|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Can anything be proven?
#28559777 - 11/28/23 05:17 PM (1 month, 29 days ago) |
|
|
In what sense can we prove anything? Are we able to prove anything absolutely?
I know that I’m experiencing something that I call consciousness, and I can prove that to myself in each moment by paying attention. But I cannot prove that I experience consciousness to anyone else.
Are we able to prove anything to another conscious being? Or at some level, are we all just intertwined in a web of trusting each other to varying degrees?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28559826 - 11/28/23 05:56 PM (1 month, 29 days ago) |
|
|
what do you call consciousness? just focus on that. if you do describe something that resembles what we experience, you will have a resounding conference.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
|
I’m stumped.
I was thinking of saying consciousness is what it feels like to be me…
Then I thought that answer has been learned from other people, so I’ll try to think about it and put it into my own words instead…
Then I realised I can’t pin point exactly what it is…
Maybe something like - the experiencing of all of my senses simultaneously. But it’s hard to describe what it’s like to experience a sense. This is why it’s so hard to describe tripping to people who have never tripped… it’s like trying to describe consciousness to a rock
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28560194 - 11/28/23 11:03 PM (1 month, 29 days ago) |
|
|
My cumulative memories and experience
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28560227 - 11/29/23 12:30 AM (1 month, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Is that consciousness? Or is that a product of consciousness?
Experiencing what is happening now in the visual field, sound field, smell and sensation field, without remembering any memories or drawing from experience is like pure consciousness… but then, that is drawing on past experiences to get there.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28560239 - 11/29/23 01:13 AM (1 month, 29 days ago) |
|
|
It's a me, Sudly!
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28560253 - 11/29/23 01:52 AM (1 month, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: It's a me, Sudly!

Imagine someone who is experiencing full memory loss, but who is still perfectly conscious. Consciousness is still there, but there are no experiences to draw from and no memories.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28560321 - 11/29/23 05:23 AM (1 month, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: Is that consciousness? Or is that a product of consciousness?
Experiencing what is happening now in the visual field, sound field, smell and sensation field, without remembering any memories or drawing from experience is like pure consciousness… but then, that is drawing on past experiences to get there.
my understanding is that both processes of experiencing: sensing, and recollecting something similar (knowing or being familiar with what is sensed - including body movements) is a large part of it, but also there is a strong echo of recency, or what we have just been doing which facilitates what will be perceived (recalled from memory), AKA short term memory - which is the warm trail of what was recently experienced (this could be feelings - the warm trail, or short term memory)) :: all that together seems to make up everything that is consciousness [on a neural correlate basis as well as using common language]. AND when in dreamless sleep, or aesthetically medicated, there is no consciousness, AND in those times there is also no alpha or theta wave detected in EEG.
So all that may be a mouthful or two more than what you wrote, but it is a direct extension of that which you wrote.
Only recently have I shifted what I believed are feelings to the domain of recency (i.e. recent mental content activation). I used to say it is the apprehension of all mental contents, but that is what the awareness (reflection) of all mental contents is anyway. Feelings is more about finding one's way by how something feels. Recent activation facilitates the next perceptions, and that also seems to be the way "feelings" is most used.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28560928 - 11/29/23 03:12 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: In what sense can we prove anything?
In the sense of replication. This is useful for communication and trust. I think many human experiences are replicated over and over again, forming a groundwork for social bonds.
Quote:
Bardy said:Are we able to prove anything absolutely?
No, thank goodness IMO. Absolutes are unchanging. This would be awful, again, IMO.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28560952 - 11/29/23 03:29 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
We can point to probabilities and essentially reach the same thing. E.g. do we know the Sun will rise tomorrow? Can we prove it? Well, there's a good probability it'll happen.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28560954 - 11/29/23 03:32 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
The experience of the sun rising is a localized perspective and many mornings I do not experience that localized perspective due to circumstances. What does that do to the probability?
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
|
I think I’m just barely grasping what you mean by recency.
Does what you say still hold for someone who has no conceptual thinking happening, and who also has next to no working short term memory? As in the case of someone who has taken a large enough dose of psilocybin to be rendered conscious, but immediately forgets everything and can view any normal object and not have any concept of what that object is?
I suppose what I describe here still might have some basic level of working memory to draw upon what happened to the sense data a few milliseconds ago or something?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28561035 - 11/29/23 04:51 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: The experience of the sun rising is a localized perspective and many mornings I do not experience that localized perspective due to circumstances. What does that do to the probability?
You want to prove the experience of the Sun rising? Not what I what referring to.
The closest thing to proving something absolutely is in the probability of it happening.
I said, do we know the Sun will rise tomorrow? and you're all, 'I'll be in bed'
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561036 - 11/29/23 04:53 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
recency is short term memory so On Psilocybin or any psychedelic we have less of a natural stay on course ability, but if we sit openly it is fantastic.
I am using recency to refer to all those neurons that were recently activated (eg in the last 5-7 minutes normally - shorter when stoned (so this is very hard for me to write))
I'm just going to press continue.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28561144 - 11/29/23 06:08 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Kickle, I agree with your way of looking at it. Seems like a good answer to me.
And Sudly, I think probability is a different thing, which I think you acknowledged in your statement. No one can prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but we do have very good reason to believe it will.
But the thing I think I’m getting at is we can’t even prove absolutely that the sun exists.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561202 - 11/29/23 07:03 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
but the world is turning to face the sun and then away again, the sun is not actually rising at all.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561211 - 11/29/23 07:08 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Kickle said: The experience of the sun rising is a localized perspective and many mornings I do not experience that localized perspective due to circumstances. What does that do to the probability?
You want to prove the experience of the Sun rising? Not what I what referring to.
The closest thing to proving something absolutely is in the probability of it happening.
I said, do we know the Sun will rise tomorrow? and you're all, 'I'll be in bed' 
I'm not after proof. Maybe a social bond. I have a record of waking up before light hits the valley I live in. For about a decade now I've been an early riser. No, mine was more a comment on just how much goes into perceiving a sunrise.
There are certain canyons nearby where houses are in shadow the majority of the day. And go a bit more north from here and there are times when the sun neither rises nor sets in 24 hours. Locality...
The Sun will rise is also a phrase that feels like an homage to human centric thinking of old. Where the earth is seen as the center of the universe and the sun must orbit us. It's more accurate to say that the geography around us is what is moving in relation to the sun, that I am moving, than to say the sun is moving in relation to little ole me.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28561222 - 11/29/23 07:14 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
we are meeting and leaving behind the sun every day
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
|
Makes me dizzy TBH
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561237 - 11/29/23 07:21 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I do accept that the sun exists, because right now the heat from it is killing me haha. But I’m more trying to understand what we mean by proof I think.
And I think replicability is pretty much on the money. I’m open to other ways of thinking of it though.
Haha, thanks RGV. Cheers for making the effort anyway. If I was stoned I’d only be able to read 🤣
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561289 - 11/29/23 07:49 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: Kickle, I agree with your way of looking at it. Seems like a good answer to me.
And Sudly, I think probability is a different thing, which I think you acknowledged in your statement. No one can prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but we do have very good reason to believe it will.
But the thing I think I’m getting at is we can’t even prove absolutely that the sun exists.
Aww shucks, you're saying the moon doesn't exist when you're not looking at it
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561293 - 11/29/23 07:54 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: I do accept that the sun exists, because right now the heat from it is killing me haha. But I’m more trying to understand what we mean by proof I think.
And I think replicability is pretty much on the money. I’m open to other ways of thinking of it though.
Haha, thanks RGV. Cheers for making the effort anyway. If I was stoned I’d only be able to read 🤣
If you accept the Sun exists then it's because you've observed the proof.
I believe the Sun is absolute in the sense it is evidenced by the evidence that it exists, but I tend to lean on probabilities as a semantic tool for dealing with people who say we can't know anything.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561305 - 11/29/23 08:02 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
No I’m not saying that at all haha (re: your first comment about the moon) I’m saying we can’t prove anything is real. The misunderstanding is mostly my fault. I need to improve my communication skills.
So the sun and moon and everything else do exist within this experience, which we cannot prove is real?
I’m not even sure where I’m going with this, I’m trying to get you guys to help me learn about it basically haha. I like hearing what people have to say about this stuff.
———
Yeah, but proof isn’t about probabilities though is it? Proof in my mind means there is no room for doubt.
The classic example would be that we could all be in the matrix and all of this could be a very realistic dream. We might just be brains in vats hooked up to computers which can simulate pain and suffering, happiness and bliss and everything in between. I don’t believe this is true, I don’t even believe this is likely to be true, I’m truly agnostic… but if the possibility is there, then I suppose we could only prove things to be true about the simulation that we’re in. Which I guess is maybe the answer to my question?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561441 - 11/29/23 09:54 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Why not? Why can't this experience be real? I never think my own experience is fake or nothing, why do people do this?
I know the difference between my imagination and what I'm really experiencing in my environment, in aware of my own biases and honest to a point with myself.
Where is there room for doubt? All I've ever heard is the reliance on unfounded new fundamental forces giving hope to wishes or pansychism that rely on an undiscovered fundamental force!!
What isn't real in your mind? I know for certain that all my being has evolved, I have no doubt at all and am absolutely certain that I, in my entirety of cumulative cognition and organic being did infact evolve. Maybe that's the difference.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561536 - 11/29/23 11:36 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Well I’m not saying the experience isn’t real, I’m saying that that is the only thing we can be sure is real in a sense.
If you use your imagination for a moment, you could imagine a reality in which you are the only thing that truly exists, and everything happening around you or to you or to others is just taking place inside your experience.
Every noise, every smell, every ache or pain, every emotion is arising within your consciousness and you have no way to tell for sure how closely your experience matches what is really happening externally to you, or whether there is any point in imagining things as internal or external to consciousness. It might be better viewed as all being one.
That thought experiment introduces doubt about how things actually are, compared to how we perceive them.
Even if we’re not brains in metal vats on an alien spaceship somewhere, in a very real sense we are still brains in vats. In this case the vat is just made of bone, flesh and skin.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561543 - 11/29/23 11:49 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Things are self proved via experience..?
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said: Things are self proved via experience..?
You can prove to yourself that you have having an experience, but you cannot prove that to me absolutely. You could convince me of it though.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561566 - 11/30/23 12:23 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
There are things I know that I don't know because I'm honest to myself about it, you could ask me how to install fibre optics and I'd say I have no clue.
I am aware that my imagination isn't my real experience! Not being able to do that is hyperactive mental delirium!!!
Your experience is only real when it reflects what happened between you and your environment. How we interact with our environment is real.
Everything happening around us is being experienced by the other people around us too. Sunburn isn't my imagination, you can experience it too.
I can match all my sensations to what I'm experiencing within the interaction I'm having between myself and my environment. I can remember things differently to what happened, but that's a fault of my own recollection, it can be good, but isn't always perfect.
Awwwww shit, there you said it, all as one being, you're delving into pansychism, and all I can say is that you have to know it relies on an imaginary fundamental force that doesn't exist to be real. It's a presumptive philosophy that relies on a distinct future discovery to occur that hasn't as of yet.
We're evolved beings who've developed an understanding of the natural world as the cumulative experience of our understanding. Our minds are a cumulative butterfly effect of experience, recollection and the knowledge that births from it.
But if you really want to explore the path I think you're going down, look up Asante in this forum, read his omnicylion, and reflect on your thoughts after that.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561567 - 11/30/23 12:39 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said:
Quote:
BrendanFlock said: Things are self proved via experience..?
You can prove to yourself that you have having an experience, but you cannot prove that to me absolutely. You could convince me of it though.
I think then therefore the next question is:
Can I tell if someone is telling the truth or not?
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561572 - 11/30/23 12:58 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Your imagination is part of your real experience. It isn’t part of the external world usually though, at least not the part of your imagination that you can “control”.
I can tell a lot of the time when my brain is inventing things that don’t match up with other peoples experiences of the world around us, but occasionally I get things wrong and have to think about what happened, talk to people and work out how things actually were. Have you never had a disagreement with someone about something and found out you were completely wrong? I think that gives us a small insight as to how ones mind can feel as though it has the correct view of the world, when in reality it’s completely wrong.
The imagination is an important tool to have in order to get to a more useful understanding of reality. We often have to imagine different ways in which things could be true and weigh them up against each other, and talk to other people to see what they can imagine as being true.
All of this is happening inside your conscious experience right now. And for practical purposes you have a model of the external world which you assume is truth. But that model is always changing and hopefully bettering itself in a healthy mind.
No, I’m not talking about panpsychism. I’m talking about the oneness of each of our personal experiences of consciousness.
I completely agree with you about how real our experiences are, and that it’s very practical to think that how we view the external world is as it is most of the time. And I treat it as such to function normally in life. I don’t go around shouting to everyone on the streets “this isn’t real!!” . I’m literally just on here to talk about these things because I find them so interesting. And I think you may be missing the point I’m trying to make, and I’m not sure if it’s how I’m explaining it, or if you just aren’t quite using your imagination flexibly enough. But that’s all good man, we can just agree to disagree for now if you like 😊
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561577 - 11/30/23 01:13 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
your imagination is a reflection of your associative experiences, you have memory of associative experiences but it doesn't mean those experiences aren't real. They wouldn't exist without you interacting with the environment in the real world to form them.
Sometimes you've got to communicate with others to gather recollections of the events that unfolded during a situation sure.
Misinterpretations or not remembering the details of an event aren't evidence that the event didn't happen or isn't real, it's only the individuals memory that may not reflect the actual events that happen.
Ignorance just means not knowing, and not knowing is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn.
Having a firm grasp of analytical methodology is of greater use than speculative imagination in grasping an understanding of the events that occur around us in nature.
Different perspectives or interpretations are good to hear, but they don't in and of themselves change the matter at hand of what happened in reality. You could ask someone what they think happened when the apple fell from the tree and they might say them imagined an invisible being pulled it from the tree, but that's not going to make steps in attaining the reality of the situation.
The external model of the world is the truth, and we try to understand it. We can be wrong in doing so, but it doesn't change what that truth is. Our model that tries to understand reality changes, but not the reality itself.
You can't define 'oneness' when you're using it, and I'll bet on the probability of that being true.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy] 1
#28561584 - 11/30/23 01:46 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I once remember thinking that consciousness could adequately be defined as the presence of short and long term memory.
If we strip someone of memory entirely, including memories of a few microseconds ago, are they conscious?
I want to discuss your original point, but I'm having a tough time understanding what you mean when you say 'proven'.
As far as I'm aware, all that can be proven falls into the category of 'deductive logic'.
Anything else, good luck, especially in this 'post-truth' world where what is real seems ever harder to discern.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561597 - 11/30/23 02:15 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Maybe it was me who was misunderstanding you then… because I agree with everything you just said.
I think I’m trying to explain something different to what you’re talking about and I don’t want to go around and around in circles talking past one another haha
I agreed with what Kickle said in the beginning and I think what you’re saying now is roughly converging on what they were saying.
I’m not trying to deny the existence of the material world. I’m not trying to invent anything that isn’t there either. I’m trying to say that, in a way, all we truly have is our own conscious experience in any moment. And what I mean by a sense of oneness is as definable as any other word man. I mean the sense you get when you experience selflessness and thoughtlessness, such that the entire world that you can sense isn’t “out there” as much as it is “in here”. It’s feels a part of you, and you feel a part of it. Separateness fades away, and the way we usually think of objects and materials in the world cease to feel as though they are really separate from oneself. Centrelessness is another way to put it I think.
Sorry if my last comment came off as a bit pompous at the end… It is of course possible that I’m not understanding you fully.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561602 - 11/30/23 02:24 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
What do you get when observations match and are repeatable? I'll leave it at that.
if you're defining oneness as selflessness and thoughtlessness, and that the external world isn't 'sensed', as much as the external world is 'sensed' 'internally, I don't think you've been able to articulate a definition.
I have subjective views of the objective world, and the only sense of 'oneness' I might feel in these regards, is that I know we all have red blood and evolved. We share common ancestry, we're all living on this planet, we all share the same world, but have our own views within it. It doesn't mean those views alone shape the world, but they do play part in enabling us to shape the world around us by helping us in understanding how it works.
I'm just of the opinion that if you can't clearly define a word, don't use it to try and explain any kind of concept because it'll only muddy the waters for you and anyone trying to read it.
Oneness is my sense is shared evolutionary history.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561613 - 11/30/23 02:35 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Every moment you exchange energies, metaphors and words..
The dynamic exchange in a relationship is alchemy..
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
|
|
Alachemy is between everything.!
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561620 - 11/30/23 02:42 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
No, I did just define it… you just didn’t accept my definition. Surely you have to concede that right? Haha When I say oneness I’m not just talking about feeling one with other people and animals, I’m talking the entire universe.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing evolution into the conversation, because I’m talking about our conscious experience as a whole.
When observations match and are repeatable we get better and better predictive theories about the nature of reality. Hopefully we can agree about that?
I’ve been listening to a lot of Alan Watts and Sam Harris on the topics of meditation and consciousness, and what they say about it matches up perfectly with my experience. I’m really enjoying it at the moment. If you’re interested in knowing what I’ve been trying to get at here I’d recommend giving them a listen. Alan Watts is especially entertaining, but Sam has this very articulate way of presenting these ideas.
I’m a science man too, love it. So don’t think I’m one of these spiritual, new age religious, science denier types 😊
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561621 - 11/30/23 02:46 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Maybe you can try again because what you said didn't make sense in any colloquial sense. And using oneness in relation to the universe is spot on with panpsychism.
How could you know what an observation is given your stance?
The way you're going is the way of the omnicyclion.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28561635 - 11/30/23 03:23 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Maybe you can try again because what you said didn't make sense in any colloquial sense. And using oneness in relation to the universe is spot on with panpsychism.
No man. You just rejected my definition because you didn’t like it. Plain and simple. I’m not jumping through hoops for you because you don’t understand.
And my definition of the feeling of oneness has nothing to do with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the claim that consciousness is an inherent property of all matter in the universe. That is not what I’m saying.
Quote:
sudly said: How could you know what an observation is given your stance?
The way you're going is the way of the omnicyclion.
This isn’t my entire world view, I know what an observation is. This is simply a recognition of the nature of consciousness as one experiences it.
You think you know the way I’m going, but my friend you are mistaken. Peace man, not in this for a fight. In this to learn.
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 04:10 AM)
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28561654 - 11/30/23 04:04 AM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Heroic Dosage said: I once remember thinking that consciousness could adequately be defined as the presence of short and long term memory.
If we strip someone of memory entirely, including memories of a few microseconds ago, are they conscious?
I want to discuss your original point, but I'm having a tough time understanding what you mean when you say 'proven'.
As far as I'm aware, all that can be proven falls into the category of 'deductive logic'.
Anything else, good luck, especially in this 'post-truth' world where what is real seems ever harder to discern.
Sorry mate, missed your post! Yeah the initial question in the title is kind of lacking a lot in clarity haha, but I think my first post explains a little more of what I meant at the time.
I’m just trying to figure these things out… questions about reality, consciousness, truth and proof. I’m quite a noobie when it comes to philosophy, never studied it or anything but take quite an interest in it and love listening to what other people have to say about it.
I’m a little confused for sure, but I still feel like there’s a few things I know to be true about my conscious experience.
Deduction is a great tool, and mathematical proof I know is solid, but these are both language games that we play aren’t they? And I think the general consensus is that they don’t map onto reality perfectly… hence why we don’t have a “theory of everything”.
The way I think about it at this point I’m time is, the logic of languages can be used to absolutely prove a statement is true or false, and the logic inherent in language can be used to form extremely accurate predictive theories about nature. But these theories aren’t perfect. They always fail to predict some aspect of nature. Which is okay, because they’re not supposed to.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
|
Quote:
Heroic Dosage said: I once remember thinking that consciousness could adequately be defined as the presence of short and long term memory.
If we strip someone of memory entirely, including memories of a few microseconds ago, are they conscious? ...
if they stop making memory & perceiving (i.e. having a memory reflex from the context of mental contents being sensation and previous perceptions) then they have stopped being conscious.
this is slightly more precision (provable down to alpha and theta waves), but essentially , yeah, I believe you are right.
[alzheimers stops making memory but still reacts from memory - perceptions function (poorly)]
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562076 - 11/30/23 12:10 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I don't think you'll find meaning if you use words that don't have any
Quote:
When I say oneness I’m not just talking about feeling one with other people and animals, I’m talking the entire universe.
Oneness with the universe you say, and you don't mean pansychism? Right.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly] 1
#28562115 - 11/30/23 12:46 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I’m starting to feel as though you don’t understand what Panpsychism is.
I said a feeling of oneness. Again… “feeling” being the word that really matters to solve your confusion.
When I say I experience a feeling of oneness, it is a claim about what consciousness feels like while being free of the self, free of thought, in a state of meditation. It is a claim about what it feels like to just focus on that one thing that we know we truly have our entire lives. It is not a claim about the material world, or which forms of matter give rise to consciousness and when. This oneness that I describe is there every time I look, regardless of whether panpsychism is true or not.
It isn’t my job to convince you, you need to experience it for yourself. Which is why I recommended Sam Harris and Alan Watts to guide you there. But if you’re not up for it then that’s your decision man… not much else I can say or do for you 🤷🏼♂️ Check out Douglas Harding, “On Having No Head” as well if you want.
I’m interested to know if you’ve ever experienced oneness on psychedelics?
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 01:08 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562156 - 11/30/23 01:21 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I know the experience you're referring to in regard to psychedelic experience, I'd call it serenity though, less wishy washy room for misinterpretation.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28562198 - 11/30/23 01:51 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
But you can be lost in thought, not focusing on the nature of consciousness while experiencing a serene environment. They are not the same thing when used in the way I am using it. Serenity does not equal oneness.
One can feel serene when experiencing oneness.
Serenity = calm, tranquil, at peace Oneness = a deep feeling of connection to one’s environment. The opposite of separateness.
I know it’ll probably seem like I’ve come up with a different definition here, but I’m trying to describe the same thing using different words.
Anyway, you could be using those words synonymously for all I know.
Have a good one man 👍
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 02:25 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562238 - 11/30/23 02:28 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
agreed, a feeling of oneness is not the same as serenity, but I would go for serenity rather than oneness any day.
I get oneness all the time with salvia or with shrooms weed and acid but I get serenity when the meditation has stabilized, or close to the end of 40 minutes of sitting, and it is more spacious and interesting than oneness which can be exciting, but usually is not serene.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
|
Interesting. I guess I just find the oneness so fascinating at the moment. I definitely do love feelings of serenity too.
And the feeling of oneness really quashes my overthinking and anxieties so I’ve been finding it very useful when I’m able to concentrate to get there.
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 02:51 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562293 - 11/30/23 03:03 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Serenity = Serenity
Oneness = serendipity?
I mean you can experience serendipity. Kind of like nostalgia I suppose.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28562442 - 11/30/23 05:05 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
No, oneness is not serendipity either.
I think I understand what people mean now by self evident 😅 I have a feeling I wasn’t quite grasping what that meant in regards to how we communicate about truth. I’m stupid.
I can’t use language (mathematics or not) to describe to someone what the experience of the colour green is like, but it is self evident to everyone what the colour of green is like. This makes me feel funny haha
What I mean by we can’t prove anything absolutely is that we can’t use any language (including mathematics) to perfectly describe this experience of being conscious, or the workings of the material world I think. But even though this is true at this point in time, it might not always be true right?
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy] 1
#28562529 - 11/30/23 05:39 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I know that I’m experiencing something that I call consciousness, and I can prove that to myself in each moment by paying attention. But I cannot prove that I experience consciousness to anyone else
"I know (subject) that I'm experiencing something (object) that I call consciousness (concept)."
Is your consciousness really something distinct from your experiencing? How can you experience what you yourself are? This is to divide yourself into two conceptual parts that really do not exist.
"Prove" is a loaded term. The fact you exist is a postulate that must be the case or else communication is not possible. It is clear that communication is possible, as communication face to face is actually mostly non-verbal. Ergo, the idea that you do not exist is absurd. Therefore, unless you are ai programmed by humans, you must exist.
To exist is really ecstasy, that is ekstasis, standing out, as the word exist comes from Latin existere which literally means to stand out. The fact something is standing out against a blank backdrop is existence.
Proving to yourself that you exist is inconsequential, because it presupposes existence as a predicate, which is something that can be had or lacked. Only nothing can lack existence. Furthermore, you cannot have existence because that implies that it is a quality of some distinct thing. Existence is not a quality. 'it' is what must be (in the subjunctive) for there to be anything in the first place.
This is truly a problem of English, as subjunctives are easily taken as active. 'it' is, in this case, a placeholder for our consciousness that has literally moved in time.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562596 - 11/30/23 06:08 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
I think the linguistics are there to do it, but that we as individuals need to be able to articulate that, to keep trying until we can.
I get the feeling that if it's real there's a way to explain it, but but pinpointing how you feel at any given point can be hard, I get that.
I would've thought something self evident would be articulable.
I'll speak for myself here, but oneness still means nothing to me, you could say shifubizka to the same effect.
Language can describe the workings of the natural world more of less perfectly, but can only describe experience once the actuality of said experience is pinpointed. I.e. once you recognise your feelings on a matter.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28562598 - 11/30/23 06:10 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Amen.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562731 - 11/30/23 07:15 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
If that about subjunctivity was confusing, here may help. I, at least, think it is a good explanation.
Ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat. -Cicero about Socrates "to know nothing, the only thing he himself knew" "the only thing he himself 'claimed to know' was nothing" scire means to know
'sciat' is in the subjunctive, because it is not literal. You cannot literally know nothing.
the word 'scit' would be "he knew"
"The subjunctive expresses an element of uncertainty, often a wish, desire, doubt or hope."
This really shows part of the beauty of Latin philosophical constructions.
Subjunctive expressions concerning the words are and is use the words sit and sint in Latin, as opposed to just est (is) and are (sunt). although sum is i am and sumus is we are, etc. etc. The confusion of philosophical language in English really has everything to do with the ill-defined subjunctive and the tendency for colloquialisms and hypostatizations, wherein the subjunctive is taken literally.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28562773 - 11/30/23 07:43 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
well if you want to be technical sciat is present. sciit would be in the past tenst. scit is present so it would technically be he knows. the point is 'sciat', which is present tense, cannot be directly translated in that sentence into english, so it takes a past tense to make sense. it would really sound something like this
"ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" he himself nothing to know thing only he (noncertainly) knows
perhaps a more direct translation would indeed require the word 'noncertain'
"to know nothing is the only thing he himself knows noncertainly" to know nothing is all he were to have known
it is so short and concise in Latin. English is truly vulgar.
you read it like this
ipse se . nihil scire . id unum sciat . in chunks
ok that should suffice
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28562975 - 11/30/23 09:13 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
No, I don’t believe my consciousness is something separate from experiencing. I’m not splitting those two things apart like you say. I’m using “experiencing consciousness” as a placeholder for just the word “consciousness” I think because it made more sense to me to write it that way. Thanks for pointing that out though 😊
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562989 - 11/30/23 09:28 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
"You're always aware you're more than you're aware of. You are what you're not, and you're not what you are." Sartre
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28562995 - 11/30/23 09:31 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: I think the linguistics are there to do it, but that we as individuals need to be able to articulate that, to keep trying until we can.
I get the feeling that if it's real there's a way to explain it, but but pinpointing how you feel at any given point can be hard, I get that.
I would've thought something self evident would be articulable.
I'll speak for myself here, but oneness still means nothing to me, you could say shifubizka to the same effect.
Language can describe the workings of the natural world more of less perfectly, but can only describe experience once the actuality of said experience is pinpointed. I.e. once you recognise your feelings on a matter.
You cannot describe what it is like to see to a blind person such that they know what it is actually like to see. I think this example should get my point across. Language is no replacement for experience.
I can describe what it’s like to take mushrooms to someone who has never taken them. I can write a book the size of the Bible about it and I bet my life that once the person actually takes the shrooms they will still be as surprised as if I had told them almost nothing.
The fact that I can’t describe oneness to you and have you know exactly what I’m talking about is evidence that experience of oneness is necessary to be able to understand it.
I think you’re being a little bit deliberately obtuse if you say that shifubizka would mean as much to you as oneness.
Oneness from the dictionary: the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts. "the oneness of all suffering people" — now extend this example outward to say that we can feel oneness with all people. Then extend it further to all animals and plants. Then to the rocks. Then to space and time and the stars. Everything. You can experience this kind of feeling if you meditate on the fact that there is no centre to your consciousness.
If you’re making the claim that language can describe the world perfectly then I say… prove it. Lol. I’m assuming you meant “not perfectly” though because you said “more or less”
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 09:42 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563053 - 11/30/23 10:34 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
I obviously don't know what you're referring to by oneness then because I've said to me it's either our ancestral lineage or serenity and you've disagreed with both.
Blind people have stereognosis too, so you can describe objects in that sense for them to visualise.
I get the feeling both you and I would describe what it's like to experience a mushroom trip differently. Even if we had the same dose and environmental setup. Given our different use of descriptive terms etc.
I still have no idea what oneness is, not when you've used it, not when Asante used it, not when anyone talking about pansychism or not has used it. Especially in regard to the universe.
We are all foundationally from stardust is the only point I'd gather.
I don't know what you're trying to unify with the term oneness if it isn't subjectivity and objectivity.
Do you distinguish between sympathy and empathy? I do. Because I can be sympathetic to a lot of things but I don't have empathy for cancer patients or people who have lost limbs because I haven't had those experiences, I can only sympathise for experiences I haven't had.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563056 - 11/30/23 10:37 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Sudly, I do think that sunburn is proof that the sun exists. And the fact that I can see it. And the fact that people have taken photos of it… lol. I’m not sure why I didn’t make that clear yesterday… I was just totally absorbed by thinking about consciousness and nothing else. Sorry if that caused some anguish
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563069 - 11/30/23 10:51 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I understand that we might be able to describe to them what seeing is like with some accuracy. But what I’m saying is that it would never be accurate enough such that they would have the perfect idea of what being able to see is like. It would never convey to them the experience of being able to see.
Same way I could describe the taste of chocolate to someone that has never tasted chocolate and they’d never know until they tasted it.
I’m not trying to unify anything man… I’m not talking science. I’m talking about a feeling. It’s a feeling you get when you stop thinking and all of a sudden it dawns on you that you’re a part of everything. But you’re not thinking “I’m a part of everything”. It’s weird… and very, very hard to describe. But I’ve experienced it. And many other people have as well. It’s not hocus pocus.
I love the thinking that we’re all star dust.. but I also love going a step further and thinking about how we’re Big Bang jizz
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563077 - 11/30/23 10:58 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
If you’re really curious about it then seriously, I can’t recommend Sam Harris’s app “Waking Up” enough. It’s meditation without any of the religious dogma. It’s brilliant.
They do a 7 day free trial and in that time you can listen to heaps of content on there. If you want to subscribe to it and you can’t afford the subscription then you can email them and they’ll give you a free subscription. It’s very interesting stuff, and it’s well worth doing I think if you’re interested what people are on about when they talk about oneness…. Anyway. I’ll stop ranting about it now.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563092 - 11/30/23 11:08 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
If someone is born blind and has never seen, then descriptions in line with stereognosis are the most perfect it's possible to describe something to them.
Wine experts detail the flavours of different wines rather well, from the range of descriptions one of them will fit with someone who has tasted the wine for the first time.
There are descriptions that will match our experiences.
I feel like you're trying to take extra steps to gather greater meaning from things that in the end aren't that complicated. Maybe you want there to be more, but sometimes it is what it is.
We all reach realizations that are milestones of perspective I suppose, but my recognition of being a part of the natural world doesn't go beyond it.
I used to be a fan of Sam Harris until I realised he tends to lean towards epistemology over ontology. That said I think there's a balance that can be reached between the two. But like nature vs nurture, the current debate of epistemology and ontology appears too simplistic for my liking.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28563095 - 11/30/23 11:12 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: ... To exist is really ecstasy, that is ekstasis, standing out, as the word exist comes from Latin existere which literally means to stand out. The fact something is standing out against a blank backdrop is existence. ...
to move is to be noticed, our brains suppress what is not moving, what is not moving becomes the "blank backdrop"
Being present in the moment one may perceive ekstasis, and through perceiving in the moment be ecstasy.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563164 - 12/01/23 01:06 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry mate, missed your post! Yeah the initial question in the title is kind of lacking a lot in clarity haha, but I think my first post explains a little more of what I meant at the time.
I’m just trying to figure these things out… questions about reality, consciousness, truth and proof. I’m quite a noobie when it comes to philosophy, never studied it or anything but take quite an interest in it and love listening to what other people have to say about it.
I’m a little confused for sure, but I still feel like there’s a few things I know to be true about my conscious experience.
Deduction is a great tool, and mathematical proof I know is solid, but these are both language games that we play aren’t they? And I think the general consensus is that they don’t map onto reality perfectly… hence why we don’t have a “theory of everything”.
The way I think about it at this point I’m time is, the logic of languages can be used to absolutely prove a statement is true or false, and the logic inherent in language can be used to form extremely accurate predictive theories about nature. But these theories aren’t perfect. They always fail to predict some aspect of nature. Which is okay, because they’re not supposed to.
This.
I always felt the overwhelming majority of philosophy just reduced to pointless games of language semantics.
I'm deeply interested in metaphysics, but the way I see it, philosophers can sit in their armchairs all day long manipulating words and playing games of semantics, and we'll still be no closer to the truth.
Science also seems like a pretty rudimentary tool for the exploration of consciousness and metaphysics, but psychedelics seem like the sharpest knife we have at the moment.
Quote:
if they stop making memory & perceiving (i.e. having a memory reflex from the context of mental contents being sensation and previous perceptions) then they have stopped being conscious.
this is slightly more precision (provable down to alpha and theta waves), but essentially , yeah, I believe you are right.
[alzheimers stops making memory but still reacts from memory - perceptions function (poorly)]
Yeah that's definitely a more nuanced sharpening of my point.
Although I find it hard to even conceptualize what 'perception' would mean when juxtaposed with a complete inability to remember.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
|
Metaphysics is not an appropriate tool to garner a grounded understanding, at best you'll end up with use of concepts or words that have whatever interpretations you want.
I'm interested in hearing about metaphysics for insights into how people think about certain topics, but the end result is usually that they just want to feel apart of a community of like minded thinkers.
Metaphysics to me is lazy thinking that provides solace or pacification in easy answers that don't hold merit.
E.g. it's easy to think of God's or deities taking over our responsibilities, it's an easy answer to difficult questions, but it makes weak views that can't defend themselves and have no basis or merit.
Santa isn't discernable from metaphysics.
Metaphysics reach beyond nature, it's heretical to nature in my view. A path that idolises a disconnection from nature.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28563210 - 12/01/23 02:02 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Not to derail the conversation, but let's get into this a little bit...
Quote:
sudly said: Metaphysics is not an appropriate tool to garner a grounded understanding, at best you'll end up with use of concepts or words that have whatever interpretations you want.
That's precisely what I aim to avoid.
When I say 'metaphysics' I'm simply referring to questions such as: - what is the nature of reality? - why is there something rather than nothing? - how does the cycle of birth and death work? - does the soul/consciousness survive death? - what is the ego and what does it mean to lose it? - what are we aiming for, and why are we aiming?
I don't believe metaphysics is a 'tool' at all, and I don't think it makes sense to ascribe the property of appropriateness to it.
Rather I see metaphysics merely as a way of categorizing certain ephemeral subjects, like the concepts the questions above pertain to.
I don't think one can 'do metaphysics'.
And if you could, I don't think the philosopher armed merely with words is capable of doing a good job.
I believe however that the psychonaut armed with not much more than a few dried grams and the silent darkness in which they sit, is doing a much better job of 'doing metaphysics' - or more accurately, they're getting closer to the truth surrounding these subjects.
Quote:
I'm interested in hearing about metaphysics for insights into how people think about certain topics, but the end result is usually that they just want to feel apart of a community of like minded thinkers.
I'm not sure these things have much to do with metaphysics at all. Sounds more like psychology.
Quote:
Metaphysics to me is lazy thinking that provides solace or pacification in easy answers that don't hold merit.
Again I don't think this is true metaphysics, but rather philosophers playing games with words.
Quote:
E.g. it's easy to think of God's or deities taking over our responsibilities, it's an easy answer to difficult questions, but it makes weak views that can't defend themselves and have no basis or merit.
The question of whether we can be moral beings, without being informed by biblical ideas like the Ten Commandments, is more one of ethics rather than metaphysics I think.
Quote:
Metaphysics reach beyond nature, it's heretical to nature in my view. A path that idolises a disconnection from nature.
I fear we're each operating under very different definitions of metaphysics!
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
|
Metaphysics in the general sense is beyond nature, perhaps epistemology and ontology are better for such explorations.
Quote:
Epistemology and ontology are two fundamental branches of philosophy that offer distinct but complementary perspectives. Epistemology, often referred to as the theory of knowledge, delves into the nature, scope, and origins of knowledge. It questions how we come to know what we know, the limits of our understanding, and the methods we use to acquire and validate knowledge. This field addresses the processes of learning, perception, and the criteria for truth and belief. On the other hand, ontology concerns itself with the study of being and existence. It explores the nature of reality, what entities exist, their categorisations, and their interrelationships. Ontology seeks to understand the essence of things, their properties, and how they come into being. While epistemology is about the 'how' of knowledge, ontology deals with the 'what' of existence. Together, these philosophical disciplines provide a comprehensive framework for exploring and understanding the complexities of reality and knowledge.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28563233 - 12/01/23 02:51 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
You say “the most perfect”, as in there could be something more perfect than perfect… but there can’t be. Perfect means absolutely flawless in every way. The fact that you say “the most perfect” means that it is not perfect, which means that you concede the point that we cannot adequately describe consciousness, or the taste of chocolate, or the colour blue. You conceded without noticing you conceded, and then acted like you were right in arguing against it. This is not honest. 
Wine experts say things like “this wine has hints of coffee with a short sharp aftertaste of raspberry”. Anyone who has then proceeded to drink that wine instantly thinks the person who wrote it must’ve been drunk because of the terrible description they gave of the taste. Reading a description does not put the taste in anyones mind. You are failing to recognise a widely accepted truth about the nature of consciousness.
Also, this is Sam Harris’ meditation app. It has nothing to do with his thoughts on epistemology or ontology. It’s great, and you can learn all about this mumbo jumbo hocus pocus (which it isn’t) there.
Edited by Bardy (12/01/23 04:24 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
|
Quote:
Heroic Dosage said: ...
Quote:
[alzheimers stops making memory but still reacts from memory - perceptions function (poorly)]
Yeah that's definitely a more nuanced sharpening of my point.
Although I find it hard to even conceptualize what 'perception' would mean when juxtaposed with a complete inability to remember.
a complete inabiliity to remember is the end of perception, however, in alzheimers the memory of physical movement is the last to go, so a person can feel what that is like, and it is like being in the womb but without the amniotic protection, this I can imagine.
--------------------------------------------------------
psychedelics support the simultaneous thinking of completely contradictory thoughts, so they are not the sharpest tool for plumbing reality, however they often show what we have been ignoring as well, which is an extremely valuable view to access.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
|
Is this the consensus in the literature RGV? Or is this just your thoughts on it?
It does kind of make sense to me now… I was originally imagining that there could be consciousness without remembering at all but now I’m not so sure how that would work. I mean, I have no idea how it works.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563290 - 12/01/23 04:37 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
most neuro scientists think that the hippocampus is responsible for memory, and have not keyed memory to the thalamic support function and the alpha and theta speed brainwaves. but most also accept the idea of "plasticity" which generally resolves down to the deposition of ARC proteins during memory formation of synchronous activation (and the synchronous activation is due to thalamic feedback support at alpha and theta frequencies)
so they largely agree but have not put it together formally, they are more into observing BOLD MRI which is at a larger scale than the deposition of individual proteins, and how the presence of those proteins affects perception (memory recall). My JavaScript demo is proof of that.
the best paper I have come across illustrates the various ways of activating a cortical neuron but it leaves out the thalamic part.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
Edited by redgreenvines (12/01/23 04:41 AM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563823 - 12/01/23 01:45 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: You say “the most perfect”, as in there could be something more perfect than perfect… but there can’t be. Perfect means absolutely flawless in every way. The fact that you say “the most perfect” means that it is not perfect, which means that you concede the point that we cannot adequately describe consciousness, or the taste of chocolate, or the colour blue. You conceded without noticing you conceded, and then acted like you were right in arguing against it. This is not honest. 
Wine experts say things like “this wine has hints of coffee with a short sharp aftertaste of raspberry”. Anyone who has then proceeded to drink that wine instantly thinks the person who wrote it must’ve been drunk because of the terrible description they gave of the taste. Reading a description does not put the taste in anyones mind. You are failing to recognise a widely accepted truth about the nature of consciousness.
Also, this is Sam Harris’ meditation app. It has nothing to do with his thoughts on epistemology or ontology. It’s great, and you can learn all about this mumbo jumbo hocus pocus (which it isn’t) there.
For blind people I said the most perfect because stereognosis is as good as it's possible to be when describing how items look to them.
Quote:
If someone is born blind and has never seen, then descriptions in line with stereognosis are the most perfect it's possible to describe something to them.
I said language can more or less perfectly describe the workings of the natural world because I believe there are more than one way to describe something as good as it is possible to do. Because one great explanation may capture the principles of an idea exceptionally well, but that doesn't mean it's easy for everyone to understand, and a different version of the same information can help others grasp such information too.
Quote:
Language can describe the workings of the natural world more of less perfectly, but can only describe experience once the actuality of said experience is pinpointed. I.e. once you recognise your feelings on a matter.
I am saying that we can perfectly describe consciousness, not that we have.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563844 - 12/01/23 01:56 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Memory isn't recalled like facsimile as much as it is (often poorly) reconstructed. I found that quite baffling at first, but I like the fact, especially when the brain is compared to a computer hard drive.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563854 - 12/01/23 02:04 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Only through forgetfulness can man ever achieve the illusion of possessing a "truth" in the sense just designated. If he does not wish to be satisfied with truth in the form of a tautology—that is, with empty shells—then he will forever buy illusions for truths. What is a word? The image of a nerve stimulus in sounds. But to infer from the nerve stimulus, a cause outside us, that is already the result of a false and unjustified application of the principle of reason…The different languages, set side by side, show that what matters with words is never the truth, never an adequate expression; else there would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth, without consequences, would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for. One designates only the relations of things to man, and to express them one calls on the boldest metaphors. A nerve stimulus, first transposed into an image—first metaphor. The image, in turn, imitated by a sound—second metaphor… Let us still give special consideration to the formation of concepts. Every word immediately becomes a concept, inasmuch as it is not intended to serve as a reminder of the unique and wholly individualized original experience to which it owes its birth, but must at the same time fit innumerable, more or less similar cases—which means, strictly speaking, never equal—in other words, a lot of unequal cases. Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal. No leaf ever wholly equals another, and the concept "leaf" is formed through an arbitrary abstraction from these individual differences, through forgetting the distinctions; and now it gives rise to the idea that in nature there might be something besides the leaves which would be "leaf"—some kind of original form after which all leaves have been woven, marked, copied, colored, curled, and painted, but by unskilled hands, so that no copy turned out to be a correct, reliable, and faithful image of the original form. We call a person "honest." Why did he act so honestly today? we ask. Our answer usually sounds like this: because of his honesty. Honesty! That is to say again: the leaf is the cause of the leaves. After all, we know nothing of an essence-like quality named "honesty"; we know only numerous individualized, and thus unequal actions, which we equate by omitting the unequal and by then calling them honest actions. In the end, we distill from them a qualitas occulta [hidden quality] with the name of "honesty"… What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd- like in a style obligatory for all...
Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28563889 - 12/01/23 02:29 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
love that Friedrich quote
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
I have that book. It is fantastic. right now I'm reading The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious by none other than Sigmund Freud. He makes shapes out of words in your head as you read it. It is incredible. Nietzsche does similar things, and Michel Foucault.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563910 - 12/01/23 02:45 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
it can be difficult emotionally to realize we don't have a clue, especially when you've been living based off the assumption you knew what was going on. Sometimes its chaotic for people. Sometimes people think they're going insane. sometimes there is a sense of falling, with no ground and nothing to grab a hold of. sometimes people want to actually grab onto something.
i think this knowing/not knowing goes really deep. knowing is intimately tied with our survival insticts.
not knowing is intimacy with everything.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28563913 - 12/01/23 02:48 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: it can be difficult emotionally to realize we don't have a clue, especially when you've been living based off the assumption you knew what was going on. Sometimes its chaotic for people. Sometimes people think they're going insane. sometimes there is a sense of falling, with no ground and nothing to grab a hold of. sometimes people want to actually grab onto something.
i think this knowing/not knowing goes really deep. knowing is intimately tied with our survival insticts.
not knowing is intimacy with everything.
Well said 😊
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563927 - 12/01/23 03:02 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I think familiarity is everything
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28563964 - 12/01/23 03:52 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I think it is ultimately beneficial to get off the constant IV pleasure drip from mindless media and cultivate a pleasure in complex thoughts in books from writers who have something deep to say, mainly philosophers, poets, and scientists. The pleasure and sense of knowing from that is unmatched, and not doing it can prevent you from ever achieving it. I find it astonishing how people can be baffled with questions already explored by, for instance, Nietzsche 150 years ago. Many would rather a 13 minute YouTube video explaining the UberMan (deliberately botching that), as if you can just devour knowledge like a glutton at Wendy's. Knowledge isn't a series of words and contents. It is the making explicit of pathways and tendencies of consciousness.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28563983 - 12/01/23 04:12 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Okay let me be a little bit more specific. Check this out. I don't recommend watching it. Actually. I recommend NOT watching it. These IV drip BS reels are designed to give you a certain type of passifying pleasure.
I don't know if my algorithm is messed up or something, but this is the kind of recommendations I get from YouTube. Beware. It is everywhere. Take care not to be an unwitting propagator.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28563992 - 12/01/23 04:18 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
unpost it then
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28564005 - 12/01/23 04:34 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Here is an example of Freud making shapes out of words in my head at least.
"It was my experiences of how psychical energy is so readily displaceable along certain paths of association, and how indestructible is the persistence of the traces made by psychical processes, that in fact suggested to me that I should try out this kind of transposition into imagery of the unknown. To avoid misunderstanding, I must add that I am not attempting to proclaim that cells and fibres, or the neurone systems that are taking their place nowadays, are these psychical pathways, although it would be possible to represent such pathways - even if it cannot yet be indicated how - by organic elements of the nervous system."
It is hard to explain this feat, because it really has to be led up to in writing, but yeah.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Why would I unpost my example? Examining the Title is sufficient.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28564027 - 12/01/23 04:44 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: I find it astonishing how people can be baffled with questions already explored by, for instance, Nietzsche 150 years ago.
My best guess is that this is cyclic. Every generation thinks they are reinventing the wheel rather than taking the same human ride (aka on the same wheel). Every newborn learns to walk. It's not as if one kid learns and done, no need for baby steps ever again. Some knowledge does last longer than others but all fade to impermanence and get rehashed. Baby steps all over again. Or so it seems to this human.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28564050 - 12/01/23 05:06 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I think you’re right Kickle. And I think it’s got to do with my original question..
We can build on science because we can each see proof of how things work, test theories and solidify which ones work with inter generational technology and mathematics.
Philosophy, answers about morality, answers about how to live a good life and all that kind of stuff isn’t able to be proven in the same sense, or at all, and isn’t usually self evident (that it’s bad to murder people I think is maybe self evident because it seems to be innate). Because of this, each of these kinds of things needs to be figured out by every individual during the course of their own lives (if they’re free thinkers). Things change too, so maybe sometimes the answers to these kinds of questions change… I dunno 🤷🏼♂️
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28564054 - 12/01/23 05:12 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
This is my main problem. I am a nerd, and so I expect to read all the books possible to be read. But, of course, just as Borges wrote in the Library of Babel, this is impossible. Which books to read? Going to whatever sparks your interest will only get you so far, and pleasure in fiction, at least I feel, makes me think... well I could be using this time to read something else. It is also a problem in itself when you have read so much that you cannot find much interest in communicating with people, because you then spend your time thinking "Well, if they had only read this, this, and this... we could converse about something greater." I think this is part of why Freud had agoraphobia, and I suspect agoraphobia is directly proportional to how much time you have spent alone with the thoughts of someone else. I think, however, there is a much more intimate experience reading the words of someone in a book, of nonfiction, although fiction has its merits. Anne Bronte blew my mind, for instance. I still get chills thinking about her book The tenant of wildfell hall. I see libraries not full of books but of living remnants of souls just waiting to speak to you, and I also think immortality can truly be attained through writing. This is why, among a couple other reasons, I claim Cicero conquered death.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28564078 - 12/01/23 05:30 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
we have to answer our own questions, but the groundwork laid by others have shown us a lot that is worth reviewing.
in fact if we skip reviewing the work done in biology and medicine to reveal the systems in play in our lives, then we will not be able to push the envelop farther, and we will throw ourselves back into perplexity.
some stuff, however, needs to be skipped as a hubristical detour, ergo not all passages from each great contributor are as good as others.
Editing this mess is a nightmare, but it is our nightmare.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
I have this struggle between science and philosophy. i love science, but as Im sure you know... Scientists and philosophers can debate each other like Tweedledee and tweedledum. science often leads me to philosophy only for philosophy to lead me back to science, due to its insufficiencies. Philosophy often goes to an abstract land where the concrete is hard to place. science however can lead to a deterministic conundrum wherein important ethical and existential questions seem inexplicable. I think you are right. There must be a healthy balance.
i was talking to a man earlier today who made the argument that medieval Christianity provided the backdrop for science, and he didn't think the industrial revolution could have occurred in ancient Rome. i think that is a fair point. I find it very strange however that something could provide an opposite which would subsequently seem impossible to have been provided by it. I'm not sure about this, but it seems all possibilities must be kept open, because we can't be sure what could be right around the corner.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28564346 - 12/01/23 07:47 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Hasn’t science been done long before in other cultures though? I don’t know the answer to this, it just feels as though it’s unrealistic to assume that science began in the Industrial Revolution. Maybe only more primitive forms of science?
I’m probably not the person to make any solid statements about this because my knowledge of history is shocking… ly bad.
Edited by Bardy (12/01/23 07:48 PM)
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28564366 - 12/01/23 08:00 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I think it would be very strange if humans at all points in history have not tried to systematically observe their existence. And arguably far better at it in certain respects, worse in others.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28564371 - 12/01/23 08:03 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
His argument was that the Romans were phobic of anything that produced technology that reduced labor, because of the massive gap between a small elite and a gigantic working class. I don't think this is completely accurate, but then again perhaps. I did mention Democritus and Epicurus, and as well that Plato thought atomism was logically absurd. Cicero too thought atomism was not accurate. He said, well the atom has been split. The debate still exists too between the idea of infinitely small ball bearing like pieces of reality and the idea for instance that string theory supports, but it is in fact clear that photons and atoms exist. Epicurus wrote about collections of atoms forming together what is conceptually the same thing as molecules and compounds. I think indeed science was created by the Greeks and Egyptians, and I would support the argument that modern science is not necessarily dependent on the industrial revolution and mediaeval Christianity; however, that is the series of events that has led to the splitting of the atom and etc. I support the idea that the Romans, given a couple more hundred years, would have found electricity and then everything that follows from that, but maybe not. Maybe there is a necessity at work that has required for things to turn out this way. I don't particularly like this idea, but it could be the case. I tend to go toward the doom and gloom totalitarian takeover theory of the 4th century, of the deliberate suppression of science and philosophy, but perhaps how we got here has been more accidental than expected. The currency of the Roman empire was diluted so much over the course of the 2nd and 3rd century that perhaps it was inevitable. I worry about the same thing happening today.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28564415 - 12/01/23 08:34 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
what about the steam engine, the Romans did not have that, but it was a pivotal thing - capping the colonial periods and introducing modern experimental versions of social management.
Quote:
Copilot wrote me this synopsis: The steam engine used for trains and the industrial revolution was the result of a series of inventions and improvements by different people over time. Some of the most important contributors were:
Thomas Savery
Thomas Savery (c. 1650-1715), who invented the first steam-powered pump in 16981. Thomas Newcomen
Thomas Newcomen (1664-1729), who improved Savery’s design and created the first practical steam engine in 17122. James Watt
James Watt (1736-1819), who added a separate condenser and a rotary motion to Newcomen’s engine, making it more efficient and versatile in 1763 and 178123. Matthew Boulton
Matthew Boulton (1728-1809), who partnered with Watt and helped him manufacture and market his steam engines2. Richard Trevithick
Richard Trevithick (1771-1833), who built the first steam locomotive in 18044. George Stephenson
George Stephenson (1781-1848), who improved Trevithick’s design and built the first public railway line using steam locomotives in 1825. These inventors and engineers transformed the use of steam power from a limited and expensive source of energy to a widespread and cheap one that could drive machinery, transport goods and people, and fuel the industrial revolution.
It followed a time of guilds developing metal technology beyond Roman abilities enough with enough social technical support to make and use engines.
The guilds not the churches enabled this. IMO.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28564418 - 12/01/23 08:37 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I want to get this thought coherent... I have been reading this book by Freud about Jokes. He basically goes completely full force like a microscope into the inner workings of the mind with regard to jokes, witticisms and pleasantries. It is so frustrating however that he doesn't ever mention psychedelic drugs. Psychedelics cause intense laughter. His theory of laughter involves the release of inhibited pleasure. This made me think however that we are maybe much more given to laughter than we actually do laugh, because we are simply not capable... Terence Mckenna thinks we were actually an orgiastic, psychedelic taking species, and that this was ubiquitous in the ancient world, far before Babylon and Egypt. I wonder if all of this work from Freud, and really the whole of psychology and philosophy is really leading us backwards to a fuller future of psychedelics where the common attitudes of comedy and pleasure seeking become obsolete, and consequently so do philosophy and psychology become obsolete.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
excellent point
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28564479 - 12/01/23 09:25 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Freud got association established, the rest is weakly patched together.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux] 1
#28564542 - 12/01/23 10:18 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
When the Greeks were talking about atoms they were talking about the smallest indivisible parts that make up everything. They would not consider what we call atoms today to be atoms. Stings are the new Ancient Greek atoms.
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28564629 - 12/02/23 12:38 AM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
This conversation has passed me by, which Iove, but I wanted to say...
[Quote]they often show what we have been ignoring as well, which is an extremely valuable view to access.
THIS.
The fact that we can discover otherwise 'unknown unknowns' about problematic areas of our lives through psychedelics, I believe is where their power lies.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
|
All psychedelics do in my experience is ground you, they make you face your current dilemmas and allows you to simply acknowledge what's infront of you, unimpeded by concerns of timely matters.
They catalyse an overwhelming sense of acceptance in my experience.
Well, if you accept them for what they are in the first place. A drug.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28564740 - 12/02/23 04:48 AM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
usually they make me go to the washroom it is a wonderful place.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: usually they make me go to the washroom it is a wonderful place.
Until you're stuck on the toilet on an acid trip with diarrhea and you get trapped in a poo jungle for all of eternity... :/
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
|
I've been rescued by the monkeys of that jungle a few times. I may even be a poo jungle monkey when you think of it!
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I've been rescued by the monkeys of that jungle a few times. I may even be a poo jungle monkey when you think of it!
When you really think about it, we're all just poo jungle monkeys.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28565033 - 12/02/23 10:02 AM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Does not string theory regard one dimensional objects? Its graviton is massless and the quantum of gravity, which is 1-dimensional. A 3-dimensional theory of gravity, as in Einstein's general relativity is obviously the biggest problem of physics, as it is incompatible with quantum theory, because of gravity. The atomist theory regards three dimensional objects. It is a mechanical theory with real ethical and existential implications, as for instance the debate about determinism, which creeps into many corners. String theory is not a genuine atomist theory. It is a syncretism. The debate exists there about real change. String theory deals with a quantum vibration. I'm not a physicist, but... and just now I remembered something I came up with as a teenager probably during a trip. "Change is the only thing constant." I later found out that this is something the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. Truths are ubiquitous. Parmenides, on the contrary, said change is impossible. He also denies plurality itself. One can think about subatomic particles being in more than one place at the same time. There are tendentious views from then that still ought to be reckoned with, and they resemble strikingly the same conundrums of today.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565162 - 12/02/23 11:44 AM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: I think it is ultimately beneficial to get off the constant IV pleasure drip from mindless media and cultivate a pleasure in complex thoughts in books from writers who have something deep to say, mainly philosophers, poets, and scientists. The pleasure and sense of knowing from that is unmatched, and not doing it can prevent you from ever achieving it. I find it astonishing how people can be baffled with questions already explored by, for instance, Nietzsche 150 years ago. Many would rather a 13 minute YouTube video explaining the UberMan (deliberately botching that), as if you can just devour knowledge like a glutton at Wendy's. Knowledge isn't a series of words and contents. It is the making explicit of pathways and tendencies of consciousness.
my experience has been that the pointing out by others can be helpful at pivotal moments, but in general the richest vein to mine has been my own body heart and mind.
It seems to me that its quite possible most people are in a sort of trance, unable to seperate themselves from their thinking/feeling/acting-stream and therefore unable to do much self reflection or consider ideas that don't jive with their trance
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
I think we must both agree Freud said in his Das Ich und das Es that the of the psyche is association and contiguity.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565260 - 12/02/23 01:05 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
What is your understanding of association?
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565289 - 12/02/23 01:33 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I have a little experiment that you can try on anyone. I call it my allegory of William's Chair.
About 7 years ago I was talking to this man named William. Our conversations were interesting, and we became familiar and comfortable discussing basically anything, although he was very religious. I realized when we were talking, and he was sitting down in a chair, that now, in the middle of a conversation, I could test a little theory of mine. My reasoning was the following: since we were in the midst of a conversation, this meant he was in a state of mind similar to hypnosis. So, I exploited the familiarity and open state of affairs (open in the sense of a doorway into his subconscious). I told him abruptly to close his eyes and think of a chair. He surprisingly did immediately. I asked him "What chair is it?" He replied "A rocking chair." I immediately asked "Where is it?" He paused for a moment and then said "It is a rocking chair in my childhood home." Feeling satisfied I then asked "Have you seen this chair recently?" He said "No, not in a long time." I won't say where it went to next, but my next question became "Why, of all the chairs that could have come to his consciousness, did that chair come to consciousness? And what does that mean?"
This has led me to posit what I call psychoconstants. Or you can call them a personal paragon. They are nodes of association held together by an emotional signification. I furthermore reflected upon the time I took MDA before I went to a psychology lecture by a wonderful psychologist. The presentation was itself very good and emotional, but the MDA heightened the experience, and I know the knowledge during that lecture has been etched into my psyche with a greater potency, and that is the most memorable of her lecturers I remember. I have a theory that you can analyze these psychoconstants of anything representable as a noun. This is similar to what Jacques Lacan called a point de capiton.
A psychoconstant is, how I see it, what is learned in early childhood in association with an emotional signification. Due to the emotional signification, whatever is learned in psychical proximity to it is associated stronger. This primary association with emotion in any learned object (object of consciousness, a discriminate 'thing') is the fundamental knowledge of a thing and prevents it from falling apart or becoming included within another object or concept. I say psychoconstant as in a constant in mathematics. It stays the same, although it may acquire different subsequent meanings. But the shape of the constant is the emotional signification held down by a certain point, and the representation of it is what comes to mind when interrogated by surprise in manner like I described. It is a person's unique, supreme representation of any thing.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565306 - 12/02/23 01:43 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I started thinking about this because it appears to me the safety of, particularly, the mother provided to an infant is the necessary state of affairs required for the infant to be able to start to make sense of his or her sensations and form the beginnings of knowledge. The child usually comes out basically kicking and screaming. Heidegger says we are "Thrown into the world." Birth is a terrifying experience. Think about it. It is also verified that a child needs the touch of the mother or primary caretaker in order to even stay alive and develop his or her nervous system in important ways. The fear of being alone and without the mother is too intense for any coherent knowledge to start to be pieced together about what is being experienced. Only with the safety and emotional stability, akin to homeostasis, could conceptions ever begin to develop, as a protective measure against the insensible chaos of the world in the infant's consciousness.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565314 - 12/02/23 01:48 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
This is why I call religion socialized art, which is similar to what Carl Jung says about the forms of religion, which take the place of what would be one's own psychoconstants, so ultimate love is replaced by the idol of Jesus (and etc.), and just about everything else about one's emotional associations become to be represented by external, artistic forms that everyone can substitute for what would have been their own. At least, this is the goal of organized religion. It is highly effective, especially if taught in childhood.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565319 - 12/02/23 01:54 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
This is why I think children are more easily taught many languages by their primary caretakers, whom they love, because the connections have not become rigid and remain loose and accommodating of many associations.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565328 - 12/02/23 01:59 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
A concise way of saying this is neuroplasticity may be facilitated by strong emotion. As most know now, psychedelics affect subtypes of serotonin receptors, cause intense emotions and facilitate neuroplasticity.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565340 - 12/02/23 02:07 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
The ultimate proof of this working with genius is Einstein's reply when asked if he was religious. "If you mean my unbounded admiration for the structure of the universe, yes I am very religious." This is because, I posit, Einstein had so much joy and love in uncovering things about our world, in terms of physics and mathematics, it came naturally to him, because his psychoconstants concerning such things were anchored down stronger than just about everyone. This is what is meant by Paracelsus when he says
Quote:
He who knows nothing, loves nothing. He who can do nothing understands nothing. He who understands nothing is worthless. But he who understands also loves, notices, sees … The more knowledge is inherent in a thing, the greater the love.…
and exactly what my poem means below
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565341 - 12/02/23 02:07 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
@Kickle; you already know what I mean by association with regard to memory and perception. memory is the interconnection of all mental contents of the moment (both sense, and reactivated memory content (AKA perception)) - i.e. what fires together wires together. this is association by event or moment or temporal association which is an aspect of all memory engrams. Memory is a humongous collection of 1/10th of a second gestalt snapshots of personal experience - but it is all onto the same film.
The memory is formed by interlinking (unlike a photo or hologram), but the neurons that are active during sensation and perception are the same neurons that retain interconnections to hundreds of thousands of other neurons in hundreds of thousands of other impressions of experiences (engrams of memory)
When something similar occurs some of the same neurons are activated, and if it is similar enough the rest of the memory will become reactivated (like a hologram) and that is how perception works. The reactivated perception mixes with sensation (among active mental contents) and anything similar to that may be evoked - typically subsequent moments of memory. (my javascript demo of perception shows this if you click the brainfart in my signature)
So memory formation (in 1/5th of a second) actively associates all neural activity senses and ideas of the moment (the gestalt of experience); and perception is the result (in a future moment) of similarities in mental contents with what has previously been associated in memory - i.e. chair -> rocking chair -> episodes in ancestral home.
Yes it is like nodes of association, but they are personal in every case, unlike what Jung and Freud imagined. i.e. they do not follow a schema, but some regular schemas do emerge.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565342 - 12/02/23 02:09 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
This has been my own self analysis, delivered by you as interrogator, of my own psychoconstants concerning 'association' itself.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
My question is ... Why does that line exist. Why does it proceed like that? It seems personally reasonable without considering emotion that any chair could have come up randomly. Learning what a thing is is not random or just by repeated exposure. There is something that causes the pathway of chair to rocking chair in childhood home.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Freud thought the unconscious consisted ONLY of personal contents. This means tabula rasa. This is Jung's main disagreement with Freud.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Jung late in his life was convinced a large part of our psyche is not personal at all and has a life of its own, quite like Plato saying we get knowledge from past lives.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565361 - 12/02/23 02:24 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I think categorical, geographical and temporal organizing prinicpals are also big players in association. I think they can all work at the same time including emotional and probably others. the degree any one plays probably is related to personality and context of the association node. ie some people more emotional, some more logical
I don't see these associations nodes as static at all, anything that associates to them can change network association strength levels.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom] 2
#28565378 - 12/02/23 02:32 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Consider then the work of Beethoven. The emotion is undeniable in his Moonlight Sonata. I claim it is only the emotion that could have ever facilitated the piece. Logic and Emotion go hand in hand just as any essay is meaningless if only adhering to logos without pathos. I think this can also explain bunk science. The intention means everything. What delivers someone to create is emotion. It cannot be brought about by mere adherance to logic or ethos. Pathos, ethos, and logos go hand in hand. Another example is in Latin when they would say the equivalent of "I like music," it is all from the word Amor. Musicam amo. Te amo. Love and Like are the same word in Latin.
I think this separation from emotion and logic is really incredibly specious and misleading. Anything anyone knows best and or does best must have those neurotransmitters of amor, enjoyment, arousal active about it. Is this wrong?
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565384 - 12/02/23 02:34 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Emotion is really in motion. Animi motus. soul movement. When the movements of logos and emotion combine, you get Romeo and Juliet.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565400 - 12/02/23 02:41 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Here is an example of a piece of music that says exactly this. It is the very title of the piece. Notice as well "synesthesia," quite associated with neuroplasticity and the strengthening of understanding a thing. Many great musicians claim to be able to see sounds. Look in the comment section of this video. One person says how this song gave him hope and feeling when he had none, or something like that.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565409 - 12/02/23 02:48 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I have mild musical synaesthesia and that song always makes me see snapping and opening yellow and lime green triangles without the bottom. But they open with each sound, and there are many of them. It is most likely however just coincidence that the symbol of therefore is almost exactly that ∴ it is the caret or circumflex ^
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565417 - 12/02/23 02:55 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Freud thought the unconscious consisted ONLY of personal contents. This means tabula rasa. This is Jung's main disagreement with Freud.
mea culpa - you are right (but Freud's integrated psychic structure [INCLUDING THE SUBCONSCIOUS] is just as flawed)
now the sequence of word association proceeds but it is a secondary process to the experience that the subject is subjected to
namely you - you, the experimenter have infantalized the subject, and then tasked the infantalized subject who dutifully responds to the best of his ability from an infantile frame of reference.
just guessing.
another person less impressed by your genius might think of the last chair they sat in, or of a car seat which is a kind of chair that they might sit in if they had the car that was just advertised to them on insta
because of the visualization step in your question people may only think of what they can draw.
language and psychodynamic interaction (role interpretations) can make a mess of this kind of data collection
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565446 - 12/02/23 03:18 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: Consider then the work of Beethoven. The emotion is undeniable in his Moonlight Sonata. I claim it is only the emotion that could have ever facilitated the piece. Logic and Emotion go hand in hand just as any essay is meaningless if only adhering to logos without pathos. I think this can also explain bunk science. The intention means everything. What delivers someone to create is emotion. It cannot be brought about by mere adherance to logic or ethos. Pathos, ethos, and logos go hand in hand. Another example is in Latin when they would say the equivalent of "I like music," it is all from the word Amor. Musicam amo. Te amo. Love and Like are the same word in Latin.
I think this separation from emotion and logic is really incredibly specious and misleading. Anything anyone knows best and or does best must have those neurotransmitters of amor, enjoyment, arousal active about it. Is this wrong?
I see geographical, categorical or temporal organizing prinicpals of network association strength as being different processes than logic. For example take geographic.
Lets walk a trail. Lets mark the trail with blue blazes. Those blazes then become associated with the trail because they are in the same location. This may happen consciously or unciously, but does not need a logical process. In fact its suceptible to being fooled. You could bring an ipad and look at green blazes every 5 minutes when hiking and come to associate green blazes.
I don't see these different modulators of association strength to be seperate at all. In fact their complex interconnectednes is part of what makes being human so "interesting" lol
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565454 - 12/02/23 03:23 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I find this wonderfully apt here.

|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565477 - 12/02/23 03:47 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|

Compare this above from Freud with what I wrote just the other day below about Cicero talking about Socrates with "Ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" (subj. mood sciat). The optative mood is closely related to the subjunctive.
Quote:
Subjunctive expressions concerning the words areand is use the words sit and sint in Latin, as opposed to just est (is) and are (sunt). although sum is i am and sumus is we are, etc. etc. The confusion of philosophical language in English really has everything to do with the ill-defined subjunctive and the tendency for colloquialisms and hypostatizations, wherein the subjunctive is taken literally.
I am amazed frankly at the association.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Yes, yes, good point! I thought about perhaps the position of authority I took in that exchange directing the thought could have oriented him into an infantilized position wherein I assumed the position of his father or childhood authority. I am surprised you picked up on this, but I cannot be certain of that, and I think actually this is not likely to be the case, not only because he was actually over 20 years older than me but because a demand wouldn't necessarily do that. I confess I haven't considered all the ends and outs of this objection, but I shall.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565563 - 12/02/23 04:50 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
that may be true, but the dream analysis literature is pompous. Freud is explaining the "tissue of thought" which means he is making it up .
However his use of associative links to explore the psycho-history is valuable. the rest is made up mumbo jumbo realistically.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
|
Nothing counts as a valid form of proof to a skeptic, nor are you worthy to ask.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
|
Well, both of those statements are false. If I actually explained why the first is false I’m not sure you’d even pay any attention because of what I perceive to be bad attitude on your end. And the second statement is just nonsensical.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
You have to admit, he is quite funny.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux] 1
#28566085 - 12/02/23 10:30 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Well that went straight over my head. I have to stop taking these things so seriously 😂
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566090 - 12/02/23 10:35 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: I perceive to be bad attitude on your end
No offense was intended toward present company, per se.
But, the decision is ultimately left up to milieu control.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: durian_2008] 1
#28566112 - 12/02/23 11:17 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Sorry mate ❤️ I had you wrong
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566120 - 12/02/23 11:32 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
It’s so hard to gauge what people mean or what their intentions are based on text. I need to remember to always assume the best intentions first I think.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566451 - 12/03/23 08:51 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I think there is actually a wordless apprehension, as in a grasp, not anxiety, necessary in order to understand complex writing. It is not necessarily mood but personality within the text itself. Maybe personality isn't the right word. But any great writer has a certain air, a pathos, an atmosphere in which the subject matter is treated. I think this is actually crucial to be aware of, but to my knowledge nothing like this is taught. A good way of explaining it is like if you read Plato or Freud or any person who developed a complete system of thought, after you have read a certain amount, you don't necessarily have to read anything else from them, because the wordless worldview organizing the structure of conceptions becomes like a mode wherein you could answer any question in their 'style,' for lack of better words. It is not however just a style. That would reduce it to mere aesthetics. It isn't mere aesthetics. I think, therefore, the present day consideration of postmodernism under the notion that a text can be interpreted in any way is completely ridiculous. This is just an excuse for being a poor reader. It takes practice and a cultivation of interest. Truths revealed are not mere playthings of a literary environment, unless you read completely removed from exactly that personal atmosphere of the writer themselves, which you begin to understand beyond words the more you read them.
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566455 - 12/03/23 08:54 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Be doubtful of me. Prove what I am saying.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,229
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux] 1
#28566505 - 12/03/23 09:29 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: Consider then the work of Beethoven. The emotion is undeniable in his Moonlight Sonata. I claim it is only the emotion that could have ever facilitated the piece. Logic and Emotion go hand in hand just as any essay is meaningless if only adhering to logos without pathos. I think this can also explain bunk science. The intention means everything. What delivers someone to create is emotion. It cannot be brought about by mere adherance to logic or ethos. Pathos, ethos, and logos go hand in hand. Another example is in Latin when they would say the equivalent of "I like music," it is all from the word Amor. Musicam amo. Te amo. Love and Like are the same word in Latin.
I think this separation from emotion and logic is really incredibly specious and misleading. Anything anyone knows best and or does best must have those neurotransmitters of amor, enjoyment, arousal active about it. Is this wrong?
Agreed. Logic is in service to emotion as a tool is in service to building something. The underlying premise for me is that existence isn't fundamentally logical so how can any effort be fundamentally logical?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
If you haven't taken much interest in graphology... I pride myself on my graphology. I'd like to be seen more books printed in people's actual handwriting. The issue of ghostwriting would surely be eliminated... I think however handwriting is extremely important. I did a project on even this in highschool, which crystallized what I already loved about handwriting. I remember as a very young child, still unable to spell, I would scribble what I thought was cursive on a dry erase board. I would make lots of loops and circles in a continual line, stopping in between fake words. Cursive handwriting actually contains elements of personality, and I know this is true because I can remember the character of the cursive writing I would try to mimic. Both of my grandmothers have extremely interesting cursive handwriting. They are very different as well. There is a science developed about this, but a lot written about it is dubious. It isn't a magic trick either. A lot of it has to do with having first made connections from certain people and their personalities to their handwriting. I find it very interesting to look at people's handwriting. There is truly so much there. I personally like chicken scratch handwriting from people who really know how to speak, particularly in a unique way, but don't write a lot. I feel like I can see who people even used to be, and how they have even become wiser. Some is a playful spirit. Some seem suppressing emotion. So many things find expression. Graphology requires taking personal instantiations of writing and comparing the results between other people's evidences of their own writings. There are many many similarities between people as evidenced by their handwritings. This same thing that can be developed allowing the faculty of seeing more in words themselves can be done in the sort of font you see on screens and most books. All the letters are the same, but still there are intracontextual meanings in how series of sentences run together.
Edited by Blue_Lux (12/03/23 10:16 AM)
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Rahz]
#28566522 - 12/03/23 09:41 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I usually feel as though I can retrace my steps, logically, that my reality fits predictable patterns and stereotypes akin to Murphy's Law.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Rahz]
#28566535 - 12/03/23 09:51 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Wasn't it David Hume, yes, who said. Oh yes!
" "reason is a slave to the passions” because reason is dragged, kicking and screaming, by the passions that determine our behavior." "
This is exactly what I was thinking about when I was thinking about an infant needing security and safety, and sateity, in order to be able to start to make knowledges of what is happening. Yes, but I think this primary security and safety, and this relates to homeostasis, becomes the very foundation of knowledge itself, and it is not merely passion but satisfaction. It is a positivity, against pain and chaos, which is unpleasant. The fact of its opposition to anything unpleasant additionally reinforces the pleasantness, which is the excess necessary for consciousness to be interested in sensed phenomena in such a way so as to be able to separate phenomena apart and also fuse them together with associations. Passion is not necessarily a slaver. Passion is the impetus of behavior. This is why I think the passion of Christ himself is the most interesting component. I think such passion can indeed be called godly, and that goes for any ultimate sense of love and concern either for humanity as a whole or for individual people. This can be seen in many people but instantiates in various ways.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28566547 - 12/03/23 10:05 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
An example is the typo I made on my 2nd to last post. I typed 'mimick' instead of mimic. The k itself is a childish letter after a c, especially in that word, because children mimic adults. This was probably because words themselves are imbued with psychic energy as they are made. A graphology of a child's handwriting is beautiful. And I actually don't mind misspellings. Noam Chomsky says there isn't any correct way to write or say anything, as long as meaning is communicated. I think misspellings or any unique differences you can see in people's handwritings say things themselves and in addition to the actual words expressing.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|

Maybe this is a good example. The letter is from the 4th century. The graffiti is from Pompeii. I think it is interesting to note how different fonts say something different, and how, over time, even popular scripts and fonts have come into popularity. I think there is even maybe a dark side where font and script can be controlled or purposely kept from containing other meanings, and specifically pushing secretive or narrow or etc. meanings
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28566595 - 12/03/23 10:52 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
And with all that said, it is true, you can cast spells in Latin but in every language too. This is why it is called a spell in the first place with some sort of incantation. This is what you could properly call the sorts of shapes different writers make in the back of your mind as you are reading them. Spells and charms. It really is then again like magic. And I think it is proper here to, lastly, mention that Roman Square Capital, you know, when it is all capitalized but squared out without spaces was a spiritual form of writing to the Romans and was reserved for important writings.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28566607 - 12/03/23 11:09 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
BlueLux, I envy your path taken through graphology and linguistics. tell me, what is your favorite drug?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
My favorite drug was dextroamphetamine, but I refuse to take it anymore, because there are side effects. I can read an entire book in one sitting and retain almost everything if I take Adderall. That drug however has side too many negative side effects. So, I haven't taken it in a couple years now. The last time I took that I had a prescription for 20mg a day, for 'adhd' (dubious although I fit the criteria) but even that became uncomfortable. I'd say probably mushrooms are my favorite, and then mda or mdma. Then cannabis. I very rarely take ecstasy however
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28566744 - 12/03/23 12:55 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I was going to say speed, which TBH is my fave of all drugs that I dont take any more because my other faves are so safe in comparison.
ATM shrooms are divine.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28566769 - 12/03/23 01:20 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: I think there is actually a wordless apprehension, as in a grasp, not anxiety, necessary in order to understand complex writing. It is not necessarily mood but personality within the text itself. Maybe personality isn't the right word. But any great writer has a certain air, a pathos, an atmosphere in which the subject matter is treated. I think this is actually crucial to be aware of, but to my knowledge nothing like this is taught. A good way of explaining it is like if you read Plato or Freud or any person who developed a complete system of thought, after you have read a certain amount, you don't necessarily have to read anything else from them, because the wordless worldview organizing the structure of conceptions becomes like a mode wherein you could answer any question in their 'style,' for lack of better words. It is not however just a style. That would reduce it to mere aesthetics. It isn't mere aesthetics. I think, therefore, the present day consideration of postmodernism under the notion that a text can be interpreted in any way is completely ridiculous. This is just an excuse for being a poor reader. It takes practice and a cultivation of interest. Truths revealed are not mere playthings of a literary environment, unless you read completely removed from exactly that personal atmosphere of the writer themselves, which you begin to understand beyond words the more you read them.
Sarcasm cannot be detected through text based solely on the text. You need to know the person, and even then you can’t be sure all the time that they’re actually being sarcastic or not.
I get what you’re saying and it holds true for writers who are writing books (you know they’re being serious, and if they’re not they’ll make it known in some way), but it doesn’t hold true for a stranger on the internet.
I don’t know Durian, I’ve barely interacted with them. Durian usually writes two sentences, tops, by the look of it. Tone is hard to convey if you’re just making two short claims. There is definitely interpretation going on, and it seems like you might just be unaware that you were doing it in this case.
I agree that how the person interprets it is based on how they’re feeling at the time. I was getting (probably still am) sucked in by the internet again and putting too much energy into some kind of internet ego lol. But I definitely had to interpret it, I just chose to interpret it uncharitably.
Edited by Bardy (12/03/23 01:27 PM)
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566891 - 12/03/23 03:04 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Are you aware it is exactly ambiguity of meanings that has made for instance Virgil, the Roman poet I find myself constantly mentioning, recognized as such a master of the Latin language? He does this on purpose knowing just what the words can be interpreted to mean, but he doesn't give you a definite picture. This can lead someone beginning to learn Latin to think they are seriously missing something when the words are often designed precisely in such a way for ambiguity and multiple interpretations. Someone said, I forget who, the true beauty in Latin Virgil's poetry is just how much is not said.
Or like here in Martial's Epigrammata
Quote:
Si quid lene mei dicunt et dulce libelli, Si quid honorificum pagina blanda sonat, Hoc tu pingue putas et costam rodere mavis, Ilia Laurentis cum tibi demus apri. Vaticana bibas, si delectaris aceto: Non facit ad stomachum nostra lagona tuum.
I hardly find this misunderstanding of postmodernism (to begin with) a serious reproach for prose-writing when it has been a paramount and very-much conscious aspect of poetry for literally millennia.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566906 - 12/03/23 03:17 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
I have come across quite a few things with 4 and 5 separate meanings in Latin. Lucretius does it all throughout De Rerum Natura, On the Nature of Things. Quite fitting really. That's why it is a masterpiece. The translations cannot ever do it justice. It completely botches it and that is why much of translated Latin poetry is so turgid and flowery, and frankly annoying. I read from someone claiming that Virgil did a 7 way entendre, but I'm not sure what it is.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28567127 - 12/03/23 05:36 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Oh right. I thought you were trying to make the case that things can only be interpreted one “correct” way once you know the authors style. I must’ve got you wrong.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28567214 - 12/03/23 06:05 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
It isn't so much that there is a strict one way, but there is one set of ways. I think some people think it is likely to be able to interpret someone, say, Ralph Emerson as a white bigot christian who indirectly supported patriarchy. It's like...
Yeeah, prolly not. I get you may have got that.. But you didn't read it right...
No harm in trying to get people to look for the actual contexts of things instead of immediately categorizing something in accordance with their predilections or insufficient considerations. Piaget should be remembered. It isn't all about assimilating one's schema but accommodating it just as much.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28567313 - 12/03/23 07:00 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah, it’s the persons real intentions that actually matter, not how you read it. We both agree about that.
It doesn’t take away from the fact that we encounter this problem of interpretation on the internet all the time though, which is why it is good practice to always give the most charitable reading you can. I try to… but I still often fail when I’m not paying proper attention.
Since Durian often posts two sentences that don’t contain many words I find a lot of their comments vague and difficult to interpret. It’s definitely humorous. But it’s easier to take it the wrong way. I like it when people are concise… but not everyone is all the time and I need to practice tolerance and compassion to some degree.
Edited by Bardy (12/03/23 07:05 PM)
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28567354 - 12/03/23 07:20 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
The sole fact you think you need to practice tolerance and compassion means you are a good person. Probably not much to change. Philosophy is annoying. I personally like the philosophy of Sextus Empiricus because he starts from what you actually CAN say about anything, and if it is dubious at all... He just outright says we can't make any final statements about that, and we need to move onto something concrete instead of dabbling in dialectical battles where the subject matter is too ambiguous.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28567371 - 12/03/23 07:28 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
This is a fantastic book. Very easy to read. If you click the link it will download. Outlines of Pyrrhonism by Sextus Empiricus. He was a physician, not just a philosopher. He was centuries ahead of his time, I think. Nietzsche was heavily inspired by him.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.sciacchitano.it/pensatori%2520epistemici/scettici/outlines%2520of%2520pyrronism.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiK6ZHJ3fSCAxUGk4kEHYUTAQoQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw3sVHAGa6evqEplrKVUXt8K
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28567448 - 12/03/23 08:08 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Thanks so much 😊 I’ll check it out
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28567454 - 12/03/23 08:10 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
obviously you don't have to, but if you want, there it is lol
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28567463 - 12/03/23 08:13 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah I’ll definitely have a read, it sounds interesting. You’re not putting a gun to my head haha
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28567804 - 12/04/23 04:44 AM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: My favorite drug was dextroamphetamine, but I refuse to take it anymore, because there are side effects. I can read an entire book in one sitting and retain almost everything if I take Adderall. That drug however has side too many negative side effects. So, I haven't taken it in a couple years now. The last time I took that I had a prescription for 20mg a day, for 'adhd' (dubious although I fit the criteria) but even that became uncomfortable. I'd say probably mushrooms are my favorite, and then mda or mdma. Then cannabis. I very rarely take ecstasy however
Why not try DXM?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
|
he likes his mind to race through books is why.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Quote:
Why not try DXM?
I'm not 14 anymore.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 50 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28568037 - 12/04/23 09:44 AM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
25?
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28568071 - 12/04/23 10:14 AM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
69
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28568169 - 12/04/23 11:36 AM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
1954?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Yes, That's when I wrote the Doors of Perception.
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28568201 - 12/04/23 11:52 AM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
What if two pieces of scientific literature are both accredited, yet both hold mutually exclusive views that disagree with eachother?
The literature came from a publisher. It is a promotional material, and, whatever is your personal opinion of it, there is also a party line according to the rules of the house.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28568227 - 12/04/23 12:16 PM (1 month, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: Yes, That's when I wrote the Doors of Perception.
brilliant
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28568545 - 12/04/23 04:49 PM (1 month, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Just a though but, you can have the knowledge of how to reverse a trailer without the understanding.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|