The truth is useless!!!
- Thread starter think
- Start date
I think I have a simple solution for you.
First, you have to be mindful that ceiling scented proctologist's tables will never be hand washable.
Next, carefully observe the spherical and the doberman, but when the kitchen cabinets freeze, there are stripes and telephones.
Cousin heat register and the poet were constantly spelling words and colors incorrectly, so the expander was poisoned.
Blanket and piano paper, strawberry and dry mop. Our baked handles were with Scully the whole time, until the claymation figure fell over and the lights were burned beyond recognition.
Crunch. Crunch.
Exploded snowflake, flapping stillness.
Thank you.
They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see sky and they remember what they are.
What chemicals are currently in your bloodstream?
and where can I get them? 
42*
_______________
Edit:
*) Which -of course, and to all you trekkies on this board- is 47. (Before it was adjusted for inflation)
think, are we trying to illustrate via experimentation the neurological effects of certain chemicals?
Because I think that's something we should probably leave to the neuroscience labs, eh?
bare with me for a moment whilst I reset my neural networks., Sorry I did that last week not again this week; Truthfully I plan to reset several matrices that are not performing at optimum efficiency "at any give moment there is a 30% probability that we are within the core matrix."hologrid seven of nine reboot again (just a suggestion)
moving true ideas between neural nets is such fun but so much space is needed for forming extensive realities that are useful, sorta yet once again the truth is useless.
Last edited:
i completely agree with you on all accounts
As in the case of lawyers and politicians, because I got the idea that (yes this was almost an original thought) not from Jed Bush if you google the title of this thread...but from Tom Waits .., like that classic statement from Vonnegut "God is an Atheist" in a different thread six months ago. I just thought to give you the background to this concept ..,, anyway lawyers and politicians remain steady with the idea that lying is just as good as the truth both I feel are as useless as the other .., still mr Squirral do you truthfully agree or is that just your way of saying yes get on with it already? sorry for the delay in replies to you Galactic just been mulling that over some.
The Time Cube is correct. Gene Ray offered anyone 10,000$ to disprove it and no one was able. When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 - major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth - known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown.
The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.
You are taught Evil, You act Evil, You are the Evil on Earth. Only your comprehending the Divinity of Cubic Creation will your soul be saved from your created hell on Earth - induced by your ignoring the existing 4 corner harmonic simultaneous 4 Days rotating in a single cycle of the Earth sphere.
The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.
You are taught Evil, You act Evil, You are the Evil on Earth. Only your comprehending the Divinity of Cubic Creation will your soul be saved from your created hell on Earth - induced by your ignoring the existing 4 corner harmonic simultaneous 4 Days rotating in a single cycle of the Earth sphere.
I would dispute you but truth is useless and obviously you have no idea what is true or false but At the north pole things are different to say the least.
evil is as evil does
there is the common factor of arrogance between us two and with that said I am not feeding into mine.
Back to topic whilst desiring to continue the "arrogant flaming *puts blow torch down*
if the the truth and lies are "at the same level of uselessness" what makes it any easier to find out or choose what the differences between the two are.
A: similarity between facts and non-facts = both useless
B: differences between facts and non-facts = does not matter
C: motivation for this conversation none,.,D: Note to every one replying here .., If you reply with truth or false statements I will just point out their uselessness.
E: Need for this thread to continue (none) but as long as replies occur the thread lives..,
peace out::
think, it is kind of hard to read your posts, and I can understand the kind of responses your getting.
Language will always be a difficulty in epistemology, because whatever words we agree upon, the agreement is made within language, which carries the original difficulty.
This was illustrated by Deanna Troi and Picard when she showed him her tea cup. How does the gesture of showing a cup relate to the word she spoke? Does the word mean cup, or liquid, or hot, or brown, or something else?
This perpetuates through sentences also, and 'clarification' doesn't necessarily improve communication, only consolidate the structures in your mind. The sentences I write may seem meaningful and coherent to you, but you may infact be forming a completely different structure in your own mind, from what I intended, depending upon how we each interpret the data.
From a young age I've had a heightened awareness that people can and do fail to communicate effectively by not being paying enough attention to what is going on in the mind of their audience. My father's probably the worst at that, assuming that everyone else sees the world, and interprets language, how he does. So to him, the sentences he speaks are always crystal clear in meaning, and if somebody doesn't understand him or misinterprets, then obviously it is their fault, not his.
It through exposure to conversations like this that I am well aware of the limitations of language -- that words relate to internal structures, and may trigger different internal structures than intended when those words are communicated to others. And since we're never fully aware of what's going on in the minds of our audience, we can never hope to communicate perfectly.
So all this I wrote above means one thing to me, but it might mean something different to another, and if they try and explain their thoughts to me, the reverse happens, so we're mutually with different mental structures, but calling them the same thing.
One nice example of this I think, is what 'yellow' looks like.
Now I see yellow one way, and I can use that word to describe the colour of the sun and sunflowers, and you can use the word the same for the sun and sunflowers, yet we may each see yellow completely differently. We only have the word from being shown things like the sun and sunflowers.
I might see yellow, how you see what I call blue, but you'd call that internal image 'yellow'. But if you gave me your visual cortex, I would then say the sun was blue.
It's a good example... for me, anyway
Language will always be a difficulty in epistemology, because whatever words we agree upon, the agreement is made within language, which carries the original difficulty.
This was illustrated by Deanna Troi and Picard when she showed him her tea cup. How does the gesture of showing a cup relate to the word she spoke? Does the word mean cup, or liquid, or hot, or brown, or something else?
This perpetuates through sentences also, and 'clarification' doesn't necessarily improve communication, only consolidate the structures in your mind. The sentences I write may seem meaningful and coherent to you, but you may infact be forming a completely different structure in your own mind, from what I intended, depending upon how we each interpret the data.
From a young age I've had a heightened awareness that people can and do fail to communicate effectively by not being paying enough attention to what is going on in the mind of their audience. My father's probably the worst at that, assuming that everyone else sees the world, and interprets language, how he does. So to him, the sentences he speaks are always crystal clear in meaning, and if somebody doesn't understand him or misinterprets, then obviously it is their fault, not his.
It through exposure to conversations like this that I am well aware of the limitations of language -- that words relate to internal structures, and may trigger different internal structures than intended when those words are communicated to others. And since we're never fully aware of what's going on in the minds of our audience, we can never hope to communicate perfectly.
So all this I wrote above means one thing to me, but it might mean something different to another, and if they try and explain their thoughts to me, the reverse happens, so we're mutually with different mental structures, but calling them the same thing.
One nice example of this I think, is what 'yellow' looks like.
Now I see yellow one way, and I can use that word to describe the colour of the sun and sunflowers, and you can use the word the same for the sun and sunflowers, yet we may each see yellow completely differently. We only have the word from being shown things like the sun and sunflowers.
I might see yellow, how you see what I call blue, but you'd call that internal image 'yellow'. But if you gave me your visual cortex, I would then say the sun was blue.
It's a good example... for me, anyway
Last edited:
exactly Jadzia, the 'true' idea of what it is depends on POV even POV has the double meaning of point of view and persistence of vision (concerning the Dali work) so in this particular loop of time, we can define what is being discussed as the elephants tail and then we can know that tail as a rope.,,, (such is the tale of the elephant(yep tale not tail))
other ideas are just as useless about what a tale/tail is means or does. I do not (in this tread at least) dispute the truth but the "value" of any truth or any falsity as being useless...
within the idea that meta-epistemology studies the generalized formation of thought structures and how philosophies develop, theirs is the way of the idea with illusions of. (actually almost had to say that word meta-epistemology for the fun of it) I will resolve the effect into subjective, objective, non-subjective with object, non-objective with subject, the the object and subject together, and of course non-objective non-subjective, as well. This list of possible forms of general given structures is then divided into three parts each. This is assumed to be the normal form of all actual real/unreal meta-epistemology's that have been will be or are being. (the three sub-classes) and if taken further we find I could go on with useless truisms till my fingers bleed.
Most people find the truth comfortable and pleasing usually. some do not,. still it is a virtue of living. As also that these facts may help in aiding me in the p follows q statement that p=truth q=value is = the assignment to that truth has a value of uselessness.
your truths make your POV valid and my pov is almost possible to define. When the defintion of mine and yours are congruent then either we agree or disagree to agree. (even though there are more kinds of congruences that are possible) not arguing what is and is not becomes of use in Academia the real animal that makes the grade and the piece of paper with that "said" grade more of value then say (place a value here) when these both are as useless as the other.
*thinking I have typed too much, already* how important is it to prove to the next person that we "know" what is, is not, is neither, or is both. ...
other ideas are just as useless about what a tale/tail is means or does. I do not (in this tread at least) dispute the truth but the "value" of any truth or any falsity as being useless...
within the idea that meta-epistemology studies the generalized formation of thought structures and how philosophies develop, theirs is the way of the idea with illusions of. (actually almost had to say that word meta-epistemology for the fun of it) I will resolve the effect into subjective, objective, non-subjective with object, non-objective with subject, the the object and subject together, and of course non-objective non-subjective, as well. This list of possible forms of general given structures is then divided into three parts each. This is assumed to be the normal form of all actual real/unreal meta-epistemology's that have been will be or are being. (the three sub-classes) and if taken further we find I could go on with useless truisms till my fingers bleed.
Most people find the truth comfortable and pleasing usually. some do not,. still it is a virtue of living. As also that these facts may help in aiding me in the p follows q statement that p=truth q=value is = the assignment to that truth has a value of uselessness.
your truths make your POV valid and my pov is almost possible to define. When the defintion of mine and yours are congruent then either we agree or disagree to agree. (even though there are more kinds of congruences that are possible) not arguing what is and is not becomes of use in Academia the real animal that makes the grade and the piece of paper with that "said" grade more of value then say (place a value here) when these both are as useless as the other.
*thinking I have typed too much, already* how important is it to prove to the next person that we "know" what is, is not, is neither, or is both. ...
Last edited:
What makes you think that?
Seriously: on what grounds do you assert that possibility?
The reason I ask, is because British philosopher G E Moore argued--convincingly, I think--that skeptical propositions like yours commit the fallacy of equivocation, by confusing two different senses of expressions like "may see". In this case, you're equivocating between "may be able to see" and "may in fact be seeing".
We may be able to see colours differently--but it does not follow, simply from this possibility, that we may in fact be seeing colours differently.
I may be able to see the traffic, out in the street: I was indeed able, the last time I checked. But it does not follow that I may in fact be seeing the traffic out in the street right now. For one thing, I'm not looking at the street: I'm looking at my computer screen. For another, my apartment wall and curtains are blocking my view of the street.
Last edited:
So, what makes a thought real and or even useful? Nothing but is this "nothing" not a thing worthy of being real or even known in that there is any use to it?
How is actualizing an idea in another's head even useful or worth the effort of becoming done? Why do expressions mean things that beget importance as well as having no value of.
Remember - forget - think - know - how - to - be - @ awe of all things not all things are.
How is actualizing an idea in another's head even useful or worth the effort of becoming done? Why do expressions mean things that beget importance as well as having no value of.
Remember - forget - think - know - how - to - be - @ awe of all things not all things are.
Similar threads
