Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Dove said: 

In that model the truth is simply what colour we like better.

To ask who is right in this case in truth is one demanding only one can be right. It's deluded. Neither choices will intact make blue or green anymore admirable to other self collapsing wave functions ( minds ).

---

If one is going to argue what is the prettiest colour in the universe, well, that isn't too intelligent now is it ?

Depends on the field of science, it's actually a difficult question to answer but not impossible. There are entire fields of study on color that you're effectively denying with this Dunning Kruger truth.

You're derailing the subject....

Color theory has shown itself to be a good resource for increased profits, especially in graphic design these days, so any understanding of color over how it affects members of said universe seems smart to me. It's like how there's profits in understanding Thumbnail Design, which itself roots from other forms of artistic study that preceded it. 

You're talking to this community's premiere graphics expert.

We build rockets and send spacecraft to space based on mathematics. What's true holds the same with or without out our take. To make anything that works, true and false must be static.

You will learn one day that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything depends on the metric you use to determine that truth.

If that's so, then that would be an absolute truth, and you contracted yourself.

There's little room for error when building rockets, if the engineers determined their own truths, their combined efforts would be unsuccessful.

But how do you know if rockets work or not, or for that matter if they are even real? 

I know to you this sounds like a dumb question but just humor it for the sake of the thought exercise. While you and I can agree to both know what rockets are, does that make rockets real? 

 If life is a simulation/illusion, then what matters while we're here is the game. Duality, technology, time. If everything is an illusion, then that would be true. Being able to prove or disprove anything doesn't determine the truth, nor does personal opinion define the truth to be customized for an individual while being false to another. Just never happens. 

In your question you'd like me to entertain, I've seen model rockets. They work. I've seen how satellites changed the world. From the 90's till now the world never changed that much with the exception of mobile devices and other ways of using radio waves. From the 80's though, it's a huge leap. I saw that.

If this is one big illusion, then this is a case of matter over mind. We are to understand, while the only thing we can overstand, is our own fiction. And I mean our own fiction. Whatever happens to Luke Skywalker is in the hands of officials who overstand Star Wars.

Our own inventions are things we understand. Those who build rockets, must understand. Even advances in that technology, as it is for all technology, are things that are understood. Within the laws of physics.

For something as critical as rocket science, what's true and false is very profound. To think something true for one person to be personal, no. No reason to even consider what's true for someone to be exclusive to them. 

Golden_Eagle said: 

Turncoat said: 

Dove said: 

In that model the truth is simply what colour we like better.

To ask who is right in this case in truth is one demanding only one can be right. It's deluded. Neither choices will intact make blue or green anymore admirable to other self collapsing wave functions ( minds ).

---

If one is going to argue what is the prettiest colour in the universe, well, that isn't too intelligent now is it ?

Depends on the field of science, it's actually a difficult question to answer but not impossible. There are entire fields of study on color that you're effectively denying with this Dunning Kruger truth.

You're derailing the subject....

Just arguing that your whole "This is dumb" point is dumb. 

Color theory has shown itself to be a good resource for increased profits, especially in graphic design these days, so any understanding of color over how it affects members of said universe seems smart to me. It's like how there's profits in understanding Thumbnail Design, which itself roots from other forms of artistic study that preceded it. 

You're talking to this community's premiere graphics expert.

You're a 3D modeler, it's an entirely different field. 

We build rockets and send spacecraft to space based on mathematics. What's true holds the same with or without out our take. To make anything that works, true and false must be static.

You will learn one day that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything depends on the metric you use to determine that truth.

If that's so, then that would be an absolute truth, and you contracted yourself.

There's little room for error when building rockets, if the engineers determined their own truths, their combined efforts would be unsuccessful.

But how do you know if rockets work or not, or for that matter if they are even real? 

I know to you this sounds like a dumb question but just humor it for the sake of the thought exercise. While you and I can agree to both know what rockets are, does that make rockets real? 

 If life is a simulation/illusion, then what matters while we're here is the game.

See... even simulation theory is going off of an understood absolute truth, a constant that we are otherwise all subject to that exists regardless of our means of comprehending it or not. By saying it is a simulation or illusion, you are already assuming a belief no different than posing God as that very same constant. 

This boils down to what we can infer from experience, rather than any truth that is otherwise within our grasp. Even if a single truth is the case that does not mean it is within our grasp to know it. 

Duality, technology, time. If everything is an illusion, then that would be true. Being able to prove or disprove anything doesn't determine the truth, nor does personal opinion define the truth to be customized for an individual while being false to another. Just never happens. 

This still has you taking on faith the idea of a singular truth, rather than this potentially even being a shifting and adapting set of circumstances. If this world operated more like a dream for example, then those believed constants could be thrown out the window at any time. 

In your question you'd like me to entertain, I've seen model rockets. They work. I've seen how satellites changed the world. From the 90's till now the world never changed that much with the exception of mobile devices and other ways of using radio waves. From the 80's though, it's a huge leap. I saw that.

Ahh, but you saw that through the television and through schematics you never tried to build upon yourself, right? Maybe at most a like... 1/1000th sized model that operates on entirely different principles of weight and fuel? All of this has been framed for you through others scripts, this could very well denote not the truth, but rather a collectively gained belief as you and those around you were absorbing the same ideas and reinforcing them further through talking to eachother about what you saw. 

While I have never built a rocket myself, I like many others take it on faith that it works as they've designed it based on the explanations otherwise given. If rockets didn't turn out to work like that at all I would have little to no means of discerning the difference. 

If this is one big illusion, then this is a case of matter over mind. We are to understand, while the only thing we can overstand, is our own fiction. And I mean our own fiction. 

What do you mean by 'our own fiction' in this case, the lies people tell themselves in order to not process a situation? 

Whatever happens to Luke Skywalker is in the hands of officials who overstand Star Wars.

Our own inventions are things we understand. Those who build rockets, must understand. Even advances in that technology, as it is for all technology, are things that are understood. Within the laws of physics.

For something as critical as rocket science, what's true and false is very profound. To think something true for one person to be personal, no. No reason to even consider what's true for someone to be exclusive to them. 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

Turncoat said: 

Dove said: 

In that model the truth is simply what colour we like better.

To ask who is right in this case in truth is one demanding only one can be right. It's deluded. Neither choices will intact make blue or green anymore admirable to other self collapsing wave functions ( minds ).

---

If one is going to argue what is the prettiest colour in the universe, well, that isn't too intelligent now is it ?

Depends on the field of science, it's actually a difficult question to answer but not impossible. There are entire fields of study on color that you're effectively denying with this Dunning Kruger truth.

You're derailing the subject....

Just arguing that your whole "This is dumb" point is dumb. 

You're still straying from the subject.

Color theory has shown itself to be a good resource for increased profits, especially in graphic design these days, so any understanding of color over how it affects members of said universe seems smart to me. It's like how there's profits in understanding Thumbnail Design, which itself roots from other forms of artistic study that preceded it. 

You're talking to this community's premiere graphics expert.

You're a 3D modeler, it's an entirely different field.

VFX/Digital Animator/Render artist. Photoshop is also a side tool for people like me, I'm overqualified to be a graphic designer. Same with game developer. I applied for game design at my old college and they said I was overqualified. It's true.

Another thing I can tell you about colour, are what colours complement each other and how to find them. This is true for lighting and making things look real. I don't mention this cause it'll be too much work teaching you about it. 

 

If life is a simulation/illusion, then what matters while we're here is the game.

 

See... even simulation theory is going off of an understood absolute truth, a constant that we are otherwise all subject to that exists regardless of our means of comprehending it or not. By saying it is a simulation or illusion, you are already assuming a belief no different than posing God as that very same constant. 

Why do you believe you can think something to be true, and that will be the truth only for you and no one else ?

That is deluded thinking man.

Duality, technology, time. If everything is an illusion, then that would be true. Being able to prove or disprove anything doesn't determine the truth, nor does personal opinion define the truth to be customized for an individual while being false to another. Just never happens. 

This still has you taking on faith the idea of a singular truth, rather than this potentially even being a shifting and adapting set of circumstances.

Dude no. You literally made that up now. If one changes his mind that too is an absolute truth.

If this world operated more like a dream for example, then those believed constants could be thrown out the window at any time. 

You know what is true ?

You knowing it is bullshit when you say that I hurt and doxxed many people on here over the years. See it's bullshit right, but what's true is that you did that, while what you had to say was false.

That being said, it doesn't surprise me that you'd argue the is such thing as personal truth. Just because you and Legga may have yourselfs fooled, doesn't mean you've altered some customized truth.

In your question you'd like me to entertain, I've seen model rockets. They work. I've seen how satellites changed the world. From the 90's till now the world never changed that much with the exception of mobile devices and other ways of using radio waves. From the 80's though, it's a huge leap. I saw that.

Ahh, but you saw that through the television and through schematics you never tried to build upon yourself, right?

I also have GPS, we have Google Earth, like, real maps made from photos.

I also see that the Earth is round. When I go to Trinidad, i can see what direction the stars are headed using a compass.

I have spoken to business contacts via webcam in Korea. It was dark here, light over there. It is provent to me, that the Earth is round, and that there are rockets and satellites. I'm also educated. 

And quite frankly, I'm in no position to deny what I see before me ( I have common sense too ) and with that, what matters is the game.

Maybe at most a like... 1/1000th sized model that operates on entirely different principles of weight and fuel? All of this has been framed for you through others scripts, this could very well denote not the truth, but rather a collectively gained belief as you and those around you were absorbing the same ideas and reinforcing them further through talking to eachother about what you saw. 

If we really wanted to, we can go down and watch the big rockets launch. 

In essence you're giving credit to flat Earthers.

While I have never built a rocket myself, I like many others take it on faith that it works as they've designed it based on the explanations otherwise given. If rockets didn't turn out to work like that at all I would have little to no means of discerning the difference. 

Faith would be not actually seeing one.

Some of us are smart enough to know, something things we see on the screen are real. You make like that's unwise, probably for you cause you have a delusional mental illness. I don't.

If this is one big illusion, then this is a case of matter over mind. We are to understand, while the only thing we can overstand, is our own fiction. And I mean our own fiction. 

What do you mean by 'our own fiction' in this case, the lies people tell themselves in order to not process a situation? 

The only thing we overstand, is fiction. A writer or animator, making a story where anything is possible. Nothing else. Everything else is to be understood, not overstood.

Golden_Eagle said:

Turncoat said:

Golden_Eagle said:

 

You're derailing the subject....

Just arguing that your whole "This is dumb" point is dumb. 

You're still straying from the subject.

If the subject is over perception, then I think how quickly you are to label it as dumb to think about illustrates your way of thinking over other subjects of a similar tier. 

The conversation has evolved to being over how much truth is or isn't discernable to a person, rather than our personal take on what's going on limited by our minds and perceptions. 

You're talking to this community's premiere graphics expert.

You're a 3D modeler, it's an entirely different field.

VFX/Digital Animator/Render artist. Photoshop is also a side tool for people like me, I'm overqualified to be a graphic designer. Same with game developer. I applied for game design at my old college and they said I was overqualified. It's true.

They said the same shit about me when I showed that I knew what pigskinning was over some custom textures for Quake III, and I'm horrible at 3D modeling, so I wouldn't take it too personally (my college had game design lumped into their digital arts program). The majority of people applying for the field don't usually know too much and end up being taken in over showing potential, so showing you already know some of what they plan to teach you is a plus to them. 

Having been roommates with a graphic designer while I went through the digital arts racket though, I can tell you that's like comparing apples and lemons. His art tended to be less creative, but he could market very streamline designs as if they were second nature based on the understood canon of marketing design. They are like worker bees compared to even your average computer science major, they are not given much room for imagination from the understood process being so... strict and exacting over the basis of what has worked for decades before them. 

It's creativity vs efficiency markets, they have more in common with business people. They're the one designing brochures so boring you never thought to question who made it. 

Another thing I can tell you about colour, are what colours complement each other and how to find them. This is true for lighting and making things look real. I don't mention this cause it'll be too much work teaching you about it. 

Cool, I guess, but your understanding of color is still going to be coming from an entirely different base than a graphic designer. 

Seriously it's like comparing a person who draws up architect schematics to a painter, both are talented but otherwise quite different over the intention of their work. 

Why do you believe you can think something to be true, and that will be the truth only for you and no one else ?

I believe that no one can prove something is true beyond their room to believe in it's truth, and that anyone's understanding has more than enough room to deviate from whatever's really going on based on the limitations of their perceptions, something we can prove as readily as noting how not everyone sees everything the same. We can try to correlate what things are similar to one another but those truths are not absolute with us now having more than enough points in history that we can look at where groups of people landed on the wrong conclusions. 

When I say personal truth, it is me admitting that the things I understand come from my perspective, but that is simultaneously true for everyone else. 

Duality, technology, time. If everything is an illusion, then that would be true. Being able to prove or disprove anything doesn't determine the truth, nor does personal opinion define the truth to be customized for an individual while being false to another. Just never happens. 

This still has you taking on faith the idea of a singular truth, rather than this potentially even being a shifting and adapting set of circumstances.

If this world operated more like a dream for example, then those believed constants could be thrown out the window at any time. 

Dude no. You literally made that up now. If one changes his mind that too is an absolute truth.

Who's to say the universe is conforming to the changing of one mind, or even further, who's to say the laws we understand now will be the same tomorrow? We don't really know, even if it is safe to presume. 

I believe tomorrow will have everything roughly the same as it is now, on the basis of consistency at the very least, but that doesn't mean I know that, simply that it can be inferred with relatively high odds based on what I otherwise think is the case. 

In your question you'd like me to entertain, I've seen model rockets. They work. I've seen how satellites changed the world. From the 90's till now the world never changed that much with the exception of mobile devices and other ways of using radio waves. From the 80's though, it's a huge leap. I saw that.

Ahh, but you saw that through the television and through schematics you never tried to build upon yourself, right?

I also have GPS, we have Google Earth, like, real maps made from photos.

But you didn't do any of it yourself, right? 

I also see that the Earth is round. When I go to Trinidad, i can see what direction the stars are headed using a compass. 

I have spoken to business contacts via webcam in Korea. It was dark here, light over there. It is provent to me, that the Earth is round, and that there are rockets and satellites. I'm also educated. 

And quite frankly, I'm in no position to deny what I see before me ( I have common sense too ) and with that, what matters is the game.

Who's to say thousands of years from now that us believing in a compass will be proven to have been foolish or backwards? 

Again we can take it on faith that this will remain a constant, I agree that the things you are saying here make sense and go by many of the same things, but just because we have a consensus on this idea does not mean it is necessarily true, there could be circumstances outside of our understanding that are accounting for why we think these things that we've yet to consider. 

Even common sense appeals to the idea of a collectively understood reality, which I too believe in for the most part, yet if we look back in history we see all sorts of groups getting shit wrong in spite of them all averaging together their conclusions, like the whole Ergot poisoning epidemic that led to people thinking they were plagued with witches. 

Maybe at most a like... 1/1000th sized model that operates on entirely different principles of weight and fuel? All of this has been framed for you through others scripts, this could very well denote not the truth, but rather a collectively gained belief as you and those around you were absorbing the same ideas and reinforcing them further through talking to eachother about what you saw. 

If we really wanted to, we can go down and watch the big rockets launch. 

In essence you're giving credit to flat Earthers.

Moreso I am illustrating a point: That in spite of us believing the same canon that us both believing the same things doesn't immediately make them more true. The fact that we cannot account for what we cannot account for leaves us blind towards any other possible explanations, and in turn affects our understanding of the world, what we believe is true, our personal truth. 

Well. So far I'm going through life and it's functional. 

I can toy around with a GPS, and visit places I've been or used to be. It's all correct. How do I know ? lol. No answer would be good enough who are unable to tell what is and what isn't. 

In this day and age all we need is an address, and we can find our way. This has been proven to me. 

I've been on the road trip in western Canada, through several miles of mountains, in a BMW X3 so far, the only form of communication was satellite ratio. No data, no cellular.

For every subject, one can keep asking "but why, okay but why again" and they'll forever be stuck and clueless on one subject and not make any progress. That is the way with you.

Personal truth doesn't exist. Just because we cannot prove anything, doesn't determine what is true or not, though I have to admit, it says a lot when you make up lies about a person, meanwhile there are several others witnesses who would say the opposite, and even claim you to be guilty of what you accuse the innocent of. Then intuition comes correct doesn't it. 

.

.

.

Personal Truth doesn't exist. What's true is true. What isn't is make belief.            

Golden_Eagle said: 

Well. So far I'm going through life and it's functional. 

It is functional to conform to the thinking of larger clusters of people, we both do it even. 

I can toy around with a GPS, and visit places I've been or used to be. It's all correct. How do I know ? lol. No answer would be good enough who are unable to tell what is and what isn't. 

In this day and age all we need is an address, and we can find our way. This has been proven to me. 

I've been on the road trip in western Canada, through several miles of mountains, in a BMW X3 so far, the only form of communication was satellite ratio. No data, no cellular.

Orrr... someone implanted those memories, it's not like you or I would ever know. 

Again we can both take it on faith that you were not kidnapped and then subject to mental procedures that left you with experiences that otherwise never happened, the odds of that are very, very low, but that does not rid of that meddlesome factor that we're taking it on faith that those were genuine experiences that you went through. 

For every subject, one can keep asking "but why, okay but why again" and they'll forever be stuck and clueless on one subject and not make any progress. That is the way with you.

So I take it you don't understand the point I'm otherwise illustrating: That all the things we're accepting are taken on faith? 

Personal truth doesn't exist. Just because we cannot prove anything, doesn't determine what is true or not

Personal Truth doesn't exist. What's true is true. What isn't is make belief. 

I think the problem here is over your attachment to the word 'truth'. When you say it you are illustrating it more like universal truths, while I am saying it more like how a courtroom would use the word, where two people could be telling the truth insofar as neither of them are lying while otherwise telling two completely different accounts of the event. 

When I say personal truth, I mean what they believe is going on. The world having an absolute truth it follows, like the earlier discussed simulation scenario, does not mean that it is a truth that people will know. When they say what they think is going on without the knowledge of that absolute truth, they aren't lying so much as they are mistaken, rendering them telling the truth even if it's not THE truth. 

In their saying their account of how they think things happened, they are delivering their personal truth. 

As a general side-point, I very much hope alzheimer's, senility, or other similar problems don't run in your family.

People with loss of such function as they get older tend to split into two types; Certain and Uncertain. The ones who are certain will walk through everything in a haze, sure of what's going on even though it's not conforming to everyone else in the room's account of things, while the uncertain one will have the room to notice they aren't always thinking clearly and potentially adapt to the haze. 

Doubt ends up in such a case being an ally, while certainty allows them to make horrible mistakes, like an old father assuming his now grown up daughter is his long dead wife when regressing into older memories or something. 

Turncoat said: 

Clearly it's ultraviolet, it's so beautiful we can't even see it. 

It even has Ultra in the name.

Clearly.

One's belief doesn't determine the truth, nor will what they can or cannot prove.

The term "Personal Truth" is a fantasy often used as an excuse for seeking acceptions.

Well how would you disentangle "personal truth" from "absolute truth"?

Say, I claimed that the prettiest color was blue, and you said it was green. Who is right?

You'll find that your elementary school level logic isn't going to help you there.

Hmm, as a thought exercise, could this answer be potentially found?

First would be the challenge of semantics, we'd need to define what 'pretty' is in this case to it's most barebones definition and then attempt to assign some sort of metric over it, like sociological data trends that lend to one's choice of favorite color being split from their roots to see what colors remain, which could then be compared with the symptoms those colors elicit in people through psychological color theory to see if it confirms or contrasts former research. 

We could even try to study what differences Red-Green colorblind people exhibit to see if those colors being absent from their perceptions causes any symptomatic impairments beyond the obvious, to gauge if those colors may have an emotional significance on the human psyche and, if so, how much. If the mood affect of color could be shown to be 1-to-1 with how it affects people psychologically, certain colorblindness may be helpful or harmful when it comes to their more averaged emotional state, and how they've become conditioned by the lack of it to behave.

Exactly, you'd need to first agree on a metric. The problem is that the metric is subjective, and thus so is the assignment.

If we both agreed that `beautiful` is defined as that which conforms with the average view, the majority's view, or conforms with nature (golden ratio), then we could go about assigning what is the most beautiful color under each view. The problem is that not everyone will agree with that metric, making it subjective. I could say that beautiful is defined as something that evokes emotions in each person, in which case beautiful is very personal. The metric is very personal, and sometimes even agreed-upon metrics are not universal.

It's a bit like how Spatial failed the "purpose of men and women" test.

She claims that the purpose of men and women is to procreate. However, it assumes a metric to determine "purpose". In this case, you could, e.g., assign "purpose" to that which conforms with natural selection or you could assign purpose to that which conforms with the mind of God.

The problem is that nature or evolution does not assign purpose. It simply is. The outcome of evolution may well be men and women, who procreate, but according to evolution theory, nature didn't make up its mind to assign us that purpose. Instead, those who procreated simply survived across history. The "thing" that assigned purpose to men and women was not nature but instead our own little spatial mind.

It's quite ironic to realize that the person who scoffs at personal truths the most is the one who religiously tries to impose their personal truths on others.

Many people have a different take on purpose. Some say our purpose is to live happily and reduce suffering, a purpose that is sometimes at odds with Spatial's cave-man analysis of natural selection. But you have others, too. Our purpose could be to conform to the mind of Christian God. Who knows. Ask the buddhists?

AppleGenius said: 

.

It's quite ironic to realize realize that the person who scoffs at personal truths the most is the one who religiously tries to impose their personal truths on others.

 Try telling that to the Mother of your offspring.

Anyway Legga. Don't go cutting off your wii wii, you'll regret it, and it's very painful. 

Historically speaking, Spatial's view on natural selection is the same view that was used to justify slavery ("survival of the fittest"). So basically we have here someone who is stuck parroting the views of the late 19th century slave owners, who would have been happy to own Spatial's black body for 50 dollars.

lol What I don't recall thinking that.

I wouldn've been an abomination in the US in the 1800's. I would've been better off in Mexico cause I can pass as Mexican I suppose.