—Protip: Insulting someone’s thereby alleged sources of information without facts in evidence is a fallacious argument ad hominem. Pointing out that admitted hallucinogenic drug users have disordered thinking, and have permanently compromised their own powers of judgment, is a valid argument ad hominem.
Define that.
And define "normal" (just as a lesson)
Among other things, “normal” includes having a firm grasp of reality, and not defining new new new normals under the influence of hallucinogens.
"normal" means defined by (some) norm, which in turn is defined by majories.
For example, say if more than 50% of all human males would have a second dick growing out of their forehead, it would be defined as "normal".
Few understand this. (i was waiting a long time to write this statement, but now that it fits...)
Normal is not a rule, nor a substitute for correctness or truth.
As an observer, what we humans generally are, we can't tell what is "reality", but only what we observe as "reality".
That's a philosophical core-issue, as well as the perception of reality as a central aspect of psychology.
I don't glorify the use of drugs. It's something only
real adventurers should do. By "real" i mean being aware of dangers and consequences, and taking the risk to take them. But here's a
Pro Tip: Psychoactive drugs let you temporarily "switch" or "extend" (or "expand", as some are saying) "reality", so the user is able to become aware of the true nature of "reality", by applying falsification, THE basic standard scientific procedure.
"Normal" people aren't able to falsify their observation of reality. So "normal" in that regard is like being handicapped in checking reality for negative plausibility.
Like it or leave it.
Surprise me. #nohomo
“Disordered thinking” is defined by psychologists,
q.v.Disordered thinking: A failure to be able to "think straight." Thoughts may come and go rapidly. The person may not be able to concentrate on one thought for very long and may be easily distracted, unable to focus attention.
So, you think so. Interesting. I haven't read yet texts by somebody on WO that would connect to that definition.
Wait, excluding myself (for immune reasons), it seems your postings don't fit too bad to an imaginary author suffering from these kind of disturbance, defined above.
Mr. Watson?
Poll
