AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Social Science = Pseudo Science by Cedric Bremmertidge - Fri, 09 May 2014 20:56:36 EST ID:RC2teSQj No.193402 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399683396423.jpg -(56736 B, 590x494) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56736
Feynman on social sciences
http://youtu.be/IaO69CF5mbY
9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Emma Shakewill - Tue, 13 May 2014 17:50:19 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193499 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193497
>All economists operate from a point of bias, that has been the case from the beginning. Most of the prominent economists in academia make their real money by writing favorable analyses for investment firms. Those firms in turn are able to take those reports to their clients as a way to show how "sound" said firm's investments are. Economists create think tanks because it's the most effective way for them to affect policy.
Well, that's what I was talking about. The community actively embraces bias, which more often than not results in eschewing evidence, falsifiability or outright denying surrounding reality to further some kind of a cause, instead of examining what can be known and at least trying to predict the best course of action.
To me, it shows how the academic community is prone to dishonesty, which is in itself a grave issue, but does not bear relevance when it comes to judging the field itself.
>That's a funny comparison but I don't know if I'd go that far.
Praxeology is so disjointed from reality it's not even funny anymore. Its axioms are so, hm, "bold" they were invalidated by natural sciences a long time ago (free will and dualism, seriously). Oh, and claims of "irrefutability".
To quote Ludwig von Mises: "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."
So yeah, flat earth theory.
>But you can't divorce economics from politics.
You can't divorce politics from anything, really, but the form of its influence does differ from case to case.
>How well they did or didn't work and subsequently proposing policies based on those findings
That's the key point. If a model is based on what worked and what did not and produces results that can be checked, it's gravy. Bias, in itself, is unavoidable, but should not be the *base* of the proposed policy, as it is often the case (did I mention Austrian school?)
>You either favor free-markets or you don't
First, you have to agree on what *is* a free market.
Jokes aside; I have my opinion, but there's absolutely nothin…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Jarvis Perrywore - Wed, 14 May 2014 03:11:56 EST ID:rOayJipD No.193530 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193449
>if it gives a consistent model, the predictions of which can be tested, it's science.
Social "sciences" don't do this though.
>>
Nigel Brookfield - Mon, 26 May 2014 17:30:09 EST ID:cBh6c9LE No.193963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I never understand why people argue about what things are or aren't science. It's very clear that science is its method, nothing more and nothing less, and there's only one scientific method.

The part most overlooked though is that an area of study doesn't have to be a science to be worth studying. We need laws on our societies, but Law studies are not a science. Are they not worth studying? Of course they are. History serves a lot of purposes, and knowledge can be derived from historical records, but History is not a science. It's still worth studying.

It's the same for everything, really. It's just that science is a very specific, very particular thing that is not found on every field, but not being science doesn't mean your field is useless. The real problem is that science happens to produce the most rigorous and accurate knowledge out of every field that produces knowledge, and for this reason everyone wants to take the label for themselves. If you are seen as "science" by the masses, you are given more legitimacy, even if you are not a science, so it becomes a political thing where everything is a "science" of some sort because the term implies some kind of authority on claims (even if real science has no authorities).
>>
Phyllis Clayworth - Mon, 26 May 2014 20:36:46 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193964 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193963

well, its not that simple

the social sciences do not claim merely to be worth studying, but that they are science, lol, and specifically, that their theories and claims are empirically verifiable and experimentally supported, thats the key. the historian has eschewed empirically verifiable theories (due to the fact that history cannot be experimented upon), and instead seeks truth from the next best source: surveying what people who WERE there have said about the matter.

so when people criticize social science as "not science", they aren't saying "nothing that isnt science is worth learning" but rather, they criticize it for claiming to have established empirical truths about society that they have not in fact, rationally established.
>>
Nell Nungerville - Wed, 28 May 2014 19:57:19 EST ID:hPWAVfIE No.193986 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I find it odd that he talks about social sciences and then brings up an example of biology.


Nihilistic hedonism is a contradiction in terms by Hedda Hangerfudge - Mon, 19 May 2014 14:32:35 EST ID:C2g2IsPf No.193708 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400524355236.png -(368963 B, 720x521) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 368963
There's no such thing.

If you a hedonist, you are not a nihilist.
37 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Druzzlestock - Wed, 21 May 2014 17:50:29 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193855 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193852
i'm not excusing them i'm just being caught in explanation, of something that exists within experience. Which is nihilism its psychology and philosophy and it came from a time when they were very closely linked.

For example having pleasure seeking personality can lead you to never understand the absence in the absence makes the heart go fonder, and your psychological wearing of pleasure in general CAN make pleasure become exausted. You may experience the crumbling of that pleasure, but at the same time that is still what you crave but it just keeps getting less and less, but you keep seeking it more and more. Not accepting your ruining it from your abuse and use of it, and you continue to take it more and more. so while living your life for that pleasure and seeking it, your in incress despair that the nature of is less and less.

and this is a common view amongst many addictions. So an addiction would be a good example of a nihilist hedonist. You chasing the dragon with the doubt and the memory of it both.
>>
Cornelius Greenridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 17:55:22 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193856 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193853
>>193854

You know, I read over these posts 3 times now, and even went back and read your older posts in the thread, and I still have no fucking idea what point you're trying to make. You go off on tangents a lot and write in a pretty convoluted way, several times with poor grammar, randomly throwing in some psychoanalysis of anonymous people to top it all off.

So let's try get back to basics, shall we? Is your basic point that there are different versions of Nihilism, and that some would allow hedonism and some wouldn't?

Because I thought the whole point this thread was discussing was that Nihilistic hedonism is in fact NOT a contradiction of terms? What are you discussing?
>>
Emma Fembleman - Thu, 22 May 2014 11:09:32 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193877 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193856
No let's not because you weren't on the ball to begin with. You didn't understand the point because you were oblivious to the context. Their was no point other than to explain why a nihilist licking a spoon for all eternity rather and having no preference to do anything else is a fitting image of a nihilist. Then you got the idea that nihilism had nothing to do with external entities having no meaning(which it often does) from a post that suggested that a nihilist was like somebody who even if they detected valuable sensory stimuli in the environment was not responsive to it, despite their knowledge of it.
>>
Hamilton Pablingville - Thu, 22 May 2014 17:05:15 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193885 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193877

You're stuck talking about theory while I'm talking about reality, but okay man. Let's just agree to disagree, if you're gonna be a pompous ass about it.
>>
Samuel Harrydale - Thu, 22 May 2014 18:19:28 EST ID:vR99jt35 No.193886 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193885
You've been talking about definitions of words and the notions of why this would necessarily be you're talking about skeptical reasons to hold out that's keeping you away from what's bodily experienced as nihilistic. If your looking for reasons to keep something out of a model you are not in reality sir.


What's constructivist epistemology? by Ian Blackbanks - Fri, 23 May 2014 17:37:51 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.193911 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400881071281.jpg -(219756 B, 807x458) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 219756
What's constructivist epistemology? What's the opposite of it? And what is constructivism?
>>
Ian Doshchin - Fri, 23 May 2014 18:29:04 EST ID:nwe6fNr5 No.193914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What's constructivist epistemology?
At its most basic, that scienctific knowledge is a mental construct which aims to explain the sensory input. Create a model of it, if you will.
>What's the opposite of it?
In my opinion, that'd be empiricism (because of the "mental construct part" being required to form knowledge) and rationalism (because of the "sensory input" being required to form knowledge part). They also happen to antagonize each other.
>And what is constructivism?
A larger body of philosophical statements, mainly regarding the theory of education, the integral part of which is constructivist epistemology.


What is this called? by Ian Blackbanks - Fri, 23 May 2014 17:35:01 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.193910 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400880901281.jpg -(86366 B, 544x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 86366
What do you call the notion that language creates concepts, and that the way we see the world and reason about it is influenced by these concepts?

Also, what's the same notion but without the language part called? That concepts make us view and reason about the world one way or another,.
>>
Ian Doshchin - Fri, 23 May 2014 18:08:20 EST ID:nwe6fNr5 No.193913 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What do you call the notion that language creates concepts, and that the way we see the world and reason about it is influenced by these concepts?
Linguistic relativity (sapir-whorf hypothesis), strong or weak, depending on whether language defines reasoning (linguistic determinism) or not.


I got some freeze-dried noodles for the cookpot of the netmind by Nell Choblingfut - Wed, 21 May 2014 18:12:48 EST ID:p2ZftlCN No.193858 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400710368099.jpg -(489745 B, 1047x785) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 489745
When is a "Synchronism" moreso; what criteria would have to be filled for coincidences in time to instead represent an engineered construct? How would one indeed tell the two apart?
>>
Doris Domblebeg - Wed, 21 May 2014 23:49:01 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193864 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193858

syncronism /= an "engineered construct", its just a coincidence that happened to deal with something exciting effects and you just keep pretending it's important and see what happens, usually butterflies in your tummy and visions of the future/past

"an engineered construct" is like a conspiracy, when a coincidence is not just a coincidence, but two connected events, is when there is some causal explanation, linking them to a single source, or one from the other, etc. causal explanations are always a bit vague. but, they are still falsfiable'

>How would one indeed tell the two apart?

i dont understand how it came to this question, you would make a terrible detective/scientist/journalist.... objectivity is the same across disciplines, what are the evidences of murder- a motive, something the suspect has to gain, scientific evidence that the suspect's fluids, fingerprints, hairs, DNA of all kinds are at the murder location or on the weapon, something to connect the suspect *in time and space* to the murder.

say you start noticing an inordinate amount of 8:47 pm, like some abberant statistical proportion of times you check the clock, its 8:47 pm. this is something that has come up in my friend's life

there are many theoretical causal explanations ranging from biological clock type shit, like this is your most active and inquisitive hour on this sleep schedule, or you could say its related to your work,etc schedule some are better than others, Ill leave it up to the scientists.

some people see that as a message that 8:47 pm is important, a time that will hold some important event in the future or some great plan should be embarked upon at 8:47pm, it could be lots of things.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fucking Murdforth - Fri, 23 May 2014 10:01:44 EST ID:VyU7CZId No.193906 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193864
nowhere did I state that a synchronism equalled an engineered construct. motive and causal explanation sound agreeably logical, thank you. As to my second question, that is more of an "can a dreamer tell that he is dreaming" type conundrum.

imagine if you will an entity that lived in a world where all things (literally, everything) have a soundly reasoned logical explanation. how would that entity know if a coincidence were to occur, being that all things could be explained away?
>>
Cyril Godgeson - Fri, 23 May 2014 12:21:13 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193908 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193906

>nowhere did I state that a synchronism equalled an engineered construct.
no but you said
>what criteria would have to be filled for coincidences in time to instead represent an engineered construct?
and my answer is still
>syncronism /= an "engineered construct"

see now?



>imagine if you will an entity that lived in a world where all things (literally, everything) have a soundly reasoned logical explanation. how would that entity know if a coincidence were to occur, being that all things could be explained away?

whether something is a syncronicity or not doesn't have to do with whether it can be explained away, you can know exactly why/how some interesting turn of events occurred and still find extra interest in some non-causal connection between events
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


On the importance of ettiquete by Cobblestone !HaAFNzom.Q - Tue, 20 May 2014 11:40:50 EST ID:1zQicKWc No.193802 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400600450649.jpg -(79193 B, 676x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79193
Glossary: Language - to include all social conventions, rituals, speech, and other forms of communication.

The rules of a "polite society" develop to satisfy a single human desire that is common to all complex societies. That of having a conduit - a universal language - to reduce misunderstanding and conflict that may occur in inter-group conflicts.

As social groups age, they progress, expand, and solidify. Certain niche terms evolve and entirely change their internal language. The older the group, the farther their language will be from its parent geographic/racial/political language. Yet, each "new" word, or turn of phrase, may still have an equivalent amongst other derivatives of the parent. Even those parent languages, split from previous conventions of communication, share similarities*.

As we all should know by now, it is the failure of members of two or more cultures to express, or understand, the intentions and desires of members of the other groups that causes conflict. Either that, or, the desire for one group to force its conventions upon another. This is where etiquette - being polite - steps in. It identifies the commonalities, and translates those concepts which "do not translate". It does so by providing a simplified version of all languages; which makes it easier to both learn, and understand.

Civility does, however, suffer from the same flaws as the forms of communication it tries to unite. Given enough time, a society with a ruling element that pursues High Etiquette will eventually wish to dominate all other social groups. It, too, will grow old, rigid, and complex, and fail to be understood by all.

And so: The first principles of etiquette must be:

1) Guidelines may not be enforced, only encouraged.
2) All rules are suspect, and must be questioned at all times.
3) Any guidelines found to be unnecessary must be removed.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Duckson - Tue, 20 May 2014 12:01:54 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193805 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd say it stems from instincts. Monkeys have ground rules of conduct in their groups (nitpicking, etc), adherence to (perhaps even "the mastery of") which defines a specimen's position in certain aspects. I remember a study where the proliferation of changes in rituals of monkeys was studied, and though my memory is fuzzy, it did mirror the way it happens in humans to some degree (apparently, chimpanzees have something akin to a concept of prestige, emulate each other in order to conform, etc.)
Perhaps this reaches even beyond primates and can be derived from mating rituals of many other animals.

Of course, the dawn of abstract thinking changes things a lot - I'm not meaning to reduce the social conventions to mere instincts. Those are just random musings on the issue of origins, invoked by OP's post.
>>
Priscilla Fuzzlefield - Tue, 20 May 2014 13:34:01 EST ID:RvCrDYg3 No.193807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The rules of a "polite society" develop to satisfy a single human desire that is common to all complex societies. That of having a conduit - a universal language
This is a pretty big claim to make, and I can't see any supporting evidence for it. This makes the rest of the post hard to follow.

>The first principles of etiquette must be:
Since these rules contradict every system of etiquette, I think I can safely say this isn't true. Maybe it would be nice if etiquette DID follow those rules though.
>>
Cobblestone !HaAFNzom.Q - Tue, 20 May 2014 14:05:03 EST ID:Dp0LAmXj No.193812 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193805
> I'm not meaning to reduce the social conventions to mere instincts.

I tend to think of morals (the directing of individual instinct toward the benefit of the whole) as being its own distinct subject; but you're right; it's not.

I'll have to mull this over...

>>193807
>Source?

I'll see what I can find. I don't know where I'll find them, but I'll look.

>This makes the rest of the post hard to follow.

It may help if you temporarily treat the factual claims as axioms.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Martin Mellyfotch - Tue, 20 May 2014 21:32:22 EST ID:RvCrDYg3 No.193822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193812
>It may help if you temporarily treat the factual claims as axioms.
It would, but why would I do that? If the core of your argument is flawed, I have little to gain from pretending it's not.
>>
Emma Fembleman - Thu, 22 May 2014 19:24:32 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193887 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193822
he's stating something that keeps etiquette working, so a check's and balances of etiquitte or an observed point in which etiquette keeps itself from defeating its own purpose. I would say of course some systems of etiquette never do this. And he even references that most form of etiquette will eventually become the opposiite of the thing that seeks to keep people getting along, by insisting this is the way we have to get along.

That would sound alot like the etiquette that you would find in a finishing school or taught anywhere, its become its own source of conflict that demands to be adhered to. Another beast to be fed to keep things going smoothly rather than anything that makes things easier itself.

Oddly enough somebody may end up performing these social etiquettes out of the desire to keep away from conflict, therefore keeping that order going, because any impulse to get along might recognize having to "loose" to the imposition even if its causing conflicts as the way to end the conflict.

Sort of like how you have to "just nod your head and agree when so and so is around in order to keep the peace"


Diogenes the Cynic by Augustus Dallychidging - Tue, 13 May 2014 03:33:59 EST ID:0s1jixrA No.193472 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399966439969.jpg -(119382 B, 800x588) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 119382
"Diogenes of Sinope was a controversial figure. His father minted coins for a living, and when Diogenes took to debasement of currency, he was banished from Sinope.[1] After being exiled, he moved to Athens to debunk cultural conventions. Diogenes modelled himself on the example of Heracles. He believed that virtue was better revealed in action than in theory. He used his simple lifestyle and behaviour to criticise the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society. He declared himself a cosmopolitan. There are many tales about him dogging Antisthenes' footsteps and becoming his "faithful hound".[3] Diogenes made a virtue of poverty. He begged for a living and slept in a large ceramic jar[4] in the marketplace. He became notorious for his philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He embarrassed Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates and sabotaged his lectures. Diogenes was also responsible for publicly mocking Alexander the Great."

The ancient Greeks valued their philosophers enough for this man to be venerated and respected in a certain sense. Alexander the Great was a great admirer. The embodiment of the philosopher's own ideals is an essential part of what it means to be a philosopher. Today, this man would probably be seen as a common homeless man, schizophrenic and unwell and not a great philosopher by any means. The life of the philosopher has nothing to do with bourgeois academia--it has everything to do with action and the direct application and influence upon a system of values or ideas that directly inform the individual's life. Diogenes is a prime example of this. We would all do well to learn from it.
26 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cornelius Greenridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 15:16:27 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193829

This is /pss/, not /mu/...
>>
Archie Suvingridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 16:39:52 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.193849 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193829

What is "refined taste?"
>>
Cornelius Greenridge - Wed, 21 May 2014 16:56:58 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193850 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193849

You have to wear a fedora, be euphoric, and generally act like your better than everyone even though you're a fat loser.
>>
Lillian Hupperfag - Wed, 21 May 2014 19:48:00 EST ID:z+d9UZyr No.193860 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193849

Like how I can tell english essays were written with black magic formulas but a guy with a BA in english can't. I'm like Sherlock Holmes.
>>
Hugh Drorryshaw - Wed, 21 May 2014 23:24:21 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.193862 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Diogenes was the shit.


Depression by George Lightbury - Wed, 14 May 2014 05:55:11 EST ID:yFO0yqIP No.193532 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400061311484.jpg -(60863 B, 800x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 60863
What would happen if a person gets depressed if his passion in life is studying feeling by using himself as his test subject? If he had loss of interest from depression and really dulled feeling would he be stuck in depression?
>>
James Cheshbidging - Wed, 14 May 2014 06:12:57 EST ID:kyPjaFuA No.193533 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's all just states of mind.
And using yourself as a test subject is about as biased as you can get. Science, You're doing it wrong.
>>
Augustus Duckbanks - Wed, 14 May 2014 11:09:45 EST ID:EUlUALAS No.193537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400080185495.jpg -(20709 B, 720x405) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20709
>>193533
I'm not so sure "science" is what it's all about..

To answer your question OP, I think you are referring to the search for altered experience & the damage certain chemicals / lifestyles do to those "explorers of the mind." Unfortunately terms like neurotoxicity are not altogether unheard of in such endeavors. Studying from experience / emotion / meaning in life relates to depression differently than you think, though. Mostly in that it's possible causation stems more from the fact substance abuse isn't always done right. By "right," I mean doing fair research on what you consume, learning from addicts & addiction that surround us, studying up on harm reduction while respecting [the drug]. Even if that's accepting when you've gone too far. Some alcoholics I know can probably never touch anything but weed again in their lives. When dealing with chemicals it's almost completely trial & error, as we live an entirely subjective experience. Addiction is real, permanent psychosis is real. All things to keep in mind when toying with reality.

>wrote a short essay on drugs & how they relate to a search for meaning within subjective experience; in case anyone else is on drugs
Yeahp, not sure that anybody will read this. Every so often you find out more about yourself thinking about this stuff so whateva



----
I do believe existence within our strain of consciousness is parallel to finding "meaning" in every day life. Of course it's incredibly vague to say only that, so I'll elaborate by pointing out "meaning" is perhaps similar to happiness in that there are two forms (if it's possible to generalize such things, which, for the purpose of this wall of text I will). One form is akin to chemical reaction that is "necessary" & physical. Regarding happiness this refers to sunlight, tylenol, or coffee. Things that alter your state of mind via dopamine, oxytocin, etc. Conversely, certain things also have meaning by necessity of the physical world, as is the case with symbols that make up systems of language or mathematics.

The other form of happiness is reportedly less tangible, in that it is quantified only subjectively as we traverse the physical world.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Cyril Dindlewine - Sat, 17 May 2014 07:58:49 EST ID:dDnfuO1m No.193635 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193533
Dip into phenomenology
>>
Phoebe Fanshit - Mon, 19 May 2014 16:57:09 EST ID:Z9WsoXV3 No.193717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193532
Fuck, this is me without even realising it.
Thanks for putting it into words.
>>
Martin Bebberson - Wed, 21 May 2014 15:54:12 EST ID:VAm6mdbo No.193845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400702052728.gif -(4774 B, 344x404) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 4774
This sort of reminds me of the healthy and unhealthy loops for enneatype 5. Only tangentially related but possibly helpful for some.


Synchronisity by Phyllis Pundleford - Tue, 13 May 2014 12:01:47 EST ID:rErzp3tD No.193493 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399996907599.jpg -(197690 B, 855x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 197690
What the fuck is this? This happens way too often to me to just be coincidence and sure as shit isn't just me paying attention to things I wouldn't normally pay attention to.

Today I listened to some of Chopin's classical music by accident through clicking on related youtube videos from learning about starting up music production, which included the track Nocturne In E Flat Major, Op.9 No.2. I remembered it from the movie bad santa which i saw over a year ago and havent heard since, but anyway I shit you not I had a feeling and said outloud "I bet today i'm going to hear something to do with chopin", even though I haven't heard anything to do with him over a year. If I had heard the track since the movie I would have noticed and downloaded it (like I just have) because its brilliant and this past year i've been expanding my musical taste.

Just an hour ago I was playing bioshock infinite that I just got, and what do you know the same fucking song was being played on a projector in game. Nocturne In E Flat Major, Op.9 No.2. I haven't heard that song in over a year and suddenly it pops up twice within a few hours and i pretty much PREDICTED it would happen.

Can anyone explain this phenomenon?
32 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Augustus Smallforth - Sun, 18 May 2014 05:44:46 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193678 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193663
this would imply anything the self does is making the universe about itself.

Besides trying to have yourself sync up with reality, wouldn't be somebody trying to make things about themselves, it would be trying to adjust to it.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 18 May 2014 07:42:48 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.193683 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193678
>Besides trying to have yourself sync up with reality, wouldn't be somebody trying to make things about themselves, it would be trying to adjust to it.

Exactly. Basically always rolling with it, or going with the flow.
>>
Esther Chackledat - Sun, 18 May 2014 08:30:02 EST ID:RvCrDYg3 No.193685 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193678
>this would imply anything the self does is making the universe about itself.
You mean referring the universe to the self.

Being self-centered (even justifiably so) is very different from claiming the universe is you-centred.
>>
Clara Bundledale - Sun, 18 May 2014 16:21:37 EST ID:5QaJ98Xf No.193687 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Few people ITT realize that the world and our perception of it are related but autonomous.
>>
Jarvis Ginkinbanks - Wed, 21 May 2014 09:42:46 EST ID:c7VbQtyy No.193831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193685
I would agree that you can feel that way but thinking something is referenced around the self, which would mean its oriented around you, which means it adjusts to you(which was the earlier claim) which means it revolves around you(which was an even earlier claim) which in turn means its about you.

By the way an explanation of the self does not explain why synchronicity would be emphatically self referential unless your claiming something inherent in the self. There is nothing about the idea of being in sync that suggests it revolves around you.


What the fuck is up with English essays? by Frederick Blaggleteck - Sat, 17 May 2014 07:49:25 EST ID:C+Rmgr9o No.193633 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400327365305.jpg -(1916130 B, 1600x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1916130
Writing English essays, pointless ... or is it?

Does anyone think it's this weird brainwashing exercise?

What is the point of writing English essays? What actually goes on inside their head?

The ones I'm referring to, like "Othello shows that weakness is a character trait. Do you agree"
60 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Duckson - Tue, 20 May 2014 09:04:46 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193793 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193790
>>193791
*sigh*
Again, which parts do you not understand? I can't move on beyond explaining the very basics, because by writing one of the more logical forms of discourse you're explicitly admitting you don't understand them.
Your only argument to support your point (that it is black magic) is because you do not understand it, then it is black magic. It is an argument from both incredulity and ignorance. Thus, it does not follow.
Let's try a different angle: try to assert a null hypothesis of the rules *not* being black magic and then falsify it. It seems like any other way of explaining this to you makes you go full O'Reilly ("No you can't explain that la la la I can't hear you").
>>
Frederick Duckson - Tue, 20 May 2014 09:08:58 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.193794 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193792
Fuck, my bad, I meant ALGORITHM. A slip of the tongue, except in a written form.
>>
Samuel Brummlenane - Tue, 20 May 2014 10:15:22 EST ID:khFf40E1 No.193795 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193791
i have no fucking doubt you can do what your saying. tarot, when you read it alone is writing ties knots in your head, and is as you say not explicit in its communication, its patterns, and its tricks. Although why the fuck were you mad at hegel if you are using black magic shit yourself. Didn't you not trust him because of that. Anyway the way to hit home with writing most certainly isn't completely logical. William Burroughs and others did things of your nature in there writing. And the master Philip K Dick based his writing of a fucking novel on the I ching.
>>
Hannah Crurringdag - Tue, 20 May 2014 23:50:08 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193826 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ahahaha somebody deleted his posts. Nice.
>>
Hannah Crurringdag - Tue, 20 May 2014 23:50:08 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.193827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ahahaha somebody deleted his posts. Nice.


The Joker's Philosophy by Matilda Grimlock - Tue, 13 May 2014 03:20:09 EST ID:M9BgWVbL No.193470 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1399965609842.jpg -(148292 B, 500x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 148292
Batman 3 blowed but the Dark Knight was inspired.

What do you think about the Joker's philosophy? Paraphrase some of his philosophical viewpoints. How do they relate to other Philosophers' thoughts?
28 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Priscilla Dusslefield - Sat, 17 May 2014 00:59:00 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193621

no i gave my piece, im happy with it, it still there to be read
>>
Hugh Babbersteg - Sat, 17 May 2014 02:16:36 EST ID:u0vDz3w/ No.193630 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193593

Yep, they look paranoid. But still, it educated people as to the existence of shills and makes them more wary.
>>
Beatrice Bunhood - Sat, 17 May 2014 22:49:40 EST ID:vzElpGOh No.193666 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193518
Anyone who's read the killing joke or that knows of any true batman canon (Which i've only seen the movies and read 2 comics.) The joker most diffidently has a philosophy.
>>
Matilda Sottingstone - Mon, 19 May 2014 21:46:19 EST ID:f23csTPp No.193744 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193512

The real question is: why do you care so much more about the fact that he's a fictional character, rather than what was inferred by said character in >>193479 ?

The latter is far more interesting to discuss, what you're currently doing kills discussion.
>>
Martha Buzzstock - Tue, 20 May 2014 14:03:16 EST ID:VOiz3bC5 No.193810 Ignore Report Quick Reply
He's just a foil for batman's commitment to justice / order / rightness / peace / etc.

He kills and disrupts everything he can aimlessly and indiscriminately. Getting batman to kill him is the only way to win.

There is a purity to both Batman and the Joker that I find inspiring. They know what they stand for and why they stand for it. They do what they do and that's all they ever will do.

I like to imagine both of them in a gotham senior citizens home. They're like 80+, wheelchair bound, and stuck watching a show that neither of them like in a beige living room. Then they just have mundane conversation / silly banter.


The Unconscious by Cornelius Buttingstedging - Fri, 16 May 2014 15:08:33 EST ID:OzCj/Vpw No.193601 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1400267313413.jpg -(62531 B, 1200x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62531
The other day I was reading some sections of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" out of pure boredom and I found myself strongly agreeing with his belief of a non-divided self. After reading some supplementary material online regarding Sartre's position on reflective and unreflective consciousness, I'm finding the whole idea of an unconscious rather unconvincing. For example, at some point in the day I reach for my cigarettes and light one up without actually taking a moment to reflect on why I want one. Just because I didn't articulate that desire in terms of language doesn't mean it came from my un/pre-conscious. I simply recognized the signs of nicotine withdrawal and addressed it without reflecting on the matter.

I'm fairly ignorant regarding Freud and psychology in general so feel free to rip into me but I want to hear some other opinions regarding this.

inb4 Kocoayello's "Jung maan"
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cornelius Buttingstedging - Fri, 16 May 2014 15:45:33 EST ID:OzCj/Vpw No.193608 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193605

Just because I fail to articulate my choice to have a cigarette in terms of language does not mean the thought was not conscious to me at the time.
>>
Priscilla Dusslefield - Fri, 16 May 2014 22:15:24 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193614 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193601

in my opinion sartre and other phenomenologists like heidegger and husserl are the bane of philosophy, and the progenitors of the most profound and disastrous theoretical mistake possible, I prettty much hate everything they've ever said and believe they have everything wrong, their whole metaphysics is totally broken. everybody they claim is wrong is actually right, empiricists, representationalists, etc

the "undivided self" is the opposite of the truth, we could not be any more divided than we are, we are the sum of infinitely divisible parts

>For example, at some point in the day I reach for my cigarettes and light one up without actually taking a moment to reflect on why I want one. Just because I didn't articulate that desire in terms of language doesn't mean it came from my un/pre-conscious. I simply recognized the signs of nicotine withdrawal and addressed it without reflecting on the matter.

I dont see how you can pretend this isn't a direct contradiction. How the fuck are you supposed to "recognize" and "address" something without reflecting on it? The only way would be recognition and planned action could occur "subconsciously".

I mean what do you imagine the subconscious to be OP? It is simply any and all functions of the decision-making cortexes that were not part of a lucid chain of reasoning. What do you take the beat of your heart to be but subconsciously commanded motion? You are a fool if you believe the brain is not capable of enacting things without the approval or blessing of "the center of attention", either that or you are a fool for not seeing the clear distinction between that which crosses "the center of attention" and that which is not noticed.
>>
Fucking Murdstock - Fri, 16 May 2014 23:41:45 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.193619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1400298105899.jpg -(57847 B, 443x468) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57847
>>193614
>What do you take the beat of your heart to be but subconsciously commanded motion?

I get what you're saying with this but its still kind of an unfair statement.
The metabolic functioning of the millionth cell in my left hand's index finger isn't controlled by any subconscious reasoning.
OP's talking about decisions and thinking.

Basically the "subconscious mind" is a reservoir of every single input data your brain has ever collected throughout it's entire life time.

Things you were aware of and things you weren't aware of, this stat isn't true, but I can almost guarantee you 99.99% of the stuff that creates your subconscious mind were inputted unconsciously. Consciously I'm typing on my laptop right now but subconsciously I'm being reminded of a ton of memories that my laptop elicits.

Every single thing that you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, emotionally feel, think; experience gets store into your brain and added to your subconscious.

After enough experiences have been acquired they become aggregated and create a personality accordingly.
Ex, somebody who has gone through a lot of traumatic experiences growing up will most likely have a subconscious mind filled with trauma, creating a personality that has trust issues.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Priscilla Dusslefield - Sat, 17 May 2014 01:29:06 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.193626 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193619

>I get what you're saying with this but its still kind of an unfair statement.

your statement that my statement was unfair, is fair, it is not fair to exactly compare heartbeats with subconscious decision-making processes because beings presumably without consciousness or with severely limited consciousness still have nervous systems that perform "automatic" functions (and they lack decision-making).

still I do think it is undeniable that not only the fingers and heart, but the brain, and the decision-making as well, are home to immense structures of action that go on without our "consent" in the forefront of our attention. It is interesting that Sartre once wrote that neurochemistry has no hope of explaining the sort of phenomena he was interested in, but neurochemistry actually went on to discredit his theories, in my opinion, there's studies that show distinctive, irreversible electrical activity associated with specific decision-making can be observed in a person's brain up to a second or two, I believe it was, before the person reports having decided

it doesnt have to be the end of free will but I think it cast enormous doubt upon the phenomenological scheme.

and for the rest
I agree with basically every thing you said in this post

>Basically the "subconscious mind" is a reservoir of every single input data your brain has ever collected throughout it's entire life time.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Lumpen !rGOAfuB3jA - Sun, 18 May 2014 18:44:48 EST ID:809AcqAg No.193688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>193614

Apologies for the late reply.

>in my opinion sartre and other phenomenologists like heidegger and husserl are the bane of philosophy, and the progenitors of the most profound and disastrous theoretical mistake possible, I prettty much hate everything they've ever said and believe they have everything wrong, their whole metaphysics is totally broken. everybody they claim is wrong is actually right, empiricists, representationalists, etc
Yeah, I'm not versed enough to even attempt arguing against that.

>I dont see how you can pretend this isn't a direct contradiction. How the fuck are you supposed to "recognize" and "address" something without reflecting on it? The only way would be recognition and planned action could occur "subconsciously".
Yeah I realize after looking at my example it was worded terribly and overall just piss poor, I'm sorry (I probably should've spent more than two minutes on my OP). What I meant about unreflective was being "absorbed in the world of objects", ie fully engaged in the external world, not contemplating the "I". But to go back to my example about the cigarette, it wasn't reflective in that I didn't have an internal dialogue saying "I'm going to have a cigarette now" but at the same time it isn't unconscious in that I don't look down a minute later and say "how the fuck did that cigarette get in my hand?". I was lucid the whole time.

>I mean what do you imagine the subconscious to be OP?
A part of the mind that is largely inaccessible to the conscious mind but nonetheless affects decision making to a degree. I guess my view of the mind is that in addition to the main dialogue of consciousness, everything else is going on in the peripherals of the conscious mind but those thoughts aren't always recognized as being conscious because we naturally give priority to our dialogues.

>What do you take the beat of your heart to be but subconsciously commanded motion?
Well that's an automatic process, I couldn't start or stop my heart if I tried.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.