Wars

pinkeye

Wonder woman
The contextual context of my statement was,

"An objective perspective means that everyone will share the same view from the same perspective.". Clearly other countries do not share your perspective. I personal feel that we should end all Theocratic and Authoritarian government all over the world. But actioning that opinion would make me a bigger theocrat and authoritarian than the governments I want to end. So, leave them alone, and stay out of their affairs. Unless you have walked a mile in their shoes.".

I was saying that Seth's views and judgements are biased because of his subjective perspective. And, that his views may not be shared by others with a different subjective perspective. And, that his perspective was the result of his subjective understandings, personal experiences, indoctrinated opinions, and from government disinformation. Finally, that, "An objective perspective means that everyone will share the same view from the same perspective". Hence, the need for a more objective perspective. If you simple don't like someone because of the way they think, or how they treat their people, then you are not going to want them to have nuclear weapons. But, the more you look at the facts, logic, and data, then the more objective your perspective will become. If I said that no one can live to a 150 years old. then this would be MY subjective understanding of how long humans can live. But if I asked 1,000 people if I was correct, and 999 people said yes, then this would mean that from an objective perspective(based on other facts and data), humans do not live 150 years.

You are correct that the human condition, does not allow for any true objective perspective to even exist. But it is still a goal that we should all strive for. In short, our subjective perspective only exist as long as we are sentient. But an objective perspective doesn't require our sentiency, or even our existence. The moon, earth, and sun will exist, regardless of whether we do or don't. Our presence is NOT required in an objective Universe.

So, the more facts and logic you can deposit, the more objective your opinion will be.
Be that as it may, even IF we were able to say have 1000 people objectively assess all known facts of a situation, I do NOT believe we would all come to the same conclusion.

I thought you were talking about human perspectives...

but I don't deny there are likely planetary perspectives as well. I remember reading Fred Hoyle and other old writers, many of whom, like Mr Hoyle were amazing scientists thinkers and creative.


Planets are beings.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Thanks for the info Shell.. I've saved it to read later.

As a Kiwi, born in the Land of the Long White Cloud, I knew nothing about aboriginaL PEOPLES IN aUSTRALIA.

oops

We knew about the Maori Wars, and we seemed to be OK .. They fought for and won Homelands.
Respect.

Coming to Australia as a very early teen with my mothr and her partner, was a surprisingly big culture shock.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Be that as it may, even IF we were able to say have 1000 people objectively assess all known facts of a situation, I do NOT believe we would all come to the same conclusion.
This is very true. This is because of our cognitive dissonance, and how our brain compartmentalize all perceptual input data. This allows for even the most intelligent human, to believe in the most dumbest things. You can tell a thousand people that jumping off a multi-story building, will result in their death, or will cause them serious injury. And, 1,000 people will believe you, and not try to prove you wrong. But if the Pope told a thousand of his followers, that the Hand of God would lower them safely to the ground if their belief is strong enough, I guarantee you that more than one person would give it a go.

You remember the Jonestown Massacre in Guyana? One man had convince over 900 people to commit mass suicide. One leader, and over 900 sheep. This is a chilling story of a cautionary tale. https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ol-aid-a-survivor-remembers-jim-jones/248723/

Facts, data, logic, basic reasoning, and even simple intuition are, in many cases, not relevant to the human condition. How we conceptualize information, is not the same as how we compartmentalize information. We are NOT rational creatures by evolution. No one can access all of the facts. But you can access the preponderance of facts. But it is our interpretation of the facts, that is the real issue here, not access. If the facts conflict with our presuppositional biases, we will simply ignore them, or dismiss them. If our genes did allow for all humans to be critical thinkers, then there would be more leaders than sheep. Evolution has chosen that this would not be an advantage in the survival of the species.

I thought you were talking about human perspectives...
I don't know any difference between the "human perspective", and the "subjective perspective". Unless you can actually see yourself from outside of yourself, are a true empath, or can extend your mind into all minds, then we are all trapped in our own subjective perspective. Our subjective reality IS our subjective perspective. I cannot physically feel your pain, experience your experiences, or even perceive your reality. And, neither can you mine.

The only things that objectively evens out the playing field, are facts and logic. Without these, we would still be living in cave, or sacrificing our first born to the Gods.. And, "necessity would NOT be the mother of invention".

but I don't deny there are likely planetary perspectives as well. I remember reading Fred Hoyle and other old writers, many of whom, like Mr Hoyle were amazing scientists thinkers and creative.
Professor Hoyle was a brilliant mathematician and astrophysicists. He will always be known for his theory of how Stars are formed(Stellar Nucleosynthesis). But unfortunately, even though he coined the "Big Bang" Theory as a joke, he believed in the "Steady-State" Theory. He believed that there were spaces in the Universe where its negative pressure could created matter from nothing. Which he called "creative-space(C-space). He was wrong of course. And, creating a modified version of his "steady state" Theory, only dug him into a deeper hole with the scientific community.

I am unaware of him ever referring to any celestial objects as "beings". Especially, since he despised all organized religions. Sorry, if I am misunderstanding you. I'm also not sure what you mean by "planetary perspective"?

I am much much more of a fan of Professor Isaac Asimov.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Thanks for the info Shell.. I've saved it to read later.

As a Kiwi, born in the Land of the Long White Cloud, I knew nothing about aboriginaL PEOPLES IN aUSTRALIA.

oops

We knew about the Maori Wars, and we seemed to be OK .. They fought for and won Homelands.
Respect.

Coming to Australia as a very early teen with my mothr and her partner, was a surprisingly big culture shock.

No problem. There are also a number of books on this subject that you can read.

On my first or second week in Australia, I remember an incident with a close friend of mine, who he and his wife stayed at my home in San Francisco. We were at the Central Railway Station. He said, "fuck'n abbo", referring to a very light-skinned man sleeping on the benches near the steps. Since I had never seen an Aborigine in person, I said, "But he looks just like you". I, like most Americans think that all Aboriginals are Black. Most Black Americans, do not have long, or naturally blond hair. A White Black American, would be extremely rare in the states. I certainly know the difference now.

Regarding Kiwi's, if they don't open their mouth, I wouldn't see any difference at all. And, "vive la difference" anyway.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
This is very true. This is because of our cognitive dissonance, and how our brain compartmentalize all perceptual input data. This allows for even the most intelligent human, to believe in the most dumbest things. You can tell a thousand people that jumping off a multi-story building, will result in their death, or will cause them serious injury. And, 1,000 people will believe you, and not try to prove you wrong. But if the Pope told a thousand of his followers, that the Hand of God would lower them safely to the ground if their belief is strong enough, I guarantee you that more than one person would give it a go.

You remember the Jonestown Massacre in Guyana? One man had convince over 900 people to commit mass suicide. One leader, and over 900 sheep. This is a chilling story of a cautionary tale. https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ol-aid-a-survivor-remembers-jim-jones/248723/

Facts, data, logic, basic reasoning, and even simple intuition are, in many cases, not relevant to the human condition. How we conceptualize information, is not the same as how we compartmentalize information. We are NOT rational creatures by evolution. No one can access all of the facts. But you can access the preponderance of facts. But it is our interpretation of the facts, that is the real issue here, not access. If the facts conflict with our presuppositional biases, we will simply ignore them, or dismiss them. If our genes did allow for all humans to be critical thinkers, then there would be more leaders than sheep. Evolution has chosen that this would not be an advantage in the survival of the species.



I don't know any difference between the "human perspective", and the "subjective perspective". Unless you can actually see yourself from outside of yourself, are a true empath, or can extend your mind into all minds, then we are all trapped in our own subjective perspective. Our subjective reality IS our subjective perspective. I cannot physically feel your pain, experience your experiences, or even perceive your reality. And, neither can you mine.

The only things that objectively evens out the playing field, are facts and logic. Without these, we would still be living in cave, or sacrificing our first born to the Gods.. And, "necessity would NOT be the mother of invention".



Professor Hoyle was a brilliant mathematician and astrophysicists. He will always be known for his theory of how Stars are formed(Stellar Nucleosynthesis). But unfortunately, even though he coined the "Big Bang" Theory as a joke, he believed in the "Steady-State" Theory. He believed that there were spaces in the Universe where its negative pressure could created matter from nothing. Which he called "creative-space(C-space). He was wrong of course. And, creating a modified version of his "steady state" Theory, only dug him into a deeper hole with the scientific community.

I am unaware of him ever referring to any celestial objects as "beings". Especially, since he despised all organized religions. Sorry, if I am misunderstanding you. I'm also not sure what you mean by "planetary perspective"?

I am much much more of a fan of Professor Isaac Asimov.
He wrote the Black Hole// didn't he..? perhaps it was another that wrote of sentient planets. LONG TIME ago.. but somehow I connect that with my subsequent interest in S-F. Don't know what it is known as today.

I'd read many many books .. Asimov and Clarke were firm faves, but I also loved Clifford D Simak... All Flesh is Grass'.. and 'City'... also Niven , Zelazney you name em I probably read them.
Of course Asimov is a massive figure in 20th century s-f.. the only one of his kind.. Foundation.. is just one opus oh and Arthur C Clarke . and much earlier authors of the genre.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Can't work the reply button so this copy and paste... ... Shell said


Facts, data, logic, basic reasoning, and even simple intuition are, in many cases, not relevant to the human condition. How we conceptualize information, is not the same as how we compartmentalize information. We are NOT rational creatures by evolution. No one can access all of the facts. But you can access the preponderance of facts. But it is our interpretation of the facts, that is the real issue here, not access. If the facts conflict with our presuppositional biases, we will simply ignore them, or dismiss them. If our genes did allow for all humans to be critical thinkers, then there would be more leaders than sheep. Evolution has chosen that this would not be an advantage in the survival of the species.



I don't know any difference between the "human perspective", and the "subjective perspective". Unless you can actually see yourself from outside of yourself, are a true empath, or can extend your mind into all minds, then we are all trapped in our own subjective perspective. Our subjective reality IS our subjective perspective. I cannot physically feel your pain, experience your experiences, or even perceive your reality. And, neither can you mine.

The only things that objectively evens out the playing field, are facts and logic. Without these, we would still be living in cave, or sacrificing our first born to the Gods.. And, "necessity would NOT be the mother of invention".


I agree with the LOGIC bit.. absolutely... but facts ? they depend on who you hear, don't they.? What you experience..? Like you said No one can access all the facts.

I prefer logic... stand alone...
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I agree with the LOGIC bit.. absolutely... but facts ? they depend on who you hear, don't they.? What you experience..? Like you said No one can access all the facts.

I prefer logic... stand alone...
Pinkeye, facts also stand alone. They are anything that is known to be true, or has been proven to be true. It is irrelevant where the facts come from. It only matters if the information or data is fact. Facts are NOT determined by how they are interpreted. Facts are only determined by their existence as truth.

Dogs have fleas is a fact. Doesn't matter where the info comes from. Light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum is a fact. It doesn't matter who tells you this.

In fact, name me any fact that is not true? If people are just telling you lies and opinions, then they are NOT telling you facts. It is the preponderance of facts that will become the truth.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
Pinkeye, facts also stand alone. They are anything that is known to be true, or has been proven to be true. It is irrelevant where the facts come from. It only matters if the information or data is fact. Facts are NOT determined by how they are interpreted. Facts are only determined by their existence as truth.

Dogs have fleas is a fact. Doesn't matter where the info comes from. Light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum is a fact. It doesn't matter who tells you this.

In fact, name me any fact that is not true? If people are just telling you lies and opinions, then they are NOT telling you facts. It is the preponderance of facts that will become the truth.
Pinkies right, Facts can be presented to support a opinion, the trick is to narrow the scope enough...Fact, over 1 million dead from C-19, narrow the scope too...only .0035% have died in Australia sounds much better... Both Facts, entirely different approach to them.
Ohh and plenty of Dogs without fleas :)
Also light has been recorded going through some substances at only a few meters a second, very relative to the observer.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Pinkies right, Facts can be presented to support a opinion, the trick is to narrow the scope enough...Fact, over 1 million dead from C-19, narrow the scope too...only .0035% have died in Australia sounds much better... Both Facts, entirely different approach to them.
Ohh and plenty of Dogs without fleas :)
Also light has been recorded going through some substances at only a few meters a second, very relative to the observer.

If you only want to distort, or selectively interpret the facts you need, then this is where simple logic must be used. Almost 1,700 people have leaped off the Golden Gate Bridge and have died. 34 people have survived. Both statements are factually and provably objective. Both facts can be interpreted in different ways. You can say that you will have a 98% chance of dying, or a 2% chance of surviving. You could even say that suicide is not always guaranteed if you jump off the GGB. You can make any conclusions that you want. But the facts do not change because of your interpretation of them. And, your conclusions are not always true, based only on your interpretation of them. But the facts will always be true, no matter how you interpret them, or make conclusions based on them. It is just your interpretation and conclusions that are wrong, NOT the facts. Hence why you need a preponderance of facts, or the convergence of facts, to make the correct conclusion. Here's another truism. Humans are born with legs and arms. Does this fact mean that if they are not born with legs or arms, that they are NOT human? Phone a friend.

Do you ever get anything right? Are you saying that dogs do not have fleas is a fact? Are you also saying, that light does NOT travel IN A VACUUM at a constant speed(299,792,458 meters/second) is a fact? Never mind, you only infer and insinuate everything, so you can later backtrack when you are challenged. Even to downplaying, misrepresenting, and trivializing the importance of the facts. Since even facts are not absolute, this allows people like you to distort/exploit them, to support the nonsense that that they peddle to the ignorant. Also, the idea is NOT to narrow the scope, but to expand the scope of facts to support an opinion. Otherwise, one could simply pick one fact, and then claim that their opinion is completely factual and valid. This is just dumb.

Also, since the deaths in Australia from Covid-19 are also included in the world's death totals, you can't isolate its numbers from the world's totals. Therefore, 897 deaths in Australia/1,050,000 total deaths in the world = 0.08%(NOT 0.0023%) of the world's total have died in Australia. Facts are not meant to sound good. They are only meant to be true.

You, and 2 others here are guilty of conflating facts to fit the narrowest scope of anything that comes out of their mouths. For example, I present factual/scientific reasons why masks are useless, and why you are all acting like sheep. All I got back was, that the government knows more than I do!! That's it!! I gave you tons of reasons, why shutting down our own economy, and quarantining our own 26M people(25.9M people are not infected), is doing more damage than any virus could ever do. Again, all I got back was, that the government knows more than I do!!! Absolute apathetic maddening indifference.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
And, your conclusions are not always true, based only on your interpretation of them.
Opinion

Never mind, you only infer and insinuate everything, so you can later backtrack when you are challenged. Even to downplaying, misrepresenting, and trivializing the importance of the facts.
Opinion

Also, the idea is NOT to narrow the scope, but to expand the scope of facts to support an opinion.
Opinion

You, and 2 others here are guilty of conflating facts to fit the narrowest scope of anything that comes out of their mouths.
Opinion

For example, I present factual/scientific reasons why masks are useless
Opinion

I gave you tons of reasons, why shutting down our own economy
opinion




But the facts will always be true, no matter how you interpret them, or make conclusions based on them
Since even facts are not absolute,
Contradiction


Not much fact here Shell, lots of insulting, opinions and raving....
I just hope your where being funny with that reply because if you were serious I'd recommend seeing someone, they might be able to help you, now that's a fact.....
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Pinkeye, facts also stand alone. They are anything that is known to be true, or has been proven to be true. It is irrelevant where the facts come from. It only matters if the information or data is fact. Facts are NOT determined by how they are interpreted. Facts are only determined by their existence as truth.

Dogs have fleas is a fact. Doesn't matter where the info comes from. Light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum is a fact. It doesn't matter who tells you this.

In fact, name me any fact that is not true? If people are just telling you lies and opinions, then they are NOT telling you facts. It is the preponderance of facts that will become the truth.
Not ALL Dogs have fleas. That is a fact.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
nope.. you said that.....again it's all relative :)

are you saying light slows down when not in a vacuum ??????

Now you are just digger yourself into a deeper hole. I specifically said, that "Light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum is a fact.". So, Nope, I didn't say whatever you needed to misrepresent me as saying. And, what exactly do you mean is relative? Relative to what? That you can change my comments to mean anything you want?

Back to avoiding answering questions, by asking questions again I see. Since the speed of light in a vacuum is completely constant, I can understand why you would think that in any other medium, light would move at a slower speed. But then again, you would be wrong. Photons behave as both a particle and a wave. And, electromagnetic waves are NOT hindered by any medium at all. But it does effect the atomic particles in the medium it passes through. By creating other electromagnetic waves which will add to it own wave length, and making it speed appear slower through the medium. Remember, the longer the wavelength the slower the speed. Think of it as light travelling at its own speed, but then carrying extra weight through some medium. When if leaves the medium, that weight will be lifted. And, light will travels back to the same speed it did before it entered the medium.

This is the simplest video I could find that explains this phenomenon. I hope it helps you to understand why light only appears to travel slower in different mediums.

 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Otherwise, one could simply pick one fact, and then claim that their opinion is completely factual and valid. This is just dumb.
That is exactly what you have done on a least one topic, but lets not go there.

Logic is the only way to solve problems. whatever they may be. But sadly, LOGIC is almost ALWAYS ignored in favor of FACTS.

Look where that has us hmm.?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Not ALL Dogs have fleas. That is a fact.

Not ALL dogs have fleas may be a fact, because NOTHING is absolute. And, I never said anything about ALL dogs having fleas. But my question was to name any fact, that was NOT true. Are you saying, that not all dogs having fleas, is not true?
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Not ALL dogs have fleas may be a fact, because NOTHING is absolute. And, I never said anything about ALL dogs having fleas. But my question was to name any fact, that was NOT true. Are you saying, that not all dogs having fleas, is not true?
No I'm saying ... your claim of a fact that " Dogs have fleas " is a generalization Not a fact, at all.
So your FACT is NOT true.

Do you see the difference.?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
That is exactly what you have done on a least one topic, but lets not go there.

Logic is the only way to solve problems. whatever they may be. But sadly, LOGIC is almost ALWAYS ignored in favor of FACTS.

Look where that has us hmm.?

Obviously you are not going to go there. You would then have to ignore all the factual and logical information that I have deposited over and over again. NOT JUST ONE!

Logic is the methodology we use to to form rational conclusions based on the facts. Without facts, all conclusions would be logical. And, all logic would be valid. Lightening could be caused by Thor or Zeus. Pixies could exist.

Facts are absolutely necessary in forming logical premises. Without factual premises, there is no logic.
 
Last edited:
Top