Ixthos

The Way of Kings inworld book, from the Way of Kings?

Whatever the name of the spren is.

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"?

Welcome! Hope you enjoy yourself here :-)

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?

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!

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?

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.

@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.

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.

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?

But what are we perceiving? And upon what substrate is our mind operating? ...

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?

@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)

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.

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?

I don't think Vasher had been to Roshar, but rather had heard of it and that became the inspiration - so not based on something he saw but something he heard. If he has been to Roshar before it could be he didn't realise the significance of spren, seeing them as some sort of native species and not linking them to the concept of investiture. And it also is possible that it is only recently he started to think about spren and evaluate their possible inclusion into the system even if he had known of them before, so expanding his ideas from just BioChroma to investiture, or seeing BioChroma and investiture as part of the same concept where before he thought of them as separate.

@Scarletfox I think you might be my new favourite sharder - you have been making excellent points, I think :-) To avoid the semantic argument, as I have already covered that in my previous post - the semantic argument being about whether truth applies to belief or to fact - and focusing just on belief and fact, I would like to ask a question. Can everyone here clear up one fundamental point with regards to this discussion: Do you believe that things exist that are independent of our minds - indeed, that before humans existed the world in some shape or form existed, with properties and objects, and our coming into existence didn't make those things any more or less real? That is, there are things that exist whether or not their are human minds to understand them?

This is quickly ballooning, and I am feeling a sense of panic at the urge to respond to everyone here, so I apologise if this doesn't seem directed at anyone here, but I don't think I will be able to post otherwise. And likewise I apologise if I repeat something that has been said already - I'll be going back over this post and upvoting later, but for now I just need to say this. There seems to be an issue here between Beliefs and Facts. Two views are expressed here about Truth - the question of which of the two, between beliefs and facts it belongs to, and if we ignore the word truth and focus entirely on beliefs and facts, if facts actually exist. For the first question, the question of which of the two the word Truth applies, that is down to personal usage of that word, and becomes meaningless semantics and circular reasoning if arguing about it. In that sense it is like arguing if the word "plane" means a flat piece of ground or a mathematical surface. Someone can tell the truth, but that is only what they believe and they could be wrong - someone can declare 1+1=2, and that is a fact that doesn't depend on what others think. 1+1=2 is true, and it will always be true, and always was true, even before humans existed. Peas taste disgusting unless turned into a soup is something I believe to be true, but someone could make a dish that contains peas that I like, and that belief would change. Again, this is just asking the question "do you think the word truth applies to belief or to fact", and while I think it should only apply to the latter it has become part of the English language to use it in both, and that annoys me, but so long as everyone agrees on a system its fine, as we still have the words belief and fact to clear up ambiguity. I think truth should only be used for fact, but I also believe people should spell "colour" and "honour" with a u. This is a thing of language and about successfully communicating ideas, and as long as you are talking to someone who knows what you mean (when you say jelly they know you mean the desert and not the spread) that is fine. The second issue then is if facts are independent of beliefs. Consider, for a moment. I have seen a few posts saying "if there is no such thing as a fact, is that itself a fact?" To this person - I could kiss you, and I will be upvoting you later. Not right now though, I'm still worked up and will need to leave this thread for a bit :-P This is very much a key point. Anyone who says "there are no facts, no objective reality, nothing that doesn't come from within you", also has to admit the following: Anyone who disagrees with you on anything isn't wrong - if they think there are facts, then accordingly they are right, because everyone's beliefs are just as valid. Therefore there is no objective morality - no action taken can ever be wrong because wrong is your opinion You cannot disagree with anyone's reasoning, even if it is faulty or contains paradoxes or contradictions, because if they don't think those contradictions exist, then Anyone who suffers from a disease or sickness of harm hasn't actually been harmed, they only think they have been. Anyone killed in a war or suffering any other damage is only experiencing that because they THINK they are, and if they changed their beliefs then - as facts are beliefs - they would be fine. All your problems are because of you, and no-one else, because any actions they take are just the ones you choose to believe they took - and it has to be a choice, because if they didn't Science cannot discover anything meaningful about the world, as anything science discovers, and any mathematical law, any invention, doesn't actually follow the principles discovered, for those discoveries are just "what the scientist believes". Nothing can be proven. History is a lie - if you believe the Egyptians were a race of cats from outer space, then they were. If you believe colonialism never happened, then it didn't. Technology works because of magic smoke. Rhythm of War isn't coming out in a few weeks - it will come out the moment you believe it does, and if I believe it already came out then it did, and you can't say I am wrong, only that you think I am wrong, but your belief I am wrong doesn't override my believe I am right, for if it did that would mean my belief is less valid than yours, no matter who I am or how many people believe me If facts don't exist, is that conclusion itself a fact? That is very much the underlying question. And if someone says "no facts exist other than the fact that no facts exist", why is this an exception? There is, of course, a third definition of Truth, and one that can be proven. That proof is a man who is also God, and will return. That is either truth or falsehood, and if falsehood then I and those like me are the most pitiable people in the whole world, but if it is truth then the One who is True, who knows what is true, will one day remove all confusion and ambiguity.

I was thinking of it more as reversi star wars, but okay :-P :-P [Edit] Rather than make a new topic I'm going to modify this bottom post to provide an update. It looks like several new votes came in after I last checked and so I have incorporated the new percentages into the setting, though that is requiring me to check to see how to better fit them in. I have now closed the poll, but hope to be adding three new topics soon with a new poll, each covering a different subsection for additional feedback. Once those have been completed I will be posting a non-poll post with the setting details, then a new topic for feedback on guiding the plot. Until then I hope you have a great day everyone! God bless!

Ahh! I didn't know that. Thank you :-) I will bare that in mind for the future :-)

I can understand that approach, and it would eliminate the issue of people later voting on the poll once a new topic is made, but it would also likely cause confusion if someone saw something titled 02, and then couldn't find an 01. I'm also worried that deleting the poll wouldn't be enough to cause the system to allow others to vote again, and it might also cause confusion if they see they have already voted on something new. I appreciate the suggestion, but I feel making a new topic and then adding links to it would solve a lot of potential problems - I've done so in the past and didn't have issues with adding links to the site. If you like, I could tag you in the post, and anyone else who voted, so they know when the new topic is posted, if that is okay with everyone.

Addendum to the theory: if Sja-anat is the opponent, then perhaps her method of "writing" is via the corruption of flamespren. If the spren she has corrupted are connected to her, and the spren in the gem Navani found is one of hers, she might be able to remotely apply force to it ... which could also have implications on Glys ... and if she joins the Ghostbloods ....

In this framework they were a legitimate business. But again, legitimate business doesn't mean "nice", or even moral - following the law in your native land (as I think they did?) doesn't mean you aren't the mafia elsewhere. Again, this is with regards to the entire cosmere. So that's why- ... or this. This is a good answer too :-P