• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

754 Elantrian

About Ixthos

  • Birthday 01/30/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,519 profile views
  1. Indeed! It's been a while since I've taken meds, I've been trying to do without them, but it's hard. I don't like to feel that the only reason I can function is because of medication. Do you watch any of the videos on YouTube "How to ADHD"?
  2. Welcome! Hope you enjoy yourself here :-)
  3. Happy to help :-) Would each minor effect on another person then be repeated more strongly on the user for the powers that apply to the person using the power? So Would the secondary effects of Blatant on oneself to make you stronger mean that Daring would make the person it is used on also stronger, only less so in proportion to how it has a reduced effect on their mental state?
  4. Hello fellow ADHDers! How are you? What is your story? How do you cope, and do you need encouragement or support? Do you have any resources that might help another ADHDer, or are you looking for advice? God bless you and your brains!
  5. Do they have secondary effects, so Cower makes you able to sense danger and move faster, or it mainly affects how one feels? How is it gained or how does someone use it? How does someone learn how to use the abilities, and how are they commonly used?
  6. They know there would be 16 metals, but not what all those metals were. 16 was seen as a significant number, and so even though they only knew of 10 for most, and aluminium by the obligators, the obligators didn't know the other metals, only that they would exist.
  7. @Scout_Fox That's a fair take on it :-) I think we probably have views that are fairly similar on this, its just where we disagree that makes the point of friction. I would content the scientific knowledge we have gained about the world probably indicates that we can gain at least shades of the truth from observation of the world, if not the entire picture, or else the modern world wouldn't be able to function, but I also think it is important to remember that, as in the matrix and in the cave, someone could in theory be removed from the system, unshackled from the wall or given eyes to see and hands to touch by someone who lives in the real world and sees it as it is, and then returned to the system now with knowledge. Within the cave or the matrix we can't know truth, but when truth comes from outside and touches us, then we can know - just as we live in a world of subjective experience, so to could there beings of objective reality - I am not making a case that they do exist, only that they could - which could bring that experience to us. A 2d creature could never imagine a 3d world, but a 3d creature could bring knowledge of the 3d world to the 2d creature even if the 2d creature can't directly understand it. And, after all, maths, while initially proven with our eyes, is still something we can intuit within our own minds such that even without externel validation I think one could devise its rules even if one never learned of the existence of real world objects to count. Mathematics - for any given axioms and interactions of axioms - at least seems to transcend the physical, and might well apply across worlds, and that then is something that can be known and work in both the subjective bubble of the mind and the objective world those minds exist in.
  8. Don't worry, while I'm not following this thread with the notifications I am keeping tabs on it :-P I did have to go to bed though. The issue comes in with making absolute statements. "All ravens are black" is an absolute statement, as is "All ravens are white". A single white raven if we say all ravens are black, or a single black raven when we say all ravens are white, means those statements are wrong. However, the statement "some ravens are black" is true if there exists a single black raven, no matter if the rest look like an artist's studio. "All ravens are black" and "All ravens are white" are absolutes - "I know we can't be sure of anything", "I know we can be sure of everything" are both absolutes, and if their internals contradict themselves then they are wrong by their own logic, which applies to knowing we can't know. Saying there are things we can know is free from this, because it also means you can say there are things we don't know - the problem comes in when looking at the edges, not the centre. "I'm certain it's possible to be certain" doesn't mean you are uncertain on any given topic, only that you accept it is possible to be certain. "I'm certain cars use fuel" means that you reject the idea cars don't use fuel, not that you think they might not need anything. That version is again an absolute statement: "there is no objective truth (perhaps "that we can find") beyond our subjective reality" is nevertheless an objective statement, much like the raven question, because it is making a declaration about objective and absolute truth (truth being fact in this definition). A better one would be: "It might not be possible to find an objective truth beyond our subjective reality" as it doesn't make a straight declaration about absolute truth, but rather deals in possibility, and doesn't try to make a claim about how reality actually is, only how it might be. Basically, any statement that says both: This is a fact about reality (A) You can't state facts about reality(B) Doesn't work because it becomes: The bottom statement is true (A) The top statement is false (B) It destroys itself. You can have one, [This is a fact about reality] that can then be evaluated to be true or false (true meaning fact) by how well it stands, but the presence of the other undermines itself. Oh, I agree with the first part :-) to use the go to example in modern fiction, if we were all stuck in the matrix, all believing the simulated world was reality, it wouldn't change the fact that what be believed to be real was not the fundamental reality. And if we were never unplugged, or our brains were wired in, it is probable we could never figure it out. But it wouldn't change the fact that our bodies would still be somewhere, or our brains somewhere, even if they could never detect that place - it isn't ultimately a question as to whether we can or can't know it, but rather as to whether it exists. As to the second, I'll answer your question with a question - is that statement itself an objective truth? :-P That was kind of my point in my first post - that there are two possible ways of taking the question, being as whether it applies to belief or fact, and the second interpretation being the question as to whether facts exist or only beliefs.
  9. What it means is that you can't be certain you can't be certain - which means you should hold the possibility that you can be certain. If you can't question your scepticism then you are saying your scepticism is ultimately a knowable truth, meaning there are things that are true - it undermines and destroys itself. It is one half of the lairs paradox. It cannot be true because if it is true then it would mean it is false, and if it is false then it means it isn't true. Or, to put it in other words, can you say with absolute certainty that you cannot know anything with absolute certainty? [Edit: To be clearer: "Is the statement 'We can't know anything for sure' something we know for sure?" If No, then there is no issue - the statement is either false or we aren't sure about it, and so we know there are things we can know for sure - there are things that are certain OR at least we know there are potentially things that are certain, as we are allowed to doubt our doubts If Yes, then that means we know that the statement 'We can't know anything for sure' is a certain statement But if we know that the statement 'We can't know anything for sure' is a statement we are sure of, that means we are sure of something therefore the statement is false, and we flow back to no so No, thee statement is false, and so we know there are things we can know for sure - there are things that are certain ] In any event, the main point is this - is there something out there, whether or not we can know anything about it?
  10. But what are we perceiving? And upon what substrate is our mind operating? ...
  11. Can we know that with any certainty? ;-) Even if, as you argue, we can't be sure we can know reality, do we all still agree that reality exists? Something we see dimly, as though through a glass darkly?
  12. @robardin Thanks for that quote - it does help clear a few things up :-) Though it does make me wonder, if they actively recruit from other organisations do they have a hidden base of operation in the greater Cosmere or Silverlight, or a well-known meeting place where others can go to willingly join? Presumably the former, especially if they actively evaluate potential members before they can join, but possibly the later? (Also, as a heads up, the poll is set up to allow for selecting multiple entries, so you can vote for all three of Secret Society, Mafia, and Cult)
  13. Those are fair points, but you are assuming Silverlight is just a research body rather than a community containing research facilties. Silverlight could well be a city state with a military, trading hub, court of law. Silverlight could just be a place of learning, but that doesn't mean it only is a place of learning. Likewise investiture could be like melange from Dune - the most valuable resource, the most prized, but not the only thing worth trading, nor the only currency. Besides, if Secret History showed anything, it was that other groups have a way to channelling investiture away from its planet of origin, not just the Ghostbloods. Roshar isn't the only potential source of investiture that could be commonly used in Silverlight. Also, again, there are assumptions in that statement about the geography of the cognitive realm. There could only be a few paths one could take, the rest "mountainous" or blocked off, or simply folding in on themselves to form a straight path from one world to another with all paths bending to become one, and that one can be tolled. There isn't enough data to say that Silverlight is only a university or series of universities, or that the cognitive realm allows unlimited paths from one planet to another, or that Rosharan investiture is the only currency.
  14. How do you know there isn't some governing body in Silverlight that administers world hoppers and is analogous to the British Empire, only operating in the shadows? I am not saying there is, but on what basis do you say the Cosmere doesn't have some ruling body operating in the Cognitive realm as a nation?