BASIC thinking....a TEST of how rational we are.

by Terry 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  SirNose586

  You are the man!

  I might coyly suggest a means of measuring Love and Hate. How much of your time and energy you expend on obtaining/avoiding something might well indictate the level of Love/Hate. After all, there are exchanges which take place. Going out on a date or getting married and having children are ultimate by-products of that Love. How much revenge you exact and how long you have to spend in prison might be a good indicator of how much you Hate.

  Interesting possibilities, but each are falsifiable. You could spend a lot of time and money on an object of your attention, which could be regarded as love (example: (Time+Money)Object = Love). But someone could spend a lot of time and money on a project (like Boston's Big Dig) and grow to loathe what they are doing because it's not making them happy (which runs you right smack into another abstract concept!).

  Children could be a good example of love, but the probability of pregnancy does not factor in love between the partners, only the viability of the sperm and egg. If love were factored in, then rape would never produce children (and arguably, a lot fewer kids would be born).

  Consciously Inflicting violence upon another person--outside the bonds of parent-child and dominatrix-slave--affords little opportunity of becoming falsifiable. But again, how would you measure it? The only way you could get close would be to use money as a measurement, and even then, it must be how much the victim had to pay to fix how much he was hurt. Using money to measure hate is still falsifiable, because the person could fix themselves for free (given the right connections, of course).
• 

  SPAZnik

  For what it's worth:
  
  Recently, I was perusing a definition of the word "thesis".
  In the process, I also entertained the word "antithesis".
  I found it of significant interest to note the suggestion that a
  thesis is actually validated by the existence of it's antithesis,
  and, of course, vice versa.
  
  Imagine my thrill, upon discovery of "synthesis".
  
  Of course, being human and not computer or robot,
  this discovery sent me on several further journeys
  both rational and emotional.
  
  I would put it like this:
  CONTRADICTION, not necessarily a LIE, nor anything to be FEARED.
  It is a SIGNPOST to a greater more comprehensive TRUTH. PEACE even.
  
  Resistance is futile, even, yes, exhausting.
  "What you resist will persist, what you befriend you will transcend."
  
  Thanks for sharing this thread, all.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Fire doesn't actually exist, Terry. It actually occurs. Fire isn't a thing. It is a label we have given an occuring phenomenon.

  Forests don't actually exist, either. "Forest" is a concept we have defined by subjectively contrasting fewer trees over smaller areas of land against more trees over greater areas of land.

  Labels are subjective. Thank you for handing me proof in your "forest fire" reality and I will accept your defense against what I just wrote whenever you get ready.

  ... all reality depends upon the perspective of the observer ...

  Demonstrate that all reality is relative? Refute it, please. All you need is one clear cut proof contrarywise.

  AuldSoul
• 

  RAF

  Terry,

  what I mean is that in getting into too much details you are yourself getting into irrational conclusion by generalisation based on your point of view on some matter (for example there was no need to get into the subject by generalisation about believers: like scared and therefore slaves (1) ... it's just not true for me as a believer for instance, so I can't buy all your stuffs.

  (1) you can be slave of anything from what you are scared of (scared of believing because it will ruin your life for instance – but if you look around you’ll realised that believing doesn’t ruins every believers life and that they also all do not ruins other peoples lifes).

  It's like you want to sell your baby in every bath (since you can be rational why not just stay rational on the subject) And that (to me) is the most interesting part to notice when I’m reading you.

  Language barrier? Hummmmmmm ... Interesting ... why not but maybe we are not interested in the same matter into the development and conclusions (as being interesting to notice).

  For instance you want to stay on scientific bases (to not fall into what can without proof being stated by any as irrational) but at the same time you are throwing personal irrational arguments which can be contested. (Why? Keep them away)

  But expecting everybody to understand everybody would be irrational in fact anyway (not totally and accurately measurable but a fact). So you might keep your generalisation about believers for instance away next time and including them when they are contextually true (2) instead of trying to sell them for (to me) irrational / personal reasons.

  (2) Believers scared and slaves for JW’s – well I can agree on this generalisation globally because of their specific belief and for some other religions too … but not for all believers.

  I don’t buy this kind of generalisation and development because it’s abrainwashing system (depending of the how is considered the material by the reader – or - since you don’t know yet what the writter is talking about you still have to consider what is written who knows it could be interesting) and your technique reminds me how the JW reasoning book have been written in throwing arguments out of context and turning around subjects with too much information and generalisation (3) to the point that the reader forget about what is important to notice or to enquire on (= why the details? / How much are they accurate / relevant? And if not, what is the purpose of the diversion – which is finally the most important to notice). That’s why I don’t like details, when the concept would be enough, BUT the details become interesting when I’m interested to know why the details.
  
  (3) and from hearing the same things so much they finally buy them … as if they have been demonstrated.
• 

  SixofNine

  Jesus Christ, Auldsoul.

  Terry effing well knows that words are not the things they label. Are you going to tell me you question whether Terry knows that or not?

  What about trees; do they exist? This point about words-being-labels is a very cool epiphany to have. Unfortunately, having had it seems to have ended your ability to discuss anything rationally, ever again. Please don't be insulted, I probably don't exist anyway. You genuinely seem to have only gotten half the point: the fact that words are labels and not what they label does not in any way mean that the things they label are not real, unless the word happens to be a label for a concept. I feel silly even bringing that point out.

  "fire doesn't exist"...

  You might call a fireman because you are aware of the "occurrence" of a fire, but the fireman is damn well gonna be fighting actual fire; that's why they wear those funny suits and take training in subduing fire as opposed to wearing shorts and flip-flops and taking courses in cognitive therapy.
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  I'm kinda simple and slow and lots of words confuse me.

  Can someone please tell me, yes or no: Is Terry saying that abstract concepts are not real and so do not really exist, and that only concrete things are real?

  Thanks in advance.
• 

  proplog2

  Terry:

  I don't know if the US Agriculture Dept. still sends out agents to instruct farmers on the latest advances in modern farming. But there is the story about an agent who visited a farmer and started updating him on all the new types of crops, fertilizers, equipment, irrigation, insecticides etc. The farmer sat patiently and listened half heartedly until the Agent was done with his "informative update". The agent was ready to leave and asked him "So, did you get any ideas from my presentation?" The farmer responded "I don't farm nearly as good as I already know".

  Terry, we can read books. We all have had thinking courses. Many of us have very good shrinks. We have the internet where we can research this stuff in depth. We know about Plato, Aristotle, Ayn Rand, Objectivism, General Semantics, Korzybski, - basically, we know the need to get our maps updated on a regular basis so that we understand the territory. But, we still do stupid things because knowing HOW to think clearly is just a tiny fraction of our problems. We smoke, overeat, have unsafe sex, destroy our relationships, take drugs, believe crazy religions IN SPITE of our thinking. Changing behavior is VERY difficult. Habit will sabotage clear thinking every chance it gets. You are prescribing a remedy that we all are working on in the first place. If people thought too rationally none of us would be here.

  Don't get fooled by the occasional compliment from some people who think you have enlightened them. They will say "oh WOW Terry...I want to learn more Terryism" but their bodies (ID) will "fuck" them up as soon as they realize nobody's watching. I think most of us on this forum are sensitized to people who would "enlighten" us.
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  Clear thinking is very hard work. You have to consciously do it every day. It takes practice. It takes determination. It takes a will to success.

  But, a good life well-lived is worth all the work.

  Yanno, Terry? I finally got the "just woke up with terminal brain fuzzies" out of my head today and read your posted reply over and over again, so I could actually concentrate on the points that you've made. Being bipolar, it's difficult to chain myself to doing all that shtuff (list making, etc.), but from what you've said about getting rid of false concepts spoonfed to us from infancy, it appears that my brain has been working on that anyway. This forum has been a tremendous help with that. I don't believe the bible and all the rest of that fantasy crap anymore. Oh, I can play the game, speak the words from rote and walk the walk if I choose, but only for entertainment purposes, mind you. And right now, I'm slowly but surely working on making my life what *I* want it to be, the very best it can be for *me,* not what someone else thinks it should be. Good enough? Izzat what you're talkin' about, Terry?

  Frannie
• 

  AuldSoul

  You might call a fireman because you are aware of the "occurrence" of a fire, but the fireman is damn well gonna be fighting actual fire; that's why they wear those funny suits and take training in subduing fire as opposed to wearing shorts and flip-flops and taking courses in cognitive therapy.

  SixofNine,

  My point is simply that pure rationality is impossible for humans. Objectivity will always give way to practicality (as your reply demonstrates) and labels are subjective, not objective.

  Fire does not exist per the criteria Terry established. I believe Terry's criteria is impractical in the extreme and that he only employs it in argument for his own convenience. He wants to believe humans are capable of objectivity. We aren't. We function just fine amidst a swirl of ambiguity and subjectivity; purest objectivity doesn't really help us out when calling the fire brigade.

  Subjectively fire really exists, objectively it doesn't. We cope just fine with subjective reality.

  Subjectively love exists when compared to what it contrasts against; i.e. by defining what love is not, love acquires identity. It is still subjective. This is identical to the way Terry "defined" what a cloud is versus what fog is; whether a cloud is a cloud or fog is still subjective and determined entirely by the perceiver's perspective. From the base of a mountain the peaks are consumed by clouds. At the level of the cloud bank, it appears to be a dense fog.

  Call love a mish-mash of internal chemical reactions with a few eletrical sparks thrown in if you like; love remains just as real as a cloud.

  Even though it is not tangible.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Terry

  Life must be electively self-sustaining and self-generating by ACTIONS performed.

  How do you know that? More importantly, how did it start? How did life come from nonlife or "Inorganic matter"

  All values proceed from LIFE.

  Why can't life proceed from "values"?

  LIFE IS REAL because DEATH isreal ...

  Hmmm?

  Accepting the truth of the labeling in our mind without proof is the signal we are being hacked.

  Have you ever said, "I can't explain "why" I believe it, but, I just do"? You have been hacked (like a virus on your hardrive.)