do you get upset when people lie about their motives?

Page 4 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


would it bother you when a horrible person pretends to do thing for an unselfish reason? especially if people believed that person?
no, won't bother me at all 10%  10%  [ 4 ]
would bother me to some extent 33%  33%  [ 13 ]
would bother me horribly 44%  44%  [ 17 ]
meltdown/rage attack 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 39

rugulach
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

04 Sep 2014, 10:55 pm

olympiadis wrote:
...and this is only one of the many problems with the world of concept.
You've got factors like good, bad, hurt, help, intent, and accident.
None of those criteria are real, and none could be proven.

This confusion is the trademark of concept, and one of the reasons that concept is a contamination of logic.


Why stop there? Why not go ahead and say kindness is a concept too and thus not real? And since kindness is a virtue, virtues should not be real either...

Quote:
A simple but obvious example:
Someone wants to harm themselves, so you do the "kind" thing and hand them a weapon to use, but with the intent to help or harm? Nobody else really knows.
A claim in either direction could be rationalized, but neither can be proven.


The 'kind' thing to do for me would be to not let them harm themselves.

While your line of thinking is not without merit, it occurs to me that you might be taking it too far.



rugulach
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

04 Sep 2014, 10:58 pm

olympiadis wrote:
"Generally accepted" has nothing to do with reality, and is quite volatile.
The fact that the definition is linked to the concept of "virtue" is a dead give-away that acting out virtuous behaviors would trigger the chemical reward pathway inside the brain, thus serving the individual performing the behaviors.


What if the reward pathways were not triggered in an individual or if such triggering was not perceived by the individual - would such an individual's "virtuous" actions be really 'virtuous'?

Quote:
"Intent" is indeed a deeper description to be applied to the definition of kindness. It gets one closer the actual origins of a behavior by exploring the origins of the thought patterns that resulted in the behavior. Therefore, intent is a more significant conditional to be applied when trying to determine selfless or selfish to a behavior. It is more revealing than simply observing parts of the behavior and collecting subjective assessments of the behavior.


The problem with this is that it equates the most rapacious and evil acts known to man with something like breathing air or drinking water since, well, they are both selfish. I find that jarring to say the least.



rugulach
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 282

04 Sep 2014, 11:47 pm

olympiadis wrote:
In contrast, the environment of human imagination is full of concepts that are hopelessly embedded in layers of abstraction. When any logic is applied, the results in the real world are unpredictable, represent contaminated logic, and are functionally garbage. This is because the "logic" that uses these abstractions is not operating in an environment controlled by the laws of physics, but in the imagination of humans.


Can you explain what you wrote here a little more clearly? What is this "logic" you are talking about here?



olympiadis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,849
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois

04 Sep 2014, 11:52 pm

rugulach wrote:
Why stop there? Why not go ahead and say kindness is a concept too and thus not real? And since kindness is a virtue, virtues should not be real either...
The 'kind' thing to do for me would be to not let them harm themselves.
While your line of thinking is not without merit, it occurs to me that you might be taking it too far.


Of course those things are concepts and not real. I had no interest in listing all of the conceptual labels.

There is a clear difference in my line of thinking. It lacks an emotional connection, and more importantly an intuition that would tell me exactly what point in the analogy would be "too far".

I didn't write out that example in order to get approval from the masses. I wrote it because it's functionally accurate. Emotion and intuition have no place in logic, other than to contaminate the logic in such a way that it can then be manipulated to serve identity.


I think more and more people are starting to realize that when their intuition tells them something is good or bad, that the decision was actually made by the hive mind, and not a result of the use of their own conscious reasoning/deduction ability.
Still, there are even more people that stand by their intuitive feeling of what is "right", and simply use their reasoning ability to rationalize their feeling.



olympiadis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,849
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois

05 Sep 2014, 12:36 am

rugulach wrote:
olympiadis wrote:
In contrast, the environment of human imagination is full of concepts that are hopelessly embedded in layers of abstraction. When any logic is applied, the results in the real world are unpredictable, represent contaminated logic, and are functionally garbage. This is because the "logic" that uses these abstractions is not operating in an environment controlled by the laws of physics, but in the imagination of humans.


Can you explain what you wrote here a little more clearly? What is this "logic" you are talking about here?


"Logic" is a relationship (interaction) between sets of data that allows accurate predictions to be made.

A collection of ordered logic (conditionals) that functions as a system is an algorithm.

"Conditional" = If X is true, then Y is true.

An algorithm is a "model" of a process that applies logic operations to data and gives predictable results.

A mathematical operation is a bit of logic.

A physics equation uses several bits of logic, and acts as an algorithm to produce a result that allows us to predict a future observation in the real world.

If a physics equation uses a variable that calls for a quantified value of mass in specific units like "pounds" of mass, BUT if instead you enter in data representing British currency "pounds",
then the equation is going to produce garbage that does not allow accurate predictions of the real world. The algorithm was based on real relationships between specific types of units. If you mix the units, then the logic is no longer useful for solving problems.

Using a quantity of British currency instead of using a quantity of mass is very similar to using multi-layered abstractions (imagined concept) instead of using first or second level concepts that are based on real things.

You may think that multi-layered abstractions could be used if only the logical steps in the equation were adjusted to account for the different units. This doesn't work because these types of abstractions cannot be measured consistently, if at all. When something exists only as a shared belief inside human brains, then its defining boundaries are extremely volatile. Defining boundaries or ways to measure them may change by the minute. This is the nature of the human imagination. This is not compatible with physics.

Most people are using logic contaminated with mostly garbage, which results in creating more problems instead of solving problems. This is a self-supporting process which the hive mind has assimilated.

People in certain professions such as engineer, or computer programmer run into this situation I have described on a regular basis. Most people do not, and remain unaware.

You didn't ask this, but an individuals identity is also a set of algorithms.
Where the algorithm of the physics equation may ask "how much mass is the object in question?", the identity software may ask "can this object make me feel good emotionally?".

When everything is filtered through identity software, the results will be many layers removed from anything in the real world. This software is self-referencing, self-supporting, and self-serving, and it operates entirely within the imagination with the largest part of it being in the subconscious.