Quote:

Ultimately there is a universal truth. The problem is that all of us are human beings, and so for us to get to that universal truth is not necessarily something we’re inherently capable of.

---

sudly said:

Words from a forensics man,

Quote:

Ultimately there is a universal truth. The problem is that all of us are human beings, and so for us to get to that universal truth is not necessarily something we’re inherently capable of.

---

---

laughingdog said:

When in a state of being, or wonder, or love, or appreciation, of course, so called ultimate truth" is not a problem. It is just a straw-man for intellectuals who are more dead than alive, to get tangled up in, so they can stay half dead and feel safe from the excitement of life.

---

redgreenvines said:

in forensics, the kind of truth is specifically related to determination of guilt, in which case, evidence is gathered, analyzed, presented, and evaluated using logic to help determine if a specific thing happened in a specific way.

while trying to be the whole truth, it can at best work with evidence and determine enough truth to tell a credible story that firmly establishes a essential facts which cannot be refuted. i.e. no alternative facts - no alternative truths, unqualified exposure of a crime.

finally, with forensics, all the evidence has to be lawfully collected or the matter can be dismissed and no justice will be done.

---

sudly said:

What’s it mean when truth is subject to a reference?

---

DividedQuantum said:

If there were no such real thing as truth, nothing we say in this thread can have any meaning. Whether you want to assert the truth, or deny it, if it didn't exist you couldn't meaningfully do either. So we're either simpering and muttering incoherently, or there are knowable truths toward which we are pointing. Imo, language is not superfluous.

---

Quote:

This frame of reference then, the frame of reference of I, the Observer, of Self who Perceives from the absolute ontological place of Me, is going to be the epistemological primary; the irreducible reference for defining the Truth of what he observes.

---

This means absolutely nothing U gosh darn potato.

Photosynthesis is a Chinese hoax!

DividedQuantum said:

Do you think it is possible to perceive truths above and beyond reason? For example, on certain strong psychedelics, under the right circumstances, we can perceive truths that are not ordinarily available to the rational mind, but they can be true nonetheless. There are plenty of non-ordinary states to which this notion applies. Do you not find this to be the case?

---

DividedQuantum said:

Do you think it is possible to perceive truths above and beyond reason? For example, on certain strong psychedelics, under the right circumstances, we can perceive truths that are not ordinarily available to the rational mind, but they can be true nonetheless. There are plenty of non-ordinary states to which this notion applies. Do you not find this to be the case?

---

akira_akuma said:

yes.

i believe they have to do with similar communication we make in dreams.

however...these 'flashes' of light, insights [thru inward sound], seem to be connected to the Schumann Resonance, and Gamma [& Hyper-Gamma] brainwave frequencies (whereas dreams are more associated with Delta and Theta brainwave states) - also what might be involved are what is called 'cryptochrome'.

---

Quote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656447/

---

Quote:

There's also been evidence in recent years that, in birds, the cryptochromes in their eyes are responsible for their ability to orient themselves by detecting magnetic fields, a sense called magnetoreception.

---

Quote:

ratiocination precedes empiricism

---

Quote:

And to that I say, in other words, we interpolate, extrapolate, and eventually articulate on sensory information.

---

Quote:

The intensity of and interpretation of our sense experiences can and does differ, however again, I can not see eye to eye on your claim of us not sharing sense organs, in rational regard.

---

Quote:

the basis of scientific inquiry is peer reviewed experimental evidence; it is not ratiocination (which is actually the basis of mysticism and argument).

---

Quote:

conlusions reached by scientists are subject to interpretation (they are ratiocination as are mystical interpretations)

---

says you.

Quote:

but good experimental documentation paves the way of understanding which can have lasting value after antiquated views are quashed.

---

Quote:

yes, but the information is there prior to our sensing them, q.e.d.

---

Quote:

’t ratiocination just reasoning? q.w.u.d

---

Quote:

We are not an amalgamation or blob and it’s facetious to bring up because it’s obviously not what was meant.

---

Quote:

Separately conceived sense organs work in the same ways is what I’m pointing out.

‘Different interpretations of sensory experience’ is far more appropriate IMO.

---

Quote:

This is curious because I’m not sure if you just mean memories? Because while we take in sensory information, we do also accumulate memories of said information.

---

redgreenvines said:

ok, since you redefine words to your own liking, I'm gonna be "like, who's akira_akuma", you are on fake ignore, which is less than actual 'ignore this user'.
nobody has ever earned this distinction before.
you are uniquely ignorable.

---

Quote:

Maybe there’s a balance between rationalism and empiricism, like nature and nurture.

---

Quote:

Does one of us sense that fires are hot and the other not?

---

Quote:

Uncontactable tribes do have well developed languages, it’s just that they’re not English.

---

Quote:

Some tribes are defensive, some, like the Aboriginals of Australia where rather welcoming at times. There was initial fear of a whole new kind of person waltzing into their land, but over time forms of communication where channeled and trades formed.

---

Quote:

The settlers being settlers however did eventually decide they were going to settle everything and so they did, taking over and killing any who opposed.

---

Quote:

They may not have had the same technologies though they weren’t required for their lifestyle. It’s not to say they didn’t have the capacity to develop technologies, but there was no driving force or requirement within their nomadic life styles.

---

Quote:

One thing that’s interesting is that when an uncontacted tribe was finally met by the white man, they showed them all their technologies and the tribes people were mostly nonchalant. It wasn’t until they brought forward a lighter that they were in awe, because it was one of the only things that made their life easier, being able to make fire with the flick of a finger.

---

Quote:

In the end we reason our conclusions. That doesn’t take away from them or mean they are not true. What is true is that they can change, that is, when new reason comes to light, with all its supporting backbone.

---

Quote:

I asked a question and you avoided it like the plague.

---

Quote:

you used ratiocination to make that claim- not empirical data. because of the very fact that there is no difference in the qualia of sensation that is relevant [like asserting the necessity for testing a phantom limb for the selfsame type of analysis of the sensorium, postulated for testing actual limbs [or perceptions]- ie, it's absurd otherwise to assume one needs empirical data to make such a judgement claim, when obviously, you do not.

---

Quote:

Tribes not use English.. clicking fine too.

---

Quote:

Some shamans incite violence, like how they want to eat the ‘magical’ body parts of albino black people in Africa to this day.

---

Quote:

The passionarity of the settlers was conquest.

---

Quote:

What does ethnicity or tribe matter in this discussion anyway? Different societies and cultures are at different stages of development, and with how you’re going on it’s almost like listening to a Trumpian speech.

---

Quote:

I think you’re relying too heavily on empiricism, at least that’s how it has appears to me.

---

Quote:

It doesn’t seem to me like you’ve brought rationalism into due consideration.

---

Quote:

If it weren’t for rationalism, and empiricism was the leading factor, how is it that we could know of infrared?

---

Quote:

there is no difference in the qualia of sensation that is relevant

---

Quote:

fine syntactical structures promote normative social structures, whereas a lack of fine syntactical structures, limits semantic-expansion, thus limiting the ability of a group [especially cut off from social interaction outside their limited scope of understanding and reality] to side wise proclivities to assert themselves in a communicative fashion.

---

Quote:

didn't say shamans can't be violent.

---

Quote:

i would argue that that is my counter-opposition to you, that you are making assertions that are like those of the empiricist- or rather, that you [unknowingly or not] adhere to them. and isn't that quite the conundrum? if i was right, it would be quite so...

---

Quote:

Statisticians want to abandon science’s standard measure of ‘significance’

What does statistical significance offer?
Many scientific studies today are designed around a framework of “null hypothesis significance testing.” In this type of test, a scientist compares results of an experiment asking, say, if a drug reduces depression in a treated versus control group. The scientist compares the results against the hypothesis that no difference really exists between the groups. The goal is not to prove that the drug fights depression. Instead, the idea is to gather enough data (eventually) to reject the hypothesis that it doesn’t.

The scientist will compare the groups using a statistical analysis that results in a P value, a result between 0 and 1, with the “P” standing for probability. The value signifies the likelihood that repeating the experiment would yield a result with a difference as big (or bigger) than the one the scientist got if the drug doesn’t actually reduce depression. Smaller P values mean that the scientist is less likely to see a difference that large if no difference really exists. In scientific parlance, the value is “statistically significant” if P is less than or equal to 0.05.

When scientists interpret P values correctly, they can be useful for finding out how compatible experimental results are with the scientists’ expectations, Lazar says. Because a P value is a probability, it “has variability attached to it,” she explains. “If I repeated my procedure over and over, I’d get a whole range of P values. Some would be significant, some wouldn’t.”

Because of this variability, P equal to 0.05 was never meant to be an end result. Instead, it was more of a beginning, “something that would cause you to raise your eyebrows and investigate further,” Lazar says.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/statisticians-standard-measure-significance-p-values 

---

Quote:

Was that your answer? Because if so, then what in your view is it that makes our sense organs not shared, or different?

---

Quote:

I don't know if there's a meta analysis on what you've said yet, but it'd be nice if there were because I tend to agree with this statement of yours.

---

that's cool. according to my findings...it's accurate.

Quote:

Then why are you talking about shamans?

---

Quote:

Statisticians want to abandon science’s standard measure of ‘significance’

---

Quote:

"Finally, in societies of nomad-herdsmen, the structuring of a strict and asymmetrical patriarchy occurs. Male status is placed in a clear vertical position above female status, producing the specific social quality of nomadic ethnoses, polygamous without exception, where women are related to as property and the first legal and economic codes take shape, firmly anchoring masculine status as the norm in the social order."

---

Quote:

Australian indigenous society did not have any official chain of command that excluded women, but politically, Aboriginal women were second-class citizens. They were not allowed to use the spear and fight or communicate with other tribes. They did not have any power over their own marriage arrangement and they were kept away from any spiritual secrets of “reproduction” or communicating with spirits.

However, they held power over the food production, which gave them relative autonomy and they had the last word over the marriage arrangements of their daughters. Without disregarding the special socio-political powers that Aboriginal women held, the Australian indigenous society was ruled and control by males, leaving only those positions for women that would serve male domination, not threaten it.

Aboriginal women were more independent than any other European female during the era of the first settlement. They had a position in the indigenous society that was invaluable, with responsibilities as vital as food production and as powerful as control over betrothal, while their Victorian era counterparts were only trained in table manners and in how to look beautiful while standing next to a man. At the same time, Aboriginal women were brutally abused and used as sexual merchandise by their own peers. They did not have control over their own bodies and they were excluded from any major decision-making. The Australian bush was a place of inequality, where the power of the fittest was in control.

The Rule of Law was not observed and in the eyes of the first Europeans the Australian female was living in misery. Nevertheless, the Australian Indigenous society operated for thousands of years, and during that time, geography and social evolution dictated a unique balance of power between the two sexes, giving the Aboriginal women a special role to play, if not equal to men, still fundamental to the structure of the Indigenous culture.

http://australia-day-and-night.blogspot.com/2009/02/aboriginal-women-in-pre-colonial.html

---

Quote:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Maturation is not a process that happens over night, it's a long curb from novice to learned.

The receptacles we have are genetically different but functionally the same.

---