Poof !
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ARCTIC OCEAN WARMING, ICEBERGS GROWING SCARCE, WASHINGTON POSTREPORTS [33 scary quotes since 1870]
Next: From Where the WTC Idiocy Starts - Hank the Fired Janitor
From: "Bassos" Root on 9 Apr 2010 18:01 "Tom" <dantomel(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1e0da413-a287-4e50-82fd-04fbf587beaa(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Apr 9, 2:08 pm, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: > "Tom" <danto...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:a643e684-bd7b-4047-8a0e-fbd1ce09aa3b(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 8, 8:15 am, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: > > > "Absorbed" <purestdeform...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > You still don't seem to understand that Tom thinks you're a loon, even > > > though he's told you repeatedly. > > > You could not find a claim of Tom that i would be a loon last time you > > claimed that. > > ** > I do indeed think you're a loon, Bassos. > ** > > Feel free to present any evidence in support of your claim. ** Evidence for what I think can be found in what I say. ** I know, but said evidence is pretty much all in support of what i wrote. Or is it ? Why will you not openly explore you ? (i know, want me to tell you ?)
From: slider on 10 Apr 2010 11:24 tom wrote... wrote: > ### - rational thinking is 'only' effective in the realm of the rational, but > there are other, just as-viable, realms of awareness where reason doesn't count > for much, if anything at all... There is no "realm of the rational". Rationality is a tool, not a place. You apply it to whatever you think or feel in order to check it for consistency. Sure, there are lots of times when situations change and assumptions can no longer be relied upon. It is the function of rationality to help you discover what the rules are, as well as why and how they change. ### - agreed that rationality is a tool and not a place, only problem being that we (humans) have created a 'virtual' place out of said rationality, one that's increasingly divorced from Reality in-favour of our own 'more-convenient' rationalised interpretations of it... > i.e. it's not that i'm afraid of the dark, it's you who's afraid of the light > ;-) Nihilism is not light. It's not truth. It's not anything. The only true nihilist is in a vegetative coma. For any active creature, it's just an affectation. ### - nihilism is a philosophy and i've already said that there IS no 'philosophy' except for the ones we humans invented/fabricated (iow humans have invented their 'own' ways of living and relating to life that no-longer has anything to do with nature) > > to be blunt... > > there IS no 'meaning' to life > > there IS no 'purpose' to existence > > there IS no 'philosophy' > > That *is* a philosophy. > > ### - ah well if you continue to 'believe' so then you're probably gonna keep > finding such useless things to trip-over + this explains your rather stubborn > insistence on nonsense that seems perfectly sensible only to you and others like > you... > the fact that there isn't any philosophy is not a philosophy in itself, that is > unless you turn it into one + it is precisely that 'kind of thing' which i'm > critiquing in the first place :) You don't seem to know what the word "philosophy" means. Sartre's existentialism, which is what you've been touting, is a very specific kind of philosophy. Essentially it's a sort of overblown skepticism with depression added onto it. It was a product of Europe's war-torn 20th Century, in which everything seemed pretty depressing, especially for the French. ### - sartre's existentialism is a philosophy of no philosophy, iow it spells the 'end' of philosophy per se in-favour of 'action' instead of 'thinking' about acting... the fact that they (sartre and camus) had to formulate the 'practice' (of not philosophising) into words and/or instructions for their fellow intellectuals to understand, is as far as it goes 'as' a philosophy (iow although it goes against reason, nevertheless it still had to be communicated to other 'rational' people in a language they, as rational people, would be able to understand: the language of reason) incidentally and fyi... 'nature' isn't at all 'depressing' but rather the opposite, in that even the 'slightest' genuine contact with it is highly enervating and uplifting... it is after all, our ultimate 'source' :) > ### - if you 'turn-off' ALL mental activity (all rational activity that is) then > from that pov 'all' mental activity IS the same, and that's the point you're > overlooking... What you're saying is that if you don't perceive a difference then there is no difference, which means that what you perceive is always the truth. Therefore there can be no misperceptions, no illusions. ### - you'd said... "Not every mental activity is equal. There is a big difference between a daydream and a theory based on empirical evidence." and i replied... > ### - if you 'turn-off' ALL mental activity (all rational activity that is) then > from that pov 'all' mental activity IS the same, and that's the point you're > overlooking... then you came back with... "What you're saying is that if you don't perceive a difference then there is no difference, which means that what you perceive is always the truth. Therefore there can be no misperceptions, no illusions" nearly! - i.e. turn-off all rational activity and then with the benefit of hindsight it's apparent/self-evident that 'mental activity' includes everything one normally 'thinks' about.. which isn't to say that one no-longer perceives any differences between things, only that any perceived difference isn't an intellectual one with all the usual names and labels, so in that sense the intellectual 'brakes' are off and as a consequence one perceives in inordinate and indescribable ways, literally! (a bit like taking lsd only no drugs and fucked-up micky-mouse-type hallucinations are involved) the overwhelming impression actually being one of an utter/stark previously heretofore un-experienced 'clarity' as though something has been removed from the eyes) Just because you refuse to acknowledge differences doesn't mean there aren't any. Now, you can invent a very broad conceptual category and then assign every experience to it, but that's just ignoring the fact that there are other ways of categorizing experience. The plain fact is that your body distinguishes automatically between sensations long before any of it ever gets represented rationally. This is why your hand withdraws from a hot surface before you even become aware of the heat. The perception of differences is not an artifact of rationality. ### - exactly... "The perception of differences is not an artefact of rationality." iow being able to discern the differences between things isn't reliant upon rationality alone, said 'rationality' being a much later 'addition' to an already established fully working and functioning life-form (animals for example don't reason yet are they still perfectly capable of being able to react, live and survive according to the differences between things under extremely difficult conditions where mistakes can be instantly fatal) iow, just because reason is removed from the equation doesn't mean that we instantly become idiots as reason would likely deduce from there ever being such a situation (i.e. reason at this point is incredulous and exclaims indignantly that life without 'Me' would therefore be unimaginably impossible! heh... and well unimaginable perhaps, but impossible no) e.g. as every other living creature demonstrates; it's not impossible... plus neither does one's human intelligence and alertness just disappear off the map either, but rather become focussed in another way, in fact no longer constrained by the rules and dictums of said reason and rationality, its range expands inordinately in hitherto unknown ways (e.g. genuine psychism becomes/is apparent/self-evident, although it's nothing like reason 'imagines' it to be via its rationally-limited vocabulary) > 'empirical evidence' is just another 'belief' of science and the > scientific method which we ourselves invented/created, thus making it (science) > just another one of those self-reinforcing belief-thingys :a cult iow :) Not only do you not know what "philosophy" means, you also don't know what "empirical evidence" means. You're just parrotting words you've heard without comprehending what they mean. ### - rather oddly (and contrary to reason in many ways, which 'makes' it odd:) from the pov of 'inner-silence'; philosophy and empirical evidence are actually both on the same footing hehehe... e.g. in the sense that they are 'both' the result of rational thought and thinking, even though philosophy doesn't actually require empirical evidence as such and is more the result of deductive reasoning than the result of hard evidence... iow i'm basically putting science on the same footing as religion, in that both 'systems' are the direct result of thought, thinking and interpretation, but are transcended (fade away into nothing) the very moment one steps-away from the intellectual processing we rigorously apply to our perception by-default... which i realise is counter-intuitive... counter-intuitive to 'reason' that is haha... but then that's quite understandable considering reason is utterly used to always getting its own way in most things... except occasionally perhaps when it 'loses its rag' kinda thing, but by then it's already got a whole bunch of fairly convenient explanations to 'cover' all that (over) with, literally... and because no system is perfect so there's bound to be the occasional glitches and errors whereby holes sometimes appear in the otherwise almost perfect illusion thus projected, gaps which are immediately papered-over by automated systems lying just below the threshold of our conscious awareness: routines literally :) > Actually the stupider you are, the more likely it is you'll believe > any old lie. It is only slightly less stupid to react to the > discovery that you've been lied to by concluding that everybody is > lying all the time. It's much smarter to recognize that sometimes > people lie and sometimes they don't and there are some pretty good > ways to tell the difference. ### - i understood that that's what you were saying about lying but didn't address it because to go that way is to be changing the subject/going-backwards, basically because 'lies' only 'exist' in the world of the rational and not in nature (camouflage isn't exactly a lie btw, it's a subterfuge) the point being that this is 'wider' than people just lying to each other, someone realising that, and then merely concluding that everyone is lying all the time (although it is possible to have that experience and thus arrive at this same realisation that way too, in that people are all 'unwittingly' lying to each other all the time and perhaps don't realise it, a rather somewhat uncomfortable + disturbing awakening perhaps heh heh heh + i think we can do a bit better than that ok? so no worries :) > ### - you can 'always instantly' tell whenever people are lying... > > their lips move :) There you go again, being only slightly less stupid than the believers. Knee-jerk distrust is just as ineffective as knee-jerk trust. ### - hehe it was only a 2-pronged joke (which you apparently didn't 'get' btw;) so let me be 'less' subtle then and spell it out for ya a little more ok? i.e. we agree that reason and rationality is a 'tool' and not an artefact of nature - i.e. a tool as-fashioned by us humans, a tool 'we' above all other species created/shaped from rough materials and now wield accordingly in various manners, applications and evolved ways, sometimes even novel ways (e.g. i've also seen it being used as a 'club' to 'bash' other people over the head with sometimes too! 'tom' but others too heh heh heh -;) for-sure it's a tool... but one that's become 'welded' to our hands, in that putting it aside for a moment and perhaps using a 'different' tool no-longer now even occurs to us, and as such totally dominates + colours our whole perception like a pair of glasses/lenses we one day put on and no-longer take off, even at bedtime! ;) "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail.". -- Abraham Maslow but they 'can' be removed tom, but if-only it 'occurs' to someone to do so... e.g. apparently it 'occurred' to sartre and we have his reports on the rather 'unusual' experiences he encountered as a direct result of his subsequent very seriously conducted experiments in that direction... i.e. no one can accuse someone like 'sartre' of just being some kind of a hopped-up hot-head, an impetuous fool etc etc + to proffer "depression" as an explanation of his documented results seems just a tad short-sighted to me? but perhaps highlights the fact that that whereas some people need to 'remove' their glasses, others yet might indeed have to actually put some on? (that's another 2-pronged joke btw just in case you can't yet tell the difference:) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: slider on 10 Apr 2010 12:47 Meltdarok wrote... >>>> even though the varying >>>> flavours all appears to be very different--->(as different as biology is from >>>> astrophysics for example)<--- >>>> >>> >>> A *most* important point. >> >> ### - well i'm glad 'someone' picked-up on that heh heh :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> the ultimate, intellectual/reason-destroying 'truth' being that nature, the >>>> world, >>>> and the rest of the universe isn't actually 'about' anything! and if you >>>> still >>>> think it 'is' about something, anything at all, then you are one of those >>>> still >>>> lost in their own fantasies and ideas born of their own imagination and >>>> relating >>>> to it exclusively as 'though' it were all real, only it isn't... >>>> >>>> to be blunt... >>>> there IS no 'meaning' to life >>> >>> The 'meaning' is that we are *all* family. >> >> ### - well that's certainly sweet, i could even say quite generous, but is >> actually more a statement of fact rather than a 'meaning' per se (human meaning >> is not universal, it only 'means' anything to us humans... iow 'we' have >> intellectually invented 'all' the meanings (to things) for ourselves, meanings >> that don't exist (has no meaning) outside/beyond the human species... >> >> > > That's funny. Go out in the Asian jungle and mess with a tiger cub in > front of its mother. You will quickly receive a lesson in the 'meaning' > of family. ### - lol if you're referring to the 'instinct' to protect one's own life and the life of one's young then i totally agree, only animals don't do this out of a sense of family but of an innate sense of self-preservation that 'extended' to our young as being part of 'ourselves', which when intellectually translated becomes: looking-out for our own 'possessions' (to put it crudely: 'ave ya seen all my 'fings? i've got the job and the house, the car, the missus, the kids, the dog and 2 cats plus a whole bunch of other stuff i've 'acquired', all my possessions and worldly-goods which i'll fight to defend... because they're all 'mine' and not no-one's else's! alright!! (just your average joe iow haha :) > OTOH, yes, humans can make up definitions such as 'loyalty'. > But it's our own fault (now that we know the *facts*), that > we prefer to remain stingy with our loyalty, (as we have yet > to encounter much that gives us a 'cause' to 'rally' around.) ### - it's hardly surprising in a world where mankind is increasingly shutting themselves away from direct contact with everyone else (iow becoming more and more 'insular' not only among ourselves but also as a species), yet do we still have really quite rewarding relationships with our animal cousins and friends, some people even preferring their animals' company to human company in terns of loyalty and true friendship... > So I'm guessing that you have yet to bond with another species > yet. Our parakeets never had their cage doors closed, and they > used their cages mostly to eat and sleep, the rest of the time > they preferred to be with us downstairs. They also enjoyed > grooming our, and perching on us. > > I needn't go into the love & loyalty of our dogs. ### - dammit man i used to have this cat when i first left home as a nipper, and i can honestly say that that moggie was not only a good companion but was also a true friend in every sense of the word, and from whom i actually learned to goddamn live on my own haha! (boss cat heh:) plus i 'still' miss the hairy kid, that furball with the yellow eyes who used to hang-around this place, my old pal jim awww... (damn old-age pensioner cat nearly broke my fuckin' heart when he died lol + snif, i liked him :) >>>> there IS no 'purpose' to existence >>>> there IS no 'philosophy' >>>> the universe 'is', and we 'are', and that's it! period! >>>> so get used to it... >>>> everything else is a fantasy! Everything! >>>> science, religion, all and any beliefs >>>> 'none' of it is real except in our silly human heads >>>> basically because we 'want' it to be rather than face the truth >>>> >>> >>> http://popup.lala.com/popup/504684655011358770 >>> >>> Yours Is the Light >>> Music: Richard Kermode >>> Lyric: Michael Shrieve >>> >>> Yours is the light that will always shine >>> and shine eternally, eternally >>> Mine is the search, never-ending search >>> until I am with you. >>> For you fill my life, >>> all my days and nights >>> with (light) memories of you. >>> >>> Santana >> >> ### - nice words... here's another, same cool band ... >> (i just like the unspoken 'double-meaning' involved ;) >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOHfjn1X368 >> >> I ain't got nobody >> That I can depend on >> I ain't got nobody >> That I can depend on >> Ain't got nobody >> That I can depend on >> Ain't got nobody >> That I can depend on >> >> Ain't got no one >> No tengo a nadie >> That I know of >> No tengo a nadie >> That I can depend on >> No tengo a nadie >> Ain't got no one >> >> Got nobody >> That I can depend on >> No tengo a nadie >> I ain't got nobody >> That I can depend on >> No tengo a nadie >> >> one is complaining, the other is affirming a fact of life >> >> choose :) >> > > To me that was the definitive album of the Woodstock era band, > in fact, the entire first side of the vinyl is one contiguous > piece of music. Whenever I saw the logo, or someone said "Santana" > the first cut of that album sprang forth fresh in my mind. > Ha, ha, now there's Holst! ### - holst was my piano teacher's teacher (my only claim to fame heh;) so i kinda like holst, the planet suit being a fav of old (everyone's heard bits of the planet suit, jupiter and mars being the more popular perhaps;) whereas 'schoenberg' for some unearthly reason just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh hahaha! :) try it! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-WVtoAykS4&feature=PlayList&p=6D635016E319F707&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=49 it's a playlist comprised of several vids enjoy :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Tom on 10 Apr 2010 17:27 On Apr 9, 10:14 pm, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: > "Absorbed" <purestdeform...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > And why do you believe Tom lying and claiming that he thinks you're a > > loon? > > Because he not only openly claims he lies, but also claims nobody should > believe anything some random stranger on usenet writes. One very good reason to think you're a loon is your loony reason for believing that I'm lying when I say I think you're a loon. > Why do you think you should believe what tom claims ? Because the evidence supports it in this case. > Tom is not manipulating you. > > He is trying to manipulate me. > And failing. What do you suspect I'm trying to manipulate you into doing? Why are you sure I'm not trying to manipulate him too? > > This thinking is bonkers. You'll be fighting the reptilians next. Truly, > > you're in David Icke territory here. > > Ah. > > Yes, very wise indeed. > > Like i wrote to HG once, and he plonked me after that. > > Yessirree, it is very wise to engage me (again) as a fuckwad, noway i will > be making fun of that, nowaayyy. Here's yet more evidence that supports my conclusion that you're a loon.
From: "Bassos" Root on 10 Apr 2010 22:35
"Tom" <dantomel(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:3dd1b583-81f3-48ac-937b-81dc7efacfca(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Apr 9, 10:14 pm, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: > "Absorbed" <purestdeform...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > And why do you believe Tom lying and claiming that he thinks you're a > > loon? > > Because he not only openly claims he lies, but also claims nobody should > believe anything some random stranger on usenet writes. ** One very good reason to think you're a loon is your loony reason for believing that I'm lying when I say I think you're a loon. ** Ah, because i deny your claim, it must be true. Very scientific of you. Pyrrho doubts everything, so also all your claims. That is not loony, it is holding you up to higher standards. And you already know that. > Why do you think you should believe what tom claims ? ** Because the evidence supports it in this case. ** Nonsense. A loon is someone with severe mental issues that cause the loon distress. No such thing going on. And you already know that. > Tom is not manipulating you. > > He is trying to manipulate me. > And failing. ** What do you suspect I'm trying to manipulate you into doing? ** Don't you know ? ** Why are you sure I'm not trying to manipulate him too? ** I am not. That is merely a claim to annoy absorbed. > > This thinking is bonkers. You'll be fighting the reptilians next. Truly, > > you're in David Icke territory here. > > Ah. > > Yes, very wise indeed. > > Like i wrote to HG once, and he plonked me after that. > > Yessirree, it is very wise to engage me (again) as a fuckwad, noway i will > be making fun of that, nowaayyy. ** Here's yet more evidence that supports my conclusion that you're a loon. ** Still not even close to evidence. And you still do not 'really' think i am crazy. You lying old fart with rusty techniques. |