Yo waddup

0 2017-12-04 by CybergothiChe

I would just like to address the issue that many people have brought to light in this subreddit, and that is, in essence :

"are you fucking retarded, suggesting that..." :

choose an option

  • the earth could be flat

  • the sky could be a dome

  • the earth could be hollow and we are living on the inside

  • the space program is a giant conspiracy and we never landed on the moon

  • there are Nazis inside the earth

  • there are secret Nazi bases in Antarctica

  • there are secret Nazi bases on the far side of the moon

  • the South Pole doesn't exist

  • The Man is blurring out great sections of Antarctica on GoogleMaps

  • Mars cannot be proven to exist

  • it is possible to divide by zero

  • the mandela effect is the result of us being in a computer simulation

  • math cannot falsified, therefore nothing can be proven

  • we are trapped in a cyclical universe

  • science can be considered a religeon

  • nothing can truly be proven

  • The Man is hiding the existence of any or all of the above

I would like to point out that I am not only questioning the beliefs held by the establishment, and by the greater majority of humanity, but also questioning my own beliefs at the same time.

I am doing so by employing the Socratic method as opposed to the scientific method you are all probably used to.

Indeed there is mountains of evidence to prove these claims are not true, and the weight of evidence supports this, but what about the proof of the evidence?

How can it be proven that the evidence which proves the claims are not true itself is true?

And thus lies the paradox.

Nothing can truly be proven to exist.

I know what you're thinking right now :

"fuck off mate, go post this shit on /r/im14andthisisdeep "

consider this.

https://i.imgur.com/eATtmpn.png

Now, is that a case of coincidence, serendipity, predestination, retrocausality, or did the collective will of everyone thinking what I am saying, and having the idea in the collective conscience cause this to happen?

Or, am I the only being in existence, and all my experiences are just myself experiencing myself, and in so doing, I have just trolled myself?

Can you show why any of these cannot be more true than the others?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

The Socratic Method, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions .

[It] is a method of hypothesis elimination , in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions .

The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs.

The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic [and explore] definitions .

Socrates generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to lack any concrete definition.

Such an examination challenged the implicit beliefs, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies.

In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself professed his ignorance, but others still claimed to have knowledge.

Socrates believed that his awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than those who, though ignorant, still claimed knowledge.

While this belief seems paradoxical at first glance, it in fact allowed Socrates to discover his own errors where others might assume they were correct.

The Oracle of Delphi was right when she proclaimed that :

"no man is wiser than Socrates"

For Socrates knew :

"The only thing we can truly know is that we know nothing ."

.

Thankyou for your time and keep watching the skis!

:)

46 comments

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

80percent of that, does sound fucking retarded

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

smart people sound crazy to dumb people.

dumb people sound smart to crazy people

crazy people sound dumb to smart people

It's a vicious cycle, as you can never truly know where on the cycle you are, as the only thing we can truly know is that we know nothing.

you're obviously not a Rick and Morty fan.

1 LandOfTheFreebase 2017-12-04

Because it requires a high level of intelligence to watch rick and morty?

1 BigPotOfShit 2017-12-04

I think he was joking.

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

https://imgur.com/a/z6nbP

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

rick and morty, takes low intelligence viewers, and makes them believe they are high intelligence viewers. its a cartoon cesspit

1 httr_barbarian 2017-12-04

the last thing any content creator wants to do is isolate his or her audience with an affront to their intelligence.

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

content creater, isnt the network, thats putting the show out. i was kind of pissed that bobs burgers got edited to fit the fox stereotype. sure, the pilot wasnt great, but that smearwed generic feelof a cartoon is horrid. still love bobs burgers, but no where near the sort of level i imagine had it been left to its own thing. This is however, capitalism, so il just rejoice in the fact the show did well, and made some money

1 httr_barbarian 2017-12-04

You're absolutely right - hardly ever is content a 100% match to the creator's vision. And that's mostly due to network or publisher policy and/or treatment.

There once was a day were content creators, producers and actors, alike, would threaten to walk off a set or project instead of bowing to the publisher. these publishers have the upper hand in the final product, these days.

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

even goes to authors of books vs publishers and legal teams. its a censored world. america has its amendment on free speech, so im not sure how these editings affect that amendment (truthfully, i know almost nothing regarding amendments), i would expect it to cover the censorship of content creators

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

damn, you guys got me thinking, what if...

https://na.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7hj4cy/is_rick_and_morty_a_cry_of_truth_disinformation/

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

nice to see other people, gave the same reception, as i did, on your other post. rick and morty is a edgy cartoon. not a hub of truth. either stop smoking weed, or get some education

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

I was born in 1986. I am 31 years old. I was there.

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

that does not explain your constant pushing of rick and morty. you clearly have an agenda,or, a serious fixation with a sub par content cartoon. should you of been born in 1986, how tf you regard rick and morty higher then ren and stimpy, or beavis and butthead?

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

Can't I just like it? A lot?

clearly you have never heard the maxim

"there's no accounting for taste"

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

if thats the epicentre of your communication, it may appear you are trying to sell a product through the subs

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

well I apologise for giving that impression, and will endeavour to keep that in mind in the future, thankyou for bringing that to my attention

That's how we grow, right, by helping each other? :)

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

yeah, no problems. thanks to you aswell. i know own the boxset of rick and morty lol

1 TheoremUKChannel 2017-12-04

im definately not a rick and morty fan.

1 ch0kboy 2017-12-04

Don’t worry about some folks here. I can’t stand arguments and such online. It requires a lot of energy that I am not willing to expend on Reddit. There are rules after rules and then you get trolls, shills and people who want to argue just to argue.

These people are not happy inside and the only outlet they have is the internet.

Don’t mind those people because they no not any better.

1 TotesMessenger 2017-12-04

I'm a bot, bleep , bloop . Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

  If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. ( Info / Contact )

1 ImmortalAl 2017-12-04

Always look at all angles and continue questioning even what you are certain to be true

1 TheMadQuixotician 2017-12-04

Sums it up pretty well.

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

^

If you only take away one thing from this presentation, make it this

:)

1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-12-04

I have another saying to compliment that one:

Prof. Walter Kotschnig told Holyoke College students to keep their minds open—“but not so open that your brains fall out.”

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

Ha! Nice.

Good point indeed, knowing when one has crossed the line to the absurdist...

Have your head in the clouds but your feet on the ground.

I like it

Thanks :)

1 SchticksAndScones 2017-12-04

If I watch my skis, how will I be able to see the skys?

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

wow, what an interesting concept.

if you were upside down you could see your skis and the skys at the same time :)

1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-12-04

How can it be proven that the evidence which proves the claims are not true itself is true?

And thus lies the paradox.

Which only demonstrates the weakness of the Socratic Method and the strength of the Scientific Method.

The difference is, the Scientific Method calls for the formation of an hypothesis, and from that the making of predictions. If those predictions are found to be accurate time and again, we can assume that the underlying hypothesis is at least partially true, and likely usable until a better hypothesis comes along.

While the Socratic Method is arguing whether the the evidence that the evidence that the evidence ... is itself true, the Scientific Method is putting a man on the Moon.

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

I understand exactly what you are saying, yes, indeed, it proves that things are because other evidence also collaborates it, and then, once enough evidence correlates to the idea, it can be said to be true.

Correlation does not equal causation , since it is not absolute proof, just our best idea at the current time, considering the bulk of evidence suggests that it is correct.

And, of course, I understand it can be proven to the nth degree, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, indeed.

But how can the scientific method prove that anything exists at all ?

Can science provide absolute truth?

Can 'I think, therefore I am" be proven?

If not, can you even prove you, yourself, exist?

If you can't be sure of your own existence, how can you be swure of anything external of yourself?

and therein lies the paradox of existence.

:)

1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-12-04

But how can the scientific method prove that anything exists at all?

It doesn't need to - all it needs is to be a useful tool for getting shit done.

Navel-gazing may be intellectually stimulating, it may even lead to a more profound understanding, but the "real world" (whatever that may be) does not wait for anyone. Getting shit done is far more important than understanding exactly how or why - and nothing beats the Scientific Method for getting shit done.

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

Excellently put

Thankyou :)

1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-12-04

I see where you are going with this but how long do I have to entertain the idea that 2+2=5?

If someone tells me an objectively wrong proof that the Earth is flat should I just sit back and let that person spread wrong info?

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

You say

If someone tells me an objectively wrong proof that the Earth is flat should I just sit back and let that person spread wrong info?

I say,

can you objectively prove even the earth exists? yes you can see it, touch it, live on it, here it obviously is, but what tells you that what you experience is real?

getting to the true key issue.

Or, if you can, please show me how you can truly know anything more than you can only know nothing?

TL;DR

Do you know what an

absolute truth

is

1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-12-04

can you objectively prove even the earth exists? yes you can see it, touch it, live on it, here it obviously is, but what tells you that what you experience is real?

Cogito ergo sum

We can argue back and forth about the nature of reality but I guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow and the tax man will want his taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

exactly my point.

and to the man in the street, it makes no difference, but I thought we were on the search for truth

Or, perhaps I have it wrong, and I'm looking too deeply into it.

But I believe that the only things we can truly accept are absolute truths, and the only one of those we have discovered so far is that we can only know that we know nothing.

Everything else is open for debate, and should be.

And my point, at last, we have reached again, why the hate?

ie : "are you retarded? everyone knows that. science says so, look at all the proof" and so on.

The claim is y'all have open minds, yet when I ask, have you considered this, the majority of the responses are of that sort.

1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-12-04

I thought we were on the search for truth

There is no truth in your world view. Makes discussion incredibly difficult if not impossible because we argue what truth means and abstract ideas instead of the distance to the sun (For example)

I'm looking too deeply into it.

I would say so.

"are you retarded? everyone knows that. science says so, look at all the proof" and so on.

Straw man.

I havent called you retarded and Im not responsible for those that do.

The claim is y'all have open minds and be free-thinkers, yet when I ask, have you considered this, the majority of the responses are of that sort.

I tend to see the opposite.

When a FEer (For example) has their beliefs challenged and factually rebuked they tend to fall back on name calling.

Ive been attacked by FE believers before with no malice on my end.

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

cool, then I guess we have come to an agreement.

I can respect your point of view, yeah, there is overwhelming evidence for science being correct. right on.

But obviously we are on different levels when it comes to looking for truth, and that's fine, there is no right or wrong level, just different levels of experience.

If you're interested in that I would suggest looking into Clare W Graves and his work on Levels of Human Existence

http://vievolve.com/values-systems-4/

:)

1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-12-04

That fact that would you write out something like that with a very thinly veiled "I know more than you" shows how little you actually know.

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

that may be your interpretation, but being the author, I can speak on behalf of my work.

I feel I am saying "enough with shoving the same old reteric down my, and others, throats, I won't stand for it. If we are claiming there is a conspiracy, we should be able to look at ALL possible sides, with equal merit, because what is conspiracy to one is crazy to another.

we are all linked by one thread, we believe there may be a conspiracy of one sort or another.

we should be able to act in a descent way towards each other, and not engage in personal attacks and whatnot.

We are all looking for our own truths, and some find truth in different ways then others."

Who do you think you are, telling me what I mean by my statement?

1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-12-04

so far is that we can only know that we know nothing.

That's a bullshit platitude. Meaningless drivel.

If we "know" we know nothing, then we "know" something... right?

And if we can "know" something, there is nothing preventing us from "knowing" other things.

Sure it sounds profound to people who want to believe they are intelligent, but a moment's contemplation quickly sees it discarded into the pile of useless thoughts best left to stoners.

Here is something that will really wrinkle your brain:

The phrase "I know that I know nothing","The only thing I know, is that I know nothing" or "I know one thing; that I know nothing", sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying.

...

The saying, though widely attributed to Plato's Socrates in both ancient and modern times, actually occurs nowhere in Plato's works in this form.[5]

Two prominent Plato scholars have recently argued that the claim should not be attributed to Plato's Socrates.

Evidence that Socrates does not actually claim to know nothing can be found at Apology 29b-c, where he claims twice to know something. See also Apology 29d, where Socrates indicates that he is so confident in his claim to knowledge at 29b-c that he is willing to die for it.

In Apology, Plato relates that Socrates accounts for his seeming wiser than any other person because he does not imagine that he knows what he does not know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

Turns out that one of the things you thought you knew is actually false. In fact, the entire premise of your argument is based on a falsehood.

Neither Plato nor Socrates is ever recorded having said "the only thing I know is that I know nothing" or even a variation of it.

No surprise really, because it is an obviously self-contradictory statement that renders itself meaningless.

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

OMG.

Damn that irony is delicious.

Well that's the other side of the paradoxical statement isn't it?

The only thing one can know is that they know nothing.

An turns out one cannot even know that.

But of course you couldn't, becaus that would indeed violate the initial statement.

Socrates would be proud.

The only suggestion I can make is that, through retrocausality, by the very fact of the paradox, the only way for the universe to be able to handle such would be to change reality.

But even I can see that is a real stretch.

But god damn, if I have created a Mandela effect by looking too deep into the fabric of reality, then I apologise.

However I must say, well done, you have disproven (quite easily it turns out) the absolute truth.

Thankyou for your information and debating.

:)

1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-12-04

Do you know what an absolute truth is

There is no such thing.

You do understand that freedom of expression works both ways? It includes the freedom to offend.

But not the freedom to offend those whose expressions we disagree with?

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

There is one absolute truth.

the only thing we can truly know is that we know nothing.

Of course you have the freedom to offend, with freedoms comes responsibilities.

Such as, if you use your freedom to be purposely offend me here, but you will face win help responsible if, because you did that, a mod banned you (not threatening you in any way)

1 MapleLeaf2015 2017-12-04

Good rant but you fuckered it up at the end there bud

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

did I?

https://i.imgur.com/mmmwJp0.jpg

1 CybergothiChe 2017-12-04

Ha! Nice.

Good point indeed, knowing when one has crossed the line to the absurdist...

Have your head in the clouds but your feet on the ground.

I like it

Thanks :)