Test. Everytime you use something, whether an object or an ideal, you are testing its function and durability.

Test.
Everytime you use something, whether an object or an ideal, you are testing its function and durability.

===

I have yet to find anything that does not have its fracture points. Having fracture points does not invalidate something’s function and utility: it just shows its limitations.

====

Confirmation bias is always going to be present in some form though. The fact that you are using something at all is a confirmation bias that you find it potentially useful.

I have a hammer. I have a confirmation bias that this can do hammer-like things. But maybe it can’t. Won’t know until I test it. Maybe the first use it will shatter and it turns out it was just a clay hammer. Or maybe I can analyze it in other ways to determine it’s not suitable at all for hammering even if it looks like it should work.

====

. Nevertheless, despite bad category tagging on my part, bias is hard to eliminate in any form.

====

Oh that’s not entirely so. Bias is simply false weighting. A ball that’s biased to the left will spin to the left more. etc.

===

Ah, is this moving towards a theres-no-free-will argument?

===

ahem. “free-will-is-aways-an-illusion” argument then

====

Some people have free will if they follow [Rulebook A] but anybody who does not follow [Rulebook A] only has the illusion of free will?

====

“For Only $19.95, You TOO can have Free Will! Just follow our EASY instructions for free will

and as long as you don’t deviate from the course laid out for you ahead of time, results are

GUARANTEED! Free Will Can be Yours for 5 monthly payments of $3.99 but if you act NOW, we’ll

DOUBLE it and you’ll get TWO Free Will Rulebooks for the price of 1!”

===

 

“In Soviet Russia, Pikachu catches YOU” [random comment my nephew just said as I walked by on the way back to the computer. Staying focused on topic isn’t always easy :P ]

====

I’m trying do. Sometimes I catch on, sometimes it slips past me again. You’re in some nuanced territory so it’s easy to miss the significance sometimes.

====

The question remains though: is it possible to utilize the ontic in our perceptual or is it always out of reach? [that is, is it possible to align our illusions so that they are more or less superimposed upon the ‘is”?

====

It’s a razor thin line you walk down in this way of thinking: “There’s something out there beyond the shadows” (inference building towards certainty) combined with, “See those shadows on the wall? This is how to properly interpret them.” [my Rulebook A] example above]

====

Maybe. Perhaps it’s a lifetime of being nearsighted but I’ve found the sharpness of boundaries to be often a contextual thing.

In a human zoom, the katana slices through cleanly. Get a microscope on it and you see a messy shredding.

====

It’s how I see things though :) I’ve found the relative fuzziness of boundaries to be fascinating for as long as I can remember. Whether it’s “dude, there could be a universe on your fingernail” from 13 yr old pot smoking up or 20-something age “categories are only as sharp as the pencil used to draw them”… to whatever the heck I’m thinking today which is the same really.

====

Some kind of obsessive need to get the bottom of things while also having an overall map of everything that’s both as accurate and precise as possible maybe?

====

Cartographers of a sort.

=====

Easy for me. The moment I realized the adult world was full of lies and bullshit and I was going to get the bottom of things because they were as much lyng and talking out of both sides of their mouth as kids did. I still remember the surprise when I realized: adults lie.

So I knew i had to get to the bottom of it myself and test what I trusted because it could give way at any moment.
====

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 + = eleven

Leave a Reply