Paranoid Personality Disorder and the 9/11 "Truth"

[Dogsmilk]

n your "everything is subjective" world insanity could not exist. I'm not sure how you could ever justify treating any pathology given your worldview. Crazy people are just a different form of normal, aren't they?

Actually, that's not too far from the truth. In the UK at least, my observation has been that psychiatry tends to stick its oar in when there is:
- serious risk of harm to self or others
-inability to function in society
-Unusual or bizarre ideas that operate outside a given socially established context and which lead to unusual actions.

In the case of the last one, you can't enforce anything unless the person does something dangerous or threatening.
It's only when you come to the attention of services that (obviously) any diagnosis is made. You could diagnose most people with something if you really tried. In fact, if you check out

http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/page.cfm?pagecode=PMMHST

you'll see mental ill-health is hardly abnormal. Check out any reputable mental health website and you'll see these statistics replicated.

People have all kinds of weird and wonderful ideas. As I think has already been pointed out on this rather pointless thread, religious beliefs could quite easily be classed as 'delusional' from an overtly rationalist viewpoint:

"Someone is gibbering away on his knees, talking to someone who is not there. Yes, he is praying. If one does not accord him the social intelligibility of this behaviour, he can only be seen as mad" - Laing, 1968

John White - I'm glad you brought up Laing; he's been effectively deleted from psychiatry, yet you can see how many of his ideas have filtered into the mainstream from the 60s, at least among the more thoughtful practitioners. If Jay Ref doesn't want to check out some of the most innovative and compassionate psychiatry ever, it's his loss. The original post was so incoherent and illogical, I'm amazed you bothered to reply. Oh, I'd recommend you read the biography by his son, Adrian. It details some of Laing's zany antics in hilarious but touching detail.

Paranoid personality disorder can be found on pages 690-697 of DSMIV-TR (2003). You'll note this diagnosis is predominently contingent upon factors relating to interpersonal interaction. Why the original post veers from this to schizophrenia (different set of diagnostic criteria - pp 297-345 for various kinds) to some invented 'paranoid social disorder' (not a recognised diagnosis - see DSM) is beyond me. You'd think these critics could do some research.
Let alone the flawed leap of 'logic'. Sheesh.

Heh, just for the record, in the last year I've got talking to two psychiatric nurses that you could basically call 'truthers' and one psychiatrist that was kind of like me - unconvinced, but thought the 'inside job' hypothesis was certainly possible. And that's considering 911 isn't a usual topic of conversation. Crazy, eh?

[John White]

John White - I'm glad you brought up Laing; he's been effectively deleted from psychiatry, yet you can see how many of his ideas have filtered into the mainstream from the 60s, at least among the more thoughtful practitioners. If Jay Ref doesn't want to check out some of the most innovative and compassionate psychiatry ever, it's his loss. The original post was so incoherent and illogical, I'm amazed you bothered to reply. Oh, I'd recommend you read the biography by his son, Adrian. It details some of Laing's zany antics in hilarious but touching detail.

Thanks Wobbler. I had a PM from another member yesterday thanking me for bringing up Laing, who that member had'nt heard of, so in that alone this thread has been most worthwhile. Laing is a wonderful example of the best kind of human being. I'm delighted to hear you have observed his ideas having a lasting influence

I choose to involve myself in this thread firstly becuase I was directly asked to, secondly because it seemed reasonable to take the oportunity of giving the critics the benefit of a wider POV, and lastly because, when stripped of it's honeyed language, the article is a dangerous peice making false co-relations and is distastefull propoganda for the pharmaceutical companies, if not an indicator of something more

I'm sorry to say that, in the light of the abolition of Habeus corpus two days ago, all bets are off with regards to what might be possible in the US, and critics should be very careful what they accept merely on the basis that it appears to be useful to their position

[aggle-rithm]

I choose to involve myself in this thread firstly becuase I was directly asked to, secondly because it seemed reasonable to take the oportunity of giving the critics the benefit of a wider POV,

It seems a little presumptuous, if not downright arrogant, to assume that critics have never considered and/or studied the ideas behind your contributions to this thread. I personally don't see anything new or enlightening there.

[John White]

I choose to involve myself in this thread firstly becuase I was directly asked to, secondly because it seemed reasonable to take the oportunity of giving the critics the benefit of a wider POV,

It seems a little presumptuous, if not downright arrogant, to assume that critics have never considered and/or studied the ideas behind your contributions to this thread. I personally don't see anything new or enlightening there.

Did you know that we object most to traits in others that we display ourselves?

I'm not suprised Aggle-Rythm, all critics are exceptional cases

[Jay Ref]

It proves what you make of it

Nonethless, it is the very fundament of truth

Go to the proof in Biology, don't take my word for it

But its no philosophical meta game: philosophy is meerly an appropriate tool to comprehend the reality

What reality?

In an earlier spurt of nonsense you said there is no objective reality and that everything is subjective. So what reality are you busy comprehending?

Face it; your metaphysics is a steaming pile of useless nonsense. It may make you feel good; this mental masturbation; but it gets us no closer to any useful understanding of anything. That you have found yourself a cozy spot among the 9/11 trooth madness movement is becoming more understandable all the time.

I've talked with plenty of guys like you. They all usually end up on drugs while trying to expand their comprehension of the "infinite". These people I know; they start out being intelligent phillosophers and thinkers...but in the end they tend to resemble self-destructive dolts. They're not...but the difference is hard to determine to the casual observer.

Careful John...you walk the path of madness at your own dire risk.

-z

[aggle-rithm]

Did you know that we object most to traits in others that we display ourselves?

Yes, that's called projection. I think there are still a few people in Utah who didn't know that.

[John White]

Careful John...you walk the path of madness at your own dire risk.

Well you know how it goes, one clings to the saftey rail of sanity at ones loss

There is one universe. Its a lot stranger than we know. To look at it only with one half of the brain is hardly the whole picture, but each to their own

We may only percieve a re-creation of it, but that does not mean we can do nothing to refine the resolution

[John White]

I choose to involve myself in this thread firstly becuase I was directly asked to, secondly because it seemed reasonable to take the oportunity of giving the critics the benefit of a wider POV,

It seems a little presumptuous, if not downright arrogant, to assume that critics have never considered and/or studied the ideas behind your contributions to this thread. I personally don't see anything new or enlightening there.

Did you know that we object most to traits in others that we display ourselves?

Yes, that's called projection. I think there are still a few people in Utah who didn't know that.

Though that does'nt mean its visible through self-reflection to a poster named Aggle Rythm

[Jay Ref]

Careful John...you walk the path of madness at your own dire risk.

Well you know how it goes, one clings to the saftey rail of sanity at ones loss

There is one universe. Its a lot stranger than we know. To look at it only with one half of the brain is hardly the whole picture, but each to their own

We may only percieve a re-creation of it, but that does not mean we can do nothing to refine the resolution

Half the brain? Or is it 10% of the brain?

Q: Is there any woo-woo idea that you don't subscribe to??

-z

[chipmunk stew]

Careful John...you walk the path of madness at your own dire risk.

Well you know how it goes, one clings to the saftey rail of sanity at ones loss

There is one universe. Its a lot stranger than we know. To look at it only with one half of the brain is hardly the whole picture, but each to their own

We may only percieve a re-creation of it, but that does not mean we can do nothing to refine the resolution

That statement seems to be a contradiction of this one:

A subjective reality invalidates the possibility of a genuinley objective one. Even scientific instruments only tell us what we perceive them as telling us. Philosophically, it is impossible to prove we are not brains in a jar being fed electrical signals: we can only construct convincing assumptions that we are not

And a validation of this one:

Now we're getting perilously close to solipsism, a philosophy that I disagree with for one important reason: It lacks utility. It does nothing to help us understand our place in the world, be it real or imaginary. What DOES have utility is the presumption that there IS an objective reality corresponding to what we perceive. That objective reality may indeed be an illusion, but it is useful to act as if it is real. Conversely, it is not useful to believe that it doesn't.

Skepticism, to my mind, is the process of determining what does and does not have an objective reality outside of our own minds. One of the simplest tests of this is to ask the question: When we stop believing in it, does it go away?

The philosophical difference is practically meaningless, though. You'll still "duck" when someone "throws" a "rock" at your "head". The rock has objective characteristics that can be independently verified, such as transparency to natural light, hardness relative to a common baseline, fracture type, etc. It also has subjective characteristics that are dependent on interaction, such as painful, cold, heavy, etc.

Unless you buy into solipsism and believe that I'm a figment of your imagination, the objective characteristics stay the same no matter who (or what) is doing the observing. Discovering objective reality is not mere guesswork, it's a process of independent verification and converging evidence. No one person, with their subjective limitations, can ever fully grasp or be 100% certain of objective reality, but adopting the axiom that there is one is valid.

[John White]

Careful John...you walk the path of madness at your own dire risk.

Well you know how it goes, one clings to the saftey rail of sanity at ones loss

There is one universe. Its a lot stranger than we know. To look at it only with one half of the brain is hardly the whole picture, but each to their own

We may only percieve a re-creation of it, but that does not mean we can do nothing to refine the resolution

That statement seems to be a contradiction of this one:

A subjective reality invalidates the possibility of a genuinley objective one. Even scientific instruments only tell us what we perceive them as telling us. Philosophically, it is impossible to prove we are not brains in a jar being fed electrical signals: we can only construct convincing assumptions that we are not

And a validation of this one:

Now we're getting perilously close to solipsism, a philosophy that I disagree with for one important reason: It lacks utility. It does nothing to help us understand our place in the world, be it real or imaginary. What DOES have utility is the presumption that there IS an objective reality corresponding to what we perceive. That objective reality may indeed be an illusion, but it is useful to act as if it is real. Conversely, it is not useful to believe that it doesn't.

Skepticism, to my mind, is the process of determining what does and does not have an objective reality outside of our own minds. One of the simplest tests of this is to ask the question: When we stop believing in it, does it go away?

The philosophical difference is practically meaningless, though. You'll still "duck" when someone "throws" a "rock" at your "head". The rock has objective characteristics that can be independently verified, such as transparency to natural light, hardness relative to a common baseline, fracture type, etc. It also has subjective characteristics that are dependent on interaction, such as painful, cold, heavy, etc.

Unless you buy into solipsism and believe that I'm a figment of your imagination, the objective characteristics stay the same no matter who (or what) is doing the observing. Discovering objective reality is not mere guesswork, it's a process of independent verification and converging evidence. No one person, with their subjective limitations, can ever fully grasp or be 100% certain of objective reality, but adopting the axiom that there is one is valid.

The universe is infinite: our minds are not

What you are telling me is that the fact that contemplating the infinite inevitably leads to contemplating paradox and the need to consider two or more contradictory ideas simultaneously means your not going to go there

Thats fine, maybe its not for you

You do know that the left half of the brain does the logic and the right the creativity? Explains the half the mind point then doesnt it, what with this "logic is god" thing JREF'ers have got going on here...

I'm not the one experiencing dead ends on this thread

To me, an open mind is my right to have and to explore

I kind of wonder if critics dont view it as a fortress with its gates unbarred....

[chek]

Well you know how it goes, one clings to the saftey rail of sanity at ones loss

There is one universe. Its a lot stranger than we know. To look at it only with one half of the brain is hardly the whole picture, but each to their own

We may only percieve a re-creation of it, but that does not mean we can do nothing to refine the resolution

That statement seems to be a contradiction of this one:

A subjective reality invalidates the possibility of a genuinley objective one. Even scientific instruments only tell us what we perceive them as telling us. Philosophically, it is impossible to prove we are not brains in a jar being fed electrical signals: we can only construct convincing assumptions that we are not

And a validation of this one:

Now we're getting perilously close to solipsism, a philosophy that I disagree with for one important reason: It lacks utility. It does nothing to help us understand our place in the world, be it real or imaginary. What DOES have utility is the presumption that there IS an objective reality corresponding to what we perceive. That objective reality may indeed be an illusion, but it is useful to act as if it is real. Conversely, it is not useful to believe that it doesn't.

Skepticism, to my mind, is the process of determining what does and does not have an objective reality outside of our own minds. One of the simplest tests of this is to ask the question: When we stop believing in it, does it go away?

The philosophical difference is practically meaningless, though. You'll still "duck" when someone "throws" a "rock" at your "head". The rock has objective characteristics that can be independently verified, such as transparency to natural light, hardness relative to a common baseline, fracture type, etc. It also has subjective characteristics that are dependent on interaction, such as painful, cold, heavy, etc.

Unless you buy into solipsism and believe that I'm a figment of your imagination, the objective characteristics stay the same no matter who (or what) is doing the observing. Discovering objective reality is not mere guesswork, it's a process of independent verification and converging evidence. No one person, with their subjective limitations, can ever fully grasp or be 100% certain of objective reality, but adopting the axiom that there is one is valid.

The universe is infinite: our minds are not

What you are telling me is that the fact that contemplating the infinite inevitably leads to contemplating paradox and the need to consider two or more contradictory ideas simultaneously means your not going to go there

Thats fine, maybe its not for you

You do know that the left half of the brain does the logic and the right the creativity? Explains the half the mind point then doesnt it, what with this "logic is god" thing JREF'ers have got going on here...

I'm not the one experiencing dead ends on this thread

To me, an open mind is my right to have and to explore

I kind of wonder if critics dont view it as a fortress with its gates unbarred....

Some very enlightening things going on in this thread.
Make that very, very enlightening.

[Patrick Brown]

Well all I can say is

No wonder people watch EastEnders it's at the very least more fun than this stuff!

[Dogsmilk]

Unless you buy into solipsism and believe that I'm a figment of your imagination, the objective characteristics stay the same no matter who (or what) is doing the observing. Discovering objective reality is not mere guesswork, it's a process of independent verification and converging evidence. No one person, with their subjective limitations, can ever fully grasp or be 100% certain of objective reality, but adopting the axiom that there is one is valid.

"I will suppose...some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to decieve me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgement".

The thing is, ever since Descartes wrote that back in 1641 (and the same kind of idea goes back much earlier elsewhere, but western philosophy is very eurocentric), no-one has come up with a totally watertight argument to prove the existence of the external world, at least they hadn't the last time I checked.
And, viewing as we do the world subjectively, we can never achieve true objectivity - our concept of the objective can only be derived from our subjective viewpoint. Only God could be objective. Though the concept of God is itself generated by subjective minds. That (beyond mine) may or may not exist.

Not that I'm going to walk in front of a bus on the strength it may not exist.

[chek]

Not that I'm going to walk in front of a bus on the strength it may not exist.

And yet, nuclear physics tells us there's more space than structure there in the matter of the bus.
But I don't think I'd risk it either.

[jsut_peopel]

That is quite amusing... You can't project a modern form of thinking onto a hypothetical caveman and produce anything else but a self-comforting fantasy. No data sir, no data. The way you set your perspective out mankind worked out fire in an afternoon.

That you choose to not understand the point I was trying to make is not really my fault. That you can't see the hypocrisy of your words is something that I find amusing. I have yet to see you offer anything of substance, other than hand wandwaving and vague allusions to some immunity that you seem to have to modern life that the rest of us mere mortals lack.

"Science" is quite a lot like the Death Star: a lot of pride in a methodology that has produced a technological nightmare more often than not. Without a fully functioning emotive balance of the right brain to bring equilibrium to the hot fire of the left, we find an excess of cleverness and a desolation of wisdom

Science is not really much like the Death Star at all. And of course you are just the man with the perfect balance...

Hence over reliance on left brain functions is actually a symptom of dis-harmony in the psyche. The Native American's did try to warn the White Man of where his "enlightenment" would lead the world: look how right they were

I do not think the measure of a civilization
is how tall its buildings of concrete are,
But rather how well its people have learned to relate
to their environment and fellow man.

Sun Bear of the Chippewa Tribe

[/quote]

The Native Americans were not saints. They didn't live in harmony with their surroundings before we decided to murder them all. It is just romantic bs.

I have a dream, and make no apology for it, that one day our species might be healed

What is the illness that you wish to heal? Inquisitvieness perhaps? The desire to explore new ideas? Maybe you can cure us from the disease of progress. Perhaps you think we would be better off if we just stoped trying to work out how things work, and just relied on hearsay instead.

[Anti-sophist]

"Science" is quite a lot like the Death Star: a lot of pride in a methodology that has produced a technological nightmare more often than not. Without a fully functioning emotive balance of the right brain to bring equilibrium to the hot fire of the left, we find an excess of cleverness and a desolation of wisdom

Man, with comments like that I'm finding it increasigly difficult to tell the difference between religious fundamentalists and CTers. That is literally ripped straight from the religious fundamentalist playbook.

[chipmunk stew]

The universe is infinite: our minds are not

What you are telling me is that the fact that contemplating the infinite inevitably leads to contemplating paradox and the need to consider two or more contradictory ideas simultaneously means your not going to go there

Erm, no. That's not at all what I'm telling you. Could you explain how you inferred such an idea from my posts?

Thats fine, maybe its not for you

You do know that the left half of the brain does the logic and the right the creativity? Explains the half the mind point then doesnt it, what with this "logic is god" thing JREF'ers have got going on here...

It's not so simplistic as you're suggesting. Our brains aren't divided neatly into isolated hemispheres, one that controls logical, and the other creative, thought processes. Some of the most logical minds are also the most creative: Einstein, Darwin, Feinman... Conversely, some of the most creative are also the most logical: Bach, Ravi Shankar, Thelonius Monk... It's the mark of genius.

I'm not the one experiencing dead ends on this thread

To me, an open mind is my right to have and to explore

I kind of wonder if critics dont view it as a fortress with its gates unbarred....

There's a quote that's occasionally referenced at JREF (I'm not sure of its origins) that says: "Keep an open mind; but not so open that your brains fall out."

[Anti-sophist]

The universe is infinite: our minds are not

Point of information. I don't think the universe, according to modern physics, is infinite. Carry on.

[John White]

The universe is infinite: our minds are not

What you are telling me is that the fact that contemplating the infinite inevitably leads to contemplating paradox and the need to consider two or more contradictory ideas simultaneously means your not going to go there

Erm, no. That's not at all what I'm telling you. Could you explain how you inferred such an idea from my posts?

Easy. You dismiss contradiction as fallacy. Ergo, you can't, or won't. consider contradictions as a balance: you can, or will, only choose one position to identify with

Thats fine, maybe its not for you

You do know that the left half of the brain does the logic and the right the creativity? Explains the half the mind point then doesnt it, what with this "logic is god" thing JREF'ers have got going on here...

It's not so simplistic as you're suggesting. Our brains aren't divided neatly into isolated hemispheres, one that controls logical, and the other creative, thought processes. Some of the most logical minds are also the most creative: Einstein, Darwin, Feinman... Conversely, some of the most creative are also the most logical: Bach, Ravi Shankar, Thelonius Monk... It's the mark of genius.

Wells theres a thing. I wonder if a hallmark of genius is a synergy of both halves of the mind?

I'm not the one experiencing dead ends on this thread

To me, an open mind is my right to have and to explore

I kind of wonder if critics dont view it as a fortress with its gates unbarred....

There's a quote that's occasionally referenced at JREF (I'm not sure of its origins) that says: "Keep an open mind; but not so open that your brains fall out."

Thats a serious concern for you, isn't it? And I dont mean that as sarcasm

Are critics overly concerned that if they have non conventional thinking they risk losing their mind?

Is the subconcious foundation of the JREF method the sublimal fear of insanity?

[John White]

The universe is infinite: our minds are not

Point of information. I don't think the universe, according to modern physics, is infinite. Carry on.

So its a blinking huge donut instead. Its still wayyyy beyond the ability of the human mind to recreate inside one's head

Split hairs if you wish, it doesn't alter the situation we exist in

[John White]

"Science" is quite a lot like the Death Star: a lot of pride in a methodology that has produced a technological nightmare more often than not. Without a fully functioning emotive balance of the right brain to bring equilibrium to the hot fire of the left, we find an excess of cleverness and a desolation of wisdom

Man, with comments like that I'm finding it increasigly difficult to tell the difference between religious fundamentalists and CTers. That is literally ripped straight from the religious fundamentalist playbook.

Gee, a theme of balance between cleverness and wisdom being healthy is religious fundamentalism?

You've got faulty input there somewhere mate. You know computers, "garbage in = garbage out"

[chipmunk stew]

Unless you buy into solipsism and believe that I'm a figment of your imagination, the objective characteristics stay the same no matter who (or what) is doing the observing. Discovering objective reality is not mere guesswork, it's a process of independent verification and converging evidence. No one person, with their subjective limitations, can ever fully grasp or be 100% certain of objective reality, but adopting the axiom that there is one is valid.

"I will suppose...some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to decieve me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgement".

The thing is, ever since Descartes wrote that back in 1641 (and the same kind of idea goes back much earlier elsewhere, but western philosophy is very eurocentric), no-one has come up with a totally watertight argument to prove the existence of the external world, at least they hadn't the last time I checked.
And, viewing as we do the world subjectively, we can never achieve true objectivity - our concept of the objective can only be derived from our subjective viewpoint. Only God could be objective. Though the concept of God is itself generated by subjective minds. That (beyond mine) may or may not exist.

Since solopsism is unfalsifiable, and the solution philosophically unknowable, it's merely an interesting idea to ponder and debate (especially if you're in your late teens/early twenties and stoned) but the solution has no bearing on what is known or knowable. Whether reality is as it appears or you are the solopsist (and actually a hallucinating gnat) reality as you know it is objective, which is why you won't walk in front of a bus unless you mean to die.

Not that I'm going to walk in front of a bus on the strength it may not exist.

Glad to hear it!

[John White]

That is quite amusing... You can't project a modern form of thinking onto a hypothetical caveman and produce anything else but a self-comforting fantasy. No data sir, no data. The way you set your perspective out mankind worked out fire in an afternoon.

That you choose to not understand the point I was trying to make is not really my fault. That you can't see the hypocrisy of your words is something that I find amusing. I have yet to see you offer anything of substance, other than hand wandwaving and vague allusions to some immunity that you seem to have to modern life that the rest of us mere mortals lack.

I believe you are attempting to express the view that I am hypocritical becuase I support theories that cannot be conclusivly proven, yet lecture you on a hypothesis with no data.

Firstly, I can entertain a thought without accepting it, and evolve a thought with new information. Thats why I dont have to obsess over what is "true" in the literal sense of critics, whilst working with possibilites to find the deeper truth. Secondly, I will hold critics to the standards they claim to hold to, until and unless they concede otherwise

If you have failed to see anything of substance in my posts, thats your free will choice. But in effect its simply saying "I do not acknowledge anything of substance": don't mean it aint there

And I'm hardly immune to modern life when I'm part of it

"Science" is quite a lot like the Death Star: a lot of pride in a methodology that has produced a technological nightmare more often than not. Without a fully functioning emotive balance of the right brain to bring equilibrium to the hot fire of the left, we find an excess of cleverness and a desolation of wisdom

Science is not really much like the Death Star at all. And of course you are just the man with the perfect balance...

Uh-huh. What is this archtype you are comparing me to? You suggest I am at fault for not being a man of perfect balance?

Whaddya want, Buddha?

Hence over reliance on left brain functions is actually a symptom of dis-harmony in the psyche. The Native American's did try to warn the White Man of where his "enlightenment" would lead the world: look how right they were

I do not think the measure of a civilization
is how tall its buildings of concrete are,
But rather how well its people have learned to relate
to their environment and fellow man.

Sun Bear of the Chippewa Tribe

The Native Americans were not saints. They didn't live in harmony with their surroundings before we decided to murder them all. It is just romantic bs.

Well they are human beings with ego's and hemisphere's (the genocide wasn't completed, there are some still alive!). Of course they wernt perfect! Only an idiot could think so. They didnt screw up the planet though, (horray for serfdom and the industrial revolution!). Wisdom is wisdom mate, show some respect. That's the position we adopt in order to learn

I have a dream, and make no apology for it, that one day our species might be healed

What is the illness that you wish to heal? Inquisitvieness perhaps? The desire to explore new ideas? Maybe you can cure us from the disease of progress. Perhaps you think we would be better off if we just stoped trying to work out how things work, and just relied on hearsay instead.

How about the urge to fuk each other up the arse instead of helping each other?

Here, have some Bill Hicks, you could do with lightening up. Being serious all the time will make you depressed y'know:

"The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, 'Hey – don't worry, don't be afraid ever, because this is just a ride ...' And we ... kill those people. Ha ha, 'Shut him up. We have a lot invested in this ride. Shut him up. Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and my family. This just has to be real.' It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter, because – it's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.

[chipmunk stew]

The universe is infinite: our minds are not

What you are telling me is that the fact that contemplating the infinite inevitably leads to contemplating paradox and the need to consider two or more contradictory ideas simultaneously means your not going to go there

Erm, no. That's not at all what I'm telling you. Could you explain how you inferred such an idea from my posts?

Easy. You dismiss contradiction as fallacy. Ergo, you can't, or won't. consider contradictions as a balance: you can, or will, only choose one position to identify with

Say what? I dismiss your characterization of me as a fallacy. A non sequitur.

Thats fine, maybe its not for you

You do know that the left half of the brain does the logic and the right the creativity? Explains the half the mind point then doesnt it, what with this "logic is god" thing JREF'ers have got going on here...

It's not so simplistic as you're suggesting. Our brains aren't divided neatly into isolated hemispheres, one that controls logical, and the other creative, thought processes. Some of the most logical minds are also the most creative: Einstein, Darwin, Feinman... Conversely, some of the most creative are also the most logical: Bach, Ravi Shankar, Thelonius Monk... It's the mark of genius.

Wells theres a thing. I wonder if a hallmark of genius is a synergy of both halves of the mind?

Metaphorically speaking, I suppose.

I'm not the one experiencing dead ends on this thread

To me, an open mind is my right to have and to explore

I kind of wonder if critics dont view it as a fortress with its gates unbarred....

There's a quote that's occasionally referenced at JREF (I'm not sure of its origins) that says: "Keep an open mind; but not so open that your brains fall out."

Thats a serious concern for you, isn't it? And I dont mean that as sarcasm

Are critics overly concerned that if they have non conventional thinking they risk losing their mind?

Not at all. We promote critical thinking because it's empowering. If you understand how things work, you can make yourself very useful. If you can spot scams, cons, and pseudoscience, you can make much more informed personal decisions. If you can interpret data sets, you can operate out of knowledge and confidence, rather than faith and superstition.

We only appear to have a bias towards conventional ideas because most new ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. But there are exceptions.

Is the subconcious foundation of the JREF method the sublimal fear of insanity?

No.

[aggle-rithm]

You do know that the left half of the brain does the logic and the right the creativity?

That's a gross simplification of the true state of affairs, as is the "dominant/non-dominant" model of the brain. If the line of demarcation were really that precise, then people with only a single hemisphere would be either completely logical or completely creative (and thus completely disabled), but they aren't.

The most we can really say about the difference between the two hemispheres is that one tends to be verbal, the other non-verbal. We associate the verbal side with logic and "dominance" because we are such verbal creatures, and we tend not to dwell consciously on the non-verbal bits.

...this according to the writings of VA Ramachandran, among others.

[John White]

Erm, no. That's not at all what I'm telling you. Could you explain how you inferred such an idea from my posts?

Easy. You dismiss contradiction as fallacy. Ergo, you can't, or won't. consider contradictions as a balance: you can, or will, only choose one position to identify with

Say what? I dismiss your characterization of me as a fallacy. A non sequitur.

"Hey John! Youve contradicted yourself! Therefore your arguments no good"

"Hey Chipmunk! You dismiss contradiction as fallacy!"

"No I dont!!!"

And if contradiction is fallacy, entertaining contradictory notions simultaneously is obviously right out. QED

Honestly, one couldnt make this up

We promote critical thinking because it's empowering.

You think, for a moment, that truthseekers dont find their quest empowering? Where's that empathy you mentioned last week?

If you understand how things work, you can make yourself very useful. If you can spot scams, cons, and pseudoscience, you can make much more informed personal decisions. If you can interpret data sets, you can operate out of knowledge and confidence, rather than faith and superstition.

Yes, but interpeting data sets is not the only way to understand how things work...what about awareness of patterns and trends? Comparing current situations to past examples and looking for similarities?

Again we have this reference to faith and superstition. What you are describing as reprehensable is dogma. But you are falsley associating dogma with faith and superstition alone: dogma also comes from undue association with data sets linked to an illogical drive to defend them. Look at the history of scientific heresey to find ample evidence of that

In fact, what we are both describing is methodology to produce awareness: I have mine: you have yours. I can see the similiarities. Can you?

I've said it once, I'll say it again, truthseekers and sceptics should unite around the areas we agree (hint: press for truth) not divide about where we disagree

Boy oh boy, then we would be a power to move Mountains

We only appear to have a bias towards conventional ideas because most new ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. But there are exceptions.

I am certain that it would be very interesting to have a concise overview of what those exceptions are

Is the subconcious foundation of the JREF method the sublimal fear of insanity?

No.

Well I didnt expect you would say yes!

I wonder if your rather quick to claim clarity of perception regarding subliminal drives though?

****

You also put forward the observation that my left/right brain description was simplistic. See my forthcoming response to aggle-rythm

[John White]

You do know that the left half of the brain does the logic and the right the creativity?

That's a gross simplification of the true state of affairs, as is the "dominant/non-dominant" model of the brain. If the line of demarcation were really that precise, then people with only a single hemisphere would be either completely logical or completely creative (and thus completely disabled), but they aren't.

The most we can really say about the difference between the two hemispheres is that one tends to be verbal, the other non-verbal. We associate the verbal side with logic and "dominance" because we are such verbal creatures, and we tend not to dwell consciously on the non-verbal bits.

...this according to the writings of VA Ramachandran, among others.

Well lets take a deep breath and flex for a moment shall we?

1) Its a mental model. Therefore its subjective, no matter how relatively objective it may or may not appear to be. We've nailed that already

2) "The deeper reality of the situation is far more complex"". Of course. any comparison of an actual human brain and how it operates to a model comprised of a few words on a computer screen is bound to be. However, what is complex up close can be simple from a distance. If we say the brain has two distinct modes, one logical, one creative, and that each individual is an individual balance of the same and how those neural pathways have developed, we are still on sound ground calling one "Left" and the other "right", no matter how complex the actual interactions between these defined polarities might be. The active/non active model is also available, yes, but the reality of experiencing life as a human being shows the nonesense of postulating that compiling data sets mechanically is the same as improvising on a violin intuitively, and shows that the logical/creative model is superior really. If you want to claim your really really intuitive, fine, but we both know that would be a claim that isnt going to stand up to much scrutiny, if the next footstep isnt demonstrably there, your certainly not going to risk it, and thats who you are, as a summation of your posting on the site so far.

We associate the verbal side with logic and "dominance" because we are such verbal creatures, and we tend not to dwell consciously on the non-verbal bits.

these "non-verbal" bits, as you dismiss them, are also the massive bulk of human interaction... only from an over-ponderance on logical thinking do we identify ourselves purely with our thought processes...just as an over-ponderance on intuitive thinking leads to us identifying purely with our emotions

Do you get the general theme of balance here?

I could say:

"we are not our thoughts and feelings, we are the spaces between our thoughts and feelings"

...but I expect I'd just be told I was superstitious, perish the thought that there might be something there to actually be communicated...like the existance of an entirely different form of conciousness to exist from...

[Anti-sophist]

So its a blinking huge donut instead. Its still wayyyy beyond the ability of the human mind to recreate inside one's head

That's an insanely bizarre comment. We have mathematics that explains it perfectly. People who understand the math have no problems envisioning what these alternate shaped universes are like.

Understanding the "observable" space-time universe, as per the modern physical theories, isn't very difficult at all.

Maybe you mean "visualize".. in which case.. ok.. we can't really visualize 4 dimensions.. but we can understand it just fine.

[John White]

Would you prefer a description of the shape of the universe as a giant willy?

A literal mind trips over its shoelaces again

We have mathematics that explains it perfectly

Pure delusion! There goes that "error of the intellect"

I'd happily accept "we have mathematics that model it and the maths are being refined continuously", but perfectly? Thats a religous belief

_______________________________________

Well fellas its been fun, but I'm going to knock my involvement here on the head now, busy weekend and all that and I don't have the time to put into getting further up our own fundaments

Its been a great discussion though, thanks for that

If you really need right of reply, go ahead, but I hope we have established an increase in mutual respect even with a bit of debating "rougth and tumble"