Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reasonable doubt ranges among anything that would make you doubt your senses (i.e. delusions, psychosis, confusion) when you've experienced the event in question.

That's the only time you can really know. Any other time is more inference based on trustworthy sources or something hard to fake like video feed.



It depends on the culture. I'm more referring to: You experience event A, someone tells you event A was actually event B, you know that they are lying due to your experiences.



This is true but I was actually referencing immediate experience. Everything else is inference.



Also true, although enough experience in social engineering especially can give one tools of social manipulation to expose more tells.



Yep.



Any intentional misrepresentation of a reasonably objective reality. Lies are not invariably bad. We often protect ourselves with small ones from individuals of damaging intent.

Unintentional misrepresentation (like delusions or simply being wrong yet possessing strong conviction) is not lying.



I would think so. I'm not sure how this hooks into what we were talking about though. Could you explain the connection? Or is this just musing?



Proof is merely structural logic used to extend from more concrete or accepted givens regarding the metaphysics of existence that often arise from either established CPG and Lore or from the functionality of specialized philosophies designed to reduce inaccuracies in metaphysical study. Empiricism being the most noted example currently.

Proof can also be evidence gained through observation within empiricism, although really, that is sort of a miswording.



I operate similarly with the exception that I assume that there are at least a given amount of individuals who operate under a network of givens created from willful ignorance or self delusion. But that's mostly from what I've been exposed to in the realm of fluffies and whatnot poisoning my optimism about people's worldviews.

I'm pretty sure this was my point.. that I stated several of these points several times so far in various ways and yet my rendition is met with general attack
neutral

"Countering, refuting and applying rebuttals is not mocking."
Definitions are very personal things. What one person may consider a valid rebuttal may not be considered valid to another person. What one person may consider mocking may not be considered mocking to another person.

Such as me saying I talk the way I do because I went to college is mostly referencing that many of the term and definitions are so ingrained into me and are such a consistent subject that I tend to use them frequently when talking about things which other people may not include them in.

This though was not taken the way I intended it and neither has most of what I wrote. People seem to make there own definitions... such personal things Right? Once they have them they don't like to let them go. I haven't seen one person even give credence to the possiblity that They Might have been wrong. Instead I've met with people telling me what I said.

This... might make me stoop to some low assertion that someone might be deluded and as bad as a fluffy.

Positive thought a*****e XD no I don't agree with them either they don't take very much into consideration. Years and years of conditioning I mean @_@ out the door just because you want something. Sheesh... that doesn't take into account very many variables.

It doesn't mean that its not possible just because it isn't likely though. I will give them that.

I actually expected to come here and find myself banned. But then I am a bit stubborn and I will call people on s**t. I mean... its give and take right?

The insults of course were expected as they were pretty much there from the start. not from you though... but then your protecting your friend right? Which is a good thing and I won't condemn you for it. I'm probably more irritated then anything else and lashing out in some ways because this just reminds me of other people who have reacted the same ways and given the same trite arguments that go no where.

It upsets me when people can't re-examine traditional values. I usually don't press the envelope because I don't expect people to...

The definitions are in the dictionary. Go argue with a dictionary. Then tell me that they are wrong inconsistent or flawed.

I haven't seen Anyone At all actually you know post any links or anything XD I mean articles actual sources... I mean if your going to tell me a definition I use is just wrong then at least have the courtesy to Cite me the proper definition

I mean even the definition of god which I used is still in the dictionary (god as a creator vs. god as an omnipotent being) the original argument was about god which is mostly where the preassertion concerning knowledge and omniscience comes in and that whole discussion. I mean it was pretty much a travesty from the begining.

Think of a generality as a metaphor if that helps you.
Its a representation of a concept. I don't like to name individual incidence because it would take too long. Such as this and that church and this gospel and those people in my class and this lady on the bus all told me that god was all knowing.

Delusional word vomit XD

You perceive something, someone else says that your perception is wrong thus you think they are lying because it goes against your perception.

You are still Percieving the lie. My entire argument stemmed from the invalidity of the concept of knowing. If she wanted to argue definition of knowledge she could easily have cited that knowledge is that which you perceive and I would have agreed with her within that context. Instead she threw in I know because I Perceive and made it a highly personal emotionally charged statement and lashed out with it.

In response I was actually trying to be more sympathetic by saying I know where she's coming from and that it would be very difficult to experience a trauma and Still hold that paradigm but I did.

So this is taken and twisted to be me saying that Everyone can do this. No... I never said this.

And everything I say is thoroughly taken out of whatever semblance of a context I put it in.

Thus... yah I'm going to say you have a inflexibility of thought because you can't seem too allow for anything that I'm saying to be right.
I kind of know what I would need to consider what your saying is right. You'd have to not do anything that you are saying I'm doing.

But yah... it doesn't really matter what I say, now does it?

As to fluffies, there are multiple types of fluffies. Sometimes there are ones who are overly influenced by others. This is the type where if you tell them something is true they believe it without ever trying to verify it themselves. They tend to retract more into there particular chosen belief system when attacked. Much of the time they are just ignorant.

I don't consider delusional people to be fluffies. I put them into a different category entirely.

Some people actually Don't believe much of what they are saying but find the thought of it fun. Thats a different category of fluffy... they don't want to give up the new toy they found because they want to play with it a little longer and just pretend. That might be considered blind rigidity but because from what I gather if you talk to them they don't actually believe any of the things they say they believe does it really count? Its like playing holloween year round.

As to ethics I would argue personal definitions there too. Cultural bias' etc.

@ making up definitions
I made my own definition for god in the context that I used pre-existing definitions and recombined them in a new way that didn't contradict that which I knew about existence.

A definition isn't accurate if it doesn't actually fit that which its trying to define. In such cases you need to alter your definitions to fit a situation
If I said the sky was blue... but its really just the reflection of light off the ocean that gives it that color and the sky without interaction with this affect would most likely be clear (or is it white?) then when I learn this new information I would adjust my definition accordingly to fit the new data.

The definitions which I use do not go against those found in the dictionary, though there are always multiple meanings to any words and I might use certain meanings more then others or agree with other uses more then others.

Like with the term Gay... I would most likely not use it to mean happy, though sometimes I choose to.

Other words I might use slang definitions or generally accepted societal definitions. Or I might use a definition which is particular to the fields of study of which I am a part of.

Like there are multiple definitions for the word projection... which I'm pretty sure I cited while using the proper psychological definition

I generally when defining god I stick with god as a creator rather then god as an omnipotent being. I stick with Deity as any being that is worshiped.

A creator isn't necessarily worshiped, while something which is worshiped doesn't necessarily even serve a purpose much less create anything.

I rejected the definition which other people gave me, a creator god which was omnipotent... though I ended up having the same discussion with a good friend of mine and they added in that the god would also have to be caring.

So if a god is caring omnipotent... and provides people with free will that provides a bit of a contradiction

Though a non-caring apathetic omnipotent god could provide people with free will

Or you could have a caring omnipotent god and no free will
Or you could have no singular god and have everything rely on the forces of probability with the start of creation being that the possiblity of creation created itself

Of course I lean towards this definition... because it clears up any sort of paradox concerning the creation of god (the possibility of god created god)

But thats besides the point

As to me being a joy to talk to... I usually don't bother going into meticulous details with people but this is providing a distraction for me

I don't have time to address anything else.

Definitions are personal because while they may be constructed in a social context they are internalized differently. Your internal world is something which you create. While you may learn and have guidance in creating it and it may be a product of you interacting with your surroundings you are still ultimately the decider in all things that happen within you.

Its the only thing you really control ... your thoughts and your actions.

A person either makes a choice to accept or not accept any given situation, I'm pretty sure this is why binary code is soo useful.

Most of our definitions are ingrained in us from youth and thus they remain unquestioned because we build all further definitions on them. Some of our definitions are built because we are in such close proximity to ourselves. We accept our sight because we use it constantly it is constantly there. Many people don't question there sight because its such a constant ever present condition that they don't think twice about it.

some bias' are soo ingrained that we aren't really aware of there existence. There are tests that rely on miniscule difference in the time it takes you to sort words to tell what subtle bias' you may have. Its an interesting study. In anycase it shows how subtle associations are created in individuals which they may remain completely unaware of.

Also... words are only a representation of meaning. It doesn't actually capture what it means to You. The touch of a breeze isn't captured in those words... but it can inspire the reminiscence of the feel of it on your skin.

Word association games are also very useful in this regard...

We use the sort of generalized definitions found in the dictionary to form a common ground or basis for all our word usage yet arguments exist concerning the dictionary what should be kept in and what should be taken out. The evolution of language is really quite facinating
In anycase... language is an evolving and in many cases very personal process. The definitions which we are given don't necessarily comply with the implied definitions and connotations that other people give words.

Like if I used the word niger... OMG the implications the connotations the subtle references and the enter schematic is shaped by whose saying it why they are saying it and how they are saying it.

Each person internalizes the words differently. For me... I usually can strip the words of all meaning accept sound or build them back up again in my head. I can say a word and I play with it lyrically to alter the definition and implication of my speech. I could probably spend hours just playing with the variation and sound if I wanted. I can say things which would horrify some people and it would have no meaning...

Like the word spider might horrify someone with arachnophobia.

So... there are alot of facets that give a word its meaning. Many of which rely on presumptions on the part of both persons in a conversation and most successful conversations as far as I can tell don't necessarily rely on very much concerning the persons themselves but on the definitions with which the people speak.

Many times people will assume the other person is interpreting what they are saying in the same way they mean it... and sometimes this isn't rectified for months.

There was this one time someone had been making a joke at my expense for a long period of time because I didn't catch on that they were using a double entendre the entire time.

In anycase when I am communicating I generally try to Define the words I'm using in any instance which the person doesn't seem to be catching onto what I'm saying Just in case this is happening. This doesn't mean my definitions are contrary to what is in the dictionary... though if I am using a more obscure definition I will also try to track down an article or a larger explanation of the topic which I have done on several occassions through out my responces which just seem to be ignored in favor of trying to tell me I'm saying something other then what I am.

"As I'm fairly sure other people have said things which are very similar and yet you only attack mock and parody my responses in multiple threads."

I said this incorrectly
As I'm fairly sure other people have said things which are very similar to what I've said and yet you only attack mock and parody my responses in multiple threads.

No one ever said there wasn't risk. XD Although it really does seem like most people are completely unarmed in an S.E. fight.

It actually raises a host of serious ethical issues about using those skills because so many people can't identify them much less defend themselves against them.



XD I've done that before.



Linky?



Yeah, definitely.



To most, self delusion creates the perception that the givens are perfectly reasonable and causally consistent. It's partially why it's so dangerous a tool of coping. Because if you create a reality that possesses dangerous unreasonable elements or a dangerous lack of consistency, you will be hard pressed to escape from your own world because it quite literally becomes a naturalistic reality in your head.

I'm not surprised.



You are not met with derision. You are met with rage.



Open minded does not mean I am stupid, nor does it mean I will blindly accept what you say without analysis. That analysis did not go your way. Oh well, stop whining about it and adapt.



Reading what? I'm not even sure what you're bringing up here.



Logical analysis and personal offense at you making a claim regarding healing processes that basically tells all of us who have faced trauma that we're causing our own pain to remain.

That's some epic victim blaming.



You have not seen me do the analysis. I read your words, analyzed the logic, even wrote notes. Then I posted.



The issue is your flawed logic and attempts to blame us catching your flawed logic on a personal issue. And your victim blaming.



Perceiving something doesn't mean you comprehend it.



I already sank a day's worth of work into you. Stop being so delusional.



I'm far more aware of how these interactions function then you realize.



Good riddance is the only words that come to mind.

Hit them with a tuna. Yellow fin perhaps?
As in mass hysteria?
Delusion isn't just a standard of deviation. It's a function of demonstrable psychosis- loosing touch with reality.

There are instances wherein there is widespread ignorance and perpetuated misinformation, but these are not in and of themselves delusions.

It's not the consensus, there are other standards in play.

For example, Dr. Palmer wasn't deluded merely for having an alternative theory about human biology and function. His theory was incomplete, yes. If the masses had adopted his theory to the exclusion of the immune system, he and others would have been perpetuating a false model. But there is no psychotic break with reality.

They are entitled to their positions.
I cannot enlighten anyone else. Violencing them will rarely solve the over-arching issue or further my goals... alhto I am terribly good at violence.
Tho I might disagree, I must protest their right to hate, deride, and disregard my position. I cannot fully comprehend their reasoning for doing so and that leaves them largely outside my judgement.
Largely.


As in lies being accepted as truth on an institutionalized level.


With who's version of reality?
Who's expressed perception of reality is accurate and what makes it so?


What are they then?


Such as?


At what point does it become psychotic?


I try, however, success is not assured, to many variables in this medium of interaction... confused
I appreciate that others show me the courtesy of taking my typings as well as they do and (at least publicly) endure my failings. Privately, I am much criticized for my point, rather than presentation, as near as I can tell.


By stripping an already painfully incomplete system of many of it's supports for communication... well. That may be another thread entirely.


If you do need a link, I can make one, but I confident you will come to it without. 3nodding


On a scale of 0-10...
0 being a thing of negligible consequence and 9 being the eradication of life on this planet in a very painful and permanent way where would you place it?

I'm curious as to why you protest their right to hate, deride and disregard.

An example of this please?

Objective reality. Not a version thereof- which would rely on Relativism.

Just what I said, misinformation or ignorance.

Demonstrable fact for a start.

When it is demonstrably wrong.

That which falls outside of the realm of falsifiability isn't commented upon.
That which is within what we can empirically examine and demonstrate that it contradicts the offered position- upon clinging to the false position, it becomes indisputably wrong through evidence.

Is it a criticism of you, or your position I would wonder.