Why You Believe

[TeaDidikai]

Ishtar Shakti,
I don't have the spoons to deal with your bullshit right now.
Your post is ignorant and fallacious at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

The huge flaws in your post have been addressed by others. I'll wait for you to correct the fallacies and readdress the positions you offer.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Sorry for the chopping of your post, I just have specific points I wish to address.

Ishtar Shakti

I don't believe that anything can be all knowing. I think there is always a limit to knowledge and the more we act the less we know. If you watched every single reaction to every action and stood perfectly still perhaps you would be able to understand everything that was around you but the second you introduced a ripple to the mix the entire system changes.

Only from outside a system can you see the system

If you are outside the system then you are not a part of the system... you have no influence

So, conditional omniscience, within a constructed narrative is possible, but not omniscience within one's own native narrative?
I think I'm following.
To drop this to saecular speak, the scientist observing the rat that was placed in that scientist's maze might be omniscient within the context and limitations of that constructed space, but not in the maze they themselves are running thru?
Does the act of the researcher altering the maze befoul their complete knowledge of that maze?

Ishtar Shakti

You never know if someone's lying... spirits are no different then people in my eye's. No matter what I am still a skeptic but I've seen plenty of spirits who claim to be the god of this realm intervene on the behalfs of the people who worship them... so who really cares as long as they are helping and not hurting the people who worship them?

BTW there are plenty of spirits who seemingly delude people and use them for there own purposes... and when people prey I have noticed other spirits who just soak up that energy... so warning?

Just wanted to chime in on this.
I am by no means a maltheist, however, I have seen far too many events of geni engaging in what I perceive is evil and destructive behavior. At the very least, from a human perspective and sometimes from an organic perspective. I would also add my voice to a rousing:
Just because it is a "spirit" does not mean it is right or your friend.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ishtar Shakti

You never know if someone's lying...

I tried to point out how wrong this statement was. How the proposed statement is an absolute that is completely unsupported.

I tried to step back in hopes that maybe a bit of time would calm me down.

I'm still ******** pissed. Ishsha, explain to me how when my rapist lied about raping me- how his complete denial of his sexual assault on me while I did everything in my power to fight him off and while I kept repeating the choked word "Rape!" over an over again as he leaned against my throat to silence me- ******** EXPLAIN HOW I DO NOT KNOW HE WAS LYING WHEN HE RAPED ME.

Or shut the ******** up.  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

But wouldn't there be some contexts wherein even your attempts to adjust your observation methods and/or models for your own effects/the system's effects on you would still be affected by these same things, further complicating the process and pushing the threshold further away?

Basically observational lateral moves for dealing with inaccuracies cuz the system touches even those moves and those moves disrupt things too.

Wow, even the summary was a ridiculous mouthful.

You're still holding a disintegrated perspective though.

I'm going to use a very simplistic example in hopes that it'll convey what description hasn't.

It sounds like what you are saying amounts to this:
Person X is studying the paths that ants walk in search of food by standing near an anthill. The person attempts to adjust for the observer effect by any number of ways that attempt to account for a whole system without their influence.

What I am talking about is this:
Person Y is not studying "the paths that ants walk in search of food" independently of said person's presence.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

TeaDidikai

Ishtar Shakti

You never know if someone's lying...

I tried to point out how wrong this statement was. How the proposed statement is an absolute that is completely unsupported.

I tried to step back in hopes that maybe a bit of time would calm me down.

I'm still ******** pissed. Ishsha, explain to me how when my rapist lied about raping me- how his complete denial of his sexual assault on me while I did everything in my power to fight him off and while I kept repeating the choked word "Rape!" over an over again as he leaned against my throat to silence me- ******** EXPLAIN HOW I DO NOT KNOW HE WAS LYING WHEN HE RAPED ME.

Or shut the ******** up.

Know---
I dissociated when I was in that situation
I realized that even if someone touched me they were only touching my body... they could never truly penetrate me and unless I let them they couldn't harm me. Even if I died no one could really harm me unless I let them. Even if I felt pain that was just nerves sending signals telling me that something was happening to my body.
While its very convincing I figured I could shut all that down if I needed to. Block every signal accept the ones I needed. I didn't have to feel pain... and I chased that mother ******** out of my damn house with a knife. I was lucky he was stupid he forgot to shut the door because he was too busy wrestling with me to tend to it. He also didn't knock me out. He was stupid.
Truly know? I can only "know" what I perceive and its not always accurate. I couldn't remember afterwards what his p***s looked like, I couldn't tell you the length or any details but in my head it still looks clear. I couldn't remember his tattoo's or the color of his car. I remembered holding the knife and chasing him and the garbage men outside picking up trash. In my mind everything I saw was vivid but when I'm asked questions about it... my answers are sorely lacking. I remember asking the garbage man if he saw anything... I remember the police looking disappointed that he didn't succeed and all of them leaving quickly the second they figured he wasn't at the house.

But remember? Know? Accuracy? Proof?
I believe that this happened to me... I perceived this happening... but I was at one end of a very flawed cascade and I don't know everything I only have a small bit. I believe that small bit I trust it because thats all I have. I trust my sight because its all I have. I trust my hearing because its all I have. I have to take a leep of faith and I will always have to take that leep... and I know at any point in time my body may try to play some sort of ******** up trick on me and tell me things that aren't true. Tell me blue when its green. I know my memory is flawed because countless times I've come into situations where I couldn't rely on it. I know my perception is flawed because countless time's I've been wrong in small meaningful ways.

And no one else will trust me unless I have at least one other person whose seen the same thing, whose been there. No one gives a s**t what you see unless you have Proof. So even If I thought that was knowledge... no one else would. The courts didn't... the guy lied to the ******** cops and they still settled out of court.

I trust my senses because I have to...
But No... I will never be completely objective... I will never be omnipotent. I can not know all all I have are pretty ******** good guesses because I've pieced together all these ******** patterns and Yes to me its a matter of trust. To me its unattainable because I've tried for complete objectivity and I've failed... but I've gotten at least objective enough to realize how little I really do know and how biased I can be  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Everything within a system affects everything else within the system through a complex matrix of interconnections. The path by which you can see the ants links you to the ants if only by the reflection of light off the ants. Still the reflection comes into contact with you and interacts with you.

If you try to remove yourself from a situation through viewing the situation you are still in someways connected to the situation and influencing the situation.
This is compounded by flaws in ability to percieve as its a complicated matrix of breaking down and translating signals. This is further confounded by bias.

There is a second philosophy which holds the premise that will and thought structure the universe. Within this paradigm is the belief that if you remove your will from the universe you can see the universe clearly because you stop bringing new influences into the system. The ability to track a chain of reactions while at the same time altering the chain of reactions is quit difficult.

I think this perspective relies on being able to perceive energy without altering its direction.
-----------------
I find the subject interesting

The "Wall" you hit is that the scientist isn't omniscient. By controlling the variables and limiting the amount of possiblities that the mouse can make you shape the direction the mouse will go. Shape but not control... influence but never touch. The mouse still has its own will and thus is a chaotic variable.
Most researches aim to make there influence miniscule in order to create a proper study... like in the case of the rats. Limit bias interaction.. try to make sure all the variables are equal etc.

This goes into the second paradigm, omniscience could be considered the ability know all possible variables and changes. This though would mean that you are the system so to speak... Its like a person living inside there own mind. Perfect knowledge would in this case equate complete control but the system would be a closed system...

As nothing is truly static... and the rat can't even truly process much of the information... the rat truly knows very little about the maze. Each time the rat runs the maze though it reaffirms an imprint of the maze. No matter how close to the truth of the maze the rat may be... the rat can never truly know it... and then there is the whole break down of knowledge into smaller and smaller points.

I don't know... I don't feel like thinking about this right now I'm sleepy  

[Recursive Paradox]

Actually you can easily know when someone is lying if the lie is a distinct one given in a situation where you already know the truth beyond any reasonable doubt.

You can also easily know when someone is lying if they aren't an excellent liar and you are a social engineer or a people watcher (and possess skills related to comprehending subtle bodily signals)

Nearly everyone has a tell. Or more likely, many tells.

Don't make truly silly absolute statements that indicate to others the true depth of your ignorance, unless you truly wish for that ignorance to be explored and corrected. And you seem to have a problem with that.  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

But wouldn't there be some contexts wherein even your attempts to adjust your observation methods and/or models for your own effects/the system's effects on you would still be affected by these same things, further complicating the process and pushing the threshold further away?

Basically observational lateral moves for dealing with inaccuracies cuz the system touches even those moves and those moves disrupt things too.

Wow, even the summary was a ridiculous mouthful.

You're still holding a disintegrated perspective though.

I'm going to use a very simplistic example in hopes that it'll convey what description hasn't.

It sounds like what you are saying amounts to this:
Person X is studying the paths that ants walk in search of food by standing near an anthill. The person attempts to adjust for the observer effect by any number of ways that attempt to account for a whole system without their influence.

What I am talking about is this:
Person Y is not studying "the paths that ants walk in search of food" independently of said person's presence.

Oh. Ohhhhh.

So basically, the observations and studies are fine with observer effect because they're including the observer effect (not necessarily defining it specifically but simply accounting for the fact that you have an effect and having the observations say, "ants walking in search of food with a person nearby watching")

Yanno, that actually makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of situations where the observer effect and the system disruption are not relevant to the observations themselves.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ishsha

And no one else will trust me unless I have at least one other person whose seen the same thing, whose been there.

Stop with the generalizations. Please.

Quote:

No one gives a s**t what you see unless you have Proof.

See above.

Quote:

But No... I will never be completely objective... I will never be omnipotent. I can not know all all I have are pretty ******** good guesses because I've pieced together all these ******** patterns and Yes to me its a matter of trust. To me its unattainable because I've tried for complete objectivity and I've failed...

Ah... I get it. So because you failed, no one could possibly succeed.

Remember what we said about projection?
Just because you disassociated doesn't mean I did. Just because part of you broke in that way does not make me as delusional as you are.

Also- I don't think you understand what knowledge is. There are a number of different forms of knowledge- and your practice of making up false definitions in order to defeat them is yet another fallacious practice you indulge. You did it with god. You did it with knowledge.

Recursive Paradox

Oh. Ohhhhh.

So basically, the observations and studies are fine with observer effect because they're including the observer effect (not necessarily defining it specifically but simply accounting for the fact that you have an effect and having the observations say, "ants walking in search of food with a person nearby watching")

Yanno, that actually makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of situations where the observer effect and the system disruption are not relevant to the observations themselves.

Spiff. Looks like we're on the same page.
The only schism I am still seeing is the concept of relevance. I don't dismiss that there may be important relevant byproducts of being observed. What I am saying however is that which we observe doesn't need to exist in a vacuum in order to be valid.  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Spiff. Looks like we're on the same page.
The only schism I am still seeing is the concept of relevance. I don't dismiss that there may be important relevant byproducts of being observed. What I am saying however is that which we observe doesn't need to exist in a vacuum in order to be valid.

Yeah. That works.

I think the view I settle into is that it's only a problem when the system interference or observer effect is truly disrupting to the data you're seeking to glean (and that isn't automatically the case)

Is that what you're shooting for there?  

[Bastemhet]

Recursive Paradox

I think the view I settle into is that it's only a problem when the system interference or observer effect is truly disrupting to the data you're seeking to glean (and that isn't automatically the case)

What then becomes the criteria of an observer effect being disrupting as opposed to just existing?  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

Yeah. That works.

I think the view I settle into is that it's only a problem when the system interference or observer effect is truly disrupting to the data you're seeking to glean (and that isn't automatically the case)

Is that what you're shooting for there?

What I am saying is that when you seek to glean data that is disrupted by natural surroundings, you generate an artificial value for validity.

I can understand the concern for bias. I also don't reject that bias as invalid because it still provides data on the situation- speaking to a greater nature than any attempts to isolate the subject.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Sophist

Recursive Paradox

I think the view I settle into is that it's only a problem when the system interference or observer effect is truly disrupting to the data you're seeking to glean (and that isn't automatically the case)

What then becomes the criteria of an observer effect being disrupting as opposed to just existing?

Unfortunately I imagine that would simply be arbitrary or based on more observations to track the disruption (which would simply be subject to more disruptions)

I could see how one seeking an absolute freedom from disruption would get caught in an endless cycle of "you can't know anything!"

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

Yeah. That works.

I think the view I settle into is that it's only a problem when the system interference or observer effect is truly disrupting to the data you're seeking to glean (and that isn't automatically the case)

Is that what you're shooting for there?

What I am saying is that when you seek to glean data that is disrupted by natural surroundings, you generate an artificial value for validity.

I can understand the concern for bias. I also don't reject that bias as invalid because it still provides data on the situation- speaking to a greater nature than any attempts to isolate the subject.

Okay, that helped explain it better. Thank you.  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

Okay, that helped explain it better. Thank you.

Spiff.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

TeaDidikai

Ishsha

And no one else will trust me unless I have at least one other person whose seen the same thing, whose been there.

Stop with the generalizations. Please.

Quote:

No one gives a s**t what you see unless you have Proof.

See above.

Quote:

But No... I will never be completely objective... I will never be omnipotent. I can not know all all I have are pretty ******** good guesses because I've pieced together all these ******** patterns and Yes to me its a matter of trust. To me its unattainable because I've tried for complete objectivity and I've failed...

Ah... I get it. So because you failed, no one could possibly succeed.

Remember what we said about projection?
Just because you disassociated doesn't mean I did. Just because part of you broke in that way does not make me as delusional as you are.

Also- I don't think you understand what knowledge is. There are a number of different forms of knowledge- and your practice of making up false definitions in order to defeat them is yet another fallacious practice you indulge. You did it with god. You did it with knowledge.

Recursive Paradox

Oh. Ohhhhh.

So basically, the observations and studies are fine with observer effect because they're including the observer effect (not necessarily defining it specifically but simply accounting for the fact that you have an effect and having the observations say, "ants walking in search of food with a person nearby watching")

Yanno, that actually makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of situations where the observer effect and the system disruption are not relevant to the observations themselves.

Spiff. Looks like we're on the same page.
The only schism I am still seeing is the concept of relevance. I don't dismiss that there may be important relevant byproducts of being observed. What I am saying however is that which we observe doesn't need to exist in a vacuum in order to be valid.

You really just don't Get it
You don't actually argue at all
You would rather hide behind your beliefs and cat call others then actually proffer up any counter.

I was raped I know my rapist lied when he raped me because I KNOW I was there. Do you think you saying that makes it true? Me listening to you say that doesn't make it true. Doesn't mean I know its true. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't making it up to prove a point. Words don't create truth, they are just a parody of it. If I saw it happen then I would have to believe you because the only thing I have to automatically believe is my senses.

Are you completely objective? Are you biased and led astray by your emotions hells to the ******** ya. Have you looked at the massive studies of eye witness reports. Have you seen all the Errors there. Have you closely observed and reported on your own observations and paid close attention to detail writing everything down. Have you participated in studies concerning memory?

Do you understand any of this. When will you start wanting to think instead of playing a station of automatic superiority because I just joined this guild and you've been here longer.
You ask for data you ask for answers and then you mock them. You mock information and pretend it isn't relevant because you don't want to believe anything I have to say. You want to play pretend because you have some Issue and I'm not sure that its with the information itself or with me. As I'm fairly sure other people have said things which are very similar and yet you only attack mock and parody my responses in multiple threads.

You haven't provided any links you haven't actually debated the subject within any of the contexts.

Definitions are very Personal things and just because you have a different definition then me doesn't mean I "made up" my definition. I defined the words that I used while I was using them in many instances. Because My definitions don't fit Your views and doesn't fit your little game of everything I say is wrong doesn't make you any more right. Its a different perspective and it fits the definitions in the dictionary etc.

You can't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head and whatever meanings you try to impose on what I'm saying Doesn't change what I Mean by it. It might work for whatever you feel like Interpreting it as. Thats your choice and you can destroy whatever little foundation talking to you may have and thats Your choice.

You seem to have some sort of unresolved issue which I Am Not a Part Of. I just met you and quite frankly I've been trying to keep an open mind that perhaps there was just a massive miscommunication concerning this entire affair and I am leaning closer and closer to you have nothing better to do then try to feel superior to anyone you have an issue with. It would make sense considering your in a guild which is supposed to be "reeducating fluffies" but what you seem to be doing is praying on people who are generally weaker then you who are albeit many times more ignorant then you and spout more of the passe trite bull s**t that is the foundation for any long standing practitioner.
Rather then foster any sort of creativity or flexibility in your reasoning you'd rather just harass whatever new thing comes along. That seems kind of sad to me and a bit pathetic. Whatever doesn't fit into the comfortable little box you seem to be forming around your self has to go right?

You'd be about as bad as a fluffy then... they are too flexible you, too rigid. I'm sorry you were raped and I'm sorry you were hurt but thats You and it really had nothing to do with the conversation. Using the easy out that my logic is too flawed to actually argue it is a BS move and you know it. You haven't really argued a single point since you started responding to any of my passages and you have continued to avoid making a real answer.

I use generalities because I don't like to make any sort of claim which is unjustifiable. I stick to logical proofs that rely on preset definitions which should be agreed upon at the beginning of any conversation because without those definitions conversation is pointless. I use a very passive speaking style and I don't use proper names in most of my conversations with anyone. I use myself as an example because I don't believe you can 100% know what another person thinks. The only time I reference other people is when I am making an observation about a behavior. Any sort of inference concerning another person is just that an inference. Sometimes I am lazy and I slip up.
If you notice the You seem to be, or if you were's and other qualifiers which I try to attach to any sort of statement I make that I'm not sure of.

If you give me proof or a logical way that a person could be completely objective go right ahead. That would be a real argument.
If you are going to get pissy and do your little deflection routine one more time you can. Stay in your bubble.

I never Said you dissociated and just because I did doesn't mean that I am delusional. It doesn't mean that I didn't Feel everything it means I realized that it doesn't have to AFFECT me. You choose your own misery you choose how you see the world You choose how you process events.

Your feelings are your responsibility. You can't blame others for the hurt you feel. You are still deciding to feel it as hurt. It does you no good. Why not get rid of it? If the definitions you use to view the world don't fit the world change your definitions. Change your perspective to something that actually fits it.
I believe continuing to believe something when faced with proof to the contrary is the definition of delusion.

Concerning God, I said I didn't agree with the definitions others gave me so I made my own which I did agree with. Though of course your probably just going to twist my words for the 4th time now? Also I'm using the definition for knowledge which is in the dictionary and explaining how the existence of an observer alters an observation. If your tracing the interconnections you are "tracking the truth" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge