Bittersweet Candy Bowl

or maybe we do.
the most advanced scientist imagineable, in ordinary conversation, would undoubtedly seem a fool.
perhaps your entire perception of reality and right is askew
for all you really know
sgnyjhrnjkjokjhrafaceerjgfndtyhbadg
could be the most intelligent thing ever to appear on a computer screen.

all hail Kazi’s perception of reality….all hail Kazi’s perception of reality….

yes.
i am the ruler of everything.
bow down in worship.
YES, YOU TOO CHUCK NORRIS!

Except that devoid of an environment in which to act, all knowledge of right and reality is merely so much useless babble. What determines which perception is correct, and hence our whole concept of right and wrong, is what can be usefully applied within our environment. The rules for finding an anti-derivative would be useless if they didn’t produce answers that can be useful in the real world. Whether this perception and its set of values and principles is somehow based on a universal standard or “truth” is academic. What is true is determined by what we find useful in navigating our world. And while my suggestions may be cynical and long-winded, they are helpful if applied.

“useless“ and “wrong“ are not the same things.
pursuit of knowledge for knowledges sake, even if the results are useless, is in itself, worth it.
though my point is short and blunt, it is not wrong OR useless.

The problem you face is that if the results are not applicable to the environment (like a weather simulation that predicts a blizzard in central Florida in mid August) it is useless for the purpose of predicting weather, and hence wrong.

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is fine, but it is not knowledge if it does not correspond to the environment; it is fiction. Boring fiction that fails to entertain at that.

You seem to be missing the point I’m trying to make by using the word “useless.” I mean that the perception has no bearing on the world that person inhabits. Without a bearing on what you must deal with, it is impossible for the perception to be correct except by extremely improbable circumstances. Hence it is what we dub “wrong.” Your statement has a bearing on the world you inhabit, albeit a flawed one, and is therefore not completely “wrong”, or in my definition, “useless”.

There is a whole philosophy behind this known as pragmatism.

thats where your wrong.
something does not have to have an effect to be right.
the problem is, that you think only in practical terms.
try to broaden your perception.
and while your perception and mine may be totally fucked up, they ARE perceptions.

and im dealing in extremely improbable circumstances.

What is an example of something that “does not have to have an effect to be right”?

Anything that we collectively declare as “right” has a reason behind it that makes it fit in our environment, even if we don’t realize it at the time.

just because the circumstances are unlikely doesnt mean there isnt the possiblility.

I am not dismissing unlikely scenarios, I am requesting an example.

if i were in a universe of only jars, an me a human, having all the same experiences i have had in my life, my name would still be jake.

Yes, but that follows what I’ve been trying to say. Since you had experienced life as a human before you were somehow transported into this universe of jars, your name being Jake would still fit your environment and the reality in which you resided. It would still be practical to refer to you by the name you were accustomed to being called as a human, and thus “useful” and perfectly applicable.

and if your perception were completely fucked, it would an insanely unlikely circumstance, but it wouldnt be wrong.
thats more or less what im trying to say.

and as a human i had 5 or 6 names i was accustomed to

Then all five or six, including the one that you considered official and was considered official in your previous experiences would be applicable.

And by definition, if your perception was completely fucked, what you would perceive would not correlate with the environment you lived in, thus not be useful and would be wrong. It works in the same sense that 3+4=8 is wrong.

but not useful is not wrong.
not useful contains wrong. but is not wrong.
in a hypothetical environment, you having a name might never be useful, but your name woudnt be wrong

but it would still be useless.

How would you have a name if it wasn’t used?

The very existence of a name requires its use. If there is no one who uses the name, it doesn’t exist.

then to say that you had no name, in a universe where a name was useless, would be correct, and yet useless.

No, its use would be to educate hypothetical interlopers like you and me about the operation of that world and its lack of names.

The existence of a scenario where something is correct in reference to its environment, yet somehow of no use whatsoever, defies the very logic under which our brains operate, and so you cannot have a discussion on this topic where you can prove me wrong. To do so would be unintelligible by both you and anyone else who read this.

The derailing of this thread is complete. My purposes have been served.

Heh heh heh heh…

hehehehe.
“the logic by which our brains operate“
is not necessarily the correct logic.
there could be some scenario in which something which serves no purpose can be correct.
it is not overly complex logic, just outside the box.
make sure you use both sides of your brain.

the abstract thought part is my favourite.

You are referring to possibilities that don’t yet exist and challenging the accepted without having an alternative. The box is useful, both inside and out, but spewing cliched witticisms does not make an argument, and your last two posts are only useful as a tool for psychoanalysis.

My conclusion is that you are trying to make a point, but are not quite sure what the point you are trying to make is.

I hope you realize, as you do, that this has all been in jest and that taking any of this seriously is bad for your health.

I am now done. Thank you all very much.

….USE THE OTHER HALF OF YOUR BRAIN!
i get it your (left, right?) logic half is good, but use the other half.
perhaps too a hypothetical god, our entire world serves no purpose, but exists. we could just be some crap it flushed down the crapper.

and remember, god in a rotten fish jar

I generally prescribe blunt trauma for those taking *Ninja seriously.

i prescribe some more of my delicious otten fish
im a commercial fisherman on lake winnipeg.(gillnets, lake, set them, come back next day)

Doctor Mc*Ninja? ^_^

How’s business?

Well, I managed to fit my laptop with a crank that I can use to create electricity, so now I don’t have to worry about my batteries dying.

Oh, and pyro? I have a full box of matches. Dunno where I got them though…

Wait, how are matches gonna help me out of this hole?

If you find the perfect match, everything will be perfect. And falling into a pit is… not perfect. ^_^

ILB is extra clever today.

Oh, quite. ^_^

Slow, ILB. I think I might have to “acquire” a few more patients.

I’ll drop you some tv dinners…and a microwave…and maybe a pony.

Just got the TV dinners and the microwave, dunno what to do with the pony now that it passed me on the way down…

@jake~Okay, strike one match, then put it out by throwing it.

then sing the birthday song through your ears.

@Pyro: Ok… Alright, now what?

alright, strike two more matches, then throw them up the same way.

Alright, that’s done…

what do you mean? aren’t you out?

No, I still have a few more matches, and I just lit and threw two in the air like you told me to.

weird….usually it’s three strikes and your out.

Hehehe… That actually pretty good!

took me forever to set up…..worth it though : D

I see what you did there.