#Im on mobile so i dont have full access

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

lucid scarab
#

I wonder.

plain elbow
#

Oh hi

#

Now how to change title. We were talking about v sauce?

#

Sensationalism in media

lucid scarab
#

I dunno but I could do a different branch from the other topic..

#

Although I think this is fine

plain elbow
#

I actually had no other input aside from what i said earlier of
I miss arguing about whether something is a

  • lemma,
  • dilemma,
  • fallacy,
  • problem,
  • query; or
  • theory
lucid scarab
#

Yeah I couldn t tell the difference between all of these

#

and thats probablybecause I don't think its thatimportant

#

question

#

or qeued task

plain elbow
#

The only reaso. I brought it up is j cases like
"The Trolley Problem" - is more of a query

#

"Prisoner's Dilemma" - is a problem

"Gambler's Fallacy" - isn't a fallacy but a belief system

lucid scarab
#

It reminds me of the hen and egg problem.. they aren't really a problem at all

#

you just make it one by pretending you cant answer it

plain elbow
#

Naming nomenclature disagreements maaan

lucid scarab
#

like .. Is the sky blue?

#

Does the tree make a sound when nobody is there to hear it

#

What have you eaten today?

#

Questions with simple answers. But if you think about it long and hard enough, you might find that it can get quite confusing.

plain elbow
lucid scarab
#

what does it mean to eat? how do we categorize what we eat?

plain elbow
lucid scarab
#

does everything that we put into our stomach count as being eaten? at what point does the eating happen?

#

what if we are in a simulation, are we still eating?

lucid scarab
#

I can tell you for a fact that you don't see the same blue as others. But even if it looks different to them, with only a receptor for green and a receptor for blue, you can compare what you see to any other person who has two receptors for these two colors too. And you two only have to agree once to which shade of blue you both mean.

plain elbow
#

I mean.. it's a bit "been done" with cells at work

#

There's also a ton of introspective anime, some too slow for even me who likes slow shows.

lucid scarab
#

I just don't like incomplete shows, I guess thats why i dislike slow anime

#

because I know they wont finish

plain elbow
#

Also i think some conversations aren't made for anime creators, and should be left for the anime consumers/audience.

Art is made both for the creator and consumer

lucid scarab
#

It would be weird to watch anime without music

plain elbow
lucid scarab
#

I do like anime more than music tho, I think

#

its a bit odd because music is more prevalent youd expect most people to say they rather have music

plain elbow
#

When supposing two non-required outcomes, its a query.

It's only a dilemma when it is in fact either a life or death situation, or a moral/ethical conundrum.

E.g. the Trolley Problem is actually a dilemma since it questions ethics or morals, not logic or preference

lucid scarab
#

That's why it doesn't seem like a true dilemma to me (Trolley)

plain elbow
lucid scarab
plain elbow
lucid scarab
#

If you accept that there are moral dilemmas in your belief system, it follows that situations can spin on and on from there to create ever greater moral dilemmas

#

and it destablizes the entire foundation of that belief system

#

But you know what is an actual dilemma? That the trolley problem might actually be embedded into the rules and laws of our society.

#

Which means, the law is in such a way that you can find yourself in an impossible situation where you cause a criminal action regardless of what you do.

plain elbow
lucid scarab
#

Scientifically speaking your beliefs should be free of contradictions. And this brings us actually back full circle to the hole at the bottom of math.

plain elbow
#

Don't belief systems differ by these queries and dilemmas?

lucid scarab
#

Because there it says: That you can't actually design a system that resolves all questions.

#

You can always create logical dilemmas

plain elbow
lucid scarab
#

But we try that, right? For instance if you only accept five axioms, five assumptions about the world as true without questioning them, you can construct all of math from it.
But you have to accept four of those five statements.

#

Simiilarly how many statements in the bible do you have to accept? Only one: That you are a believer in god.

plain elbow
#

Uhhh im starting to get a headache. Im also in a mother discussion in the main channel

lucid scarab
#

And all of religion constructs itself around it.

#

Yes, or to put it differently: How do we verify that something is true?

#

We ask other people who know about it.

#

Or we define some condition under which things are simply considered true. And then they actually are true. Not only theoretically but practically because we defined them to be so.

#

But same with people. If we say a judge decides upon a case, the judges decision is true. Although it was made by a human.

#

It has real effects and implications upon the world.

plain elbow
#

Uhh uhh.. socrates? No.. niet- no .. ummm

It's been a hot minute since i had to delineate those stinkers thinkers

lucid scarab
#

Lets say we can always resolve some questions but we can never quite get to the bottom of it all

plain elbow
#

(Ummm going back to the break fast bit i actually still haven't had breakfast and brain reserves on low, ill rejoin convo later)

lucid scarab
#

ok but you can have multiple people

#

agree to what is right

#

and that is called a society

#

and dynamics emerge from that

#

that affect the world

#

and are real

#

and not just imaginary

#

but this isn't the only way in which you can create truth and reality

#

you can tie decisions to diferent things, like a computer. Say' whatever the computer outputs is the truth

#

and accept it

#

or whatever other method you come up with

#

but you're always confined to seeking an answer inside the confines of this reality

#

and if the rules of this reality aren't precise, then its a lost cause

#

but for the most part it just does appear, that rules really are precise

#

just when we go on very small or very large scales, tiny problems start to emerge

#

but are they the outcome of a flawed picture about the world? Or are they the result of the true undecidability of reality?

lucid scarab
#

If you build a city. And then a road. And everyone in the city agrees that everyone should drive on the right lane. It just becomes the truth.

#

Objectively.

#

Even if that one person doesn't believe in it, they know the other people believe in it. Therefore they will enforce this rule. An argument like "I didn't think this was important to me" won't work

#

the consequences will be the same

#

Well, what I'm trying to get at is that the nature of truth is of such that it is created through definition. All language is an abstraction. It matters however, how we tether stuff. And you can tether stuff both ways. You can go from the physical thing and tether it to a word by saying: If the thing doesn't satisfy the definition of the word, the thing isn't the word. Or, you tether it to the thing, which was an example you used just now.
The thing that you define as that theoretical violet bird is in the way you defined it, only dependent on what we observe the object has in attributes that you called a violet bird.
Meaning we can come to a definite decision on whether that bird exists by observing it.

#

Yes of course, because the truth of the question is tetherd to its physical existence and not to the question if any indivdual person observed it

#

on the other hand we don't have to resolve the question if a physical plane exists or anything like that

#

its sufficient to accept the physicality in the context of the bird to be of such a nature that it asks if the bird is embedded in the same framework as the rest of the world

lucid scarab
#

Well, tethering the problem to reality is not really the best way to assure decidability of the problem. But it is a relevant problem to explore.
Lets look at why it is relevant to explore and see if we can derive meaningful answers to how the truth of the matter is meant to be judged.
We are interested in physical phenomena because they have tangible, repeatable and predictable effects on us. We can also communicate those effects and in this way accept a shared reality.
From this follows two things ->
#1 We are only interested in the physical world in so far as it affects us. We don't need in fact to learn everything about every speck of dust in existence.
#2 We have a method of verifying the nature of these effects that is incomplete. The method is by testing these physical effects on people, uninformed of each other and seeing if they can respond to them in the same way. If at least some of them can, this means a tangible effect has to be at work that should matter to us.

Of course the issue remains that you have no way of looking at some underlying reality or truth to your observations. And resulting from that you can't with certainty tell whether your observations as a whole are meaningful. But it is also not relevant in so far as you only really need to establish tangible, repeatable predictability.
So why not tether it to the observation rather than to the physical thing. If nobody sees the bird, surely it must not exist and can't have any effect on us.
But that is short sighted because whether something will have an effect that is propagated into the future as tangible, repeatable and predictable is solely dependent on it being real, not on it being observed.
But our approach, or approximation of truth in regards to physical things is still going to be

#

observation.

#

The point is by tethering it to reality, your arguments as to why it is real or why it isn't, have to revolve around reality.

#

The thing that it is tethered to has the last word in the discussion.