Re: CD Sales Down
- From: Rufus <not@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:23:15 GMT
The Repair Guy wrote:
Rufus <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Repair Guy wrote:--snip--No - I'm saying that "existence" is just as much a man-made concept as "objectivity" or "reality". And that all three are founded in perception.
Pluto (the planet) didn't exist until someone saw it? Gods didn't exist until someone believed in them?Evidence is there whether anyone uses it or not.Sort of... if no one perceives it, it's not even "there".
Because no human ever saw a living T. Rex, they never existed? Is this what you're trying to say?
* All concepts are man-made, by definition.
Yes - and that's why there aren't any "verifiable absolutes".
* Things "existed" a long time before man was here to perceive anything, so human perception can't be required for a thing's existence.
Not so sure about that...cosmological physics postulates "nothing" as an absolute. So maybe even "absolutes" are just manufactured.
Things don't exist or not exist because we perceive them or don't perceive them. If an object is seen by one person and not by the next, is it locked in some kind of half-existence state until a third person breaks the tie?No - it "exists" for one and not for the other.
The object exists or it doesn't, not "for" anyone.
Not so much "for" as "to". I think that from a practical, working, "real world", intra-personal perspective "to" matters to a far greater extent than "for".
--snip--Again, "verified" is in the eye and POV of the verifier in most cases.Maybe Truth (capital T) is an ideal, but plain oldMy underlying assumption is that you want to get at the truth, so you look at evidence.Yes - but the "truth" is just as elusive an ideal as "objectivity", IMO.
true or false statements are made all the time. Most can be verified one way or another. If they can't, they don't do much in the way of conveying
information... which is the purpose of making statements, I think.
That's the point of verification - it minimizes or (ideally) eliminates the POV factor. Non-human 'perception' - mechanical measurement of one kind or another - can help to remove opinion or bias.
If that's not possible, having several people verify
something at least waters down any POV factor.
I don't think that anything is "verifiable" in absolute terms. Even our machines make "mistakes", because we are biased when we design them. That afore mentioned life threatening situation with the laser was a classic example of that.
--snip--No - I was illustrating the point that laws that "directlyYour example didn't support your point (human laws and the consequences of breaking them are hard to understand). Try again? :-PWhich is just another way of punishing theThe cops were negligent, then. The problem wasn't that the law - or the consequences of violating it - was too hard to understand. It just wasn't enforced.Most laws that directly affect us - traffic laws, petty theft, grand theft, manslaughter, arson, etc - have understandable or easy to find consequences. You're stretching, IMO.Nope. I got rear ended sitting at a stop light once... the guy was uninsured. The cops wouldn't even come file a report for my
insurance because there was no bodily injury involved.
innocent.
affect us - traffic laws" - even when they are simple and easily understood they still fall flat because
people get too lazy to enforce them... and then the innocent get to suffer the consequences, not the guilty. Point again being that there is not really any equity or "justice" under law because the law fails to be enforced equitably, evenly, and/or uniformly.
Agreed. But re-read the text your example was in
response to.
Doesn't matter - either the whole of the law applies and is upheld in it's entirety, or it is all just a pile of crap by extension. Again, no justice, no equity, no equality, just order. And that order is dependent solely upon those whom we place into authority to make it manifest and it's not even uniformly manifested at that.
--snip--No - is was my specific response to your query, and I stand by it because it's one of the best and most glaring examples I can think of.There was no argument. I rejected your example as not being what I asked for: a specific violation of a specific law. Was that intentional evasion, or just misunderstanding?My answer stands - in the gun control argument, YES.That wasn't the question, Guncho :-) Would your kids get nailed for YOUR specificYes. Because they don't have the right either - a "right" which is supposedly guaranteed under law.If you're nailed for carrying concealed without a license, are your kids or descendants punished? Yes __ No __Give me an example of the punishment for a specific violation of a specific lawGun control. I am being specifically punished and my "right" to bear arms is being specifically infringed even though
follows through generations, please.
I've never shot anyone.
violation? Quit dancing. No, they wouldn't, and you know it. The law may sometimes punish
the wrong guy, but it doesn't go after descendants and punish them.
Here's my query again: "Give me an example of the punishment for a specific violation of a specific law follows through generations, please."
[note: should've read 'following']
Your example, at the risk of stating the obvious,
did not meet those criteria.
Once upon a time there were many of them - adultery and illegitimacy spring to mind most readily. Some of those laws still stand, but much like my auto accident they don't get enforced.
Any law which results in a generational cycle of adverse effect punishes generationally - sons and daughters of murderers, pimps, drug pushers, coyotes, ex-cons - just by being stuck with the stigma of that association. My gun control example still stands - I and my progeny (if I had any...) are punished for the acts of people that aren't even related to us, let alone our blood relatives.
But your rejection of my example only further illustrates my point about people making up their own minds and accepting or not accepting for themselves.
It also illustrates my point - that you can't or won't come up with a specific example.
I did - you just won't accept it.
--snip--In my theology that's backwards - people don't exist without God.Love doesn't exist without people. It's not claimedHard to show that something exists, if no one can agree on its attributes. Almost like fantasy...Not really. I haven't met many people that agree on the attributes of love, yet everyone
(including yourself) agrees that it exists.
to exist without people. God is, though. Will you try
to stretch the comparison to say the same about god(s)? :-)
That's only opinion. Is it only an opinion that you can't have love without people?
Unless in your opinion love is present and "exists" in nothingness...since people are not required to perceive something to make it "real".
People create gods,
Agreed.
and those false gods don't really "exist",
How do you tell a 'false' god from a 'true' god?
The one you believe in is true, the rest are false?
Yes, IMO. And even mine isn't absolute because it's only what I "know" for myself as I keep saying. It's mine and mine alone, not necessarily anyone else's, and IMO that's the way it should be. Others are free to follow their own hearts.
but people make them "live" through collective
thought and attention. But God remains God, and those people are mistaken, IMO.
Hard to show that, I'd imagine.
Easy to show, as a matter of historical reference - the "replacement" of former theology with subsequent theology as a learning or evolutionary process. Just like people moving from thinking tobacco is "harmless" to realizing smoking causes cancer. Only the mechanics of the progression differ.
So - since people don't exist without God,
Unsupported premise...
Theologically supported premise, going back to our discussion of the Fall.
and love doesn't exist without people,
... tied to an agreed-upon premise...
Again, unless in your opinion love can exist in nothingness. I don't think we'd agreed upon this, only that love is "real".
love doesn't exist without God.
... equals a questionable (if not false) conclusion.
There's a name for this particular fallacy, but I can't
remember what it is.
I think you're looking for "circular". But that was what got us into this discourse in the first place.
When you build an argument - or thought structure, or worldview - you should test each block as rigorously as the next, if you want the structure to be sound.
Unless you're talking about feelings, which in matters of religion you are, and have to be by default. Then it's about acceptance, and not about "proof" or "validation".
Unless it's false...or as Freud stated, love really
is an "illusion".
Or unless one of your premises is false.
Back to the problem of love existing in a vacuum or not. If love is "real" in absolute terms it also would have to "exist" from "everlasting to everlasting". But I will agree at this point that without people there seems to be no manner for it to manifest.
--snip--How do you know in the absolute that God didn't do that as well?If you're postulating "everlasting to everlasting", you're getting dangerously close to God, my friend...Not unless you're talking about pantheism. There
are theories that the universe is in a constant state
of expanding/contracting over billions of years. I don't know enough to have an opinion on this, but it sounds more reasonable to me than the Magic Wand Theory (god did it).
The same way I "know" he didn't create a lot of other gods, let people believe in them for centuries,
then suddenly declare his existence and forbid the worship of those other gods. I don't _know_ this isn't
the case, but it sounds awfully contrived.
God didn't - people did. And I "know" that as well. I'd use the example of raising children here - how many times do you let your child get away with some transgression before you finally put a halt to it? Same principle applies - humanity made a few mistakes along the way, and God stepped in and said "enough". I wouldn't call that "contrived" by any means.
Or that God didn't or doesn't maintain the universe in a cyclic state?
Or that there is no god?
Again, nobody "knows" in the absolute - I choose to believe one way, you choose another.
The Book postulates beginnings AND endings...
You've admitted human tampering with the bible.
And the book also "postulates" a firmament. Oops.
And the destruction of that firmament, and humanity...which probably will happen someday. The Book is a human attempt at understanding from an emotionally connected POV. But in many cases it does parallel your science.
maybe that's just the cycle from our perception of "everlasting to everlasting".
Maybe the idea of a creator god was the best explanation we could come up with thousands of years ago.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that because it's a thousand years later it's "wrong" in any portion or in total. It's as relevant today as it was then to those to whom it speaks to.
You still haven't answered my question on the origin... but no one has...
You've admitted it makes no sense - "time" was meaningless before the big bang. So it would have to be "the universe came into existence at 0:00:00 (on some agreed-upon (IOW, arbitrary)
calendar).
No - I haven't admitted it "makes no sense", only that it's paradoxical. There IS an answer, but that answer remains hidden, like so many other features of the universe.
--snip--I assume (and so does physics) that it hasn't always "existed" as we now know it. So when did that start?If it 'came into existence', it hasn't always existed.You're mixing up two separate problems - showing that the universe exists, and showing when it came into existence. You assume it hasn't always existed.Nope.
Please re-read the text above.
Stands. You state that the universe "exists" based upon your own senses, and scientific "proof". Science postulates that there was a beginning - that means that it did not "always" exist...so it had to come into existence somehow, and at some time.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/One is predicated on the other.Show that.
...proof is left to the reader.
IOW, no proof given.
As I said, it's left to the reader.
Except God - that's the nature of God.If something "exists", then it had to somehow be made manifest - "universe" or void.Except gods?
You're stating that as a fact. How do you know?
"gods" are man made.
Yup.
God, with a capital "G" isn't. But that's the "fact" the way I see it.
I guess what makes me (or anyone) "feel good" is or eventually becomes "fact".Where's your "objectivity" gone?..unless you're trying to sell me Genesis...False dichotomy.
My objectivity, such as it is, is still here. If I wanted
to believe something that made me feel good, I'd probably have both feet in the god camp. The reason I don't is that I try to be objective. I value intellectual integrity. Believing something because it makes you feel good - not because it's based on facts - is an intellectual shortcut, IMO,
and dishonest.
... unless you make all your decisions and do all your thinking that way. That would be honest and
consistent, but dumb.
If that was true, we'd all be drunks or drug addicts.
A lot of us are...I just met another one Friday night. And I thought she was "just like the rest of us" before she got to talking to me and trying to get me to take her home...
"Fact" is, that "fact" is anything you make it - "the facts are open to interpretation", and they are usually very widely interpreted.
They sure are, but facts remain, even under piles
of BS.
If you can find them, which in most cases the BS is high and deep enough to prevent.
--snip--Facts don't depend on belief. Example:It all depends on what you "believe" about the calibration of your ruler... change your ruler, change your height.
I'm 6' 1" tall. Suppose I believe I'm 5', 7', or 30' tall. Would that change my height? If you say yes, I'm done right now...
Cheating, lying, and/or changing the ground rules
weren't mentioned. Belief was the question.
Belief itself changes the ground rules, and belief can often change like fashion based upon majority opinion or consensus.
Absolute - Truth, with a capital "T". Indisputable,Doesn't mean they are "truth" in the absolute.1) Define alsolute truth
Nothing is indisputable. See flat-earthers.
Then there is no "truth" in the "real" world. And that's what I've been getting at - everyone has and maintains their own "truth", and all are equally valid.
undeniable,
Nothing is undeniable. See flat-earthers.
no explanation required,
I can't think of anything that's obvious in so many contexts that it wouldn't have to be explained to someone. The bible claims to be Truth, and the clergy has built careers and empires from
'explaining' it.
Aha - but the truth of the Bible is something different to each individual whom reads it, and that's the beauty of it IMO. Like I said, I believe God speaks to everyone but He doesn't say the same thing to everyone. That doesn't mean or require that it all isn't true.
inviolate,
What does that mean here?
Unchangeable, constant.
no need for consensus,
Agreed - truth is not a matter of opinion.
no need for evidence,
Hard to tell it's truth, without some kind of evidence.
"Truth" with a capital "T" is self evident, IMO.
only ONE conclusion available - Truth.
Outside of math, it's hard to imagine situations where only one conclusion can be drawn.
I used to think that, until I studied calculus and discovered that you can have infinitely many or sets of solutions...and that they may all only vary by a constant. One could think of each one of those infinitely many constants as bases for "Truth" with a capital "T".
2) How does someone who uses words like'faith' get off using words like 'absolute'?Because faith is all that's left in the face of not having absolutes.
Faith is what people use when they want to believe something, but can't find any evidence to back it up.
Agreed. And what I contend is that there really isn't much that one can find genuinely "evident" in the world and that people interact and live through faith to a far greater extent than they ever contemplate.
People believe - and people maintain strength in
their belief through faith. The whole point of faith is that there are no absolutes to rely upon - none other than God, and even then being human we lack the capacity for the complete understanding
of God in the absolute. So faith is all that's left to us.
When I hear the word 'faith', I picture a con man saying "trust me." He's asking you to believe him with no evidence, or even in the face of evidence that he's a con man.
Yeah - everyday on the Home Shopping Network, or in and through any advertising. Or in any political campaign. Or even when a girl walks up to me and asks me to take her home and then lets me know how much she likes her drugs. But in a similar manner, one takes away what they care to take and leaves the rest. Religion, theology, and/or philosophy aren't any different.
The only difference is in the word or words you may use to describe the interplay, but all of these situations are handled in a human sense by and through selective approach to an amount of faith placed in the proposition. The amount of faith we place in the circumstance and that alone determines it to be "true" for us or not.
I think (and know...) that "facts" are manufactured and blinked into and out of existence not only by opinion, but by "leaders", by statistics, by bias, and by propagandizing. Hitler's "big lie" springs to mind.When it come down to it all that remains are belief and faith. In anything.If you think facts can be manufactured, changed, or blinked out of existence by opinion, I can see how you'd think that.
Telling a big lie and getting people to believe it
doesn't transform the lie into truth; it means the lie was believed and people think it's the truth. The lie could (probably) be checked against reality, but if the liar controls the media and holds all the guns, it might be difficult. That still doesn't make it the truth. It can make it an
'accepted truth', maybe, like "the earth is flat".
You mean "Truth" and not "truth". If you can get people to act on your lie it most certainly is "truth" even if only for the period that you can get people to make your lie manifest.
Depends on what you believe, really...Some people still believe the earth is flat.Does their belief flatten the earth? No.
It seems that all the science they need is in the bible:
http://tinyurl.com/l7lz9
Contemporary theory supporting a flat Earth originated with an English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1884).
Based on his interpretation of certain biblical passages,
Rowbotham published a 16-page pamphlet, which he later expanded into a 430-page book, Earth Not a Globe,
expounding his views.
[...]
The flat Earth faced challenges posed by photographs of the earth from space and later the moon. Member Samuel Shenton remarked: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."
Yeah - and yet they still believe. There are people that believe the lunar landing was staged and is another example of a "big lie". People take "truth" (with a small "t") to be what they will it to be.
Exactly.Some more still may not even believe there is an "earth". That's up to them.I suppose they would casually mention it when interviewing for a job, or writing a science essay. Who's to say they're wrong, and all of science is right?
I was being sarcastic. They can be proven wrong
several ways - but not if they keep their heads in
their belief buckets and ignore verifiable evidence.
That protects their belief, but it's a long way from
making it true.
They can be proven "wrong" to you, and to people that think like you. To them, you've demonstrated nothing. So I don't see your comment as being that sarcastic.
--snip--"Cyclic" as in expanding and contracting into and out of "nothing" or "the void".'Cyclic' as in no beginning or end?Can you show that the universe hasn't always been here? This should be good...Yes, actually. I think cosmological physics has
a pretty good handle on the known universe being at least a cyclic system.
IOW, no beginning or end?
Multiple beginnings and multiple endings. But even so, there is postulated a "point of origin" in time/space, or an "absolute beginning". Physics likes absolutes.
The reason that the answer to the "when" question is so difficult is that in the collapse to nothing even
"everlasting" may seem or appear to have a beginning.
Maybe because "time" or "when" needs context to make any sense.
Not really - the theory is that there is so much mass and gravity at or near origin that there is no time. You can get as asymptotically close to time/point of origin as you may, but actually getting there may not be possible. At least not as current theory stands.
No - I'm saying that my "when" question is completely valid as postulated by both faith and science,But even they can't answer the "when" question because theoretical time breaks down as you approach the beginning.So... you're admitting your 'when' question was meaningless?
Questions are postulated?
It's that the universe is postulated to have an origin by both faith and science, but sure - or that questions arise from postulates, more to the point. It's part of the evolutionary process of thought in any scientific or theological thread.
and that if the universe IS scientifically cyclic, that cycle had to start at some point.
Why?
Because cosmological physicists say so - unless you're insinuating science is one of those "big lies"...
The answer to the "when" question is one of the "holy grails" of cosmological physics.
I assume they've all prayed for an answer and
come up short...
Maybe, but I'd consider them more as looking into the discovery of "God's details", like I mentioned before...some of them actually refer to the study of cosmology as such. Yes, some of them do look for parallels in ancient texts and find correlations between their science and any particular theology "elegant" in a manner of speaking.
--snip--I said nothing about responsibility - I said they create their own "realities",I just re-read this part. I can follow you if you'reWhat I'm getting at is that "reality" itself is only a construct. People (including you and me) create their own "realities" to suit
their own needs and desires.
talking about, say, Bill Gates "creating his own reality to suit his own needs and desires". But do you really think people living in poverty, with incurable diseases, with abusive parents, are somehow responsible for being born into a poor family, having an inherited disease, and getting the crap pounded out of them? That was
a 'reality' they created because they 'desire' poverty, sickness, etc.? Explain this.
"... to suit their own needs and desires" - don't leave
off that part. That's part of my point - that they 'need' or 'desire' poverty, sickness, etc.? Bosh. And if, as
you say, they created their realities, who else would
be responsible?
In the case of my ex, yes. To quote her - "some people don't want your help". To quote her again, "as long as I have nothing, then no one can take anything from me". I tried telling her that as long as she has nothing, then people are STILL taking things from her.
She has a good job on the staff at the local junior college and only makes about $20K less than I do as a professional engineer, and yet lives in a state of near poverty next to a trailer park in a lesser part of town because she chooses to - yes, people like that bear the responsibility for their circumstances themselves. They may be born into them like she was, but they certainly have opportunities to change them. Some choose to take those opportunities (and I've met a lot of those too - I know one in particular that rose out of them to become a real over-achiever at my company) and some do not.
and you called that a "coping strategy", which is a valid way of saying the same thing. But even if it is to "cope", it's still a valid reality apart from our own. To say they are any different from an over achiever like Bill Gates only denies them their humanity within the circumstances of their own condition, IMO.
I used Gates as an example because his "created
reality" is healthy and rich. Any sane person would
desire that. Who would 'need' or 'desire' a reality
that made them be poor & sick? No one.
I just cited a personal observation of one such example. If there's one, there's more. I offered her a future, half my pension, savings, intellect, etc. Even though she claim to desire security, she's content as she is in her artificially self-induced poverty.
Funny...someone asked me about her just today at breakfast. Like I said, I live in a small town...
--snip--And if I fail to perceive, the "evidence" doesn't matter to ME.If I fail to perceive the evidence, then it simply does not exist for me.The problem is the "for me" part. That's subjective.
The evidence is ->objective<-. You don't matter to
the evidence.
Agreed. But we weren't talking about you. We were
talking about the evidence.
Yes - and I was talking in generalities. Goes way beyond "me".
Yes. An undiscovered fossil doesn't exist until someone finds it - and neither does the animal that died and left it.If I perceive it to be something it's not, then what is it really?The same as before you got there, while you're
there, and after you leave. Do you think that things are waiting to have certain attributes - or exist - until you show up and notice them?
The fossil existed before anyone discovered it.
Of _course_ an _undiscovered_ fossil didn't exist before it was discovered. It was only a fossil then.
You're a sneaky guy...
I just saw a documentary a couple of nights ago on some Aussie paleontologists that stumbled into a new cache of previously unknown species and heard them claim that they didn't "exist" until they found them.
"Existence" requires acknowledgment to make it manifest. That's why the ancient Egyptians used to "remove his name from all monuments, obelisks, and temples" when they really meant to "destroy" someone.
--snip--No, my senses are being tricked.It's all about what you believe - if "virtual" realityYou're tricking your senses. Reality hasn't changed.
is "real" while you're in it, "real" enough to make you air sick, then it's as real as you've made it.
I just said that. Why did you say No?
Subtle point - you said I was tricking them, I said they were being tricked; outside in verses inside out. You statement implies I have control of the input, when the only real control I have is to recognize that my senses are lying about the input and choose to ignore them, or ignore the ones that I can perceive are lying.
I have to realize that and then ignore them in order
to take appropriate action - I and every pilot are schooled such, and there's distinct medical explanation for it.
Does the medical explanation say anything about
reality?
Yes - it says volumes about our perception of it, and thus our individual relation to and within it. It can even delineate and define the limitations of our abilities to relate to "reality" in the cases of space and time, between individuals.
"Spatial disorientation", "sensory overload" - I encounter and spend a lot of time finding ways to counter these in my profession, for myself, but mostly for others that I task. I even had a world championship contending freestyle skydiver once ask me what I did specifically to combat them after I followed her during a jump once. "Selective attention" was about the best way I could describe my ability to her...she got what I was talking about, but not HOW I am able to do it - I can do that, she can't - and that's why she was #2 at the world champs instead of #1 in her opinion. And so we vary from individual to individual.
--snip--...a LOT more of them don't get locked up. TheyThese people get locked up because what they're perceiving is NOT reality. Some of them die because their ability to fly is NOT reality. etc., etc.You've encountered them yourself...I don't have to show any. That "unsettling" feeling whenBut I still stand by my statement that life would be easier if there were just one... but there ain't.You haven't shown that there is more than one.
talking to a schizophrenic that you've experienced. That's as "alternatively real" as
it gets.
function, work, and live in our communities right alongside us, but most of us stay out of their way
or avoid them.
True. But my point was that what they perceive is not another reality, but a faulty perception of Reality.
Sometimes it's only enough to be considered eccentric, but sometimes it's enough to get them
straitjacketed.
Heh...the band in the bar where I met that gal last Friday is called "Straight Jacket"...
It's only "faulty" in our perception - to them it's as "real" as our reality is to us, even if it's only slightly varied from ours. More often than not you just can't get around that.
--snip--Yeah - it can be straight out tampered with.Is there another way physical evidence can be altered?It doesn't alter it physically,I hold that many differing conclusions might be drawn from any set of evidence based on the POV of the individual interpreting it.Agreed. But that doesn't affect the evidence itself one bit.
That would be altering it physically, I would think.
I think (know actually, from my studies in Behavior Modification and other sources) that you can modify it mentally for a individual or set of individuals if you know what you're doing...it's called "brainwashing" in the extreme, "persuasion" in milder circumstances. "Education" under still other instances.
Or someone can persuade an observer that they are seeing something that they are not (that's pretty easy...).
That's not altering the evidence.
Like I've previously claimed, altering perception is altering the evidence because it alters outcome of action taken based on that evidence.
Or the observer themselves can persuade
themselves that they are seeing something they are not.
That's not altering the evidence, either.
See the above...
--snip--Yeah, if you get someone to trade you for it - that's why people print counterfeit $20s.My statement was about people creating their own alternate "realities", and they do. They doA delusion is "just as valid" as no delusion???
it because yours either doesn't suit them, or as you say they can't cope with it. But for them, their view is just as valid and "real" as yours.
Is a false statement just as valid as a true statement? A counterfeit $20 bill just as valid as a legal one?
But they're NOT just as valid, or they wouldn't be
called 'counterfeit', and it wouldn't be illegal to make
them.
But they ARE just as valid to the guy you fooled. It's not until you can't fool someone with them that they are "invalid".
As for "delusion" - again, yes; to the individual whose "delusion" it is.
No, not to them - I meant as compared to reality.
I know it's real to them. Do you think that, to a
randomly chosen person, delusions are just as
valid as clear perception?
It all depends on who's "reality" you're talking about and from - the delusion IS their "clear perception" and we define what "delusion" means to us. You may choose someone at random that may actually take the time to listen to the previous individual and agree with them - see Jonestown, Manson, Patty Hearst, or any cult or fan situation.
--snip--I can test - have tested - my perceptions of reality.Sure they can - and often do. Sometimes to great injury... sometimes repeatedly because they either fail to learn or simply don't want to learn. Suicides,
People with bizarre "realities" can't or don't do that. The flying ability example comes to mind.
Bad example. Some perfectly sane people suicide,
plus it's a worthless test if the results can't be known.
Known by whom? For the "successful" suicide, death is the desired result.
cutters, anorexics,
I don't see how these are testing their perceptions
against reality. The cutter really is being cut, the
anorexic really is thin. No delusions here. The questionable part is what _makes_ them do it.
I see this in the case of the stimulus seekers I mentioned previously. Or in the case where self abuse may be learned behavior. In the specific case of anorexics, most never see themselves as "thin enough" (that's the delusion) and so their perception of reality is so skewed that they "test" by continuing to starve themselves toward an "ideal".
over achievers, gamblers, skydivers, extreme athletes all spring to mind.
These are testing their perceptions against reality,
but I don't see why you lumped them in with the
mentally disturbed.
Same principle in that all of them "test" their relationship with "reality" - "delusional" or not. Each group is or may be "delusional" only because we say so - not them.
True - but again, all you've done is to find 100 people that think like you. There are still moreThey know 10 tons of moving metal can kill themEasy test: I can ask the next 100 people I meetAll that means is that you've found 100 people that perceive the world the way you do.
if they'd feel safe stepping in front of a bus. How many do you think will say, "Sure, ten tons of metal slamming into me won't bother me"? How many do you think would look at me like I was an idiot for even asking?
If ANY of them agree to step in front of the bus,
they would be the ones hallucinating, and they probably shouldn't be out on their own.
if they're stupid enough to stand in front of it. Maybe they've seen it happen, or maybe they just have a working grasp of reality.
that don't.
They must be staying away from buses, or they'd be dead or crippled.
I imagine many of them are...buses don't always kill.
I got that call from the doc I was waiting for - if I end up facing some of what I may potentially face, walking in front of that bus may become preferable to the alternative. If I don't get dead, rest assured that I'll use any and all of my remaining faculties to hunt you down...
Unless they get careless...Somewhere, there is someone that does not, and your 100 people won't change that.He'll be the one who looks like he had a walk-on part in a Roadrunner cartoon. The100 people will still be the ones who are still able to walk.
That would be an accident; not defying reality.
...."accident"...I'm in a state of flux on "accident".
or change their minds.
Unlikely, unless by 'change their minds' you mean 'become mentally unbalanced'.
Not any more than I'd think converting from Catholicism to Judaism would be...and I know one of those personally.
--snip--Noted - it was quite illustrative.[Note: the above was a contradiction.]Correct.And from who's POV, because in the end it's only the POV that provides the "reality".Reality is there with your POV, my POV, or none. We're only perceiving it.
Yes. What do you think it illustrates?
The interplay and tension (particularly the tension) between the multiplicity of individual "realities". I think it's a nice compact statement on it.
--snip--I have experimental evidence, gathered over 50 years, that my perceptions of reality are accurate. The Napoleons and Supermen have no evidence, but all kinds of faith. Why don't they ever test howThey do test, just like we all do -
"real" their "realities" are? The rest of the world might panic, or something?
--snip--
A nut case who thinks he has super powers tries to
stop an oncoming train? I doubt it. He would find all kinds of excuses NOT to 'demonstrate his powers',
or his first 'demonstration' would be his last.
Actually, a "nut case" would leap to the chance even if he only got to leap once. Someone like us wouldn't because we lack the conviction or belief.
and then we step in and stop them, because yes - we panic. Who knows what they might do or have done if we left them alone?
Some of them butcher their children. Some of them
eat other people. Some eat glass, or feces, or __.
Some of them hear god telling them to kill others.
When someone seems unstable, I don't automatically assume they're one of these, but the range of possible behaviors opens up a LOT.
Yup...I live around a LOT of folks I'd like to see not only locked up, but eliminated in entirety...in a small place, you hear a lot of stuff if you listen. Especially when some of your friends are cops. Trust me, we don't lock them ALL up...and in the state of California, we don't hold the ones we do nearly as long as we should...
Maybe they'd re-conquer the empire, or actually halt a crime or two. We'll never know because we intervene given that they don't fit our collective definition of "normal", and we stop them.
For some of the reasons above. There seems to be more - orders of magnitude more - baby killers
than crimestoppers among the mentally ill.
There's even more baby-abusers walking around freely amongst us, it seems...
Even if they just removed themselves from the ranks of the living through their own actions, maybe
humanity would benefit by their "abnormality" being eventually bred out of the species... we'll never know.
It's heartwarming to see this kind of optimism :-)
The Repair Guy repairguy1993 dot netfirms dot com
What can I say, I'd like to hope that Darwin wasn't just wasting both his time and ours with all his theories...
--
- Rufus
.
- References:
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: The Repair Guy
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: Rufus
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: The Repair Guy
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: Rufus
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: The Repair Guy
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: Rufus
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: The Repair Guy
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: Rufus
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: The Repair Guy
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: Rufus
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: The Repair Guy
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: Rufus
- Re: CD Sales Down
- From: The Repair Guy
- Re: CD Sales Down
- Prev by Date: Re: Need lefty pots for an Epiphone
- Next by Date: Re: Chord info
- Previous by thread: Re: CD Sales Down
- Next by thread: Re: Thanks for the comments
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
