How simple are people?
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
As I said before, I'm not here to argue, I'm here to have a productive debate. So, as I mentioned, I'm happy to listen to your ideas about why I'm wrong or where my position might be flawed. But saying lol and making comments like "While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science" doesn't help me understand your stance
lol
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of others -
@random said in How simple are people?:
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of othersSatan-coded waffle.
@random said in Raypeat = infertility psyop?:
"relativism" Can be harmfull.
Schizo.
-
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
-
@jamezb46 said in How simple are people?:
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
Very coherent, there is no experience without a subject/person to experience it, all your thoughts and feelings happen inside you, so when you think about the idea of “objectivity” it happens inside you, a subject/person. so objectivity doesn't exist because you never experience an object without being a subject, your perception is always influenced by your experiences, your feelings, your instincts. It does not exclude having empathy and considering your perception of other feelings
-
@random said in How simple are people?:
there is no experience without a subject/person to experience it, all your thoughts and feelings happen inside you
Not in isolation.
your perception is always influenced by your experiences, your feelings, your instincts.
Ok but if you take that to an extreme you might end up sincerely believing a desktop PC can read your mind directly in the present. And defend the idea like gollum to the ring. Or that the dose makes the poison and the concentration has nothing to do with it.
It does not exclude having empathy and considering your perception of other feelings
So too in reverse. I've moved a million miles in a direction I probably wouldn't otherwise have travelled for the science and art of others. Particularly in this "community". And that was often painful. It was an expense to me. Lucky someone gave me bioenergetic cheat codes for free. If I hinged on the feels I might prefer to go nowhere or off in to the grass.
Maybe it's the wrong way. You tell me Truth. Feel free to be cringe and witty. It's better than war.
-
@random As I've written about here already, I think the kind of solipsism you espouse here is often the result of a low energy state. It's obvious that everything we see is channeled through our own personal experiences. Nevertheless we need to use objectivity in order to actually accomplish anything (including Peating itself, derived from objective/materialist principles of cellular function), even something as simple as crossing a street requires looking both ways for the objective car which might objectively harm you. It takes more energy to seriously believe in The Real than just oneself. But the fruits are much greater. Now you're actually starting to play the game.
The Abrahamic religions encode this as "faith" imo. Something that is effortful and takes maintenance. With various techniques for doing so.
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
@random As I've written about here already, I think the kind of solipsism you espouse here is often the result of a low energy state. It's obvious that everything we see is channeled through our own personal experiences. Nevertheless we need to use objectivity in order to actually accomplish anything (including Peating itself, derived from objective/materialist principles of cellular function), even something as simple as crossing a street requires looking both ways for the objective car which might objectively harm you. It takes more energy to seriously believe in The Real than just oneself. But the fruits are much greater. Now you're actually starting to play the game.
The Abrahamic religions encode this as "faith" imo. Something that is effortful and takes maintenance. With various techniques for doing so.
Opposite, I started thinking that at times when I reached a high degree of energy.
I'm not sure what you mean by solipsism, the internet definition is:
"the quality of being very self-centred or selfish.
"she herself elicits scant sympathy, such is her solipsism and lack of self-awareness"
2.
Philosophy
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
"solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"That doesn't correspond to anything I've said. What I said doesn't exclude feeling empathy for others and considering our perception of their feelings.
didnt say only self/mind exist, i said everything you experience happens with in you at least partly,
So yes objectivity doesn't exist because there is no experience without subjects.Acting on the assumption that things are real and have an impact, as in your example of the car, in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
-
I edited my previous post on this thread to add some thoughts I felt fit better there than in a separate post.
-
@random so you don't think objective reality doesn't exist, you just think that we can't have any purely objective knowledge?
-
Acting on the assumption that things are real
in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
As predicted. You believe in objectivity like everyone else trying to do anything in the world. You just pretend that you don't using veiled and distant language.
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
Acting on the assumption that things are real
in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
As predicted. You believe in objectivity like everyone else trying to do anything in the world. You just pretend that you don't using veiled and distant language.
Nah, you just not confused, read better, or increase degree of discernement.
From an individual perspective, what he feel/perceive is real, does this mean this car exist Independently of his perception?no.
Does this mean he can have an Idea about a car or perceive the car with out it being influenced by being a subject? No.Go read definitions for words you use.
Give a definition of objectivity
-
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
@random so you don't think objective reality doesn't exist, just that we can't have any purely objective knowledge?
From a person perspective, Objective reality doesnt exist, reality is what a being perceive, if you perceive/feel something it exist, if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist. Yes we cant have any purely objective knowledge. It doesnt make an individual subjective reality and knowledge less valuable
-
‘To science definitions are worthless because always inadequate. The only real definition is the development of the thing itself, but this is no longer a definition.’
Friedrich Engels.
Read Mao Zedong's "Where do correct ideas come from".
You're not wrong in any individual statement you make . You're just overemphasizing one small part, possibly the least interesting, of the mental digestive process. It's mental constipation.
if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
Imagine seriously taking this mindset into a warzone. Or anywhere else where it actually matters what epistemology one has, like a factory floor.
-
@random I kinda wish we could just transmit thoughts through telepathy, bypassing language...
Anyway, definitions:
- Real
- actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
- existing or occurring in the physical world; not imaginary, fictitious, or theoretical; actual
- (of a thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
- Reality
- the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
- the state or quality of having existence or substance.
@random said in How simple are people?:
reality is what a being perceive, if you perceive/feel something it exist, if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
If we use the definitions I found online, then I don't think what you wrote is the whole picture. It would make more sense to say that there are real things even when we don't perceive them. And when we do perceive them, our experience of them is a mixture of ourselves and of the real thing outside of ourselves. If there was nothing real to perceive, how could you perceive it?
@random said in How simple are people?:
Yes we cant have any purely objective knowledge. It doesnt make an individual subjective reality and knowledge less valuable
I agree. At least to an extent.
@NoeticJuice said in Quotes from books:
"There are certain modes of attention which are naturally called forth by certain kinds of object. We pay a different sort of attention to a dying man from the sort of attention we'd pay to a sunset, or a carburettor. However, this process is reciprocal. It is not just that what we find determines the nature of the attention we accord to it, but that the attention we pay to anything also determines what it is we find . . . [attention] creates, brings aspects of things into being, but in doing so makes others recede. What a thing is depends on who is attending to it, and in what way . . . One way of putting this is to say that we neither discover an objective reality nor invent a subjective reality, but that there is a process of responsive evocation, the world 'calling forth' something in me that in turn 'calls forth' something in the world."
The Master and His Emissary (2019), p. 133
Ian McGilchrist - Real
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
‘To science definitions are worthless because always inadequate. The only real definition is the development of the thing itself, but this is no longer a definition.’
Friedrich Engels.
Read Mao Zedong's "Where do correct ideas come from".
You're not wrong in any individual statement you make . You're just overemphasizing one small part, possibly the least interesting, of the mental digestive process. It's mental constipation.
if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
Imagine seriously taking this mindset into a warzone. Or anywhere else where it actually matters what epistemology one has, like a factory floor.
You are mentally constipated.
I dont overemphasize anything.
What about this mindset in a war zone?
-
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
It can't be examined from the outside but is nonetheless real.
Never say never. (Maybe) we border it somewhere.
I'm not gunning to make a black mirror episode out of this though.
-
What about this mindset in a war zone?
Too late. You failed to invent RADAR because you were busy educating your universities about how "nothing you can't see actually exists". You failed to detect the enemy aircraft. Your city has been completely razed to the ground. You died when your apartment building collapsed due to a bombing.
-
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
@random I kinda wish we could just transmit thoughts through telepathy, bypassing language...
Anyway, definitions:
- Real
- actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
- existing or occurring in the physical world; not imaginary, fictitious, or theoretical; actual
- (of a thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
- Reality
- the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
- the state or quality of having existence or substance.
@random said in How simple are people?:
reality is what a being perceive, if you perceive/feel something it exist, if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
If we use the definitions I found online, then I don't think what you wrote is the whole picture. It would make more sense to say that there are real things even when we don't perceive them. And when we do perceive them, our experience of them is a mixture of ourselves and of the real thing outside of ourselves. If there was nothing real to perceive, how could you perceive it?
Gonna use the word exist then. If you dont perceive something it doesn't exist. It didnt exclude that experiencing something could potentially be perceived as a phenomenon that mix/unite 2 things, 2 subjects, yet it still happen with in you at least in part, just isnt objective perception.
@random said in How simple are people?:
Yes we cant have any purely objective knowledge. It doesnt make an individual subjective reality and knowledge less valuable
I agree. At least to an extent.
@NoeticJuice said in Quotes from books:
"There are certain modes of attention which are naturally called forth by certain kinds of object. We pay a different sort of attention to a dying man from the sort of attention we'd pay to a sunset, or a carburettor. However, this process is reciprocal. It is not just that what we find determines the nature of the attention we accord to it, but that the attention we pay to anything also determines what it is we find . . . [attention] creates, brings aspects of things into being, but in doing so makes others recede. What a thing is depends on who is attending to it, and in what way . . . One way of putting this is to say that we neither discover an objective reality nor invent a subjective reality, but that there is a process of responsive evocation, the world 'calling forth' something in me that in turn 'calls forth' something in the world."
The Master and His Emissary (2019), p. 133
Ian McGilchristYea potentially partly based perspective, much more based than "objectivity"
- Real
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
What about this mindset in a war zone?
Too late. You failed to invent RADAR because you were busy educating your universities about how "nothing you can't see actually exists". You failed to detect the enemy aircraft. Your city has been completely razed to the ground. You died when your apartment building collapsed due to a bombing.
Nah that's confused take. why would i not invent the radar, if i hear of an Idea of war planes, even if i didnt see one, i can still act to verify if it exist or not, and then invent the radar
What you dont perceive doesnt exist, yet you Can still have an Idea about something that does not exist and the idea in your mind in it self exist if you perceive it
