Bitcoin Forum
March 26, 2015, 10:29:07 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 203 »
281  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 04, 2014, 07:23:37 PM
There is no thing such as "god".

Read some hawking and dawkins then you will understand why. + read some darwin too. Smiley

Am I the only one that thinks Dawkins is a pretty awful debater?
282  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 04, 2014, 02:55:41 PM
i dont know if science can prove that God exists.. but for me they dont have to prove it because no one can prove the presense of Him

It can't.  This is definitive.  Its scope of exploration and explanation is inadequate by definition.
283  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 04, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
I have used Science as a guide above to prove in the proof that a God (or Creator) does exist.

Care to provide a link to this proof?

All you are doing is showing everyone you are a brainwashed gullible fool.   Undecided
sure it's on page 148  Wink

and I suppose

you view me as "the brainwashed" and perhaps I could view the many as "the deceived".

It's logically impossible for science to yield proof of God regardless of whether he exists.  The best you would be able to do is to find corollary evidence for God in support of some broader theory.

If you're looking to empirical evidence as proof for God, you've got the wrong approach.
284  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Will I forever be penalized on here??? on: December 02, 2014, 04:09:01 AM
you guys are evil. Pure evil. Negative, pessimistic, and quick to judge, and never forgive. you are all probably virgins to.

Of course I plan on paying everyone back, I have been making micro payments on btcjam ever since, despite all the hate I get here.

I honestly hope the new world order throws your asses in concentration camps. Despicable people!

As for myself, I know that my intentions are pure, and people are quick to judge and misunderstand me.





I wanted to get a legitimate business investment, and I was jokingly calling it a ponzi.

But instead of asking for clarification, idiots give me (-) feedback on a damn post before even risking any bitcoins!


And you losers will gamble away tons of bitcoins on stupid scammy bitcoin dice sites.... WOW OMG SO STUPIDDDD!!!


You think I am stupid? GOOD. I HATE YOU! Ha!

You might want to consider a new account and start fresh.  This probably isn't the impression you want people to have of you.
285  Other / Off-topic / Re: (Reddit) Teach me something in 5 minutes or less that would benefit me for ever? on: December 01, 2014, 03:47:10 PM
Wait till somebody pens the 20th post so that your post would be the first one on the very next page, i.e. (or is it e.g.?), this post.

i.e. = "that is"
e.g. = "for example" (better for your post)
286  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 30, 2014, 07:19:58 PM
Excellent the religious morons are turning on each other because of their own contradictory beliefs! Cheesy

Are you going to judge who is a moron without first finding out what they believe?

That is the same prejudice espoused by the "fundamentalists" and radicals.

Your prejudice is different???

If there is no evidence that it's true, I see no reason to hear them out

It's a false premise that evidence is a necessary requirement for knowledge. Evidence yields empirical knowledge, but there also exists knowledge independent of evidence.  

It's an invalid argument to state there is no good reason to believe in something because there is no evidence for it, and in fact all empirical phenomena is a direct consequence of the abstract laws and principles they obey.
287  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 30, 2014, 06:51:38 PM

Why do you feel compelled to "prove yourself?"  I thought you'd feel compelled to prove your belief.


Probably because my 'belief' (as you say) is inextricably part of me. Proving myself and proving my 'belief' amounts to the same thing. You view your theory as a separate entity from yourself, I don't.
I don't change. I don't better myself. Instead I accept full responsibility for myself/the way I am/my 'belief'/my 'theory'.  Smiley




With all due respect, when one takes a position that essentially equates to "we can't really know anything absolutely" for whatever reason, it 'a priori' renders the position invalid.  


There are a few things I would like to say on this comment.

1) I've never said "we can't really know anything absolutely" In fact, I even said that it is possible. You've inferred this from my comments, even though I've specifically addressed this point. That conclusion came naturally for you because it is a defensive reflex.


Unfortunately such a theory can never come to exist, at least not in the sense you're alluding to. At best, you'll get the snake to eat it's own tail which is always acceptable assuming you're 100% innocently content with your theory of theories.

From this comment, it is clear that it is possible for one to "know anything/everything absolutely" as long as one is 100% happy with one's knowledge.


2) Humans' quest for 'absolute knowledge' is in direct contradiction with their way of life. One of the most sacred human motto is "To err is human." These simple words grant humanity the ability to forgive itself and forget its actions no matter how many mistakes, it makes. One of the implications of 'absolute knowledge' is that mistakes would become fatal.


3)Lastly, you don't seem to be aware of the duality of your own comment. You are effectively countering your own proposition.

---> You infer that I made an absolute statement.
---> You rebel against the absolute statement for being absolute.
---> The quest you're defending is an effort to reach exactly that: an absolute statement.  


it's fairly frustrating to be accused of "systematically" avoiding your points just after addressing your previous response point-by-point  Huh



How am I not correct in saying you addressed my points systematically when you yourself just confirmed that you addressed them "point-by-point"?
The only thing that could give this last part of your comment any meaning at all, is if you missed the fact that I actually used "missed/avoided/failed to understand" rather than just "avoided"


Ok gonna take a break now. Enjoy your Sunday!  Smiley


1)  Your belief that proving yourself and proving your belief amount to the same thing seems to contradict your belief that a theory of reality does not amount to explaining reality.  We can actually look to logic for understanding about the nature of relationships between similarities and differences, and in doing so we find that any and all differences *must* arise from similarities, i.e. "real" differences imply reductive similarities (e.g. sharing realness, etc.).  To this extent, at the most fundamental level of reasoning, objectivity and subjectivity, or absolutism and relativism, are the same.  This gives further credibility to the idea of a self-referential theory of reality.

2) All statements that we generate necessitate a presumption of absolutism, and it's impossible to avoid if you want to consider any thought or statement meaningful.  For example, consider the statement "truth is relative" and how it necessarily rides on the back of an unspoken assumption, namely that "it is the absolute truth that truth is relative."  To continue reinforcing the relativity of truth is to reinforce absolutism of the statement.  "Ratio" is the root word of rationale, thereby implying that all rational statements are relational ones, including statements about absolutism.

Denying any statement as absolute in *any* context (and not simply at the highest level of generality) 'a priori' renders the statement irrelevant.  I inferred that you were stating that it impossible to know anything absolutely based upon your statement that "a theory is by definition impossible" coupled with your assertion that a theorist is "unable to apprehend the infinities" that surround him (which isn't much of a concern, anyway).

3) I don't rebel against any statements for being considered absolute.  Absolutism and relativism are considered with regards to context, and I am most interested in the idea of forming an absolute (in terms of its scope of comprehension) theory of reality that is self-relational and describes its self in terms of itself.'

4) I used "avoided" as a catch-all for the other terms you mentioned.  Nevertheless, I responded to each of your points individually, but if you feel there are any I missed or misrepresented, please let me know.  
288  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 30, 2014, 08:45:43 AM
@the joint Well I suppose this was to be expected. Although I never placed any such limit prior to the start of our conversation.
You've systematically missed/avoided/failed to understand every single one of the points I made.

Unfortunately, we're now back to these 2 comments I made earlier in the thread:

Proof exists for anyone who wishes to have it.
Proof is the succulent, seasonless, ever-present fruit hanging from the tree of knowledge. From newborns to centenarians, all are equally well-equipped to pluck it with ease  Cheesy


This limit only exists once you become aware of it. Attempts to contain this limit within a binding set of laws/definitions only lead to perpetual self-questioning and is not recommended lest you should go off on a tangent unbeknownst to yourself.



I do not believe in God and I do not believe in Science. And no, whatever word you come up with, to categorize someone making such a statement, does not encompass me.

The idea of God as a supreme being promotes the concept of "survival of the fittest". Science is the subtle art of restriction, nothing more. Science and religion are exactly the same.
A theory's only purpose is to exert control, whether it be over one's surroundings or other living beings. Any theory is by default impossible. Everything in the theorist's reality is of the same nature as the theorist: infinite. A theory seeks to maintain the theorist as an infinity while reducing everything around the theorist to lesser, apprehensible artifacts.
A proven theory appears to endow its wielder with power, however that is only an illusion as the theory does not truly apprehend the reality of the infinities around the theorist.
Regardless of how much of himself the theorist gives up for his theory, he is always aware of the inadequacy of his theory. With real power out of his reach, the theorist achieves his greatest trick when he is able to convince those around him that his theory is valid. As the newly formed bubble continues to gather faithfuls, the theorist's power over his followers becomes very real. This non-existent power is the ego. Science is borne by such.

I think you'll agree with me that there is no point in me answering the remaining questions. I have absolutely no desire to prove myself.

As it happens, the answers to all the questions anyone could ever ask me are to be found in my comments in this thread  Smiley

My original impression that you are a humble guy still stands and I wish you good fortune in all your future endeavors. (And don't worry, this does not mean that we can't chat anymore  Wink )
 

Why do you feel compelled to "prove yourself?"  I thought you'd feel compelled to prove your belief.

With all due respect, when one takes a position that essentially equates to "we can't really know anything absolutely" for whatever reason, it 'a priori' renders the position invalid.  Furthermore, it's fairly frustrating to be accused of "systematically" avoiding your points just after addressing your previous response point-by-point  Huh

289  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 29, 2014, 10:35:35 PM

1)  You generally mention all these inconsistencies and assumptions, but I haven't seen you mention a specific one.  Would you?


Ok before I even say anything on this, I would like to set up a little scenario/experiment to explore the word 'impossible'. This is the simplest and easiest to understand analogy I could come up with but do not be fooled, if you stay open minded, it should help you resolve the vast majority of tricky questions  Smiley Also keep in mind that 'impossible' only equals to 'limit'.

Challenge: describe the color 'red' to a person of your choice. You are free to use any means you can think of.

Red is visible light with a wavelength of about 650nm.

Quote

Now imagine a world where every living being is color blind and you are the only one to see colors. You would fit in just as you fit in now and you would spend your whole life without ever knowing that you are different. This is an instance of a limit that exists without you ever being aware of it.

In that example, it's possible to become aware of the limit.

Quote
Going up a notch, imagine what it is to be a grain of sand (notice that I didn't say 'what it is like') With all of your senses tending to infinity, you are still not able to apprehend the reality of being a grain of sand.
I'm gonna use this picture I've painted as a simplistic but to the point definition of an infinity (i.e something that cannot be apprehended in it's entirety by the senses. You can chase after it forever but will never actually get there)

Okay, I'm imagining. It sounds like you're talking about shared experience...with sand.

Quote
Going back to your question, for Langan's theory to even make any sense at all, it is imperative that everything within the universe/reality be brought down from their natural state of being which is infinite. 

I'll follow along with this assumption for now.

Quote
I find it curious that he says, I quote "Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself." and then goes on to say "This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality" Where does he situate himself within his statement?
If he considers himself 'a part of the universe', is he not contradicting himself when he says "cannot explain the manifold itself" and then goes on to explain it anyway?

Obviously, I can't speak for him, nor do I prefer to.  However, this passage seems to discuss the issue:

Quote
But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof?  For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level?  Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox.  Voilà: self-reference without paradox!  It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth.  Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”[/i].

Quote
The analogy that comes to my mind is that of a single living cell on an arm that identifies with the body as a whole but cannot explain the consciousness that its interaction with other cells around it help bring about.

I don't think the analogy holds.  Our knowledge of the Universe is born of a linkage between mind and information.  Minds process information in a logical way, resulting in an observably consistent Universe.  A theory of theories explains the relationship between mind and reality, i.e. theorization.  We already partake in this relationship on a continual basis, so it is possible to reflect upon our cognitive relationship via metacognition, thereby objectifying it.

Quote
"which simply tells us what we should and should not be considering." How is it even possible to have a complete theory if there are certain things that should not be considered.

Certain things are topically irrelevant.  For example, any talk of what might exist outside of reality is irrelevant.  If something was real enough to affect reality, it would be included within it.  So, hypotheticals, unobservables, unreals...stuff like that.

Quote
There are countless other inconsistencies but we'll skip those Wink

Okay.

Quote
Ok now to tackle his theory as a whole. The crux of his proposition: he explains everything within reality, (that extends to things he is not necessarily aware of) by a self-including reality.

You don't necessarily need to explain things of which you're not aware if you can explain the nature of conditional phenomena in general.  Things which are logically impossible to be aware of are irrelevant.

Quote
It is not a stupid idea, I guess some would say it's clever, however all he's done is bypass his own sensory/intellectual limits by empowering reality with sentience.

I think it's self-evident that observation gives rise to definition of real phenomena.  A total lack of observation means that information isn't being processed and therefore remains unintelligble, i.e. the information isn't processed into theory.

 
Quote
The important thing he fails to grasp is that he is still not apprehending eternity. He's merely transposed his/the current state from the confines of his physical body/mind to a near-infinite body called reality.

I don't think "apprehending eternity" is any sort of primary consideration of this theory.

Quote
The same limitations that apply to him also apply to the self-including reality. It's like the single living cell, giving up it's individuality and empowering its reality (the whole body) with sentience. But then we all know that the body is not everything, because there is the body's own reality. Same thing, different scale. The serpent twisting to eat it's own tail. His all-encompassing reality will never know of it's own limits if it's not aware of it. A limit only exists once you become aware of it.

It seems that most of your rebuttals assume the idea that reality causes mind rather than working in tandem to beget each other.  I believe this is an appropriate quote:

Quote
Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is
analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect
or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of
an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).31

While this characterization of reality incorporates a circular definition of relevance, the circularity
is essential to the reality concept and does not preclude a perceptual (observational, scientific)
basis. Indeed, we can refine the definition of reality as follows: “Reality is the perceptual
aggregate including (1) all scientific observations that ever were and ever will be, and (2) the
entire abstract and/or cognitive explanatory infrastructure of perception” (where the abstract is a
syntactic generalization of the concrete standing for ideas, concepts or cognitive structures
distributing over physical instances which conform to them as content conforms to syntax).

It should be noted that any definition amounts to a microscopic theory of the thing defined. The
Reality Principle, which can be viewed as a general definition of reality, is a case in point; it can
be viewed as the seed of a reality theory that we have now begun to build. In defining reality as
self-contained, this “microtheory” endows itself with a simple kind of closure; it calls on nothing
outside the definiendum in the course of defining it, and effectively forbids any future theoretical
extension of this definition from doing so either (this becomes explicit in a related principle, the
MAP).

Quote
That's it for today!  Smiley

Okay Smiley
290  Other / Off-topic / Re: becoming suicidal on: November 29, 2014, 12:56:00 AM
It truly amazes me how a troll can get a discussion like this going. Applaus

Wisdom can't afford the luxury of assuming that someone claiming suicidal ideation is a troll.
291  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 28, 2014, 11:06:12 PM

I'm sorry you are having a bad day. But, judging from many of your other posts, it may be a bad life in general.

You don't even make sense when you insult people.  Seriously, what does this even mean?

Quote
Most of us use descriptive, often idiomatic, inexact language to get our points across. The language is, itself, built this way. For example, you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway.

If you change the definition of science then you're no longer talking about science.  Your parkway/driveway nonsense is in no way a relevant response.

Quote
Among those who use descriptive language that is not grammatically accurate, and may include some idioms, is bl4kjaguar. In fact, he/she/it uses such language quite frequently. My response was for him/her/it.

But your response doesn't make sense because you start making up definitions for words.  This has nothing to do with bl4kjaguar.  Your response to him simply doesn't make any sense.

Quote
Sorry that you are getting mixed up through it. Realize that it is a language for bl4kjaguar and not necessarily for you. However, I think that you can determine what I was trying to say if you take a step back and look at the picture. I mean, if you look at a Picasso too from about a millimeter away, you won't have a clue about anything that he was trying to depict.


I'm not mixed up at all as I can clearly identify (which I've been demonstrating) where *you* are getting mixed up, for example when you keep using the words "science" or "scientific method" over and over but keep making up new definitions for them on the fly.

So no, I don't know exactly what you were trying to say because you believe in statements which don't make any sense.  How am I supposed to know what you mean when it doesn't make any sense?  

Quote
By the way, the fact that there are logical and illogical things that happen and exist, doesn't mean that there are no "unlogical" things that more or less happen and more or less exist. Just ask bl4kjaguar.

Illogical things happen and exist?  Lol are you a wizard?  Name one.  BTW, "unlogical" isn't a word.  Quit making stuff up.
292  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: 2014 Proof of Honor (POH) Awards - Official Voting begins December 1st (12/1)! on: November 28, 2014, 10:04:59 PM
The list is unbelievably laughable.  What a useless shill fest.
293  Other / Off-topic / Re: becoming suicidal on: November 28, 2014, 09:30:58 PM
Let's say we are in a concentration camp, and many of the prisoners are suffering from depression. By administering antidepressants that interfere with the natural pathways in their brains, we are able to make them happier and fully functional, so they can continue the slave labour we have set them.  Perhaps the unspoken purpose of such medication is not to make people happier per se, but to make them compliant.

Some common symptoms of depression include:  loss of energy, oversleeping or insomnia, loss of appetite, decreased libido, social isolation and withdrawal,  lack of motivation and/or enjoyment going about your daily routine, increased uncontrolled substance abuse, etc.

When your body is sick with a cold or flu, it provides an immune response.  If you have a fever, it's because your body is attempting to fight the illness.  Consequently, you feel like crap, which is actually a pretty good thing at least in the sense that it makes you want to lay in bed all day, which conserves energy and allows your immune system to do its thing as efficiently as possible.

When you have a mental illness (e.g. depression), there is a different type of immune response which may be described by some of the symptoms of depression I mentioned earlier.  However, they also have the effect of making you feel like crap, which is actually a good thing because, in an ideal world where we can freely choose when and how we address our problems, we most likely should be taking time to focus on ourselves in order to raise our awareness of the decisions we make which may cause or exacerbate mental illness so that we can likewise raise our awareness of ways we can better care for our mental state.  To this extent, Dank is generally correct.

However, we don't live in an ideal world, and we often don't get the chance to take as much time as we want when we want it to address anxiety and depression, or at least not without severe consequences.  We usually have so many other responsibilities that we simply don't have the luxury of dropping everything to take care of ourselves.  Additionally, when people do get time to themselves, most people do the wrong kinds of things.  I would define the 'wrong' kinds of things as passive/escapist activities like watching television, sleeping excessively, using drugs, etc.  Instead, active activities such as exercise, meditation or other relaxation techniques or therapeutic exercises, hobbies, reading, learning, etc. are what help us to grow and progress towards self-actualization.

But, if you have a depressed person who already feels run down and worn out, and who does not have the luxury of dropping all of their other responsibilities, the problem is that it isn't very likely that after attending to all of their other responsibilities they're already struggling to manage that they are going to be motivated to consistently do these "active" activities.  Instead, people usually resort to the passive activities I mentioned because they constantly feel like they need a break from everything.

So, for those people who don't have the discipline or capacity in their current mental state to both adequately fulfill their typical responsibilities and also adequately take care of themselves, antidepressants can help elevate a person's mood throughout the day so that they feel motivated and energized.  

In many cases where antidepressants fail and you see people struggling to ever ween off of them, the problem often isn't the antidepressant itself, but rather that people don't often take advantage of the increased motivation, energy, and optimism and apply it towards engaging in those more beneficial, active activities.  Contrarily, those who do are usually the ones you see who are successfully weened off their medications and continue to maintain a positive mental state by abiding by new, better habits instead of the older habits.

Note*: I'm generalizing throughout.

Our answer to problems is to blame the individual. If a fish is out of water don't put it back, but drive a cannula into its veins and pump it oxygenated blood. We treat people so they are functional in their environment, but maybe they should be dysfunctional, and maybe we shouldn't support that environment. Over one in ten Americans is on antidepressants I read. How did we ever cope in the past?
In the past we didn't live in a dysfunctional society.

Stumbled over an interesting theory recently. Apparently, an underdeveloped amygdala is correlated with mental issues, such as narcissism and an inability to properly judge risk. And the amygdala is stimulated by adversity. Thus, a safe society breeds insanity.

If this is true it would explain most of the problems in modern societies. The increasing number of people on prescription drugs, the rise in mental problems over the decades, the fact that global warming is not being laughed out of polite conversation, the focus on political correctness over facts.

It also follows that the younger someone is the more likely they are to be mentally handicapped in this manner. And since the mind becomes less malleable with age, one could hypothesize that past a certain age there is no helping them.

That's very interesting.  Do you know where you came across this theory?  I would love to take a look at it Smiley
I suspect you wouldn't like the source. But given your background, look up r/K selection theory and work your way from there.

I don't care about the source inasmuch as I'm concerned about the merit of the ideas.  The source becomes more important to me if the ideas stem from methods that I don't fully understand.
294  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 28, 2014, 09:21:28 PM
All the science that can clearly be used to validate evolution, can also be used to validate simple change based on programming due to changes in climate and environment.

Smiley

What about the scientific anomalies that Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike are unable to explain?

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Because someone can't explain something now, doesn't mean that he won't be able to explain it in the future. A hundred years ago, there wasn't enough technology around to go to the moon. Now we can explain how it is done, and also do it.

God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing most of the things He has done. Some of what He has done may be beyond science. The Bible shows that God uses angels to get things done at times. Anyone who doesn't happen to know where the angel came from, yet sees the angel do his work, might call it outside intervention.

Smiley

It's clear by your statements you still have no idea what the scientific method is.

The emboldened statement demonstrates your confusion.  There is one scientific method -- it isn't plural.  From the scientific method we can devise many *experimental* methods, but that's a different topic.

Moreover, the scientific method isn't a means of creating, it's a theory about how we gain knowledge as a result of empiricism.

To say that "God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing..." simply doesn't make sense.

Instead, you seem to be saying, "We haven't yet been able to fully explain all natural processes via the scientific method."  I agree with this statement.

But, then your confusion continues when you say, "Some of what He has done may be beyond science."  And then you talk about...angels?  What the hell?

Brief logic lesson:  Anything that is real exists within the Real Universe.  There cannot be anything real outside of the Real Universe because, if it is actually real enough to impact the Real Universe, then it must be  in the Real Universe.  This includes God, angels, or whatever other phenomena you believe is real.   There is no possibility of "outside intervention."  Again, this is because if something were real enough to intervene from outside the Real Universe, then it would already be in the Real Universe.  Conversely if something is not real, then it cannot intervene in the Real Universe (because it would need to be real).
295  Other / Off-topic / Re: becoming suicidal on: November 28, 2014, 07:59:58 PM
Let's say we are in a concentration camp, and many of the prisoners are suffering from depression. By administering antidepressants that interfere with the natural pathways in their brains, we are able to make them happier and fully functional, so they can continue the slave labour we have set them.  Perhaps the unspoken purpose of such medication is not to make people happier per se, but to make them compliant.

Some common symptoms of depression include:  loss of energy, oversleeping or insomnia, loss of appetite, decreased libido, social isolation and withdrawal,  lack of motivation and/or enjoyment going about your daily routine, increased uncontrolled substance abuse, etc.

When your body is sick with a cold or flu, it provides an immune response.  If you have a fever, it's because your body is attempting to fight the illness.  Consequently, you feel like crap, which is actually a pretty good thing at least in the sense that it makes you want to lay in bed all day, which conserves energy and allows your immune system to do its thing as efficiently as possible.

When you have a mental illness (e.g. depression), there is a different type of immune response which may be described by some of the symptoms of depression I mentioned earlier.  However, they also have the effect of making you feel like crap, which is actually a good thing because, in an ideal world where we can freely choose when and how we address our problems, we most likely should be taking time to focus on ourselves in order to raise our awareness of the decisions we make which may cause or exacerbate mental illness so that we can likewise raise our awareness of ways we can better care for our mental state.  To this extent, Dank is generally correct.

However, we don't live in an ideal world, and we often don't get the chance to take as much time as we want when we want it to address anxiety and depression, or at least not without severe consequences.  We usually have so many other responsibilities that we simply don't have the luxury of dropping everything to take care of ourselves.  Additionally, when people do get time to themselves, most people do the wrong kinds of things.  I would define the 'wrong' kinds of things as passive/escapist activities like watching television, sleeping excessively, using drugs, etc.  Instead, active activities such as exercise, meditation or other relaxation techniques or therapeutic exercises, hobbies, reading, learning, etc. are what help us to grow and progress towards self-actualization.

But, if you have a depressed person who already feels run down and worn out, and who does not have the luxury of dropping all of their other responsibilities, the problem is that it isn't very likely that after attending to all of their other responsibilities they're already struggling to manage that they are going to be motivated to consistently do these "active" activities.  Instead, people usually resort to the passive activities I mentioned because they constantly feel like they need a break from everything.

So, for those people who don't have the discipline or capacity in their current mental state to both adequately fulfill their typical responsibilities and also adequately take care of themselves, antidepressants can help elevate a person's mood throughout the day so that they feel motivated and energized.  

In many cases where antidepressants fail and you see people struggling to ever ween off of them, the problem often isn't the antidepressant itself, but rather that people don't often take advantage of the increased motivation, energy, and optimism and apply it towards engaging in those more beneficial, active activities.  Contrarily, those who do are usually the ones you see who are successfully weened off their medications and continue to maintain a positive mental state by abiding by new, better habits instead of the older habits.

Note*: I'm generalizing throughout.

Our answer to problems is to blame the individual. If a fish is out of water don't put it back, but drive a cannula into its veins and pump it oxygenated blood. We treat people so they are functional in their environment, but maybe they should be dysfunctional, and maybe we shouldn't support that environment. Over one in ten Americans is on antidepressants I read. How did we ever cope in the past?
In the past we didn't live in a dysfunctional society.

Stumbled over an interesting theory recently. Apparently, an underdeveloped amygdala is correlated with mental issues, such as narcissism and an inability to properly judge risk. And the amygdala is stimulated by adversity. Thus, a safe society breeds insanity.

If this is true it would explain most of the problems in modern societies. The increasing number of people on prescription drugs, the rise in mental problems over the decades, the fact that global warming is not being laughed out of polite conversation, the focus on political correctness over facts.

It also follows that the younger someone is the more likely they are to be mentally handicapped in this manner. And since the mind becomes less malleable with age, one could hypothesize that past a certain age there is no helping them.

That's very interesting.  Do you know where you came across this theory?  I would love to take a look at it Smiley
296  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 27, 2014, 08:30:31 PM
@the joint  Ok, I've followed your link and have gone over " Introduction to the CTMU " briefly. I'll tell you this, he doesn't know what he is talking about, it's that simple. His theory is full of loopholes and in no way describes an all-inclusive reality. Any theory that makes use of even a single assumption does not deserve to be acknowledged, his is riddled with them. You'd do well to look elsewhere for your inspiration. His theory can certainly be perfect but for that he would have to give himself up completely for it and even then, it would be perfect only for him.
And that would just take us full circle back to this reality as it is without bringing anything new to the table. The fundamental/fatal flaw with the most all-encompassing human science, mathematics, is that it cannot handle infinities. It simply breaks down into incoherencies at that point. A lot of work has been done in an attempt to patch up this ginormous hole and make it look like it's holding but it's all just that, a cover-up. We have not reached deep enough in our everyday use/application of mathematics to feel the effects of this flaw but it's there. The reason I bring this up is because the universe/reality is made up entirely of infinities. I parted ways with sciences early on while still in high school and have since never looked back. There is no way I'm spending my life studying something that I know is not perfect.

Side note:

I've noticed something that is common with 'intellectuals', they tend to make extensive use of obscure words/terms. I think that's a real shame. If I were to ever write a 'theory of everything' I would make sure that it is as easy to understand as possible. Why? Well simply because it would be a far bigger challenge that way. I would want to have as many people as possible to read and understand it so that I can get as many refutations as possible to test myself. I don't believe in a strict definition for intelligence. People who've never studied any sciences can sometimes come up with thrilling counter arguments. Langan's text will only ever appeal to a minute portion of the world's population. That these select few deem themselves to be the brightest minds on earth is not nearly enough for me. Ideally I would want every living human to have a go at refuting my theory.



You're incorrect when you state it's not possible to prove that a limit of theorization exists and what it might be.  We've already demonstrated it's possible.  As an analogy, draw a tesseract on a sheet of paper and you gain insight into the limits of 3-dimensional spacetime.  The method for exploring these limits involves invoking a higher-language to discuss lower-order languages.  This higher-order language would be hologrammatically the same, but with total syntactic precedence over all lower-order languages.  The reason we can draw a tesseract at all as a model of a 4th-dimensional object is because we invoked our own higher-order language.  In other words, we assumed the vantage point of a 5th-dimensional being observing a 4th-dimensional object in the same way that a 3rd-dimensional being observes a 2nd-dimensional model of a 4th-dimensional object.

So a theory of theories requires a 'prime' language, so-to-speak, which would be hologrammatically the same as all lower-order languages but infinitely greater in that all lower-order syntax conforms to syntactic precedents set by the 'prime' language.

Regarding this, you either have not paid careful attention to my words or you didn't understand what I meant. After reading everything you say here, my statement still stays true.

Ok I think that's it. I don't believe we can reach any further than we already have with this discussion and I'm starting to get bored with the topic. If you have a specific question you would like to have my view on, feel welcome to ask, otherwise I will consider this discussion closed.

Oh one last thing, I've enjoyed this little sparring session, I think you're a nice guy and pretty humble too  Smiley

Yes, I have a few questions:

1)  You generally mention all these inconsistencies and assumptions, but I haven't seen you mention a specific one.  Would you?

2)  You mention that you don't want to study a theory of this nature if it isn't perfect.  Well, empiricism runs into the fallacy of induction, and mathematics runs into the problem of indeterminism (i.e. there's no good way to distinguish between two or more equally-valid theories given a set of conditions).  Philosophical induction isn't perfect in the same way that empirical induction isn't perfect, and philosophical deduction at such a high level of generality generally relies on axioms which are incapable of proving themselves.  If these other approaches don't work, what else do you have in mind?  The point I'm getting at here is that, based upon what you claim you're looking for, it seems there will never be any scientific or purely mathematical theories comprehensive enough to describe reality, and so you'll never spend time studying anything unless you come across a different type of theory.  So, what kind of theory would it need to be in order to compel you to study it?

3) Would you agree that 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale'?  If so, would you also agree that any rational statement necessarily invokes relativism, i.e. that there is no such thing as a purely objective statement?

4) Stemming from #3, if you answered "yes" to both questions, would you also agree that, while there is no such thing as a purely objective statement, objectivity still exists in the sense that any relationships between two or more conditions are bound by a higher-order relational syntax?  As an analogy, consider the relationship between cognition and metacognition whereby the latter objectifies the former.

5) If you've answered "yes" to all questions contained in #'s 3-4, what then is wrong with a self-referential theory of reality whereby a metalanguage is used as an objective descriptor of the language of reality?  For example, if language A1 is capable of acting as an objective descriptor of languages A2, A3, etc..., then why can't we invoke a new language, A', to act as a descriptor of A1?
297  Other / Off-topic / Re: becoming suicidal on: November 27, 2014, 11:49:15 AM
Let's say we are in a concentration camp, and many of the prisoners are suffering from depression. By administering antidepressants that interfere with the natural pathways in their brains, we are able to make them happier and fully functional, so they can continue the slave labour we have set them.  Perhaps the unspoken purpose of such medication is not to make people happier per se, but to make them compliant.

Some common symptoms of depression include:  loss of energy, oversleeping or insomnia, loss of appetite, decreased libido, social isolation and withdrawal,  lack of motivation and/or enjoyment going about your daily routine, increased uncontrolled substance abuse, etc.

When your body is sick with a cold or flu, it provides an immune response.  If you have a fever, it's because your body is attempting to fight the illness.  Consequently, you feel like crap, which is actually a pretty good thing at least in the sense that it makes you want to lay in bed all day, which conserves energy and allows your immune system to do its thing as efficiently as possible.

When you have a mental illness (e.g. depression), there is a different type of immune response which may be described by some of the symptoms of depression I mentioned earlier.  However, they also have the effect of making you feel like crap, which is actually a good thing because, in an ideal world where we can freely choose when and how we address our problems, we most likely should be taking time to focus on ourselves in order to raise our awareness of the decisions we make which may cause or exacerbate mental illness so that we can likewise raise our awareness of ways we can better care for our mental state.  To this extent, Dank is generally correct.

However, we don't live in an ideal world, and we often don't get the chance to take as much time as we want when we want it to address anxiety and depression, or at least not without severe consequences.  We usually have so many other responsibilities that we simply don't have the luxury of dropping everything to take care of ourselves.  Additionally, when people do get time to themselves, most people do the wrong kinds of things.  I would define the 'wrong' kinds of things as passive/escapist activities like watching television, sleeping excessively, using drugs, etc.  Instead, active activities such as exercise, meditation or other relaxation techniques or therapeutic exercises, hobbies, reading, learning, etc. are what help us to grow and progress towards self-actualization.

But, if you have a depressed person who already feels run down and worn out, and who does not have the luxury of dropping all of their other responsibilities, the problem is that it isn't very likely that after attending to all of their other responsibilities they're already struggling to manage that they are going to be motivated to consistently do these "active" activities.  Instead, people usually resort to the passive activities I mentioned because they constantly feel like they need a break from everything.

So, for those people who don't have the discipline or capacity in their current mental state to both adequately fulfill their typical responsibilities and also adequately take care of themselves, antidepressants can help elevate a person's mood throughout the day so that they feel motivated and energized.  

In many cases where antidepressants fail and you see people struggling to ever ween off of them, the problem often isn't the antidepressant itself, but rather that people don't often take advantage of the increased motivation, energy, and optimism and apply it towards engaging in those more beneficial, active activities.  Contrarily, those who do are usually the ones you see who are successfully weened off their medications and continue to maintain a positive mental state by abiding by new, better habits instead of the older habits.

Note*: I'm generalizing throughout.
298  Economy / Lending / Re: would someone give a loan? on: November 26, 2014, 09:30:25 PM
would someone give me a loan of 1000$ in bitcoin for 1 month (1%) if i could give a collateral of 4 btc to an escrow during that month?

So you would put 4 btc in collateral for 3 btc Huh What..

+ Huh I don't get it either. You send 4BTC then the lender sends you... 3?

I'd like to know who the escrow would be lol.

The escrow would pretty much be getting an easy 1% or something in fees.

Is he asking for a USD pegged loan?


According to what's written, it seems that he wants a loan in the amount of $1000 denominated in BTC, in exchange for 4 BTC held in escrow as collateral, and that he wants to repay $1,010 denominated in BTC.  So, everyone is confused because he wants to provide more BTC as collateral than the amount of BTC he is looking for.

This is why I joked that I'd like to know who the escrow would be, because the only way that this deal would make sense is if he is a scammer just waiting to tell us all about some 'trusted' escrow he found.

Hopefully he just typed his request incorrectly and that English isn't his native language  Cheesy
299  Economy / Lending / Re: would someone give a loan? on: November 26, 2014, 09:06:30 PM
would someone give me a loan of 1000$ in bitcoin for 1 month (1%) if i could give a collateral of 4 btc to an escrow during that month?

So you would put 4 btc in collateral for 3 btc Huh What..

+ Huh I don't get it either. You send 4BTC then the lender sends you... 3?

I'd like to know who the escrow would be lol.
300  Other / Off-topic / Re: becoming suicidal on: November 26, 2014, 09:00:58 PM
Tell me how well antidepressants worked out for those people (kids included) that go on shooting rampages after being 'treated' with them.

Pharmaceuticals are basterdized versions of nature's healing plants, all so they can make ridiculous amounts of money off people's suffering and demise.

But put your faith in the trillion dollar pharma industry if you want.  Just remember, antidepressants 'may cause suicidal thoughts'.

Throwing a bandaid on something doesn't heal the wound.  Only you can heal yourself.

Nothing you said here takes away anything from what I said in support of psychiatric medications.  Basically any psychiatrist is completely aware that the only real difference between most medications and poison is the dosage.  But, that's why we have controlled regulation, supervision, and monitoring of these substances.

You have a nasty habit of viewing almost every imaginable topic as all-or-nothing scenarios.  You basically assert that working is 100% bad, pharmaceuticals are 100% bad, natural drugs are 100% good, etc.  This is a childish, immature perspective.

You need to snap out of such a paralyzing view of the world.  Like I said previously, there is absolutely no denying that psychiatric medications have helped millions of people to improve their mood so that they can function better.  You didn't even deny this!  I never denied that psychiatric medications unfortunately cause serious side effects in some people, but so does pot and LSD (which you yourself have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt), fatty foods, hell even water.  You can overdose on water.  It's happened to people.

But you go on saying things which clearly indicate that you didn't actually read anything you're responding to, because all of your stated concerns were already conceded to you -- there's no reason to keep beating a dead horse.  Everyone knows that antidepressants are not ideally intended as a permanent fix, so why keep stating the obvious?  

The point is that, again, there are undeniably millions of people who have benefited from psychiatric medications despite many who have not,  and although it can't be stated for all cases, many of the serious side effects are the result of poor medication management on behalf of either the patient or the psychiatrist.

Edit:  Sometimes a band-aid prevents an unanticipated infection that could result while your body tries to heal itself.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 203 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!