Me: ...

You: "SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNY!"

I made a bullshit assumption, my apologies. Carry on :)

Because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, he has been relegated to a category of person no longer worthy of fairness nor respect. He is an agent of evil, and so a guilt free punching bag for the weak of character. — DingoJones

When I see comments like this; all I think is, "you're no better than what you claim to stand against."

In my mind comments like those degrade the person speaking them in my mind. Take it or leave it; just one observation among billions.

Sounds to me you have (at the very least) a touch of "Trump Mania".

Remember kids, it's a virtue to disregard or diminish someone if we dont like them...

Well...what you perceive as a lie.

In my opinion we both lost.

I didn't mean that, I came back to remove my comment but pointless now. I'm annoyed at something else and I was projecting, sorry for being an ass.

I wasn't sure what you meant is what I should've said.

How about instead of trying to sound profound you just say what you mean?

You may call me "IDol" for shorthand. When I describe "faith" I'm illustrating the leaps we take in presuppositions that are built on each other. In other words: logical conclusions. Since "A" appears to be true and "B" is related to "A" in some form therefore "B" must also be true. As in to say there are no guarantees beyond the "immediate". I might not possess the ability to fully articulate my thoughts on this, so apologies if I come off as convoluted.

I see now you are not one to waste "breath" on. Thank you for stating your character clearly so that we might see your flavor of poison.

I could correct you, but I see no point.

And you are right in those feelings, for you could be right. Yet also you could be wrong. That's where faith comes in.

Well said :)

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

I can describe your ailment in four words: you are narrow minded. You're right in that we must construct our world around things we know in contrast to that we don't. Afterall: there is a infinite amount of ways something isn't but a (theoretical?) finite limit to ways it can be described or used. But it's a human folly to assume that since something hasn't come to be demonstrated then casually it doesn't exist.

What are your thoughts on multiple universes/realities coexisting? I find it a fun thought. What if Napoleon hadn't held his troops back at Waterloo? What if JW Booth's pistol misfired? The social construct we find ourselves in is just that. A construct. A building of ideas that can be dismantled and reassembled at will.

What we can see is only a infinitesimally small amount of what defines existence. We are mere apes that in comparison to the universe and meaningless in our comprehension of it. You, me, and everyone on this board are nothing more than cavemen and women with fancy glass, metal, and plastic.

So who the hell are you to say you know what it means to define existence? If there is a god, I couldn't prove it. If there isn't then you couldn't prove it. Thus both are rational observations given that both are unverifiable theories.

What we can see and measure is such a small amount of what makes up our reality. A mere 5% of the mass of the universe is composed of matter that we can interact with. The remaining 95% of the mass is composed of dark matter/energy. So smart guy: what does that tell you?

A tip for free: state your intentions before going down the rabbit hole. Strike one.

You'd be surprised how many GI's died after horrendously creative and drawn out torture sessions implemented by Imperial Japanese. You apparently don't know your history too well. Maybe you would give in, but would they? I'm not sure and I know I never could be when discussing hypotheticals. But my intuition tells me that torture has gotten progressively worse throughout time because people have the tendency to resist torture.

There's a Nietzsche quote that I think is parallel to your thought: "I was in darkness, but I took three steps and found myself in paradise. The first step, was a good thought. The second, a good word; and the third, a good deed."

I stand to think that my previous question was left unanswered. To what degree is influence derived from internal sources vs external?

I don't need to have experienced it, I've anecdotally heard of it experienced. The Buddhist monk that lit himself on fire with gasoline. That event was referenced earlier in this thread and I can't imagine a worse way to die. And he didn't scream, he just sat there in lotus position (apparently). If the condition for torture is pain and that monk could withstand potentially the worst form of it I would say logically successful torture is conditional.

If it can be forced how?

I know that men have forcefully changed other's will through the coercion of pain throughout time. It can be done. But in all those cases the people being tortured decided to give in. They decided to think the thoughts that allowed their tongue and vocal chords form the sounds that describe submissiveness. No matter what both parties must agree the torture was successful. Until then the torture would be considered a failure.

A man can own another man's body. A man can never own another man's mind. Men decide to give in the will of others because their own is fragile; weak.

Well tbh I'm not sure I want to have the same conversation twice. Unless you give me something to work with I'm willing to let bygones be bygones.

So that hinges on the individual willingly giving up their agency. In other words: no you can't force your will on others. So success is dependent on the torturee agreeing to give up.


Here's my understanding of how change occurs:
I call them the levels of influential development:
1. Acting out
2. Thinking
3. Feeling
4. Seeing
5. Hearing

1-2 are individual traits. 4-5 are group traits. Feeling is a communicative trait imo so it bridges the personal and interpersonal.

Sorry to sound pompous, that's just the best way I can illustrate my understanding.

Well I can't force your eyes to see what's in my mind and vice versa. Why don't you give me some direction where the breakdown in communication happened?

Its all about the context of the question asked. "Is existence real" is a legitimate question. Because nobody can prove that to be an absolute truth if it were to be false everything built on that presupposition would also be false in the realm of "what is real/true".

This is why I consider medical depression a "existential question". Half baked thought but I consider the two tied in some manner.

"The inference rules of deductive logic, including modus ponens, are intrinsically truth-preserving; if the premisses are true, then the conclusion is true. What deduction cannot guarantee is that the premisses are true."

They are intrinsically true so long as the original presupposition rings true. I think that's the point he's trying to lay out. Like many layers stacked on each other: the whole thing comes tumbling down if the foundation is faulty.

A wise way to live so long as you have stable footing.

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

I have had a similar thought pattern in regards to what you describe. How do we know what we see is true? How can we ever know what is absolute in this world of imagination and illusions? The short answer: we can't.

Trial and error is the only tried and true method of determining value in a reality that technically may not even exist. For all we know life could be a simulation. But that thought is pointless imo. I can't do anything with that. So I, like many others, chart my waters by experience rather than where the wind might take me. To do anything you need a basis (a reference point), no matter how wide you set your goalposts you need parameters to work from.

You can never truly know if you walk "the yellow brick road". If the game doesn't work well enough, the only course of action is to scrap the old rules and make new ones until you find a set that works. And if you can't find a better version than what exists then that's the state of things until they aren't. There's an infinite amount of ways a plan can fail, and only a handful where it works out as intended.

Could we find some grounding in what your belief structure is? For instance: what distinction are you pointing at when describing "self love" vs "self hate". I'm assuming this has become a semantics issue.

No offense intended when I say this: you seem to be driven more by hubris in contrast to the pursuit of knowledge. If you've articulated your perspective to the best of your ability I can't follow your reasoning. It's almost as if you hold the stance that nothing has meaning since everything is built on presuppositions that are built on further abstractions.

I think Tim layed it out nicely: no matter what game we play the rules must be established first before any player can proceed.

Was I convoluted in my reply? I thought y'all had some momentum before I showed up..

"Proof" is a strong word. How about "evidence" instead?


It is a interesting question. To expand on that thought: if people are capable of changing their inner framework what is the catalyst that causes that change?


The first question I would ask is what does it mean to successfully torture someone/something?

"Experience" is either a major component or the sole factor in what moulds a individual's world view.

But my thought is what of the influences on a person? To what degree is change created internally vs externally?



It's funny how life appears to be straightforward when in truth there's a bend in the road. I was Protestant, turned agnostic then atheist, and now I self describe as spiritual.

"It is well known that there are known unknowns the truth of which is already fixed, but as yet undiscovered. Being (existence) determines truth."
I like your summary. But if I were to speak in what I see to be universal truths I'd tweak your statement as: "[Percieved] being determines truth."

I know, you already basically said that (as far as I could tell) but I wanted to reiterate.

"Relations determine value."
Care to elaborate? I read that as: things can't have value without a comparison.

"People tend to act or expect as if it is..."

Perceptions can be false as they often are.

Could you elaborate? What aspects in particular?

Has the thought occurred that you ask too much from other's?

You act as if happiness is something that's static. I abstain from happiness now for happiness later. No matter what I had to "suffer" in some way at some point.

I feel like you're splitting hairs. Or is that a non sequitur?

"What could be so valuable that happiness doesn't matter?"

Abstaining from eating all of my food today so as to not starve later. Aka: rationing.

That is not to say people don't hold self destructive behaviors, but we don't talk about them anymore, they didn't make it. (waka waka)

"A comparison of what to what?"
Exactly :) Pick two things that are different in some regard and set them on the same goal. Whichever achieves it to the participants satisfaction is that which has "greater value".

Figure out why you're doing what you're doing. That's the first step. Humans are visual animals, we need a target to aim at.

To the second: that's so vague I've no clue what you're alluding to.

Seems to me this is multidimensional. First let's start with the presupposition. These are the key terms I picked up on:
Knowledge- facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Truth- that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
Value- the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

I view knowledge as something that is transformative. You need to have lacked something to obtain it. Truth is very subjective imo. A truth can be stacked in a deck with other truths, as to which one is the truest I rarely can say. And value is simply a comparison in my mind. How I read your original question:
If [gaining a new understanding] determines [what is most beneficial given the reality of the situation], how can I [judge which option is the best choice]?

I'd answer that with a question: what goal are you trying to achieve? What outcome?