<p>so you are saying, one thing and another thing together is not two things?</p>
<p>It may be different in an alien language, but the concepts are the same. As soon as we translate their ideas about math into ours, it will be the same.</p>
<p>Again I say,</p>
<p>Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.</p>
<p>
No, saying that everything is subjective is not akin to claiming that we all live in a machine built by aliens. One is an observation that seems to hold true, while the other is a radical claim with no rational basis whatsoever. Now I agree that solving every problem by reverting to universal subjectivity is no way to go about things either, but we have to recognize the difference between philosophical and practical answers. Philosophically, we find that nothing can be proven to be objectively true for sure, even math and science. But practically, we can only go off of what we experience and so these functions serve us well, even if we can’t know their true nature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If nothing is true, then your statement is false, and we have our contradiction. QED</p>
<p>^ You honestly defeated the purpose of it.</p>
<p>Of course it’s a self-contradicting statement.</p>
<p>That’s the point.</p>
<p>Cyclical.</p>
<p>It seems I’m on a role for defeating the purpose of things. :D</p>
<p>^I’ve always thought the above contradiction would sound good as “Someone’s Paradox,” with someone being a last name.</p>
<p>Hmmm, an interesting read about our presumption that a≠~a (a doesn’t equal non a) and how for a moment assuming a CAN equal ~a, provides a plethora of statistical and combinatorial theory, the book was called Fuzzy logic I believe,</p>
<p>^Pseudoscience I believe is the term.</p>
<p>I just read about it, and it seems to be simply be a matter of terminology and definition.</p>
<p>I think it’s more a philosophical outlook at things, rather than semantics, perfection is imperfect, while imperfection is perfection. What I mean by this, for example, a fair coin has 50/50 chance of falling heads or tails, however after 100,000 coin drops, if the outcome was 50,000 heads and 50k tails, despite the fact that this is more logical than a skewed ratio, it’s imperfect, do you see what I mean?</p>
<p>No it’s not structured synthetic geometry or a dense function, but it’s interesting, :)</p>
<p>^Chance is merely a method of predicting future events. It does not belong in the realm of logic, especially not philosophical logic.</p>
<p>you’re taking me too much for verbatim, which is fine, I still recommend the book [Amazon.com:</a> Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic (9780006547136): Bart Kosko: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Fuzzy-Thinking-New-Science-Logic/dp/0006547133/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296004269&sr=1-1]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Fuzzy-Thinking-New-Science-Logic/dp/0006547133/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296004269&sr=1-1)</p>
<p>and hope you read it, and whether you agree or not, you will most certainly learn something, please let me know what you think of it, if you do take it out,</p>
<p>Can you prove to me that this whole world is not just a figment of my imagination? Everything I see, feel, smell and hear can be all my imagination. </p>
<p>What is intelligence?</p>
<p>^If it weren’t so would that really matter? On a smaller microcosmic level, one can think of it as the question of God’s existence or not, and I hope to convince religious believers as well. Take some wonderful religious society you can think of, what’s holding them together is this * perceived* existence of a god. If you are religious and feel insulted by that, one can think of his/her own religion, and then deny the existence of the god of some other religion, say Hinduism, while you personally may not believe in Shiva or one of their other gods, that doesn’t matter, the benefits of that “imaginary” god are just as real, as if the gods actually existed or not (whether they do or not is beyond the realm of this thread).</p>
<p>Bringing back the analogy to what davidthefat said, if life’s one big stimulation…who cares? Perception is reality, based on the best clues we have. For example the spherical shapes of the eye naturally make us see things upside down, and as babies that is how we see things, however based on other clues, such as sensory systems, our brain comes to the conclusion that we should flip the image of what we see…hence how we see things now, and it’s working rather well i’d say. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving.</p>
<p>At least according to Wikipedia.</p>
<p>Whew you guys took this to a whole another level.
Originally, I meant for this topic to be more of a
“how can you accurately determine one’s self worth or intelligence, especially when you use yourself as a reference point (with false subjective bias), ex. Lonely guy sees the alpha male with success, but just says to himself as a defense mechanism that it’s only because he got lucky, therefore protecting his ego” I mean, for all we know, that dumb kid in our class could be a genius and we’re just too stupid to notice/comprehend it, but because of illusory superiority we think we’re better than that kid. This could go for anyone.</p>
<p>I read somewhere that those who are depressed are able to judge there self worth and others better. This reminds me of a topic about if intelligence corresponds to depression.</p>
<p>Wasn’t really aiming for a full blown philsophical “what is what”, cause that’s impossible to grasp, but still interesting to read…</p>
<p>I don’t think being depressed makes one intelligent, since that would imply a person can become intelligent by injecting drugs in their veins, however, and I don’t think data is really possible for this, but intelligent people have a tendecy to be depressed for variety of reasons, mostly living in an isolated lonely world, or for example in Spinoza’s case, a world of shunning and those who didn’t shun him were pure idiots. The metaphor of a cat surrounded by dogs in a dog kernel. Philosopher’s however may have more emotional stability, and everything I said is pure allegation and not covered by hard core facts so feel free to continue on this.</p>
<p>The assertion that everything is subjective is an objective assertion. Therefore, one contradicts oneself in making that claim. </p>
<p>One of my teachers - a Vietnam war veteran - once said “subjectivists” (what’s the correct term?) believed in their theory until their car broke down, and the mechanic charged them ten times the normal amount, because that was his subjective reality. </p>
<p>Stupid theory really.</p>