scientificflair | 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Most of those I've associated with haven't been in that particular age bracket; however, I think that's more a matter of circumstance than anything.

[You don't see too many children in this organization.]

However, in terms of that answer...it's fair enough, though you could say the same for just about every philosophical question that can be posed - unless your stance itself is that literally everything in life is relative, of course.

[Nisei has been getting himself set up nicely before kissing up to the more experienced Rockets, as-is.]

The only philosophy I can ascribe to with confidence is that everything is subjective. Everyone's living in their own worlds, based on how they perceive things.

So for that bull question, in that person's reality, it's a bull. Unless it matters enough for them to look and make sure, it's a bull, and it'll always be one. Only when it holds any relevance would you make sure that what you saw was really what you thought you saw.

[...oh boy, there goes the craydar. Nothing against you at this point, Nisei, but in Descole's experience, the last several people who have mentioned views like that here have turned out to be raging sociopaths.]

And yet not everything can be dismissed as being subjective - there comes a point where perceptions among individuals overlap, leading to things like a generally accepted concept of ethics or morality.

To say nothing of the part where the view "everything is subjective" is self-contradictory and generally seen as the easy way out by those who are too busy being edgy to understand the fallacy.

[Well, he's associated with a raging sociopath, does that count?]

There's a difference between the consensus and subjective reality. Perceptions might seem to overlap, but everyone experiences something differently. Different emotions, different interpretations, so on and so forth. And no matter what language, there are usually no words to describe your personal experience as you feel it. Since everyone perceives everything differently, you'd think we'd all be excluded from one another. But culture works a consensus, which a lot of people ascribe to. Still, though, people interpret even the consensus reality in different ways. The fact that there's varying different scales of morality is proof of that.

Those are two really different ideas, though. Overlapping them is messy.

Edited (pulling the argument together just a little more...) 2012-12-08 22:24 (UTC)

[...it might. Depends on how closely associated we're talking.]

Messy, yes, but not irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Let me phrase it this way for you, then - is it possible, in your opinion, that this "everything is subjective, everyone perceives everything differently" mindset is something that's exclusive to a few? I'm not asking whether you believe it to be necessarily true, simply whether you can acknowledge it as a possibility.

Like I said, everyone sees things in their own way. So it'd follow that people would think of things differently, and see things in their own way.

I'm just reassured by the idea that whether something exists or doesn't exist is only as relevant as I need it to be. Whether it's a bull or a tarp, I don't care; in the end, I'll pass that field and move on. It's easier, that way, only focusing on what I think matters. Even if it's something small and dumb like getting passing grades or a stronger vocabulary or figuring out if I'm useful to someone, that's what I care about.

...and everyone around you is perfectly okay with this?

[...okay yep he was right, you're crazy

craydar you have not failed him yet]

[Oh come on! You haven't even seen how fucked up he can get!]

No? I mean, I don't run around yapping stuff like this to anyone, it's only when the topic comes up. Otherwise I just go about like usual.

[True, but at the same time you don't seem to grasp basic concepts like "WORDS MEAN THINGS AND EVERYTHING I JUST SAID WAS NUTS"...]

Well, I'd hope so - but at the same time, behavior patterns do make themselves clear to other people over time.

[YOUR INTERPRETATION? But with merit...]

Yeah? I don't act differently than anyone else.

[Well okay that's a lie, but he doesn't act like a monster in public! Only under orders.]

I say things are all about perception, but like I said before, consensus is also important. People agreeing on how to see things and how to act.

[...he'll grant that, actually. At the same time, he has dealt with much crazy in his time here; he'll still be civil to you, of course - as civil as he gets with anyone, anyway - though he's going to be wary as hell over here because why is everyone in this organization insane. ~~Descole you are not one that is allowed to talk re: this subject just saying~~]

So I suppose it's a matter of manipulating others' perception of oneself such that it blends with what's general accepted? Is that about right?

[...that's actually more curious than pointed, however; just a question, really.]

Less that, and more... you may have a vision of who you are, yourself. But the way others see you is based on how you act, and that's who you are to them. It doesn't matter who you think you are if your actions don't reflect that. You can't be a jerk and say "but I'm nice on the inside", people will just think you're a jerk because that's how you act.

If you think abstractly, it's about following the consensus to blend in... but questions about the true self and who you really are are the questions I hear more often. More than questions of reality, that is.

Technically, though, isn't that what everyone does? We all have issues or beliefs that would likely get us labeled a social pariah for one reason or another; I suppose in that circumstance it becomes a question of exactly what this true self consists of - the severity of the schism between what you think and the way you present tend to be what make this line of thinking even relevant. It isn't something that most have to think about or quantify.

I've met some for whom the discrepancy is incredibly severe, in my time here.

A lot of people will state those beliefs anyway. It depends on whether that person is quiet and doesn't want any confrontation, or they're willing to challenge something instead of going along with it. They're the ones that protest, start arguments, and start new things.

There's a lot where we have to all sit down and really figure out whether the disagreement is a good or bad thing, ultimately. Especially when both sides see the other as immoral and doing abusive things to the people they reign over. Wars start over things like that, after all.

007. [Audio/also a couple of other things.]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]

[Audio]