Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 07/10/2006, 11:33 PM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

Look, the 'ding ding' stuff is stupid, don't do that. I am making a fine argument here and I won't argue anymore. Not everyTHING can be broken down infinitely. A chicken is a chicken. Yes, you can say that a chicken is made out of divisible particles, but when you are talking about how many chickens there are you are talking about how many chickens there are, not infinitely divisible particles. The sub-particles don't belong in the argument. So you CAN break it down, but that has no relevance to the argument.

Same with the "can of soda" if we arrange an argument we have to form definitions which do not include "infinitely divisible particles" so a can of soda must be a certain thing. In this argument let's say it is full and unopened because the people you are serving them to will not drink opened ones. So you have 5 cans of unopened soda, ten million opened but full ones and one trillion half full cans(or half empty). you can only serve 5 cans of soda because the people in question will only accept unopened cans. So in this case the idea is not infinitely divisible. If you want to think scientifically you have to see this perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08/10/2006, 12:03 AM
WhyMustWeKill WhyMustWeKill is offline
In exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 199
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

i didn't say ding ding to be rude ..... sorry for that.... im just saying that if you say that a can of soda "is full and upopened" you are you are stating a definition that is entirely theoretical in origin. You look at it as 5 individual cans only because its is a societal structure of what a "can of soda" is. Now, if you totally remove the concepts that society, or individuals place around certain objects of measure.... which is exactly what a particle is.... ,a particle is a man made idea, then there are not exact amounts of anything. Now if you look at things of not having definite structure as society places upon things.... things can continue to be broken down continuously, thats all im stating. The ding ding was to indicate that what you said actually reinforced my argument, i was saying it to disrespect you are anything, sorry if i offended you.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08/10/2006, 12:31 AM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

I am not sure where you are taking this argument. Let's take it back to the beginning. Let's say it is an American glass with a volume of 8oz. There is a line at the 4oz mark. This is what we are discussing. The water only fills half the volume(4oz) so it is right on the line. We know that the amount is somewhere between 4.00 and 4.20 oz because of how thick the line is. So it is definitely not less than half full and the amount more than half is negligible. So is it half empty or half full?

Sergei was saying you cannot tell unless you know whether the glass was being filled or emptied because if you were filling it then it would be halfway full, but if you were emptying it it is halfway emptied. In essence the metaphor only applies to people who don't know what is going on and wish to take a guess. They think one guess is somehow more valuable(half full) than the other(half empty). This isn't always true.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08/10/2006, 12:31 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

Quote:
a particle is a man made idea
Got you! So, zero ideas - zero particles - zero chickens, right? I am curious how you are going to argue this.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08/10/2006, 12:38 AM
WhyMustWeKill WhyMustWeKill is offline
In exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 199
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

well... theoretically speaking.... all noticeable particle arrangements are completely man made. Ideas are man made. I mean... really... everything is theoretical because it can be broken down. What are objects without ideas? Without ideas they wouldn't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08/10/2006, 10:01 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

Not that I agree, but absolute zero ideas according to you leads to absolute zero chickens, unless you can argue that the absolute zero ideas is impossible because it could be divided further.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08/10/2006, 03:32 PM
WhyMustWeKill WhyMustWeKill is offline
In exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 199
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

well...... absolute concepts are created by people, so basically what I am saying is that we only see structure in things because of ideas. Take a wooden block for example. Humans see it as a wooden block, but really, is it a wooden block. Is it only a wooden block because we see it as a wooden block? If peoples brains were able to absorb more information through their eyes... would it be a wooden block. Could it be a bunch of particles together that create the structure of a wooden block? Would it be identifiable as a wooden block? Now lets switch the frame of reference. Lets say that you are sitting at the desk at your computer. You have a speakers, a mouse, a printer, a lamp, and a moniter all upon the desk. Whats to say that we couldn't combine them together to create another single entity? Whats to say that we couldn't think of the speakers, the mouse, the printer, the lamp, and the moniter as being particles in a certain configuration? Now... thats just an example of using larger and more defined particles to the human eye of creating a system that we cannot comprehend because our brains do not able us to. Now... couldn't we use an entirely different frame of reference on difference massive scales. Lets look at a subatomic particle. Lets look at a proton. It can be broken down into quarks according to the mathematical reasoning of physicist. You could probably create an entirely different particles than quarks to fundamentally make up a proton but that is a very very very complex discussion. A system can be made up between any two objects. There are similarities between everything. Quarks happened to be the particle collection that scientists chose though because they were very distinct to human ideologies. Now take the quark. It could be broken down as well into more alignments. Scientist are trying to create ideas that revolve around human ideologies to identify the groups of the entities on this scale. Now these are human made ideologies. Apparently people tend to notice things distinctly because of space between particles, or the space between the particles of particles, or the particles of particles of particles, but theoretically you could find space between anything, just depends on how deep you go. We could continue to break things down based on our human ideologies. We could continue to break things down based on things not based on our human ideologies, which would be extremely different because we tend to notice particle distinctions although they are just created by the rules that our brains generate. Things can continue to be broken down and broken down and broken down.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08/10/2006, 04:06 PM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

Now what you are saying is interesting but what does it have to do with the glass half full or half empty?

But you might want to read about concept formation. There was this Russian researcher named Vysgotsky. He was either INTj or ENTp. Some of his thinking might be right up your alleyway.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08/10/2006, 04:23 PM
tungsten_thorax tungsten_thorax is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 35
Default Re: Something to get off my chest

'Now what you are saying is interesting but what does it have to do with the glass half full or half empty?'

All matter is a continous flux and there are no distinct objects;
hence the material world is infinitely divisible;
hence there are no half values of anything;
hence 'half-empty/half-full' are bogus concepts;
hence the question is meaningless.

All very correct from a general philosophical point of view, but the same analysis could be applied to all human language and thought, so it tells us very little about the specific case in question.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 21/06/2010, 08:21 AM
k0rps3y's Avatar
k0rps3y k0rps3y is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 58
Default

If you begin with a glass full of water and empty half of it out, air will normally rush in to take the water's place, so the glass is always completely full of some kind of matter or another.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 25/06/2010, 04:21 PM
goldgoldgold's Avatar
goldgoldgold goldgoldgold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 50
Default

it is both half-full and half-empty, there is no reason why they must be separate entities; just different ways of explaining the same thing!

either way water is water and it tastes nice when you DRINK IT [esp. when you are thirsty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhyMustWeKill View Post
well...... absolute concepts are created by people, so basically what I am saying is that we only see structure in things because of ideas. Take a wooden block for example. Humans see it as a wooden block, but really, is it a wooden block..
the idea that it only exists because we sense it. do we really exist or are we jus ideas?
maybe the actual place where we exist is in our dreams and the rest of life is just an illusion to give us energy for our dreamworld!

****ed if i know; philosophy is just a continuous circling of ideas to me. not going nowhere!
i was tempted to just make this post "dog." and just that cause i find when ideas get more and more complex they just spin off into infinity and you cant actually use them and thus the only sensical things we as humans will ever truly understand is the simplicities like "i like bread". THAT IS ALL!
__________________
i am merely an ocean of ideas for other people to swim in!

Last edited by goldgoldgold; 25/06/2010 at 04:27 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02/07/2010, 06:40 PM
ISTPJIM ISTPJIM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 38
Default

This has gone on too long. Glass half empty?

___ types, would fill, ___ types would drink.

I say _S__ types, would fill, __P_ types would drink.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03/07/2010, 11:33 AM
k0rps3y's Avatar
k0rps3y k0rps3y is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 58
Default

As an INT-whatever the hell I am, I'd fill, drink, and then forget the glass under a pile of paperwork, random household items, and half-read books.

Last edited by k0rps3y; 03/07/2010 at 11:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03/07/2010, 11:57 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Let's just say I just drank half of it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03/07/2010, 02:10 PM
sjy sjy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISTPJIM View Post
This has gone on too long. Glass half empty?

___ types, would fill, ___ types would drink.

I say _S__ types, would fill, __P_ types would drink.
So if you're an Sp, you would keep filling and drinking, filling and drinking, right?

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM