Jean Descole (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
scientificflair) wrote2012-12-08 12:39 pm
scientificflair) wrote2012-12-08 12:39 pm
007. [Audio/also a couple of other things.]
[AUDIO]
[More violin music over Descole's feed today; it's an incredibly simplified version of Song of the Stars - although really, someone ought to teach him the Jeopardy theme, considering how much that instrument gets whipped out when he's feeling like bombarding the network with both the fact that he can't hold all his feels, and he has something best described as "pseudo-philosophical what" to say.
As before, he plays for a while before the melody fades and shifts into something long and drawn-out, idling while he speaks; the sound is quieter, as though the violin has been directed away from the 'Gear a bit.]
There's a famous thought experiment that poses the following:
Imagine yourself standing outside a large field; you see, in the distance, what looks to you to be a specific animal - for simplicity's sake, let's say a bull. You then form the belief that there is a bull in the field. And you are correct - there is, indeed, a bull in the field. However, the bull is lying down behind a hill, just outside your line of vision; you can't see it from your current position. Moreover, what you actually saw was a tarp that had gotten tangled over a bush; from outside the field, it looked like a bull, but actually wasn't anything of the sort.
Again, you were factually correct, and you had a well-justified true belief that there was a bull in the field. However, can you really say you knew?
[He pauses for a moment, continuing to play quietly while he thinks.]
And if you were to find yourself in such a situation - where a belief is true and well-justified, and yet the proof of it being true isn't where you believe it is - would you say that your belief was any less valid?
[And with that, the feed cuts off.]
[PRIVATE TEXT TO FLUTTERSHY]
Miss Fluttershy,
I have something to ask you, should it not be an inconvenience.
[PRIVATE TEXT TO COLONEL ARCHER]
There's something that we need to discuss.
Now.
[More violin music over Descole's feed today; it's an incredibly simplified version of Song of the Stars - although really, someone ought to teach him the Jeopardy theme, considering how much that instrument gets whipped out when he's feeling like bombarding the network with both the fact that he can't hold all his feels, and he has something best described as "pseudo-philosophical what" to say.
As before, he plays for a while before the melody fades and shifts into something long and drawn-out, idling while he speaks; the sound is quieter, as though the violin has been directed away from the 'Gear a bit.]
There's a famous thought experiment that poses the following:
Imagine yourself standing outside a large field; you see, in the distance, what looks to you to be a specific animal - for simplicity's sake, let's say a bull. You then form the belief that there is a bull in the field. And you are correct - there is, indeed, a bull in the field. However, the bull is lying down behind a hill, just outside your line of vision; you can't see it from your current position. Moreover, what you actually saw was a tarp that had gotten tangled over a bush; from outside the field, it looked like a bull, but actually wasn't anything of the sort.
Again, you were factually correct, and you had a well-justified true belief that there was a bull in the field. However, can you really say you knew?
[He pauses for a moment, continuing to play quietly while he thinks.]
And if you were to find yourself in such a situation - where a belief is true and well-justified, and yet the proof of it being true isn't where you believe it is - would you say that your belief was any less valid?
[And with that, the feed cuts off.]
[PRIVATE TEXT TO FLUTTERSHY]
Miss Fluttershy,
I have something to ask you, should it not be an inconvenience.
[PRIVATE TEXT TO COLONEL ARCHER]
There's something that we need to discuss.
Now.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
I want to know how you did it.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
I don't know what you're talking about. I had nothing to do with that attack.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
However, I've been keeping track of both you and your friend. I have reason to believe it's one of you who's been doing this.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
[RUDE, BITCH, WE DO NOT INSULT HIS KIMBLEE ignore the fact that this was totally Kimblee's idea anyway.]
Neither of us had anything to do with that attack. Dare I ask where you got such a ridiculous idea in the first place?
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
At any rate, I'm not just referring to this specific attack. I'm referring to this "Seth" individual in general. I suspect he's one of you, or perhaps both of you.
What I'm not understanding is how you pulled off the attack in Violet.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
Kimblee was battling in the tournament at the time of the attack and I was there watching him. It's impossible for us to be behind this. I suggest you drop your accusations. I'll allow them to slide this once, but if you keep pursuing this ridiculous idea, I might have to let our superiors know.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
how much
he hates you]
I'm aware of where you were; I was present there myself. However, I'm also well aware that just because something looks impossible, doesn't mean that it is.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
Yes, yes, keep telling yourself that. Is there anything else or are you done wasting my time?
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
Although you might want to be aware that you and your boyfriend aren't nearly as good at hiding your insanity as you think you are. You might want to work on that.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
I suggest keeping your conspiracy theories to yourself in the future. The last thing you would want to do is infuriate a superior officer.
[TEXT - PRIVATE]
And it's hardly a conspiracy theory, either - I'm going to prove this.