Cognition - Revision history

Ha1vorsen at 00:43, 4 August 2022

2022-08-04T00:43:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 3 August 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:
	The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar. Asserting is wildly different than suspecting. To assert something with no probable cause nor evidence is simply toxic and ignorant. In a work environment, it's even worse.		The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar. Asserting is wildly different than suspecting. To assert something with no probable cause nor evidence is simply toxic and ignorant. In a work environment, it's even worse.

	I'm tired of being around toxic people.		I'm tired of being around toxic people who exist only to satisfy their ego; people who can't admit that they are not omniscient. If I'm forced to live in a world where ego and opinions preside over facts and evidence, then I'm not living in reality.

			In this state, I can navigate any situation perfectly and still find myself faced with conflict due to another person's broken cognition.

			I'm condemned to interacting with these types of people. I'm thinking that the only way I can escape is moving to a new area far away from my present state.

Ha1vorsen at 00:35, 4 August 2022

2022-08-04T00:35:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 3 August 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. '''Everything happens for a reason''', no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why. Those answers will never be influenced by a personal ego nor opinion.		Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. '''Everything happens for a reason''', no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why. Those answers will never be influenced by a personal ego nor opinion.

	The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar. Asserting is wildly different than suspecting. To assert something ~~without probably~~ cause nor evidence is simply toxic and ignorant.		The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar. Asserting is wildly different than suspecting. To assert something with no probable cause nor evidence is simply toxic and ignorant. In a work environment, it's even worse.

	~~And~~ I'm tired of being around toxic people.		I'm tired of being around toxic people.

Ha1vorsen at 00:34, 4 August 2022

2022-08-04T00:34:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:34, 3 August 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. '''Everything happens for a reason''', no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why. Those answers will never be influenced by a personal ego nor opinion.		Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. '''Everything happens for a reason''', no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why. Those answers will never be influenced by a personal ego nor opinion.

	The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar. Asserting is wildly different than suspecting.		The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar. Asserting is wildly different than suspecting. To assert something without probably cause nor evidence is simply toxic and ignorant.

			And I'm tired of being around toxic people.

Ha1vorsen at 00:33, 4 August 2022

2022-08-04T00:33:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 3 August 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:
	And it is highly disappointing when I watch it occur to people who are much more competent than I, despite evidence explicitly disproving their statements.		And it is highly disappointing when I watch it occur to people who are much more competent than I, despite evidence explicitly disproving their statements.

	Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. '''Everything happens for a reason''', no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why.~~And those~~ answers will never be influenced by a personal ego nor opinion.		Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. '''Everything happens for a reason''', no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why. Those answers will never be influenced by a personal ego nor opinion.

	The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar.		The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar. Asserting is wildly different than suspecting.

Ha1vorsen at 00:31, 4 August 2022

2022-08-04T00:31:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 3 August 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:
	And it is highly disappointing when I watch it occur to people who are much more competent than I, despite evidence explicitly disproving their statements.		And it is highly disappointing when I watch it occur to people who are much more competent than I, despite evidence explicitly disproving their statements.

	Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. Everything happens for a reason, no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why.		Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. '''Everything happens for a reason''', no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why.And those answers will never be influenced by a personal ego nor opinion.

			The type of person who asserts what they have no basis on is the only type of person I despise as much as a willful liar.
	~~And that answer has nothing to do with~~ a ~~personal ego or opinion~~.

Ha1vorsen at 00:29, 4 August 2022

2022-08-04T00:29:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 3 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	From day one, everyone can only interpret the world around them. This eventually causes us to conclude on said interpretations based on our own personal experiences.		From day one, everyone can only interpret the world around them. This eventually causes us to conclude on said interpretations based on our own personal experiences.

	~~Which is~~ such a ~~naive~~ pit to fall into.		It's such a naïve pit to fall into.

	The difference between a theory and a law lies in the fact that a law describes ''what'' happens, and a theory describes a possible interpretation or explanation as to ''why'' an event happens. ~~The existence~~ of a ~~theory can only be tested via systematic~~		The difference between a theory and a law lies in the fact that a law describes ''what'' happens, and a theory describes a possible interpretation or explanation as to ''why'' an event happens. Theories generated in a split second based off of what little evidence exists cannot be used for a conclusion. So why do people assert things without bothering to look at evidence that immediately contradicts their conclusion?

	The machinations of the world that you're interpreting are not prescriptive; you don't "assign meaning" after the fact. Everything you see around you can only be described as descriptive.		The machinations of the world that you're interpreting are not prescriptive; you don't "assign meaning" after the fact. Everything you see around you can only be described as descriptive. And being exposed to people who continually make assertions based off of empirical evidence and personal laziness is becoming toxic to me.

	~~Things~~ have to make sense by default~~. They can only not be possible by a misguided or uninformed viewpoint~~. Should events not have been possible, they would have never happened. Everything happens for a reason, no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be.		And it is highly disappointing when I watch it occur to people who are much more competent than I, despite evidence explicitly disproving their statements.

			Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. Everything happens for a reason, no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why.


			And that answer has nothing to do with a personal ego or opinion.

Ha1vorsen: Created page with "From day one, everyone can only interpret the world around them. This eventually causes us to conclude on said interpretations based on our own personal experiences. Which is such a naive pit to fall into. The difference between a theory and a law lies in the fact that a law describes ''what'' happens, and a theory describes a possible interpretation or explanation as to ''why'' an event happens. The existence of a theory can only be tested via systematic The machin..."

2022-08-02T22:25:56Z

Created page with "From day one, everyone can only interpret the world around them. This eventually causes us to conclude on said interpretations based on our own personal experiences. Which is such a naive pit to fall into. The difference between a theory and a law lies in the fact that a law describes ''what'' happens, and a theory describes a possible interpretation or explanation as to ''why'' an event happens. The existence of a theory can only be tested via systematic The machin..."

New page

From day one, everyone can only interpret the world around them. This eventually causes us to conclude on said interpretations based on our own personal experiences.

Which is such a naive pit to fall into.

The difference between a theory and a law lies in the fact that a law describes ''what'' happens, and a theory describes a possible interpretation or explanation as to ''why'' an event happens. The existence of a theory can only be tested via systematic

The machinations of the world that you're interpreting are not prescriptive; you don't "assign meaning" after the fact. Everything you see around you can only be described as descriptive.

Things have to make sense by default. They can only not be possible by a misguided or uninformed viewpoint. Should events not have been possible, they would have never happened. Everything happens for a reason, no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be.