Rationals (NTs)

When someone misunderstands this thread and is mean will they-

  • A, claim all NTs are evil because of a single bad experience or

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • B, argue that NTs are the master race

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • C, inevitable joke answer: Xylophone

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • D, use their unlimited power to edit this poll. Xx, Lady Palpatine

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
@Lady Jolanda,

thank you for including the paper. I had read it years ago but other than taking it for granted (a mistake) then had forgotten the content.
Now let's look at what Sagan wrote.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Click to expand...

Indeed - and this doesn't just mean science vs science but science vs religion to all the better get a complete perspective. However we owe it to the science alone to have the freedom to do this nowadays - authoritarian "religion" has not allowed it in the past except, perhaps, in ancient Greece and/or Alexandria.

Arguments from authority carry little weight—“authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do
so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there
are experts.
Click to expand...

My point about not taking Sagan's words for granted here. But this is also the single most important reason to study science and to make sure we do our utmost to promote it to as wide an influence as humanly possible. Science frees the rational mind from wishful thinking and untruth and is our only tool for understanding ourselves and our universe.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in
which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the
alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among
“multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply
run with the first idea that caught your fancy.*
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable,
unfalsifiable, are not worth much.
Click to expand...

This is where Sagan makes a critical error. And it is not a logical error either. The rational (conscious) mind is indeed the tool we must develop before we can reason, communicate, and understand the world around us. It is our first step toward complete undrestanding but it constitutes only half of the personality and it comes with one crippling flaw - it surveys information in the same way a camera captures images taken in the world. The image contains an exact replica of what has been 'scanned' in a state of rest... meanwhile the actual world is constantly in state of motion.

Thus what the rational mind misses is a whole dimension of the universe - motion (aka interaction) - which happens to be the process behind most members' here's intuition (N) function.

And with this realization we can rest knowing these "other" dimensions are indeed possible, at least in theory.

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
Click to expand...

Indeed, except facts belong to the rational mind, again, and hence the same limitation applies.
 
jkxx said:
As I am getting quite obnoxious will excuse myself (with another apology) for some of the recent posts. Feel free to delete them.
Click to expand...
I don't know which posts you're referring to. Your last post (about Sagan) wasn't obnoxious at all. :blush: I promise I will get back to you. I have a bit of a full head at the moment. Need to unload some thoughts first. :sweatsmile:
 
Pin said:
An age characterized by its reason and low tolerance of nonsense.
Click to expand...

derrida-1.jpg
 
I'm saving this post. Fascinating.

I'm a bit of a dunce -- out of college for 13 years.

jkxx said:
thank you for including the paper. I had read it years ago but other than taking it for granted (a mistake) then had forgotten the content.
Now let's look at what Sagan wrote.

Indeed - and this doesn't just mean science vs science but science vs religion to all the better get a complete perspective. However we owe it to the science alone to have the freedom to do this nowadays - authoritarian "religion" has not allowed it in the past except, perhaps, in ancient Greece and/or Alexandria.

My point about not taking Sagan's words for granted here. But this is also the single most important reason to study science and to make sure we do our utmost to promote it to as wide an influence as humanly possible. Science frees the rational mind from wishful thinking and untruth and is our only tool for understanding ourselves and our universe.

Indeed.

This is where Sagan makes a critical error. And it is not a logical error either. The rational (conscious) mind is indeed the tool we must develop before we can reason, communicate, and understand the world around us. It is our first step toward complete undrestanding but it constitutes only half of the personality and it comes with one crippling flaw - it surveys information in the same way a camera captures images taken in the world. The image contains an exact replica of what has been 'scanned' in a state of rest... meanwhile the actual world is constantly in state of motion.

Thus what the rational mind misses is a whole dimension of the universe - motion (aka interaction) - which happens to be the process behind most members' here's intuition (N) function.

And with this realization we can rest knowing these "other" dimensions are indeed possible, at least in theory.

Indeed, except facts belong to the rational mind, again, and hence the same limitation applies.
Click to expand...
 
:) Really? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit on what made it seem fascinating (well maybe after reading it if you want to refresh yourself.)
(I value NTs thoughts on this because it is an 'unnatural' subject and because the arguments would not be ones I would ever think of myself.)
 
jkxx said:
:) Really? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit on what made it seem fascinating (well maybe after reading it if you want to refresh yourself.)
(I value NTs thoughts on this because it is an 'unnatural' subject and because the arguments would not be ones I would ever think of myself.)
Click to expand...

I'm too sleepy right now. :)

ok, a brief start

Well, briefly, can you elaborate here?

Thus what the rational mind misses is a whole dimension of the universe - motion (aka interaction) - which happens to be the process behind most members' here's intuition (N) function.
Click to expand...
 
Me too so will be short for now... writing astrology stuff all evening last night and not sleeping did me in :)

Sure - like

intsens.webp

See how N has a vector-like arrow pointing forward - instead of going from A to B to C to D (S) we just run through all combinations and get a feel (or concept) of the relationship between them - this "going through all combinations mentally" is N in action. Basically we think out of the box and not necessarily in a linear way.

I think the fact that 75% of the world is S and the ideas we are presented with (as well as education designed for S) has a negative effect on both NFs and NTs as the way we learn is not the same as for the Ss - I'm sure this makes sense to you.

**The motion is again the mind making alternate connections between the different entities/things/ideas (abstracting) rather than just taking them for what they are literally.
*typoed
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top