there’s always unknowns. Default.

there’s always unknowns. Default.

==

Closed world is closed. No room for unaccounted for unknowns in a closed world.

This doesn’t make closed world’s useless by any means: They’re some of the strongest systems we have to work with. I tend to see things in terms of systems, yet not exclusively so. So to me, logic is a system, math is a system, etc. and there are many systems each with different strengths and weaknesses.

But as for one system that rules them all? Unknowns. Not necessarily unknowable, just unknowns.

==

You can say there’s no contradictions but if so, why are we arguing?

If I am wrong, that means my opinion/idea is falling OUTSIDE of the closed world system you’re working with.

You’re not wrong. That’s the thing. You’re not wrong. But I don’t think a no-contradictions stance encompasses everything. If it could, I’d also be right and wrong. Can you see?

==

no.. that won’t make sense to you… how can you explain contradiction to someone whose requires everything to be non-contradiction to have truth value? It’s tough.

==

No? Hm. Brains in vats. Platonic realm vs Actual realm.

Not everything’s a system even though many things can be systematized. The systemizations are for our convenience though and nothing more.

Actual is actual.

What we discern is what we discern.

It’s great when they work together well. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don’t.

==

ACTUAL: I’m more or less here. I’m not, not really. I’ve moved since then. (the earth moved – but on a map I’m still here) But close enough for illustration.

I’m sitting in an ugly yellow chair, looking at a clock and my computer simultaneously with my one good eye that ain’t that good, listening to a fan blowing by my one good ear while the other half hears little. My inputs are born different. Likely why I think different partially.

Granted, there’s ‘more’. But my only answer I can give to that for myself is “I don’t know”.

You have a different answer. I accept that it’s also true. Of course, it sounds weird talking like this.

==

Here’s how I reconcile things : analogies / metaphors. I can make anything true with the right application of good analogy.

And no, it’s not actual. It’s already changed. I’m not looking at the clock now. Even nothing isn’t static. smile emoticon

==

The possible is still actual though -just a different kind of actual.

==

Sure it was. For a moment. By the time I started typing or even thought about it, it already changed.

=

Hm, I can work with that. Still, metaphorically, I could assert the actuality of possibility but that’s going outside of the systems you’re employing.

==

How do I know? The emotion of certainty, the way anybody knows anything.

==

Nope. Cognitively, emotions are primary over the rest of it. Using computer analogy, the “emotional circuits” feed into the ‘logical’ with a big FAT fast connection. The ‘logical’ backfeeds into the emotional in a skinny, weak, SLOW connection.

That’s why we *can* rationally control our emotions, but it takes a LOT of work and a lot of practice to do so.

==

I’m not selling it. Nothing to buy here. The amygdala ==> prefrontal cortex ————-> amygdala to draw an illustration.

==

To be fair, I don’t buy into all of materialism either. But some things I do.

==

Logic is primarily ruled by emotion. Think about it: Why would you even care if something is true or false?

==

Instinct implies eternal choicelessness. Not my thing.

==

 

Leave a comment

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


1 + one =

Leave a Reply