Bringing intelligence to America

[Papermache_Prince]

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]

“”"""“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]

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]

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]

“”"""“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]

“”"""“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]

“”"“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

““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]

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]

-----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]

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]

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]

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]

— 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]

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]

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.