Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

I am done with Wrong Planet!! !

Page 6 of 8 [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MindBlind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,341

04 Jul 2013, 4:23 pm

RedHogRider wrote:
It’s really sad and pathetic that even in cyberspace that a downtrodden group of outcasts can’t get along. I do not need to add any more bickering, bigotry, or bullying to my life, so I’m done with Wrong Planet. This place is not worth it.


Well, that's nice to know what you think about people on the autism spectrum (now what was that thing about bigotry you say?).

The internet, if anything, is a magnifying glass for hatred, bigotry and bullying. What did you expect? Anonymity can do a lot to a person's empathy for someone else. What you are seeking is not available on cyberspace because the human condition is, unfortunately, very judgmental. Plus, writing on that section of the forum, you have to expect a few people with some strong opinions.

I don't blame you for feeling disillusioned by the whole thing and it is absolutely your right to feel this way, but maybe you need to set the bar a little bit lowers next time you go on a forum.



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

04 Jul 2013, 4:32 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Imagine the beads represent something provable. When something is proved we take out a bead. Eventually we reach the last bead in a particular jar. The last bead in a particular jar would be considered the axiom by the way. In order to prove this one would have to go outside of the jar until one reaches infinity.


Why is the last bead out of the jar the axiom?



littlebee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,338

04 Jul 2013, 4:36 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
littlebee, thanks for your compliments. This is the best way I can explain why in my opinion one can't prove everything. Imagine one has an infinite amount of jars inside of each other with infinite amount of beads. The jars have a finite amount of volume. The beads are all looped on this infinite amount of string and each jar is filled with a finite amount of beads until one can't fill the jar anymore. Each jar in the set of infinite amount of jars filled.

Imagine the beads represent something provable. When something is proved we take out a bead. Eventually we reach the last bead in a particular jar. The last bead in a particular jar would be considered the axiom by the way. In order to prove this one would have to go outside of the jar until one reaches infinity.

Is there a jar that would have all jars or in mathematical terms is there a set of all sets? If there is, how do I get the jar that contains all jars or the set that contains all of the sets? There are members who demand proof for all. I ask, how is this logically possible? If I am wrong and my reasoning is off then why is it off? What do others perceive that I am not following?

This picture is what is being demanding by those who demand proof for all. This is my best illustration of the concept I am conveying.

http://www.shipping-worldwide.com/bigst ... r_7716.jpg

hmmm....well this is interesting, but it is kind of obvious that certain qualities of subjective experience cannot be objectively proven, but can perhaps be verified for oneself by having certain experience. People who cannot understand that certain material is intended to be allegorical and also that each person has his own subjective contextual version of reality are just another version of fundamentalists who are missing something about the larger picture. I think what does tie things together is some form of ethics that is not just the rote practicing of certain principles of behavior but springs from the conscious understanding in conjunction with the direct perception of commonality between living beings.

And also, it is possible to 'prove' things to people by setting up certain kinds of experience. The problem is it is possible to create for naive people very strong and very pleasurable experiences based on wrong premises, and people can easily create these kinds of experiences for themselves and really believe in them.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

04 Jul 2013, 7:12 pm

neilson_wheels wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Imagine the beads represent something provable. When something is proved we take out a bead. Eventually we reach the last bead in a particular jar. The last bead in a particular jar would be considered the axiom by the way. In order to prove this one would have to go outside of the jar until one reaches infinity.


Why is the last bead out of the jar the axiom?


I was using it as a literary and figurative device. Consider the bead and jars as symbols.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 118,420
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

04 Jul 2013, 11:40 pm

I've enjoyed the bead jar analogy.


_________________
The Family Enigma


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

04 Jul 2013, 11:43 pm

CockneyRebel wrote:
I've enjoyed the bead jar analogy.


Thanks Cockney!



matt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 917

05 Jul 2013, 12:10 am

The person who posted this topic hasn't signed onto this site since posting the original post.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Jul 2013, 12:30 am

Illuminated wrote:
I've always related myself to neurotypicals as feeling like an alien compared to them


That's why most of us think we are on a wrong planet.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

05 Jul 2013, 12:32 am

matt wrote:
The person who posted this topic hasn't signed onto this site since posting the original post.


Yeah, this was mentioned a page or two back, but other discussion has flourished in the meantime.



matt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 917

05 Jul 2013, 12:37 am

Verdandi wrote:
matt wrote:
The person who posted this topic hasn't signed onto this site since posting the original post.


Yeah, this was mentioned a page or two back, but other discussion has flourished in the meantime.
I was just surprised because I noticed that there had been six pages of discussion. Whenever I see a topic like this, I tend to check whether the person has logged on again before I consider whether to respond.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

05 Jul 2013, 12:52 am

matt wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
matt wrote:
The person who posted this topic hasn't signed onto this site since posting the original post.


Yeah, this was mentioned a page or two back, but other discussion has flourished in the meantime.
I was just surprised because I noticed that there had been six pages of discussion. Whenever I see a topic like this, I tend to check whether the person has logged on again before I consider whether to respond.


Understandable. :)



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

05 Jul 2013, 2:23 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
neilson_wheels wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Imagine the beads represent something provable. When something is proved we take out a bead. Eventually we reach the last bead in a particular jar. The last bead in a particular jar would be considered the axiom by the way. In order to prove this one would have to go outside of the jar until one reaches infinity.


Why is the last bead out of the jar the axiom?


I was using it as a literary and figurative device. Consider the bead and jars as symbols.


You make a specific point that the last bead out is the axiom, I have asked you why you have chosen this specific point.

If you had said the first bead in then you would have a point to make.
The axiom is the starting point, which the other problems require knowledge of to be solved. An axiom by it's very definition is the root not the branch of the tree.
Axiom comes first, first the axiom is proved then you can move on to other problems.
Furthermore why are the jars inside each other, are you implying that the string is interconnected to the beads between jars?
The relationship between axioms is not necessarily a linear relationship.
It's obvious the beads and jars are symbols, very pretty ones at that, but used in this way they are not very accurate either.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

05 Jul 2013, 6:44 am

Quote:
You make a specific point that the last bead out is the axiom, I have asked you why you have chosen this specific point.

If you had said the first bead in then you would have a point to make.
The axiom is the starting point, which the other problems require knowledge of to be solved. An axiom by it's very definition is the root not the branch of the tree.
Axiom comes first, first the axiom is proved then you can move on to other problems.


Okay, I understand what're you're asking. I will show you what I did by example.

Let's say we have the proposition P which is some popsicles are red.

This implies three things that come before it.

S: There is a quantity called some.

R: There is a color called red.

P: There is an object called popsicle.

To go back even further.

A: Quantity is an abstract concept that represents the amount of something in a group.

E: Red represents the frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum.

O: Objects are possible to exist and do exist.


What I am saying is a proposition n, assumption or statement may have a previous set of propositions(n-1) that lead up to proposition n. Why can't one work backwards or reverse engineer from a proposition , assumption, theorm, or statement to get to the set of Axiom(s).
Furthermore why are the jars inside each other, are you implying that the string is interconnected to the beads between jars?

Quote:
The relationship between axioms is not necessarily a linear relationship.


Yes, you're right it isn't linear. I was keeping it very simple and I didn't want to bog us down with so much complexity. One can have more than one axiom for a given proposition. I kept it concise as much as possible. In addition, I had other things pressing so I didn't have time to go into the more complexities of this. I have an 16 year old ODD brother in law who I have to deal with. In addition, I'm trying to start a business.

Quote:
It's obvious the beads and jars are symbols, very pretty ones at that, but used in this way they are not very accurate either.


It's because in the figurate language example I did proceed from the axiom I worked backwards and proceeded to the axiom.

The best example I can give for what I did is watch a movie but backwards.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

05 Jul 2013, 7:10 am

RedHogRider wrote:
It’s really sad and pathetic that even in cyberspace that a downtrodden group of outcasts can’t get along.


All are fair game for the socially ret*d.



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

05 Jul 2013, 7:54 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
What I am saying is a proposition n, assumption or statement may have a previous set of propositions(n-1) that lead up to proposition n. Why can't one work backwards or reverse engineer from a proposition , assumption, theorm, or statement to get to the set of Axiom(s).


Propositions are usually built on what has been learned before. You can work backwards if you want to but I feel it is a very unlikely position to be in.

Quote:
The best example I can give for what I did is watch a movie but backwards.

Starting at the beginning is usually best.
How far did you get through the movie before it made sense?
In addition reading books backwards is possible but why would you?
To teach someone maths the easiest option is to start with 1+1=2 rather than the square root of prime numbers.
To learn a new language it is more efficient to learn the characters of the alphabet than through trying to read the works of the most respected authors.


Quote:
In addition, I had other things pressing so I didn't have time to go into the more complexities of this. I have an 16 year old ODD brother in law who I have to deal with. In addition, I'm trying to start a business.


Best regards and good luck with your business.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

05 Jul 2013, 8:51 am

WP gathers together a bunch of socially inept people for the purpose of socializing.

It's a bit like handing a loaded revolver to a chimpanzee.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)