|
Well now I know who not to do business with.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey OP,
You're an idiot.
I can't believe you don't realize that freedom is NOT conditional, and that's why it's fucking freedom. You can't fight for freedom or protect it, you evolutionary dead end.
And that's just one of the absurd assumptions in your post.
|
|
|
|
|
Solidcoin is still around?
Geez, get off the short bus and come on the party train.
Are all Solidcoin investors Cubs fans? Because whether it's the Cubs or Solidcoin, believing in either one of them is like believing in Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
Great, I mention something about a diagnosis and now he's a pet.
Behold the power of stigma.
|
|
|
|
Medical treatments are tested through trial and error. Many, many people will die before a useful therapy is discovered.
And as in the case of Tuskegee, many people will die after a useful therapy is discovered. |
|
|
|
I don't know why would people eat things like avocado and papaya when there are better tasting things laying around... like broken glass.
Edit: Oh hey, post 69!
Speaking of 69 and food... lol amen. But seriously, tomatoes. |
|
|
|
Awesome! Just bought 126.8 BTC with my free USD  Thanks!!! |
|
|
|
|
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimitd success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Requires excessive admiration
Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitude
|
|
|
|
My lady gets turned on by bitcoins.... Forget hardware, talk $$$.
+1. Women 'like' my Bitcoin status updates on Facebook, but only if it's profit related. Had one ask to see my rigs and my hash rate. I was happy to oblige. |
|
|
|
I'd prefer the magazine be delayed and look good than to see some P.O.S. 2nd-rate Bitcoin magazine be rushed through production and make the Bitcoin community look like another Occupy Wallstreet movement. |
|
|
|
Haha, you are probably right. But, then again, psychiatrists aren't really trained to be counselors or therapists.
Phycologist = A man or woman who is trained to listen to people with no to mild mental issues, be it temporary or historical, ask questions such as "and how did that make you feel?" or "would you like to talk about your father?" maintain you as a client for an indefinite amount of time and actually make altogether little to no difference into your quality of life anymore than a good friend would. (You can easily substitue mental to physical and get a description for a physiotherapist) Psychiatrist = A man or woman who is trained to write prescription drugs for craploads of money that you can get from the black market for half the price and twice the strength. I kid... I kid... New Yorkers and Londoners would have died out without them... Actually, you're almost spot on. |
|
|
|
I have absolutely no evidence for any type of direct experience other than my own and I never will because no ratio can be established. I can't have an experience other than my own, so what evidence could I possibly have?
What you described is evidence for...physical similarities and a common origin (evident = apparent). It has never been apparent that there is another experience other than my own. So your theory is that even though all the evidence suggests that you and everyone else have a common origin, common characteristics, and similar behavior, you have experiences and nobody else does. What evidence favors this theory over the much more rational theory that people's similar construction explains the similar experiences that explain their similar behavior? All of the evidence you described is dependent solely upon your interpretation of it. I don't know about you, but when I close my eyes, the visible Universe disappears. I can still smell, touch, taste, and hear, but visible reality is gone completely. So, when my eyes are closed, I have absolutely no evidence that a visible Universe exists because I am only left with my 4 other bodily senses. Similarly, my experience is closed. It is apparent and self-evident that I experience, but it is in no way apparent that others experience. But, it is apparent (as you said) that there are others with similar physical characteristics, etc. Those things are observable. There is no way to observe another experience, and observation is the basis for the scientific method. Edit: By the way, even infants know that when you close your eyes, the visible Universe disappears, or that "mommy" disappears when playing peek-a-boo. |
|
|
|
I have no evidence whatsoever that there is any experience outside of my own. That's complete nonsense. You have the observable similarity in behavior, the physical evidence of common origin, and medical evidence of all kinds. This is an absolutely absurd basis for any philosophy and if you really believe it, all sane people can do is point and laugh. (I'm sure you have silly ways to explain away all these things. But similarly silly arguments can maintain *any* belief against *any* evidence.) When you walk outside and you feel the sun on your face, you have a direct experience of a certain feeling. You might call it warmth. But the feeling itself is no evidence of being warm. Warm is a relative characteristic, and ratio (root word of rationale) is the basis for any intellectual understanding of anything. Direct experience is something different. Pure, direct experience is a unification of the subject with an object. Medical evidence, physical evidence, and observable similarities are dependent on ratio, similar to how you would describe feeling the sun on your face as "warm" (because it feels warmer than a time you remember it being cold). I have absolutely no evidence for any type of direct experience other than my own and I never will because no ratio can be established. I can't have an experience other than my own, so what evidence could I possibly have? What you described is evidence for...physical similarities and a common origin (evident = apparent). It has never been apparent that there is another experience other than my own. |
|
|
|
Now, of course, hypotheticals in general are not generally considered logically valid, but I think (dare I say know?) that there is direct evidence of God (for lack of a better word) and its characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence that is able to be experienced constantly, including right now. I can't imagine any evidence or experience that could suggest something unbounded. Whatever experience or evidence a finite being could have could only suggest finite knowledge, finite presence, or finite power. If you want to argue that human beings can perceive or experience omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, you have to argue that humans are capable of having unbounded experiences or acquiring unbounded evidence. That seems like self-contradictory nonsense to me, but I suppose that probably doesn't bother you since you reject the very concept that something could actually be impossible. Hey, all I know is that I'm limited to my experience. I have no evidence whatsoever that there is any experience outside of my own. Now I'm not saying I don't believe that you, for example, don't exist -- I think you do exist. But, my mind (and I'm guessing yours as well) seems to have the characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence if you consider that there is no possible way to prove any experience outside of my own. I feel I have little evidence of this now, but I've experienced good evidence of this in meditation. Direct experience is the purest form of knowledge. If this holds true for a number of beings, then those beings are grouped under this common syntax. This also applies to anything capable of being distinguished from something else -- that is, any and all differences are created under a common syntax of difference. Assuming you and I both exist and we are different, then we are grouped together under a common syntax. I personally believe in a holographic Universe. When you take a piece of holographic film and cut a square from it that has 1/4 the area of the full image, you aren't left holding 1/4 of the image, but 100% of the image at 1/4 size. I personally believe God is just like you and me, except at the highest level of syntax. Beings operating at lower levels of syntax would be less free than beings at higher levels of syntax because each level of syntax imposes conditions or constraints upon the ones below it. I think direct experience is omniscience and thoughts are constraints. I think direct experience is omnipresence but thoughts are the constraints. I think direct experience is omnipotence but thoughts are the constraints. I think God is direct experience but reality is its constraint. Edit: And, to be relevant to the thread, this would mean that objective rights exist if the highest level of syntax dictates they exist. Edit 2: And I'm not a Christian, but this is also particularly relevant to the idea that "God made man in his image." |
|
|
|
Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock). Anything that would necessarily be able to do the impossible must necessarily *be* impossible. This had me thinking for quite a while; something about it seemed off to me, but I couldn't initially figure out what it was. Then, I came up with the following. But first, a note about possibility: If event A happens, and if event B did not happen, then event B was impossible (event A did happen -- it was never a matter of possibility). Similarly, if events A and B happen simultaneously, and events C and D did not, none of these were possible. Only C and D were impossible and A and B actually happened. Possibility is simply a word that stratified beings use to describe events that are plausible but are not interpreted to be presently occurring. We might say event x is possible in the future, but "future" itself is another word that stratified beings use -- there is no future, only a relative now. This is what the Theory of Relativity suggests. Any definition of any monotheistic god that I've ever heard of usually includes the characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence in addition to omnipotence. Omnipresence transcends the stratified perspective as it implies presence in all locations in all stratified time slices. But even without the characteristic of omnipresence, omnipotence a priori overrides any argument of impossibility, especially given that omnipotence would also imply the ability to do things like changing the laws that govern the Universe or itself, or simultaneously exhibiting yes/no states (e.g. existing and not existing at the same time). How can omnipotence a priori override impossibility if the scenario involves a being that transcends time? Because in this case, a priori simply refers to higher and lower levels of syntax, not a time event. A higher level syntax will always a priori override a lower level syntax. Infinite, boundless power, is at the highest level of syntax. Now, of course, hypotheticals in general are not generally considered logically valid, but I think (dare I say know?) that there is direct evidence of God (for lack of a better word) and its characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence that is able to be experienced constantly, including right now. |
|
|
|
"Can God move an immoveable object?"
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
think of it more like a koan And here I've been, spending hours flapping my wrist in the air and drawing conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
"Can God move an immoveable object?"
This is an easy question with an easy answer.
If one defines God as "omnipotent," then obviously yes, God can move an immoveable object.
I've heard the question phrased differently:
"Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"
Also an easy question with an easy answer; yes.
"But if he creates the rock and can't lift it, then he's not omnipotent! And if he can't create the rock, he's still not omnipotent!"
Clearly, whoever asked this question to begin with doesn't know what omnipotent means. Omnipotence, or infinitely boundless power, implies that an omnipotent being can also place constraints upon himself such that he is both omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously (e.g. constraining his ability to lift a rock).
Easy peazy.
|
|
|
|
I'm 2 months away from a masters in social work, have a BA in psychology, have about 1200 hours of field experience at 3 locations including ~450 at my current field placement in an adult psychiatric hospital unit.
I have no problem soliciting advice under the guise of an unlicensed student counselor.
Hey, if everyone else hears 'voices', are they normal? And would that make the others abnormal? If everyone is out to get you, are you paranoid? If so, if everyone is out to get your money, are you still paranoid? Nietzsche told me not to drink, Freud told me it's my mother's fault. They obviously never had an Irish Mother. Something tells me, if you switch to Psychiatry over Psychology, you would get 100's of PM's. (just a guess) Haha, you are probably right. But, then again, psychiatrists aren't really trained to be counselors or therapists. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
