Concept 7

"Don't post anything racist/misogynistic/pornographic, loli images, or any animated GIFs and you should be fine, haha!" The Raytownian

Moderator: xome

User avatar
MKULTRA
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:04 am

Concept 7

Post by MKULTRA » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:57 am

Rethink everything you think you know.
"With enough gain you can achieve anything." - C.Rochambeau

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 13314
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Concept 7

Post by xdugef » Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:06 am

MKULTRA wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:57 am
Rethink everything you think you know.
That Luke guy really was a genius......... NOT!
Y'know in hindsight.. Apple really does make the best smartphone................... NOT!

etc............. NOT!

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concept 7

Post by jliat » Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:47 am

I think therefore I'm............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................' '

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1077
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Concept 7

Post by WhiteWarlock » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:03 am

EYE have already been "forced" doing this over decades while vehement conducting "research"
in modern western society "black is white" "down is up" "left is right" "insanity is sanity"
here's a basic for starters

communist chinese state run forced organ harvesting falung gong members en masse
using industrial methods for providing fresh healthiest human organs for massive cash crop
on order as needed even multiple per "customer" in case of transplant rejection
keep in mind this is merely one of the reasons for "Communist Chinese Style Internet Censorship" policies
"coming to your town soon"
so that puts Communist China in charge of the UN human rights board
along with Saudi Arabia
if you are just starting working on this "CONCEPT" as of today
you may already be completely fucked
prepare for hard painful road ahead
as your entire existential reality becomes totally altered by what is actually true

this example is actually "the more normal"
others are more extreme
that your programming would just instantly censor
this planet is shrouded in lies
population control methods
"diabolical mind control"
Last edited by WhiteWarlock on Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

s.p.i.n.
Posts: 1396
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Left of Tampa
Contact:

Re: Concept 7

Post by s.p.i.n. » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:16 am


User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 1077
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Concept 7

Post by WhiteWarlock » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:57 am


User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Concept 7

Post by melkobukva » Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:05 pm

If I think I know X, it also means I think I know I think I know X. To rethink everything I think I know would mean to rethink that I know I think I know X. Suppose I don't know I think I know X. If I thought I knew X, I'd know that I thought I knew X, otherwise it wouldn't be thinking. Ergo, if the assumption is true, I don't think I know X. But then X doesn't fit the concept and, therefore, X doesn't need rethinking (within the concept). Since X is arbitrary, if you decide to rethink everything you think you know, you don't have to rethink anything you think you know. To rethink anything you think you know, you have to accept at least something you think you know without rethinking it. So here's my counter-concept:

find something you think you know and stand by it

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concept 7

Post by jliat » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:13 pm

melkobukva wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:05 pm
If I think I know X, it also means I think I know I think I know X. To rethink everything I think I know would mean to rethink that I know I think I know X. Suppose I don't know I think I know X. If I thought I knew X, I'd know that I thought I knew X, otherwise it wouldn't be thinking. Ergo, if the assumption is true, I don't think I know X. But then X doesn't fit the concept and, therefore, X doesn't need rethinking (within the concept). Since X is arbitrary, if you decide to rethink everything you think you know, you don't have to rethink anything you think you know. To rethink anything you think you know, you have to accept at least something you think you know without rethinking it. So here's my counter-concept:

find something you think you know and stand by it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

"I know because i have justified true belief." example: I believe summers are warmer than winters. I've evidence for this, justification in experience and record books, and it is actually true.

However e.g. Here is a Gettier argument. I'm shown some rabbits, and i'm told these animals are called rabbits. Later i see a field of Rabbits but there are also Hares in the field. I do not know the difference. I point to a rabbit and say "Look a rabbit". Now do I know this.
I don't think so, as i could equally have pointed to a Hare thinking it a Rabbit. But I had the belief it was a Rabbit, it was based on evidence i had learnt and it was TRUE.

User avatar
MKULTRA
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Concept 7

Post by MKULTRA » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:30 am

melkobukva wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:05 pm
If I think I know X, it also means I think I know I think I know X. To rethink everything I think I know would mean to rethink that I know I think I know X. Suppose I don't know I think I know X. If I thought I knew X, I'd know that I thought I knew X, otherwise it wouldn't be thinking. Ergo, if the assumption is true, I don't think I know X. But then X doesn't fit the concept and, therefore, X doesn't need rethinking (within the concept). Since X is arbitrary, if you decide to rethink everything you think you know, you don't have to rethink anything you think you know. To rethink anything you think you know, you have to accept at least something you think you know without rethinking it. So here's my counter-concept:

find something you think you know and stand by it

This is not an exercise in logic.

Of course perception is subjective, so carry on.
"With enough gain you can achieve anything." - C.Rochambeau

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concept 7

Post by jliat » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:44 am

“Truth” is not a feature of correct propositions that are asserted of an “object” by a human “subject” and then “are valid” somewhere.... rather, truth is disclosure of beings through which an openness essentially unfolds..”

“The idea of “logic” itself disintegrates in the turbulence of a more original questioning”

Heidegger

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Concept 7

Post by melkobukva » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:07 pm

jliat wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:44 am
“Truth” is not a feature of correct propositions that are asserted of an “object” by a human “subject” and then “are valid” somewhere.... rather, truth is disclosure of beings through which an openness essentially unfolds..”
Hence, this proposition has nothing to do with “Truth”. Self-refuting ideas are the best :)

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Concept 7

Post by melkobukva » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:40 pm

jliat wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:13 pm
However e.g. Here is a Gettier argument. I'm shown some rabbits, and i'm told these animals are called rabbits. Later i see a field of Rabbits but there are also Hares in the field. I do not know the difference. I point to a rabbit and say "Look a rabbit". Now do I know this.
I don't think so, as i could equally have pointed to a Hare thinking it a Rabbit. But I had the belief it was a Rabbit, it was based on evidence i had learnt and it was TRUE.
This has more to do with Pierce and Frege than with Gettier. Is :kitty: "a cat", or "un chat", or "eine katze", or "kot"? Does the statement :kitty: is a cat even make sense? A real rabbit hole, pun intended.

The more general issue with JTB is the J. Who and how decides what is justified? There are like a dozen theories regarding that. Which one have you used in your example? Why this and not the other?

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concept 7

Post by jliat » Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:43 am

melkobukva wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:40 pm
Does the statement :kitty: is a cat even make sense? pun intended.
Yes it makes sense. To me, and i guess you made the statement in order to make some sense. It wasnt noise .... was it?

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Concept 7

Post by melkobukva » Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:41 am

jliat wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:43 am
Yes it makes sense.
Because we have played Wittgenstein's game long enough. The Rabbit guy didn't, so he failed to apply an arbitrary label to percieved phenomena in a way his interpretative community would approve. In his linguistic reality Hares are Rabbits.

Now, what does this say about knowledge?

Suppose we're looking at Wolves instead. Some of them are Grey Wolves (Canis lupus), some of them are Tasmanian Wolves (Thylacinus cynocephalus). I point to a Tasmanian Wolf and say "Look a wolf". The interpretative community has to agree. At the same time, biologically, Canis lupus and Thylacinus cynocephalus are more different than Oryctolagus cuniculus and Lepus timidus, who both belong to the same family (Leporidae).

Attribution or misattribution of labels has little to do with knowledge. More important is the preservation of some sort of structure in projections between sign systems and phenomena.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concept 7

Post by jliat » Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:11 am

melkobukva wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:41 am
jliat wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:43 am
Yes it makes sense.
Because we have played Wittgenstein's game long enough. The Rabbit guy didn't, so he failed to apply an arbitrary label to percieved phenomena in a way his interpretative community would approve. In his linguistic reality Hares are Rabbits.

Now, what does this say about knowledge?

Suppose we're looking at Wolves instead. Some of them are Grey Wolves (Canis lupus), some of them are Tasmanian Wolves (Thylacinus cynocephalus). I point to a Tasmanian Wolf and say "Look a wolf". The interpretative community has to agree. At the same time, biologically, Canis lupus and Thylacinus cynocephalus are more different than Oryctolagus cuniculus and Lepus timidus, who both belong to the same family (Leporidae).

Attribution or misattribution of labels has little to do with knowledge. More important is the preservation of some sort of structure in projections between sign systems and phenomena.
It seems to me that your examples of wolves is just about labels. I mean does the wolf know what family it belongs to, is the term anything other than a linguistic label.

We have a cat, not our own, who visits, he knows how to open the door, and knows that there are nice things in the refrigerator. :?:

I think the problem with the JTB is not justification but an overly logical use of 'true'.

I'm reminded of the idea of Heidegger's that the theory of gravity (newton's) before Newton was neither true or false. Which a modern day 'philosopher' (Timothy Morton) alters to saying Heidegger thought gravity didnt exist before Newton... :yernuts:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests