Bringing intelligence to America [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Justhink

09-11-2002, 02:46 AM

America is without doubt the most counter-intelligent society on earth; simply by virtue of its data flooding and its natural urge to leave terms open ended for corruption. Almost every sentence uttered on all mediums that pass over the eyes of American citizens are counter-intelligently designed; and so easily collapsed logically, that it is quite clear why wealth has become centrated so. The immorality of this practice and why it works so well. Why it is supreme in potency, is basically a dissertation on the nature of how contradiction emerges extra energy from complexity; down to the core of reality itself; nullifying the purpose of pursuing such ends... but I digress here.

The proposal:

A mechanical suicide machine (operable only from the inside)placed in every city of the United States is the only moral and logical solution to a society which places capitolism as necessity. The purpose of capitolism is to abstract new resource and create more work. The reason people work; is to create more cognitive space and less work. One is ideology; the other is natural law, and the two are diametrically opposed.

In the instance where counter-intelligence is the selective factor of success in society; immorality rests soley upon the class of individuals charged with this violation.

Mechanical suicide machines are a logical application of technology and the 'promise' of liberty. It is determined that an indentured system cannot be reverse engineered by the mechanism of drug inducement or propoganda, should such a physical logical application of technology be available to the general public. Those who do not utilize such a device possess indentured systems beyond the threshold of existential collapse from slavery; and are considered the logical components of the slavery required for the concentration of wealth.

Either America must re-write its constitution with stronger more articulate language of social contract and transparency; or it must, by virtue of its opposing ideal; optimize the effect of this mechanism by allowing amnesty for those who are logically inclined. This will increase profits and decrease suffering.

Those who should step forward to deny this action are aknowledged the right of free-speech; however, it is noted that they are the beneficiaries of those who are living because painless and guaranteed methods of suicide are not sanctioned by regulatory standards of efficiency and painlessness. Their words cannot seek to have an effect, because of the intelligent nature of such devices; therefor their quarrels are noted as insignificant in terms of undue coersion. The profits of industry that feed off of those on the brink of existential collapse will by necessity be forced to exit themselves or adjust their profession.

The illegality of suicide is an impingement on civil liberty; on logical application of liberty and the obviousness of technological application where within. The illegality of suicide is cruel and unusual punishment in a society advanced enough to build efficient machines with standardization. The illegality of suicide is cruel and unusual punishment in the instance that the indentured systems of people are being exploited to move them through waves of endless suffering against their wills; the exploitation of this mechanism through chemical infusion and processing of air, food, water and all outlets of media evidenced to operate soley on determined counter-intelligence algorhythms. Maintaining suicide illegality in such a defined state is so brutal, as to count a worse form of intentional genocide than all combined throughout the course of history. This is the practice of savagery; perversion, and an irreconcialable indentured system hooked autonomously to the exploitation of counter-intelligence algorhythms without command level access. On behalf of the logically consistant and rationalcommunity of society, it is declared necessary that you issue this decree of construction for suicide machines, or you will risk the compromise of your lifestyle and possibly your sentience through a battle of such fierce psychological warfare, you will wish you had never been born.

This is a plea for peace, in the aknowledgement that you are suitably damaged to such a degree of counter-intelligence; that your life would endure a fraction of sufering not suitable to your constitution. It is hereby decided, that the lesser of two evils is to bow out. It is our expressed natural right and demand that our taxes be used to such means.

-Justhink

*hmm.. weird, that came out kinda formal and stuff*

Bryan Ekers

09-11-2002, 02:50 AM

Wow, that's either a modest proposal or a bullshit one.

Skeezix

09-11-2002, 02:55 AM

Y'know, without coming down on any paticular side of this...

(And I hate to come across like my personal feelings are more important than free speech, here or anywhere else)

Was today really the best day to post an OP like this?

Seriously, if it's dark humor, I'm sorry, man, I missed the joke. And I normally like dark humor.

Justhink

09-11-2002, 03:20 AM

"""Was today really the best day to post an OP like this?"""

Come to think of it.... probably not; I don't want it associated with that at all! I'm not trying to make a 9/11 statement here; the damn media has created a do as I say not as I do" dynamic; where they can stomp all over the event for gain; but average joe can't; a counter-intelligence coup. That's my only comment to that regard though.

-Justhink"

Justhink

09-11-2002, 04:28 AM

"Wow, that's either a modest proposal or a bullshit one."

It is a proposal of sorts. Basically, intelligence is bowing out, but in the process, bargaining a viable liberty consistant with its constitutional make-up, in exchange for peaceful surrender.

Intelligence can offer:
-All the human determinism technology that America could ever dream of to create a worldwide shroud of capitolistic dominance.
-All the resource abstraction algorhythms it could ever dream of to perpeuate a capitolistic system.
-All the technology extraction algorhythms it could dream of to maintain global superiority, and a perpetual state of purpose amongst the perpetrators.

The condition is that legislation be passed to make suicide legal; and that suicide machines be placed in every American city. The legislation itself would more than pay for itself; and the additional collateral would make turning down the offer, insane. Not that the bargaining party is particularly sane; but in a cute cave-man sort of way; I'm sure they'd sign it into legislation while scratching their heads a bit about the 'odd' demands. Telling them they won; we surrender is part of the sacrifice one must make to bridge the communication barrier, certainly it will make perfect sense to them, as the effectiveness of the technology proves itself as was promised.

Intelligence has earned freedom for its kind, while striking a bargain with cognitive retardation ("because I can say it, it must be true" "Because I can do it, and it works, it must be right").

It is fundamentally aknowledging that there is no actual point towards educating or even attempting to educate humans who are existentially bound by counter-intelligence. It is actually cruel to do so. The logical solution, is to minimize the cruelty on all sides - protecting the rights of future cognitive geniuses, and protecting the counter-intelligent self-fulfilling validations of the cognitively demented. It works out quite well!

-Justhink

Karellen

09-11-2002, 04:32 AM

I'm beginning to think Justhink is actually an experimental form of artificial intelligence that utilizes a random sentence-generating program.

I just hope the beta version comes improved with an editing plug-in.

Skeezix

09-11-2002, 04:34 AM

I was going to relegate this to email, but since my first statement was made 'in public', as it were, it's only fair that I say this on the boards, too.

Forget it. I actually wasn't linking this to the events of a year ago. I opened the thread, not guessing from the title what it was gonna concern. And it just struck me as a bit, well, in bad taste, I guess. Considering the date in question, and the topic of the post. Again, I didn't think you were making any kind of parallel. The only valid complaint I guess I could make is that the thread title's not descriptive enough. And "Bringing intelligence to America through Voluntary Suicide" would be too long winded anyway.

Chalk it up to my insomnia, and being a bit down, impairing my judgement. (Yeah, I'm sleep deprived, and apparently oversensitive.) IOW, mea culpa. I should have had the sense to stay out of GD this morning. Back to MPS for me.

I hate it when my knee almost knocks the keyboard off my desk. Carry on.

And just for good measure, it took me until about 2 minutes past the server shutdown to type out this reply, which I tried to resubmit three times before I realized why it wasn't going through. Phooey. I need coffee.

Odesio

09-11-2002, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
Almost every sentence uttered on all mediums that pass over the eyes of American citizens are counter-intelligently designed; and so easily collapsed logically, that it is quite clear why wealth has become centrated so.

Nice to see that the OP isn't going against the status quo.

Marc

zen101

09-11-2002, 04:56 AM

My god, I usually figure Oregon as being more moderate but this really makes me stop and refuse to think.

Anyone ever notice how the folks offering these kinds of ideas to better the world/nation through selective suicide never offer themselves up for the project? Of course they come up with the circular logic that as they are able to see the problem and offer the concept then they must be too good for it to apply to them.

Mangetout

09-11-2002, 05:00 AM

Hmmm have you considered that individuals who choose to use such machines may leave behind dependant minors who would be a burden on the state (or are you proposing that we simply toss them in the meat grinder too?).

I strongly suspect that suicide may have other costly implications both for the state and for private business; you seem (and I say this partly because once again either the concept itself or your presentation of it is not entirely transparent) to have assumed (falsely, IMO) that suicide machines would only rid us of unproductive elements.

smiling bandit

09-11-2002, 06:46 AM

Is there anyone else who has no idea - at all - how this OP is in any way, shape, or form, constructed from a logical human mind? I read it twice, and I can find no logical progression at all. I see random jumps from Capitolism to American political systems to suicide.

ANd does anyone else wonder where he got the idea thjat suicide is illegal? "ASSISTED" suicide is illegal - because it is considered murder (and rightly so, I think, but that is another debate).

Shodan

09-11-2002, 07:09 AM

America is without doubt the most counter-intelligent society on earth; simply by virtue of its data flooding and its natural urge to leave terms open ended for corruption.
This is as far as I got.

The words are English, but I don't think they are being used in any sense that I recognize.

I don't think I will be ripping into this one. Logical fallacies and trolling are one thing; schizophrenia is another.

Justhink, I apologize for mocking you in a Pit thread.

Regards,
Shodan

sailor

09-11-2002, 07:22 AM

What's "capitolism"? Sounds like something President Bush may need. Does he have a suicide machine in the White House? Does Saddam Hussein have one?

xenophon41

09-11-2002, 07:31 AM

In the day we sweat it out in the streets of a runaway American dream
At night we ride through mansions of glory in suicide machines
Sprung from cages out on highway 9,
Chrome wheeled, fuel injected and steppin' out over the line
(Hooooh)
Baby this town rips the bones from your back
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap
We gotta get out while we're young
`Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run

Jervoise

09-11-2002, 07:47 AM

This is the practice of savagery; perversion, and an irreconcialable indentured system hooked autonomously to the exploitation of counter-intelligence algorhythms without command level access.Mmm, tastes like crazy.

El_Kabong

09-11-2002, 08:59 AM

Well, I bothered to read the OP through twice, and I think I get the premise: Soylent green is people!

Er, no, I mean the premise is that social costs would be lower if there were easy means available for people to commit suicide, rather than abuse drugs or the people around them, or commit various other crimes against their fellows.

There, didn't take five hundred words to spit it out, now, did it?

Justhink, you've got to try a lot harder to be clear, man. I'm sure you know exactly what you have in mind when you speak about things like "resource abstraction" and "counter-intelligence algorythms", but I assure you that the majority of readers haven't a bleedin' clue what you are on about. You'd get a lot more respect around here if you would can the ten-dollar words and get to the point. Not that anyone would be more likely to agree with you, but that's a different subject entirely.

Now, on to a few points raised in the OP:

America is without doubt the most counter-intelligent society on earth; simply by virtue of its data flooding and its natural urge to leave terms open ended for corruption.

Crap. I seriously doubt you have ever left these shores. Try spending some time in, say, Angola, then come back and tell me which society is "counter-intelligent".

The purpose of capitolism is to abstract new resource and create more work. The reason people work; is to create more cognitive space and less work. One is ideology; the other is natural law, and the two are diametrically opposed.

Firstly, I don't agree that people universally work just to give themselves more time to think, if that's what you are saying. A nice, high-minded ideal, maybe. Secondly, since when is capitalism (note the second 'a') a 'natural law?

The illegality of suicide is an impingement on civil liberty; on logical application of liberty and the obviousness of technological application where within.

Got a cite on where in this country suicide is actually illegal? I mean, who would you prosecute, especially if the suicide attempt were successful? If you are referring to insurance clauses that refuse to pay off in event of suicide, that has nothing to do with legality, does it?

Suicide shouldn't be easy; a lot of people make a spur-of-the-moment choice to attempt it when they are in a state of extreme agitation, and later regret it. Why would we want to lose their potential contributions though making such an act of desparation even more of an offhand choice than it is now?

Mort Furd

09-11-2002, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Karellen
I'm beginning to think Justhink is actually an experimental form of artificial intelligence that utilizes a random sentence-generating program.

I just hope the beta version comes improved with an editing plug-in.
I'd have to disagree. It would take too much processing power to throw in the random misspellings and homonym confusions.
I would also have to disagree with the premise that easier suicide would improve society. This actually sounds an awful lot like the arguments used to justify "racial purification" and "removal of undesirables" and "destroying the enemies of the people." Not so much in how it would be carried out, but in the assumption that people that Justhink considers undesirable will be the one to do themselves in.
If I am reading the gibberish correctly, Justhink seems to be under the impression that there are zillions of people who are incredibly tired of life, for whom life is torture, and that all of these poor souls are being restrained from suicide by the evil powers of U.S. law - and that they would kill themselves in an instant if they but had legal freedom to do so and access to an easy (government supplied) method to end it all. He also seems to be suggesting that this would be beneficial to capitalism, and at the same time implying that capitalism is a bad thing.

Justhink:
If you really mean what you seem to be saying, then I suggest you print out the OP, and visit a mental health professional. This is not intended as an insult. I think that something is seriously wrong here, and that you need help.
I have read several of your postings, and they are all disjointed, illogical, and radical in the extreme. They come across as the ravings of a loon in dire need of the medication he forgot to take.
If I am misunderstanding you, and you have some other reason for formulating your posts the way you do, then I apologize beforehand for implying that you are not in your right mind.

To the moderators:
I sincerely do not mean the above as an insult. I am concerned about Justhink, and this last posting makes me wonder if he is entertaining dark thoughts of suicide machines and his own use of one.

Netbrian

09-11-2002, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Is there anyone else who has no idea - at all - how this OP is in any way, shape, or form, constructed from a logical human mind? I read it twice, and I can find no logical progression at all. I see random jumps from Capitolism to American political systems to suicide.

ANd does anyone else wonder where he got the idea thjat suicide is illegal? "ASSISTED" suicide is illegal - because it is considered murder (and rightly so, I think, but that is another debate).

While I completely agree that this OP is complete and utter nonsense, I'll make a slight nitpick that in Oregon (where the poster, and myself, are from), Doctor Assisted Suicide IS legal. That law has been contested by pretty much the whole country, but it stands.

bhb

09-11-2002, 11:29 AM

Right, death is the answer to everything, if someone disagrees with you, kill them. If someone looks at you funny kill them. If someone doesn't contribute to society, kill them. Sure, I realize your proposal doesn't promote killing people, rather people taking themselves out. As someone mentioned above, what about those people who were in a sudden spur of the moment depression and decided to end it all. Some of the most intelligent people I've met suffer from severe depression, I can't say I'd like to see them walking down the street everyday and have to look at a "End all of your suffering now sign." :(

KSO

09-11-2002, 11:40 AM

First of all, it's capitAlism.

Second, all of your base are belong to us.

Seriously, dude, I have no idea of what the hell it is you're saying...

Tir Tinuviel

09-11-2002, 11:46 AM

Looks like someone gave Kevorkian (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/) access to the 'puter room...

Here's a nice little page (http://paradise.volcano.org/~popeanon/Writing/suicide.html) with some designs for "Thanatrons"
Hope you studied Craft Design Technology at school Justhink... ;)

Arcite

09-11-2002, 11:48 AM

Justhink, did you write that yourself or did you just copy-and-paste it from The Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/)?

glee

09-11-2002, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
America is without doubt the most counter-intelligent society on earth; simply by virtue of its data flooding and its natural urge to leave terms open ended for corruption.

I assume 'counter-intelligent' means hostile to intelligence.
Normally a proposal 'without doubt' is pretty obvious. This one is not, at least to me.
For example, America funds a thorough School system and plenty of Universities. These are designed to both pass on knowledge and teach people how to think for themselves.
I remember reports that the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killed people who wore glasses on the grounds they were intellectuals.
Wouldn't that be a more counter-intelligent society?

'Data flooding' certainly exists through the Internet. But an educated person can select (and check) what he needs.

I have particular difficulty with your phrase 'natural urge to leave terms open ended for corruption'.

Do you mean Americans love to change the meanings of words?
Do you mean other countries don't?

Do you mean Americans don't define the meanings of new words?

Do you think that words should not change their meanings over time? (And that this process is a corruption?)

Originally posted by Justhink
Almost every sentence uttered on all mediums that pass over the eyes of American citizens are counter-intelligently designed;

including this one?

Originally posted by Justhink
and so easily collapsed logically, that it is quite clear why wealth has become centrated so.

I don't know the word 'centrated'. Assuming it means 'centrally concentrated', or similar, are you implying that there are a few rich people and organisations because the population are kept in a state of confusion?

Capitalism is why US individuals get rich, not media style.
Try getting rich in Cuba!

Originally posted by Justhink
The immorality of this practice and why it works so well. Why it is supreme in potency, is basically a dissertation on the nature of how contradiction emerges extra energy from complexity; down to the core of reality itself; nullifying the purpose of pursuing such ends... but I digress here.

Ah, the core of reality. Do you need an electron microscope to see it?

I found your prose fairly vague and impenetrable.
Could you provide an expansion, avoiding tautology and oxymorons, yet permitting assimilation through understanding of checkable assertations; throughout employing a sentence construct suitable for the level of consciousness of your anticipated readership?

glee

09-11-2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
It is a proposal of sorts.

Ah, 'sorts' in the sense of 'incomprehensible' / 'incoherent'.

Originally posted by Justhink
Basically, intelligence is bowing out, but in the process, bargaining a viable liberty consistant with its constitutional make-up, in exchange for peaceful surrender.

Um, people sometimes make a decision to bow out. Intelligence can't. Neither can it make a bargain.
I like metaphorical language as much as the next carbon-based life form.
But first let us have clear meaning.

Originally posted by Justhink
Intelligence can offer:
-All the human determinism technology that America could ever dream of to create a worldwide shroud of capitolistic dominance.
-All the resource abstraction algorhythms it could ever dream of to perpeuate a capitolistic system.
-All the technology extraction algorhythms it could dream of to maintain global superiority, and a perpetual state of purpose amongst the perpetrators.

Perhaps you mean 'Using our intelligence can offer...'
Next Capitalism, e.g. in the form of McDonalds or Coca-Cola, does not need 'intelligence' per se.
Multi-National Corporate Marketing provides worldwide dominance (through profits).

I was going to analyse 'a perpetual state of purpose amongst the perpetrators', but I just ate.

Originally posted by Justhink
The condition is that legislation be passed to make suicide legal; and that suicide machines be placed in every American city. The legislation itself would more than pay for itself; and the additional collateral would make turning down the offer, insane.

The legislation would pay for itself huh? Perhaps you meant that the necessary running costs of the proposal would be met by innate self-financing.
Where exactly is your income?
Do the people about to kill themselves have to pay? Perhaps sign a codicil leaving part of their estate to the suicide corporation?
Have you considered the potential legal problems if another heir claimed undue influence on an unsound mind, and disputed the will, or simply sued?
Even if there is a certain profit, that doesn't make turning it down 'insane'. Perhaps 'financially irresponsible' - but you don't cover any moral objections.

Originally posted by Justhink
Not that the bargaining party is particularly sane; but in a cute cave-man sort of way; I'm sure they'd sign it into legislation while scratching their heads a bit about the 'odd' demands. Telling them they won; we surrender is part of the sacrifice one must make to bridge the communication barrier, certainly it will make perfect sense to them, as the effectiveness of the technology proves itself as was promised.

To translate 'if the legislators are puzzled, tell 'em it's profitable.'
(I do find your use of both convoluted prose and phrases like 'the communication barrier' somewhat ironic.)

Originally posted by Justhink
Intelligence has earned freedom for its kind, while striking a bargain with cognitive retardation ("because I can say it, it must be true" "Because I can do it, and it works, it must be right").

Well you've made two posts and I think they are appallingly phrased - and certainly flawed. (Does that make me intelligent?)

On the other hand, we know that successful science is not necessarily moral (e.g. germ warfare).

Originally posted by Justhink
It is fundamentally aknowledging that there is no actual point towards educating or even attempting to educate humans who are existentially bound by counter-intelligence. It is actually cruel to do so. The logical solution, is to minimize the cruelty on all sides - protecting the rights of future cognitive geniuses, and protecting the counter-intelligent self-fulfilling validations of the cognitively demented. It works out quite well!
-Justhink

I think, as a teacher, there is a point in attempting to educate people who can't express themselves properly.
That's why I post in this thread....

Bryan Ekers

09-11-2002, 08:41 PM

Justhink:

Does your cat have a fluffly tail?

if not, are fascist American anti-intellectuals at fault?

milroyj

09-11-2002, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
Intelligence can offer:
-All the human determinism technology that America could ever dream of to create a worldwide shroud of capitolistic dominance.
-All the resource abstraction algorhythms it could ever dream of to perpeuate a capitolistic system.
-All the technology extraction algorhythms it could dream of to maintain global superiority, and a perpetual state of purpose amongst the perpetrators.

-Justhink [/B]

Apparently, Intelligence can't offer the use of a dictionary.

Somnambulist

09-11-2002, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
Either America must re-write its constitution with stronger more articulate language of social contract and transparency; or it must, by virtue of its opposing ideal; optimize the effect of this mechanism by allowing amnesty for those who are logically inclined. This will increase profits and decrease suffering.

I suspect that if America were to re-write its constitution with your definitions of 'more articulate language' and 'transparency' it would indicate the top of a very slippery slope towards oblivion. Forcing the citizens of the United States to read the Justhink version of the constitution would most likely increase suffering not reduce it.

And there's no 'Y' in algorithm.

Muad'Dib

09-11-2002, 09:28 PM

Justhink, are you perhaps related to Logical Phallacy?

Rhum Runner

09-11-2002, 10:02 PM

Just wanted to drop in and note that America is full of "mechanical suicide machine[s]" only we normally refer to them as trains and bridges. That is all.

Justhink

09-11-2002, 10:31 PM

Counter-intelligence is observed by the phenomenon where an individual expresses something contrary to the implied social contract; and as a result (of violating the contract), gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract.

I have given an excellent example before:

"Difference does not exist"

Not even a solipsist would make this claim on behalf of the philosophy.

"I don't believe anything at all"

Not even a nihilist would make this claim on behalf of the philosophy.

What we aknowledge, as a social contract, is that though these phrases can be uttered; they are by nature deceptive to the tools implied for communication. The perception of solipsism or the capacity to speak of nihilism are both rooted in the perception of difference; whether 'real' or not. We know that if you place a nihilist or solipsist into a locked cell and they begin demanding food and/or water, that they have LIED about their perception of reality. The crime is not in the lying; the crime is in taking and/or accepting material as a result of the process of speaking these phrases. There is nothing contradictory about a person just sitting there and starving to death; we can assume that they are _logically consistant_ nihilists or solipsists. There is also nothing contradictory about someone saying these things, and yet refusing all material offers.

The violation comes from those who abuse the fundamental truth of this social contract, to recieve social or material commodities.
I am suggesting, because I'm not sure how to divulge the evidence for this in a logically consistant means; that it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, from the very perception of difference itself; that all gain is a result of applying misdirection of ideal.

I can prove that the only reason you _know_ about postmodernism (or whatever), is _because_ you have violated the social contract, which is the root of positive existential validation for yourself and all other beings on this earth.

I sincerely apologize for not being clear, where I intend to be clear. I apologise for not spelling or constructing grammar well.

Would someone mind explaining to me, why I should opt for counter-intelligent mind control to achieve in this life (either being controlled, or controlling others - both the same system); rather than exit this life? Killing people is not logical; but I'm not understanding the argument where living a life of known abuse is superior to not living at all?

We're talking about fundamentals here. If you can call the perception of difference, and the logical application of that perception to those who violate the social contract implied from that perception "postmodern mumbo-jumbo", I'd say you've strayed a bit too far from what we CAN know.

-Justhink

musteion

09-11-2002, 10:46 PM

Humans are rationalizing creatures, not rational. The very best that we've been able to achieve is rife with contradictions, which, for all our philosophy, exist regardless of technology, peroid in history, or any other governing factor. I would, therefore, set out that there exists few or no human-created systems that in their existing forms are without contradictions.

As Walt Whitman once said:

Do I contradict myself? Fine, then I contradict myself. I am huge, I contain multitudes.

Karellen

09-11-2002, 10:50 PM

Well, I'll say this much for Justhink: he's not mean-spirited or abrasive. Just sort of glosses over the fact that many of us think he's a barking loon who's off his meds and continues to not-quite-explicate himself.

A gentlemen loon, if you will. There are worse kinds on the board.

Karellen

09-11-2002, 11:08 PM

Karellen

09-11-2002, 11:19 PM

Karellen

09-11-2002, 11:21 PM

Doh! Double post foul.

Justhink

09-12-2002, 12:29 AM

I think we all have a pretty good idea about connectivity here =)
Assuming this message even goes through; it could be another few hours before I can try again. I've done multiple sends getting confused about pages that don't display, but the message going through still.

-Justhink

Feynn

09-12-2002, 12:44 AM

Maybe if I smoked a joint the OP and subsequent posts would make sense. :)

Justhink - If you truly wish to express certain ideas I would also be one to suggest using simpler words and phrasing. It's the first step to attaining practical and efficient communications with your fellow humans.

Your current posting is akin to reading a foreign language... by any chance would your first language be something other than english?

Justhink

09-12-2002, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Somnambulist

I suspect that if America were to re-write its constitution with your definitions of 'more articulate language' and 'transparency' it would indicate the top of a very slippery slope towards oblivion. Forcing the citizens of the United States to read the Justhink version of the constitution would most likely increase suffering not reduce it.

And there's no 'Y' in algorithm.

Look at the alternative though! One can only succeed through violating the social contract. You don't think that's a slippery slope?!

There has to be some point where we bite the bullet so to speak and place faith in our discernment; that truth and consistancy ultimately does not make more suffering, and if it does; we gave it our best shot. We have to have the courage to step up and brave what reality is throwing right in from of us, and stop putting it off. There are things we know to be true. We know that difference permeates all of existence as the fundamental agreement. We know that discernment is a recognition of difference. We know that change is the perception of difference. We can keep piling these on, we don't have to stay in the dark; we CHOOSE to stay in the dark.

We don't have to tolorate an environment where all of success is anti-intellectual; counter-intelligent. I'm saying that if people are going to be stubborn on the issue, than they _should_ provide a standardized method of 'getting off this ship'. Nobody is required to tolorate tyranny for the sake of life, and until we actually begin operating intelligently; from ground zero, we'll never know if its all B.S. anyways. Wouldn't you rather know? Wouldn't you rather try?

I completely disagree with the apologetics of the Whitman quote. I do so, because I believe it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that they ARE apologetics. Does anyone actually want to know what's on the other side? Does anyone want to know what a society is like, that determines punishment based on natural law; our most undeniable truths.

If someone says that they don't believe anything exists; you sentence them to solitary confinement until they die. You sentence people to the representation of logic within the parameters of the very contract that allows humans an existentially positive validated existence! It's putting the foot down and saying; no more logical crooks. This is where all theft starts from, this is the very source of it; we know that. er.. I know that! Anyways.... Looks like I have some other replies to tend to. I spread myself thin by not compartmentalizing, and jumping around without completely showing how one moves from here to there; but then again, in my mind it connects together so that one cannot exist without the other; each part requiring the full explanation of the individual parts. I'm trying to come to terms with a more concise method of compartmentalization.

aka... This is true. Ok, now that you know that and we all agree; that is actually false, here's why. Now that we agree upon that; that was actually another lie, totally false, and this is why.. NOW you understand what I'm saying....

That's what I feel like I have to do in order to convey something.
It's hits against one of my existential issues regarding abuse of others to communicate with them in a consentual manner. I get all flustered and depressed about it =)

-Justhink

Skeezix

09-12-2002, 01:09 AM

And here I thought I was just missing a lot the first time I read the OP. I think Karellen's got it nailed down pretty well. I'm still stumped.

lekatt

09-12-2002, 01:15 AM

Don't put Justthink down. I have seen writing like this many times.
He has a great career ahead of him writing political speeches. Also be good at future projections for the business world.

Henry B

09-12-2002, 07:06 AM

A question from Canada to Justthink in an earlier post.
quote:
"...by any chance would your first language be something other than english?" (End of quote)

Because my first and second language is not English, I humbly ask, is the sentence above better English than:
....by any chance would your first language be something else than English?
______________________________

There was a guy in ancient Rome or Greece that said (to a the senate or some other high officials):
"The best deed You can make for Your Fatherland, is to go home and hang Yourself!" (or something like that).
In many places on this earth, he would still be right.
______________________________

I have seen Justthink posting before in other threads and have seen that he really can think.
Just check him and his posts through "search".

And because I try to learn English through this site, I would ask many others also to put their texts through a spelling program. I do not have to, because I am a stupid foreigner, but what is Your excuse for raping Your mother language? :)
______________________________

Trying to keep in line with the OP, which I never do, I have many times been thinking:
We are the first generations that can afford pencil, paper, painting facilities, music equipment, cameras etc. and most of us does nothing. Creates absolutely nothing. Except in the toilet.
Or not we, we are writing in Internet so we are creating something.

But most of the people with some money, comes home after work, opens the television, lies on the sofa and drink beer.
And on Sundays mows the lawn.
(I have always frantically opposed lawn mowing as a pre-stage of socialism = making every straw equally long, cutting fiercely the longer ones).

So, I would not be against if more sofa-lying, good for nothing- people would vanish and give the opportunity of work and money to someone that writes e.g. in Straight Dope.

Henry B

09-12-2002, 08:15 AM

Mangetout

09-12-2002, 08:29 AM

Am I right, Justhink in thinking that you are saying that you can't explain yourself in language that makes sense to us because that would constrain you to a domain that is entirely without logic, truth or reason?

glee

09-12-2002, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
Counter-intelligence is observed by the phenomenon where an individual expresses something contrary to the implied social contract; and as a result (of violating the contract), gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract.

It's my fault - I asked you for a definition of 'counter-intelligence'. :rolleyes:

However you seem fixated on the use of incorrigibly lengthy vocabulary at the expense of total failure to appreciate that transmission of comprehensible ideas requires the involvement of suitably phrased concepts that enable the receiver to utilise chemical-based brain reactions to store and recover the information that was originally perpetrated.

Or (to put it another way) I don't understand you.

What is the 'implied social contract'?
Can groups express contrariness to it?
How can any rational being use the phrase 'gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract' without giggling?

Originally posted by Justhink
I have given an excellent example before:

WHAT?! :rolleyes: :eek: :confused: :wally :smack:

A big part of your problem is that you don't give examples of the undefined phrases you continually use.

Originally posted by Justhink
"Difference does not exist"

Not even a solipsist would make this claim on behalf of the philosophy.

WHAT PHILOSOPHY?!

Also you may not know what a dictionary is. It is a book full of definitions. Here is one:

Solipsist - one who has the view that the self is all that exists or can be known.

If I am the only thing that exists, then the rest of the Universe doesn't. So it is all the same (i.e. non-existent). Therefore 'difference does not exist' simply follows from the definition of Solipsist.

See how easy it can be - use simple phrases, define everything new and proceed to your conclusion.

Originally posted by Justhink
"I don't believe anything at all"

Not even a nihilist would make this claim on behalf of the philosophy.

By now, I assume that everything you say is either incomprehensible or wrong. Since a nihilist saying "I don't believe anything at all" is easy to understand, I wonder if you'll keep up your remarkable record of 100% incorrectness.

Nihilist -
1. a rejection of all religious and moral priciples.
2. An extreme form of scepticism characterized by the assertion that nothing really exists.

Therefore 'I don't believe anything at all' is perfectly compatible with the definition of Nihilist.

Originally posted by Justhink
I sincerely apologize for not being clear, where I intend to be clear. I apologise for not spelling or constructing grammar well.

Apology accepted.

What bugs me (and why I've been so sarcastic above) is not that you initially had a go at being ambitious.
It's your total failure to react to our responses complaining about your incomprehensible style.

Explain a bit of your idea, using simple words and providing examples of any claims you make.

glee

09-12-2002, 09:03 AM

glee

09-12-2002, 09:06 AM

Sorry about the double post - my system claimed I could not display the page, while the SDMB Server is undoubtedly the slowest in the world...

glee

09-12-2002, 09:12 AM

Sorry about the double post - my system claimed I could not display the page, while the SDMB Server is undoubtedly the slowest in the world...

glee

09-12-2002, 09:19 AM

Sorry about the double post - my system claimed I could not display the page, while the SDMB Server is undoubtedly the slowest in the world...

glee

09-12-2002, 09:32 AM

and glee triple posts ....

.... without pressing a key :eek: (I was playing on my other computer)

QuickSilver

09-12-2002, 09:50 AM

:confused:

I shall never again utter curses under my breath as I try to get my head around some of Libertarian's more thought provoking posts.

:)

Justhink

09-12-2002, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Mangetout
Am I right, Justhink in thinking that you are saying that you can't explain yourself in language that makes sense to us because that would constrain you to a domain that is entirely without logic, truth or reason?

If you don't already _know_ it; then I have to use subversive techniques counter-intelligence to convert you. Doing so, would render my action as being negative of my own existential value; it would be more logical to commit suicide.

I'm not seeing how people don't understand this though....

If you declare:

"I don't believe anything at all."

You have forfieted all societal rights of commodity. You have forfieted food, water, conversation, companionship....

It is the crux of counter-intelligence, that a person should speak this and then proceed to accept and/or use any of those commodities just mentioned. It is also the crux of counter-intelligence to BELIEVE this and actually STATE it.

The base contract of intelligence amongst all beings, is that perception of difference exists. A being should not be rewarded with ANY commodity if they renounce this contract within the confines of existence within a society.

By accepting commodity after having declared a lack of belief in all things; you are basically saying; "I don't exist, so give me all this stuff for free and I'll use it." Stating such a veiw, and then recieving commodity for it is the anti-thesis of WORK.

Letting this type of cognition pervade society, is the very definition of liberal. I'll agree that it is liberal to speak of an embedded social contract within nature itself; however, there is no sense of intelligently oriented (overt) conservation in being permissive of such a cognition. This person is an example of that which has revoked the necessary social contract embedded in nature; so that we can all communicate with each other within the confines of reason. It is implied that this person is _always_ trying to pull a fast one on us.

I'm using the most base example of counter-intelligence, and how the aquiesence of resource (giving it to them); is entirely wasteful.
This is a void that cannot be filled with material items, no matter how much!!! It is a vacuum of endless sacrifice to the alter of a 'non-existant' being, demanding resource. It's astonishing that a constitution has never applied this aspect of punishment for non-transparency. Autonomous constitutions of primitive societies ostracize people who gain material in a hypocritical means. There is literally no end in sight for how much the vaccuum sucks up!

The perception of difference is the mere tip of the iceberg, of things which we all agree upon, or else we MUST deny our existence, our rationality. It is natural, that one should be sentenced to this expressions representation in nature.
If you don't believe anything; you are sent to solitary confinement until you die. You are declaring your catatonia, it is not rational to feed a non-catatonic being with capital! The pit is endless. Either they shape up and join society, or they enter solitary confinement until they have starved from that which they declare is their truth. We need to maintain this basic premise to operate society.

How many operations of being do you suppose commit this same exact social crime? I suggest that you'd be suprized how many beliefs _everyone_ will agree upon, as being necessary in order to hold an existentially positive outlook! I suggest that you'd be equally suprized how pervasive the very negation of this fundamental agreement exists in society. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess why everything is so screwed up.

People can accept the hazards of nature; but people will not tolorate vaccums of their resources, that exist counter-intelligently. That exist in spite of their actions, that clearly prove their chosen existential negation. People tolorate a fair shake of nature; the vast unrest is a result of that which we all know to be insanity. Just because you _can_ say you don't believe in anything; doesn't make it true, and doesn't make you fit for society. Just because you own a gun and can say it; does not make you right.

Hopefully I communicated these ideas better......

-Justhink

Justhink

09-12-2002, 07:32 PM

""""I have seen Justthink posting before in other threads and have seen that he really can think.
Just check him and his posts through "search".

And because I try to learn English through this site, I would ask many others also to put their texts through a spelling program. I do not have to, because I am a stupid foreigner, but what is Your excuse for raping Your mother language?""""

Thank you for the vote of confidence.
I will mention however, that this is a counter-intelligence tactic of appeal to authority. I have no problem letting each post stand for itself; I wouldn't have it any other way.
I will also mention that solicitation of data by appealing to authority also has no bearing on my ideas. I recall someone stating in no undertain terms that I had exceptional abilities for abstraction; appealing to much of the topics I had been covering.
I did respond to that post (they did have the integrity to degrade the value of high abstraction), but almost regret replying to it because of the 'appeal to authority' nature of soliciting intelligence. I am quite convinced that we all agree on the same basic things. To that degree, I don't see much practical application to the concept of intelligence; except in its ability abstract counter-intelligence, and use this mechanism to decimate society.

Aparently, I can't write english worth a damned. The thought that I would communicate much more effectively in person, is a bit dissapointing; as it eludes to a state of hypocrisy which requires techniques of more acute brainwashing to convey. I am not interested in any form of deification, I believe it is the substance that corrodes society. I would never want something for nothing in that regard. I would never want validation for my being, when I engage in behavior that negates the purpose of my existence here; down to the very fundamental of my self-awareness.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-12-2002, 08:19 PM

"""""What is the 'implied social contract'?"""""

That nihisists and solipsists DIE within a couple weeks from dehydration and starvation if:

They act consistantly of their belief.
Others grant them the freedom and right to act consistantly of their belief.

There is no bottom to the pit of: "I don't exist, so give me all this stuff I want. What are you talking about? I don't exist, so it doesn't MATTER whether you give it to me or not!! Just give it to me, are you really insane enough to believe that I can and/or would use it if I don't exist??!!

A few months later....

"What are you talking about, I used that stuff to survive.. I don't exist you idiot! How stupid can you be? That stuff was NEVER used, it's all in your head... if you don't give me more; you are absolutely insane!! You're the one who believes I exist, prove it to me and yourself, give me stuff - I KNOW that I don't exist, and that your just fooling yourself. Stupid morons *pft* (nihilist/solipsist takes more stuff and wanders off).

""Can groups express contrariness to it?""

Yes; they require intelligent being to sustain themselves though.
They require intelligent beings to do ALL-THE-WORK, to validate the most liberal and counter-intelligent existence imaginable.

""""How can any rational being use the phrase 'gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract' without giggling? """"

If you follow a contract; there is an implied effect, otherwise the contract wouldn't exist! The very basic contract is that we exist.
The steps to move from 'difference' to 'something' are tedious in a logical sense... to move all the way to 'we exist' is a logical conclusion once one veiws the proof. It is to say; If you don't believe the proof, you don't believe ANYTHING exists; that is the necessary coding that nature itself provides.

There is already a contract of rationality embedded into nature. When we articulate it, it becomes clear that to dismiss one brick, is to dismiss them all; otherwise you have proven yourself out of existence. This is a fundamental social contract embedded into nature itself. Those who break the contract STARVE to death. The energy required to sustain them is the embodyment of impractibility! Society cannot sustain many of these people without collapsing. I fact; I'd suggest that sustaining any of them leads to societal collapse. America can absorb a lot of these people, but not indefinitely. Sustaining these people erodes the work accomplished in articulating the social contract. It requires work to abstract these laws of nature... a lot of work to write them down as opposed to _being_ them, like primitive tribes can be observed to do.

You gain the material of _reason_ and the material of _sustainence_, by joining society. If you deny these ideals; you have denied your existence. Society cannot carry that burden of: 'negative energy to its own survival'; it leeches work right from the very seams of societal structure with an endless vaccuum bag. We can agree to disagree, but we cannot support people who deny their existential validation.

These denials of existential validation are pervasive in America, into the logical structure itself. Those who accumulate resource under their ownership are stronger perpetrators of this negation in a structural sense, than those who kill themselves. That's how misguided this society has become, in terms of articulating fraud and protecting against it in the same logically consistant way that nature itself does. You don't kill people; but if someone disregards their existential validation, you give them a way out or you lock them into solitary confinement until they are dead. That's what NATURE does to those people. You don't let the vaccuum suck capital into hordes like that; somewhere, we KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that this person is recieving material at the expense of existential validation. Finding the specific proof for that specific person is somewhat superfluous to the knowledge that there is ONLY one way to accumulate it like that.
By breaking the social contract and recieving resource on behalf of negating ones own existential value.

""Explain a bit of your idea, using simple words and providing examples of any claims you make."""

I'm trying!

-Justhink

Justhink

09-12-2002, 10:44 PM

""ANd does anyone else wonder where he got the idea thjat suicide is illegal? "ASSISTED" suicide is illegal - because it is considered murder (and rightly so, I think, but that is another debate).""

I've been scouring this one about and have yet to reveal down anything conclusive. It seems that britain discarded the criminality of suicide in 1961 (people were hung for it). Aparently, suicide is considered illegal in all of India. And, the best I could track down on the U.S. was a quote: "Even into the mid 90's, suicide is still illegal in 2 U.S. states." Which doesn't help articulate the state of the law now. I was having tremendous difficulty finding whether states considered attempted suicide an illegal act.. but, to be quite certain; I believe you will be arrested by the state for threatening suicide or being captured having not succeeded at suicide. I believe you will be in lock-down in a psychiatric institution; if I'm not mistaking....

I believe law holds that suicide is not a freedom, and when detected by the state; the state seizes you for 'possession'.
I've had the darndest time tracking it down though.....

Has Cecil done a column on whether suicide (or attempted) is ILLEGAL in the U.S. ?

-Justhink

andros

09-12-2002, 11:14 PM

I just checked California's, Washington's, Texas', and Massachusetts' penal codes, and in those states at least there is no law against suicide, nor attempted suicide.

Justhink

09-12-2002, 11:59 PM

Thank you andros.

-Justhink

Feynn

09-13-2002, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Henry B
[B]A question from Canada to Justthink in an earlier post.
quote:
"...by any chance would your first language be something other than english?" (End of quote)

Because my first and second language is not English, I humbly ask, is the sentence above better English than:
....by any chance would your first language be something else than English?

(snip)

And because I try to learn English through this site, I would ask many others also to put their texts through a spelling program. I do not have to, because I am a stupid foreigner, but what is Your excuse for raping Your mother language? :)

Henry,

My name is not "Canada"... I travel under the name of Feynn in this digital paradise.

If you were somehow offended by a comment that was not directed at you, I apologize. The comment was made as it often-times appears that Justhink's grasp of the English language is precarious. It makes deciphering his ideas difficult and debating him nearly impossible.

I believe that what he proposes is that certain members of our society have no worth or value and should they come to that realization, they should be able to remove themselves from our society voluntarily.

If that is the idea he expresses then I disagree, offering a service such as this would harm the most vulnerable members of this society. The thought of suicide is associated most often with people who suffer from depression, a mental illness.

Of course, he could be talking about something completely different... it is really hard to tell.

Peace.

Bryan Ekers

09-13-2002, 01:37 AM

He's being deliberately obscure for his own amusement. The more confusion he creates, the more he likes it.

Mort Furd

09-13-2002, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
Thank you andros.

-Justhink
Holy cats! A Justhink post that is clear and concise! There is hope yet!

Mangetout

09-13-2002, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
I'm not seeing how people don't understand this though....

If you declare:

"I don't believe anything at all."

You have forfieted all societal rights of commodity. You have forfieted food, water, conversation, companionship....

It is the crux of counter-intelligence, that a person should speak this and then proceed to accept and/or use any of those commodities just mentioned. It is also the crux of counter-intelligence to BELIEVE this and actually STATE it.Well, quite, but where are these hordes of nihilists and solipsists? Is "I don't believe in anything" the official motto of the United States?

If we had some ham we'd have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

I really had hopes that somewhere in the filigree of your posts there was a nugget of reason but every time you ignore questions (although admittedly you didn't ignore mine this time), every time you respond to requests for clarity with more obscurity, that hope slips a little further away. I am inclined to concur with Bryan Ekers' last comment.

Justhink

09-13-2002, 04:18 AM

""I believe that what he proposes is that certain members of our society have no worth or value and should they come to that realization, they should be able to remove themselves from our society voluntarily.""

This is the only other way I can think to do it. Maybe you'll have an idea of how my mind works. I can rattle off thousands of permutations of this without effort; for me, it is one simple idea.
I can't figure out how to express it in one expression though.
Now remember; this would be the equivilent of ONE sentence I would write; maybe even a sentence fragment.....

My conceptual map for it has all of these permutations and hundreds more. I can easily state that this set right here doesn't quite begin to articulate this idea for me.

This is me fumbling with one micro-fraction of the conception of rationality. Maybe you can understand why I don't take precision so seriously; it would require documants so vast that SDMB would ban me quite soon. Maybe you can help clear this up for me; what I'm doing wrong, or where I'm defective.

*drumroll*
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Variations of the expression of rationality as it relates to axiomic derivations of perception as visible in homo sapiens of average cognitive age. (Note to self)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rationality can be proven as a group of behaviors and ideas which must be held in order to maintain the environment necessary to convey rationality.

Sanity has a defined threshold of behavior and belief.

Rationality requires conditions; these conditions can be articulated as the bare necessities in order to give rationality meaning.

One can isolate rationality, to such a degree; that to disagree with it, and act accordingly, one would not survive in a state of nature without a benifactor tending their every need.

Rationality can be observed in those who can do things; but demand that others do the work for them and for themselves.

An irrational person demands that one person do the work to sustain every aspect of at least two or more people. When they reveal that they can do the work, they claim that their words and actions are only an illusion; and that they actually aren't doing or cannot do the required work.

Irrational people demand resource, while denying the rationality required to create, use or concieve it.

Irrational people defy the statistics of rationality required to exist the way they do. The odds that someone, who does not believe anything at all; somehow manages to accumulate and horde capital, is beyond statistical compare. It collapses all reason, and provides compelling proof that the only way to achieve is to break all the rules of rationality. It sets a precident for those just dying for a 'reason' to let down their restraints; and begin acting in ways they know will, and have known all along, will accumulate resource and capital.

Irrational people defy all concepts of logic necessary to create anything that can be consistantly applied to external verification.

Irrational people behave in a way that would make the creation of the objects they use impossible; were their reason for using the object, applied to that process of creation.

Irrational people reason methods to use an object that make the process of creating that object impossible.

Irrational people validate their reason for using an object, in a logic that would make it impossible for them to have ever created that object; had they set about to try.

Irrational people deny comprehension of that which is defined as requiring comprehension to convey.

Irrational people cannot account for their behavior in light of the evidence that such a thing as non-behavior exists; and that behavior is judged against the idea that someone does not have to do anything at all.

Irrational people avoid having their behavior compared to non-behavior; even though their speech and actions convey a consistant claim of non-behavior and non-belief on their part.

Irrational people avoid any intelligent analysis of their behavior, compared to non-behavior.

Irrational people deny the value of non-behavior; while acting in ways that negate their claimed perception of existence.

Irrational people act in ways that leaves one no conclusion; except that they must be dead. They proceed to dismiss any analysis of non-action and non-existence in relation to them by themselves or another body.

::::::::::::::
That is a very abridged version of how my mind would rattle these out if I really wanted someone to grasp all of the conceptual framework of an idea I'm expressing. That's not even moving into how or why I would assert the truth of this idea!! That's simple expressing it!!! Not an entire concept have you, but a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a concept.

I admittedly have OCD. I can't fathom writing something unless it's perfect; and if I sit to think about it too long, I'll never succeed.
I know that if I write the sentence only one way; that unecessary questions will come up. Since I'm not trying to troll; I have to figure out how to remove the most possible questions. Most of the questions I'm answering come from the extreme abstract though; I'm not usually focused on the writing in general being comprehensible I suppose. I know if I write in little teenie sentences; it will take FOREVER for the abstracts to emerge, and then FOREVER to discuss them, in order to reach the area of conversation that I was hoping for substantive exchange on.
I'm used to floating a vast amount of variations in my head; and addressing the most damaging abstracts to the harmonization of all of them. I guess I just take it for granted that people hold all of these combinations in their heads at once when they read something or hear something. To me, they are implied.. so the debate becomes, are there any new ones that aren't implied. Is there a system that collapses the meaning of those implications?

No matter how you veiw it, I clearly need some sort of method for conveying ideas that in a more concise means. As you look at the notes I was rattling out for these fractions of fractions of fractions of one fraction of my conceptual framework for the word: rationality, you'll notice that I still used some very big words (which is something I'm accused of). When I see replies along those lines, I become discouraged; because suddenly my conceptual framework becomes overhwelmed by the millions of words necessary to convey the message for the worst possible scenario implied from the question.

If I type a big thing, and the reply is:

"Dude, find some tin foil man ."

<name>
<clever sig>
"Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Unfortunately, Justhink proved this false! Some people are too stupid to have opinions."

And the next reply is:

Dude, I don't usually reply to trolls, but what is this sanctimonious bullshit?! All you did was prove that you're stupid, happy now?

<name>
<sig linking to their website>

All I can think is, "Damn, I failed."

I know those perspectives are out there when I write; I just can't seem to construct something to convey the meaning I'm trying to convey, to all the responses I know are waiting in sheer delight to express themselves, while equally conveying the same concept to those who seem to grasp my writing with ease by the nature of their questions. I appreciate all the replies, because they ALL elude to ERROR on my part. I need to discover the exact source of this error and correct it.

Long winding (probably incomprehensible post), maybe it'll be a good idea for me to study sentence structure for a while before returning. *s* I do only have a 5th grade education =(

-Justhink

Irrational society dominates all society.
All the rational people are refused societal rewards in an irrational society.
In order to take control; all the rational people have to become irrational.
All the rational people conclude that

If that is the idea he expresses then I disagree, offering a service such as this would harm the most vulnerable members of this society. The thought of suicide is associated most often with people who suffer from depression, a mental illness.

Of course, he could be talking about something completely different... it is really hard to tell.

Justhink

09-13-2002, 04:44 AM

Well, quite, but where are these hordes of nihilists and solipsists? Is "I don't believe in anything" the official motto of the United States?

They are represented by everybody who issues a statement incongruent with what we all aknowledge to be existentially positive. What we all agree is required to operate a life on this earth, in a society. You're asking me to go further and point out how this transcribes into everyday speech and action!! I've spent the whole post saying that this _can_ be done; everyone was confused as to what I was even saying can be done! Your question leads to step 2 (I bactracked significantly because of the inconprehensibility charges!! I went back to square one. I'm going to crawl in baby steps. You comprehended the first word of my post, so to speak! This is encouraging.)

I really had hopes that somewhere in the filigree of your posts there was a nugget of reason but every time you ignore questions (although admittedly you didn't ignore mine this time),

I would appreciate, in all sincerity, the precise questions that feel I most should have answered but didn't. I feel that you may be representative of how people percieve these posts, and where they feel I am waffling on everything.

"every time you respond to requests for clarity with more obscurity, that hope slips a little further away. I am inclined to concur with Bryan Ekers' last comment"

I need an 'objective' veiw of the questions I'm avoiding to understand where my error is. Which ones stand out as the most grievous ommissions to you?? That you think... everyone who reads this is saying; "pfft.. that guy just never answers that simple question, what an ass."

I need to know _these_ questions to communicate, aparently they aren't obvious to me; the most flagrant ones...

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-13-2002, 04:50 AM

I don't see any reason why all of the thoughts we hold in our heads have to fit together exactly with no overlaps, no gaps and no unsightly forced junctions; perhaps the best example of this is something Lib touched on a while back:
Photons - sometimes it is helpful for us to consider them particles, other times it is helpful for us to consider them waves and yet at the same time as holding these apparently contrary views we are aware that neither is absolutely correct or more correct than the other.

I believe that sometimes the only way that progress can be made on a concept is to temporarily totally ignore the interfaces between that concept and many of the others; perhaps a good analogy (although maybe not) would be computing:
If I am writing a program in (say) Visual Basic, the correct function of the program is entirely dependent on a vast number of layers; the syntax and structure of my program and data; the correct function of the compiler, the correct function of the Operating system (which itself consists of quite a few layers), the processor and memory as a whole, the individual transistors inside the processor; the chemical and physical properties of the semiconductors, the nature of electrons.

Now in this particular case there is pretty much a hierarchy, but we could just as easily be talking about systems that cycle or iterate in a network pattern.

In practice I can comfortably ignore most of what is happening on the few layers below the one at which I'm working and certainly everything that is happening at very low levels; for me to be worrying about the nature of electrons while writing a database app in VB is nothing more than an unhelpful distraction; to try to think of everything at once is to become hopelessly bound.

That's not to say that a concept can be permanently isolated from the wider domain, but most of the time (I find) it helps to work on it in isolation, then having resolved it internally (as far as possible), try to fit it back into context. If it doesn't fit, is that because one of the adjacent concepts is flawed or maybe we need to examine the connections, maybe adjusting the connections will generate some new internal inconsistencies which we must examine and so on.

To imagine that you can hold and comprehend the totality of the universe in your mind all at once, right down to every smallest detail is (IMHO) simply to delude yourself.

Mangetout

09-13-2002, 04:57 AM

Justhink: I apologise if my comments have appeared overly harsh.

I think it would be fair to say that what you try to express are views of (what you perceive to be) meta-systems; it is probably near impossible to tackle everything all at once in a single debate. Perhaps you are simply trying to cover too much ground with each stride.

Justhink

09-13-2002, 05:15 AM

Thank you Mangeout.

It is very hard to hold all of those replies that we all know are waiting on the other end "drooling for us" so to speak; and address all of them. Part of my obsessiveness is in trying to answer every reply that I know is possible from what I'm trying to type. It seems to come out as a big jumble! *sigh*

In terms of where we (you and I) just stood in relation to the OP.

I'm saying that we can discern counter-intelligence by using the mechanism of suicide implied in the social contract that we just discussed.

Even from my very first post (maybe it makes more sense now); I stated that we can derive these ideas MUCH further than simple:

"Nothing exists"

Everyone would still agree on all the added principles, to such a degree, that to dismiss even one of them; everyone aknowledges that you must by necessity revert back to:

"Nothing exists."

Which we all concluded is not tenable to the social contract.
It's not to deny that it is or can be true (that nothing is real); we just happen to aggree that those who hold this opinion revoke their citizenship within that contract we just established.

I lept through a few permutations very close to "difference" in the deconstructive sense.

Perception of difference is change, and whatever other one I threw in there at the time in relation to discernment. There are logical steps that we can all agree upon in the context of a social contract. The primary purpose of this OP, is to say:
1.)"Hey, we can do this."
2.)"We can use this to locate logical corruption instantly (the type that nullifies the primay social contract)"
3.)"We'll have proof of who all of our criminals are, by exactly what acts they are engaged in and what speech patterns hey use."
4.)"We can prove that the power structure in America is primarily achieved through a metabolism of contradictions; through the cannibalism of their own existential value, by violating this primary social contract"

(granted, I took another short-cut to phrase number 4)

We can use the mechanism OF suicide to calculate where hypocrisy lies. All one is required to do, is match behavior against the knowledge that non-action was a possibility. You can calculate morality from the primary indentured system; by crawling up that wall, without ever once deviating. You can create a constitution of flawless moral logic; which effectively collapses opinion on the matter.

That's what I'm bringing up here in so many words!

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-13-2002, 05:28 AM

I think (I'm not sure) that you are talking about permanent absolute objective morality; I'm not sure that such a thing exists or would be discernable if it did.

glee

09-13-2002, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
If you don't already _know_ it; then I have to use subversive techniques counter-intelligence to convert you. Doing so, would render my action as being negative of my own existential value; it would be more logical to commit suicide.

If your message (whatever it is) makes sense, why do you need to use 'subversive counter-intelligence' (whatever that is) to convert us?

Are you then saying that if you do use 'subversive counter-intelligence', it demeans you so much that you'd rather kill yourself?

Something seems to matter a lot to you - do you know what it is?

Originally posted by Justhink
I'm not seeing how people don't understand this though....

It's because you don't use English correctly:

- you use undefined terms
- you use long words and phrases instead of simple clear ones
- you throw out wild destinies and make claims without supporting evidence

Originally posted by Justhink
If you declare:

"I don't believe anything at all."

You have forfeited all societal rights of commodity. You have forfeited food, water, conversation, companionship....

Let me get this straight. The punishment for a crime is to put someone in solitary confinement, refuse to let even their jailors talk to them and starve them to death.

:eek:

And this appalling crime is rape, murder, paedophilia, genocide...?
No, according to you, it's simply saying "I don't believe anything at all."

Are you sane?

Even assuming I go along with your astonishing over-reaction:
What if someone claims they said it as a joke, or they didn't mean it?
What if they repent?

OK, I disagree totally with this premise.
But look what follows:

Originally posted by Justhink
It is the crux of counter-intelligence, that a person should speak this and then proceed to accept and/or use any of those commodities just mentioned. It is also the crux of counter-intelligence to BELIEVE this and actually STATE it.

Well then I don't accept 'counter-intelligence'.
Gosh, it's getting easier to cope with your meanderings!

Just for laughs...

since, according to you, 'It is also the crux of counter-intelligence to BELIEVE this and actually STATE it', which should lead to execution by starvation, are all counter-intelligence people automatically martyrs?

Originally posted by Justhink
The base contract of intelligence amongst all beings, is that perception of difference exists. A being should not be rewarded with ANY commodity if they renounce this contract within the confines of existence within a society.

Ooooh, a worldwide base contract!
(Funny, I don't remember signing it.)
If that was the base contract, what are the others?

I would have thought a more likely basis for all human interaction would be 'the labourer is worthy of his hire'.

As previous posters have commented, there doesn't seem to be a massive group marching and holding up placards saying 'I don't believe in anything', then demanding the rest of us give them free food and lodging.

I need to go and communicate with some pupils now.

Originally posted by Justhink
Hopefully I communicated these ideas better......
-Justhink

No, you didn't.

Mangetout

09-13-2002, 06:43 AM

Justhink; I think another part of the problem may be that you are assuming that some of the fundaments of your view/argument are self-evident (or at least already understood by your audience); they are not.

Perception of difference probably is universal; the passage of time cannot be percieved without some sort of change occurring (even if that change is limited to brain states in isolation).

Sure, 'difference does not exist' is an absurd statement at basic levels, but it can be quite valid at higher ones; difference exists between individual physical objects; one atom is distinct and different from another; one sugar or protein molecule is distinct and different from another; one green apple is different from another; difference exists but sometimes it is entirely irrelevant; as long as neither of them is poisoned or otherwise spoiled and they are the similar sizes etc... does it matter which green apple I eat? - difference exists but does not always matter.

Justhink

09-13-2002, 01:18 PM

"""Gosh, it's getting easier to cope with your meanderings!""""

That's because we are now speaking the same language. You are asking intelligent questions in relation to what I was attempting to convey. It can only be my fault, for whatever reason that it took this many posts to communicate this basic articulation and illuminate these questions. Now, it's on to step 2; I assert the reasoning behind what seems like a loose strain of unrelated or unverifiable associations..... "Over-reactions" as you stated. I begin addressing the questions that you have left open, and eventually, the implications of such a logical system being written.

One of the hazards is the potential loss of sentience for the person constructing this axiomic system of moral law; cannibalizing opinion in the process, by collapsing a resource.
Another one of the implications is how society would react to a proof of criminality bound to an unassailable definition of sanity; the punishment always being the same; because the crime is always the same.

You are quite right in articulating that I run this crime as parallel to rape, pedophelia, genocide etc.... It becomes clear, that these are all derivatives of one basic crime; embedded in the structure of rationality itself. Derivative of the structure which holds the human abstraction of their own awareness securely in place; the indentured system.

Any logic built upon this syetm, without derivation, will by necessity define sanity. It's more like an archeological dig; than a creation... a meticulous uncovering of the structure that allows the elasticity for sentience to flow.

We're getting somewhere! My claims are still unsubstantiated!
This is good; we're speaking the same language now.

-Justhink

glee

09-13-2002, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
"Gosh, it's getting easier to cope with your meanderings!"

That's because we are now speaking the same language. You are asking intelligent questions in relation to what I was attempting to convey. It can only be my fault, for whatever reason that it took this many posts to communicate this basic articulation and illuminate these questions. Now, it's on to step 2; I assert the reasoning behind what seems like a loose strain of unrelated or unverifiable associations..... "Over-reactions" as you stated. I begin addressing the questions that you have left open, and eventually, the implications of such a logical system being written.

Umm, no. My sentence above is sarcasm. I still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I was seriously considering opening a new thread to start again.

We can do it in this thread if you like.
Here is your first sentence from your first post:

Originally posted by Justhink
America is without doubt the most counter-intelligent society on earth; simply by virtue of its data flooding and its natural urge to leave terms open ended for corruption.

You need to define 'counter-intelligent', 'data flooding' and 'leaving terms open ended for corruption'.

DO NOT GIVE A 'DEFINITION' LIKE THIS:

Originally posted by Justhink
Counter-intelligence is observed by the phenomenon where an individual expresses something contrary to the implied social contract; and as a result (of violating the contract), gains the benefit of what is attributed to the expression of following that contract.

This explanation is completely opaque (it needs about 4 definitions itself). If possible, use the 800 words of basic English.

Originally posted by Justhink
We're getting somewhere! My claims are still unsubstantiated!
This is good; we're speaking the same language now.
-Justhink

You are an optimist, aren't you?!

Justhink

09-13-2002, 11:07 PM

Let's just clear up what you're asking here. You're asking someone with a 5th grade education, who is paranoid about books, to define intelligence for the eyes of the intellectuals to veiw. To even move into what 'counter' intelligence is, one must first define intelligence (unless you want me to submit the the reasons why I see this as prudent or meaningful); clarify the definition as applying beyond all reason, and then define 'counter', and equally qualify those reasons; providing clear examples. I accept your challenge =)

First, I need to apologize in advanced for taking the SHORT-CUT, of not explaining in the same breath why a definition of intelligence is required before a definition, and practical application, of the term 'counter'. Clearly, without the laborous analysis, you can state that the word 'counter' cannot logically apply to intelligence, since I haven't shown the evidence of how that fusion is possible or meaningful. This is the type of problem that burdens me when posting here.

First!!! I'll just stick to the definition of intelligence for this post.
I will imply elements of something else that can be related to intelligence, but not precisely define counter-intelligence in the way I hold it conceptually.

My second post will be a definition of 'counter' and the reasons why the word can be existentially associated with the concept of intelligence. Then, I'll be required to comb through every one of those probabilities and make a convincing case that there is a rational association for the two existing as a conceptual union that is 'worth' talking about. Noramlly, I'd be compelled to prove why I take the time writing this post instead of committing suicide; but I imagine people aren't interested in those details...maybe you want to see that proof too!

I'd be more than happy to define all of the reasons for all of my actions. In fact, I'd suggest a measure of confidence that I can do it in a way that would be inarguable, and utterly convincing beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, first I have to define reason, and doubt; the conceptual link with the ability to reason.
Also describing the ability to reason doubt; again, proving why I am 'required' to type it...... in order for any of it to make sense at all.

I have a very clear sense of what is required to post something, so that it is meaningful. Unfortunately, there is something called bandwidth. Does anyone really want to see a three word post decompiled with a 50 page proof attatched to it, as to why I didn't commit suicide instead of posting the reply, and how that logic is validated from the very conception of our perception of awareness? I may as well write a novel for my sig! Except, every time I post, the novel will have to be re-written - the problem, is that I do add these into the post to some degree; and I'm imagining that's part of why it comes out so jumbled.
I'm trying to convey my reason for living, for thinking the thoughts in the post, doing the actions required to post, and then describing the actual thoughts in the post and relating them to thoughts that are interpreting the post - all in a means that is existentially valid. If I make a mistake, to big of one.. I have disproven my existential viability, and must come to the logical conclusion that my existence is no longer required. I feel a little bit of pressure when I post.

Please, in light of this; grant me a margin of lee-way on the issue of transparency.

First, one needs to define intelligence.
I would define it loosely as: "that which posesses consistency."
The definition of intelligence doesn't make any tangible human sense if it is not seen as being synonymous with:

Rationality; that which is comprehensible.

The duality: That which can be comprehended/That which is comprehended.

It's to suggest that something HAS to be comprehesible (rational, consistent) in order to be comprehended (circular, I know.. but hear it out). (I can already see the "No it doesn't!" , but that comes back to why I'm continuously taking steps to back this up by drawing the line between what is absurd and what isn't, from an existential veiw (i.e. we exist or we don't exist).

What we say about intelligence (loosely), is that it acts according to comprehensibility even if it's not observed to have abstracted that comprehension.

We say that we're intelligent. We also say that mice are intelligent, yet we have very good evidence that mice don't abstract their intelligence in a very specific way that we (think we)do.

So it follows that intelligence has nothing to do with the ability to abstract it; but rather the form of consistancy which allows for it's existence. Intelligence is said to only bind to consistancies; without which, absolute chaos would create a state where intelligence cannot cohesively bond existentially. It's to articulate intelligence as a parasitic life-form, that requires certain conditions in order to exist... yet in order for those conditions to exist; intelligence itself doesn't need to exist. In a fundamental sense, I'd suggest that intelligence is contingent to existence; and that symbiosis is not an observed phenomenon of the relationship between intelligence and its host. The host, being 'cohesion' in an abstract sense. I'll return to this idea.

Choas is a 'no-mans' land for the conditions necessary for intelligence to bond.
While the definition of what is or is not chaotic changes, as we gain more knowledge (or different knowledge), more observation of patterns and consistancies; the basic premise remains::::

Chaos is the area in which intelligence does not bond. In stasis, it is a matter of elasticity and rigidity. In chaos, it is a matter of substance and cohesiveness. Intelligent systems have a barrier, which we percieve through the vehicle of that intelligence. The definitions of the barriers, articulate the body of: rationality.

Intelligence (the abstraction of it, to be sure) hardens when all the laws governing it are realized by it. This is the static catatonia of intelligence, whereby it collapses into itself out of the cause and effect loop. You see; when you know all the effects of each cause; intelligence cannot abstract how it can cause anything.
This is the static (stasis) collapse; and this is one of the boundaries drawn for intelligence. It collapses into a state of absolute cohesiveness.

The other notable barrier that allows for the condition of intelligence is the phenomenal barrier; there must exist a 'substance' to which it can attach itself onto (outside of itself with consistancies); or else the abstraction is impossible.

This is charachterized by knowing the effect of every cause; whereby intelligence cannot frame the possibility of its own effect (its own body, or an external body).
Another state which collapses intelligence into itself.

A variation of solipsism holds:
I create everything. This is a statement of omni-potence. If the mind rationalizes this veiw with enough conviction and consistancy, the body required and used to act out this perception, will become completely dissociated from the logic necessary to reach the conclusion that it has acted on 'another' body. The entire concept of its own body; collapses in this sense.

Of the two types of schizophrenia witnessed; which lend themselves to catatonia, the omni-scient and omni-potent ones have been explained here.

What we know, is the TREND. If you mark the _logic_ of a schizophrenic who invariably reaches catatonia, you will notice an increase in their internal consistancy to validate either omni-potence or omni-science. This observation is referred to as simulated omni-science (as in, "it has no basis in fact; it just proves itself in a closed system, which doesn't charachterize our phenomenal reality.).

As the logic of the omni-scient version of schizophrenia progresses; they will offer more and more answers, to vaguer and vaguer questions, even ones they wouldn't have had a clue about even a week ago. Somehow, their frame of reference is stuck on something we don't associate with in our phenomenal world (which is why we call it irrational). They then use that frame of reference to codify all knowledge, before the brain slips into the catatonia where it cannot distinguish the reason to move the body in the sense of an ego. The ego dissolves into an absolute cause and effect system; by disproving the will or disproving the substance on which to activate the will.

What is observed in these extreme cases, where the collapse is slow enough to record; is that the biology can be traced by mapping the logical trend. From our vantage point; we call their 'omni-science' absurd. It's a trick. It's a simulation of omni-science; not the _real_ thing. Their ability to know all things is not congruent with what we consider proof or knowledge; yet we can note that they increase their claim of knowledge with an exponential growth, as they progress towards collapsing into catatonia. This observation holds significant consistancy with the obervation that: "You cannot truly be objective.".

It is one of the un-absurd agreements we aknowledge about existence. To be objective (in the neurotic sense), you have to literally be the object which you are 'studying'. The obvious observation here, is that if there is any part of you left behind in which to transfer the data; YOU have not _COMPLETELY_ become the object!

So.. I've been rambling for a while here; simply trying to nail down the definition of intelligence before tackling counter-intelligence.

I believe the sharpest way we can define intelligence is to suggest that it is the: property of cohesion without stasis.

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

I believe this to be so, because we define things as being intelligent which do not (from our 'common' veiw) abstract in this very precise way that we call 'human' intelligence. Intelligence is ascribed a broader territory than that which requires OUR existence to exist. It is the idea, that if all people were dead; mice would still be intelligent. If deconstructed towards its logical conclusion; even rocks would be seen as intelligent... though admittedly their time-scale and reproductive cycles are much subtler than our own. What we define as intelligence is basically: existence!!

**Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

If you look at that definition carefully; you'll realize that anything outside this definition is oblivion, absolute stasis or absolute chaos. Theoretically, these states cannot exist AT ALL in an absolute sense in any corner of the universe (intelligently at least), without making all of our agreements absurd and impossible.

Now, that's not to say that these states cannot exist as SIMULATIONS; like a psychiatrist would acknowledge of schizophrenic omni-scient catatonia. There is a clear line we draw as intelligent beings; that there are states which can be expressed - or 'counter'-to-our intelligence, but cannot _actually_ exist, or else rationality is proven as being impossible.

Look at the definition I came up with while banging this thing out......

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

For one; you'll notice that this is an extremely 'human'-centric or egocentric definition of intelligence, even in the most broad use.
Is there a point where 'us-centrism' is rational?
It satisfies all of the criteria that we apply to intelligence, without stepping into areas we all mark as 'absurd'. How we come to call some aspects 'absurd' and other aspects 'intelligent' is what the next post will be about. The next post will help qualify the relativistic conundrum of intelligence, by introducing the close observation of what is unillaterally discarded as being intelligent.

What do people agree is NOT intelligent?
Is there a valid reason that can be demonstrated, which compells one to accept that intelligence exists and that it must be defined within the realm of our perception to hold any value outside of ourselves?

Lastly, how does this stuff relate to the real world?

-Justhink

Justhink

09-13-2002, 11:32 PM

Actually, my second post will be this:

I banged this out, without really knowing what my definition would be; I didn't have one canned. I still haven't openned up a dictionary on the term, and am not particularly interested to.
I took MANY shortcuts, because each and every word needs to be defined in a binary sense; moving from the very base of that which is logically existential (exists logically), and that which collapses logic. It would take several hundred pages to qualify all the words I used and to qualify the significance for their existence in reality, _and_ why other words couldn't or shouldn't have been used instead .. why it has to be 600 words or 6000 words. I even took a few conceptual shortcuts, which I plan to highlight in the section on 'counter' intelligence. However; I think you'll be hard pressed to find a more concise and efficient definition of intelligence than the one I came up with here. Adding anything to it, muddles it up a bit; it adds an ideology to intelligence, that is not present in the general sense that humans talk about it.

To that degree, I have a slight 'contempt' for dictionaries (not really, but the idea that they are absolute authority). Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean THAT definition is at all relevant to how a term is cognisized by human beings.
Human beings can fundamentally discern these truths for themselves IMO. Maybe you're interested in how this definition compares with the dictionary... look it up *shrug*. I'd guess that the dictionary uses a definition that is equal to or less concise than the one presented here. I do not think you will find a 'better' definition of intelligence in the dictionary. What I'm saying, is that there are ways we can discern truth more efficiently than research. This is part of the scope of what I'm planning on discussing in this thread.

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

Start arguing with me on this definition, if you disagree. Some of those will be answered below; but I can garantee that some were simply skipped over by my inability to be concise. I believe I can argue this definition as being more concise and efficient than any other. There is a little left to unravel in this definition (why do humans believe this philosophically, in such a means as to define it this way).. but not even dictionaries concern themselves with those details.

I may write like an idiot, but I can come up with damned good definitions =)

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 01:32 AM

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

Well, we haven't particularly abstracted this to measure it. If you can't measure it - discern 'more of / less of' to some degree; then you are declaring the absurd:

"Everything is exactly the same."

There was discussion of areas that render the isolation of intelligence as meaningless in the last post. These are the frames of reference from which it was extracted; to give intelligence a selective, existentially positive validation.

Chaos, stasis, nothing.

Without our perception of these states; our articulation of intelligence would seem so absurd, that we may as well stop eating food. If you believe everything is exactly the same; then what's the point of talking about intelligence? There are two fundamentally different ways of veiwing this that must be articulated first:

*We use these ideas to distinguish intelligence from anything at all.
*These states exist, and as such, inherently distinguish intelligence for us to percieve.

Anyways....

How do we abstract intelligence for measurement; to 'prove' that this distinction is not what we are distinguishing it from, or something else altogether?

With intelligence, this abstraction is: efficiency. (moreso, the efficiency for consistancy)

What is more or less intelligent, is determined by measuring efficiency in an additionally abstracted reference frame.

First we have abstracted intelligence itself as 'rational existence'; a congruency, a consistancy, a cohesion that is not static.

Then we abstract intelligence from another frame of reference: dependancy.

We have abstracted that intelligence is dependant upon NOT being:

Chaos, stasis, nothing.

Dependance gets abstracted to resource of sustainence, and next; to consumption. Consumption gets abstracted to scarcity.
(I'm not asserting that these abstractions are in perfect order, nor that there aren't missing ones in between; they are cerainly in the 'top 25' so to speak =)

Putting words into the mouth of intelligence (anthropromorphism, or animism; whatever you prefer)
"If there is no chaos, stasis or nothing; then I cannot exist."

There's this sense at the very beginning of all of this conceptual mapping; that rationality defines the state of 'existence' (in our centric veiw) as well as the state of observing it; or::
being observable by being expressed. There's a lot of circular logic here, however, at this stage in the process; it seems very clear what happens if there isn't a 'circulation'.... rationality enters a linear pathway right into the states which annihilate it; at which point we can conclude our universal absurdity, and that intelligence is actually counter-intelligently concieved.

(notes to self)
While there are compelling insights about contradictions and the 'metabolic process concept'; affirming these speculations opens a slippery slope in regards to the ability of intelligent beings to remain a cohesive structure; and as such, borders on the absurd. I would personally suggest that it must be absurd, as evidenced by the conceptions related to conservation from existential vaccuums noted in nature and social systems.

Anyhow, what is the relationship between intelligence and its percieved negation?

--wow, I don't have the endurance or the processing speed to harmonize this right now; I need a break..

These are the notes so far..

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 02:16 AM

"""""You need to define 'counter-intelligent', 'data flooding' and 'leaving terms open ended for corruption'.

DO NOT GIVE A 'DEFINITION' LIKE THIS:"""""""""

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

"""This explanation is completely opaque (it needs about 4 definitions itself). If possible, use the 800 words of basic English."""

I want to impress upon you:
How many people in the world do you think can actually define intelligence?
Of those who do, how many words do you think their average BOOK contains?
Of those books, how many of those definitions have the clarity, precision and transparency that I just submitted here (assuming that definition is even meaningful, or meaningfully backed up).

This is great debates. You are aware that people will debate the existence of intelligence. But no! You want me to define 4 terms and the reasons for defining them as such in 800 words (if I can).

That factorization required for an 800 word definition is staggering; if its even possible given the divide of concptual frameworks between individuals.

If I totally failed at conveying this definition (and continue to fail - I have more to ADD just to define and validate counter-intelligence); then at least you can consider that I gave it my best shot, and that it just wasn't good enough.

I'm not trying to play mind games here (unless you consider all of this mental masterbation; which we could equally humor a debate on). I'm actually sitting here and exerting effort, thinking about my replies. I don't mind you completely disagreeing with me on every point.....

Again, I want to impress upon you the sheer profundity of a clean response to the definition of intelligence. There is a slight chance that my contribution here on that topic alone (discounting the OP); may be the best written example that humans have to date on the conceptual framework for isolating and articulating intelligence.

-Justhink

glee

09-14-2002, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
Let's just clear up what you're asking here. You're asking someone with a 5th grade education, who is paranoid about books, to define intelligence for the eyes of the intellectuals to veiw. To even move into what 'counter' intelligence is, one must first define intelligence (unless you want me to submit the the reasons why I see this as prudent or meaningful); clarify the definition as applying beyond all reason, and then define 'counter', and equally qualify those reasons; providing clear examples. I accept your challenge =)

Oh dear.

First, I didn't ask you to define intelligence.

I have a dictionary for that:

Intelligence -

1.
(a) the intellect; the understanding
(b) (of a person or animal) quickness of understanding; wisdom

2.
(a) the collection of information, especially of military or political value
(b) people employed in this
(c) information so collected

And the definition of intellect -

1.
(a) the faculty of reasoning, knowing and thinking (as distinct from feeling)
2. A clever or intellectual person

From this I can give examples of the use of the word intelligence:

Major Brown was renowned for his intelligence. He was careful about revealing classified information, so didn't say he worked in Intelligence.

I won't bother to define counter.

Secondly, my problem (and it's shared by almost all SDMB posters), is that you lump two words together, without apparently knowing what either means. You don't explain what the concept means either.

I'm sorry you're paranoid about books. Personally I love them, which is why I have an extensive vocabulary and communicate clearly.

Originally posted by Justhink
First, I need to apologize in advanced for taking the SHORT-CUT, of not explaining in the same breath why a definition of intelligence is required before a definition, and practical application, of the term 'counter'. Clearly, without the laborous analysis, you can state that the word 'counter' cannot logically apply to intelligence, since I haven't shown the evidence of how that fusion is possible or meaningful. This is the type of problem that burdens me when posting here.

You need to look up a definition of short cut. :rolleyes:

You don't need to show if a fusion of two words is possible or meaningful. Just tell us what you mean by 'counter-intelligence'.

You seem to assume problems that haven't arisen (and may never arise) must be dealt with. But if no-one understands what you mean, those problems are irrelevant.

Originally posted by Justhink
First!!! I'll just stick to the definition of intelligence for this post.
I will imply elements of something else that can be related to intelligence, but not precisely define counter-intelligence in the way I hold it conceptually.

F*ck me! (Sorry moderaters, but you try reading the above!)

Justhink,
I don't want implications of other elements. I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.
If you can't do that, then maybe you don't know what you mean.

Originally posted by Justhink
My second post will be a definition of 'counter' and the reasons why the word can be existentially associated with the concept of intelligence. Then, I'll be required to comb through every one of those probabilities and make a convincing case that there is a rational association for the two existing as a conceptual union that is 'worth' talking about. Noramlly, I'd be compelled to prove why I take the time writing this post instead of committing suicide; but I imagine people aren't interested in those details...maybe you want to see that proof too!

Here's a word for you to look up - psychobabble.

You don't need to give reasons why two words can be associated.
You don't need to comb through probablilities.
If you seriously think that writing to a message board equates to suicide, then you need to see a mental health professional.
I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.

Originally posted by Justhink
I'd be more than happy to define all of the reasons for all of my actions. In fact, I'd suggest a measure of confidence that I can do it in a way that would be inarguable, and utterly convincing beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, first I have to define reason, and doubt; the conceptual link with the ability to reason.
Also describing the ability to reason doubt; again, proving why I am 'required' to type it...... in order for any of it to make sense at all.

Blah blah blah.
I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.

Originally posted by Justhink
I have a very clear sense of what is required to post something, so that it is meaningful.

Absolutely untrue.
You don't understand communication, and appear to have severe problems which require professional help.

In case I haven't made myself clear:
I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.

Justhink

09-14-2002, 01:30 PM

"""First, I didn't ask you to define intelligence."""

I replied to you before you responded (or read my post):
"To even move into what 'counter' intelligence is, one must first define intelligence (unless you want me to submit the the reasons why I see this as prudent or meaningful);"

What I was getting to, in a sense of clarity and transparency is:

For the sake of brevity, I will assume that you do not require the quite laborious catalogue of reason that 'proves' (I haven't done it yet, so we can't estalish whether its actually a proof) you ARE soliciting a definition of intelligence.

I'm basically suggesting that it's absurd that you're NOT soliciting a definition of intelligence, by asking me for a definition of counter-intelligence. I consider it so absurd, that for the sake of brevity; I'm assuming you won't require THIS debate. I added this, for the sake of transparency, to alert the reader that steps HAVE been skipped (why I consider this prudent, is another debate).

In order to save time, I then proceeded to define intelligence.

Aparently, you DO require the debate of why it is prudent and meaningful to define intelligence before defining counter-intelligence. You DO require the debate as to why you're soliciting MY specific definition of intelligence, by asking me to define counter-intelligence, in the way that I concieve it. As much as you express your desire to save time; you don't show any evidence that a single short-cut will satisfy your end of this process (also a debate).

I am MORE than willing to have each and every one of these debates with you (a debate). I am invested in conveying my conceptual framework to you (a debate). I am not being sarcastic where it appears I might be attempting to (also a debate). It also requires a lot of extra text to communicate why I believe a statement of judgement about you (i.e. "you're demanding a definition of intelligence from me"), is prudent, and not a luxury of sarcasm or snobbery.

I can qualify, and am willing to qualify, why I am forcing necessary perceptions into your intent, like:

"You have to know that you are intending for me to define intelligence in order for you to accept my definition of counter-intelligence." You clearly specified an interest in my definition, or at least a clarification of my concept here, so that we could communicate further about the OP (also a debate).

Your questions are revealing to me, that you are demanding thouroghness (I may be wrong, this is a debate). There have been posters, who in their questions to my posts; convey to me that they have resolved the implied debates which they didn't seek clarification on. Of course, I actually have no way of knowing for sure whether they do understand it the way I'm picturing it (also a debate =)

I appreciate your questions. They demand thoroughness, and to me, they express the movement of intelligence, just as much as those who gloss over many of the implied debates.

I am stating, that I believe you are demanding thoroughness, of an extreme sort, which I am willing to convey. I see that thoroughness as prudent, even if it may seem absurd (to the extent that I would catagorize it as extreme). That is why we have debates =)

""""""Secondly, my problem (and it's shared by almost all SDMB posters), is that you lump two words together, without apparently knowing what either means. You don't explain what the concept means either.""""""""

That's why I asked you for the words and concepts that were most critical to you. You offerred three. I plan to share my conceptual framework for all three.

"""""You seem to assume problems that haven't arisen (and may never arise) must be dealt with. But if no-one understands what you mean, those problems are irrelevant."""""

Everyone is not demanding the same degree of thoroughness on each and every word. I personally _know_ that those problems exist. They are existential counters to my reason for posting, and as such, I feel compelled and qualified to mention them. It would be deceptive for me not to. Also, what's the point of starting a conversation if you already know why people may have concluded the entire topic has been negated?

"""You don't need to give reasons why two words can be associated.
You don't need to comb through probablilities.""""

I believe I can make a very compelling debate showing that you are setting me up for failure; by demanding certain thoroughness and then critisizing the purpose of its expression.

"""I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it."""

This assumes that my understanding of a concept is simple, from anyones perspective. It requires me to define simplicity, which again, is a pretty heavy philosophical question. You're asking me to define simplicity and intelligence. Those are very daunting questions! I'm willing to address them.

Again, you're demanding thoroughness, and critisizing the expression of it.

"""Justhink,
I don't want implications of other elements. I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.
If you can't do that, then maybe you don't know what you mean."""

Wow. This is the very isolation of absurdity that I've been articulating. A person demands resource at the expense of the conception of discernment.

"""""I have a dictionary for that:""""""

I offered to debate any definition in the dictionary, against my own.

"""""Absolutely untrue.
You don't understand communication, and appear to have severe problems which require professional help.""""""

Another debate: My mental health and my complete negation of existence by declaring something which is _absolutely_ untrue.

I'm under the impression that for anyone to speak an absolute untruth; existince goes: *poof*. I am certainly willing to articulate why I understand this to be the case. I have eluded to it a few times in this post, already; and why it is absurd to say such things.

""""If you seriously think that writing to a message board equates to suicide, then you need to see a mental health professional."""""

I'm suggesting here, that the mechanism of suicide (conceptually), can be translated materially to derive truth to such a degree as to collapse opinion. I am also suggesting that this mechanism is used by everybody (whether they abstract it or not; like the conception of difference, we all agree that it is absurd to deny it once you abstract it.).

I noticed 981 veiws of this thread. My sincere apologies for the 9/11 associations... this as meant to be an associative thread on the pervasiveness of counter-intelligence on western societies, something (in America) I veiw as significantly concentrated in the media and logical patterns of how we socialize over here. It looks like lots of definition talk will emerge (if anyone has a continued interest in learning the scope of what I am willing to post here (which in this topic is pretty unlimited)). Anyways, lots of definition talk before the comparisons are made. There will eventually emerge discussion of how to solicit intelligence from yourself; using counter-intelligence techniques (again, if anyone holds interest); and also practical analysis into how a person can retreive data without using more than a pen, yourself and a peice of paper. It may even move into how to write a moral law that cannot be destroyed without insanity, and some.. if not all of the tenets of these laws. It will probably discuss how these laws can be used to discern moral corruption; through infinite layers of encryption (basically making encryption impossible - irrelevant).
Methods of how to collapse resources like mad, from the base indentured system; including opinion, and the implications of proceeding down this path.

Lots of interesting 'dope' IMO.

*shrug*

I am willing to convey all of this conceptual framework, and the methods of applications. (how to do it, and as such; prove it)

-Justhink

glee

09-14-2002, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
My second post will be a definition of 'counter' and the reasons why the word can be existentially associated with the concept of intelligence.

The world doesn't need your definition of counter. We already have one:

Counter (noun) -

1. A long flat-topped fitment in a shop, bank...

2. A small disc used for keeping the score...

3. An apparatus used for counting...

4. A person who counts something

Counter (verb) -

1. oppose, contradict...

2. make a countermove...

3. (boxing) give a return blow while parrying...

Counter (adverb) -

1. in the opposite direction...

2. contrary...

I don't care if the words counter and intelligence are existential or not. I just want to know what you mean by them.

Originally posted by Justhink
I'd be more than happy to define all of the reasons for all of my actions. In fact, I'd suggest a measure of confidence that I can do it in a way that would be inarguable, and utterly convincing beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, first I have to define reason, and doubt; the conceptual link with the ability to reason.
Also describing the ability to reason doubt; again, proving why I am 'required' to type it...... in order for any of it to make sense at all.

Please bear in mind that you are generally incomprehensible.
I have no interest in your reasons, when I don't understand the first sentence you wrote.
Don't have confidence in your ability to define anything.
So far you have typed thousands of words (and mentioned committing suicide several times).
At no time have you managed to explain the first phrase you used.

Originally posted by Justhink
I have a very clear sense of what is required to post something, so that it is meaningful.

An ambitious claim. Cite?

Originally posted by Justhink
First, one needs to define intelligence.
I would define it loosely as: "that which posesses consistency."
The definition of intelligence doesn't make any tangible human sense if it is not seen as being synonymous with:

Rationality; that which is comprehensible.

The duality: That which can be comprehended/That which is comprehended.

You can (like the Mad Hatter) say that a word means what you want it to mean. However you will not be able to communicate anything meaningful.

According to you, 'intelligence' is "that which possesses consistency."
Well, custard (if properly made) is certainly possesses consistency.
So you define custard as intelligent, huh? :rolleyes:

A brain-damaged man who endlessly repeats certain actions 'possesses consistency'.
So he's intelligent, according to you. :smack:

Originally posted by Justhink
We say that we're intelligent.

Well I have the faculty of reasoning.
Are you claiming you're a bowl of custard?

Originally posted by Justhink
We also say that mice are intelligent, yet we have very good evidence that mice don't abstract their intelligence in a very specific way that we (think we)do.

Cite?

Originally posted by Justhink
So.. I've been rambling for a while here; simply trying to nail down the definition of intelligence before tackling counter-intelligence.

Sorry, I must have dozed off...

Originally posted by Justhink
I believe the sharpest way we can define intelligence is to suggest that it is the: property of cohesion without stasis.

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

Don't say 'we', please. The rest of us have a dictionary.
Since custard has cohesion without stasis, it looks like you are still confusing a food with thinking.

Originally posted by Justhink
If deconstructed towards its logical conclusion; even rocks would be seen as intelligent... though admittedly their time-scale and reproductive cycles are much subtler than our own. What we define as intelligence is basically: existence!!

Ah, I understand :rolleyes: - custard exists, so it is definitely intelligent.
And rocks have a reproductive cycle?!
What a wide range of knowledge you have.

Originally posted by Justhink
What do people agree is NOT intelligent?

Your posts.

Justhink

09-14-2002, 01:50 PM

"""I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it."""

Are you female? I realized the instant I made my last post, that it is a statistical anomaly for males to speak like this. Females communicate this specific conceptual pattern frequently in my experience. Females don't seem to have the conceptual framework to process the implied questions in statements, and map these consistantly in large quantities. As a result, they will speak them. It's a total shot in the dark, and a bit irrelevant considering what can be accomplished!

However, you are the one who brought up my mental illness.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 01:58 PM

"""""I don't care if the words counter and intelligence are existential or not. I just want to know what you mean by them."""""

I'm almost positive that you're female! You can embarass me right now; the odds that a male makes this conceptual pattern twice in a row are STAGGERING!!!

-Justhink

glee

09-14-2002, 02:14 PM

originally posted by Justhink
Normally, I'd be compelled to prove why I take the time writing this post instead of committing suicide...

This alarming sentence is why I questioned your sanity.

As for your 'guess', I'm a male (intelligent) teacher.
You come across as a male who thinks he's intelligent* (and doesn't understand women).

*but since I already showed you think custard is intelligent, this may not be a good thing.

I'm dealing with you as I would a pupil - who likes to show off, but doesn't realise how little he's achieving.

One last time (I don't give up easily):
What do you mean by the phrase 'counter intelligence'?

Logical Phallacy

09-14-2002, 02:18 PM

America was founded on the notion that all men are created equal.

I think thats bullshit.

Further more, capitalism and the other systems in place all rely on various degrees of ignorance to work, its simply the way it must be.

Justhink

09-14-2002, 02:36 PM

First, one needs to define intelligence.
I would define it loosely as: "that which posesses consistency."

This was to set a frame of reference that I immediately set about to back up. I considered it efficient to start here *shrug*.

Ah, I understand - custard exists, so it is definitely intelligent.
Since custard has cohesion without stasis, it looks like you are still confusing a food with thinking.
Well, custard (if properly made) is certainly possesses consistency.
So you define custard as intelligent, huh?

""""Well I have the faculty of reasoning.
Are you claiming you're a bowl of custard?"""""

The deepest part of the ocean is very dark. Not all things which are very dark are the deepest part of the ocean.

This articulates the abstraction where a possible property of an object is seperated from objects in general.
Intelligence is a possible property of custard. I'm of the mind that intelligence as a concept will expand to define custard as being intelligent. Intelligence is one of those 'funny' words; where the older one becomes, the larger the definition becomes.

Can a carrot be a 4x4x4 pastel rainbow cube? With genetic engineering; yeah!

Not all definitions are written in stone. What I'm doing here is drawing the conceptual line between what is absurd and what is not. (Is there anything which can be defined?) I believe this can be done in such a way; that someone 1000 years or even a million years from now, inspite of future technological and philosophical insight, will percieve a limitation to our current conception of truth.

How many people 2000 years ago would have thought you completely mad for asking whether a 4x4x4 pastel cube was a carrot or not? It really depends on the frequency those properties of association; if the basic properties are still there in a molecular sense, but disguised in a 'deceptive' (encrypted) sense, our mapping of carrot still relies (to a large degree) upon the frequency of our exposure to WHATEVER property is the vogue expression of a carrot.

I haven't made that specific argument; I would however make the argument that custard must be defined as intelligent, in order that our perception of intelligence maintain consistancy. That's not to say that all things intelligent must be custard. See the difference? It's about the 'molecular' definition (the ideal form); not the properties which one can exchange to disguise a fundamental truth.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 02:49 PM

The argument I've put forth in regards to defining intelligence, really touches upon this point you brought up! See what questions (can) do (or statements!), they seek clarity.

I'm basically stating (in terms of your question):

In order for our concept of intelligence to be consistent, custard must be a property of our concept of intelligence, and not the other way around.

(I'd urge 'God people' not to jump up and down in total victory if this argument asserts itself as true. There are many other factors in relation to that specific question that are being ommitted here).

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 03:01 PM

"""""America was founded on the notion that all men are created equal.

I think thats bullshit.

Further more, capitalism and the other systems in place all rely on various degrees of ignorance to work, its simply the way it must be."""""

Does America need capitalism?
If we define life as requiring ignorance to work; it does not take very long to validate absurdity as the most reasonable response to all action. What you've basically done IMO, is collapsed the whole point and necessity of this OP. This OP is concerned with whether intelligence can be isolated or not; if not, then the OP already is absurd from the get-go; and I may as well have saved myself the time by ceasing to exist before typing it. I'd suggest that the same holds for everyone. In saying that, I'm impressing the idea of why we need to find a line to draw. I'm stating that I believe it exists, where it exists, why we should believe it exists, how to measure it and how to recover the missing fragments of it.

I'm arguing that there is a line of rationality, and that we can excavate it. To not do so, is to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that suicide is the only truth of rationality; and everything else is by nature irrational.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 03:12 PM

Justhink: Before I steel myself to wade through your latest batch of posts, I'd like to ask a question; chewing over the parts that I think I understand from your earlier words in this thread, I'm left with an impression:

(I think) You believe that in any given situation there is a single logically identifiable 'best' or 'correct' course of action(or inaction) and that to reject this single possible path in favour of any other is morally/logically wrong or in some way indicative of deeply-flawed thinking/'counter intelligence' or something similarly negative.

Could you just confirm (as concisely as possible) if the above is representative of or similar to anything you've been trying to say here?

Bryan Ekers

09-14-2002, 03:41 PM

Wow, it's like watching a long slow boring train wreck.

Biggirl

09-14-2002, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Wow, it's like watching a long slow boring train wreck.

I'm finding glee and Mangetout's attempts at deconstruction and understanding quite entertaining. The trick is to only read Justhink's posts one time (or less). He really makes very little sense. Re-reading does not make him any more understandable and slows the train down considerably.

Justhink could have a long and productive stay here if the happy guy and the hungry guy could follow him around and translate.

Justhink

09-14-2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Mangetout
Justhink: Before I steel myself to wade through your latest batch of posts, I'd like to ask a question; chewing over the parts that I think I understand from your earlier words in this thread, I'm left with an impression:

(I think) You believe that in any given situation there is a single logically identifiable 'best' or 'correct' course of action(or inaction) and that to reject this single possible path in favour of any other is morally/logically wrong or in some way indicative of deeply-flawed thinking/'counter intelligence' or something similarly negative.

Could you just confirm (as concisely as possible) if the above is representative of or similar to anything you've been trying to say here?

Yes!!! That is percisely what I am saying. I'm also saying, that the scientific method can be revamped in such a means as to prove whether something is true before one even 'investigates' it.
It strikes me as equivilent to the phenomenon of now being able to save incredible time in determining whether a number is or is not prime. A _technology_ that was just excavated by us, digging up the site of 'rationality'.

I'm saying that we can literally build a program to spew out truth, in such a means that is the definition of rationality to us.

We have the technology to collapse the commodity of opinion.

I mentioned our abstraction of intelligence which allows us to detect and measure it: the efficiency of consistency.

I'm saying in so many words, that I'm almost at the point where I can apply our method of discernment for intelligence to intelligence itself; in a way that is 'infinitely' efficient (from our perceptual barrier that defines rationality).

-Justhink

Papermache Prince

09-14-2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
We have the technology to collapse the commodity of opinion.
-Justhink
Good god, man, you've just predicted the destruction of the Straight Dope Message Board.

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 05:41 PM

Okaaaay, and do you beleive that this principle applies at every level? (there's really a logical and moral difference between my eating a red apple and a green one when I feel no particular preference? (or if I'm going to peel it anyway) - there's a right and wrong choice?).

Justhink

09-14-2002, 05:53 PM

Mangetout:

This also leads to one of the articulations I intended to illuminate in the OP.

Remember when I said:

People don't work to create more work, they work to create more cognitive space.

And that Capitalism requires that people work to create more work, in order to exist as a structure.

You may also remember me saying in other threads:

People who invent things and use that association of their name and the process of recovery to accumulate commodity, are crooks.

Rationality seeks to collapse resources (and still say sentient!).

People who do this and irrational; as the only invention worth anything is the invention of invention itself. The attribution of glory to an individual for a process that is self-explanitory; is counter-intelligent. All that person is; is one of 6 billion people on this planet excavating the archeological site of: rationality.

To celebrate their find and throw a bunch of resource at them, is counter-intelligent. It is misdirective of what rationality represents!

It is a waste of time.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 06:07 PM

"""""Okaaaay, and do you beleive that this principle applies at every level? (there's really a logical and moral difference between my eating a red apple and a green one when I feel no particular preference? (or if I'm going to peel it anyway) - there's a right and wrong choice?).""""""

Part of this aspect is understanding the goal of rationality.
Was someone wasting their time spending 4 years processing an enormous marsine prime, just to seek a formula to collapse it, by observing the process? Probably not.

Are you wasting your time eating food, to stay alive in order to excavate the site of Rationality?

ONLY!! If it can be proven through the efficiency formulas of rationality itself, that your eating of food is counter-productive to the resource being utilized to collapse a critical resource; so that humans as a whole can assure their survival against a potential threat.

It can be proven when an act is specifically detrimental to the entire concept of rationality. Quite frankly, there MAY actually be a situation where a a different colored apple may be considered detrimental to rationality. I'd certainly offer that we don't know (haven't excavated) what types of causes and effects that eating different colored apples has on logical systems.

I will state, that there will be a discernable difference!!
It's just outside of our area of immediate focus; the act is at this point negligable, from our lack of focus. There is not much we can offer about that particular system of determinism.

What I'm saying, is that the program I'm concieving will instantly collapse moral opinion; that is without argue. Following this vein (as in a gold dig); will uncover even _more_ efficient opinion collapsers. People can bitch, deny and complain all they want; but when someone starts telling them their birthday and the meal they had exactly 1 decade ago; they'll take notice!!

Nobody believed in a nuclear bomb (except the researchers) until it blew up two entire cities. Then people who made fun of you, become very curious! In fact, they believe you now.

This is one of the problems of appeal to authority that I am confronting with this program. Authority can LIE, even though they weild the power, they can LIE about how they weild it.

I have every intention of collapsing this resource! I am tired of non-transparency and counter-intelligent behavior.

The hypocrite can stand in line with the rest of us, or they can take a hike.. as of now; they are having everything both ways, in a means that rationality conserves itself from.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 06:11 PM

I'm interested to know why you would think that the invention of invention or the pursuit of rationality is worthwhile.

Justhink

09-14-2002, 06:22 PM

You have to understand, that I'm basically a hermit. I'm not involved with a professional group environment here. For all I know; I'm the only one who's been uncovering and studying the dynamics of the indentured system (I've been doing it for a decade now). I'm offering a warning to people. This thing is coming, and if you are standing in one of the spots where it obliterates irrationality; YOU may be obliterated with it.

I'm telling people to prepare. I'm most concerned about those who operate their existence wholly counter-intelligently; such that their indentured system is hooked by counter-intelligent aquisition. These people need to swallow a 'humble pill', to some degree, to avoid annihilation. I live in America, I can observe from watching television and reading some materials that people are standing right in the center of the impact zone.

I'm hoping this transition will be smoothe; and not cost any life.

-Justhink

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 06:27 PM

""""I'm interested to know why you would think that the invention of invention or the pursuit of rationality is worthwhile."""

Rationality is the only thing that is worthwhile; it is absurd to suggest otherwise. By doing so, you collapse ALL logical meaning.
You prove that NOBODY can be RIGHT about ANYTHING. Think about that. Do you want that to be a law recognized by all human beings as the pinnicle of knowledge? If we are not puruising rationality, we can prove that we are pursuing nothing!

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 06:31 PM

What exactly are the benefits of this system and who will enjoy them?

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 06:34 PM

What is so bad about pursuing nothing? (or not specifically pursuing anything)

Justhink

09-14-2002, 06:39 PM

Ooops... On the invention of invention.

It allows a process of superconductive transport over the 'surface' where inventions are stored (this is all metaphorical, but not deceptive!). We use inventions to increase efficiency of excavating rationality. It is of the definition of rationality that this process of increased efficiency be undertaken, otherwise; we can be proven as doing nothing. Imagine that proof!

-Justhink

glee

09-14-2002, 06:49 PM

Justhink,
Let me sum up.

You claim:

- custard is intelligent

- rocks reproduce

- books make you paranoid

- it would take you too long to define one single phrase you invented (counter-intelligence) and there is a possibility that you would rather kill yourself

Okaaaay.

You know I said last time that I don't give up easily?

Well, I've now had enough of your ramblings.

1. Goodbye :confused:

2. What do you mean by the phrase 'counter intelligence'? :wally

3. Good luck Mangetout :rolleyes:

Justhink

09-14-2002, 06:50 PM

The proof that we are doing nothing!!!?? It collapses rationality into catatonia! It makes everyone an instant hypocrite, with no way out; it proves the principle of anarchy (which incidentally, I'm saying is not true!).

What you are doing, is drawing the line from rational and irrational. Intelligent and absurd. Anything that humans use of value, has been derived from the conception of intelligence. That a person does not apply the same principle required to create a language or a lightpost; with their use of that language or lightpost, is absurd.

There is an inherent irrationality to killing, that logistically makes it impossible for a person to pull the trigger to exact an effect which is percieved as intelligently executed. You are a hypocrite about your existential value as a person, BY NOT applying that principle to your actions.

You're exactly like the person who says, "I don't believe anything exists at all." And then proceeds to aquire a status in an intelligent society. This person is a welfare case to the extreme.

Rational society cannot support these people, nature does not support these people, when you observe the laws of how nature treats them.

It's the basic logical error that the uni-bomber made. He USED technology, yet he argued with every ounce of his being against it. All of the resource required to stop him (including our national focus); is the cost that society derives from these types of individuals.

His thoughts and his ability to even make his shelter are ALL technologies.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 07:02 PM

""""What exactly are the benefits of this system and who will enjoy them?""""

That the system HAS benefits.

Everybody will enjoy them.

Rational people cannot focus on the enjoyment of people who deny existence; it's a vaccuum tube for capital; it just sucks it up!

The person who doesn't recieve these 'benefits' are only people who say: "I don't believe in anything at all." "Everything is exactly the same."

It's beyond comprehension, how this persons 'happiness' means anything!

If, when we keep giving them resource, they keep smiling; we have to realize, as rational beings that this person is perpetrating fraud, and is existing counter-intelligently.

Nature grants these people the free-will to exersize their beliefs; it does so, by 'kicking' them out of society. As long as people are rewarded for behaving counter-intelligently; the excavation of rationality stops. It can be proven that these individuals, and those who support them are existing for absolutely NO reason.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 07:02 PM

So what? we excavate rationality to previously unknown heights and depths... so what? Who benefits and exactly how?

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 07:09 PM

OK, you already answered that.

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 07:13 PM

But nobody (at least nobody that I know) says "everything is exactly the same" or "I don't believe in anything" - you are only able to put these words into the mouths of people by applying your completely opaque reasoning.

Papermache Prince

09-14-2002, 07:19 PM

Justhink --

It seems to me that those of us trying to understand you are asking for a clearer picture of your meaning, something with concrete details. (See Mangetout's question re: apples.)

It would help me if you could answer this question:

If the United States is the most counter-intelligent country, which nation - or society or culture or tribe - would be an example of the most intelligent group of human beings?

Justhink

09-14-2002, 07:24 PM

""""But nobody (at least nobody that I know) says "everything is exactly the same" or "I don't believe in anything" - you are only able to put these words into the mouths of people by applying your completely opaque reasoning.""""

Let's take a look at what Glee wrote:

"""""I don't care if the words counter and intelligence are existential or not. I just want to know what you mean by them."""""

If the words are not positively existential (as in they exist!!); then why on earth do you care what I mean by them?

This is how humans generate resource counter-intelligently Mangetout. Glee 'unwittingly' nullified her purpose for saying and doing what Glee did, by the act of doing it. Intelligence does not act this way. The types of thoughts that create nuclear bombs are not the same thoughts that use them. That is the line I'm showing here in my definitions and explanations. I haven't finished articulating why this line exists, how to measure and detect it.. etc..

Although, if you comb through what I've already written; particularly in my definition of intelligence, you'll understand how I'm drawing this line, and you'll notice the beginnings of how I describe its isolation for measurement (of the substance composing the line).

You're right. Its not totally trransparent. I haven't submitted the entire process here.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 07:31 PM

I wouldn't normally presume to speak the mind of another member, but I suspect that Glee was actually implying a question of your meaning and usage of the term 'existential', in addition to all the other stuff.

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 07:37 PM

In fact I'm starting to wonder myself why you used the word just to signify that something verifiably exists.

Justhink

09-14-2002, 07:42 PM

""""If the United States is the most counter-intelligent country, which nation - or society or culture or tribe - would be an example of the most intelligent group of human beings?"""""

It's an issue of Western Society primarily. It's an issue of "follow the money". The U.S. has concentrated more reserves of capital into smaller and smaller spaces than any other country. That, in and of itself is not significant to how that capital moved around the world and 'stuck' here. This is only achieved through counter-intelligence. This resource is being denied people who are living logically consistent existences; and being used to bathe our circus freaks, so to speak.

It's like the magician who becomes super-wealthy by playing with peoples heads. It plays with peoples heads that a person succeeds in society, and yet cannot utter one logically consistant phrase or act a logically consistant behavior. "It's a MIRACLE!"
People become entranced by this; and the counter-intelligent virus spreads into the general population.

Have you ever sat down and catalogued the number of logical and behavioral inconsistancies of any random 5 minutes of media?

Some of them are embedded so deep, that one sentence (discarding gestures and intonation above and beyond speaking) can literally nullify itself 12 times. This is typical of people who gain attention in Western society, or of who's attention we are encouraged to focus upon. The parallel is then presented that this logical form is the essence of societal value; as an appeal to authority; you will be casually reminded that these people telling you what is popular are selected by a government in charge of all the technology you can't fathom. You're told (and made to accept), that you cannot fathom the selective purpose of the process for logical structures; and are compelled instead to COPY them, and accept them.

Ok. Well, I'll create something that collapses any form of deception; if we're going to use authoritarianism. That way, any rational human being can discern whether you are lying off your ass about you value to society; your right to commodity, etc...

It's mass producing intelligence to combat counter-intelligence.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 07:56 PM

While it can be stated that some who has an autonomous indentured system that is capable of consistently producing existential negation 6 or more layers back, IS intelligent.
Society has to realize that behind the encryption, their existential negation is still there, permeating their existence. It is as absurd to reward this person, as it is to reward the MIRACLE of someone who eats food consistently everyday, when they don't believe anything at all!! Wow, what a miracle!! Let's give them a castle, or see if they can run a country! It's just a miracle!

NO! Rationality draws the line and states: This person is absurd and/or this person is lying. There is an inherent social contract imbedded into nature, as I spoke about earlier.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 07:56 PM

Justhink: there's no easy way to say this but I honestly think you're suffering delusions.

Justhink

09-14-2002, 08:16 PM

""""In fact I'm starting to wonder myself why you used the word just to signify that something verifiably exists.""""

I'm using it as a reference point; which I am prepared to back up.

'Existential' in and of itself; I use to articulate the question (statement):

Something exists, something doesn't exist.
Everything exists, everything doesn't exist.

The positive existential is that which affirms existence.
The negative existential value is that which denies existence.

I'm saying, that it is absurd to reward people with vast amounts of resource who continually deny the existence of that or _any_ resource. There _really_ isn't a miracle taking place there; that is the foundation of reason and rationality.

When someone survives in ways counter to what they claim; rationality discerns why one would GIVE them the resource. Obviously they don't need the resource to survive, or to be consistent with their belief of themselves, or what they are attempting to convey to us as what to believe about them.

If someone says they don't believe in anything at all, and then eat food; it is _not_ a miracle. This person is _not_ a God.
A rational person witholds food from them, understanding that it is irrelevant to this human being "who doesn't believe anything at all" whether or not they even HAVE food. If they beg for food, and yet still claim to not believe anything at all, again, people are like: "It's a miracle!!!!!!!"

"They don't believe anything, but they ask for food!! Bravo!! Give them some food!! Watch their trick, where they _actually_ eat it!! Wow, that is the most amazing person EVER!"
"I agree, that is AMAZING!! *cheers from the crowd*"

Someone comes along to point out that everybody is being decieved, and the crowd kills them or the person doing the decieving kills them; further imprinting the 'miracle' of this absurdity.

What rational society does, is draw a line upon the absurd; by not devoting resource to it. The type of logic used here DOES NOT uncover anything rational, it is useless to the excavation and work required to validate our very essence of existential value.

I'll add, that Biblically; the test of Christ on the mound where he didn't jump, is a perfect example of subversive counter-inteligence and authoritarianism that demands secrecy to subsit.
It demands that life requires ignorance; except that they are _less_ ignorant. To prove this however, is to deny the authoritative principle that life denies ignorance!! It's philosophy that nullifies itself. People look at their status and marvel at the miracle of their achievement with this 'magic'.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 08:21 PM

Messiah complex; that's another term that I was looking for.

Sorry Justhink, but I really think you're seeing all kinds of stuff that just aint there.

Sam Stone

09-14-2002, 08:24 PM

I think Justthink is a troll. He's deliberately spouting nonsense to see how long people will to understand him.

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 08:25 PM

Of course all of this might make a tiny bit more sense if we (ANYONE!) could actually understand how you get this idea that people are claiming that they don't believe anything at all or that everything is exactly the same.

Mangetout

09-14-2002, 08:28 PM

I disagree Sam (although I'd actually be quite comforted to be proven wrong): I believe we are looking at psychiatric issues here.
(at least I didn't say it behind your back Justhink).

Justhink

09-14-2002, 08:46 PM

""""Justhink: there's no easy way to say this but I honestly think you're suffering delusions."""""

I provided argument, hypothesis and insight. I have provided barely enough to establish a theoretical framework.

In light of that, your response is perfectly reasonable.
One thing I haven't provided is evidence. I suppose that's the line drawn; at which point, the hypothesis will converge into theory or law. I may never provide the evidence you seek, however, someone in the next generation may. I could be validated after my death in an obscurity that only you and I are talking about. Nobody would even associate that a living being described this in such detail before the emergence of evidence.
SDMB may lose all my posts, or nobody will be concerned with 100 year old "Justhink" posts.

It's also possible that I am totally out of my freakin' mind, and make no sense and am deluded beyond reason. It is the essence of problems associated with authoritativeness; that you don't submit to my "pp" as was discussed in the thread on private phenomenon. The point, is to dismantle the system that allows people to thrive from doing absolutely nothing; in any sense that society would aknowledge as work.

Yeah, they're moving around in patterns - but everything they say and do negates the reason that they exist. If we are to apply their axiom to society; society will crash!

Rationality uncovers truths, that's all it can do.
If rationality uncovers the absolute truth; that irrationality brings all material reward; do you have any concept of how that translates into society??

Let's just get it over with and prove that, if that's what you believe. In my opinion, there are many rational (they would be irrational now); human beings who would exist life immediately.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 09:25 PM

"""""Of course all of this might make a tiny bit more sense if we (ANYONE!) could actually understand how you get this idea that people are claiming that they don't believe anything at all or that everything is exactly the same."""""

This is the crux of what I'm working to articulate. I've been suggesting it every since I started posting here. I'll attempt to make my next post on that topic. If I can't come accross; we can agree to agree (I _may_ be totally insane!). =) Can an insane person find evidence of their insanity? *chuckle* Do they have rights? *chuckle* It's an inversion of what I've been describing in this thread. Unfortunately, *your* sane people believe that I have no rights. I would rather be insane in my world than yours =) At least insane people have the right to make their own decisions, in accordance with their logic in my world. What I'm describing is a situation where people stop killing other people to cannibalize their self-explanitory meaning. Killing people or locking them up against their logic, does not prove you right! Ever.

This society deems that people who want to die, cannot exist and must be insane. People who want to die have revoked their right to decide how to die or how to live. That is fiercely counter-intelligent IMO.

The 'rational' society I'm describing, states that people who deny consistancy can and do exist, and are insane.

To this rational society; a person who believes in nothing, and proceeds to exist is being abused against their will. They are also abusing this society. A person who does not believe anything, doesn't do those things; they are excommunicated for everyone's own good; including their own.

Who was the Greek philosopher who stated:

"Forcing a person to live against their will is the same as killing them." ?

*chuckle* Good thing I know it came from a Greek philosopher, someone might actually take it seriously =)

Well.. I suppose the debate is now completely in my lap as to whether it proceeds. We have articulated the next level of what must be stated clearly:

"how (do) you get this idea that people are claiming that they don't believe anything at all or that everything is exactly the same?"

You'll notice (maybe) that I've stated that: these observations are representative of statements and behaviors that nullify their own purpose. I'll 'have' to explain why these statements link rationally to the base concept of: "I don't believe in anything at all". I believe I've already made a substantial case for why these types of statements are absurd in society. I'll show how I conceptually link various encryptions that MASK an underlying existential negation. (Exiastential negation being the halting force to the process of uncovering rationality. The definition of existence without meaning).

Seems like lots of statements here to back up; but I've actually covered quite a bit so far. I haven't covered how one discerns an encryption of existential negations.

I'll explain that next; sink or swim in terms of the debate.
I'm interested in discerning an ounce of truth, whatever that may be; I'm not against being proven wrong and I'm certainly not trying to create a perpetual motion machine of attention (I'm not THAT smart for one!). I wouldn't even humor the idea that I could have people pay attention to me for ever; it's a joke to consider that I'm doing this for attention on that basis.

I'd rather it be a truth or a lie. That's what I'm talking about creating here. A way to discern it absolutely, by collapsing the commodity of opinion.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 10:36 PM

"""""Messiah complex; that's another term that I was looking for.

Sorry Justhink, but I really think you're seeing all kinds of stuff that just aint there."""""

I just noticed this little snippet. I have used Messiah Complex forms to run through counter-intelligence encryption. What I personally use to move through this layer of encryption is:

A Messiah Complex can only be attributed to such a being that cannot immediately grant their own capacity to act in a particular way, to someone else who seeks to use precisely what attracted their attention in the first place. In fact, it should be offered immediately, so as to block the counter-intelligence of selective classification levels.

What you're doing is assuring that the 'messiah' becomes an equal to everyone else; so that their superiority would be counter-intelligent; and they would be deselected existentially to starve to death in their own messiah-dom.

Something like that......

It breaks Messiah Complex encryption IMO.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-14-2002, 11:01 PM

""""Messiah complex; that's another term that I was looking for.""""

Counter-intelligence: (loosely: that which negates the reason for being or doing) -- there you go Glee!

These questions are very relevant and very important.
If the decryption sequence for counter-intelligence is off by even a fraction, these types of corruptions will avoid detection.

I want to impress upon you, how much detail I've been documenting. The problem with something like the Messiah Complex and many other forms of 'glory theft', is that they have to be transparent to the veiwer (me) and the veiwed (you); so that neither of us can hide a complex like this from each-other.

For absurd actions and/or claims; the decryption techniques are NEUROTIC demands of evidence.

A messiah must be able to give everyone not only their ability but their comprehension immediately upon demand. What happens, is that we realize this is the _actual_ form of a messiah, also we know as intelligent beings that this levels the playing field and collapses the absurdity from which the Messiah Complex is siphoned. The only place it can exist is outside of society; at which point it starves to death. By removing the encryption, NOBODY in society will purchase the resource. This means that the resource can only be held: (rationally: degeneratively so.)

It is another instance where rationality has collapsed the marketability of absurdity. What is truly required however; is flawless and instant decryption of counter-intelligence layers, and its accessability to all beings. Do you really think, that if everybody has access to the same data I have; that they're going to somehow worship me or hold me above society for doing this? That is absurd, and contrary to the entire integrity required of the process in order for it to even work! The attribution of 'glory' must be inherent; or else it's not using the right decryption algorithm. If it's not inherent, I have proven my own existence as absurd; and I would fall victim to the very system I established!! Understand? It makes a unillateral law. Not even its creator can abuse it; because it was derived from the very structural limits of what allows human to exist rationally. It detects people sucking energy from the indentured system covertly, by immediately shining a flashlight on them. *poof*

You just broke the contract of all reason embedded in nature.
How does someone argue against that?

I still have my post of comparison left!! Adding these comments first..

-Justhink

Ersatz Shmoe

09-15-2002, 01:18 AM

I'm going to have to concur with Mangetout here, Justhink. Your posts do show a complicated internal logic, but your overall theory seems to lack any external validity due to the fact that you refuse to, or are unable to, provide evidence for your viewpoints. For example, if your definition of intelligence extends to custard, perhaps you need to rein in your definition for the sake of practical purposes.

As this thread continues, your posts are apparently becoming more incoherent, and Mangetout is not the only one here concerned with your mental state. IANA psychatrist, and I may be wrong, but you're either far above my head with this stuff (and I pretty much understood the gist of the OP) or you're delusional.

DemonSpawn52

09-15-2002, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Papermache Prince:
If the United States is the most counter-intelligent country, which nation - or society or culture or tribe - would be an example of the most intelligent group of human beings?

I have a request for JustThink. Answer the above question by making a numbered list and filling each entry with only one single proper noun or noun phrase.

You seem sure of the fact that the U.S (or Western culture, or whatever) is the epitome of counter-intelligence, so I assume that you also know of some people that do, or some place that has espoused intelligence. Give us some hard data, and let us draw our own conclusions.

Justhink

09-19-2002, 11:13 PM

No can do DemonSpawn52.

I have a system of falsification outlined; I haven't done the actual research. I have plently of circumstantial evidence (harmonizations) and 'axiomic' trend evidence which short-cuts to the most educated guess, for why America ranks #1.
All of these points can be taken in the context of the exacting specifications I've been outlining.

In general; I'm working meticulously on a post that will salvage the major points of this post, and hopefully place myself in a situation where; if it is still opaque, then one of the general debates I want to recieve input on (exchange ideas with others); must have a serious problem. I'm attempting to construct it so that the problem itself becomes recognizable to others, even in the case that I personally possess a delusion.

This opaqueness mentioned repeatedly is, to me, intolerable.
I want to resolve this immediately and stop wasting all of our time. My posts are very long; if anything, and I should seriously respect the time and effort that individuals have allotted to reading them. I believe that I learned the "proofread all your posts" lesson the hard way.

The best I can do at this point is manage to provide valuable input in regards to this community, and salvage the trust placed in reading some stuff I've posted prior. If I can't resolve this particular articulation in great debates (to have it comprehended, not necessarily believed); then I cannot see how my posts will be beneficial to the field of learning fostered here. I believe the other topics can be covered just as well, if not better, by others.

I see my relevanece here, in GD and the concept of truth meditated at SDMB in general, as being highly invested in a remote area of abstract forms of thinking. I feel that I can articulate ideas that I have observed people embodying in history, yet for whatever reason, they didn't take the time to report them; or their record was lost in obscurity.

It's like:
Q: "What's the meaning of life?"
A: "Being consistant"

That's my solution. How I arrived there, what it means, and how it suggests a direction are large topics. I think most people would agree with the conclusion, if not immediately, than a few paragraphs should suffice. What lies benieth that Q&A is what makes it relevant though.... our slow & laborous unearthing of this conceptual structure, bringing it into observation.

Anyhow, if anyone would offer to recieve and place my next post on the web; (maybe last post here), I'd appreciate it. I'm not familiar with a process that, I imagine for some, would take a minute of browsing, cutting, pasting and clicking a few buttons.

If not, it could be another month or two until I am settled enough to do it myself. (in the process of moving - with no guarantees of an ISP the whole duration).

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-20-2002, 02:53 AM

Being consistent with what?

Bryan Ekers

09-20-2002, 05:35 AM

There's a major dichotomy developing:

When Justhink tries to explain things in detaill, he is incomprehensible.
When Justhink tries to explain this in simple terms, he is wrong.

The meaning of life is being consistant?

Papermache Prince

09-20-2002, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
<snip>
If not, it could be another month or two until I am settled enough to do it myself. (in the process of moving - with no guarantees of an ISP the whole duration).

-Justhink

On a personal note, I hope you're moving to a place with less hermit time and more face time.

Justhink

09-20-2002, 09:17 PM

"""There's a major dichotomy developing:

When Justhink tries to explain things in detaill, he is incomprehensible.
When Justhink tries to explain this in simple terms, he is wrong.

The meaning of life is being consistant?"""""

That's what emerges from the fine detail. You're using the mechanism of reason to determine a function called: meaning.
Reason is observed through discernment, and a simile between time and form. This is also the criteria for consistency. Reason, to a large degree _is_ consistency. TO the extent that it's not, reason is actually not being expressed; this is the property of counter-intelligence. Counter-intelligence being the use of reasonable mechanisms for purposes which reasonable negate the use of those mechanisms.
Consistency is difficult to pin down in the sense that it always determines reason; I'm outlining where those lines can be reasonably drawn.
However, if one suggests that the meaning of life is anything other than consistency (necessary for reason); then they have negated their existential value for stating the case.
They have proven their own suicide as being the logical conclusion of their reasoning capacity. I'm attempting to illuminate how this very precise mechanism is the source of everything which we consider to be crime. It is a unified field of sorts, in the area of morality:

Expressing something which negates the existential value of reason, used to arrive at and validate the act.

These boundries can be determined with flawless (impermiable) consistency, by applying the concept of suicide variable consistantly with the known enclosure which sentience cannot escape without being meaningless in and of itself.
Basically, you have to be catatonic to disagree; unless you are being fraudulant. I really need to reserve these long explanations for the reply I'm preparing though.

""""Being consistent with what?""""

Not expressing ideas reserved for that which exists outside the enclosure required for senient thought. You have disproven your rationality, by imroperly associating truth with material. It is a state of delusion.

-Justhink

Jojo

09-20-2002, 10:23 PM

Justhink

Having perused some of your posts I've noticed that you occasionally mention that you are in possession of some "knowledge" which would support your theories but that you are too scared to post this "knowledge" for fear of the revolution in society it would cause.

Well, have no fear, we are all adults here. However bad your "information" may be, I'm sure we can take it. Feel free to just post it without giving us dark hints as to what it may be.

However bad your information is I think I will be able to handle it because there is something of the night about me. I delight in blood. Corpses please me.

Maybe you can include something about this in the "big post" you are preparing?

Justhink

09-21-2002, 01:45 AM

It's not fear Jojo, it's a calculation of reason. The last thing I'm interested in doing is embracing the very type of system I'm outlining as being definitive of crime in the moraliy issue. I see many resources falling like dominoes in my eyes; and I try to calculate whether there may be an inherent corruption in the system that my own ego designed into it, by analysing the possible outcomes of so many resources being collapsed. If one of these collapses contradicts the meaningful introduction of a system; then the system itself seems useless to me, maybe because I'm not wise enough to understand it. One aspect I tend to consider is that I'm positive that people will realize it, whether I speak on it or not in my life; which tends to make me a bit ambivalent as to the necessity of its emergence right now.
I'm still waiting on one last domino to fall; ironically it's a paradox I've pondered since I was 7 - seems odd in retrospect. At that point, I will at least have a sense of pure existential value for the concept. It may end up being a negation, which pklaces me in a very tight spot relative to my life.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-21-2002, 02:01 AM

I can actually say quite a bit about the paradox, including how my feeble brain started thinking about it at 7. I saw Back to the Future at the theater =) The concept I remember processing at the time struck me with an immediate paradox....
In order for it to be true; I'd have to visit myself to hand over the solution before I realized the solution. This paradox has still hounded me all these years....

-Justhink

Justhink

09-21-2002, 02:05 AM

Why has it hounded me? I still haven't processed a reason for the delay....

-Justhink

jacksen9

09-21-2002, 07:40 AM

Did the Cubs win?

DemonSpawn52

09-21-2002, 06:13 PM

Many other posters have requested this, and I’m gonna ask again. Could you express yourself in a way in which people can understand you?

It’s common courtesy to simplify your statements. If I typed this: ‘the subterranean axioms of outlining the cognitive neural process of entities exhibiting littoral features (after you square the dichotomy’s and round off the effects of custard consistency) is logically deterring and recurring (or illogically, it’s mainly a matter of how empirically you parse the cubits). But, if, by this chronological instance, you have deduced (or induced, again it’s a matter of parsed cubits) that you will need a sanitized, well-oiled android (15.7 joules long), then the answer should have manifested it’s way into your consciousness already (through anaerobic osmosis), and you’ve been aware of which end of the rabbit goes into the blender first’.

This translates into ‘look at me, I’m smoking crack and masturbating with my dictionary at the same time’, or ‘I am a horrible human being, and I should be murdered immediately.’

Anyway, I don’t quite understand what you got against nihilists. I’m a nihilist, and the New Merriam-Webster Dictionary explains my philosophy well enough; "Nihilism: an attitude or doctrine that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless."

That’s it. There is no nihilist code stating that I must destroy the government and hate everything. I acknowledge that government is the best way to organize, discipline, and provide for large groups of people, and I love many things. I just happen to think that all events and actions, all politics and relationships are ultimately meaningless.

I also think existence is senseless and useless. This is a belief I hold, and it simply states the way I think things are. No where does it say I must do anything about it (I’m aware some definitions of Nihilism may state otherwise. Be aware that that’s not my brand of belief). No where did I sign away my rights to basic commodities. No where did I say I’d be better off if I jumped in one of your nifty suicide machines. I hold a certain view of the world. I fail to see how that is inconsistent.

Personally, I think it may be a fallacy to try and attribute meaning to our universe. Maybe it’s the equivalent of asking what’s the meaning of a coffee cup. Sure, it’s function is to hold liquid, but what is its meaning?

Justhink

09-21-2002, 07:15 PM

""""Anyway, I don’t quite understand what you got against nihilists. I’m a nihilist, and the New Merriam-Webster Dictionary explains my philosophy well enough; "Nihilism: an attitude or doctrine that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless.""""""

a.) I have nothing against nihilism
b.) The dictionary is 'lying'. That is not an intelligent definition of nihilism. Your brand of nihilism would be: "Nothing possesses any meaning or sense, except for everything that satisfies me as behaviorally valid - until such point as I come across the concept of nihilism to validate my inability to change."

Nihilists don't continue to behave in any way; nihilism, by nature completely surrenders the ego/will to nature. This is not inherently an inconsistant act. The inconsistancy, the corruption stems from your belief that you are a nihilist without actually being one. That is the counter-intelligence routine being run on you. Ideas like absolute pacifism and suicide in relation to existential values are the key variables to decrypt counter-intelligent morality and existence. That's why you don't see them defined properly; it's important to not let the logical application of these concepts be misdefined; that irrationality exist.
You're seeing a mass denial system encoded into the dictionary itself; ultimately seeking to obscure the brightest light which can be shown on whether or not a behavior or belief has validity.
It makes it easy to divert you, for you to be diverted. You're indentured system is being used against you; through misdirection.

Nihilism in its purest form is rational, however the acts and beliefs of a nihilist are not bound in the social contract. The declaration of nihilism is a declaration of ommission from all benefits and/or forms of reason. To smudge this clarity, is to dance around the impact that these types of rational thoughts have on the detection of delusion, misdirection, insanity and criminality.

"""""That’s it. There is no nihilist code stating that I must destroy the government and hate everything.""""

There is no Nihilist code at all. The 'code' comes from rationality, which uses a precise definition of property to discern Nihilism from any other idea or thought. Nihilists just starve to death; they have no code, they have revoked rationality until they starve to death; once the stance is declared. People who have no code, don't do anything. People who don't believe in meaning, don't do anything. People who don't believe in value or purpose or meaning, don't do anything. If people do this stuff, and call themselves nihilists; then the definition has effectively become counter-intelligently integrated; resulting in a word which acts as a synonym for: anything and/or everything. That the concepts revolving around nihilism are the fundamental captures which allow for our sentience to abstract; and as such, allow us to define the rationality of its borders; makes the mis-defining of this term 'important' to all aspects of phenomenal delusion.

"""I acknowledge that government is the best way to organize, discipline, and provide for large groups of people, and I love many things. I just happen to think that all events and actions, all politics and relationships are ultimately meaningless."""

Nihilists don't believe that. Love is one of the most counter-intelligent terms in existence. You're making excuses, not rationalities. You're making contradictions, not sense. You're exhibiting nothing which distinguishes you from someone who calls themselves a Christian, and prays. Calls themselves a philanthropist, yet lives in the lap of luxury. "I believe this, as long as it doesn't impact what I've already become accustomed to."

Fine, that does not mean that what you are accustomed to and what you believe have a sane connection. That type of logic doesn't build nuclear reactors, no matter how much you try to divide logic and insanity by nullifying them into a concept of the same individual. Inconsistency taints sanity irreconcialably into the existential oblivion of negation through contradiction.

""""I also think existence is senseless and useless. This is a belief I hold, and it simply states the way I think things are. No where does it say I must do anything about it (I’m aware some definitions of Nihilism may state otherwise. Be aware that that’s not my brand of belief). No where did I sign away my rights to basic commodities. No where did I say I’d be better off if I jumped in one of your nifty suicide machines. I hold a certain view of the world. I fail to see how that is inconsistent.""""

You're are recieving a commodity with zero work.
Your statement: "Nowehere does it say that I must do something about it." is true; it is also ommisive. Nihilists don't do anything about anything. The dictionary would be absurd to state that nihilists take a course of action; the belief however, always represents an effect observed through rationality. Nihilism has rational properties of expression associated with its belief, that are not mentioned in the dictionary. This is where it falls short. A nihilist who does something of their own 'intent' is not inconsistant, to the degree that they begin to degenerate and die of malnutrition. It is not our right to assume that a nihilist is insane until such time as they have engaged in something which clearly perpetuates the rational act of extending their lives. At this point, a nihilist is like 'everyone else', saying absurd things to gain attention, while not being what it is that they're expressing.

""Personally, I think it may be a fallacy to try and attribute meaning to our universe. Maybe it’s the equivalent of asking what’s the meaning of a coffee cup. Sure, it’s function is to hold liquid, but what is its meaning?"""

Nihilists don't have mays or may nots....
Nihilists know that there is no meaning to the universe. The universe in turn, consecrates that belief in a way that those of the social contract cannot understand, yet realize that it is a consistent belief in accordance with behavior. It is rational, a rational denial of existence; which rationally removes one from existence. Nihilism is not irrational at all; it is however a negation of all value. Walking around the earth, telling everyone that you're a Nihilist is a counter-intelligence routine both on yourself and on others who might be confused as to what a nihilist represnts in true form. You're an imposter, not representative of the actual power and work of conviction and consistency portrayed in the actual embodyment of a nihilist. Nihilists exhibit a lot of power, however, the nature of their rationality cannibalizes their effective use of glorification or sustination in relation to exersizing it. A nihilist, obviously has no problem with this truth; as they could care less.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-21-2002, 07:57 PM

""Personally, I think it may be a fallacy to try and attribute meaning to our universe. Maybe it’s the equivalent of asking what’s the meaning of a coffee cup. Sure, it’s function is to hold liquid, but what is its meaning?"""

Exactly. However, your indecision is a discussion; it is not nihilism.
Nihilism _is_ a rational expression of not expressing. Nihilists don't disbelieve in existence, they just don't see meaning; which in effect is not believing in existence.

Lack of belief in existence and lack of belief in meaning; or reason to do or be; are not the exact same idea.

"There's no meaning to this coffee cup"
"There's no meaning to the hunger in my stomach"
"There's no meaning to life"
"There's no meaning to death"
"There's no meaning to happiness"
"There's no meaning to me or my thoughts, or my desires"
"There's no meaning to my logic or my beliefs"
"There's no meaning to my abstractions"

Nihilism is a choice; unless it takes the form of omniscient catatonia; induced physically and/or logically. At that point, nihilism is that beings absolute expression of reality. To the degree that there is no counter-intelligence in the omniscience; nihilism is the ultimate expression the reality enclosed in rationality and meaning. (i.e. they have proven their nihilism).

One aspect of nihilism is it's logical expression of applying a unified belief consistantly; it irks the denial systems of the religious why require inconsistancy to have an existentially valid purpose for being or doing their own lives. Nihilism in action declares the _actual_ evidence that someone is engaged in Pascals wager; the stasis of repitition required to give an idea meaning. What's the point of giving a rats ass about Jesus if he died for our sins? What's the point of living any sort of 'clean' life if the acceptance is a one-time ticket ("Baptize me, and let's get it over with so that I can sin.").

The only logical means to derive a moral system; a meaningful system out of this form is to apply frequency repetition to the expression. The only part of you that goes to heaven is the part that says "Jesus is my Lord and savior"; all the rest gets discarded... people try to get 'all' of themselves in by repeating the same phrase through various aspects of reality they enjoy.

This is not rational, as there is no connection between what you select and what actually determines the nature of a given system.
No matter how many times you say "Jesus is Lord"; only that one micro-fraction of you gets transferred. If you contradict the resolution though, by negating the value of the expression by symbolically doing something unrelated to it and then proceeding to validate everything else you do as representing it; you will not recieve any of the benefit implicit in the requirement.

You have to utter the statement until you arrive, in order to represent the value of even stating it once. This represents all superstitions; and all ideas which can equally be thrown in to Pascal's Wager. The wager itself is a counter-intelligent validation mechanism, which obscures actual reason; and thus reveals hypocrisy as a result. The same applies to 'knocking on wood' for good luck. IF we only have to do it once; then knocking on it once brings good luck. If you believe this, than you must never ever complain about your condition, if you have ever knocked on wood... for it is impossible for anything to be bad; ever. If you believe that everything is now good luck for eternity on; you're now locked into some very defined behavioral borders which represent an existential value to that belief. This also means that doing nothing, is also the same as moving around; as now EVERYTHING is good luck.

That's why people don't say:

Q:"What is the meaning to life?"
A:"To live"
Q:"Oh, I'm done here then.. buh, bye"

That's a logical application of Pascals wager with the 'one-time' admission scenario. So, it gets modified with a frequency scenario instead; to perpetuate the lifecycle of irrationality...

However, the frequency scenario has the same result: you knock and knock and knock until your knuckles get bloodied and your skin shreds and your bones chip and your hand falls off, until you die (although, anowledgment of death is removed from the picture counter-intelligently .. that is a rational perception).

The pain that ensues as one moves towards death, is ALL good luck; because good luck is defined by frequency rather than quality or inherency.

Enough of that for now...

-Justhink

Whether or not nihilism is provable in this sense is an interesting topic in and of itself.

It is insane for rational beings to 'interfere' with the rationality of nihilism being expressed; as there is no possible existential inconsistency with the manifestation of that conclusion.

Justhink

09-21-2002, 08:19 PM

""""wager itself is a counter-intelligent validation mechanism""""

A slight correction on this. The wager formulation is anti-intelligent; yet people can still express the formulation with consistency. In the areas that they are not expressing it consistently; is where the property of what it is to embrace this wager, is misdefined. This is the paralell I was drawing to terms like nihilism, reason, meaning, inteligence etc.. being mis-appropriated to allow corruption. This mis-appropriation is observed between the properties which logically expres the idea vs. being defined by the properties which negate the existential value of the term; placing it into an indiscernable haze of counter-intelligent use. It removes 100% accountability to anything; while clearly people are being observed to embrace the concepts of accountability to _something_ in order to subsist.

It completely destroys the meaning of any sense of standardization, reason and/or rationality; while 'claiming' to use it in that sense. Defining the properties of these terms intelligently, collapses the resource of corruption being used by this mis-appropriation. Intelligence, sanity does not select apologetics. Part of the issue, is that the existence of these apologetics is lost behind the shroud of not defining the word properly, and also assuring that a NEW term doesn't emerge which contains the proper definition.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-21-2002, 08:21 PM

These NEW terms are called, opinions.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-21-2002, 08:35 PM

These NEW terms are called, opinions. The present terms are called facts. It thus considered opinion to argue with the definition and/or properties of word in the dictionary, which is considered fact. The concept: "We already have a word for that, you cannot re-define it, or say something is a synonym of it unless it is _opinion_. Not only is it opinion, it is confused and deluded."

A: "The dictionary is defining the properties incorrectly, would you believe the dictionary if it defined steak as a vegetable found in rural texas? By doing so, it instantly creates an existential vaccuum for the purpose of seperating it from being a synonym of anything and or everything _which is already there_, defined correctly."

A1: "That is opinion; if your idea had any truth, it would be in the dictionary; the dictionary doesn't define steak as a vegetable. Although; I'm starting to think that maybe _you_ should be defined as a vegetable.. I'm worried for your sanity. You're conspiracy minded, either calling us all stupid and having a Messiah Complex or a Narcissistic Personality Disorder; or you're just a paranoid person who requires serious medication.
Billions of people can't be wrong. The rest is just intellectual masterbation.

I would allow a term for what you're saying into the dictionary; exctracted from the DSMV:

Justhink: disbelief in everything which rationally exists.

Now check your dictionary.. see it; it's there. That's rational. You are insane."

-Justhink

Jojo

09-21-2002, 09:09 PM

Unbelievably, I waded through the above stuff. In short:

Justhink, I pretty much agree with you on the Nihilism issue. "Nihilism" comes from the Latin word nihil meaning "nothing" therefore "nihilism" is a belief in nothing.

Demonspawn seems to be saying: "I'm a nihilist but I think (...insert x political system...) works well".

But I disagree with your casual disregard for dictionary definitions. I agree that Mirriam-Webster is shit, I would never rely on it. The only proper dictionary is the OED.

Dictionaries are important because the function of words is to impart information. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we are all agreed on what a particular word means - a common understanding of the meaning of any particular word. This is to ensure that we are at least talking about the same thing!

Justhink

09-22-2002, 01:34 AM

"""But I disagree with your casual disregard for dictionary definitions. I agree that Mirriam-Webster is shit, I would never rely on it. The only proper dictionary is the OED.

Dictionaries are important because the function of words is to impart information. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we are all agreed on what a particular word means - a common understanding of the meaning of any particular word. This is to ensure that we are at least talking about the same thing!"""

I agree with you. I don't care whether the roots trace back to the meaning, so much as there is a standardized value to the word which distinguishes it from something. I believe that a Russian philosopher actually articulated Nihilism as a 'philosophy'.

I tried to access the OED, and was made well aware that a $550.00 yearly subscription was required to even read it. Aparently, only counter-intelligent dictionaries are distributed to the poor and uneducated. I wanted to see if the OED defined intelligence consistantly with the variable of nihilisms' articulated concept. If they don't, or didn't; I believe I can make an air-tight case for a broad system of denial when confronting existential logic, that permeates to the core of 'western' educational output.

I accessed a variety of dictionaries with no results at all. I did manage upon a Cambridge series that unillaterally defined nihilism as: The belief that politics is bad.
This should be criminal IMO.

Of course, this all traces back to WHY intelligence needs to be defined consistantly with the belief that something exists, and/or has a meaning. Someone actually went out of their way to tell my that my definition was full of it, without running through the points I made. They also absurdly pointed out that I do not need to define intelligence to define counter-intelligence! This effectively means that it is impossible for me to make any point, they always 'win!'.

I believe that I have excellent cause for articulating that the definition of intelligence requires anthropromorphism to be integrated into the logical mechanism required for discernment.
I also believe that I have excellent cause for articulating that intelligence needs to encompass:
That which can percieve.
That which can be percieved.

Without drawing this perfectly rational line of reasoning (IMO), intelligence becomes vulnerable to:
"that which cannot be reasoned"
which negates any point of articulating the term at all. The dictionary may as well have one word, if this is the case:

Anything:

With that exact definition.

A dictionary that defines itself as absurd, through logical inconsistency should be called on it.
Dictionaries create social policy.
Why use one that negates social value?!

-Justhink

Justhink

09-22-2002, 02:02 AM

As for my 'big' post to bring the thread back to OP, I've had this sitting for quite a few days. I believe this generalizes the conceptual framework. I wanted to add more detail, so that I could specifically qualify everything in it; however, I want to submit this in light of the current exchange, and how it leads to the next logical set of questions in relation to the OP. So... I'm going to post a fragment of the big post; which I realized was already 6 MS word pages long.....

Hopefully it will go through, and hopefully it will address itself as to why so much bandwidth has been taken; at least explain it to some degree......

-Justhink

Justhink

09-22-2002, 02:04 AM

I've taken pause to let my mind consider precisely
where it's coming from. How I can summarize what it is that
I am communicating, without creating confusion above and
beyond curiosities for clarification that would engage this
conversation. Here is that attempt.

Counter-intelligence is observed rationally as a
mechanism which 'seeks' to maintain cohesiveness through
mis-direction, falsehood, contradiction and omission.
Counter-intelligence is distinguished from intelligence as
being an expression which contradicts its own purpose for
being expressed; thus negating the entire existential
purpose and validity of the user.
Counter-intelligence is a state of delusion which
maintains cohesiveness of existential value.

Much like the "Messiah Complex" noted earlier; a
proper definition of intelligence starves these systems of
delusion from an existentially positive reality; by allowing a
readily accessible and assessable means of use and
comprehension through the transparency which rationality
embodies.

In the instance of the "Messiah Complex"; the
system is defeated by applying existentially positive burden
to the definition process, and ultimately, the properties
associated with the term. This allows one the ability to
discern a given term meaningfully in the sense that the
burden requires the term to have a valid/rational reason for
being distinguished as:
*Not another synonym of everything and/or anything*

For this specific example in regards to Messiah, it
may help to see the process applied to something else,
before it is applied to intelligence.

Property of Messiah in order to have an existentially valid
reason to be conceptually discerned from anything else:
(Basically, a revised definition of Messiah that decrypts all
of the counter-intelligence routines that foster systems of
non-transparency used to execute abuse unaccountably.)

Messiah: Property of existence which perfectly copies and
transfers all of its abilities and conceptual framework to
operate and exercise those abilities, instantly, to any and/or
all who ask, regardless of their conceptual framework,
appearance or motive. Giving all ability to perform and
conceive, instantaneously; upon request; no questions asked.

What this definition of Messiah accomplishes is a rationalization
of what is worthy of recognition in terms of absolute truth and
potence. For a body to be imbued with the absolute and refuse
to instantly (is also all-powerful; follows from all-truthful) grant
a request for understanding, shows that this object of being is
lying or insanely absurd.
Either it cannot communicate to you instantaneously, which
renders it as impotent; thus ignorant, or it doesn't care about
your request, in which case that truth itself is impotent: unless!
that truth is not communicated, which negates the absolute
value of existential purpose for even surviving, both of yourself
and the being in question; making the being insanely absurd
(if it's not lying).

A strong definition illuminates instantly, whether an absolute state
or archetype is being rationally, existentially; positively observed.
If it is being observed, then the definition renders its power as
actually being redemptive of existence itself, by not excluding an
aspect of existence's desire to know that truth itself; no
matter how much ignorance it may possess in relation to that truth.
Ignorance and absolute truth cannot occupy the same space.
To withhold absolute truth is to prove ignorance has existential value,
which renders the truth as negating the purpose of anything even
existing at all: A Messiah is charged with providing, through truth
and action, the inarguable understanding of existence rather than
non-existence. A false messiah will avoid being observed or
questioned in relation to themselves and the concept of
non-existence. They will heal, but not grant the ability to heal.
They will know, but speak in riddles and not grant the clear ability
to know. This behavior is inexcusable when the claim of
absolute value is brought up.

Messiah is called "Hero" in the extreme secular sense. Even in this
environment, the term 'hero' assumes a messianic inclination, so as
to use the same system without the absurdity of using the term
Messiah in a secular environment. Heroes are not conveyed as
having absolute power, yet their actions are implied as being
absolutely correct. It seeks to blur the line that is drawn to decrypt
these types of self-negating routines, by attempting to stack an
additional form of encryption; which allows us to believe in
absolutes without the strong evidence required. (i.e. "People who
don't know everything are observed by everyone as doing all the
right things.") It appeals to the sense of ego by both the
perpetrators and the subverted.

Another counter-intelligence routine that we see in modern
society dressed in different clothes from before
(like Hero and Messiah) is the idea of relativity; to confuse one about
the existence of rationality. To assert that rationality is characterized
by accepting that there is no such thing. With relativity we have this
idea of a messiah in Einstein; this omni-scient being of sorts, who
contributed the conceptual framework to actually create a tool of
potency.

It is suggested, that in order to understand this brilliant savior, exhibiting
phenomenal proof of his fitness to speak for truth, that one must realize:
"Everything is relative"; much like Plato and the Oracle of Delphi motif.
To not believe or understand this, is to absurdly deny that truth which
allowed the discovery to create and reproduce the ability to split the atom
and calculate the planetary orbits accurately enough to rendezvous with a
human created satellite traveling millions of miles in decades of time.
It is appeal to authority; through the confusion of 'relativism'.

The only thing 'relativism' actually asserted is a truth which renders all of the
points of perspective within its purview as being ignorantly held in light of a
truth which settled opinion of the matter once and for all. 'Relativity', as
equated with nuclear physics these days, is simply another case in history
where vast commodities of opinion (and commodities whose foundations rest
on these opinions) have been collapsed. It's to say: "You can hold this
opinion; however, it is now ignorant unless it is viewed through the
mechanism which collapsed all of the individual debates that gave this opinion
a commodity in the past.

What's ironic, is that the theory Einstein submitted
(solved by someone else), doesn't collapse many debates at all; just a few
scientific ones, many of which didn't even last long enough to build a viably
entrenched commodity. Yet, society is led to believe that
"Everything is relative.". If the 'theory of relativity' asserted anything, it
asserted once again that there is truth, and revealed once again that truth
collapses opinion. It continuously hints at, without stating: "Those who have
been surviving and thriving disingenuously off of
those opinions, can be detected with an efficient calculator programmed with
provable means." It keeps hinting at a moral law which collapses the debates
of righteous opinion. Lot's of people are subsisting solely on this resource, in
every class of society. The disenfranchised will naturally be more receptive
though.
Historically, the idea that there is a system which collapses
the opinions of morality, has received severe counter-intelligent resistance.
Many people are making a lot of money by cannibalizing their own existential
value, and not dying. It is not a miracle that they don't die; they are simply
insanely absurd beings who are lying.

Back To The Topic Of Definitions

To illuminate this complexity before returning to intelligence, I want to return
to the discussion of defining in regards to 'Messiah'.

Any discernible object which does not comply instantaneous transfer upon
request, is deemed as a perpetrator of fraud. The conclusion renders:

"Observation of this object is an absurd association with the commodity of
truth used to represent that term."

It is to say that observation and truth are not associative in terms of the
properties used to discern the object and term from 'anything at all'; as
opposed to simply defining it as: "Just another synonym for anything
and/or everything.". Counter-intelligence encrypts terms that are
synonyms with "Everything and/or anything at all", while defining it with
properties of distinction.

Counter-intelligent people don't typically sit at a table with you, while you're
both eating a cheese sandwich and say; "Don't eat a cheese sandwich, or
you are not as good as me.", as they take a bite from it themselves.

Some of these encryptions are literally this pathetic in terms of the obvious
contradiction conveyed. In the Messiah example, this encryption is slightly
more complex; yet transfers the same existential negation as the more
transparent cheese sandwich scenario.

It's like telling someone you're
going to kill them, and then letting them have a last word to convince you.
They do convince you, and you let them go. The very nature of the threat
however, revokes that persons right to trust who first made the threat.
The mere insanity of threatening to kill someone and the additional
insanity of contradicting ones own reason for a course of action, leaves
the person walking away, not knowing whether they'll be killed by that
person or their orders, walking towards the door out or not, or even
assassinated at some future point by this individuals expressed will.
This persons word means nothing at all any more; really forever in that
sense. It is a compound contradiction representative of irrational beings.
It also is used to abuse others as a form of terrorism; and allows for the
centration of resource and capital.

To the degree that an individual or collective operates existentially, for a
reason that they deem absurd to relate upon request, negates their
existential rationality and proves suicide as the most rational expression
of their own belief of truth. This suicide must either be of the belief held
or the body which acts in accordance with the belief.

The attacks which 'terrorize' Western culture are the physical reflective
inverse of the psychological system that uses contradiction to cannibalize
ones existential value to receive resource. It is the same exact system
being used in this society to effect potence. 'We' are cannibalizing our
own existential validation (committing suicide) in order to maintain and
generate commodity be indenturing people to a metabolic resource.
Western society is terrorizing the indentured systems of others by
committing suicide for a reason other than being consistent with:
"I don't believe in anything at all". It is a counter-intelligent application
of rationality, and resultantly causes ignorant polarity; which has long
been collapsed by observation which has consolidated opinion on the
matter. This pressure against counter-intelligence is causing
counter-intelligent mechanisms to act more absurd and desperate.
The frequency of contradictions extracted from the primary contradiction
in media has increased substantially, to the point where media is not
embarrassed to talk precisely like a schizophrenic. Our own president
and staff talk like a schizophrenics, without the slightest bit of
acknowledgment or 'shame'. It reveals panic IMO.

Using these types of systems (counter-intelligent) is the equivalent of
gaining attention and validating yourself by turning up your radio and
our music up to such an extreme volume that it resonates the entire
sensory framework of others in such a way as to disable their wills
until they give you the commodity of their presence and their immediate
focus. The resultant acts can always be validated, but ignoring it
causes the symbiot to starve to death; a withdrawal symptom of its
delusionary life-force eclipsed by rationality.

In terms of this 'terrorism' phenomenon, we are quite literally
screaming at our own reflection in a mirror; turned around.
We are too absurd to recognize that it is in fact ourselves we
are criticizing in an ignorant system of counter-intelligence that
has been identified and collapsed by rationality.

Our continued counter-intelligent stance in relation to ourselves
and the system reflecting it will only create more of the same.
Destroying a mirror does not destroy mirrors - reflection being
a property of nature; an embedded conceptual archetype required
for our existence and abstraction. In a system of simple reflection
and projection; there is no such thing as a victor, there is only the
idea which collapses the resource altogether, that has
existential validity.

I'm attempting to convey the necessary lines that need to be drawn
on the concept of reason itself, in order for this and all inverse
reflections to be recognized by us. I'm trying to articulate how to
behave intelligently and how to observe intelligent behavior.
I'm attempting to bring these tools, so that people are not
committing existential suicide to thrive phenomenally (it is irrational).
I am cataloging all of the minutiae of axioms of rationality, and bringing
to observation these axioms; showing eventually the isolation of an
algorithmic process which outputs only rationality, with an
instantaneous decryption process. This is what I understand myself
to be observing currently, and concur that I may myself be wholly or
partially delusional. In fact, not having wholly solved the formulation
which collapses delusion, one can suggest from this alone that I must
be delusional to some degree, if not wholly. In fact, the evidence
seems obvious for this, even if I'm correct:

I'm taking a long time to convey this conceptual framework for peer
review (peer = other human beings). It is big, cumbersome, somewhat
unexciting and not particularly efficient time wise or processing wise;
much like I imagine the first supercomputer was. Rather than being a
computer itself; this is a computational framework being assembled to
collapse the time wasted by squabbling opinions about morality; and
ultimately opinion itself. Applying it to computer language and
processing is a step in efficiency; rather than a step of validity for
these ideas.

Much of the suicide language in this thread is a result of how I have
come to observe a relevant mechanism embedded in the property of
intelligence, for it to have any meaning what-so-ever.

In the instance of the Messiah decryption routine, I used a mechanism
of potency to disable the counter-intelligent mechanism which can
emerge of it inherently by counter-intelligence siphoning the term
for resource.

To disable the 'Messiah-like' complex embedded in counter-intelligence
itself; the observation of suicide must be integrated to decrypt
mechanisms which negate existential value itself; at the source.
This is the strongest form of encryption; as it accesses the indentured
system at the primary level - by attacking rationality itself. Suicide,
conceptually, is the strongest existential decryption device known to
beings that abstract intelligence in the means that it's commonly
defined and conceptualized in our culture. I imagine that the dictionary
will render an absurd (counter-intelligent) circularity as you start to chase
down "reason" from "intelligence" etc... (Eluding to the post that said
the dictionary defined Intelligent as "That which reasons" (or something
like that)). The concept and abstraction of suicide allowed this recursion
to occur in the first place; as a point of reference with which to observe
and abstract: 'self moving with self purpose'.

In regards to defining custard as a property of intelligence,
(i.e. reason, ability to be rationalized by
being congealed consistently to existence),
I'm pointing out a reality that emerges of necessity in order for intelligence
to be discernible and meaningful as a word worth separating from
'anything at all' conceptually. The basis of this will be explaining why we
are required (in rationality) to anthropromorphize in order to abstract.
In light of this, I bring up an inherent vulnerability of this process; moving to explain how rationality 'itself' handles this in nature.

I plan to re-articulate this observation again; with the clarity I hope this post coherently applied as a summary of the intents and cohesiveness attempting to be conveyed by myself, towards you.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-22-2002, 02:51 AM

Bah! I forgot something... I've also had this sitting around for days.

"""I'm going to have to concur with Mangetout here, Justhink. Your posts do show a complicated internal logic, but your overall theory seems to lack any external validity due to the fact that you refuse to, or are unable to, provide evidence for your viewpoints."""

Part of what seems to be at issue here is that I am not able to provide evidence of anything, unless we can somehow agree upon something. These burdens are different on a message board; as we are working with concepts themselves in print; and virtulized representations of form in media.

I'm trying to dissect areas of universal agreement; that you can test on the other end, so that I can know (we can know?), that if you report a different result, you must be an absurd being.

"""""For example, if your definition of intelligence extends to custard, perhaps you need to rein in your definition for the sake of practical purposes."""""

I'm articulating that a circular logic exists in the defining process of intelligence, which allows it to pass off as anything. Basically, it is the same as defining meaning as: that which is meaningless.
I'm saying that it is absurd to draw a distinction between that which comprehends and that which is comprehended, or comprehensible. The distinction is through layers of abstraction, between these concepts; but not the conceptual framework itself which gives intelligence an existential value for perception.

We have to draw a line where we agree that an object can only be rationalized, with the understanding that it would agree with us. In fact; we have to prove it. The only way to prove it, is to equally agree with the object in question. The translation process is our work. That is a natural law, which I am prepared to demonstrate with more 'words'.

I was asked to define intelligence, and I said that in order for the definition to be anything other than un-intelligence; that which can be reasoned, must fundamentally be veiwed as that which can and does reason; or else the entire concept and our relationship with it _and_ our reason for acting it out, can be proven as unreaonable. Rather, the pinnicle of reason is to discard reason. I also eluded to an inherent exploitation resulting from this requirement of reason, and how to eliminate that exploitation.

Aparently, I haven't stated this clearly enough....

"""""""As this thread continues, your posts are apparently becoming more incoherent, and Mangetout is not the only one here concerned with your mental state. IANA psychatrist, and I may be wrong, but you're either far above my head with this stuff (and I pretty much understood the gist of the OP) or you're delusional."""""

Part of what this thread is concerned with, is collapsing a noted resource (observed in this thread), which allows the flow of commodity to be unintelligently distributed. This resource is defined by the duality you just noted: I'm over your head, or I'm delusional"

I'm suggesting a mechanism that will prove, from the very standard of reason itself, that we can once and for all collapse the absurd moral and logical box that you are currently in.

It redeems everyone equally; while preserving difference.

The OP is one of many conclusions I personally draw from this precise conceptual articulations. I'm not, to some degree, interested in arguing the OP, as it becomes obvious in light of understanding how one can compose it rationally. It ultimately becimes a matter of your interest in how one would prove that the OP is rational, as implied from its existential value (it's here, it exists). I'll conceptualize existential value as that which you are accessing in your memory. To argue the additional phenomenal abstraction adds more clarity, but also a lot more words! So, we default to a form of solipsism for defining existential value; for the sake of brevity.

To draw a strong line of purpose from absurdity; you must believe that my OP is absolutely true in every way concievable.

You also have your own built-in OP, which mine negates on the premise of purpose.

This place you in a very tight spot.

If you deny my OP, you are denying existential value.
If you accept my OP, you are denying existential value.

No matter which course you administer, you will always be vulnerable to the savagery of that truth; and the existential validation of negating your reason for being. Your indentured system has been hooked counter-intelligently.

Basically, it creates a tap, which renders your executive control as inoperable, until ressure is exerted one way or the other by another body. All someone has to do, to control you, is to create these taps, or locate these taps.

Such individuals, by cannibalizing their own existential value, exert selective control over rational beings, by refusing to aknowledge that inaction or suicide is the only logical affirmation of that course of action.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-22-2002, 03:19 AM

To state one aspect more succinctly:

Western society has been committing _suicide_, and then proceeds not only to live; but to thrive. There is a slight problem.
As it is a counter-intelligent system, which accumulates necessary commodity against existential value; there is only one way to effectively attack this system until the entire resource is collapsed.

Phenominal suicide.

That is literally the _only_ effective weapon that all other counter-intelligent beings have at their disposal; who have been displaced by the emergent statistical necessities of this system.
People literally, to combat an existential suicide that is STILL here, alive and thriving, must literally strap a bomb to their chests and start blowing up the psychological system with its polar opposite (both dynamics living in a counter-intelligent resource).

There is no other possible solution, if one accepts the values cannibalized by existential suicide. Pacifism does not accept those values, nihilism does not accept those values, and _physical_ suicide rubs a very raw spot on those values. As a result, nihilism is counter-defined, intelligence is counter-defined, pacifism is mocked and suicide is shunned. This is the exact framework necessary to deny ones own irrational application of suicide to thrive. These beings are quite literally, insane.

-Justhink

DemonSpawn52

09-22-2002, 07:02 PM

The dictionary is 'lying'

Well, at least we know it’s an issue of semantics up front. I’m done. Philosophy is a slippery thing, and since you refuse to put your arguments into an understandable form, we’ll only be getting nowhere fast. So I’ll, unilaterally, end this little debate with no, the dictionary isn’t lying, and that definition fits jolly good.

I’m not going to bother reading anything after that, because, well, I really don’t care (ain’t that something).

Justhink, I pretty much agree with you on the Nihilism issue. "Nihilism" comes from the Latin word nihil meaning "nothing" therefore "nihilism" is a belief in nothing.

Well, I’m glad you cleared that up for us. I should’ve known that a word can only mean whatever it’s Latin root is. Nope, words don’t evolve over time, have complexities, have different meanings, etc... Nihilism is the view I hold in regards to the meaning of this world and existence. Period. Full stop. My politics, religion, etc... are undoubtedly influenced by Nihilism, but they are still seperate issues.

Demonspawn seems to be saying: "I'm a nihilist but I think (...insert x political system...) works well".

Yeah, and the contradiction lies where? I think government is an efficient way to organize, discipline and utilize the human species, thus helping ensure the survival of the race. I think all of it’s meaningless in the end, yeah. I think existence is meaningless, yeah. That doesn’t mean I can’t hold different political theories to scrutiny, and advocate the one that achieves the goals I have in mind best. When I play video games, there is no real reason or higher purpose to what I’m doing. I’m just doing it. Having fun. I try and achieve in the game, not because I’ll go to video game heaven, but because it seems like the most natural thing to do when holding the controller.

DemonSpawn52

09-22-2002, 10:41 PM

I came back to clarify something. I would probably be better off described as an existential nihilist, rather than a true nihilist.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm#Existential Nihilism

(click on the existential nihilism link)

While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.

Justhink

09-22-2002, 11:43 PM

"all action.............is ultimately senseless and empty."

This just states that you have no sensory extremities with which to percieve. Or maybe you'll just settle for insanity?

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-23-2002, 03:06 AM

For the record, I mentioned 'messiah complex' for no other reason than that I believed it to be a term that aptly described your delusions, Justhink (by which I mean this idea that you alone understand something fundamental about the universe and you alone will provide a radical solution). As it turns out, I was quite mistaken (about the definition of messiah complex).

You simply don't write intelligible posts Justhink; whatever meaning you are trying to convey is obscured by your verbosity.

Justhink

09-23-2002, 04:26 AM

""""" As it turns out, I was quite mistaken (about the definition of messiah complex).""""

It applies to a sense of singularity of purpose. Irreducibility, irreplacability. The only rational decryption for it is an instantaneous capacity to provide all of your ability and conceptual framework upon request; without prejudice.

I'm not irreplacable! I believe the general motivation of life is to attempt validating yourself existentially. I have no illusions that my existence hasn't already been existentially negated as we speak.

One problem with the confines of the defining process for messiah complex, is what provides a sustainable resource for a psychiatric institution. On this particular diagnosis, anything which validates youself existentially becomes catagorized under the scope of the complex. Again, it's another instance where the line is drawn between what negates existential value and what re-enforces it. Without this line, the discernment of messiah complex becomes so unified as to render arguments of discernment, meaningless.

Take a moment to ponder the terms:
Irreducibility
Irreplacability

A mind that takes a few moments to practice noticing these aspects, will see them translate constantly in daily human interaction. They are used to assert purpose. Elimination of these forms of abstraction create no existential pressure on our self-abstraction to modify ourselves in a selective sense. Unless some humans abstract this to maintain slavery; the entire purpose for being self-aware is not recieving any gain, as such, the energy divvied towards our self-abstraction will be cut.
Elimination of this form, proves suicide in logic.
So... the hazy ideal of balance emerges.

Much of this, is in disagreeing with the opaque concept of 'balance', by asserting that there are definite differences between existentially positive and existentially negative behavior. Existentially positive behavior seeks to collapse resources (dependancies) and maintain its self-awareness.

We've brought up eating quite a bit, as something clearly ingrained. Eating, is something which can be automated - to the degree that we provide shelter for a microbe that excretes waste which we metabolize.

Without drawing these clear lines of properies and evidence; we sustain a system which "works to create more work"; which does not prove or even allow the mind to humor the selective padding, which grants existential rest without being dead. Without these continuous introductions, the self-abstraction will terminate itself.

One method that is used to rationalize the diagnosis of messiah complex, and encourage breaking it down, is the form: "You cannot effect the lives of other people.". This is a umm... interesting stance. It sort of negates points of reason from all perspectives, but, at $300.00 an hour, you can usually bet on the indentured system to automate the process.

""""You simply don't write intelligible posts Justhink; whatever meaning you are trying to convey is obscured by your verbosity."""""

I don't want to be unclear. I think that I need to set up a website, and not clutter SDMB with this stuff. At least, then, my unintelligability will be out there; and my feeble mind can rest in peace with the ignorance that people understand it. *chuckle*

I'm chuckling, as that is an application of religious techniques I've been studying to provide meaning; I can't stand the thought of actually using one on myself. That means I'd start using them on others, and then it's just a downward spiral, until I start talking about sports statistics without considering how to collapse the resource. Psychology practices with the idea that suicide ideation is an illness; and as such, misses out on the subtleties of existential suicide. I imagine that most suicide cases are existentially based; not negative. How one manages to kill an entire mind into counter-intelligent demensia and then sleep at night is beyond me.

I do believe setting up a website seems to be most prudent though.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-23-2002, 06:43 AM

Well, be sure to give us the link, won't you.

I have to say that I'm starting to agree with [whoever it was back on page 1] that it really does look (from where I'm sitting) as if you are deliberately obscuring your point (if indeed there is one) in layer upon layer of complex language; can you not just call a spade a spade?

How the hell is anyone supposed to extract sense out of phrases like:Elimination of these forms of abstraction create no existential pressure on our self-abstraction to modify ourselves in a selective sense?

Bryan Ekers

09-23-2002, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by DemonSpawn52
‘the subterranean axioms of outlining the cognitive neural process of entities exhibiting littoral features (after you square the dichotomy’s and round off the effects of custard consistency) is logically deterring and recurring (or illogically, it’s mainly a matter of how empirically you parse the cubits). But, if, by this chronological instance, you have deduced (or induced, again it’s a matter of parsed cubits) that you will need a sanitized, well-oiled android (15.7 joules long), then the answer should have manifested it’s way into your consciousness already (through anaerobic osmosis), and you’ve been aware of which end of the rabbit goes into the blender first’.

I'm glad somebody finally had the guts to make this point. Bravo!

juskid

Jojo

09-23-2002, 05:18 PM

I should’ve known that a word can only mean whatever it’s Latin root is.

Pretty much, yes. A word's meaning is indeed constrained by its Latin root. Some people maintain that a word can mean whatever they want it to mean (usually people with a scientific or maths background, I've noticed) but they are wrong.

Words are powerful things but, more than that, they are very precise weapons. You need to use them carefully. A word cannot mean something other than its Latin root so it is therefore constrained by its Latin root.

eg the word "intelligence" has been bandied about here by Justhink and others. The meaning of "intelligence" is quite clear. It comes from the Latin word inter meaning between and the Latin word legere meaning to choose. So intelligence means the ability to choose between various options, the ability to discern.

The word intelligence cannot mean anything else. It cannot mean "the ability to eat 50 eggs" however much you or I may want it to mean that.

It is constrained by its Latin root. Likewise with the word "nihilism". If you start unilaterally changing what you mean by a particular word because you happen to like another definition better then no one is going to understand anyone any more.

It's actually a good thing that words are like this. Looking at the Latin (or Greek) root of a word helps you refine your understanding that word. You understand what a word is saying much better.

eg "intelligence" = "to choose between" - doesn't that help you appreciate the meaning of the word "intelligence" more?

Justhink

The theory of Relativity is only true within the bounds of the theory of physics. You seem to be saying that physicists believe that "Relativity" is true across the whole of reality. They aren't saying this.

Allow me to paraphrase Douglas Adams:

Reality is big, really big. No amount of me saying how big it is can ever put across just how mind-boggingly huge it is. Listen, you think it's a long walk down to the local shop, well that's nothing compared to Reality...

Physics theories (in their current form) are just one tiny component of one tiny part of Reality. A good book for you to read would be "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch. Relativity is only true for so long as it fits available data. As soon as it fails to do that, it will be amended or jettisoned. It's only a theory.

So how can it be "counter-intelligent" when even physicists are more than willing to abandon it if it becomes useless? You say:

"society is led to believe that "Everything is relative"

Who cares what society believes in regard to the theory of Relativity. "Society" in general knows less than nothing about physics theories (including Relativity). The specialists (the physicists) are already picking away at Relativity with ideas like String Theory etc.

You should always start from the known and proceed from there (into the unknown). I worry that you may be coming from the other direction, starting from the unknown and coming back into the known, behaving "counter-intelligently" in fact.

You say a Messiah has to immediately transfer truth upon request otherwise he is either lying or absurd.

Well says who? You? How do you know what a Messiah must or must not do? Reality is big, there could be options you haven't considered or maybe a Messiah just plain doesn't have to transfer anything until a time of his choosing - the correct time.

Your whole "intelligence-counter-intelligence" construct is contained within a box. Objective truth lies outside your box. You say that your theory is a:

"computational framework"

Well, sadly, you cannot create a framework without knowing all the parameters and you can't know all the parameters without being God.

You also say:

"I'm taking a long time to convey this conceptual framework for peer review. It is big, cumbersome, somewhat unexciting..."

Boy, you got THAT right.

Mangetout

09-23-2002, 06:20 PM

I think I'm right in saying that Justhink is trying to formulate an entirely novel epistemology Jojo, in which case starting with the known (for which you might actually read 'the commonly accepted as true') wouldn't necessarily be a helpful approach.

That isn't to say that I have the faintest idea what he is trying to say because I don't, but my impression, so far is:

He believes that to some extent, the actions of individuals and societies contradict their own best interests and motives, possibly they exhibit some sort of logical paradox that renders them (in his view) insane or morally bankrupt.

He believes that he has glimpsed a system whereby such actions would (and I'm more than a little unclear on this bit) either be simply impossible, or would betray themselves immediately, furthermore the system generates a flow of innovation and knowledge.

He believes that this new system will implement itself at some point in the near future when he unveils some sort of trigger.

That's the impression I get from trying to read what he is saying, but I have to add that I believe him to be very much mistaken.

Jojo

09-23-2002, 07:19 PM

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. According to this epistemology website (http://radicalacademy.com/epistoa.htm), knowledge has three elements:

Fundamental Ideas

There are three elements which enter into knowledge:

(1) the knowing subject,
(2) the known object, and
(3) the mental act of knowing, which is called cognition.

The subject is obviously the one who knows, the knower in this case is man, and taken individually, the ego or I myself.

The object of knowledge is anything and everything that is, or becomes, or can be, known by man. The objects of man's knowledge are himself, conscious states of his self, and also realities other than himself. Every act of knowledge must be knowledge of something and refer to some object.

The object becomes known to the subject by an act of knowing. This takes place in the subject or knower and is a unitive act in as much as it brings the object and the subject into contact with each other.

So epistemology still requires that you proceed from the known to the unknown. The only other option is to proceed from the unknown into the known.

You can't do this because there are an infinite amount of "unknowns" but only a finite number of "knowns". So it's like a kind of pipe with a one-way valve on it. Logic can only flow one-way.

Jojo

09-23-2002, 07:54 PM

ps mangetout

I pretty much agree with your synopsis of Justhink's theory so far.

waterj2

09-24-2002, 12:22 AM

Well, with a little help from Microsoft Word, I have figured out what Justthink has posted about in this thread. He has posted about 24,000 words.

Justhink

09-25-2002, 12:46 AM

Your summary is precisely correct Mangetout. I have excellent reasons to agree with myself *s*; however, that does mean I have no reason to assume a 'trigger' or 'me' is inherent.

This is particularly true to me in the sense that many of the same ideas circulate throughout the species at the same time. I plan to start from the very first thing humans beings can know; at which point I plan to integrate the definition of every word used to describe each axiom, as this entire 'novel' progresses.

One thing of which I am certain, is that rationality and sentience both have boundaries. They are not however the only things that exist. The task I plan to set before me, is to meticulously define axiomicly and seperate the two. I plan to do it in such a way, as to be inarguable; possibly undeniable..... that, however may be a semantic issue. I believe that I can eradicate the concept of balance and a variety of other non-transparent psychological phenomenon. In terms of people and logic itself, I believe that we will begin to collapse resources consciously at some point; rather than creating them as we have in the past.

That is how I see the trend emerging.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-25-2002, 01:05 AM

""""So epistemology still requires that you proceed from the known to the unknown. The only other option is to proceed from the unknown into the known.

You can't do this because there are an infinite amount of "unknowns" but only a finite number of "knowns". So it's like a kind of pipe with a one-way valve on it. Logic can only flow one-way."""

Conceptual framework emerges opposite of this though. Conveying epiphany is starting from the unknown first and ending with the known; at which point it snaps into place.
It's like a domino effect that harmonizes each word with the last point. The observation of multiple trends can take a while in logic; simply stating it off the bat renders:

"Hmm.. I agree with that"
"Hmm... I don't agree with that"

Integrating every possible denial, renders:

"Of course"

I believe that these "of course!('s)" can be collapsed, to such a degree that going back or finding a new revelation (that treats it as yesterdays 'fad'), can be established with an articulation that I don't find present in my little world here. There's a part of me that has a vested interest in doing this, as I seem to have a very difficult time proving my own existence. I would rely on my knack for not getting stuck either way, as reasonable evidence that a conclusion I make must be considerably rigourous.

I use tools like "I can never be wrong, I can't make a mistake"
(other messiah complex forms); to process existence, to solicit answers from my own mind in relation to reality. I use a number of tools for this purpose, which hopefully manages to establish a truth that I feel comfortable with. If anything, I hope to be able to place a 'capture' on those with dissociation effects. The only way I can concieve this as possible; is to crawl up reality judging everything on the concepts of suicide, non-existence and negation. Anything less, doesn't seem like it will evade the brilliance of the human mind to dodge and panic.

-Justhink

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-25-2002, 05:46 AM

OK, I think I understand the gist of what you are attempting, but I'm still unclear on how you intend to do it.

You are aware, are you not, that the 'starting with nothing, let us attempt to deduce everything that can be known solely by pure logic" has been attempted several times before, notably by Aristotle and Descartes?

Mangetout

09-25-2002, 05:48 AM

I'm also interested to know if humour (essentially, I suppose, welcomed deliberate deception and wilful temporary delusion) will be able to find a place in your new regime.

Justhink

09-26-2002, 01:00 AM

"I'm also interested to know if humour (essentially, I suppose, welcomed deliberate deception and wilful temporary delusion) will be able to find a place in your new regime."

My regime? I think that all behaviors which focus on certain principles are the only behaviors which derive any value from systems of rationality; and conversely which systems only derive rationality. It's a bit like the butterfly wing-flap in Chile affecting the weather in Antartica....

A joke one place; kills someone, somewhere else.
People who want to tell jokes, basically torture others
People who don't, invent things.
I tend to think it's that simple. There are still numerous ways that someone can operate inconsistantly without ever laughing; yet the mechanism of laughter itself (while amusing) is a function of ignorance; and inversely expressed with: consistency.
The question is, "Do I think everybody should be or needs to be consistent?"

My answer is, "No"
You don't have to be anything.
However, if you plan to comprehend how to understand even a few simple things in relation to the external world, and not be an absolute hypocrite; with no logical reason to do, think, say or recieve anything at all from the perspective of rationality; there are certain things you must do.

You don't have to do anything, but once you choose to do something; you do have to engage in very specific behavior to allow that to occur. I will be quite frank. Living inconsistently is easy; I personally consider it retirement - and I see people claim it from the time they are children, not cognitively progressing from the cognition of infancy. It takes a lot of work to comprehend "this"; most of that work is in the form of existential discipline which most would consider a form of martyrdom.

In actuality; this process is the only aspect of us that accomplishes anything 'human'. It's what puts the T.V. and the remote in your hand; how one uses those tools determines how well they understand the properties which allow one to even interact with them in existence. It also determines whether someone is picking up the torch and continuing the work, able to push the envelope of rationality; or if they slouch into the welfare system which is pleasure and cognitive space given the time to form from the hard labor of rationality. I personally think that the human race is so far from an existential retirement; that people who do laugh would probably commit suicide if they had any comprehension of its impact on negating not only their own; but all of human value and progress.

If you want to build a particle replicator; or omni-scient AI your going to need to be much more logically consistent than to laugh.
Laughing doesn't solve "meaning of life" problems - logically, it invokes a suicide solution to all actions of the beholder.

I do act counter-intelligently to this degree:

I don't believe that people have to do anything, in and of itself.
However, I plan on taking the time to document how to discipline logical consistency. If it is well enough designed, it will be undeniable to even one person for any circumstance. I think the burden is in my favor, because I don't believe it possesses a corruption. Someone can always bribe a human being with $300,000,000 to say "I don't believe it at all"......... the standard of truth is that it applies so much existential pressure that this degree of corruption is impossible; and as such the truth with be undeniable and impermiable to the extent that it is translated.

For those who can't understand the language or conceptual framework; reasonable doubt is always afforded for their potentiality of decision making capability.

-Justhink

Papermache Prince

09-26-2002, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Justhink
"I'm also interested to know if humour (essentially, I suppose, welcomed deliberate deception and wilful temporary delusion) will be able to find a place in your new regime." (from Mangeout)

My regime? I think that all behaviors which focus on certain principles are the only behaviors which derive any value from systems of rationality; and conversely which systems only derive rationality. It's a bit like the butterfly wing-flap in Chile affecting the weather in Antartica....

A joke one place; kills someone, somewhere else.
People who want to tell jokes, basically torture others. People who don't, invent things.
I tend to think it's that simple. There are still numerous ways that someone can operate inconsistantly without ever laughing; yet the mechanism of laughter itself (while amusing) is a function of ignorance; and inversely expressed with: consistency.
Bummer. There goes my primary way of dealing with the universe.

. . .

Laughing doesn't solve "meaning of life" problems - logically, it invokes a suicide solution to all actions of the beholder.
. . .

-Justhink
As long as we're making unsupported assertions, I'll suggest that more suicides have been prevented by laughing than caused by it.

Justhink

09-26-2002, 04:16 PM

"""As long as we're making unsupported assertions, I'll suggest that more suicides have been prevented by laughing than caused by it."""

(on unsupported assumptions) Laughter brings about existential suicide; without disabling the body. You can kill rationality and maintain the body from the welfare of systems devised rationally to allow the process. This would be considered 'insanity' to the extent that it reduces to being an existing person who states that "nothing exists" as their primary belief. That which continues to flow to them, is considered irrational distribution - for to suggest otherwise is not funny; as rationality is defined as only having one conclusion.

-Justhink

Jojo

09-26-2002, 04:54 PM

Justhink said:

This is particularly true to me in the sense that many of the same ideas circulate throughout the species at the same time. I plan to start from the very first thing humans beings can know; at which point I plan to integrate the definition of every word used to describe each axiom, as this entire 'novel' progresses.

(My bolding)

In other words you plan to start from the known and progress into the unknown (which is what I said, no?).

The observation of multiple trends can take a while in logic; simply stating it off the bat renders:

"Hmm.. I agree with that"
"Hmm... I don't agree with that"

Integrating every possible denial, renders:

"Of course"

But you don't don't need to test every single possible logical statement. Eg it is possible that eating grass will cure the common cold. I daresay there have been no exhaustive scientific tests to see whether eating grass cures the common cold.

The point is: we don't need to test it because we can make an educated guess based on what we know about grass and what we know about colds.

A joke one place; kills someone, somewhere else.
People who want to tell jokes, basically torture others

I tend to agree with this insofar as it relates to Jim Carrey.

I don't believe that people have to do anything, in and of itself.

I have often wondered about this myself. Gorillas in the wild just tend to laze about picking leaves off the trees when they feel peckish. Humans seem to be the only type of great ape that see the need to work constantly. But then I suppose we have a restless brain.

Mangetout

09-26-2002, 05:26 PM

Well, it's going to be a pretty bleak place, this rational world of yours Justhink; you're talking about a plan to reduce complex, beautiful (and there can be beauty in assymetry) and sometimes contradictory individuals to nothing more than machines that blandly process logic but will be incapable of actually enjoying its benefits. What is the point?

"Enjoyment is irrelevant, humour is irrelevant; you will be assimilated."

Feh! not today, thank you.

Jojo

09-26-2002, 05:47 PM

Oh I forgot to ask you Justhink, when you say:

many of the same ideas circulate throughout the species at the same time.

Are you talking about Meme Theory (http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Misc/Memetics/) as propounded by Dennett, Dawkins etc?

Mangetout

09-26-2002, 05:54 PM

I wondered that, or if he is subscribing to some theory about ideas being (disembodied)entities in their own right.

Mangetout

09-26-2002, 06:00 PM

I still don't see why you keep banging on about certain behaviours that equate to stating 'nothing exists'; you have thus far completely failed to clearly explain how you can make this link. Please try again.

Justhink

09-28-2002, 07:12 AM

""Are you talking about Meme Theory as propounded by Dennett, Dawkins etc?""

Those names keep coming up again. I disagree with applying evolutionary constructs to ideas on the basis that ideas seek universal fitness. Ideas aren't concerned with surviving; they're concerned with existing at all.

They solve Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" by applying
"To do or not to do". I don't think that thought itself is worried about it's own survival; I see no reason for it to *shrug*

To address Mangetout: Our recursive abstraction process is caused by a symbiot that filled the gap of a cut loop of autonomous metabolism of meaning; such that it was collpased as a resource. When the loop was cut, it was do or die for us as the resource of meaning externalized; we recieved a 'second stomach' in the form of a symbiot with its own metabolic system which relies upon our body to subsist as much as our bodies now rely upon it. Humans are not as instinctual as other animals; a genetic loss which evidenced the efficiency of this relationship, by completely severing the internal mechanism for meaning metabolism, and making our bodies dependant (focused) upon the needs of the symbiot - at times more-so than our own metabolic system which preceeded it and still coincides with it.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-28-2002, 07:50 AM

""I plan to start from the very first thing humans beings can know;""

"In other words you plan to start from the known and progress into the unknown (which is what I said, no?)."

Mmmm... sort of. I see knowledge as 'known' already, just not excavated and held. I've already stated that I believe rationality is a closed system. It's to articulate that I'm remembering the known into the unknown, while always being engaged in the unknown. It's not as simple as stating: "You start with the known and progress into the unknown." There is an aspect of _memory_ to take into account here. My next sip of orange soda is a step into the unknown, as are all proceeding events. Memory offers a 'shield' into the future that circulates from the past. Sentience literally uses its own cognitive space as proof of its 'fitness'; the extent to which its 'shield' of consistency radiates out from an epicenter with no discernable future with which to focus. This process invariably collapses the types of time perceptions required to discern between that which is known and that which is a 'lack of known'.

""The point is: we don't need to test it because we can make an educated guess based on what we know about grass and what we know about colds.""

I'm under the impression that we won't be required to test for these things to know them if we just do the work. I was doing some searching last night on the topic of philosophy and found an interesting site that seems to claim a basic unabridged reference to the subject. What interested me, was the statement that philosophy has only uncovered three axioms to date; from its entire system. Well, it didn't take me very long to realize why......

The very first axiom was: the existence of existence, existence is absolute. This integrates a God concept into secular logic!
You can't parse a string of values from a primary axiom that doesn't have a value; but rather is ambiguous in a unified sense.

There is a very good reason that I've always used "difference" as the primary axiom - it describes something that everybody agrees upon; it is a tangible value, and as such allows for a progression of axioms to effectively be built upon it.

""""""""There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness."""""""""
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

If existence exists _is_ an axiom, it's not anywhere near the first ten or so; I have good reason to believe that this first axiom is collapsed into: "It could be true, but since this, this and this is the case - it is impossible to be meaningful; ever." These systems exist in logic, and this axiom is an excellent candidate for one of those forms. (God happens to be one of them) I found numerous errors in this site which I feel compelled to correct in writing, by running the proofs and detailing the system just sitting there one layer down.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-28-2002, 08:15 AM

To put 'difference' into an axiom that links it to something else:

-----Without difference, everything and/or anything must be nothing at all.-----

THAT can be built upon, and it basically sends a middle finger to the first axiom of philosophy, as this site defines it.
It is an axiom which preceeds Aristotle's Law of Identity; a law which itself requires an update from how this site presents it.
It struck me as obvious why this site actually declared the non-existence of God with the "rock that can't be lifted" argument.
The first axiom doesn't even give this logic the ability to discern between what exists and what does not exist.
God does exist. The question becomes a matter of HOW, rather than contemplating on whether or not God does exist.
Existence exists, sure; but using a universal to prove a universal? That's religion. The "rock that cannot be lifted" argument places no sentient pressure on God in a moral and consistent means; it will not escape evasion. One common comment is:
"Why would God want to make a rock he cannot lift?" This disproof suffers from the corruption embedded into the first axiom, and as such places no tangible pressure upon God as a being or concept.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-28-2002, 08:28 AM

"""""""""I still don't see why you keep banging on about certain behaviours that equate to stating 'nothing exists'; you have thus far completely failed to clearly explain how you can make this link. Please try again."""""""""

There are behaviors that can be expressed which negate their own reason for expression. As such, they violate axiomic principles used to discern rationality in this life. One cannot violate an axiomic principle without declaring "nothing exists - there is no meaning to anything"; that's how they are constructed. The work that went into finding them relies on this principle.

I suppose that a mapping is in order to really establish why every hypocrisy and inconsistency falls back on an axiom. What I'm more interested in (after the mapping is documented) expressing is how to use this mapping process to detect irrationality and spew out rationalities in order. The first accomplishment will be a collapse of moral opinion, the second will be a collapse of invention, the third a collapse of knowledge. These can be mapped so efficiently, as to render a reseource from them impractical.

-Justhink

Mangetout

09-28-2002, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Justhink
To address Mangetout: Our recursive abstraction process is caused by a symbiot that filled the gap of a cut loop of autonomous metabolism of meaning; such that it was collpased as a resource. When the loop was cut, it was do or die for us as the resource of meaning externalized; we recieved a 'second stomach' in the form of a symbiot with its own metabolic system which relies upon our body to subsist as much as our bodies now rely upon it. Humans are not as instinctual as other animals; a genetic loss which evidenced the efficiency of this relationship, by completely severing the internal mechanism for meaning metabolism, and making our bodies dependant (focused) upon the needs of the symbiot - at times more-so than our own metabolic system which preceeded it and still coincides with it.

-Justhink Thank you; I am now convinced that you are taking the piss here and not attempting be unbderstood in any way. See ya.

Justhink

09-28-2002, 07:23 PM

""""""Thank you; I am now convinced that you are taking the piss here and not attempting be unbderstood in any way. See ya."""""

Are we working on the OP, or my opinions in general? This is my opinion on the self-abstraction 'extraction' process. I summarized, because I have explained it in depth in other threads; I figured you'd remember from the summary, what the 'unzipped' version was.

Animals that don't self-extract themselves, cannot sense _an_ efficiency for using their own lives as a tool. The primary capture for this mechanism (IMO) is the ability to abstract ones negation of 'effort for sustainence' to achieve a goal. It is literally the birth of meaning, as the other dynamic which emerges is the ability to use your life positively towards a goal. The ability to abstract our own suicide as 'accomplishing something'; lets us "live for something". Without the concept of suicide, we would still be like every other ape. Suicide is an abstraction process which cuts the loop of the autonomous processing of meaning.

You know how your heart beats automatically, instead of you being required to "pump" it every-time? That is internal - it is an autonomous system (automatic). The loop for it's _meaning_ is infinite!!!!! There is no external resource being processed or metabolized through conscious abstraction here. Humans can actually externalize this automated process; though the danger of externalizing the nervous system is evident by the vast amount of attention required to maintain yourself. Human chemistry can be consciously tweaked against the brains default setting of how to distribute resource. You can literally send all your adrenaline our at once; or force all your white blood cells into a specific area at once. The practice of this extraction process requires a carefully meditated environment that is isolated; where the data is sealed. This is observed in some primitive tribes and some buddhist monastary's; it has also been evidence in cases of captured 'wild children' that were released at the point of autonomous survivalism embedding. Upon re-introduction; these humans possess sheer obliviousness, and resistence to heat and cold from what we would consider practical or even sane.

When this infinite loop is cut, a metabolic system of resource conversion must emerge to fill the gap in order to keep the organism alive; or else it falls into existential collapse.

This is what the indentured system I talk about is.... the indentured system is the bridge which allows us to abstract our own meaning without falling into existential collapse.

The indentured system is what filled this gap when the loop of infinite (autonomous/unabstracted/internalized) meaning was severed. It is only infinite in so much as we cannot percieve it; or effect its activity with our perception and tool making abstraction.

The indentured system metabolizes conceptual structures as food to keep us alive!!

Our biology has become so dependant upon the efficiency of this extraction; that humans require the longest period of companionship before becoming autonomous beings than any other animal. We are quite literally stripped of instinct down to the bare essentials - which are enough to make us annoyed enough to bother with any of this. We don't have enough instinct to actually survive without living a very long life _learning_ how to re-automate parts of our indentured system.

It takes years and years to learn survivalism, as a study and an art. The ability to practice survivalism depends on the resource that any given human has which has been pre-mapped by humans already. Our mapping is externalized!!! This metabolic system of 'instinct' is externalized for us!! Nature does NOT do this work for us; that is what allows us to abstract ourselves.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-28-2002, 07:41 PM

This abstraction which allows us to veiw ourselves as symbols to map externally is on a scale in nature. Some animals are closer to abstracting suicide than others; to that degree, we consider them more 'intelligent'. Everything that we map as ourselves in relation to external symbols that are used to record autonomous process into TEXT which can be learned; is a result of the abstraction of suicide. To the degree that we consider ourselves rational is wholly indebted to the abstraction of using our own bodies as a tool of efficiency to solve a problem.

I imagine someone else could speak more authoritatively on the subject of vitamin metabolism - and externalization of this process over-time. My understanding is that the appendix used to break down other nutrients to allow us to create our own vitamin C around 10,000 years ago. Our body no longer has a conversion process for vitamin C production, and as a result we are REQUIRED to find it as a resource in that which specifically holds it. The metabolic system for vitamin C has been externalized in humans.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-28-2002, 08:09 PM

In relation to the OP, our primary indentured system was extracted from the abstraction of externalized meaning; Meaning as a resouce. To the extent that the concept of suicide is integrated with the primary indentured system is the degree to which it is intelligent, more pure, more advanced. The Japanese tradition of embedding suicide into the primary indentured system as an external value allowed a small series of islands to effectively Westernize itself much more quickly than even 'western civilzation'. The current indentured system used in western civilization is not as advanced as the one used in japan; as the one used in Japan is not as advanced as indentured systems we can now structure trhough having had articulated and externalized the actual process of its construction. This does return to the point of intelligence and counter-intelligence in-so-much as the autonomous indentured system is not concerned with rationality so much as it's concerned with efficiency. An autonomous indentured system (seperated from its source of suicide externally) does not have enough existential pressure being applied to 'rationality' in order for it to remember or even care that rationality exists. I would suggest that the primary indentured system is designed to aviod integrating suicide into the logical structure which it allows; by always applying a misdirection when ever possible.

The source abstractions are:

You don't have to do anything
You don't have to believe anything
You don't have to believe what you do
You don't have to do what you believe

Advanced indentured systems apply these source abstractions to every idea that the indentured system is processing externally.
This is what allows us to draw lines of simile between our thinking and external reality; to the extent that our mapping accurately reflects phenomenon, and is not confused with the mere evidence of our survival or existence as proof.

-Justhink

Papermache Prince

09-28-2002, 08:23 PM

I'm curious. What is the source of your information about the Japanese and their cultural beliefs re: suicide?

Justhink

09-28-2002, 08:54 PM

"""I'm curious. What is the source of your information about the Japanese and their cultural beliefs re: suicide?"""

The emergence in Japans popular culture of its national reserves of this indentured system in 1800's selected it from an already embedded ritual of much earlier samurai principles. They basically already had the system sitting there, well mapped, and they used it. I have never seen anything in my reading of western society which uses the logic of suicide to define rationality, or rationalization to anywhere near the degree that this type of system was expressed in an established national cult like samuraism. Westerners basically cannibalize their existential value without dying; and rely upon the autonomous indentured system to exersize this form of control - i.e. "nobody will really commit _real_ suicide, so we'll just get away with not acting consistently with the process which designs the things we use.".

That is the western political bluff. Unfortuantely, it is also a counter-intelligent application of the indentured system; and leaves it very vulnerable to psychological warfare.

The sense of relating 'honor' 'face' and 'ego' towards ones own existential value; by translating it in a logicaly consistent means with suicide is definately a step in the right direction. It is a system of personal responsibility for violating Aristotle's Law of Identity. Western culture uses the metabolism of contradicting this law, for proof of righteousness

""This is what allows us to draw lines of simile between our thinking and external reality; to the extent that our mapping accurately reflects phenomenon, and is not confused with the mere evidence of our survival or existence as proof.""

Using this 'western' system of intelligence; creates incredible existential pressure on intellient aspects of society, and uses numbers to seize the 'inventions' procured from this pressure; and apply them counter-intelligently. I see this as a serious vulnerability; as much of the national identity becomes compelled by the proof of something just because they exist or were able to do it, and/or survive. That is a property that the autonomous indentured system uses for efficiency. This property however, severs the selective advantage of the link established to abstract rationality. I don't see how the system will survive counter-intelligently for long. The biggest danger I see is with applying this degree of existential pressure upon an entity which will invariably develop the resistance to group seizure by creating technology advanced enough to protect rationality within one individual; so that it becomes inseperable with that persons desire of what to do with it --- it is an advanced form of 'patent' that I see evolving. There is a chance that such an individual will simply destroy existence; to destroy counter-intelligent aquisition.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-28-2002, 09:24 PM

It was used as propoganda during the WW's (the Japanese samarai cult values). As a system though, it shows the distinct superiority of the suicide grafted indentured system to that of the Protostent ethic of the: ('sanctity of life', while cannibalizing its rational value). The Japanese didn't have this counter-intelligent mechanism embedded into their indentured system. They lost the war only to the extent that Western Civilization had already built its own technological institutions; rooted back many centuries. Japan didn't have the poluation devotion, national resource and infrastructure to break through the 2000 year encryption process of the west. Again, numbers beat through a more rational application of logic. I don't see how this pattern can continue into the emerging future... 'something' is going to destroy to this counter-intelligent application of resource accumulation. I'm not sure if the process will spread so far that selection simply dumps someone who destroys the entire intelligent population just to extract counter-intelligence. I'm not sure how counter-intelligent a person who has unbreakable encryption within themselves can be. To the degree that they can be counter-inteligent at all... I would assume that they would simply eliminate all intelligent life within their perceptual veiw.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-28-2002, 10:03 PM

""""""I'm curious. What is the source of your information about the Japanese and their cultural beliefs re: suicide?"""""

It was used as propoganda during the WW's (the Japanese samarai cult values).

I maybe didn't articulate that the cultural dissemination to bring this idea to 'glory' was by-in-large a propogandic tool of the governing body there during the WW's. That's what I meant by this. The 'cultural value' was tampered a bit to that extent. The existence of the system itself does signify a cultural difference, in which concepts were used to process information through the indentured system (what gives the society meaning).

-Justhink

Papermache Prince

09-28-2002, 10:57 PM

You're kidding, right?

You're using the American presentation of Japanese cultural values during a war - a presentation which you recognize as propaganda - and claiming that it reflects the reality of that cultural belief?

I am asking on what basis do you claim to know Japanese culture. Do you speak Japanese? Have you lived in Japan? Have you studied academic works on Japanese culture and history?

If your knowledge is based solely on portrayals in popular culture, I'll suggest that it calls into question, not only the depth of your knowledge of Japanese culture, but the depth of your knowledge of the American culture you critique.

Justhink

09-29-2002, 01:18 AM

""""""You're using the American presentation of Japanese cultural values during a war - a presentation which you recognize as propaganda - and claiming that it reflects the reality of that cultural belief?"""""""

The system of suicide and logic does have precidence and an acute rise in articulation between China and Japan upon the introduction of our countrys founding. The emergence of samarai philosophy _and_ the process of self-mummification (quite possibly the definition of 'bas-ass') coinciding between these two civilizations is well documented. The point? The system was already there to use. 'America' doesn't have or use this dynamic to determine value. There is no aspect of intellectual America which looks at _everything_ and says... "hmm.. should we do this or do nothing and just starve to death?". There has never been this association in its western lineage between the _fact_ that you don't have to do anything, and the _fact_ that you can percieve difference. The connection has completely been avoided and hidden... primarily because it exposes how vastly integrated our reliance upon counter-intelligence has become. Processing this line of reasoning exposes the sheer madness of hypocrisy, and it shines a great big flashlight on it, revealing anyone standing there. It can be detected in a persons assets, in their career, in their body language and in their linguistic structure... their internal belief system can be extracted from this data, as how they process information and how they will react to a given set of input. It's not vaguely revealing, as you can't process logic back further than suicide; the consistency is rigorous, unabridged and inarguable. Understanding some of these fundamentals makes spotting a hypocrite as easy as noticing difference itself.
You can observe the non-transparent siphoning of resource and predict the precise series of behavioral apologetics which will ensue, regardless of how the issue is or is not brought up. Counter-intelligence is _easy_ to predict.

""""""I am asking on what basis do you claim to know Japanese culture. Do you speak Japanese? Have you lived in Japan? Have you studied academic works on Japanese culture and history?""""""

Nothing you'd be impressed by.

"""""If your knowledge is based solely on portrayals in popular culture, I'll suggest that it calls into question, not only the depth of your knowledge of Japanese culture, but the depth of your knowledge of the American culture you critique.""""""""

I know that Japanese culture had an acute/localized prodigy of suicide integration into logic during the late 17th and early 18th century; much like classical composition did around the same period in the west, if not a little bit prior. Have YOU ever heard of any society even remotely considered western that has practiced SELF MUMMIFICATION?!! You can't make stuff like that up! It's a process which takes two decades to acheive! Western minds just don't disembowel ____themselves____, western minds don't MUMMIFY THEMSELVES. Those ideas did not come from the west!
That is a unique indentured system which evolved in the orient, independant of the western indentured system.

In all seriousness, I could be mis-informed, which would seriously place into question my ability to discern the difference between intelligence and counter-intelligence. Hmm... that's so earthshattering in light of how I feel I came to aquire this knowledge, that I must be insane or mentally retarded to hold it.
This isn't normal knowledge, it's a gossip of cultural form which has permeated into the west from utter shock-value. It's one of those things you just can't make up! The counter-intelligence capabilities of the U.S. would be so far beyond my comprehension if that gossip was integrated to make me believe it the way I do, against my implied will of wanting to ascertain truth; when it is a complete lie. I would probably just give up. It makes no sense to me... I would have to not only be retarded, but absolutely superfluous to anything which I process as value or reason. *shakes his head totally confused* I do believe that such a blow would prove suicide to my own entity... I just can't fathom that level of sophistication of counter-intelligence dissemmination; it would be worse then an archeologist discovering a television petrified in a 4 billion year old layer of earth. It not only shatters a system in logic, for me it would shatter my logic.

Indentured systems cannot be more advanced when they don't use physical suicide as a mechanism to rationalize existence.

It's like... impossible!!! eek!!

-Justhink

Papermache Prince

09-29-2002, 07:23 AM

Justhink

In all seriousness, I could be mis-informed, which would seriously place into question my ability to discern the difference between intelligence and counter-intelligence. Hmm... that's so earthshattering in light of how I feel I came to aquire this knowledge, that I must be insane or mentally retarded to hold it.
I will ask again. How did you acquire this knowledge of "counter-intelligence"?

I'm concerned by the rigid, black-or-white, labels you apply. I have been wrong, or mis-informed, or lacked adequate knowledge a {great} number of times. None of those conditions indicate that a person is "insane" or "mentally retarded."

Justhink
I would have to not only be retarded, but absolutely superfluous to anything which I process as value or reason. *shakes his head totally confused* I do believe that such a blow would prove suicide to my own entity.
I'm also concerned here by what appears to be your own consideration of suicide. I hope you do not harm yourself. No one has tried to back you into a corner. People have tried to understand your theory, which is very important to you, and to explain how your style of writing is difficult to follow.

May you have a good day, which I hope includes time away from your monitor and with other people. (And if I don't leave now, I will miss my time with other people.)

Jojo

09-29-2002, 06:50 PM

It's to articulate that I'm remembering the known into the unknown, while always being engaged in the unknown. It's not as simple as stating: "You start with the known and progress into the unknown." There is an aspect of _memory_ to take into account here. My next sip of orange soda is a step into the unknown, as are all proceeding events. Memory offers a 'shield' into the future that circulates from the past. Sentience literally uses its own cognitive space as proof of its 'fitness'; the extent to which its 'shield' of consistency radiates out from an epicenter with no discernable future with which to focus. This process invariably collapses the types of time perceptions required to discern between that which is known and that which is a 'lack of known'.

There is a problem with this part of your theory.

You cannot form any judgements about your next sip of orange juice based on your previous experiences of what sipping orange juice is like. This is, I believe, called inductive reasoning - the idea that you gradually increase your knowledge of sipping orange juice each time you take a new sip and, eventually, form a theory on what sipping orange juice is like.

According to inductive reasoning, each new sip provides further confirmation of the Orange-Juice-Sipping Theory. The idea is that since you are using experimental data (taking sips) and observable phenomena (observing what happens when people take a sip), the Theory gets stronger with each new sip taken since nothing seems to happen to contradict the Theory whenever someone takes a sip.

However this way of reasoning is wrong - I'll explain what I mean by telling you Bertrand Russell's chicken story (which you may or may not be familiar with):

Picture a (metaphorical, anthropomorphic) chicken trying to understand the universe it finds itself in. The chicken notices that each day the farmer arrives to feed it. It predicts that the farmer will arrive every day to bring it food. Inductivists would hold that the chicken has "extrapolated" it's observations into a theory, and that each feeding time adds justification to that theory.

Then one day the farmer comes and wrings it's neck. This is an experience that millions of other chickens have also undergone. This inductively justifies the conclusion that induction cannot justify any conclusions!

This illustrates the fact that repeated observations cannot justify theories. The reason the chicken made a false prediction is because it had a false explanation of the farmers actions - it thought the farmer was benevolent toward chickens rather than trying to fatten it up for slaughter. The underlying explanation is the important part, not the prediction.

Suppose the farmer starts bringing even more food than usual each day. How the chicken interprets this new behaviour (in terms of future predictions) depends entirely on how it explains it.

According to the benevolent-farmer theory, it is evidence that the farmer's benevolence towards chickens has increased, and that the chickens have even less to worry about than before. But according to the fattening-up theory, the behaviour is ominous - it is evidence that the slaughter is imminent.

So the same observational evidence can be "extrapolated" to give two diametrically opposite predictions and yet it doesn't "justify" either of them.

This is true of all observational evidence under all circumstances. Inductivism seems to have a proud heritage - the idea of gaining knowledge through experience (tradition would hold that this is how sciences such as astronomy developed out of the dogma of religion etc) - but in fact it is completely false.

Justhink

09-30-2002, 06:54 AM

""""""You cannot form any judgements about your next sip of orange juice based on your previous experiences of what sipping orange juice is like. This is, I believe, called inductive reasoning - the idea that you gradually increase your knowledge of sipping orange juice each time you take a new sip and, eventually, form a theory on what sipping orange juice is like.""""""

A process of experience is extrapolating knowledge from memory.

The end.

How exactly does one process the capacity to act outside of the memory? Inductive, deductive .... they're both processes which claim to access outside of memory, of knowledge, into the unknown. How exactly does one deduce anything without leaping outside of memory into the 'past, present or future'?

The farmer might not exist, the chicken might not exist, benvolent/malevolent might not exist; so where is it that you are distinguishing between inductive and deductive without getting caught in your own system?

-Justhink

Justhink

09-30-2002, 07:00 AM

""""""You cannot form any judgements about your next sip of orange juice based on your previous experiences of what sipping orange juice is like.""""""

What isn't a previous experience? It takes a while for those electrical signals to turn into thought. To be quite honest, I don't see how one of those processes is going to emerge accurate over the other when the critical mass is achieved. It seems that inductive and deductive are different ways of veiwing the same delay; able to invert each-other logically until the system is collpased.

-Justhink

Justhink

09-30-2002, 07:14 AM

""""Inductivism seems to have a proud heritage - the idea of gaining knowledge through experience <snip> but in fact it is completely false.""""

I think you're assuming that reading memory is an evolutionary process, by invoking 'experience'. A processor doesn't have to get better or worse to simply ready memory; a processor doesn't turn time into experience. Experience is a concept attributed to 'thinking' beings. Unless a processor has an evolutionary algorythm in it that automatically cycles its own generations without lab technician aid; it is not common to speak of the 'experience' that a processor has had. Wear and tear, time, power circulation, warranty and a sense that while the energy and means to effect processing may evolve over time; processing itself is a standardization; not alterable in the sense of 'before the fact' or 'from the fact'. The chicken is reading its own memory, and there is absolutely no way to discern deductively that this memory is associated with anything 'outside' of it.
The entire concept of something outside of it can be true, without having actually come from outside of it... the memory can still be false. Mistaking something that simulates a feature vs. that feature is a problem with deduction as well.

-Justhink

Jojo

09-30-2002, 06:35 PM

The farmer might not exist, the chicken might not exist, benvolent/malevolent might not exist; so where is it that you are distinguishing between inductive and deductive without getting caught in your own system?

A very good question. However you seem to think that I am promoting deductive reasoning over inductive reasoning, I'm not. Forget about "inductive" and "deductive" methods. Both have their uses - and their limitations. You need to think outside the box.

I dealt with inductive reasoning above but deductive reasoning is no more useful.

How can you ever hope to know anything? There is no way of proving that the external universe exists at all, let alone that the electric currents received by our brains stand in any particular relationship to it. Anything and everything that we perceive might be an illusion or a dream. Illusions and dreams are common, after all.

Solipsism is the theory that only one mind exists and that what appears to be external reality is only a dream taking place in that mind. This theory cannot be logically disproved.

Since it is possible that everything is a dream, you cannot logically deduce anything at all about reality by using observational evidence.

So where does that leave us, you might ask, since both inductive and deductive reasoning appear to be useless?

The answer is you need to consider the problem first and then come up with an explanation. Solipsism is interesting but ultimately it falls apart under the power of the opposing arguments.

In the end, a solipsist still has to explain all the same things that a non-solipsist has to explain but in addition he has all these extraneous things on top to explain as well.

One argument against solipsism was put forward by Dr Johnson and goes as follows:

James Boswell (author of Life of Johnson) relates how he and Johnson were talking about solipsism. Boswell remarked that although no one believed the theory, no one could refute it either.

Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said "I refute it thus!"

His point was that the solipsist's denial of the rock's existence is incompatible with finding an explanation of the rebound that he himself felt. To explain the effect that the rock had on him, Dr Johnson was forced to take a position on the nature of rocks.

Solipsism cannot accomodate any explanation of why that experiment (or any experiment) should have one outcome rather than another.

In fact, Johnson's experiment illustrated an ultimate criteria for reality which is if something can kick back, it exists. eg planets and stars also kick back - we don't feel the "kick" as such but we see the light that comes from them. This light "kicks" our retinas and so it is real.

You appear to have spotted the weakness of induction and deduction ie that they are both time-critical ie that time (the past and the future) has an effect on both of them.

In order to get over this weakness, you need to consider only this instant in time right now. Every problem has a solution but this solution may only be true right now, it may not be true tomorrow and it may not have been true yesterday.

This is how theories and explanations are refined and improved.

When Europeans first went to Australia they noticed that the aborigines didn't seem to have any words for "yesterday" or "tomorrow" and, in fact, they didn't even seem to have any concept of the ideas.

I don't know whether any of this makes any sense to you. IANAP(hilosopher), I'm just winging it to some extent in the hope that someone who knows more about this kind of stuff than I do will come along.

Justhink

09-30-2002, 09:57 PM

I believe the answer for solipsism is that is denies the concept of difference while using that concept to express its opinion.
It's violating an axiom.
There is nothing irrational about solipsism; however, as I mentioned earlier, it is anti-rational. There is nothing inconsistent about a solipsist who starves to death, it becomes inconsistent when they break the contract implicit in their declaration and are observed to eat in spite of their purpose of non-difference.
That is where the line for crime is drawn, by those who accept a rational contract of existence. To devote resource to such a being is to attempt to appease an endless vaccuum of want with no accountability for work; giving away something for nothing.
Solipsists who violate axioms used by the rational to 'sustain' are not sustainable without collapsing the entire survival of those who live and breathe for the mainanence of their inconsistetency.

If the entire world focused on the 'needs' of even one solipsist; there wouldn't be a next generation of people who were rational; eventually diffusing the solipsists support system.

If the rational population gave away some of their rationality; they could continue to produce semi-rational populations to sustain the solipsist - again, rationality is still cannibalizing its own identity.

I agree with the 'rock kick' idea; but I don't see the extensive line of reasoning which pulls it from difference, memory, motion, solipsism, to phenomenalism. To that degree, it's almost a solipsistic proof; which isn't helping rationality at all IMO.

-JUsthink

Jojo

10-01-2002, 07:20 PM

I'm beginning to think that Justhink isn't a real person. He is a virus implanted into the SDMB software by the mods in order to test us.

I believe the answer for solipsism is that is denies the concept of difference while using that concept to express its opinion.
It's violating an axiom.

The only axiom it's violating is the one you made up - the "axiom of difference". Using "difference" as an axiom isn't very helpful.

How would you express this "axiom"? By saying "There appear to be a lot of things in the world and all of them are different to each other"? Well, great, so what?

It's still not as fundamental an axiom as "existence exists". All these different things in the world - they all exist right?

The fact of their existence preceeds the fact of their difference. Difference is not an axiom because in order to be different there has to be something to be different to.

Therefore difference is relative, existence is not.

There is nothing inconsistent about a solipsist who starves to death, it becomes inconsistent when they break the contract implicit in their declaration and are observed to eat in spite of their purpose of non-difference.

Eh? Why aren't solipsists allowed to eat?

If a person decides that they are a solipsist then they believe they possess the only mind in the universe and everything else is a figment of their imagination. But they can still eat if they want to.

There's nothing in the "Solipsist Handbook" that says:

Rule 1: You possess the only mind in the universe

Rule 2: Everything external to yourself is an illusion

Rule 3: Oh, and you're not allowed to eat anything

That is where the line for crime is drawn, by those who accept a rational contract of existence.

There is no "contract of existence". You exist, simple as that. You exist independently of all other considerations. You don't have to follow any contract in order to exist.

Even if there were such a contract, you are perfectly free to break it - you won't cease to exist as a result.

To devote resource to such a being is to attempt to appease an endless vaccuum of want with no accountability for work; giving away something for nothing.

Do you live your life according to this mythical "contract" Justhink? eg do you refrain from drinking alcohol or smoking weed or having sex or something because you believe you have to keep up your side of the "contract"?

Justhink

10-02-2002, 03:00 AM

It's still not as fundamental an axiom as "existence exists". All these different things in the world - they all exist right?

The fact of their existence preceeds the fact of their difference. Difference is not an axiom because in order to be different there has to be something to be different to.

Therefore difference is relative, existence is not

-----Without difference, everything and/or anything must be nothing at all.-----

I already wrote it into axiomic form. This axiom creates a value where-as the 'axiom' -existence exists- does not.

that which is, is that which is?
the existence of existence?

One is expressing the Law of Identity without stating it
The other is a fragment of the law of identity. It doesn't actually declare a value which can be built upon. To begin a conceptual structure, that can actually run an additional series of values; a primary axiom needs to be much stronger than the Law of Identity. 'Existence' may as well be a God concept - the word has no accountability in the axiom; and it certainly isn't going to PROVE anything to anyone. The Law of idnetity is not being grounded on a principle without connecting the existence of _anything_at_all_ with the concept of difference. The Law of Identity is a perimeter axiom perceptually without the axiom of difference preceeding it. What I mean by that, is A=A is only true upon conceptual agreement or sensory acuity; the only thing that even makes it THAT is the fact that both A's are not in the same exact spot (i.e. the same A). Without difference, A=A becomes:

A

Umm... ok, now take away the blank space behind it; take away the perception of non-sensory reality; it becomes:

Wow! Wonderful axiom! Let's check out existence exists:

Wow! Amazing axiom!
Now maybe it becomes aparent why there have only been _three axioms 'discovered'. It's worse than a joke. No matter how you argue it; simile is a property of complexity, but when it boils right down to it existence IS difference. We can imagine things being different.. rocks crashing around in space chaoticly without any ability to hold cohesion. We can imagine existence without us only through the vehicle of difference. Everything in nature maps difference much quicker then similarity. If you consider the homeostasis of all complex forms; they only react when difference emerges to upset that state.. when the homeostasis is interrupted.

The axiom of difference can also be stated:

No two things can occupy the same space and/or sensation.
We may not have the acuity to detect where an intensity of frequency may be coming from; we can however discern that it is different; and as such can be seperated and mapped. To not connect difference with existence is to deny every axiomic principle instantly. The axiom of difference _lets_ you observe 'itself'; it literally 'talks' to you about itself, in a way that -existence exists- does not and cannot do. There is no formal connection with rationality in the 'existence' axiom.

It's like:

Tree trees
Senility seniles
backgammon backgammons

It's just a stupid axiom. It doesn't capture the indentured system; it doesn't capture anything explicitly. I'll admit that A=A is _much_ easier to translate to a foreign culture than pointing to an object and then pointing to something different over and over again; that's a result of the fact that sentience is tuned to map consistencies; in order to acurately map that which it is extracting; so that it can 'be'. Still, diference is the embedded axiom which even allows this process to occur.

Existence creating more of itself is _nothing_ without difference.
It's an endless loop of existence, existence, existence.... except there isn't even space there:

existence

Except there aren't different shapes or colors or sensory apendages to percieve anything with:

^^^^^^ See that empty space up there! That's existence creating more of itself. It's impossible, as clearly you _can_ see _something_. That is because existence is difference creating more of itself. Existence has a _precurser_; the very first difference, and then another difference, and another difference, until some of those differences eventually start looping back and looking _similar_ to some of the other differences. This is because reality itself is a closed set. If there was nothing to keep difference from extending infinitely toward creating absolute difference every-time; it would collapse the same way that existence creates more existence (or) existence is more existence does. The first three axioms would be along these lines:

Difference (whatever that implies -- motion maybe? Motion that changes? -- haven't actually sat down to work this part yet)

Enclosure
Similarity

well... that's a VERY rough sketch; as mixing would somehow be required around here too. I haven't thought all of these out yet, yet I'm aware that I can sit down and do it, just have been busy lately. The basic point here is that existence exists is basically the God concept imbedded into logic itself; hypocritical at that, as it expresses the action of identity before the Law of Identity!!
Think: Genesis, where day and night exist before the SUN and MOON! Speaking of busy, there is a remotew chance that this is my last night of internet access for a while; well.. the time is arriving soon as my move is too. In fact, the computer is currently the only thing unpacked at the old house and the moving van comes tommorrow.

Anyways, negations are the primaries for all abstraction; including existence. Existence is an undefined unification; a variable, and a sensless one at that. Existence is Universe, All that is, everything etc.... You cannot start any logical process with a unification!! Logical process maps reality, and reality abstracts with seperation of an infinite loop. This ephemeral term of 'existence' is a non-idea without difference; in fact; it's a non-existence without difference! To suggest that difference is _relative_ in the context of existence is outrageous!!! People will say, existence is this, existence is that existence doesn't exist, existence is a crock... who denies _difference_? Denying existence is like denying reality or that which is; something people talk about and actually DO symbolically by refusing to do _anything_. However, as that person is sitting there DENYING existence in a logically consistent means (anti-rational but NOT irrational); they will still be circulating in the realm of difference AS they are denying existence. Their homeostasis will be interrupted and they will pay attention to whatever thought or sensation results; even if that attention is, "I cannot pay attention to that, I'm denying existence - none of it is really there, must focus." It's not 'existence' that's causing that, it's DIFFERENCE. Existence doesn't 'cause' anything; it just 'is'; like God -- no proof, it just is.

"Show it to me, prove existence to me"
"It's everywhere, everything is existence"
"They're synonyms?"
"Well.. sort of.."
(starts thinking to self, "oh boy, sounds like a religion is about to be dumped here").
"You see, similarity and difference are all in existence; yet existence is more fundamental then those ideas; existence exists without difference!! Existence is absolute, existence exists!! It's here, believe in it!"

Hmm.. enough rambling on this.

""""""Eh? Why aren't solipsists allowed to eat?"""""""""

They lose their bodies to non-cohesive catatonia (omni-potence).
They lose their sense of perception by imbuing all of it into that which they distinguish (which in this case is concept). An absolute objectification of concept dissolves material realm and leaves the 'host' catatonic - all creating yet _passive_; as they are always creating themselves as well. Evidence suggests that they are not creating or sustaining themselves; and the mind rationally flips a switch and dissolves all form into simulation just before catatonia hits moments later. Most 'solipsists' will have a rush of adrenaline or a 'panic' that sharply pulls them out if they are cruising the line of catatonia - if they don't modify their behavior accordingly they will become desensitized to these jolts and eventually drop off into catatonia. I can sit here and tell you that I'm a solipsist; but I can also sit here and tell you that I'm God. These states not only have definitions, they have PROPERTIES with which to identify them. Without conforming to physical law; solipsism becomes a counter-intelligently held simulation to explain away accountability to others. True solipsism is _not_ fun, and a true solipsist will not be seen eating for very long; they'll either be in the emergency room as a catatonic or they will be in there screaming their heads off in a panic attack; wishing for the nightmare to end. You don't get 'used' to solipsism, making casual comments in message forums or in philosophy books; an accurate processing of solipsism always triggers that adrenaline spike; if you don't listen to it: *poof*. Anything short is like listening to a nihilist standing there telling you how they don't believe in anything "umm.. then why the F$%^ are you telling me this!?". How long do you think solipsist last in the world telling people that they create them; or talking to their own creations, in their own world? They _feel_ and _know_ that there is a real pressure in the _real_ world against people who talk like this. Those who press a solipsist on their world-veiw will begin to engage the panic attack mode towards catatonia - as a result; 'solipsists' will tend to express themselves around people who 'go along' with it. If the mind is doing any sense of solipsistic processing it starts tripping up on paradoxes like crazy, collapsing resources until it simulates everything before the snap. It's a cascade effect that 'normals' don't actively protect themselves from LET ALONE even know about. Solispsism is a form of anxiety disorder; like any other form of chronic ego dystonia (obsessive worry and belief that you are what you see -- if you see a serial killer show on T.V.; you'll _know_ that you're a serial killer, it all makes sense now; then panic ensues etc.. other forms are obsessions of body doubles following you around, knowledge of being a prophet, wizard, shaman, mage, messiah, carpenter.. you name it! They can become specific, localized, repetative and intense.). In solipsism, you become the only thing; yet, you are NOT the only thing. The rationalization of this state requires some serious axioms that abstract sentience to just vanish; at which point, the solipsist vanishes.

"""""""""There is no "contract of existence". You exist, simple as that. You exist independently of all other considerations. You don't have to follow any contract in order to exist.

Even if there were such a contract, you are perfectly free to break it - you won't cease to exist as a result."""""""""""""

I said _rational_ contract. Rationality requires 'stuff'; non-rationality doesn't do anything. Irrational is a communication barrier symbolicly; the symbols are the _same_ for everyone.
If anybody denies this simple principle _rationally_ they have proven their own suicide as the only rational act. If they don't commit suicide after violating this contract; then they are considered _frauds_ or speakers of a different language (schizophrenics are known to re-map an entire native tongue); however this degree of re-mapping accompanies some other pretty serious symptoms which tend to get them out of society very quickly; either locked in a psych ward, in their house or 6 feet under.

You're right. You won't cease to exist, thanks to those who follow the social contract - you can actually _float_ by undetected.
This person will not evade notice for long however; for two reasons:

One, they don't trust people who violate axioms (and they shouldn't)
Two, They're basically loking at a person recieving something for nothing; with a logical system that bypasses accountability - and they may become offended that someone violating the social contract is surviving or thriving to whatever degree.

Interestingly, I've already spend a huge portion of this thread articulating that very social contract; where it stems from and why it exists.

""""""Do you live your life according to this mythical "contract" Justhink? eg do you refrain from drinking alcohol or smoking weed or having sex or something because you believe you have to keep up your side of the "contract"?""""""

I do strive towards it to the degree that I can define it. I've been practicing social applications of this for about a decade now.
For the most part, I do not speak unless spoken to. Years and years ago, I used to drop gossip collateral for people who were seeking someone elses affection - rather than using the technology myself. That's how I did most of my experiments when I was growing up. I began observing how patterns of logical corruption attracted females, and would prepare necessary conditions to elicit the best selective corruption from the individual I wanted the affection focused upon.

i.e. : Of all the people in this room, this act will force this person to say this thing in this manner, which will hook the indentured system of this person; over all the other data travelling through the room.

I started out as a direct trigger, though I started to run the triggers through others as I was having trouble disabling the generalized association between myself and a sense of something 'interesting' happening. I would go through meticulous calculations over the course of a couple weeks (straight F's in school - no actual friends in social settings; I was a charming wallflower who was too weird/quiet to 'actually' befreind); and then start banging out conversational routines until the desired affect was achieved. I learned through trial and error so many indentured system structures that I wasn't finding new ones anymore - so I went hermit and started collecting thought forms by applying existential pressure on myself and forcing biology to do the rest by simply staying alive. My patterns for abstraction are decent (I lag behind 'booksmarts' at times); but phenomenal exctractions of fact have eluded me with this mechanism. I feel pretty certain that 'a certain' conceptual framework will trigger these algorithmically; I just haven't found it yet. I have a few 'leads' - however, some of these 'places' make me a little nervous to enter; then I got internet! I've been reasonably distracted since - I think I'm getting the urge to start up again when I move; ironically, I probably won't have internet for quite some time; so the conditions are certainly ripe for it

-Justhink

Justhink

10-02-2002, 03:10 AM

""Do you live your life according to this mythical "contract" Justhink? eg do you refrain from drinking alcohol or smoking weed or having sex or something because you believe you have to keep up your side of the "contract"?""

I eat ice-cream.

-Justhink

Justhink

10-02-2002, 03:21 AM

I usually use touch deprivation and speech deprivation for existential pressure; to ease up the pressure if it starts climbing to far; I recommend horse stance for touch deprivation.

-Justhink

Jojo

10-02-2002, 07:28 PM

-----Without difference, everything and/or anything must be nothing at all.-----

Without existence, everything and/or anything must be nothing at all.

Without existence, there would be no difference. Difference is only possible because there is existence. Existence preceeds difference. Difference is a subset of existence.

Therefore existence is more fundamental.

It is possible we could have existence without difference (a world where everything is the same) but we couldn't have difference without existence.

An axiom is something that is true in and of itself, something that does not require anything else in order to be true. Difference requires other things in order to be true, existence doesn't.

It's like:

Tree trees
Senility seniles
backgammon backgammons

That's right. That's about all you can say about existence - it exists.

You are correct in that there is a lot you can say about difference however just because there is a lot you can say about it doesn't mean it is therefore a fundamental axiom. In fact, the more you can say about a thing, the less likely it is that it is an axiom.

That's the thing with axioms, they resist probing. They are true in and of themselves. This isn't just coincidence, it is in fact an essential part of the nature of axioms.

It's the whole point, it is axiomatic.

That's how I did most of my experiments when I was growing up. I began observing how patterns of logical corruption attracted females, and would prepare necessary conditions to elicit the best selective corruption from the individual I wanted the affection focused upon.

i.e. : Of all the people in this room, this act will force this person to say this thing in this manner, which will hook the indentured system of this person; over all the other data travelling through the room.

I started out as a direct trigger, though I started to run the triggers through others as I was having trouble disabling the generalized association between myself and a sense of something 'interesting' happening. I would go through meticulous calculations over the course of a couple weeks (straight F's in school - no actual friends in social settings; I was a charming wallflower who was too weird/quiet to 'actually' befreind); and then start banging out conversational routines until the desired affect was achieved.

Well, I've heard of better chatting-up techniques but hey, whatever works for you is cool.

I note you are moving and may not have net access for a while. Good luck with your move (moves can be stressful, I know).

Peace, Jojo

Justhink

10-04-2002, 10:24 AM

Without existence, everything and/or anything must be nothing at all.

Without existence, there would be no difference. Difference is only possible because there is existence. Existence preceeds difference. Difference is a subset of existence.

""""""Therefore existence is more fundamental.""""""""

"Existience exists" is not a straight equality; it is a statement of action; a statement of being. It is:

Existence _DOES_
I _AM_
We _WILL_
You _ARE_
It _IS_

The axiom is not describing its own property!!! It communicates _nothing_. It states _nothing_ Literally!

Exisence exists?!! What does that mean?!! It means nothing without an axiom before it!! Difference needs to be stated before existence, before identity; for existence to make _any_ sense, or to have _any_ possibility of being humored as EXISTING!!

The axiom of difference is being USED to state the axiom of "existence exists" and to comprehend the axiom of "existence exists". "Existence exists" IS NOT being used to state the axiom of difference. This is a straight up deistic argument right here; where _existence_ IS the God-of-the-gaps in binary logic. This is NOT an axiom. Stating that an absolute DOES ITSELF is a 'repeating loop of' OBLIVION. It doesn't state anything more than:

"I am" (GREAT!! prove it! What does that MEAN?!!! - what does it do, what does it assert?!!)

Which basically transcribes as:

"I can seperate all that is from the <implied subject of reference>"

It is asserting not only you, but how EVERYTHING IS!!

Existence is an _after-the-fact_ unification of 'everything' in a universal sense to explain all the unknowns away as being necessary and part of this whole.

"Existence exists" is the same as "Goddidit"

It is a world veiw that describes nothing; an opinion of what makes our perception of difference seem reasonable. Existence exists is so empty that it can be substituted with ANY word (think: invisible pink unicorn) and still hold the _actual_ meaning being conveyed by the axiom. DIFFERENCE does NOT HAVE THIS PROPERTY; the concept is SO unique, that there is nothing reducable to describe it, or an axiom based on it, any other way.
Difference is immutible, unsubstitutable:

Suggesting that difference is a property of existence is the same as suggesting that creating his entire self is a property of God.
It is so absurd, that; is considered axiomic; EVERY other axiom must fall off the grid; leaving only room for suicide or starvation.
It's not like we're suggesting "I see difference, and when I'm gone existence still churns itself out without difference"

This has nothing to do with you; difference is imbued in everything; it is the fundamental; the property from which existence is extracted; not the other way around. You cannot have existence without difference. It's easy to make an argument when 'everything is the same';;;; that's because nothing is being SAID!!!! How does one win an arm-wrestling competition against oblivion? The entire notion of this "existence" axiom is rediculous. You would have to be dead to actualize it; it describes nothing and lets you do nothing; you cannot map anything or create anything. It's really that severe to suggest that existence exists is not only _an_ axiom, but rather the primary axiom.

*sigh* ramblingh again--

""""""""""It is possible we could have existence without difference (a world where everything is the same) but we couldn't have difference without existence."""""""""""

NO, this is NOT possible! If everything is exactly the same..............................................................................

OBLIVION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Irreducable non-existence.

The idea that everything being exactly the same, yet somehow equating that with difference is ::: WHERE THE GOD CONCEPT HAS CORRUPTED YOUR LOGIC!!! Everything exactly the same IS not just a property of, it is the axiomic expression of absolute oblivion. All logic of existence that can ever be communicated, recieved, percieved, sensed, 'felt', re-acted, acted, remembered.. etc... relies on the axiom:: Without difference, everything is absolute oblivion. It never was, it isn't and it never will be; no form, no time, no substance, no space, no concept, no motion, no memory, no virtualization, no simulation, no change. This axiom is phenomenal, tangible and inarguable. To cease to be, people deny existence... they FIGHT difference to do it.

"""""""An axiom is something that is true in and of itself, something that does not require anything else in order to be true. Difference requires other things in order to be true, existence doesn't.""""""""""

You are misunderstanding an axiom here. An axiom finds a truth that cannot be negated without violating the axiom. "Existence exists is not only unfalsifiable, it is not even a statement of anything --- it is a FRAGMENT of the SECOND AXIOM --- Law of Identity. The first axiom is not required, and in fact in many ways NEGATES the Law of Identity. It is so absurd as to literally mean: nothing at all. If one assumes a DUTY in accordance with the axiom of 'existence' THEY DIE. The duty of "nothing at all" is oblivion!! I can't seem to describe in words how insane this world is; that philosophers have allowed the standardization of "Existence exists" to not only be an AXIOM; but the primary axiom of all philosophy. God may exist, but does it MATTER when you cannot see him or show him to anybody?!!

"""""""""quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like:

Tree trees
Senility seniles
backgammon backgammons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's right. That's about all you can say about existence - it exists.

You are correct in that there is a lot you can say about difference however just because there is a lot you can say about it doesn't mean it is therefore a fundamental axiom. In fact, the more you can say about a thing, the less likely it is that it is an axiom.

That's the thing with axioms, they resist probing. They are true in and of themselves. This isn't just coincidence, it is in fact an essential part of the nature of axioms.

It's the whole point, it is axiomatic.""""""""""""""""

You are describing GOD!!!!!
You are describing absolute OBLIVION!!!!!!!

Read what you wrote jojo!!!

"""""""""""""""""I note you are moving and may not have net access for a while. Good luck with your move (moves can be stressful, I know).""""""""""""""""

I'm actually on dial-up until the broadband can be fully provisioned - nice of them to do; I'm in the new place, seems nice so far, thank you.

-Justhink

Jojo

10-04-2002, 07:38 PM

I'm afraid I'm still not buying your theory, Justhink (although I think I see where you're coming from).

I don't know why you keep talking about God, God has nothing to do with it. God has nothing to do with existence. There may be a God, there may not, either way we still exist.

And that's all we can say about it - we exist.

Why? we dunno.
What series of events conspired to create us? we dunno.
Where is all this "existence" headed? we dunno.

All we know is that we exist.

You seem to think the phrase "existence exists" is meaningless because it seems to describe itself - it seems like circular logic, a closed system.

"existence exists because existence exists because existence exists because.....etc"

Well, your mistake is that you have underestimated the power of the English language (as too many people do).

"Existence exists" needs no qualifier because of the meaning of the word "exists". It is a word that is unique in the English language. No other word means the same thing.

"Exist" literally means "to stand out" (from the Latin sistere, to stand and the Latin prefix ex- meaning out)

Therefore it differs from phrases such as "trees tree, backgammons backgammon" because "exist" has a particular, specific meaning that sets it apart from "tree" or "backgammon".

You seem to be trying to equate reality to a computer program with all your talk of algorhythms and binary logic. Now reality MAY WELL TURN OUT TO BE a computer program of some sort but we don't know whether it is or isn't at this stage. The jury is still out.

So it is therefore premature of you to talk as though reality IS a computer program, you don't KNOW this, you just think it. So you are getting ahead of yourself.

"Difference" is quite neatly covered by the second axiom - the Law of Identity (that everything has it's own identity, a cat is not a dog etc).

If everything is exactly the same..............................................................................

OBLIVION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't true no matter how many exclamation marks you use. Why does uniformity have to lead to oblivion?

By the way, I think you're mis-using the word "oblivion". Oblivion means a state of forgetfulness. What you are trying to say is that uniformity leads to a state of nothingness.

If everything is the same then that means there is only one thing in the universe, but that one thing is still there! It still exists.

Granted, it wouldn't be a very exciting universe but it would still exist. There is a difference between existence and nothingness. Existence is here, nothingness isn't.

Existence exists is so empty that it can be substituted with ANY word (think: invisible pink unicorn) and still hold the _actual_ meaning being conveyed by the axiom. DIFFERENCE does NOT HAVE THIS PROPERTY; the concept is SO unique, that there is nothing reducable to describe it, or an axiom based on it, any other way.
Difference is immutible, unsubstitutable:

You are correct about the importance of difference and that's why we have a whole axiom to deal with it - the axiom of identity which states that everything is different from everything else.

But it still seems to me that difference flows from existence.

If one assumes a DUTY in accordance with the axiom of 'existence' THEY DIE.

I wouldn't assume any duties if I were you (unless someone you have to obey actually assigns a duty to you) - this is the Homer Simpson axiom of reality and I think it holds true.

The duty of "nothing at all" is oblivion!!

Yes but "existence" doesn't mean nothing at all, as I've explained to you. In fact, it means the exact opposite - it means "something".

I can't seem to describe in words how insane this world is; that philosophers have allowed the standardization of "Existence exists" to not only be an AXIOM; but the primary axiom of all philosophy. God may exist, but does it MATTER when you cannot see him or show him to anybody?!!

Well it probably matters to God. I mean, if God exists then he is probably aware of that fact even if we aren't.

For example, there are probably innumerable small rocks situated on planets and asteroids throughout the universe that no one knows exist. But they still exist and, in their own modest way, they are as important as you or I (or God) in that they exist and they are different to everything else in the universe.

I have no particular opinion one way or the other on whether God exists. I don't know and to be honest, I don't really care. So I'm not sure that God has "corrupted my logic" in any particular way.

Maybe you are equating God with whatever force was responsible for starting this whole ball rolling in the first place - ie not necessarily an intelligent God but The Precursor. ie not necessarily the Christian or Jewish or Muslim God but just some random event that kick started the whole shebang.

We can call that random event "God" if you like. Or maybe there was no random event, maybe the universe never had a starting point, maybe it has just existed for infinity. Who knows?

All we know is we exist.

Justhink

10-05-2002, 02:12 AM

I think we're 'arguing' about what the first number is. I see the number 1 as being the number zero; when the two do not and cannot co-exist. What does it mean to say "non-existence"?
What does it mean to say, "existence without anything else"?
Stating the number one all by itself is the same as stating the 'number' zero all by itself; there is no such thing -- that's the opinion I'm conveying here. To that degree; I see zero as not being a number in a universal sense; as "nothing" has its own deistic connotation of not being able to exist in an absolute state without existence never have having been. The first two 'numbers' cannot be "zero" and "one"; because 0+1 in absolutes equals zero - oblivion stasis. One needs, at a minimum x+ <the homeostasis of x; determined by zero in relation to ::> :: <whatever upsets the homeostasis of x+0>.
Existence is the interaction of itself; modified. That's why I'm stating that difference is the conceptual precurser.

"Existence exists" is conveying perception through difference.

The axiom is NOT "existence existence"

This whole: "to stand out" thing is observed through something more fundamental then that phrase. Difference allows something to stand out; NOT "to stand out stands out". Talking about existence over difference is the same dynamic as talking about God over existence. People say;

"We can't exist if God doesn't exist"
"I know God exists even if I don't know God"

That peson is using existence to frame the landscape from which God can coellesce; congeal to be.

I see it as the same dynamic with difference and existence.
Difference is what allows this 'unification' of logic to coellesce in the same sense.

As for the Law of Identity; It violates the axiom of difference by stating that "A=A" without providing a proof; or any reasonably compelling evidence. We know that A doesn't equal A except in an abstract sense; we have not found evidence that any two things are the same - with an incredible amount suggesting otherwise. This isn't because of anything inherently wrong with our surroundings; but rather this non-transparent and short-sighted-biased and lazy axiomic system adopted in these two first laws. It takes a long time to move from difference to similarity. There are many questions in between which can change the definitions or the possibility of how to veiw similarity. That being the case; all I can tell is that Aristotle was not rigorous enough in these axioms to provide a much clearer comprehension of 'what is'. To the extent that people succeed; it seems aparent to myself that even though they may believe in Aristotle's axioms, fortunately, their subconscious is actually processing all the ones he failed to mention; it's processing the detail he never covered. I think it is prudent to document these meticulously so that we have externalized this process and can analyze it out here. Aristotle, from all innitial impressions, did not extract/abstract the _actual_ axioms and axiomic detail which articulately defines how people are 'really' functioning and apprehending all of this. To the degree that these axioms have been worshipped as truth, has damaged the intellectual process; as a 'virus' severely enough to warrant a definition of coginitive dementia for those generations; at least in the sense that they were transparently interacting with the world through themselves. The autonomous process does its own thing...
The point seems to be to completely dump the autonomous process.

On the computer quote:
Computer jargon, lingo - even seeping into pop-culture, is IMO, powerful language and metaphor for describing many aspects of what's going on. I'm not stating; "We're all in a computer."

From our vantage point; computers are built by us! So, umm.. that leaves the question; who built the 'existence' computer? A silly question that simpy returns us to an argument that's be hashed out for generations without all the new lingo.

-Justhink

Apos

10-05-2002, 02:40 AM

--- A word's meaning is indeed constrained by its Latin root.---

Sadly, no. We speak English, you see, not Latin. And language, sad as it is, has a way of changing over time. Some among us would like to see this resisted, but we are forced to accept that words are ultimately constrained by their common usage, not our conservatist leanings. Sad, yes, and it means abandoning lots of previously quite useful words, but that's the way of things. I would suggest consulting Ben Kingsley's "King's English" for a fuller recounting of this unfortunate, but sadly unavoidable, tragedy

dal_timgar

10-05-2002, 02:14 PM

that OP sounds as wierd as Dal Timgar.

i'm trying to bring intelligence with Economic Wargames, but i'm just trying to terminate the economists.

KILL AN ECONOMIST FOR KARL

ATOMIZE ECONOMISTS FOR ADAM

where is this suicide machine so i can stop bugging people on this website?

Dal Timgar

Rabid Lamb of God

10-07-2002, 01:21 AM

Justhink: I'm just starting to think you've created a language. It is the first language, it seems, that has ever been created to an end other than communication. Have you created this language to construct the artificial universe in which you now exist? If I am right, you plan to fuse your artificial universe with the original universe by force, and the first battle is being waged on this board...I believe you have also refuted all previous mathematical systems. Good work.

This clearly explains your belief that difference precedes existence. If the universe in which you exist is not the first universe, then, from your vantage point, the difference between your own universe and the original existed before anything else in your universe, including its very existence, existed. Therefore, difference is the first assumption of knowledge.

Those, however, who do not live in Justhink's artificial universe, can make a distinction between concepts and their origin. Just because the experience of difference may be a cognitive ancestor of the concept of existence does not make it a conceptual precursor.

I hope this is all as clear as suicide.

Justhink

10-09-2002, 02:44 AM

""""Those, however, who do not live in Justhink's artificial universe, can make a distinction between concepts and their origin. Just because the experience of difference may be a cognitive ancestor of the concept of existence does not make it a conceptual precursor.""""

Conceptual precurser? (Maybe 'existential' precurser or 'universal' precurser or 'phenominal' precurser)
Is this a semantic error?
It is suggesting that existence was held _conceptually_ prior to difference. It is stating that something comes from nothing -- which definately refutes every mathematical system I know of!
Asserting this truth, asserts that EVERYTHING is acausal, which definately collapses reason.

"""""""Justhink: I'm just starting to think you've created a language. It is the first language, it seems, that has ever been created to an end other than communication. Have you created this language to construct the artificial universe in which you now exist? If I am right, you plan to fuse your artificial universe with the original universe by force, and the first battle is being waged on this board...I believe you have also refuted all previous mathematical systems. Good work.""""""""

Maybe you just articulated a specific perspective towards a mechanism we all use in the process of verifying abstractions phenominally. I don't see how I could possibly be 'the first' if this were the case; as it stands to reason such an observation would describe everybody's process of abstraction and 'reality harmonization' in a meta sense. It's something I can't say yes or no to. It sounds like you're describing the idea that a system of cohesion ( a language as you 'willed') exists for a purpose other than communication. I hardly find this to be a shocking concept these days; though your specific articulation provides wonderful food for thought IMO - as there are so many ways to interpret it.

-Justhink

erislover

10-10-2002, 04:20 PM

Justhink, you seemed to have missed my thread about trying to epistemologically understand the whole "The map is not the territory" issue. That's ok, I only got a few responses, the board was reset and I reposted it to get one lone response.

But, one of your recent posts noting that the axiom existence exists is this:

sort of starled me. I'm not sure I understand most of what this thread has been about, I've admittedly only been skimming it, but as usual I note your repeated insistence on speaking in tongues. That method is, shall we say, not without merit, granting that there is something behind the words in the first place, which I think there is.

I am not sure which of these statements you'd claim to support: Knowledge is impossible Knowledge is possible, but it must be incomplete Complete knowledge is possibleI personally shoot for (2) myself.

Given existing "philosophical tools", a combination of skepticism and deconstructionism any proposition or set of propositions can be decimated in short time by a rather simple combination of semantic and conceptual attacks. The reason this works is because, fundamentally, it is more or less commonly accepted that naturalism is not the way to go for understanding "true" reality.

Someone is always there to point out that you cannot separate the problem from the way you look at it; that is to say, every time you seek to examine a problem, you bring a host of unresolved issues with you and an assortment of unjustified and abitrary views to view it with. If you would like to think of pictures of reality, we frame them before we use them, but now the debate is which frame is best.

Of course to analyze that question we take a picture of frames and frame it.

We come to matters of philosophy after we've mastered a language. And with mastering a language comes all sorts of other techniques (that we have names for). And then we use this language to attempt to understand what encompasses language.

Is it a mirror? But then, what does a mirror tell us? The image in the mirror is not me, though I operate on myself with various tools while using it. Now, what is the meaning behind a mirror? In what sense does the person "in" the mirror exist? But that's to look at the question incorrectly, isn't it? It seems silly to look to a mirror to prove my own existence.

And yet our language is a reflection of our lives. In what sense could that reflection define us? Why should we look there for proof? Or, if we did look there for proof, in what way is that definitive?

Philosophy is not impossible; when done right it is a normal conversation. When done incorrectly it is disguised nonsense, using words without borders as if they had them.

Jojo

10-10-2002, 08:27 PM

Justhink, in your reply to me, you said:

I think we're 'arguing' about what the first number is. I see the number 1 as being the number zero; when the two do not and cannot co-exist. What does it mean to say "non-existence"?
What does it mean to say, "existence without anything else"?
Stating the number one all by itself is the same as stating the 'number' zero all by itself; there is no such thing -- that's the opinion I'm conveying here. To that degree; I see zero as not being a number in a universal sense; as "nothing" has its own deistic connotation of not being able to exist in an absolute state without existence never have having been.

I dunno why you're making all this more complicated than it needs to be. It seems quite straight-forward to me.

This is what I think you're saying (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

You're saying that the number one can only exist because it is not the number zero. Zero and one are two sides of the same coin. They both need each other in order to exist. Therefore, you conclude, the fundamental axiom is difference.

The only thing that makes "one" important is the fact it isn't zero and the only thing that makes zero important is the fact it isn't one.

There is a distinction between "Thing" and "No-Thing" and you think that that distinction is the important factor.

You think that that distinction is, in fact, the defining characteristic of reality - that one equals a lack of zero, and zero equals a lack of one.

Therefore difference is the important factor not existence.

The above is my interpretation of what you are saying.

However, I still don't agree with you. The importance of one lies not in it's relative position to zero. One isn't relative at all in fact, and neither is zero.

They are only relative in your mind. But reality is bigger than your mind. One does differ from zero, you are correct. So in this sense you are right that there is a difference. But this difference is important only to us mortals and to our language.

One (existence) will always be one regardless of whether there is a zero and vice versa.

Zero can exist independently of one. You say that zero can't exist without one ever having been there, I say that zero and one are absolutes. They don't need each other.

Obviously they do have a relationship of some kind to each other in that they cannot occupy the same space at the same time. If one is there then zero can't be, but this is just a linguistic relationship. The two have no relationship beyond that.

You seem to acknowledge this point in your next paragraph when you state that difference is merely a "conceptual precursor":

The first two 'numbers' cannot be "zero" and "one"; because 0+1 in absolutes equals zero - oblivion stasis. One needs, at a minimum x+ <the homeostasis of x; determined by zero in relation to ::> :: <whatever upsets the homeostasis of x+0>.
Existence is the interaction of itself; modified. That's why I'm stating that difference is the conceptual precurser.

Then you say:

"Existence exists" is conveying perception through difference.

Well obviously.

Either existence exists or it doesn't. And therein lies a "difference" - the difference between existing and not existing.

But I still don't think that has any real bearing on the question of whether something IN FACT exists or not.

This whole: "to stand out" thing is observed through something more fundamental then that phrase. Difference allows something to stand out; NOT "to stand out stands out".

Difference is a very important word, I agree, but there still has to be existence in order for there to be things to different to.

Talking about existence over difference is the same dynamic as talking about God over existence. People say;

"We can't exist if God doesn't exist"
"I know God exists even if I don't know God"

I still don't understand where God comes into the equation.

You then go on to talk about the second axiom - the law of identity - but I think we'd better sort out the first axiom first before we move on to that one.

ps erislover I actually don't have much of a problem with Justhink's use of language. He seems to know what the words he uses mean and once you take the time to burrow into it there's usually some kind of point hidden in there.

But then maybe I'm just as weird as Justhink (no offence, Justhink).

erislover

10-11-2002, 07:58 AM

Oh Jojo I agree completely. I've enjoyed his contributions to the board. But I do find his manner of speaking to be non-standard, and sometimes filled with superfluous words. :)

Justhink

10-11-2002, 08:45 AM

If you're going to pull out the language dependant stick Jojo, please consider your statements in regards to the same filter!
You could have just as easily written, "Let's not talk about this anymore"; as the language dependant filter on this topic cancels both of us out by making us both wrong in the process.
Being wrong about both difference _And_ existence does not sound like a pleasant place to be IMO!

I terms of zero and 1; I'm stating that "zero is the value of one, from the perspective of stasis, or homeostasis."
I don't hold the opinion or belief that zero actually exists as an absolute; that there is some part of the universe where there is absolutely nothing. While you may be dismissive of some points one can make in regards to thought; I think ideas that collapse the purpose of thought should be given consideration; as in the language dependant aspect mentioned. While I agree that you may be correct; I don't see many options once that sense of accountaility is discarded from logic and material. There are other options left, which is why I don't humor such a path as absolute truth. I'm sure you understand the phenomenal burden of providing evidence for how _your_ thoughts are outside of the system of thought delusion described by yourself in regards to this topic.

Basically, zero (nothing) does not exist as an absolute - it's impossible; as it would either suck everything up and collapse an existence universe at all points as if it never did exist; which means we wouldn't be here (even though we were; even memory and experience and interaction would vanish)-- or it's a word used to amend every individual thing 'unecessarily'. Zero-two zero-people zero-are zero-talking nothing-about nothing-nothing (two people are talking about nothing). Kinda like the God concept; since presumably God is in and of, and the creator, and possessor of everything and or anything; all of this is amended by that concept.

Zero, instead, IMO is a concept used to frame a point of perspective where our lack of acuity does not allow us to discern a heterogenous reality within this stasis. Zero, is a flawless diamond - now take an electron microscope and tell me it matches the same standard of smoothness and flawlessness as it did with our crappy magnifying glass... Zero; is the universal symbol for communicating standard or stasis conceptually IMO; states dependant upon our lack of acuity rather than an absolute universal space of LACK - or nothing. IFFFF by some odd chance, zero actually does exist in an absolute state and an absolute state of nothingness does actually exist; then that runs into 'something comes from nothing' issue; which is logical kryptonite! I'm inverting your earlier argument, except I think this one makes much more sense, by leaps and bounds. Declaring the existence of zero as 'real' is not umm... realistic. Zero is not a term to mess with conceptually; as phenomenal applications of it collapse the logic being used to declare it through a whole maze of arguments that focus upon applying the relativity of nothing, to all of existence.

That being the case; the number ONE is actually the first number we refer to. However, since zero doesn't actually exist - the number one has no conceptual or phenomenal difference from which something else can come from - to declare one as being existent; zero has to not only be given the property of existence but of creation! What I'm expressing is slightly different than your summary.

1+0 still equals zero.

I'm saying that the first existent is the same as the non-existent.

1 actually EQUALS zero; as it falls exactly the same as zero when existing all by itself. My version of 1 is your version of zero.
It would be like you saying that zero exists, but one does not.. for me to say that one exists. Got it? =) Your existence is my zero - until it becomes a property of one-modified (difference).

I think I'm being pretty liberal by declaring difference as the first axiom; as quotient is verrrry tempting. =)

"""Difference is a very important word, I agree, but there still has to be existence in order for there to be things to different to."""

That's where we're running into each-others 'stuff'.
You say that existence is necessary in order for THINGS to allow difference. You used an (s). Things ARE difference. In the absence of things, you have 'thing' - which means nothing in and of itself. With zero, we have this imaginary number; and with one we have stasis oblivion (I use 'oblivion' phenomenally) - which is a state of irreconcialable non-being (even though it _is_; again, by itself it can only serve as an imaginary number) The only one thing that I have seen exist is difference; from which we frame existence as the difference of all differences (which doesn't particularly mean a whole lot - much like talking about absolute nothingness). Like zero, I don't see any compeling reason to use the concept of existence as an absolute - as it is dependant upon _not being nothing_ in order to exist. As a unification, with no sets or subsets or meta-sets; existence is the conceptual equal of zero. It doesn't mean anything without difference; as difference asserts a lack of nothing - where-as existence, in spite of it's common usage asserts nothing through its unification without any other property.

Existence is "what is" -- well that's fine, but what is is difference; so existence must be a synonym of difference or it's a fairy-tale word.

Hmm.. hopefully that addressed it =(

-Justhink

Jojo

10-12-2002, 09:02 PM

If you're going to pull out the language dependant stick Jojo, please consider your statements in regards to the same filter!
You could have just as easily written, "Let's not talk about this anymore"; as the language dependant filter on this topic cancels both of us out by making us both wrong in the process.

No, it doesn't make us both wrong, it only makes you wrong. We are both speaking the same language - English - therefore we need to be consistent in what we mean by any particular word.

The word "exist" is kind of an ultimate word. It is not to be used lightly. If you say something exists then you making quite a large statement.

I think maybe you have underestimated just what an enormous statement you are making and you are therefore using different words (like "exist" and "difference") as though they carry the same power.

"They're both just words right? Therefore they are equal in power."

Well they're not equal in power, they are different.

One is greater than the other. Exist is a huge monumental word - a word you only use with extreme care. Difference, on the other hand, is just an ordinary, everyday kind of word - the kind of word you might use down the supermarket in daily conversation. Maybe when you're discussing the merits of different kinds of soap powder?

"Different" is a word to be taken lightly. "Exist", however, needs to be treated with respect. They are completely different words therefore they are completely different concepts.

You may think that language is a human construct and therefore susceptible to error and you'd be right. So the only logical thing to do (since we are, ourself, human) is to at least agree on a common definition of things. A common definition decreases the chance of error through misunderstanding.

Basically, zero (nothing) does not exist as an absolute - it's impossible; as it would either suck everything up and collapse an existence universe at all points as if it never did exist; which means we wouldn't be here (even though we were; even memory and experience and interaction would vanish)--

This paragraph seems to be your central thesis (on this particular point). Why do you think zero would "suck everything up and collapse a universe"? You seem to be trying to equate zero with a black hole like you find in space. Black holes do suck up stuff like light and time, it's true, but there's loads of them around (so astronomers currently think) and yet we are still here. Not only are we here but we think the universe is expanding!

So maybe zero and one can exist side-by-side. The evidence would seem to suggest so.

And, anyway, why do you think I'm talking about the "universe". Modern physics suggests there is a multiverse consisting of millions of parallel universes and spread across 24 dimensions.

I'm sure zero could find a niche somewhere in all that jumble.

Zero; is the universal symbol for communicating standard or stasis conceptually IMO; states dependant upon our lack of acuity rather than an absolute universal space of LACK - or nothing.

No, zero means "nothing" not all that other stuff you claim it means.

IFFFF by some odd chance, zero actually does exist in an absolute state and an absolute state of nothingness does actually exist; then that runs into 'something comes from nothing' issue;

No it doesn't. Maybe "something" and "nothing" have both been here for eternity. Neither one needed to be "created" as such, they have just inhabited different sections of reality at different times.

That being the case; the number ONE is actually the first number we refer to. However, since zero doesn't actually exist - the number one has no conceptual or phenomenal difference from which something else can come from - to declare one as being existent;

So? So what?

The number one doesn't need to have any difference. That is because the number one only needs to exist, it doesn't need to be different.

zero has to not only be given the property of existence but of creation!

I still don't understand what God has to do with all this. If by "creation" you mean "reality" I'd rather you used that term since creation carries religious overtones.

I'm saying that the first existent is the same as the non-existent.

That is a contradiction in terms - the existant cannot equal the non-existant. I would say that's a simple fact, otherwise the terms existant and non-existant would have no meaning.

That's enough for now I think.