this point seem more relevant to our discussion now?



Azazello said:


> Once more, I don't see how this is relevant since the emphasis you place on scrutiny was never subject of our discussion.


You were the one who brought up Albert, and he places a great deal of emphasis on scrutiny. I was simply trying to expand the scope of the discussion to include more than just one of his points.



Azazello said:


> And yet it contributes nothing to our point of contention, which was whether or not issues raised in trilemma were a consequence of logic or flaws in human perception.


Isn't human perception flawed? Sorry, I took that as a fundamental assumption. I guess rainbows just fly out of everybody's buttholes.



Azazello said:


> You're either confusing me with Ugh or trying to obscure the premise of our disagreement. But if it makes you feel better, I congratulate you on your strive towards objective truth.


It just seems to me that you don't really have much philosophy of your own. You cite philosophers such as Albert and seem to subscribe to his thinking, but have yet to build on any of his points. Where have you tried to confirm or discredit his views? When Newton said, "I stand on the shoulders of giants," it was not only to pay homage to ancient scientists, but also to very boldly demonstrate that he had expanded on their thoughts and ideas in a meaningful way. To be certain, I am not confusing you with ugh because I can appreciate his style of collected argument and reasoning.



Azazello said:


> And you tried to accuse me of playing childish games  Oh my...


It got your attention, did it not? :] If we weren't playing the same game, I doubt you would have responded as you did to that friend request. I sincerely would have been content, even happy with your level of maturity if you just accepted it or ignored it, rather than making a ruckus over it.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> Because justification itself is a purely human construct, and human rationale is imperfect, meaning that it is impossible to comprehend the true "logic" (objective truth) of our universe. A rock feels no need to justify anything, nor does a black hole.


Considering logic is a study of reasoning, what exactly is a true "logic" of our universe? And how on earth does logic equal objective truth?



zzxm01 said:


> You seem to be stuck in your own head and need to recognize that human beings are incredibly small in the grand scheme of things.


Care to elaborate  you seem to enjoy bandying this notion so I would be interested to know how you came to this conclusion. Because judging from your conversation with Ugh, with whom you resorted to the same tactics, it is nothing but a humblebrag and an attempt to divert the conversation.



zzxm01 said:


> Humility will get you far, my friend.


Ever thought of taking a lesson from your own book 



zzxm01 said:


> No tantrums, I simply felt insulted by your condescending attitude and wanted to call you out on it. I made an attempt to continue the conersation, did I not? Maybe you could have phrased what you said about "colorful examples" differently if that tone wasn't your intent.


Call me out on what exactly? My use of the word "colourful"?

Let's see, colourful - dictionary.com definition:

_adjective 
1. 
having intense colour or richly varied colours 
2. 
vivid, rich, or distinctive in character​_
Would you rather your examples be caracterised as bland, lacking, or indistinct in character? What specifically about that word did you find insulting and a threat to your passion and livelihood? What malicious connotation did you intone in my use of "colourful examples" other than possibly my failure to appreciate your attempts to demonstrate your supposed well-roundedness. Did you expect a pat on a back? Perhaps it was my brazen suggestion that you were missing my point that offended you? Are you sure that your reading condescension into that post wasn't just your bruised ego talking? Because really, if you wanted to accuse me of condescension, you should have waited until I started laughing at your accusations and name calling.

Come to think of it, I would also like to pick your mind on a subject of racism and how my reasoning is representative of it.

So far you have avoided commenting on your accusations and name calling, so it would mean a lot to me to have your answers to the above, especially since it seems I need to work on my humility. I would be much obliged 



zzxm01 said:


> Very relevant. You mentioned that I ought to look up Albert's trilemma, so I did and also some of his other points of study. The trilemma in fact spans back in time to Agrippa, the first known figure to suggest that it is impossible for human beings to prove truth through reasoning.


If I wanted to discuss the history or even the authorship of this trilemma, I would have made it perfectly obvious. I did not doubt your ability to google stuff, so you do not have to prove to me that you have done that by listing more irrelevant examples, I am perfectly familiar with them.



zzxm01 said:


> Now, why do you suppose that might be?


I find it really amusing that seeing how I brought up the subject you are asking me this question. Even more amusing that you fail to answer it yourself.



zzxm01 said:


> There is indeed objective truth in this universe, as demonstrated by the systematic yet chaotic behaviors directly observable within it. That by itself is truth, regardless whether it can be proved or not.


Not sure how many times I have to say this but what does it have to do with our point of contention? I was not arguing for or against objective truth. My observation dealt with logical verification, which deals with validity of *statements *NOT objectivity of reality.



zzxm01 said:


> Go put your bare hand on a hot stove and try telling me that it _truthfully_ doesn't hurt you. How do you know it hurts? Directly observing the sensation of pain. How does a bystander know it hurts you? Direct observation of your reaction to the sensation of pain. We don't even have the capability of quantifying or proving another being's _existence_ except through our own experience. So then, if it is humans that are incapable of proving objective truth in an objective manner, isn't that the fault of human understanding and perception, rather than the truth itself?


For someone who loves logic as much as you do, you sure go to great lengths to refrain from referencing it or the actual trilemma. You continue to give these elaborate (I hope that word didn't wound your sensibilities too much) examples without addressing the elephant in the room. I may well be imagining it but it just feels like you are desperate to save face. I would happily withdraw this assumption if you could tie your examples with the trilemma and explain:

a) how logic fits in your picture, and 
b) where the rules of logic applied to statements sit in terms of flawed human perception.

Trilemma doesn't say anything about truth being at fault, or the human perception. It only addresses the validity of statements within the framework of logical form.



zzxm01 said:


> You cannot reject this principle because we simply do not have a god's-eye perspective on reality.


Hahaha, I love it. You should write a paper on this, correct all of those philosophers who are daft enough to think otherwise. After all, if you said that, there can't possibly be any more argument on the subject.



zzxm01 said:


> Each person has their own subjective existence totally invisible to every other person alive, yet they all overlap in some sort of universal reality, which is why it is idiotic to assume that objective truth (totally unbiased logic) is non existent. We are simply incapable of understanding it.


Now you're just throwing all of your eggs in a basket. How on earth does that relate to KK principle? It says nothing about objective truth.



zzxm01 said:


> Does this point seem more relevant to our discussion now?


Well, considering your question relates to your comment on KK principle, it is only relevant in as far as to demonstrate how little you know of philosophy and that you are incapable of recognising a difference between the subject of logic and epistemology.



zzxm01 said:


> You were the one who brought up Albert, and he places a great deal of emphasis on scrutiny. I was simply trying to expand the scope of the discussion to include more than just one of his points.


And there was me thinking you were elaborating on our supposed agreement.  Either way, I would have been content if you had simply addressed the issue of a trilemma and not try and change the subject by pretending there was never any disagreement on it.



zzxm01 said:


> Isn't human perception flawed? Sorry, I took that as a fundamental assumption. I guess rainbows just fly out of everybody's buttholes.


Let me break this down for you.

This began with my comment on the subject of logic and logic only.

You responded by giving examples of human errors and general epistemic observations. None of these even remotely touched on the subject of logic, except for maybe the math riddle but even that was totally out of context, yet you expected them to invalidate the suggestion that rules of logic may inadvertently lead to fallacies. Again, how does that even work? Now, there are many attempts to resolve the trilemma, some are more convincing than others but I can't think of a single one that uses a high school algebra riddle or the suggestion to burn one's hand (btw what if I had CIPA...)


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> It just seems to me that you don't really have much philosophy of your own.


Lol what a bizarre comment. You really are clutching at straws.

It seems to me you have no personal taste in music. Go figure.



zzxm01 said:


> You cite philosophers such as Albert and seem to subscribe to his thinking,


I referred you to Albert because he was directly relevant to the observation I made on logic, which you continuosly tried to dismiss. I am not aware of his personal thinking on the subject of a trilemma to subscribe to it. I can, however, appreciate it's consequence.



zzxm01 said:


> but have yet to build on any of his points.


In light of you not being able to tell the difference between logic and epistemology what exactly would you like me to have built?



zzxm01 said:


> Where have you tried to confirm or discredit his views? When Newton said, "I stand on the shoulders of giants," it was not only to pay homage to ancient scientists, but also to very boldly demonstrate that he had expanded on their thoughts and ideas in a meaningful way.


You have cited the law of gravity. Where have you tried to confirm or discredit this law? And since you were paying homage to Newton I expect to see a bold demonstration of how you can expand on his scientific discovery, perhaps even build a consistent quantum gravity theory, seeing how you also stand on the shoulders of giants.

Once you are done, I'll see if I can refute the trilemma over a cuppa cocoa by burning my hand and trying to solve school riddles, whilst the philosophers who had spent decades studying the field are struggling to resolve it.

Shall we shake on it? 



zzxm01 said:


> To be certain, I am not confusing you with ugh because I can appreciate his style of collected argument and reasoning.


Good. Obfuscation it is then 



zzxm01 said:


> It got your attention, did it not?


I didn't realise you were so desperate for my attention. Personally, I didn't see any signs of it waning in our exchange but if it makes you feel any better I'll be sure to keep you informed of if/when I start losing interest in responding to you. Deal?



zzxm01 said:


> If we weren't playing the same game, I doubt you would have responded as you did to that friend request.


I am still waiting for your explanation on what game I am supposed to be playing  So, care to elucidate? As for my response, I thought it was perfectly civil to let you know I had no intention of corresponding with you privately.



zzxm01 said:


> I sincerely would have been content, even happy with your level of maturity if you just accepted it or ignored it, rather than making a ruckus over it.


You call an acknowledgement of your request and refusal to accept it a ruckus? I really should revise my definitions, because I was sure that blowing the lid and resorting to name calling would qualify as one far better.

But what do I know.

Still, it would be nice to hear your justification for each and every one of your accusations, including my being a troll and causing a ruckus. Because for now it looks like you are just getting pissy because someone is not treating you and your opinions with the reverence you feel you deserve.


----------



## Azazello

@ Foh_Teej
That's what happens when the girl suffers from insomnia


----------



## zzxm01

Azazello said:


> Lol what a bizarre comment. You really are clutching at straws.
> 
> It seems to me you have no personal taste in music. Go figure.


Man, I must have caught you on your period or something, such insults really are unnecessary. There may be no point to arguing anymore with you, as you clearly lack the basics necessary for compassion and empathy. My point was that you haven't said anything about what you yourself think or believe. If you felt insulted by that, it is no fault of mine. Maybe you believe in nothing, which is fine; just don't take it out on the people around you.



Azazello said:


> I am not aware of his personal thinking on the subject of a trilemma to subscribe to it. I can, however, appreciate it's consequence.


We can both appreciate the consequence of his theory. If it appears I am dismissing it, it is only because I am trying to derive meaning from an essentially meaningless conclusion; what benefit to practical life is it to assume that truth cannot be derived logically (ironically also a false statement, by the nature of assumption)?



Azazello said:


> In light of you not being able to tell the difference between logic and epistemology what exactly would you like me to have built?


They are pretty intimately involved with one another, no? Some original thought would be nice, rather than... whatever all this is.



Azazello said:


> Once you are done, I'll see if I can refute the trilemma over a cuppa cocoa by burning my hand and trying to solve school riddles, whilst the philosophers who had spent decades studying the field are struggling to resolve it.


I came up with an answer to the trilemma that satisfied me in 5 minutes. If philosophers can't make peace with themselves and existence after _decades_, that's their own failure. Years of life wasted arguing something that benefits no one... and you admire such selfishness?

Independent thought is a must, but practicality is a major consideration too. Many engineering design problems deal with the law of gravity and in my own observations, the theory works mathematically when applied. If it did not, the entire modern world would quite literally fall apart. I would never go so far as to liken myself to Newton. He is simply a figure I admire, like Faraday, Bruno, and Galileo. Their work is truly humbling.



Azazello said:


> Good. Obfuscation it is then


The only thing "obfuscating" here is your attitude. Is this the only place you are capable of feeling superior to another human being?



Azazello said:


> I didn't realise you were so desperate for my attention.


Truly I could care less about your attention. It was simply a troll test and you failed. Sorry.

Really, I am getting tired of this.



Azazello said:


> I am still waiting for your explanation on what game I am supposed to be playing  So, care to elucidate? As for my response, I thought it was perfectly civil to let you know I had no intention of corresponding with you privately.


It seems you are a troll, based on your openly abrasive comments to me and to others. This site is for social anxiety, which it doesn't seem you have an issue with, as you gladly challenge anyone with differing methods of understanding. Do you do this with people face to face as well? Why not try taking on other points of view, rather than just assuming you know all you need to know?

I seek no reverence, or even acknowledgement for that matter. It just sucks to have my passions belittled in an environment where I sought acceptance. Most of the time, people behave as if I'm going on about taxidermy, but the fields of math and science are genuinely fascinating to me. It takes a lot to appreciate them. Tell me, is there anything you are truly passionate about? I wouldn't blame you if your answer was 'no'; its bloody hard work to have a passion.


----------



## zzxm01

Azazello said:


> Considering logic is a study of reasoning, what exactly is a true "logic" of our universe? And how on earth does logic equal objective truth?


Seeing as you can also take logic as a form of systematic computation (as seen in a computer) it might become more clear how there is "logic" to the universe. Everything is computed in real time due to the forces at large; asteroid impacts, nuclear fission, your very existence. This, imo, is how logic equates to objective truth.



Azazello said:


> Care to elaborate  you seem to enjoy bandying this notion so I would be interested to know how you came to this conclusion. Because judging from your conversation with Ugh, with whom you resorted to the same tactics, it is nothing but a humblebrag and an attempt to divert the conversation.


I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of your apparent bitterness. Just because you don't believe in objective truth, you try to make those around you completely miserable? Try to be more positive, or rub one out. Idk what to tell you. It's starting to seem like you are incapable of happiness, which indicates to me a failure in your philosophy.

How about instead of "Hah!? What on earth is energy shiftness?" you try, "What do you mean by that terminology?"

See? Much less condescending! :]



Azazello said:


> Ever thought of taking a lesson from your own book


I know my place in the world. Do you?



Azazello said:


> Call me out on what exactly? My use of the word "colourful"?


Listen, without any tone of voice to aid your dialogue, you really need to choose your wording and timing more wisely. If I want to insult you, I will come right out and do so rather than perform this textual cunnilingus you seem to be so fond of.



Azazello said:


> Come to think of it, I would also like to pick your mind on a subject of racism and how my reasoning is representative of it.


*Sigh* a racist, like a coward, has no intent to question his or her own thinking, as the urge is overridden by fear of the unknown. It seems to me you are likewise afraid to challenge your own thinking because it would just rock your world.



Azazello said:


> I did not doubt your ability to google stuff


And I did not doubt your ability to use a thesaurus :]

In conclusion, my specialty in logic is in mathematics. If you want to discuss Bernoulli Equations, or programming, or the derivation of instantaneous rate of change, or even the stock market, I am all for it. Of course there are limits to even mathematical logic, but not on the scale of practicality. The problem with the point you are contesting is that it really loses all meaning when applied to real life. Perhaps this is why you are so bitter, and why I did not argue anything to your satisfaction; greater emphasis placed on practicality. I hereby wash my hands of this matter, as we clearly have different motives.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> Man, I must have caught you on your period or something, such insults really are unnecessary. There may be no point to arguing anymore with you, as you clearly lack the basics necessary for compassion and empathy.


There you go crying wolf again without any seeming justification.  Is it an attempt to draw attention away from all of your accusations and name calling? If so it really is amusing.



zzxm01 said:


> My point was that you haven't said anything about what you yourself think or believe.


That's not entirely true now is it?  The whole point was that on the basis of me not bringing my personal philosophy into our discussion, as there was no need to, you formed an assumption that I do not have one. Which is similar to me concluding that you do not have a taste in music simply because at no point in our conversation did you inform me of what type of music you like.



zzxm01 said:


> If you felt insulted by that, it is no fault of mine.


Insulted? Now who's busy projecting? No, I was amused that someone who claims to espouse logic as much as you do is unable to utilise it in his most basic assumptions.



zzxm01 said:


> Maybe you believe in nothing, which is fine; just don't take it out on the people around you.


Considering you pulled that one out of a hat, there really isn't anything to say about it.



zzxm01 said:


> We can both appreciate the consequence of his theory. If it appears I am dismissing it, it is only because I am trying to derive meaning from an essentially meaningless conclusion; what benefit to practical life is it to assume that truth cannot be derived logically (ironically also a false statement, by the nature of assumption)?


Again, who is being disingenuous?  You dismissed it, and this is where our disagreement arose, when you asserted it had nothing to do with logic. Now rather than admit that perhaps you had your wires crossed, especially since you were not aware of the trilemma you now just brush it aside as lacking benefit to the practical life. Good try.



zzxm01 said:


> They are pretty intimately involved with one another, no? Some original thought would be nice, rather than... whatever all this is.


Of course they are. Logic is an essential tool in epistemology but it doesn't mean you can resolve or a refute a logical problem by simply saying it's a fault of human perception. That's not how it works, which is why I had to constantly remind you that the examples you gave were irrelevant to the problem. The fact that you continued to treat the two subjects the same implied you confused them.



zzxm01 said:


> I came up with an answer to the trilemma that satisfied me in 5 minutes. If philosophers can't make peace with themselves and existence after _decades_, that's their own failure. Years of life wasted arguing something that benefits no one... and you admire such selfishness?


This is by far the funniest response I have read in this forum, and I have seen some corkers. Your talents are truly remarkable. We should get you a Nobel Prize for your contribution to philosophy. Honestly, the sheer arrogance of that statement is staggering. LOL



zzxm01 said:


> Independent thought is a must, but practicality is a major consideration too. Many engineering design problems deal with the law of gravity and in my own observations, the theory works mathematically when applied. If it did not, the entire modern world would quite literally fall apart. I would never go so far as to liken myself to Newton. He is simply a figure I admire, like Faraday, Bruno, and Galileo. Their work is truly humbling.


So, what, no expansion of his law of gravity, no quantum gravity theory? Oh, what a shame. And I had such high hopes seeing how you were expecting so much of me 



zzxm01 said:


> The only thing "obfuscating" here is your attitude. Is this the only place you are capable of feeling superior to another human being?


Awwww, gotta love psychological projection 



zzxm01 said:


> Truly I could care less about your attention. It was simply a troll test and you failed. Sorry.


Now you are just contradicting yourself  Gosh, this is so much fun 



zzxm01 said:


> Really, I am getting tired of this.


I bet. Gotta be really exhausting looking for all the ways to avoid answering direct questions about all your accusations and name calling.



zzxm01 said:


> It seems you are a troll, based on your openly abrasive comments to me and to others.


Which part did you find abrasive? The word colourful or my laughing at your attempts to insult me after? I find it incredible that you continue to play the victim in the face of your bizarre accusations, name calling, and general nonsense, thinking it wouldn't result in derision. You reap what you sow, mate 



zzxm01 said:


> This site is for social anxiety,


You're right what was I thinking expecting rational responses... /s



zzxm01 said:


> which it doesn't seem you have an issue with, as you gladly challenge anyone with differing methods of understanding.


More baseless assumptions, particularly since my being able to hold my ground with people like you says nothing about whether I have "social" anxieties or not. Besides weren't you challenging Ugh on his views here yourself. If I'm not mistaken you went as far as to suggest he may have to do a lot of growing as a human being. Or do your rules of forum etiquette, compassion, empathy, and humility do not apply to you on the site for people with social anxieties?



zzxm01 said:


> Do you do this with people face to face as well? Why not try taking on other points of view, rather than just assuming you know all you need to know?


I don't need to do this with people face to face as none have ever accused me of being a racist and a bunch of other things you have called me in this thread. As for assuming that I know all I need to know, that's just your projection speaking again. You should count how many times you have tried to prove a point in this thread by telling another person to trust you because you "know this". Then count how many times I have claimed to know something and that my knowledge was enough to satisfy me in my everyday life. I'm not the one who is arrogant enough to call philosophers selfish and claim to have all the necessary answers after 5 minutes of googling something others may have been working on most of their lives. I have not once claimed to be an authority on any topic here. I don't go around humblebragging about my education or experience in analysis of technical peer reviewed articles. Sorry, that was meant to say fairly technical. You may not like the fact that I am able to engage in online discussions but please don't pretend to have some moral highground considering you have been acting like a petulant teenager for the last two pages, which although funny as hell is somewhat unbecoming of someone who claims to pursue intelligent discussion and acceptance.



zzxm01 said:


> I seek no reverence, or even acknowledgement for that matter.


Could've fooled me.



zzxm01 said:


> It just sucks to have my passions belittled in an environment where I sought acceptance.


There you go, playing a victim again. I did ask you what you found so insulting and a threat to your passion and livelihood. Seems like it was just a boy crying wolf.



zzxm01 said:


> Most of the time, people behave as if I'm going on about taxidermy, but the fields of math and science are genuinely fascinating to me. It takes a lot to appreciate them. Tell me, is there anything you are truly passionate about? I wouldn't blame you if your answer was 'no'; its bloody hard work to have a passion.


Good for you. And yes I am passionate about many things, despite your so many groundless assumptions.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> Seeing as you can also take logic as a form of systematic computation (as seen in a computer) it might become more clear how there is "logic" to the universe. Everything is computed in real time due to the forces at large; asteroid impacts, nuclear fission, your very existence. This, imo, is how logic equates to objective truth.


Logic is a study of what constitutes valid reasoning. It is essentially a study of language be it that of general discourse, physics, mathematics or computing as an example. By it's nature it requires a subject to reason/make propositions, or as in the case of computers - produce the necessary code.

I may well be mistaken but it seems like you are comparing logical function of a computational system , such as computer, (A) with a universe (B) and make an assumption that the universe is ruled by some type of logic, which is impossible to comprehend by humans. That is one hell of a leap in imagination, and how you would get from A to B would be anyone's guess. The convenient thing about this flight of fancy is that, considering logic is a human construct, one can then ask the question of who is the author of the true logic of the universe? Now, I am having to go by your very limited explanations, so excuse me if I have gotten it wrong but if not then, you really do have your work cut out when attempting to get from A to B.

As for logic and objective truth, you have used these interchangeably, hence my question. Your answer simply comments on how you propose objective truth is derived, it says nothing on why you used these terms to mean one and the same, which they don't.



zzxm01 said:


> I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of your apparent bitterness.


First you assume I am bitter, without any justification. And then you expect me to believe that your suggestion that I should recognize that human beings are incredibly small in the grand scheme of things would somehow help you to understand an emotion which I am not experiencing. Were you trying to get to the bottom of Ugh's bitterness when you told him similar? Looks to me like you're just making stuff up as you go along.



zzxm01 said:


> Just because you don't believe in objective truth,


When in this thread did I make any comments on whether I believe or disbelieve in objective truth?



zzxm01 said:


> you try to make those around you completely miserable?


How exactly am I doing that, considering the above?



zzxm01 said:


> Try to be more positive, or rub one out. Idk what to tell you. It's starting to seem like you are incapable of happiness, which indicates to me a failure in your philosophy.


Oh, the imagination you have... You really ought to get your obsession with guessing my personal circumstances under control.



zzxm01 said:


> How about instead of "Hah!? What on earth is energy shiftness?" you try, "What do you mean by that terminology?"
> See? Much less condescending! :]


Well for starters, it would change the entire purpose of my post, which wasn't so much to gain the terminological definition for a silly made up term but to express my incredulity on the ridiculousness of that statement. If that came across condescending then tough luck. People should be responsible for the nonsense they post, this includes you. By the way, does your looking towards other threads mean you couldn't figure out a rational explanation of why my "colourful" post would constitute as condescending and a threat to your passions and livelihood? 



zzxm01 said:


> Listen, without any tone of voice to aid your dialogue, you really need to choose your wording and timing more wisely.


I could say the same to you. Without hearing my voice, seeing my body language, and having any knowledge of my personal life, health, opinions and beliefs, you really ought to refrain from jumping to ridiculous conclusions and making convoluted claims.



zzxm01 said:


> If I want to insult you, I will come right out and do so rather than perform this textual cunnilingus you seem to be so fond of.


Oh, yeah, I forgot all of your tantrums and name calling were part of your intellectual discourse 



zzxm01 said:


> *Sigh* a racist, like a coward, has no intent to question his or her own thinking, as the urge is overridden by fear of the unknown. It seems to me you are likewise afraid to challenge your own thinking because it would just rock your world.


That is a fine attempt at making stuff up to save your face. Especially seeing how at no point in that exchange have I expressed my own personal views for you to determine whether I was prepared to question them or not. All I did was comment on a particular problem in logic and your failure to follow the point I was trying to make. Just another demonstration of your need to jump to irrational conclusions.



zzxm01 said:


> And I did not doubt your ability to use a thesaurus :]


Have you ran out of accusations? lol



zzxm01 said:


> In conclusion, my specialty in logic is in mathematics. If you want to discuss Bernoulli Equations, or programming, or the derivation of instantaneous rate of change, or even the stock market, I am all for it. Of course there are limits to even mathematical logic, but not on the scale of practicality.


I'll bear that in mind 



zzxm01 said:


> The problem with the point you are contesting is that it really loses all meaning when applied to real life. Perhaps this is why you are so bitter, and why I did not argue anything to your satisfaction; greater emphasis placed on practicality. I hereby wash my hands of this matter, as we clearly have different motives.


Whatever you say  How could I possibly question your acumen, infallible logic, and integrity... Especially in the face of such intelligent posts. In case even that confuses you, that is called sarcasm


----------



## zzxm01

@Azazello Go do something more productive with your life. Maybe it would suite you to be a politician of some sort. Good day.


----------



## Azazello

zzxm01 said:


> @Azazello Go do something more productive with your life. Maybe it would suite you to be a politician of some sort. Good day.


I think that role would suit you much better 

Have a good one!


----------



## andy0128

*MODERATOR WARNING: Please stick to debating the points without being unpleasant to one another. *


----------



## Azazello

Andy, you're a bit late to the party  But thanks for the reminder.


----------



## free thinker

HellCell said:


> Influences, of course play a part, but the "base personality" should remain in tact.


When you look back on your life in 20 or 30 years, it is very possible you won't even recognize the person you were at 21. As someone who is now well into middle age, I can tell you that the person I know as "self" has changed dramatically over time. Many factors including, but not limited to, friends, family, culture, race, gender, the genes and brain you possess, the experiences you have over the course of your life, and the generation you were born into, all contribute to establishing who we become. If you had lived during the 1960s (as I did) you would have witnessed how much our society and its inhabitants (especially females) have changed since then. The stark changes which have taken place during the past half century demonstrate the importance of the generation factor in determining who we become.


----------



## EcoProg

I think you will turn into another human when you die, but you won't remember it because you have a new brain.


----------



## gamingpup

The only me is me, Are you sure the only you is you?


I love you if you get the reference


----------



## HellCell

free thinker said:


> When you look back on your life in 20 or 30 years, it is very possible you won't even recognize the person you were at 21. As someone who is now well into middle age, I can tell you that the person I know as "self" has changed dramatically over time. Many factors including, but not limited to, friends, family, culture, race, gender, the genes and brain you possess, the experiences you have over the course of your life, and the generation you were born into, all contribute to establishing who we become. If you had lived during the 1960s (as I did) you would have witnessed how much our society and its inhabitants (especially females) have changed since then. The stark changes which have taken place during the past half century demonstrate the importance of the generation factor in determining who we become.


Maybe, I have no definitive answers since I haven't lived that long. I can only reference myself at 10 years old.
In which case I have changed a lot, especially in the sense that I've become less "bratty."
I have this 7 year old where I babysit at home and she would ask a yes or no question. If I say no, she'd throw a temper tantrum.
It behavior like this I've deviated from as I grew older.


----------



## HellCell

EcoProg said:


> I think you will turn into another human when you die, but you won't remember it because you have a new brain.


That is reincarnation that you are describing. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket if I were you, it falls under the realm of pseudoscience as it is an untenable subject.


----------



## HellCell

gamingpup said:


> The only me is me, Are you sure the only you is you?
> 
> I love you if you get the reference


Nope, I don't


----------



## free thinker

HellCell, if you are interested in factors which influence our personalities you might find the following article interesting. Recent research has found that geographical regions exhibit distinct personalities.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/regions-personalities.aspx

For those of a youthful age, I would highly recommend keeping a journal of your traits, thoughts and worldview and then see how they change as you age and experience life. I truly wish I had done that years ago.


----------



## CeilingStarer

Haven't read any of the thread, but I think it is possible.

I've been really into Michael Newton's work. 'Journey of Souls' I think is his main book. He goes into this extensively.


----------



## low

This is not science. It's hocus pocus.


----------



## HellCell

free thinker said:


> HellCell, if you are interested in factors which influence our personalities you might find the following article interesting. Recent research has found that geographical regions exhibit distinct personalities.
> 
> http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/regions-personalities.aspx
> 
> For those of a youthful age, I would highly recommend keeping a journal of your traits, thoughts and worldview and then see how they change as you age and experience life. I truly wish I had done that years ago.


I am very interested in that article, it is right up my alley in fact, so thank you.

In regards to logging myself in a journal. Yes I did that very thing at the age of 18, even then wishing I could have started younger. I share the same sentiment as you as I'm also very curious of my evolutionary footsteps.


----------



## HellCell

CeilingStarer said:


> Haven't read any of the thread, but I think it is possible.
> 
> I've been really into Michael Newton's work. 'Journey of Souls' I think is his main book. He goes into this extensively.


Will take a look at the book, but it may take some time before I can come up with an opinion on it. Good suggestion, thanks.


----------



## HellCell

low said:


> This is not science. It's hocus pocus.


Having read ugh1979's rebuttal, this seems to be true. Still, I'll be vigilant about this subject because we don't ultimately know the truth of what happens after death.


----------



## CeilingStarer

HellCell said:


> Will take a look at the book, but it may take some time before I can come up with an opinion on it. Good suggestion, thanks.


Here's a good intro on his "soul" work.


----------



## HellCell

CeilingStarer said:


> Here's a good intro on his "soul" work.


I'm seeing a correlation with Pleiadian beliefs. All of this is very speculative. What really amused me is when he stated that he once thought souls was not a thing and where we'd end up in oblivion (like many scientists would believe).

He also stated there are "soul groups" so by this idea, there are indeed "other me(s)" but at the same time polar opposites and everything in between.

The soulmate part really intrigued me. So if I follow this principle correctly. That there are predetermined mates out there. Isn't me meeting my wife, just a matter of sifting through large numbers of women?


----------

