Ways to experience an alien invasion
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Adder wrote: It's about 'how' things can be done. For most people (seemingly) it's too easy to just ignore doing things differently, and so what seems to happen is most people just pretend to know the fastest or best way, usually as taught, or previously handled. Doing the same thing and expecting different results means one is either stupid, or doesn't want different results because they are looking for your echo chamber concept. Or of course they just haven't realized how powerful the mind can be when it explores things in different types of focus.
As doing it those normal ways tends to lead to supporting subjective bias and other errors in critical thinking.
So exactly what are these different processes on how things can be done and how do they differ from what you call normal ways? What are these normal ways and how are they insufficient and thus the cause of bias?
You could take a course of analysis and critical thinking to find that out. I've done a few and its mostly what they talk about.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I dont think any effective process also requires speed. And even if a side effect of the best process also produces speed why would we ever strive for a less effective or process proven to produce ineffective results?
Things change, and because of that information has 'recency' as an attribute of accuracy. Speed is really only relevant depending on the other competing priorities or rate of change in the attributes of the process parts, probably.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: This idea you have seems to only want to produce justifications for the use of logical fallacy in an attempt to discredit highly capable processes that expose your inability to accept the truth of a matter.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You want to believe something so badly that you throw all this long worded justification around in an attempt to convince others and yourself that your faulty conclusions actually have merit if we can just accept your faulty premise.
What is it you think I am believing? It sounds more like your just constructing a narrative to suit your disagreement with me on something. What exactly do you disagree with again?
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: A premise that you are trying to describe as being unfairly judged so because of that it should be accepted. But Logic does not work this way and what you are actually creating are just strawmans.
Logic is only useful in working with the known. If you don't have the full picture or are not using exact definitions, then you gotta operate conceptually using analysis. Analytical thinking is different to logical thinking, and they are both parts of critical thinking IMO (but I could be swayed that critical thinking is its own thing). Sticking with logical thinking is probably an example of that narrow minded approach to communication I was mentioning in my previous post, because its not always going to be relevant or useful.
I am somewhat a student of thinking so I know well of what you are rather vaguely describing. You mention critical thinking here finally but you are correct, there are many forms of thinking, which also includes forms like fallacious and magical thinking. So what I am asking is which forms are you using or finding useful and why?
But I have been giving you examples non-stop, its just perhaps you don't want to hear them because they are probably relevant to your own experience so much you wouldn't want to accept it! Hopefully not.... as I'm not trying to be so specific as to be personal but communication tends to evolve that way. All that is a long way of saying you might be looking for answers which fit your paradigms because your counters seem irrelevant, and so I find myself repeating myself in different ways.
As I've explained previously their (paradigms) domain's tend to be defined by the effectiveness their techniques have.... so to me objective reality is a frame of reference in an objective (coordinate) space - which needs logical foundations to underpin truth, as it serves as knowledge. While subjective reality is an objective space which does not need logical foundations to underpin experience. Calling subjective experience as having its own objective existence might be uncomfortable and not readily understood by most but it's required in the modification of it, which is where the emergence of domains allows different paradigms to have specialized place. As mind seems to sit in a subjective space with access to both those frames of reference.... and others, for using different models of subjective reality provide ways to process information, within the time line available to us. If one views the Force as unknowable, and that it is experienced through the vehicle of body and mind, then that is the vehicle to connect and interact with the Force. So if someone else has no use or belief in the Force, or has a different view of the Force, then they will have different techniques for connecting or interacting with it - but trying to disprove them firstly requires something to disprove... and just trying to criticize applications by using unrelated paradigms serves no purpose unless your actually interested in learning that persons methods!? Which is the only reason I'm responding at all, for there is nothing I'm trying to prove and nothing for you to disprove.
As I've said to you a few times in different ways now in the last week or so, you seem focused on quantification of objective states, and the defense of processes which support them... while I'm talking about qualitative experience of both subjective and objective interactions and the tools to work with them. I think your asking for the tools... but its not something you just reach into a box and grab. If you want to start somewhere dedicate a decade to Patanjali's Yoga Sutra's and try and use that as a foundation for generating some progress. I know you've indicated your tried lots of things, but if you've had no progress then try them differently perhaps. These things are not paths for followers or listeners, but explorers..... ie psychonautics but without the entheogenics! I'd suggest the important thing is to use existing and enduring methods to create changes in perception (not post-enlightenment age Western derivatives) and then engineer more contemporary or radical techniques to generate connection and growth of that progress.
But to continue on, it seems your mixing up the qualitative nature of your processes with my qualitative natures of experiences just because they happen to share a relation to the objective reality. It's an unnecessary conflation which seems to serve no purpose to me, but instead seems to reiterate some established approach closely aligned to scientific method as worldview. It feels argumentative and closed, so I'm probably not understanding what your asking. To me the scientific method is just the most effective paradigm to assess likely truth in its appropriate domain. But since the OP was not asking about truth of aliens, again that approach seems almost off-topic. In regards to alien abduction and species hybridization etc, proof should be more easily sought and found (if it exists at all), but shouldn't life be about the journey of exploring, and not just reinforcing? I guess for me the e in Jedi is exploration.
There should be enough in there for anyone to pick apart
While I may agree there might be some semantic difference in the details of the thinking styles we have been discussing I would disagree that there is only a semantic difference in subjective vs objective. I am well aware of the contexts you are referring to but I find your assessment of these individual contexts not fully developed. That is where I'm finding issue.
I suggest we stop talking in abstracts and take a more concrete example, namely the subject of this threads OP. From this point let me try and describe what I believe it is you are trying to convey. You have this idea that there is subjective experience and objective experience. So objectively the thread is about an alien invasion. However objectively speaking we have no experience in which to draw any conclusions from and so the argument can be made objectively that it’s never been proven aliens even exist and so that argument can be made.
However, from your argument, I understand you saying that subjectively we have the ability to bypass that objective reality and its inherent truth and take it one step further to make up the hypothetical situation in which we don’t have to prove aliens exist before we can explore how we would handle an alien invasion. In other words we get to make a presupposition that aliens exist and they can and/or will have invaded. And we begin at that point subjectively where we can’t do this objectively, and we can explore that experience subjectively in an environment free of objective reality.
Is this close to what you are trying to say? If so I agree with this assessment. However the point I was trying to make is that while these objective and abstract exercises are highly valuable they are really irrelevant to how we actually live our lives in objective reality. And when we proceed to actually make them relevant we run the risk of cognitive bias concerning objective reality. So we must be careful how we proceed subjectively or we skew our objective experience.
In other words, if we can’t map our subjective experience onto an aspect of objective reality it becomes a meaningless component of our psyche for anything other than abstract analysis. The practice of never allowing subjective analysis that cant be mapped onto objective reality into our objective view gives us the skeptical analysis power to always view reality with the highest percentage of truth possible. So I don’t know if you agree with this or not but I suspect you might and in that we may find common ground.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @adder, First I'm not here to pick your comments apart so much as to get into the meat of them and understand them better. Secondly I must apologize if you feel I have not answered any of your questions, That was never my intent so if you feel there is a question you have asked I have not answered by all means ask again and I shall endeavor to do my best to answer it.
But no guarantee exists that I will make any sense, its in the fine print of the readers agreement you all signed whilst sleeping!!!
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You have this idea that there is subjective experience and objective experience. So objectively the thread is about an alien invasion. However objectively speaking we have no experience in which to draw any conclusions from and so the argument can be made objectively that it’s never been proven aliens even exist and so that argument can be made.
The most recent way I described it should have said something like it being a 'subjective reality' having both an experience of an 'objective space' and a 'subjective space'. But yea, trying to unpick semantic differences does not help my cause so I should just stick to clarifying my own.... so, the 'space' is the frames of reference used to interact with them, requiring different types of processes, and the 'reality' is the coordinate system ie thinking; the procession of meaning/concept. So an alien invasion might happen in both the objective space (eg Arrival) or the subjective space (eg Bird Box), depending on how they chose to interact with humanity.
What your getting at I think is that most likely an alien invasion will be a physical objective dilemma, and so it will require efforts to be firmly rooted in the objective space to the extent that it needs to be seen as being distinctly a higher order then the subjective (during the occurrence) - which is where I think the meaning of real in reality has its weight. It's the same thing with war... it's hard and sharp and will take your head off if your day dreaming
But my first comment in this thread was just saying there is more to explore in this topic then being so narrow as to stay in the scientific objective sand pit. An invasion could happen wholly or in part via the apparatus of the mind, within the subjective realm.
Sidenote; additionally, I'm using the term 'realm' to denote what I call one of two 'reality matrices', each one being the combination of subjective experience minus the other 'space'. How well one functions in any particular realm then is just how effectively they proportion their efforts in that regard (ie mapping the appropriate space).
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @adder, well you are correct in one aspect, you do not make any sense whatsoever. I was originally baffled by big bird but your edit to bird box makes as little sense. I have even consulted with Gisteron on your comments in an attempt to decipher them and you seem to have left us both speechless. At this point I can only conclude you are fucking with me and so I find myself forced to abandon this idiotic conversation. The main point I am forced to present in this resignation is that aliens cant invade our subjective reality independantly of our objective reality. This requires a schism of mental processes that equates to skitsophrenia and so I can only hope you get the care that you need. Best of luck my friend.
Is that all you could go to! Crikey, reaching much... LOL. Well perhaps they used the same technology that they used to travel light years..... I mean, we are talking about 'aliens invading' aren't we.
Weren't you getting in on the discourse in the other thread about how inappropriate it was to tell people what they could or could not say? As I've said before.... surely there is no the harm in discussing fiction to explore the intersection between known and unknown.
Speaking of which, that is twice in this thread people have made mental health accusations against other members. I think its inappropriate and against the ToS myself. If you really think that much then wouldn''t it be better to show a little tact and tell them in private message... unless the intent is to make a public attack out of it of course.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You addressed none of my previous post and instead lead me further down a rabbit hole of meta-nonsense. What do you expect me to conclude?
Wrong. Your post had a false assertion as the the basis of your follow on points and questions. Being as quoted;
" You have this idea that there is subjective experience and objective experience. So objectively the thread is about an alien invasion"
So I pointed it out and tried to correct that false assertion. Being;
"The most recent way I described it should have said something like it being a 'subjective reality' having both an experience of an 'objective space' and a 'subjective space'. "
And then went onto provide reasoning as to why my position on it was valid by clarifying an example as you requested. You choosing to deny the existence of any possibility of 'mind control' technologies ever existing does not change my point that if they could then they might be used and therefore excluding it was limiting to the scope of conversation. The only rabbit hole I see happens to be the one you want me to follow down... the one that has no relevance to my post you initially replied to. Where you were relevant I have tried to reply. Don't get unbalanced by not having anywhere to go just because I can defend my own point, as that much should probably be expected!!
At this point this is actually the very FIRST reference you have EVER made to actual mind control! Do you expect your audience to just be able to read your mind??? And just telepathically find what you mean??? If not your writing style is incredibly lazy and infested with inuendo and syllogysm.