Feeling Stupid. . . . . .

[_Amore]

SPG,

It seems that “thinking with integrity is paradoxical thinking.” Truth is often based on focus and perspective, yet, if we’re not going to be paralyzed with indecision, we must decide on one to focus on to the exclusion of the rest. This implies a need of hierarchal values.

Do you agree? It could be your (Jung, Myer & Briggs) personality type is perceiving rather than judging so you are simply more open minded. Or, do you subscribe to postmodern neo-Marxist ideologies?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE

[_SPG]

The earth is like a soup, shaped by a bowl we might consider the bowl, (gravity and the fabric of space.)

That metaphor does not work in quantitive terms for a body the tie of the earth. You have a good imagination, but it needs training by a a solid and systematic education in maths and the physical sciences. Or have you already had that?

Maybe not. I am not highly trained in the systematic education system of math and physics. Actually, more of a high school drop out. But, I do read a lot. And, it should be made clear, I am not suggesting that I have a "better way" to describe the earth. I'm suggesting that even though we agree on the idea of round, that it might NOT be that way for everyone, or even be its "actual true" nature. When you look at image of Earth, you are looking at representation, or images taken from space. Those are not the true product. When people see the truth shape of Earth, they usually describe it as "Oh My God."

But even beyond that, what you see isn't somehow, automatically the truth of a thing. Your eyes see it, but not quite the way it seems. Our visual cortex focus mostly at the center of our sight. The rest of it generated by the brain. So about 40% of what you are seeing right now is real time, the rest is superimposed from memory. When you see something out the corner of your eye, (as a human survival feature) get sent straight to other part of the brain, skipping the visual cortex. People learn how to speed read this way. But what we take in is processed, interpreted, and presented to the rational cortices. There is nothing in the laws of nature that says this process is true. Some people are color blind. Some people can only see 2 dimensions. The image and agreement of Earth might be similar in most people on Earth, but I bet my jeep that not two mental images of Earth are exactly the same.

Round is a big aspect, most of us agree Earth appears round. But does round mean exactly the same thing to all of us? If someone compares round to a baseball, and another compare round to an apple, do they both have the same idea of round, or do other personality features influence the concept of round?

We share a common reality, and we have a private reality which influences our interpretation of the common reality. We (the mighty ones) try to dominate the definitions in the common reality. Like, is diabetes real or self imposed? Do vaccines cause autism or should we force them on everyone? Does America belong to white Europeans or the Native Americans they stole the land from?

However we see and interact with the world which might have common aspects, but there is also a lot of private and personal interpretation that is a valid part of the universe. Just because you and I agree that world is round doesn't make it so. Maybe it's the best we can do, but everyone has a slightly different take on what they means.

I cannot do the math myself, but I've heard some of the great mathematicians suggest that "round" isn't the best description of the Earth. I tend to believe them in part because we have been wrong on this sort thing in the past.

[_SPG]

SPG,
It seems that “thinking with integrity is paradoxical thinking.” Truth is often based on focus and perspective, yet, if we’re not going to be paralyzed with indecision, we must decide on one to focus on to the exclusion of the rest. This implies a need of hierarchal values.

Do you agree? It could be your (Jung, Myer & Briggs) personality type is perceiving rather than judging so you are simply more open minded. Or, do you subscribe to postmodern neo-Marxist ideologies?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE

I don't subscribe to any type of Marxist ideologies. I think that even when utopias arise out of the goodness of people's nature, they are destroyed because they attract free loaders no one has the heart to kick their ass.

Being truth to my "consciousness based" theory, I think that any point of consciousness has a valid perspective. But, I believe in soul (solo) consciousness and I believe in group consciousness.

Say that two people witness an event from opposite sides, (a bar fight) and maybe they say different things, which is understandable. But say that one is obviously lying. Is their perspective untrue? Chances are you will find that lying person is a friend of one of the fighters. What that person saw might have been his friend going to jail, maybe himself getting caught for some past crime and him going to jail.

Not matter what is said, it reflects the truth of perspective. Other people not care or see that as the truth. But truth is relative is to perspective. The truth to the police, or judge, might see it completely differently.

Truth is based on perspective the rules that perspective has accepted. Some people are trying imply that Native Americans still own America, but property ownership is based upon "might makes right" and we still have the might. Is there is a "truth" that somehow decide the matter? Yup, its the one governments have always used, "might." Truths that cannot enforced, aren't really true at the higher level. Like, I'm super awesome, but mostly just to me. . . and my dog. It's true.

[_Res Ipsa]

What do you mean by perspective and what does it mean for a perspective to be true? Can a person’s perspective ever be false? If so, how?

[_Chap]

Round is a big aspect, most of us agree Earth appears round. But does round mean exactly the same thing to all of us?

The point, as I have tried to show you, is that it is possible, if people are honest and want to communicate, to find out quite precisely what people mean when they use words like round. Further, it is possible to come up with a very exact and abstract definition of what we might call 'solid round' (lie a soccer ball), that people from any culture can understand once it is explained to them:

' ... solid objects whose outside surface is made up of all the points that are the same distance from one given point somewhere inside it. That's what mathematicians call a 'sphere'.

Different meanings of words need not be a problem if we are willing to make an effort to understand one another.

I cannot do the math myself, but I've heard some of the great mathematicians suggest that "round" isn't the best description of the Earth. I tend to believe them in part because we have been wrong on this sort thing in the past.

Indeed. It's not an exact sphere, but is slightly squashed at the poles, because the earth's spin has made it 'spread at the waist'. Technically, it is an 'oblate spheroid', not an exact sphere. Isaac Newton showed that this should be the case in 1687.

Distance of places on equator from earth's centre: 6,378,137.0 m
Distance of poles from earth's centre: 6,356,752.3 m

But that difference is only about 0.3%, and you would never notice that if you looked at the earth from outside. Saying 'the earth is a sphere' is a pretty good description unless you need to do exact navigation, launch satellites, etc.

I am not highly trained in the systematic education system of math and physics. Actually, more of a high school drop out. But, I do read a lot.

If you are really interested in these things, and want to learn for your own interest rather than because you have to pass a course and there is an exam next week, you can learn these things from good textbooks at your own pace. Good luck!

[_Res Ipsa]

Consider the following statements:

The earth is round.
Billions of years ago, the earth was scattered chunks of rock and gas.
Billions of years from now, the earth will be molten slag.
If there were no gravity, the earth would be scattered chunks of rocks and gas.

We have tenses in our language that tell us whether a statement refers to the present, the past, the future, or a hypothetical set of conditions.

All you are doing, SPG, is ignoring the conventions of language to change the meaning of Chap’s statement. Chap’s statement neither said nor implied anything about “true nature” or about hypothetical sets of facts. And if you were confused by what Chap meant, asking him to clarify would have been easy.

Playing with language is fun. But exploiting the ambiguities of language just tells you stuff about language.

[_SPG]

Consider the following statements:

The earth is round.
Billions of years ago, the earth was scattered chunks of rock and gas.
Billions of years from now, the earth will be molten slag.
If there were no gravity, the earth would be scattered chunks of rocks and gas.

We have tenses in our language that tell us whether a statement refers to the present, the past, the future, or a hypothetical set of conditions.

I understand tenses, but there is also a concept absolute, which sort of transcends time. Like you can plant a tree and call it a sapling. 50 years, sapling would not long apply. Many thousands of years later, all detectable evidence of the tree is gone. But, in an absolute sense, the influence of the tree is exists. It it provide oxygen, it allowed animals to nest, etc. It held the span between the life forms that created it to those that came after. It's effects go on. In fact, the influence of that tree lives on today.

I don't think that I am confusing tenses in my posts. I try to specifically point out that what we think today is different that what we think 1000 years ago. Why does it boggle the mind that we might think differently 1000 years from now? And what is wrong with imagining yourself 1000 years in the future and consider how wrong we are were in the past, (right now?)

You and others make such an effort to blow holes in my ideas. But they are just ideas. Maybe useful, maybe not. But I don't care what you say, in 1000 years its going to sound retarded. That only people that come to mind that time didn't make look like jackasses are a few philosophers, (maybe, I haven't thought of everyone.)

All you are doing, SPG, is ignoring the conventions of language to change the meaning of Chap’s statement. Chap’s statement neither said nor implied anything about “true nature” or about hypothetical sets of facts. And if you were confused by what Chap meant, asking him to clarify would have been easy.

Playing with language is fun. But exploiting the ambiguities of language just tells you stuff about language.

Language is fun. I love it. But we made it up. "round" is a made up word and idea. We "try" to understand the world and use tools like language to do it, but we made it up. That idea of Earth, sun, stars, dirt, water, etc, are all ideas we trying to share through a tool we made up. Just because you and I call it "water" doesn't mean that the guy that thinks it's "death" isn't right. Some other culture could have come up with an entire different concept for water and what makes us more right then them? Do dolphins think of water as wet? What happens when they start writing scientific reports and describe it as "the universe?"

[_Res Ipsa]

Consider the following statements:

The earth is round.
Billions of years ago, the earth was scattered chunks of rock and gas.
Billions of years from now, the earth will be molten slag.
If there were no gravity, the earth would be scattered chunks of rocks and gas.

We have tenses in our language that tell us whether a statement refers to the present, the past, the future, or a hypothetical set of conditions.

I understand tenses, but there is also a concept absolute, which sort of transcends time. Like you can plant a tree and call it a sapling. 50 years, sapling would not long apply. Many thousands of years later, all detectable evidence of the tree is gone. But, in an absolute sense, the influence of the tree is exists. It it provide oxygen, it allowed animals to nest, etc. It held the span between the life forms that created it to those that came after. It's effects go on. In fact, the influence of that tree lives on today.

So? The fact that things can affect other things is not at issue. The fact that things change is not at issue. That you reacted to the statement "the earth is round" as if Chap had said "the earth would be round under all hypothetical factual circumstances" indicates to me that you don't understand tenses -- that you think "is" means the same as "would be."

I don't think that I am confusing tenses in my posts. I try to specifically point out that what we think today is different that what we think 1000 years ago. Why does it boggle the mind that we might think differently 1000 years from now? And what is wrong with imagining yourself 1000 years in the future and consider how wrong we are were in the past, (right now?)

It doesn't boggle my mind at all. But I also recognize that I live right now and I have no idea what may change in the future. To try and predict how the present would look to the future is simply making crap up. My approach is stick with things for which I have evidence.

You and others make such an effort to blow holes in my ideas. But they are just ideas. Maybe useful, maybe not. But I don't care what you say, in 1000 years its going to sound r____. That only people that come to mind that time didn't make look like jackasses are a few philosophers, (maybe, I haven't thought of everyone.)

The only thing I really care about "blowing holes" in is nonsense.

All you are doing, SPG, is ignoring the conventions of language to change the meaning of Chap’s statement. Chap’s statement neither said nor implied anything about “true nature” or about hypothetical sets of facts. And if you were confused by what Chap meant, asking him to clarify would have been easy.

Playing with language is fun. But exploiting the ambiguities of language just tells you stuff about language.

[quote"SPG"]Language is fun. I love it. But we made it up. "round" is a made up word and idea. We "try" to understand the world and use tools like language to do it, but we made it up. That idea of Earth, sun, stars, dirt, water, etc, are all ideas we trying to share through a tool we made up. Just because you and I call it "water" doesn't mean that the guy that thinks it's "death" isn't right. Some other culture could have come up with an entire different concept for water and what makes us more right then them? Do dolphins think of water as wet? What happens when they start writing scientific reports and describe it as "the universe?"[/quote]

Of course we made it up. Same with angels. Same with God.

Look if you start from the propositions: "everything is made up" "everything we make up is equally true", then you create all kinds of fun nonsense. But it's not any kind of profound insight. If there are two guys standing together and one sees them at the edge of a cliff and one sees them on a flat plain, the same thing will happen to each when they step forward. One will be absolutely more right than the other.

[_SPG]

Of course we made it up. Same with angels. Same with God.

Look if you start from the propositions: "everything is made up" "everything we make up is equally true", then you create all kinds of fun nonsense. But it's not any kind of profound insight. If there are two guys standing together and one sees them at the edge of a cliff and one sees them on a flat plain, the same thing will happen to each when they step forward. One will be absolutely more right than the other.

One will be surprised.

We all get surprised sometimes.

But your point about "everything made up." Not all things are equal, in the made up world. Maybe the dirt you walk on is the silicone in your windows, in your smart phone. But in our mind, its just dirt. We learn to agree, but agreement isn't seeing the same thing. I can agree that there is a cliff, but maybe I have a parachute, so I see it as part of the path.

We can agree on common ideals, but those ideals are interpreted and reconstructed in our brain based other ideals we have. So no two cliffs are exactly the same. The way down the cliff can be unique as well, depending how the personality that steps over the edge. That gravity pulls I think most of us can agree, but many of us are looking for the technology that will allow gravity to push. So, agreement isn't actually seeing things the same. We agree that light at 460nm is a pretty blue, but some cannot see the blue.

I'm reminded of an article I read, where a scientist was working with a primitive tribe that hadn't developed numbers. They could count 1, a couple, and a few. They weren't stupid people, but they literally haven't developed a region of the brain that could work with numbers. I don't remember if this was an evolutionary things, or cultural. But they could not imagine numbers. We understand, that just because they didn't know the numbers, doesn't mean numbers aren't real. . . . . to us. We could, literally, meet a race of people that had developed not understanding numbers. What if they had "intuited" their advancements? Like, let their subconscious do the math and tell them what to do?

How we see that universe, is as unique as we are. There might be "truths" but I think we are probably not close to understanding them.