I have long believed that objectively experiencing an object is impossible and sided generally with Kant's opinion that any object can only be experienced as a phenomenon, an experiential representation.
To make my next point, I need some Sets.
Set A) An individual human's experience of a chair in a specific room
Set B) Every living human experience of a chair in the same specific room
Set C) Every possible human experience of a chair in the same specific room
Set D) Every possible known animal experience of a chair in the same specific room
These sets are coming out of a greater subset of every possible experience (Set E). Sets A-D presumably make up an infinitesimally small subset of all possible experience, but this tautologically must exist, as the qualifier possible is used.
Let's say a hypothetical being were to experience everything in Set E simultaneously (not overlapping experiences but separately). I claim its holistic experience of the chair would be objective, as the being experiences the chair expression in every perceivable form.
That is not to say the experience objective is the illusive "thing-in-itself" but rather an objective experience. This is, of course, only in terms of matter, but if you were to extrapolate this example to time, adding every possible experience in every possible moment, this should work fine too.
How naive I was
IT HAPPENED AGAIN ALREADY
I'm using an API and instead of a `/credits` or `/account` they expect me to create a JSONArray, and then add an empty JSONObject and then send it to their submission endpoint.
"If you want to know how much credit you have left, use POST request with one empty object in data."
This is the most toxic case of the reuse ideology I have ever seen. Please god just create a new endpoint
If you think that one side of the political/religious/scientific spectrum beliefs is completely unfounded and delusional. Perhaps you are the one that is deluded.
I find almost every idea that humans deeply believe has some level of wisdom to it, even if there are many fundamental misunderstandings.
Even many "absurd" ancient beliefs like animism and totemism have a lot of intuitive wisdom that modern society could learn a lot from.
I think Twitter is having a hugely negative effect on discussion. Obviously, there are more typical reasons such as algorithms incentivising more extreme positions. But there's another fact I really hate.
One of the core philosophies of Twitter's design is posting arbitrarily short statements. You can create a thread but they are far less appealing to the average Twitter user. This arbitrarily small-sized message normalises the age-old problem of politicians having to make their ideas short and snappy.
In every field I'm slightly knowledgable about no subject of debate is ever that simple, there usually several layers of nuance. Because I believe reality is nuanced.
Twitter is literally incapable of this nuance and so in my opinion I believe twitter posts are (for the most part) fundamentally incapable of expressing ideas that reflect reality to a sufficient degree.
@awethon Hey, let me try to respond to these. First of all, I was not trying to make an inflammatory partisan statement so apologies if that's how it came off.
1) I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you rephrase this?
2) I agree with you, but currently, for better or worse, the means of verifying information is the scientific method. It does not produce anything epistemically certain I agree, but there's little doubt it works better than many of the previous models.
3) "Why is the other side so evil?" Perhaps I'm speaking from experience here but I don't feel as if I'm straw-manning anyone here, there's without a doubt a meaningful amount of people who entirely dismiss write off the "other-side" as hopelessly mislead or evil.
4) Let me elaborate a little, as I believe the human mind clings to order and also often rejects the other, there is often a gap between the perception of the other and the reality of the other. For example, in European colonialism, the colonisers create a whole series of scientific myths (phrenology etc) as a posthoc rationalisation for why enslavement and exploitation were ethical.
I suppose your issue could come from a belief I have, the belief that fundamentally tribalism is a faculty in the brain (the other produces a disgust reaction). Humans being "the rational animal" must come up with a rational reason why they are disgusted or admit their true nature.
5) I mostly agree with this but I think it works in tandem with my perspective, I believe that because society has become so much more complicated it is necessary for specialisation. Assuming the standard of education is static, society could not remain as complex if everyone were to receive a comprehensive education. That's not necessarily to make a value judgement that a complex system is a good system.
6) I am very much aware of false narratives and I don't think the world can be fully understood through any individual narrative.
I am sorry you feel I am a patronising elitist, I'm just trying to formulate some thoughts I have. I appreciate the opportunity to defend them.
I think what is fascinating about the alt-right and to some extent many people throughout history is their fascination with the Jewish conspiracy. In a time in which is seems like much of our past mythology has become irrelevant to contemporary thinking, this still persists.
I think many people anticipate the use of myths as understanding to decrease as we gain scientific & historical knowledge. But I'm worried that new myths are rising, in many cases dangerous myths. I have 2 theories why, perhaps both are at play.
* The first of which is the fact that living a hyper-polarised post-truth reality politically will necessarily create new myths. Why is the other side so evil? Are they being mislead or is it in their nature? This has been commonly seen throughout history in traditional tribalism, i.e. Catholics and protestants. However it seemed to be on a downwards trend until recently (perhaps this is just a spike).
* The second of which is far more insidious. I believe in the past no one person understood all fields, but generally there were specialists in each fields that had a decently comprehensive understanding of their discipline at the time.
System's complicate continually, i.e. advanced society and the portion of the system anyone is capable of understanding is shrinking.
Meaning no one individual can understand the chaos.
The issue here is the human mind latches to order and in the absence of a real understanding will come those with convincing false narratives about said system, and feed people what they want to believe, the new mythology. I think we may be seeing myth resurface as a means (perhaps the primary means) of understanding things beyond our comprehension. To clarify, not in scientists but in the everyman.
Conspiracy theorist epistemology -
I think the thing is with conspiracies theorists is if they fall far enough down the rabbit hole, it is almost as if they grow an aversion to truth.
They will simply believe whatever is false, in fact the more false something is the more likely it is to be believed. It is almost this absurd line of reasoning like "why are they going out of their way to prove that this is true? It must be really important that that they hide this from the people".
I think this comes from the fact they gain a sense of superiority from believing what normal people would never believe.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.