Why I am me.

[Chas]

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You suggested, that neurologically removing my perception would change anything. Nope. It would do nothing about the actual reality (whatever it is) and also it would do nothing about lifetime memories of my observations. I'd say it makes as much sense as breaking Galileo's telescope because he saw weird things through it and got confused about the nature of reality.

Not a very good analogy.
Other people could look through Galileo's telescope; no one else can look through your perception.

Quote:Scientific method produces consensus (agreement).

No, it doesn't. It produces objectively verifiable results.

Quote:Does rationality necessarily mean agreement?
Does agreement necessarily mean rationality?
Are there any circumstances that can make the result different while remaining rational?

No.
No.
What result?

Quote:Objective scientific evidence creates the obligation for all rational people to believe it entirely.
Can different evidence vary in scope, are there any lesser forms of evidence that create the obligation for fewer rational people and/or to believe it to a lesser degree?

A rational person is under no obligation to believe subjective testimony. The obligation is to remain skeptical.

[Luminon]

(13-02-2013 06:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You suggested, that neurologically removing my perception would change anything. Nope. It would do nothing about the actual reality (whatever it is) and also it would do nothing about lifetime memories of my observations. I'd say it makes as much sense as breaking Galileo's telescope because he saw weird things through it and got confused about the nature of reality.

Not a very good analogy.
Other people could look through Galileo's telescope; no one else can look through your perception.

It's a good analogy, considering how many people were willing to look through Galileo's telescope, due to historical and cultural circumstances. They were more able to execute the man, than to follow his instructions.

(13-02-2013 06:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  

Quote:Scientific method produces consensus (agreement).

No, it doesn't. It produces objectively verifiable results.

No, it doesn't, it produces results verifiable according to your capability to verify them, ownership of certain technologies or materials, for example. You have to assume that the needed equipment is available. If that's what you call objective... That's what we call science. Science requires hell a lot of material conditions.

So what If I don't have access to science? What if I am in a special circumstances where I don't have the equipment and where the observer and the observed object are one body, one person? The question is, can I under such a circumstances determine if I am rational at all? The possible choices are,
Yes, I am rational.
Yes, I may be rational.
No, I am not rational.
No, it is absolutely impossible to determine.
No, it is impossible to determine at the preset place, time and available equipment.

(13-02-2013 06:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  A rational person is under no obligation to believe subjective testimony. The obligation is to remain skeptical.

OK. What does it mean to be skeptical? My philosophy teacher defined skeptical position as alternating between two possibilities, one of which might be true, thus settling on neither. That was way back in ancient Greece.

Depending on what is skeptical and if I don't have access to science, what am I allowed to do?
Am I allowed to take the experience as it is? (believe, that it presents itself through my senses accurately enough to know the true nature of the phenomenon)
Am I allowed to take it as a representation of something? (it's not necessarily accurate, but believe it represents something real and knowable)
Can I seek any interpretation of what my senses tell me and then somehow hold this interpretation without totally believing it, until something better shows up?
Am I supposed to disregard everything, as my senses are not reliable? (and stay silent forever, believe nothing at all and not pursue any possible explanations short of full scientific research costing millions of dollars)

[Adenosis]

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 07:32 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  You seem to be under the impresion that beliefs have no effect on our perception. If by duck, you mean hallucinatory sense of touch, then yes, it quacks like a duck.

Yes, that's exactly the point. I believe that during all these years I had an ample opportunity to observe things whether I knew/expected/believed in them or not. Therefore, I think I know how much of my perception is variable based on beliefs and that I can compensate for that. One way to get around that is to appreciate the unexpected and disregard things I'd expect as inconclusive.

I never realized how my delusions were corrupting my perception until I became aware that they were delusions and cast them off the plank. So it makes sense that you assume your immune to the perception altering properties your delusion.

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Tell me, what is wrong about being confused about the nature of reality? I am not confused about the small scientifically known part of reality, I get that. I am confused about the other 95 %. The guy who wanted to close down the patent office just before the Relativity theory, X-rays and so on, he was pretty sure of himself. And even the guy who came up with Relativity did not have the balls to accept quantum mechanics. I'd say confusion is a natural and necessary part of science.

What's wrong with being confused about the nature of reality? Well if you don't care about the truth then by all means, be confused. We know a lot about reality, the unaccounted mass in the universe doesn't translate into us knowing almost nothing. There is some substance that appears to permeate space that is very massive and yet does not appear to interact with normal matter as well as not giving off any form of radiation that we are aware of, only bending pre-existing radiation that passes through it. From this, because of your sense perception, you jump to chakras. This is completely insane to everyone else (so long as they are scientifically literate I might add). I'd rather live my one life figuring out the true nature of objective reality instead of living a fairy tale, hence why I am not a theist or a conspiracy theorist anymore.

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You suggested, that neurologically removing my perception would change anything. Nope. It would do nothing about the actual reality (whatever it is) and also it would do nothing about lifetime memories of my observations. I'd say it makes as much sense as breaking Galileo's telescope because he saw weird things through it and got confused about the nature of reality.

Actually yes, for example a schizophrenic. If we were to give him medication that removed the voices, do you think it would be easier or harder for him to determine if the voices were only a subjective experience?

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I think you are confused about the nature of rationality. It is essentially a philosophic disagreement. You're used to seeing the results of rationality in special circumstances, so you don't realize what does it mean objectively, under any circumstances.
Therefore, I have to ask you:
Scientific method produces consensus (agreement).
Does rationality necessarily mean agreement?
Does agreement necessarily mean rationality?
Are there any circumstances that can make the result different while remaining rational?

Now I'm confused about the nature of reality because I accept falsifiable and repeatable experiments as evidence? Do you see how this twists your reasoning?

Chas has already answered the questions sufficiently.

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Objective scientific evidence creates the obligation for all rational people to believe it entirely.
Can different evidence vary in scope, are there any lesser forms of evidence that create the obligation for fewer rational people and/or to believe it to a lesser degree?

No, not entirely. There is always room for error. But the room for error decreases every time another person runs the experiment confirms the results. Hence why we have repeatable experiments. One major flaw in subjective experience is the lack of opportunity for things to be repeated by others.

No more of this nonsense here, this is not the topic of the thread and I won't let you continue to derail the thread.

(13-02-2013 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 07:32 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Life hasn't been all that great, it would be worse if I had no legs or if I was blind. With the exception of being born without the legs, as opposed to losing them at some point. If I never had them I wouldn't know what I would be missing and I would have benefits and all kinds of crap. Not to mention I'd have more time to sit and read/research stuff.

What I bolded is a good explanation of how I am. Just normal enough for people not to think anything is necissarily wrong, but enough to think I'm weird as shit.

Well, do you mind that enough to try to do something about that? Some kind of training or schooling?

I have been trying to do something about it, hence me talking about getting a therapist/psychiatrist. This first step is taking a long time.

[Adenosis]

(13-02-2013 01:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, I am rational.
Yes, I may be rational.
No, I am not rational.
No, it is absolutely impossible to determine.
No, it is impossible to determine at the preset place, time and available equipment.

Depending on what is skeptical and I don't have access to science, what am I allowed to do?
Am I allowed to take the experience as it is? (believe, that it presents itself through my senses accurately enough to know the true nature of the phenomenon)
Am I allowed to take it as a representation of something? (it's not necessarily accurate, but believe it represents something real and knowable)
Can I seek any interpretation of what my senses tell me and then somehow hold this interpretation without totally believing it, until something better shows up?
Am I supposed to disregard everything, as my senses are not reliable? (and stay silent forever, believe nothing at all and not pursue any possible explanations short of full scientific research costing millions of dollars)

Your suppose to, if you intend on being rational, to withold belief in something until verifyable objective evidence is produced in support of said thing. It doesn't matter how attached you are to it or whatever else, get over it. This is what being rational means. Your not even being logical as I have pointed out earlier. We are aware of people that believe crazy things for crazy reasons, and of people that hallucinate. You ignore this so that you can take your sensory experience seriously and believe what you want, this is exactly the fail-logic delusions create. Your believing what you like, not what's the truth, and your convincing yourself that what you want to be true actually is the truth. Now if you want to continue this nonsense, create a new thread.

[Luminon]

(13-02-2013 01:41 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  I never realized how my delusions were corrupting my perception until I became aware that they were delusions and cast them off the plank. So it makes sense that you assume your immune to the perception altering properties your delusion.

I'm not claiming to be immune! This is why I disregard lots of observations that are inconclusive, ambiguous, possibly caused by expectations and so on. Expect the unexpected, throw away the rest! I'm willing to get rid of anything, as long as I get some scientific evidence to replace it with.

(13-02-2013 01:41 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  What's wrong with being confused about the nature of reality? Well if you don't care about the truth then by all means, be confused. We know a lot about reality, the unaccounted mass in the universe doesn't translate into us knowing almost nothing. There is some substance that appears to permeate space that is very massive and yet does not appear to interact with normal matter as well as not giving off any form of radiation that we are aware of, only bending pre-existing radiation that passes through it. From this, because of your sense perception, you jump to chakras. This is completely insane to everyone else (so long as they are scientifically literate I might add). I'd rather live my one life figuring out the true nature of objective reality instead of living a fairy tale, hence why I am not a theist or a conspiracy theorist anymore.

I don't just jump to chakras, I grow Heron's beard (manage ambiguous experience) and I can shave it with Occam's razor when I will have a reason to do so. Some better explanation might come along, something that is actually to the point. That would be great, it would not only explain everything, but it would also give objective, visible evidence to everyone on this planet.
But until then I just can't ignore the sensations that are pretty goddamn identical with the Indian charts of the chakra and meridian system. I just have to read up on it and be surprised how closely that fits. Man, it's impossible to ignore, when I get a headache, it hurts in the meridian lines! I can't believe there is anything wrong with noticing that.

Mind you, I know it's not objective evidence, I know it could be disproven any time, I know I'd have to drop it the moment I find the evidence and I know it would be much better to have some objective science at hand. I'd love to introduce some new, fresh view on things from the scientific side. So far I had no chance, being stuck in a rural village. It took all my life to get out of there. Now the first sight of science is just several months ahead, isn't that exciting?
I know what you think- drinking Kool Aid, it's like riding the white tiger (taking cocaine), they all say they can stop and get down any time they want, but the moment they try, the white tiger bites them...

(13-02-2013 01:41 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Actually yes, for example a schizophrenic. If we were to give him medication that removed the voices, do you think it would be easier or harder for him to determine if the voices were only a subjective experience?

Both. Depends on whether he remembers some time in the past that other people in his vicinity heard the same voice saying the same things. (a harder case) Then it depends on how familiar he is with other schizophrenia patients, if he knows they make up even their own past. (an easier case)

(13-02-2013 01:41 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Now I'm confused about the nature of reality because I accept falsifiable and repeatable experiments as evidence? Do you see how this twists your reasoning?

No, I don't. Repeatable and falsifiable evidence is the best case scenario, when we can determine rationality pretty straight away. Wonderful. If only it was available to everyone.
It seems that without other people and science in their hands we have no way to tell if we're rational. So I'd say my rationality depends on my close encounter with science, will I backpedal and make excuses, or come clear and do what the testing demands. Thanks, that's what I needed to know.

(13-02-2013 01:41 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Chas has already answered the questions sufficiently.

No, he answered the best case scenario. The state where science is possible and evidence is available - and if not, it soon will be, so better do nothing until scientific emergency arrives. Well, this is not how it worked for me. I was stuck in a science-less village for more than 20 years and managed to move out to civilization only recently.
Now, I've made lots of observations for these 20 years and I'm looking forward to re-examining them under medical insight and hopefully other sciences. But don't expect me to drop them all at once for no reason, when I haven't yet seen any alternate scientific explanation even remotely to the point. Don't worry, even if the science doesn't explain all at once, I can keep both theories simultaneously in mind until one completely prevails. I'm not the one to reject anything outright.

(13-02-2013 01:41 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  No more of this nonsense here, this is not the topic of the thread and I won't let you continue to derail the thread.

Ay captain, it's your thread. I think I've got my answer, what it takes to be rational for sure.

[Drunkin Druid]

because everyone else is taken?

[Adenosis]

(21-02-2013 12:06 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  because everyone else is taken?

Really? all possible genetic configurations and experience time lines have been realized by someone? I think not.

[TheDeadCatAlive]

I'm a female Asperger, problem being I can't stand the company of other women, which seems to be required to get through life.
My life exists of finding tricks and gizmo's to get me through social events.
Sometimes I try to be a lady, but it feels so odd and ... wrong.
it's like having so many capacities and having each and every one captivated by a strong wall of whether rationality or pure nonsense.