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? 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. 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. 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? 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. |
|
|
|
|
The list is unbelievably laughable. What a useless shill fest.
|
|
|
|
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  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. |
|
|
|
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. What about the scientific anomalies that Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike are unable to explain? Evidence for Creation by Outside InterventionBecause 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. 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). |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
@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 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 A 1 is capable of acting as an objective descriptor of languages A 2, A 3, etc..., then why can't we invoke a new language, A', to act as a descriptor of A 1? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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  What.. + 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 $1,010 denominated in BTC. So, everyone is confused because he wants to provide more BTC as collateral than the amount of BTC he is looking for. This is why I joked that I'd like to know who the escrow would be, because the only way that this deal would make sense is if he is a scammer just waiting to tell us all about some 'trusted' escrow he found. Hopefully he just typed his request incorrectly and that English isn't his native language  |
|
|
|
would someone give me a loan of 1000$ 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 What.. + 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality.
Not possible. 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. How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality? There may be a way. For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists). Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself. In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies. Then we could add an instructive twist. Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic. By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe. Regarding the above quote, I've never heard of this guy and I don't want to be rude but right off the bat there are so many things inherently wrong with his proposition that I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that any theory that resorts to 'logical tautologies' for support is a blatant display of desperation. I must say however, that the last line of his text (due to the use of these words 'cognitive, theoretic') paints a slightly more humble picture of the thought processes at play here 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. |
|
|
|
if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality.
Not possible. 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. How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality? There may be a way. For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists). Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself. In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies. Then we could add an instructive twist. Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic. By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe. Regarding the above quote, I've never heard of this guy and I don't want to be rude but right off the bat there are so many things inherently wrong with his proposition that I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that any theory that resorts to 'logical tautologies' for support is a blatant display of desperation. I must say however, that the last line of his text (due to the use of these words 'cognitive, theoretic') paints a slightly more humble picture of the thought processes at play here First, if anything is real enough to be considered real, then it must be a part of the real Universe. To that extent, reality is the only thing relevant to us and the only thing we should care about, and it's nonsensical speculation to discuss what, if anything, could exist beyond the real Universe that could provide sufficient explanatory power to explain the real Universe. So, what choice do we have other than to describe reality in terms of itself? Consider that we are real beings theorizing about reality as a whole or about real parts of the whole. Accordingly, all theories are already self-referential in terms of reality, but only vary in terms of their level of generality. The theory posited by Langan (simplified) is that the Universe is essentially a self-reifying theory. So far as I've been able to explore it, it's a sound theory. You can find it at www.ctmu.org. |
|
|
|
Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself. Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!
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. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is this: An ultimate theory that apprehends all other theories will always be bound by theorist's/designer's own limits. The 'everything' that your theory encompasses will always be what 'everything' is to you and not necessarily what 'everything' is. It should also be noted that if you have not given yourself up completely to your own theory, something that theoretically would only be achievable through complete innocence, then you're back to square one with the original feeling of inadequacy that pushed you to look for a theory of everything in the first place. Great response. You mention: The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is this: An ultimate theory that apprehends all other theories will always be bound by theorist's/designer's own limits. Correct, but this isn't necessarily a problem. All a limit suggests is that it's the best that we can possibly do, and so if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality. However, you seem to claim that such a theory will introduce an unsolvable paradox in which the theory both explains itself but does yield enough explanatory power to explain itself. For this, I'll respond by quoting Christopher Langan: How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality? There may be a way. For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists). Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself. In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies. Then we could add an instructive twist. Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic. By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe. |
|
|
|
I agree with much of this, maybe most of it. A couple of questions that I have revolve around these points. The take-home message from everything written to this point is this: It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it. My question here is, can't there be some evidence, even though it is not conclusive evidence? There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere. So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists? Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer. 'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract. A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge. A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge. Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.
Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration? The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe... and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)... combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe... at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God? As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself. Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 . There's evidence, but what are you evidencing? A lack of absolutely conclusive evidence for something means that you can't conclusively decipher whether it or does not constitute evidence for whatever you think it might be. Imagine for example that every moment of your real life is actually an advanced computer simulation, and then outside of that simulation you're some brain in a jar hooked up to wires that's transmitting the simulation. If that were the case, then perhaps everything that you evidence now is the product of a computer programmer. But, since there is no way to observe outside the simulation while being in the simulation, you have no idea whether you're evidencing the product of a programmer, God, or any other number of things. However, the programmer can conclusively state that everything you evidence is part of simulation, and this is because his scope of observation is greater than the entirety of the simulation itself. But since the scope of observation of a participant in the simulation is contained within that simulation, he will never have access to evidence from which he can draw conclusions about the true nature of the simulation. |
|
|
|
@the joint
I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.
Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol. Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods. The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite. They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are. They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist. Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods. The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist. We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods. The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different. Monotheistic gods are not finite. They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax). Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity. Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe. As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible." The take-home message from everything written to this point is this: It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it. Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge: Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence). In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist. If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM. If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus. There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere. So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists? Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer. 'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract. A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge. A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge. Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge. The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas. So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity. But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god. Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself. Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory! To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god. Your stance is based upon the preconception that a monotheistic god cannot choose to take physical form (ie. a burning bush) and in fact keep such a form if it so desires indefinately. If we all agree that a truely omnipotent being could do anything if it so wills it, then it must be true that this includes taking form of a teapot or FSM. Although we might believe it to be improbable or even rediculous that god would actually choose to do this, it does not make it impossible. Therefore, I believe the FSM analogy is acceptable, however unpalatable. Nope, it's still not acceptable. I make no such preconception. In the latter half of my referenced post, I even state it's probably not a good idea to have any preconceived notions about God at all. Still, you are correct that an omnipotent entity would be a free entity, even free to be able to force constraints upon itself such that it is infinite and finite simultaneously. Jesus is an example. Still, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter with regards to my position because I asserted that 1) no empirical proof of a monotheistic god could ever exist, and that 2) there needn't be any. If we witnessed a talking, burning bush, you can't conclude from that that it is a monotheistic god, even if it tells you "I'm God!" a million times. |
|
|
|
@the joint
I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.
Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol. Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods. The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite. They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are. They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist. Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods. The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist. We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods. The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different. Monotheistic gods are not finite. They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax). Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity. Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe. As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible." The take-home message from everything written to this point is this: It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it. Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge: Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence). In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist. If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM. If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus. There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere. So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists? Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer. 'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract. A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge. A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge. Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge. The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas. So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity. But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god. Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself. Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory! To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god. |
|
|
|
And god whatever you do, don't result to pharmaceutical antidepressants.
Try supplementing your life with natural herbs such as tumeric. A simple change of diet can make all the difference.
Dank, just stop it. There is absolutely no denying that antidepressants have legitimately helped millions of people. Yes, a lot of people experience negative side effects, and in some cases antidepressants exacerbate depressive symptoms, but a lot of the time all that's needed to correct the issue are proper changes to the medication regimen by a psychiatrist. It's incredibly dangerous when you just state this stuff to random strangers whose biology and psychology you're almost totally ignorant about. One of the most common catalysts for psychiatric hospitalization or suicidal behaviors is when people *stop* taking psychiatric medications. In other words, a suicidal or high-risk individual typically reduces their risk while taking their medications, but revert back to being high-risk after stopping their medications. Psychiatric medications are intended to bring a person back to their baseline status so that they can properly address and work through their issues. The eventual goal is to then be weened off the medication so that the positive changes still remain. But please, for the sake of others, don't make Universal claims about medicines and their potential to benefit people. You're not a psychiatrist, nor do you have any clue about the actual properties of psychiatric medications and how they operate in the body. Statistically, the most effective form of treatment is a combination of therapy and medication rather than one, the other, or the absence of both. This world isn't black-and-white like you make it out to be with every friggin' issue imaginable. Not for or against Big Pharma... But i think your name solves the majority of it. You're not a psychiatrist, nor do you have any clue about the actual properties of psychiatric medications and how they operate in the body. Statistically, the most effective form of treatment is a combination of therapy and medication rather than one, the other, or the absence of both.
Are you? Statistically? What statistics? The statistics conducted by who? I am not disagreeing that it is no good to recomend shit you don't know about, however, you're basing your evidence of statistics of what? The generation that publicized reefer madness? The generation that 10 years ago claimed marijuana was going to wipe out society, and is currently legalized in a number of states for its proprietary medical uses, the same ones that studies "claimed" to be false? What studies are these? Are you sure they are transparent? The numbers and studies conducted to support pharmaceuticals and turn people away from other substances uncontrolled? If you are going to ask for merits, please sir, pipe up with your PHD, because as far as i am concerned your promotion of pharma, is notmuch different then the quote you were referring to. My name "the joint" isn't a drug reference. It's more like, "Hey, welcome to da joint!" (Insert Joe Pesci face here). I'm not a psychiatrist. But I have a post-graduate degree in the fields of mental health and social work and I was recently (and may still be) ranked #1 in the United States for both productivity and positive client outcomes in my role as a transition coordinator for a Federal financial assistance program the helps nursing home residents with a history of serious mental illness with community reintegration. I've also worked as a mental health counselor for three agencies which includes the adult psychiatric units of two Chicago Metropolitan hospitals. I've worked with literally thousands of clients being treated with psychiatric medications for all sorts of mental issues including depression and other mood disorders, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and delusional disorders, substance abuse of all types, personality disorders, chronic homelessness or incarceration, etc. http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Mental_Illnesses/Depression/Depression_Treatment,_Services_and_Supports.htmThere are several types of psychotherapy that have been shown to be effective for depression, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapy (IPT). In general, these two types of therapies are short-term; treatments usually last only 10-20 weeks. Research has shown that mild to moderate depression can often be treated successfully with either medication or psychotherapy alone. However, severe depression appears more likely to respond to a combination of these two treatments. Edit: Interestingly, of all the clients that I've successfully transitioned from nursing homes to apartments or other individual living spaces, only one client needed to be re-institutionalized back into a nursing home. The reason? He stopped taking his psychiatric medications just a couple days after discharging from the nursing home (because he said he felt "fine" and didn't need them anymore) and was re-institutionalized within a few weeks. Interestingly, once he started back on his medications after going back to the nursing home, it only took a few more weeks for the client to re-stabilize back to baseline. He is now living in a group home with staff on site to monitor his medication usage. He has been doing perfectly fine ever since, and it's primarily because he is now remaining compliant with his medications. Edit 2: It's also interesting to note that, although this is the only client I've worked with who has needed to be re-institutionalized after moving back into the community, this client was clinically determined to be the highest functioning client I've had on my caseload according to a mental health level of functioning assessment. However, the client scored so high when he was in the nursing home and on his medications. This serves as an indicator as to how much importance medications play in the treatment process. Our highest functioning client arguably became our lowest functioning client specifically because he went off of his medications, and for no other significant reason. |
|
|
|
All “SAVIORS” are by identification and definition “PHONY”.
If there is going to be any “saving” going on--you will do it for yourself.
Christ has taken responsibility for YOU?
So how do you expect to save yourself? Nothing we can do in our own power is enough to pay the penalty for our sins, so I am very thankful that Christ has taken my sins and paid the penalty for them. I just don't understand why others cannot see what a gift that is. Assuming for a second that atonement is true, the unfortunate result is likely apathy. BADecker epitomizes this apathy as he is too lazy to incorporate new information into his existing cognitive schemas. If people live with the idea that someone else is responsible for their wrongdoings, then along with it comes the idea that people aren't responsible for their right doings. It becomes an excuse to not try to do or be better. Couple that with an undeserved sense of righteousness and self-importance that comes from believing you have privileged access to some divine knowledge and you have the makings a perfect sociopath, e.g. BADecker who has no problem condemning people with a smile on his face. It's perversion of morality to the highest degree. When you believe that an apology to God is all that's needed to reconcile an entire life of wrongdoing, you get people that commit hideous atrocities (e.g. condemning homosexuals for being born a certain way) with no intention to stop them. |
|
|
|
And god whatever you do, don't result to pharmaceutical antidepressants.
Try supplementing your life with natural herbs such as tumeric. A simple change of diet can make all the difference.
Dank, just stop it. There is absolutely no denying that antidepressants have legitimately helped millions of people. Yes, a lot of people experience negative side effects, and in some cases antidepressants exacerbate depressive symptoms, but a lot of the time all that's needed to correct the issue are proper changes to the medication regimen by a psychiatrist. It's incredibly dangerous when you just state this stuff to random strangers whose biology and psychology you're almost totally ignorant about. One of the most common catalysts for psychiatric hospitalization or suicidal behaviors is when people *stop* taking psychiatric medications. In other words, a suicidal or high-risk individual typically reduces their risk while taking their medications, but revert back to being high-risk after stopping their medications. Psychiatric medications are intended to bring a person back to their baseline status so that they can properly address and work through their issues. The eventual goal is to then be weened off the medication so that the positive changes still remain. But please, for the sake of others, don't make Universal claims about medicines and their potential to benefit people. You're not a psychiatrist, nor do you have any clue about the actual properties of psychiatric medications and how they operate in the body. Statistically, the most effective form of treatment is a combination of therapy and medication rather than one, the other, or the absence of both. This world isn't black-and-white like you make it out to be with every friggin' issue imaginable. |
|
|
|
|
1-800-273-8255
This is the number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
Calling this number should connect you with a local crisis center where social service professionals field crisis calls.
Please consider this number or reaching out to other clinical support systems in the area.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
